Loading...
1998-06-23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-98 TYPE: UNLISTED P.C. MANAGEMENT OWNER: PIRATE’S COVE ADVENTURE GOLF, LG, INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE RT. ND 9, SOUTH OF ROUND POND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2 18 HOLES BEHIND EXISTING PIRATE’S COVE MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, AND ADDITIONAL 16 PARKING SPACES. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/11/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE & ED GRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on May 28 was tabled until tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-98, P.C. Management, Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 nd “Description of Project: Site Plan No. 25-98 - Phase II for construction of 2 18 holes behind existing Pirate’s Cove miniature golf course and additional 16 parking spaces was tabled at the May 28, 1998 meeting. The Planning Board requested additional information. Staff Comments: The applicant was requested to submit the following information: 1) A letter of agreement between the owners of lot 73-1-4.1 (Pirates Cove) and lot 73-1-4.2 (Kenneth Ermiger) for sixteen (16) additional parking spaces to be located in the northwest corner of lot 73-1-4.2 for use as overflow parking from the Pirates Cove Golf.” We did receive a letter. That is in your packets. “2) Confirmation that the parking lot is/or will be striped by June 23, 1998. 3) A letter of understanding from Kenneth Ermiger that he will remove the fill from the adjacent Animal Land property. 4) A record of the amount of cars parked in the lot during peak hours.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is Mark going to be here tonight? MR. ROUND-He’ll be here a little later. MR. MAC EWAN-Has he had a chance to review the reciprocal parking agreement, do you know? MS. NOWICKI-No, he hasn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-He hasn’t, and we have a letter from Rist Frost, too, that probably should be read in. It’s very short, though. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MS. NOWICKI-Okay. Rist Frost comment. “We have reviewed Nace Engineering P.C.’s letter of June 19, 1998, with the revised plan and stormwater management report. We have no comments on the revisions.” nd MR. MAC EWAN-And the Nace letter of the 22, should that be read in as well? MS. NOWICKI-This is Nace Engineering’s letter of understanding. It says “Dear Chris: In nd reference to item #3 of Laura Nowicki’s June 2 letter, I have obtained a copy of the survey map made for Premier Parks by Coulter & McCormack showing the encroachment of fill onto their property and am enclosing a copy for your files. I have reviewed with Mr. Kenneth Ermiger the location of this encroachment. By his acknowledgment below Mr. Ermiger agrees to remove this fill when the construction of the additional parking area on his property is being done. This agreement is with the understanding that Premier Parks will remove the frame shed building which presently encroaches onto the property of Pirate’s Cove Adventure Golf as shown on the enclosed map. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Thomas W. Nace, P.E. cc: Kenneth Ermiger P.C. Management, Ed Graft Acknowledged: Kenneth Ermiger” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name’s Tom Nace with Nace Engineering. With me tonight is Ed Graft, the President of Pirate’s Cove, or the owner of Pirate’s Cove. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we had tabled this before, last month, and we had a small list of items we wanted to try to get accomplished before we proceeded, and I think we have them all addressed at this point. Is that not correct? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-My only concern that I have is that I just want to be sure that this letter of agreement is going to be acceptable on behalf of the Town, as far as putting into a motion of approval. MR. ROUND-We just received it today. It hasn’t been reviewed by the attorney. I would certainly condition your approval that it is acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to give us a brief update? MR. NACE-Sure. The issues as they came out of the last meeting were, again, what you just discussed, the cross parking agreement that says that the parking lot, combined parking lots on both properties, are available to both businesses for their customers to park. So that’s been drafted and signed. The striping was done. Because of the wet weather, it wasn’t done until last Friday in the early morning. I did go and spent about two and a half hours there Saturday night, after the lot had been striped. It was very busy, in fact, my daughter and I played a round of miniature golf, and it took us over two hours. There was a back up of three or four groups at each hole. So that’s about as busy, I think, as it normally will get. At that time, at the busiest point, I was able to count a total of vacant spaces, which equated to 96 cars actually parked, okay. So there was, whatever, 40 some odd vacant spaces, and that was at its busiest. There was quite a line up of people waiting to ride the go carts. So that’s, you know, I think with the striping, it has alleviated a great deal of the parking issues that came up at the last meeting. As I said in my letter, I met with Mr. Ermiger. He has agreed to remove the recent fill that spread over about six or eight feet onto the Animal Land property. That will be done when the parking lot is expanded, with the Phase II construction of Pirate’s Cove. Mr. Ermiger is here tonight, and he has agreed to expand the parking lot on his side of the property line as well, you know, in conjunction with the expansion on Pirate’s Cove. So that adds 16 spaces on the Pirate’s Cove side. It adds 22 on the race track side. That brings the total, I put in my letter 175, but that was before the striping occurred on Friday. Once the striping occurred, we found we actually lost six of those spaces. So the total is now 169, okay. So, I think that from our perspective, there’s adequate parking. Mr. Graft has assembled a list of his other sites. I think that list is in front of you, that shows how much parking there is available, and he can probably describe a little better some of those different scenarios, because some of those are stand alone. Some of them are in conjunction with other facilities. So maybe, I don’t know if you were interested, he can go into that for a second. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. GRAFT-Yes. What we are trying to do is to give you some additional perspective, in terms of how we arrived at the initial 56 parking places that we put in when we built the first 18 holes, and the reason, I’m not going to bore you with the development history, but what I wanted to show there is that some of these locations have been in existence for up to 15 years, and the parking that’s in place has stood the test of time. So that’s really what Page One and Two do. Then what I did is, you actually have about three categories of locations. We have what I call Category A, which is basically a freestanding, 18 hole Adventure Golf Course that provides all its own parking, and I listed for you the locations and the current number of parking places, and you see that Lake George, which is what it started off when you approved it originally, with 56 spaces. The 56 number came from us. It did not come from Jim Martin and the Zoning Ordinance at that time, because I don’t think you specifically address miniature golf parking. Category B represents freestanding, 36 hole golf course locations, and again, I’ve shown the locations, and you see that the range there goes from about 54 in Bar Harbor up to essentially 82 at most of the other locations. Then the third category was to look at those locations where we have either 18 or 36 holes of golf, but in addition we either share a parking with another attraction or other attractions, or some type of retail or perhaps restaurant kind of presentation, and I, you know, I showed those, and then at the bottom, show how the proposed 175 spots that we would have in Lake George measures up. So, that’s, you know, that’s what the parking thing was trying to address, in that regard. The next chart, we have an hourly analysis, from the day that we open through October when we close, that tells us exactly the revenue that was taken in each hour, each day, and what this chart represents is it’s a plot for July of ’97 and August of ’97, for every hour of activity, and the main thing that I guess I just wanted this to show is that, and it’s probably no secret, that our peak, and it’s a significant peak, occurs between seven and nine. I mean, no great revelation, but it also sort of infers that, other than that time period, the other activity doesn’t really even test the parking. Then what I did is I sort of backed into how many parking spaces would one expect to need, based on the activity level, and in order to do that, you’d have to know what percent of the players are adults or what percent pay as an adult, what percent pay as children, because when you’re backing into this using revenue, we charge differently for adults than we do kids. I made the assumption that it takes an hour and a half to play 18 holes. I guess I would say other than Cape Cod, I know of no other place in the Country where people would stand around for two hours plus to play a Pirates Cove. I mean, we would never plan on that kind of a basis. The next thing I looked at was the average group size, and this number of 3.2 per group keeps re-occurring, any time we do an analysis across the Country, in terms of how many people, we don’t get anybody playing by themselves. We get a lot of couples. Obviously, we’re a family attraction. So we get families, which could be four or five people, but typically, by the time it gets up to five, mom is usually the score keeper rather than an active player, and then we also assume that, see, all of our locations, except Atlanta, are in tourist destination areas, where if we assume that the people are coming to the location, if they come in a vehicle, they’re coming in one vehicle. They might have two or three cars at home, but when they go on vacation, they’re eating together, and they’re coming in one car. With those assumptions, we took the single highest one hour and a half peak th revenue period, and it turned out to be August 30, which was the Saturday night before Labor Day, because last year Labor Day came on September 1. Were not that good, but it actually turned out that when you took that peak revenue number, applied these assumptions, it would suggest that you needed to have 56 parking places, which is exactly what we had with the freestanding, 18 hole Pirate’s Cove Golf Course. Then I went forward and said, okay, what kind of revenue projections were we looking at for this expansion, and what we did, well, Number One, we don’t expect the revenue to double, because, again, if you look at the peak times, an 18 hole golf course would handle most of our business. The reason we need 36 holes is to do a better job during those times when we’ve got more people around. We really need to create a bigger pipe line, not to rush the people through, but to get more flow, and the other thing that happens when you have 36 holes, is that you give the people a chance, and often times at the counter, they’ll say, well, which course is less busy, and they’ll go on that one, which helps the flow occur faster, but assuming it took an hour and a half, I went through the same calculation, and that would have suggested that we needed 90 parking places, now, but you’ve got to remember, this is for the highest single peak revenue that we experience for the whole ’97 season. I think the 90 spaces also, at least infers, why we intended to put 80 to 82 places at most of our stand alone 36 hole golf courses. The other thing I did is, if it were to turn out that it took them an hour and 15 minutes instead of an hour and a half to play, the parking space requirement drops to 75. MR. BREWER-How do you reduce that time in play? MR. GRAFT-Well, I think you do it mostly because you’ve got more flow. You’ve got a bigger pipe line. You’ve got two courses for the people to go on. We do typically offer what we call a 36 hole adventure, but typically the people that sign up for 36 holes are going to do that during the 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) slow time, because, quite frankly, even though it’s a better value than paying for 18 holes, they’re not going to come out and spend, you know, usually they’re not going to spend three or four hours playing golf, and then on the last page I just basically reiterated the fact that currently we have 137 spaces, and with the addition, we would have 175. I think the thing that we may not be giving adequate weight to, and I guess we apologize for not having that parking lot striped. It’s sort of like no excuse. I mean, we had only put down the first course of asphalt, and it didn’t get done. I guess on the other hand if we knew that we were going to be trying to expand, and that was our intention, from the first time we came into this market. I think I showed Laura this afternoon actually an article that appeared in the local newspaper when we bought the property, and it very specifically spells out the fact that we were putting in 18 holes initially, but that we had acquired sufficient amount of property to put in a second 18, once the business warranted, and obviously, you know, the business warrants it. MR. VOLLARO-Just as a point of clarification, this 175 spaces on your last page is really the 169 you talk about, Tom? MR. NACE-That’s right. MR. GRAFT-And I tell you, there are 169 that are striped, but there are areas that weren’t striped, that probably, if all 169 places were taken up, people would park there, safely. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. GRAFT-Well, I’m open to any questions. MR. BREWER-The only question I had was, did we somehow monitor parking at Agway? MR. NACE-I have gone by the site, since our last meeting, I’ve gone by the site at least twice every weekend, trying to see if there were any cars parked at Agway. I saw one car, and it wasn’t this past weekend. It was the previous weekend, and somebody was just out walking around looking at plants at Agway. It was not a car with anybody over at Pirate’s Cove. MR. BREWER-I understand you can’t be there all the time, but I just was curious as to maybe Mr. MR. NACE-No, we’ve also asked the manager of Pirate’s Cove, who is here tonight, to look at that situation. He said he has not seen anybody parking at Agway. However, he has seen a couple of Agway customers parking at Pirate’s Cove, for what it’s worth. MR. GRAFT-Those parking places in the front are certainly not the first to go. I mean, even today, at three o’clock, there were like 41 cars in the parking lot. There wasn’t a single car parked in that parking lot that’s closest to the street. It’s a pretty sharp, quick left turn when you’re coming off the road, and I think what probably happens is that as the parking spaces fill to the rear, if there isn’t one, the people surf back around, then it’s an easier and slower right hand turn to utilize those spaces. MR. NACE-I can confirm, that is what I observed Saturday night. MR. RINGER-In relation to your other courses, without giving us figures, the volume at Lake George, where would that stand say where you have 200 spaces at that combined, in New Hampshire? MR. GRAFT-Well, that 200 space is, that’s in Lincoln, New Hampshire, and it was a situation where there was an existing thing called the Hobo Railroad, where they actually take people on a couple of hour train ride through the white mountains, and when we acquired the front parcel there, they had more way more parking than the railroad needed, and so we just ended up using some of that. So I put that in there, but it’s overkill. MR. RINGER-Okay. Then my question is, in relation to your other places, how does Lake George? MR. GRAFT-We are very happy with the performance of the Lake George course. It certainly is not the best, but it’s certainly above average, and it’s one that certainly, you know, merited consideration for going ahead and try to expand it to 36 holes. Our construction people have just finished putting in the second 18 in (lost word) Beach, Missouri. They’re currently in Brainard 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) Minnesota putting in the second 18. So what we intended to do is test the market, but try to control our own destiny by buying enough property to put in the second 18, when it seems to be sensible. Door County Wisconsin, Petoski, Michigan, we’ve had 18 holes for over 10 years, and it’s a good business, but it doesn’t meet the cut when it comes to expanding. MR. NACE-I think one thing pertinent to your question, Larry, is that there are, Ed said there are, what, two or three of the other facilities that share the parking with go cart tracks, and he can tell you what they are. I forget from time to time, which ones. MR. GRAFT-Well, Traver City, Missouri; Branson, Missouri, Cap Cod and North Conway. Those all have either go cart tracks or in the case of Cape Cod, it’s a major arcade and restaurant that’s called Pirate’s Cove Market Place that’s adjoining the property. North Conway has arcades and some retail. Branson is an actual go cart track, along with 36 holes of golf, and in Travers City, Michigan, there’s a major water ride, there’s a go cart track, bumper boats. MR. RINGER-And a parking like the 101 in Branson has been adequate with the go cart? MR. GRAFT-Yes. In fact, I checked in with the go cart guy, just before I came out here, and, you know, it’s working. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Four out of the five locations that you have down are 36 hole courses with shared attractions, retail or food. In your opinion, what’s been your performance on those four? For example, do you wish that you had more parking? MR. GRAFT-I don’t have any data that would say that we would like more parking, or that we, you know, it works, okay. I think, when you start getting into this shared thing, it’s not a mathematical calculation, because there’s too many variables. I mean, if somebody comes in and, it’s just going to take. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not looking for a mathematical variable. I’m just looking for a historical analysis. MR. GRAFT-I’d say it works. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. GRAFT-And in most of these cases there is not anymore land to do anything any more in terms of either attractions or parking. I mean, we have maxed it out. We need to be happy with what we have, and that’s it. MR. VOLLARO-And it works to your satisfaction? MR. GRAFT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now what’s the percentage of loading on those four? In other words, are those, are you getting about 95% to 100% loading against the 137, the 101, the 146, and the 90? In other words, are they pretty much maxed out all the time? MR. GRAFT-I would say that Cape Cod is our strongest northern course, and it’s not maxed out because quite frankly, when we put in the second 18 down there, instead of us putting in 82 parking places, which would have been probably our preference, they insisted that we go ahead and double, in other words, before we had whatever it was, 54, and they said, you know, you had three per hole for the first eighteen. We want you to have three per hole for the second eighteen. I don’t think we ever fill the total number of parking spaces in Cape Cod. MR. VOLLARO-Now would you say that Cape Cod and Lake George are comparable locations? MR. GRAFT-No. I’d say Cape Cod is stronger. In fact, I understood that one of your colleagues was at the Cape. If he happens to go by the Pirate’s Cove thing. I mean, you know, it’s a major presentation, and it’s been there for a long time. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open, and we’ll take comments directed toward this application, if someone wants to come up and speak to it, identify yourself for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TOM MC DONOUGH MR. MC DONOUGH-Good evening. My name is Tom McDonough. I live at 28 Twicwood Lane. I have offices directly across the street from Pirate’s Cove, and quite frankly, I encouraged Pirate’s Cove to continue it’s great operation. The real issue, though, is the one you’ve all been addressing here is the parking issue, okay, and this came up in the original hearings with respect to parking when the permits were granted, both with respect to Pirate’s Cove and the go carts, and one of the things we have in the Town of Queensbury is we have a no off premises parking rule in the ordinances. I can’t think of it now, because I haven’t looked at it recently, but what we’re dealing here with is use of off premises parking, which is parking at the go cart area, useful both for the go cart and for golf, and we’ve heard the golf part, so far, as the useful aspect, and the numbers of people there at any particular time, and again, Mr. Graft has spoken to me, and we really don’t want to injure his application with respect to having an additional 18 hole golf course, but you still have to address the issue of parking, and if the parking hits a peak at the golf area, it also hits a peak at the go cart area, and when that happens, you do have a parking problem, and it exists right now, and if the amount of expansion, in my opinion, but I haven’t got an engineer to figure it out, will cause additional problems in the use of the area from Route 9. Now, additional parking has been picked up off premises with respect to the go carts on the front, right on Route 9. However, I haven’t gotten close enough, and my eyes aren’t good enough to take a look see from here as to whether a number of those parking spaces are going to be available as of October of this year because DOT is going to take up certain portions of that premises, as of the fall, when they start putting in the sidewalks. They’re going to take in two feet beyond the curb for a snow line, two to three feet, and they’re going to take approximately a three foot sidewalk, with a two or three foot green spot, green pass beyond that, to take 10 feet from the curb onto the east and west shoulders of Route 9, and I don’t see that, even with my eye sight as it is, depicted on this area, how it’s going to affect that parking on the front end, but I only point that out with respect to a parking issue. Okay. Again, I wish Mr. Graft, as I did when he opened up with his business to start with, I’m not an adversary, but at the same token, in the evening, I sit across the street and I see what parking causes a problem on Route 9. I spoke, before, on many issues when it came up before with the golf course. I take this only as the one issue at this time. Look at our own rules and regulations that apply here, look at what the perspective is as to the extension from the curb on Route 9, as of the fall of this year. It’s going to happen. It’s all part of the improvement of Route 9 from Miller Hill to 149, and it’s taking both sides of the street in approximately, in my recollection, 10 feet from the curb, and I don’t think the parking space is available to the go carts. Whatever agreements may be a side agreement, can be used as a benefit to either the go cart or the golf course, and I think our own off premises rules apply to that. Now, I think there’s available areas to make more parking, but that’s not the issue that I’m addressing at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not really sure I understand your analogy to the off street parking. Can you be a little bit more specific? MR. MC DONOUGH-No, off premises parking. MR. MAC EWAN-Off premises parking. MR. MC DONOUGH-You can go next door over to Agway, and they put 10 more parking spaces in, you can’t use that for the benefit of either the go carts or the golf course, because that’s off both premises. MR. BREWER-That’s not what he’s doing. The parking lot that they have there is for both uses. They’re not using Agway. I mean, they’re not supposed to be using Agway. MR. MC DONOUGH-Well, it’s the same difference. The go cart premises is owned by the go cart owner. The golf course premises is owned by the golf course owner. MR. BREWER-Right, but it’s a shared parking agreement, arrangement. MR. MC DONOUGH-Does our zoning permit that? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. BREWER-I would guess, yes. Our attorney was through all the hearings, and I’m sure, I’m not absolute but. MR. MC DONOUGH-Yes, well, that’s the question. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to comment on this? MR. BREWER-Yes, please. MR. SCHACHNER-The parking issue was certainly discussed, and I think in some detail, whenever this application was last before us, as I recall. I thought I recalled, and Chris and I have been conferring here on the side. We thought we recalled a specific request for, I believe it was 22 additional parking spaces, as a result, partially, as I recall, of the gentleman from Agway mentioning that overflow parking was heading down the road toward Agway. That’s my recollection. I don’t know what the minutes bear out. The document that we’ve just received, I guess, today, called the Reciprocal Parking Agreement, appears to be, in essence, just that, by which I mean it appears to be an agreement that says that customers at either facility are free to park on either facility, but it doesn’t seem to, Number One, designate specific spaces for that or, Number Two, create, it doesn’t seem to create any additional parking spaces, at least as I read it quickly. So, I’m not sure, you know, Tim, I think you just said something like, you know, I was present or participated, all of which is true, when the previous permits and approvals were issued, and all that’s correct. I don’t remember this specific issue of whether or not they’re allowed to have shared parking come up. I don’t know that they’re not allowed to, but I think that there’s nothing in our Zoning Ordinance that specifically addresses that. MR. ROUND-Yes. With regard to the Zoning Ordinance, it doesn’t prohibit. I think it makes provisions, and I haven’t read the record from the previous approvals, but it makes provisions that you have to have sufficient off street parking for your proposed use. Neither of the uses are identified in our parking schedule, and so I think that the Planning Board probably struggled with the amount of parking that was necessary, came up with a number, and you’re not excluded from, I mean, there’s no specific issue that identifies you can’t have off street parking in another location. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s all we’ve ever said. I think all we’ve ever said is, the Board’s comfortable with it. We don’t have a problem with a shared parking situation. It’s up to the Board to determine if you’re comfortable with that, and obviously, especially do you have enough of it. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, then, my question, Mark, would be how do you view the Reciprocal Parking Agreement as it’s constituted now? Have you looked at it? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I just read it. It’s very short. It’s fairly straight forward. As I tried to state, to me, it states what it’s title might indicate it would state. It is a Reciprocal Parking Agreement, meaning, to boil it down as much as I can in simple english, it seems to be envisioning that any patrons at either facility will be allowed to park at either facility. In other words, if you go to the one facility, but you want to park on the other one, you can, and vice versa. That is a little bit different than what I envisioned from the last time this was discussed in front of this Board, at which time I thought, and I think Chris is agreeing, that there was a discussion of a specific additional number of parking spaces, created somewhere, and I don’t know that you specified where they had to be yet, but we both seem to recall the number of 22 additional parking spaces. MR. BREWER-We did specify, I think. MR. VOLLARO-We did specify. MR. SCHACHNER-The Reciprocal Parking Agreement makes no reference to any number of, any specific number of parking spaces, as I see it. MR. BREWER-Am I missing the point that Mr. McDonough is trying to say that the parking shouldn’t be allowed as a joint use on that property because it doesn’t have specific for each use? Is that what you’re saying? MR. MC DONOUGH-No. What I’m saying is, if you’re using off premises parking as a basis, I don’t think our Code permits that, but going beyond that, lets address the Reciprocal Agreement. Lets assume, for a moment, that the ownership changes of the go cart. This is not recorded 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) instrument that’s a lien against the property that permits them to have a right to those parking places as long as they operate what facility was approved to be operated there, with the parking spaces. What happens then? Then you say, gee, we blew it, right? MR. SCHACHNER-I can comment on that if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t envision any parking agreement being something that’s recordable as a lien against a property. I think that’s a bit of legalese that we don’t need to get into, but I think Mr. McDonough does make one good point, and again, I just was handed this agreement. He does make one good point in that this agreement doesn’t seem to expressly state anything about it being assigned to subsequent owners, and to the extent that that means this agreement could be construed as being only specific to the current owners, I would agree that that would appear to be a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing, just to point out. Does the Board have copies of the agreement? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. The last item on the agreement, Item Four, states “Either party shall, from time to time, be entitled to modify and/or relocate such parking facilities”, and I guess I’m not sure what’s envisioned by that, but that seems a little troublesome to me. Modified, to me at least, could mean shrink, and relocate could mean you’re parking somewhere else altogether, and that might, again, be something that the Board wants to be concerned about. That’s not exactly a legal point, per se, but I’m not sure what’s envisioned by that. The Board maybe should look at that provision also and try to find out what’s envisioned, and maybe there’s some more articulate or clear language that could be used in a modified agreement. Does that make sense? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, a lot of sense. MR. MC DONOUGH-Can I make a statement? I’m not here for the purposes of limiting business. I’m here for expanding. The more business we have here, the greater there is, but if it’s going to become bigger, and it’s going t become greater, then the problems we have to deal with become bigger and greater. Lets deal with them now, put them to rest, have no problems with traffic on Route 9. That’s what everybody’s talking about now days, and DOT’s coming in limiting access right on, from the top of Miller Hill to 149, they’re changing access, which is going to cause other problems with respect to traffic. I’d like to see Mr. Graft, he’s doing well, he does well, everybody does well, but lets take care of the problems that are causing problems. I see them, they’re there, and we have the ability to care for them, but before the permit’s granted, let it get resolved. The area’s growing. Route 9 is getting bigger. DOT is going to do it this fall, both sides of the street, okay. There’s nothing in that diagram that demonstrates, and it’s available. The only reason I got it is because I wrote to DOT, and they said, this is what we’re going to do to the edges of your property, where we have now a two and a half foot buffer between Route 9 and the curb, we’re going to have 10 feet. I don’t see it there. Have I made my point? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Thank you very much. MR. MC DONOUGH-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? Do we have any letters or anything like that, Laura? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’ll close off the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NACE-Can we provide some answers? MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. Lets start right with the parking agreement. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, the parking agreement is meant to address one thing, reciprocal parking, as it says. Mark’s right, we agreed not to 22. We agreed to 16 additional, when we were here last week. We agreed to squaring off and providing the same on the go cart side as we were on the Pirate’s Cove side. We found when we drafted it that we could provided 22, so we decided to do that, 22 additional on the go cart side. That is shown on the site plan that’s part of the record. It’s been submitted to the Planning Board, and would be the approved plan. I don’t think that a legal agreement, you know, at least the way I interpreted the previous comments, was that the legal agreement was simply for the Reciprocal Parking, and that, you know, we would show what we were going to do on the approved plan that would have to be followed during construction, for the actual additional parking, okay. The second issue that came up was the DOT taking, or not taking, but the DOT reconstruction on Route 9. We are aware of that. All of the parking on both the race track property and on the Pirate’s Cove property are back of the property line, okay, and DOT, to the best of my knowledge, has not proposed any additional taking along that frontage. They’re working within their right-of-way. Okay. We planned, we put our parking back on our property. Some of the other adjacent owners do not have their parking on their property. They’re actually parking on DOT property, and that is what’s going to be affected. Did you note any other issues, Craig? MR. GRAFT-I think one thing, I have in front of me the subdivision plan that was approved by the City here back in the original breaking of the thing, and it says, the access for Lots One and Two and any possible future lots shall be the 50 foot right-of-way shown. No additional curb cut shall be made on New York State Route 9. Existing curb cuts on Lot Two shall be removed when proposed road is constructed in the 50 foot right-of-way. So, in terms of the number of curb cuts that exist for that larger piece of parcel, I think we made a major contribution to the number of spots that people will be coming in and out, and when they approved this subdivision, I mean, there was no way to come in except through the curb cut that you gave us, and, you know, I’m not afraid to do 36 holes of golf in Lake George, New York with the 75 spaces that we can provide on property that is owned by Pirate’s Cove. When this Reciprocal Agreement was drafted, and admittedly it happened today, we thought that in Paragraph One, where it talked about all the existing, and then it talks about, and future to be created would be reciprocal, and we thought the future was what had been detailed in the site plan that we were asking you to approve, and I think the other thing, from a reality standpoint, lets remember who are customers are. They’re people up here vacationing, trying to have a good time. I’m not going to position a policeman out there that when you come in, we say, now, are you here to play golf? If you are, you can only use these parking places, or if somebody decides to go to the go carts, and then they decide, hey, geez, while we’re here, why don’t we go and do the golf course, what are we going to do, ask them, is Ken going to have somebody out there that says, hey, move your car from here to there? I mean, guys, I mean, that’s asinine. I mean, that’s not good for us. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anybody’s asking you to do that. MR. GRAFT-Well, I mean, if you carry the previous comments to an extreme, I think what they’d be saying is, hey, can you prove you’ve got enough parking for your operation, and, Ed, you prove you’ve got enough for yours, your Zoning Ordinance didn’t even address the 56. I mean, that’s our number, not your number. We let our judgment, we wouldn’t build a facility like this and not have adequate parking. It would be senseless. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my response to that would be, that this is unfortunately one of the pitfalls of shared facilities, that you don’t really know what the unforeseen is going to show until reality hits home, and you’ve watched it in operation, and there’s a parking problem up there. So now we’re trying to address it, to meet your expansion, and make sure it’s going to go right. That’s all we’re looking to do. MR. NACE-And I think we’ve shown, by striping the lot, that we have taken care of the existing parking problem. As busy as it was Saturday night, with 40 vacant spaces still there, 40 plus vacant spaces, I can’t imagine that there would be an existing problem with what parking is there now and what facilities are there now. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the parking agreement letter that you have here, versus what’s indicated on the site plan, I think where the Board was going with this, and everyone jump in here if you don’t agree with me here, is that we wanted to have some assurance that the additional parking that we were looking to accommodate this expansion was actually going to be constructed, and that’s where we were looking for something in writing that would assure us that that would transpire. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. NACE-Well, we have Ken Ermiger here with us tonight, the owner of the property. Would you like to get him on record to that effect? Or, if you give us a contingent approval, we’ll provide a written statement to that effect. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, what do we need to have happen here, if we were to grant an approval, to assure that this additional parking is going to be constructed? MR. SCHACHNER-I would think the easiest way to accomplish that would just be to have as a condition to your approval, if, in fact, you approve, that no Certificate of Compliance will be issued for the new 18 hole course until that additional parking on the other side is constructed. MR. BREWER-It shows it on the site plan, though. So it almost, it has to be built, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s supposed to be built, but I think rather than, I mean, I’m not dissuading the applicant. If they want to put Mr. Ermiger on the record to say those things, that’s fine, if the Board wants to do that, but I think the most effective way to do it would be have an approval condition that specifically states that no Certificate of Compliance will be issued until that is constructed. So that they can’t open their business until that’s constructed. If the Board’s comfortable with that, that would seem to be the most straightforward way, to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anyone up here have any other questions? MR. STARK-I think if you make that, you know, in the motion, before any CC is issued. MR. MC DONOUGH-May I be heard in this discussion? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve closed the public hearing. I gave everyone a second chance. MR. MC DONOUGH-Well, but the issue came up as to contingency, doing it on a contingency, okay, and my concern about a contingency is that it happens, the thing gets constructed, and the contingency doesn’t occur. I think the contingency should occur first, if the agreement is the sole basis for it. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what we’re saying, Mr. McDonough, is that we’re leaning toward that the construction of the additional parking be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy or a Certificate of Compliance is granted for the extra 18 holes to be opened. MR. MC DONOUGH-Wouldn’t it be just as simple, inso far as the contingency, if it’s only a matter of writing, that it be done before anything is started for construction? If that piece of paper was intended to accomplish what was taken care of parking, couldn’t that be done before this,. any construction be permitted to occur? And the only reason I say that is I’ve seen it happen before, where all these things go on, and it’s ready to open, and somehow that contingency disappears. MR. MAC EWAN-Trust me. It won’t disappear. It won’t disappear. MR. MC DONOUGH-If that’s the only hold up. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s part of the Site Plan approval, and if it’s granted as a Site Plan approval, and part of the approval process is right on this plat that that has to be done before a CO is issued, rest assured, it’ll be done before a CO is issued. MR. MC DONOUGH-Isn’t it just as simple, a two page piece of paper would take care of it? Shouldn’t that be done even before they start, get the permission to do it without a contingency? MR. MAC EWAN-I think in all fairness this is the best way to proceed. Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-It’s not a contingency, though. It’s part of the Site Plan. It has to be done. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a condition of Site Plan approval. We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 25-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: P.C. MANAGEMENT , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-98 P.C. MANAGEMENT , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the proviso that no Certificate of Compliance would be issued until all parking shown on the site plan is completed as shown, and as outlined in the written resolution. That the reciprocal parking agreement run with the land, requiring mandatory assignment, as long as the same business exists on that property, and that this motion be in accordance with Staff’s resolution as written. Paragraph Four of the reciprocal parking agreement will be struck out, Paragraph Four stating “Either party shall, from time to time, be entitled to modify and relocate such parking facilities”, is deleted. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 25-98, P.C. MANAGEMENT nd for construction of 2 18 holes behind existing Pirate’s Cove miniature golf course, and additional 16 parking spaces; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/25/98, consists of the following: 1. Application w/Stormwater Management Plan (4/98) 2. Maps dated 3/24/98 revised 4/29/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) 1. 6/19/98 - New Info. - letter, stormwater man. Info, map - drawing 1 of 2 revised 6/9/98 2. 6/2/98 - Letter to Applicant from L. Nowicki 3. 5/28/98 - Planning Bd. resolution - Tabled 4. 5/28/98 - Rist Frost comments 5. 5/28/98 - Letter to Qu. Planning Bd. from M. McDonough 6. 5/28/98 - Staff notes which include RFA comments of 5/15/98, Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution of 5/13/98, Previous Planning Bd. resolution for Phase I, SP 58-95, Beautification Comm. comments dated 5/8/98 7. 5/27/98 - Letter to C. Round from T. Nace in response to RFA comments 8. 5/5/98 - Rist Frost comments 9. 5/21/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 10. 3/28/98 - Letter to T. Nace from C. Round 11. 6/19/98 - Nace Engineering Letter of Response to Queensbury letter of 6/2/98 12. 6/22/98 - Nace Engineering letter of agreement of Ermiger to remove fill 13. 6/23/98 - Reciprocal Parking Agreement (rec’d) 14. 6/23/98 - Pirate’s Cove Dev. History (rec’d) 15. 6/23/98 - Rist Frost comments 16. 6/23/98 - Letter - reciprocal parking agreement 17. 6/23/98 - Pirate’s Cove parking amounts Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/28/98 and 6/23/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 25-98, P.C. MANAGEMENT. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. 7. Engineering fees are to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. MR. SCHACHNER-I would suggest that the Board consider adding an additional condition, something to the effect that the Reciprocal Parking Agreement be modified so that it runs with the land, so that it requires mandatory assignment to any successor owners, that this gets to the issue that we discussed of what if at some point in the future either these two owners or successor owners are not getting along as well as the current owners are, and you have a situation where somebody’s trying to do what the applicant’s indicating is unlikely, which is essentially draw the line down the middle and say, don’t park here. This agreement, as it’s written, only refers to the current owners. MR. NACE-I would think if that’s done, it would have to also have a proviso that that be in effect only as long as the existing businesses or similar businesses are operating. Okay. If somebody comes in and clears the site and decides to do something else, it’s a different ball game. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. SCHACHNER-That makes sense. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we count on you to do that, and make a modification to your letter of agreement that’s acceptable to the Town’s Attorney, as part of the condition of approval, addressing those two issues? MR. GRAFT-Well, I’m only one half of that agreement. Certainly there’s not a problem as far as Pirate’s Cove is concerned. KEN ERMIGER MR. ERMIGER-I’d like to talk to Walt Rehm about it first. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you have two choices here. If the Board agrees that that’s a worthwhile condition, you obviously have the unilateral authority to impose that condition. If the applicant can make good on the condition and the other conditions, he’ll get his approval. If he can’t make good on the conditions, for whatever reason, he won’t get his approval. Your other option, of course, is not deal with it tonight. I mean, one half is saying he wants to confer with counsel, and he certainly should have the right to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. VOLLARO-If he wants to confer with his counsel, I’d just as soon let him do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s not the applicant. It’s the adjacent property owner. MR. BREWER-What if, just in my mind, I don’t have a problem approving it with that condition, but if he wants to change the language in it, it should come back to us, I think. MR. VOLLARO-The language of the Reciprocal Parking Agreement? MR. BREWER-Exactly, or at least let Mark review. MR. MAC EWAN-What Mark is asking for is two significant clauses in there. Number One, that the condition of the additional parking or the shared parking for these extra spaces run with, so to speak, with the lay of the land and the businesses. MR. SCHACHNER-That phrase is runs with the land, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Runs with the land, and the second condition was that? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s the same thing I just said in two different ways, that it runs with the land so that it has a provision that requires mandatory assignment to any successor owners. The applicant’s representative added that he thought it would be appropriate, I’m talking about Mr. Nace now, added that he thought it would be appropriate that that include some limitation, to the effect that so long as the current businesses are in operation, which I think is a reasonable request. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m all in favor of that. MR. BREWER-I’m fine with that, but if Mr. Ermiger’s counsel says no, we don’t want to do that, I think they should come back. MR. ERMIGER-As long as the business is there, that’s fine. MR. GRAFT-I mean, in reality, wouldn’t a new site plan have to come before you people before somebody could come in with a totally new use for that site anyway? So you have another opportunity to impose your restrictions or to make sure that this reciprocal thing has been extended? MR. MAC EWAN-I think what the Board is looking for is an iron clad guarantee that that parking is going to come to fruition and that it’s going to be used for expansions of the golf course, and there’s enough up there to be used. That’s what we’re looking for, and if our counsel is advising us this is an avenue to help ensure that that happens, then that’s what I think we’re going to lean toward, and if there’s a problem, if the language can’t be worked out with Mr. Ermiger’s lawyer, 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) and he feels that that’s not in the best interest of Mr. Ermiger, then we have to have you come back in here and discuss that with us, and we can either, A., modify the site plan, or go some other route. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, while we’re talking about the agreement, Number Four, “Either party, from time to time, shall be entitled”. What’s your recommendation on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Strike it. MR. VOLLARO-Strike it. Okay. MR. BREWER-What happens if Mr. Ermiger wants to come in and expand the parking here, does he have to get approval from the other owner? MR. ROUND-Yes. Regardless, you’d have to come in to modify your site plan. MR. BREWER-If we strike that, maybe we ought to change it. MR. SCHACHNER-Other than, so as to assure that you’re comfortable, Number One, that there’s enough parking for both uses, and Number Two, that people are allowed to park at either location, which I understand to be one of your concerns, if there are other issues between the two private owners, I don’t think you need to be concerned about. If one of the owners wants to come in and expand parking, that’s subject to site plan review anyway, right? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-So that’s subject to site plan review. Whether he has to deal with the owner of the other half, so to speak or not, is not expressly discussed in this agreement, and I think that’s between them. MR. BREWER-Okay. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. ERMIGER-Thank you. MR. GRAFT-Thank you very much. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P1-98 RECOMMENDATION ONLY PYRAMID CO. OF GF OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONING: HC-1A PROPOSED ZONING: ESC- 25A APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF PARCELS 98-1-1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5.1 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there was a public hearing back on June 8, which was a joint meeting with the Town Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, P1-98, Pyramid Corporation, Aviation Mall Expansion, Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Town Board referral requesting a Planning Board recommendation regarding the proposed rezoning.” 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. ROUND-As you recall, the request for zone change and modification to the Ordinance was referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendation to the Town Board. You had th satisfied your public hearing requirements at the joint meeting on June 8, and the applicant’s here to discuss any concerns you have and take it into consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Lapper. I’m here with Jim Martin from the LA Group, and Greg Foche, as representative of Pyramid. I don’t think that we have to add a lot from the presentation that we made at the public hearing. In general, all of the changes in the Zoning Ordinance have been drafted to facilitate locating the 850,000 square foot addition on this parcel, which because of the topography and in compliance with the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, to put new commercial uses in the existing commercial section of the Town we think is a very appropriate use for this site, and will have significant benefits for the Town, County and School District, financially, as well as benefits for the community in terms of additional shopping. We’re here to answer any questions, and if you want us to make any kind of a detailed presentation, we’re happy to. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the only thing I would ask you to maybe do is just, if you could quickly th just bring us up to speed with maybe anything that’s happened since the June 8 meeting with the Town Board, maybe has transpired that we’re not familiar with. MR. LAPPER-We will, of course, be starting the process now with you and be back here to deal with the site plan issues as the process moves forward, and what we’ve been doing, the public comments were few and positive, at the public hearing. There were a couple of letters that were sent in, which were mostly very positive. So we’ve been preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement, in draft form, to submit to the Town and its consultants for review. Primarily, we’re dealing with traffic impact issues. The DOT has submitted a letter. The Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council has submitted a letter, and the Sear Brown letter was very comprehensive, which included a number of issues, most significantly traffic, but other issues as well. We are about to submit that to the Town. We expect to submit it tomorrow, in draft form, as I said, for review. So we really, there haven’t been a lot of changes in the project. The only significantly positive change is that we’ve been working with the Queensbury group. They had suggested a bicycle path, which was mentioned at the public hearing, and we’ve now designed that in accordance with the design that they’ve proposed, and I know that they have a meeting with the City to talk about hooking up this proposed path with the Cole’s Woods path, and that’s later this week, I believe. So that’s the only, anything that’s changed, really, since the public hearing. Beyond that, we’ve just been doing out homework and answering everybody’s questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. BREWER-How come we’re getting this law right now? We’re not commenting on this, are we? MR. MAC EWAN-No. We’re making a recommendation for zone change. MR. ROUND-You’re not precluded, I think the referral was both for the requested zone change, the areas that are going to be re-zoned from HC to ESC, and you’re also, you’re able to comment on the language, and all those packages were issued to you some time ago, as a part of the original petition. MR. BREWER-I’m talking about this local law. MR. ROUND-That’s a draft of the Zoning Ordinance itself. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the actual zone change that they’re requesting. That’s what you’re issuing an advisory recommendation about. MR. BREWER-And we’re just getting it right now? MR. SCHACHNER-No. You’ve had it. MR. MAC EWAN-No. This is what we had before we had the joint meeting with the Town Board. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) th MR. SCHACHNER-Before June 8. MR. MAC EWAN-As part of our original packet. This is just a refresher one. MR. ROUND-I asked you if you had anything in front of you tonight, and I wasn’t sure if everybody did or not. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make the statement that it would have been helpful to me, I think, I don’t know how the other Board members feel, but in your interchange with the Queensbury citizens, I don’t ever remember seeing that advertised, or somebody telling me that it was going to happen, and it would be beneficial to a Board member, to myself anyway, to have heard some of that interchange, because things have almost, the silence was deafening at the last meeting. MR. LAPPER-Well, you’re absolutely right, and that’s why about 70 or 80 people showed up, and that was an hour long, and as compared to the public hearing, that was a question and answer session, which was pretty lively, and some of the people in the audience were going back and forth, who had different opinions. It was, actually, advertised in the newspaper, but it wasn’t something that I thought to let the Board know about. They had done an ad announcing it, and it would have been helpful if some of the members of this Board were there. I’m sorry about that. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, in fairness to the applicant, as Planning Board members, you all are supposed to make decisions based on what’s presented to you at these meetings and in applications, and actually, you’re not really supposed to go and attend other meetings about projects and take in information on which you’re going to base your decision in non public meetings. MR. VOLLARO-I might personally consider that counter productive, but that’s okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand what you’re saying, but legally you’re supposed to make your decisions based on what’s presented to you as part of applications and at public meetings. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. BREWER-I just do have one comment. I would just like to make one comment on the 12, minimum percent of lot to be permeable is 12%? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I can explain that simply that. MR. BREWER-You want to build more. MR. LAPPER-That’s Answer A. The slightly less simple answer is that we’re adding about nine, nine and a half acres to the site, and in nine and a half acres, some of the construction will be on the part that we already own, but it’s 850,000 square feet of space, and the multi level parking. So what that does is give the Mall a major shot in the arm, and make this a real commercial center, which we expect. Although we are reducing the permeability, there are two areas, one is stormwater, and we’re dealing with the stormwater with a very significant infiltration system, which is all detailed on the site plan. Because the soils are completely sand in this area, it can handle the stormwater infiltration very nicely, and that’s all part of the Sear Brown comments and our consultant’s reports. The other issue, of course, is visual buffer, and because of reducing the green space to 12.5%, we’re massing the visual buffering, we’re massing the green space along the perimeter of the site, where we know that in site plan review that’ll be a big issue for you guys, in terms of specifying exactly what type of plants and shrubs we’re doing. We expect it’s going to be very nice. MR. BREWER-But reducing it, I can’t follow you. Reducing the percentage of permeability, I understand your point that you’re going to mass it in the front, but it still doesn’t do anything for the back. MR. LAPPER-But the back is the NiMo right-of-way and Cole’s Woods, which is forever wild. MR. BREWER-Yes, but that’s not your property. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. LAPPER-Right, but in terms of, I’m just saying that in terms of where the traveling public will view the site will be the Northway and Aviation Road, and from those angles, we’re going to add to the buffer, and that’s where we’re going to put the trees and shrubs, and in the back, I mean, yes, when you come up on the ski trail, cross country skiing. We’re not taking anything out that’s already there. I mean, that’s going to stay as it remains. MR. BREWER-That’s the only thing I disagree about the whole thing, is the reduction from 20 to 12%. I mean, to me, that’s, we’re trying to increase permeability in the Town, along the corridors, and you’re trying to reduce it, and I understand exactly what you’re trying to do. I just don’t agree with it. MR. LAPPER-It’s give and take, and the give is going to be that we know that there’ll be nice landscaping that’ll be specified in site plan review, along Aviation Road. MR. BREWER-But there could be nice landscaping with 20%, too. MR. LAPPER-But then we couldn’t build the building. MR. BREWER-I don’t agree with that, but that’s just my point, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We don’t have a public hearing scheduled tonight, but we’re certainly always open to take public comment if someone wants to come up and address this project, we’re more than willing to listen. No? Okay. We need a recommendation. Does someone want to put something forward? Anybody? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give it a shot. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s very simple. Not much to it. MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE GOING FROM THE CURRENT ZONING OF HC-1A TO THE PROPOSED ZONING OF ESC- 25A BE APPROVED FOR THE PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: And that this recommendation is made by the Planning Board to the Town Board of Queensbury. In addition, we are making the recommendation that the Local Law to amend Chapter 179 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, entitled “Zoning”, to amend the language in Paragraph 179-27.1 entitled “Enclosed Shopping Center Zones”, and Paragraph 179-66, entitled “Off-Street Parking and Loading”. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-The motion you made, as we understand it, only encompasses a portion of what’s been referred to you. What’s been referred to you are essentially two things. One being the re-zoning of a portion of the property, and the second being the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance language itself about parking and density, and, is that it? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-About parking and density, so you’ve got. MR. LAPPER-There are other issues besides parking and density, but the whole. MR. MAC EWAN-How do we reference this outline here? MR. ROUND-As written in front of you, and you can note Mr. Brewer’s concerns regarding permeable area that the Town Board can weigh that in the decision making process. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it’s up to you if you want to specifically enumerate these or just reference the local law that’s proposed. The proposed local law, you’ll notice, encompasses both the change in the zoning, as well as the various changes in the language of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that would probably be the safer way do that is just reference this right here. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. MR. BREWER-I just want to make a little notation that the Town Board take a serious look at the reduction in the amount of permeability. I think with the recent acquisition of properties, there still is enough property there that they could hold to the 20% of the permeability. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MR. LAPPER-Are there any site plan questions, since we’re here, that anybody would like to ask us? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 22-98 TYPE: UNLISTED GOLUB CORPORATION OWNER: R. FIELDING/J.P. KOKOLETSUS ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF FOSTER AVE. AND NYS RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONFIGURATION OF PARKING AREA WITH PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO FOSTER AVENUE. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/8/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 102-2-4, 102-2-13.1 LOT SIZE: 18.68 ACRES SECTION: 179- 22 VINCE GIACALONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-98, Golub Corporation, Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Description of Project Site Plan 22-98 for reconfiguration of parking area with proposed entrance to Foster Avenue was tabled at the May 28, 1998 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board requested additional information. Staff Comments The applicant has complied with all of the requested information. The information was forwarded to Rist Frost Associates and Warren County Soil and Water District for review and comment. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-I think you have several letters. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. A telephone conversation with Dave Wick, taking place on 6/17/98, Subject: Infiltration Trench at Price Chopper “Mr. Wick contacted the Community Development Office on 6/17/98 in regards to the Price Chopper infiltration trench project. Mr. Wick is satisfied with infiltration trench design submitted by fax from Clough Harbour Associates 6/16/98."” I’ll skip to Rist-Frost Associates comments. th MR. MAC EWAN-June 15’s letter? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-“We have reviewed the Phase I Site Plan, Details an stormwater management plan for the above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. The entrance/exit modifications are subject to the approval of NYS DOT. 2. The following note should be added to the plans: “Erosion and sediment control shall be in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control”. Please call if you have any questions.” th MR. MAC EWAN-We have a June 12 letter from Clough Harbour. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) th MS. NOWICKI-June 12, Clough Harbour. “Dear Chris: Based on my discussions with Vince Giacalone of the Golub Corporation, the Town of Queensbury is allowing the applicant to install the stormwater enhancement trench at this time prior to site plan approval. Please note that the computations and plans reflecting this improvement were forwarded to Laura Nowicki, of your office, yesterday for circulation to Town’s engineer for review. If you have any questions relative to this, please feel free to contact us.” th MR. MAC EWAN-What about June 12’s letter from Warren County Soil, so we’re all set on that one? MS. NOWICKI-He’s satisfied Warren County Soil. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The June 8 letter, read that one in, would you, please. MS. NOWICKI-Yes. This is from Clough Harbour Associates, “Dear Chris: As a follow up to our conversation, it is the Golub Corporation’s desire to proceed with the Route 9 entrance modifications previously discussed at the May 26, 1998 Planning Board meeting, and described in the February 13, 1998 Traffic Study, in two (2) phases. The applicant proposes to begin Phase 1 construction within the Route 9 ROW at the issuance of a highway work permit by the NYSDOT. It is proposed to have the permit broken into the following phases: Phase 1 - Shall consist of all Route 9 improvements including the installation of all curbing and striping associated with the construction of the north and south site entrances (excluding the traffic control median for the southern entrance), closure of the liquor store access to Route 9, and the installation of the sidewalk, as requested by NYSDOT. Phase 2 - Shall consist of the construction of Foster Avenue connector and the installation of the traffic control median located within the southern entrance. At this time, it is still the applicant’s desire to proceed with the site plan approval for the Foster Avenue connection. At such time that the off-site topography is completed, final submittal will be made to the Planning Board. If you have any questions relative to this, please feel free to contact us.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MIKE HOLLOWOOD MR. HOLLOWOOD-Good evening. My name is Mike Hollowood with Clough Harbour and Associates. I’m here tonight with Vince Giacalone from the Golub Corporation. Your Staff has certainly done a very fine job updating the Board what has transpired since we were last before you. I really don’t have anything to add, but I’m willing to answer any questions you might have. th I will note that we did receive approval from the Beautification Committee at their June 8 meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. We have that in front of us. I guess maybe I’m kind of confused here a th little bit. Going back to the June 15 letter from Rist-Frost, Item 1 says the exit/entrance th modifications are subject to approval by New York State DOT. Then going back to your June 8 letter, some of the conditions that are required by DOT in your Phase 1 improvements to Route 9, I’m going to jump back and forth here with a couple of letters, and then going back to your June th 15 letter, Item 1 and the phrase in there, or the sentence says “New York State DOT agreed with th this recommendation as indicated in their February 25 letter”, and if you go back to the February th 25 letter. MR. HOLLOWOOD-There were a couple of different approvals, or nods from DOT. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to figure out what approvals, or what did they agree with. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. The first one was an approval by the Regional Traffic Engineer that the scenario of using, of doing the modifications at Route 9, and also providing for the access through Foster Avenue, would be an acceptable approach to modifying that intersection and th reducing the current accident rate. That was the February 25 approval letter. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) th MR. MAC EWAN-Their February 25 letter isn’t really an approval. It’s an endorsement of the concept of re-doing the traffic and putting traffic out Foster Avenue. MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Have they looked at and approved any plans? MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. We have an actual work permit from, approved by DOT to do the work. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you give us some details as to what you submitted to them? MR. HOLLOWOOD-What we submitted to them was exactly what we described in our, I believe th it was the June 8 letter, the two phased approached to the traffic improvements. That’s the way the application was submitted to DOT and that’s the way DOT approved the actual construction permit for these modifications. th MR. MAC EWAN-Which is your Phase 1, in the June 8 letter? MR. HOLLOWOOD-The Phase 1 is to do the work at the Route 9 intersection, with the Price Chopper, and then the Phase 2 of the off site improvements are, is the connection to Foster Ave. MR. MAC EWAN-Had you submitted anything to our Planning Staff with drawings? MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes, we have. MR. MAC EWAN-You did. Have you had a chance to review them? Has Rist-Frost had a chance to review them and everything? MS. NOWICKI-That’s what his comments are from. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s where I’m really kind of getting lost in the shuffle here, because I don’t recall seeing anything that was designed for what Foster Avenue and Lafayette Street and Route 9 intersection was going to be, as far as an improvement. I don’t see any plans. MR. ROUND-I guess I’m a little confused, too. Has DOT given you approval for a Phase 2 for a Foster Avenue connection? I thought there were still questions out there in regard to reconfiguration? MR. HOLLOWOOD-DOT has no jurisdiction over our entrance to Foster Ave. We don’t have to get a permit from DOT for that work. That’s not within the DOT. MR. ROUND-I mean, they had concerns. Previously they expressed concerns about the geometrics at that intersection, and whether that was, they addressed it in concept, but they identified concerns associated with that. Isn’t that correct? th MR. HOLLOWOOD-Not in their February 25 letter. MR. GIACALONE-Excuse me. I’m Vince Giacalone with Golub Corp. This has kind of been a little bit of an amoebae. It’s been changing form as comments were received. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 comment was recommended by DOT to address the Route 9 access, and Phase 2 to be brought before you with the connector drive Foster Avenue. The issues raised on the Foster Avenue traffic situation, and any correlating impact on the signalization at Route 9 was really brought up with some members and then related to Mark Kennedy at DOT, and then Clough Harbour did, in fact, do the studies he would need to ascertain whether there would be a problem, whether there would have to be extra exit lanes at that signal, what have you. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what I’m getting at, has there been some site plan drawings developed to show DOT and our Town Planning Staff what you want to proposed for modifications or improvements to the Foster Avenue/Route 9/Lafayette Street interchange. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff gotten them? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MS. NOWICKI-It doesn’t detail in description. I mean, you can see it from what, it’s the same packet that you received. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have anything for Foster Avenue. MR. HOLLOWOOD-It shows a connector road with some proposed grading. MR. MAC EWAN-Right up there. Just that little bit? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. I thought by the way this letter was written, you know, as far as the curbing and the aligning of the drive aisles and also in here was talking about traffic control of such, that there was going to be a specific drawing or site plan just for that intersection. That’s what I thought was coming out of this. MR. HOLLOWOOD-For which intersection? MR. MAC EWAN-For the Foster Avenue, Upper Glen Street, Lafayette Street. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Okay. No, there are no improvements that are warranted at that intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-And what DOT approved or endorsed was looking at this and also your traffic study? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct. The traffic study identified the improvements that we were proposing and it clearly indicated that there was not warranted any improvements at the th intersection you’re speaking of, and that’s the concept that they approved in their February 25 letter. MR. MAC EWAN-DOT said that there were no improvements warranted at that intersection? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s what our traffic study said, and that’s what they agreed with in concept, that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Must be DOT doesn’t drive up here very often. Okay. MR. BREWER-I’ve got a question. Parking areas at, I guess I would say right in line with the Foster Avenue connection, the distance between the building and the property. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Those existing spaces, they’re existing today, they will no longer be parking spaces there. MR. GIACALONE-With the driveway put in, that has to be a drive lane. MR. BREWER-That was always my concern. Okay. I’m just worried about, if I see a car there, and then traffic coming straight down there. MR. GIACALONE-No. MR. HOLLOWOOD-It would be a nightmare. MR. GIACALONE-With the design that was finally developed, that would go out. MR. BREWER-Is that noted on the map? MR. GIACALONE-It should be noted on your drawings. It should show a faint line. MR. BREWER-No. MR. GIACALONE-The original drawing showed a faint line. MR. HOLLOWOOD-It’s an existing condition, and certainly the final plans that, you can make that a contingency of your approval, that we don’t have a problem adding that note. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Tim, maybe I can clarify. You’re looking at that northeast corner of the building, where you see the R equals 15 foot. Do you see all those parking spaces done in the dotted lines? You see how lightly they’re done? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s existing. That’s going to be removed, because if you look at the main parking lot, you’ll see that the lines are drawn much heavier. MR. BREWER-All right. Were those parking spaces calculated or not? Probably not. MR. HOLLOWOOD-No. MR. BREWER-You’ve probably got enough anyway. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. That’s the only question I had right now. MR. VOLLARO-Without getting into the details of this, I guess I’ll just ask the question. What is being done to the traffic light at that intersection, at the Foster Avenue and Route 9 intersection? Is that going to be timed, in any way, with other signals along Route 9? MR. HOLLOWOOD-I do not know what DOT is planning to do at that intersection. As part of our project, we are not proposing any improvements to the intersection. MR. VOLLARO-There’s something in the attachments called a “Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation”. I guess, I’m sorry, I haven’t read that. What does that? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That is the analysis that we prepared to analyze the existing intersection as it currently exists today, based on the improvements that we would do on our site and the reconfiguration or redistribution of traffic from the site through to Foster Ave. and into that intersection. We analyzed the existing intersection, the timing of the lights, and found that there wasn’t a need for any improvements at that intersection. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve been at that intersection, coming out of Foster Avenue, and that’s going to be interesting if everybody from Price Chopper gets on to that exit. MR. HOLLOWOOD-It’s not anticipated that everybody would. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a question for you, in regard to your Phase 1 and Phase 2 concepts for improving that intersection. Does that come out of what’s known as Scenario 1, Scenario 2 of th your February 13 letter? MR. HOLLOWOOD-No. The phased approach to the intersection is based on Phase 1, Phase 2 of thth our June 8, the June 8 letter. th MR. MAC EWAN-The June 8 letter. What did DOT review? Did DOT review your February th 13 letter? MR. HOLLOWOOD-The DOT initially reviewed our traffic analysis report that was submitted to them and also to Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Is this your traffic analysis report? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This is what I’m referring to, your February 13 letter. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-On Page Three, you have Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 analysis. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. They were two different scenarios of improvements that we analyzed, in the traffic report. The Scenario 1, Scenario 2 has absolutely nothing to do with the Phase 1, Phase 2 improvements that we ultimately did. See, initially, when this project first started, we understood we had a problem. We analyzed a couple of different alternatives to solve that problem, and as a result of those two scenarios that we analyzed, it was decided that we and the Golub Corp. felt that Scenario No. 2 was the most prudent alternative to go with, and that’s what we recommended in the report, and subsequently, that’s what DOT agreed with. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe I’m just not getting the program here. At some point between this point and this point, you guys come up with this scenario in your original traffic study and determination, and looking at that intersection out there determined, well, this is some courses of action we can take to improve that intersection. MR. HOLLOWOOD-You’ve got it, right. th MR. MAC EWAN-By June 8, you come up with this as your final result as to what we’re going to do to. MR. HOLLOWOOD-What we essentially did is, under Scenario No. 2 of the traffic report, we broke those improvements into two phases. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I wanted to know. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Right. th MR. MAC EWAN-And this was what was sent to DOT for their review on the 13, this February th 13 letter? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So actually what you’re going to do, to fix the ills of that intersection, is addressing things as outlined in Scenario 2, and with Scenario 2 being the problem you think th you’ve identified, you’re going to fix it by Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this June 8 letter? MR. HOLLOWOOD-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does Staff have any input or questions? No? How does Staff feel about this? MR. ROUND-I think the proposal offers a solution to some left hand turn conflicts out of this site, and I think that’s been identified by both DOT the local rep, the A/GFTC. I know the previous public hearing, there’s concerns from Foster Avenue residents about this additional traffic on Foster Avenue, and I know the Board itself identified those same concerns, and I think we’re looking for some way to mitigate those concerns, whether there’s inclusion of a turn lane, and that, again, relying on the traffic report, a turn lane is not warranted. There’s a pre-existing situation with the Foster Avenue, Lafayette Street intersection that’s really not going to be resolved by this proposal, and I don’t know that we can place that burden on this particular applicant, but that’s, the Board’s got to examine that issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think what the Board’s looking for is if the applicant is looking to utilize this connection for their business, I mean, we recognize that that’s a bad intersection there, and if we’re looking to make improvements on it, and like to make improvements on it, maybe we’re not asking the applicant to burden all of that responsibility, but certainly help, and we’ve certainly done it with other applicants. Lowe’s and K-Mart are two that come right to mind. Wal- Mart came to mind. We asked them to help us out in these situations, and those cases that were State roads. I don’t think we’re asking for anything that’s unreasonable. We just want to be sure that whatever we come out of this, that it’s going to be an appropriate fix for that intersection, and not just maybe a patch job. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we ask DOT for recommendations for improvements? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I kind of thought that’s where we were going with this thing, when it went to them. I mean, we sent, it originally went to the Glens Falls Transportation Council, the original idea of this, and I think they sent back a positive letter, but as I recall, their letter didn’t have any specifics in it as to what they were looking to have fixed, did it? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. BREWER-Fifteen percent of their business coming off of Foster Avenue, that’s a significant amount of cars, maybe not to Price Chopper, but that’s a lot of cars coming out of there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-If you knew, what was the total amount of cars that go in there. MR. GIACALONE-I believe a lot of the addressing of traffic uses there was existing conditions and anticipated future conditions, due to Price Chopper’s remodel and expansion into the other rest of the building, but it was my understanding that even the projected levels were at such low levels it did not warrant any modifications to the existing intersection. That’s what I got out of the report. MR. BREWER-Basically, right now, there’s no traffic from Price Chopper entering onto, well, maybe there’s a couple that sneak out that dirt road, but if you apply 15% of your base, that’s going to be a lot of cars, isn’t it? MR. GIACALONE-Where is the 15% coming from? MR. BREWER-Did you say you saw 15%? MR. RINGER-Well, they had said at the last meeting, 15% of their traffic was going to come out of Foster Avenue. MR. BREWER-Fifteen percent at the last meeting. MR. GIACALONE-I don’t recall. I know I didn’t say that. I was addressing to strictly the traffic report before you, and the scenario that addressed the future use of this driveway to bleed some traffic off, and what the impact of that would be. I don’t recall the 15%. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then lets back up a step and find out what you anticipate the traffic would be. MR. HOLLOWOOD-During the PM peak hour, which would be between 4:30 and 5:30, our traffic report estimated that there would be 80 trips exiting the Price Chopper to Foster Ave., and 45 entering the Price Chopper from Foster Ave. MR. MAC EWAN-Peak hour? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct, and that analysis, as a result of those change in the trip distribution in the area serving the Price Chopper, the analysis was done on the Route 9/Foster Ave. intersection, and it was determined that the level of service would not significantly change, and that no improvements were necessary at that intersection, and that is what DOT reviewed, and DOT concurred with that analysis. MR. VOLLARO-That’s 80 cars over how long? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s at peak hour, 60 minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Sixty minutes. MR. BREWER-I don’t agree with that. I think that’s a lot of cars to come in that street. MR. MAC EWAN-Your Phase 2, I don’t mean to be beating a dead horse here, but I just really th don’t get a grasp on this. In your June 8 letter, your Phase 2 says, “shall consist of construction of the Foster Avenue connector and the installation of traffic control median located within the southern entrance”. Specifically, what is that? MR. HOLLOWOOD-Right. The traffic control median on the southern entrance, when constructed, will prohibit left hand turns out from that location, and until such time as the Foster Ave. connection is made, we didn’t want to prohibit that left hand turn. So we’re doing the improvements at Route 9, without the raised median that would actually force people to take a right hand turn at that southern exit. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. GIACALONE-The Department of Transportation requested that we consider restricting one of the existing exits on left turn movements. The only one that we could technically do that, legally, was our southern exit. The other exit, I can’t do that because there is an existing right-of- way, which I cannot encroach or impede. So we reviewed this with the Department of Transportation, and they found it an acceptable solution. MR. MAC EWAN-What is the traffic control median they’re referring to on Foster Avenue? What does it look like? MR. HOLLOWOOD-No, the median will be at Route 9, at the southern exit on Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one. All right. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically what we’re going to have happen with Foster Avenue is to put in curbing. Is that it? MR. HOLLOWOOD-We’re not proposing to do any improvements to Foster Ave. We’re proposing to install, if you will, a driveway from the site to Foster Ave. MR. BREWER-It’s 12%, is what you said, or somebody said, in the last, what meeting was this, Larry? MR. RINGER-The first meeting they were at. MR. HOLLOWOOD-As I said, it’s 80 cars exiting and 45 cars entering. If that’s 12%, then you’re correct. MR. GIACALONE-Twelve percent sounds foreign to me. I just go by the traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-So no improvements are going to be made to Foster Avenue, other than your making your connector road to it. MR. GIACALONE-That’s the proposal as set forth, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand how that fixes the problem. So, basically your traffic study identified there isn’t a problem there, and the State’s saying that they agree with you, that there isn’t a problem there. MR. HOLLOWOOD-No, no. The problem we were trying to rectify was the accident rate at the exit from Price Chopper as it exists today, and Route 9. There was a significant number of what they call “correctable accidents”, T-Bone accidents, if you will, and by providing this other route out of the site to Foster Ave., to a controlled, signalized, intersection, is an acceptable, and the DOT concurred, a reasonable approach, to minimizing the potential accidents at the intersection with Price Chopper and Route 9. That was what was identified as a problem by the DOT, once we started to approach them on doing improvements to the site. MR. VOLLARO-So basically what they’re saying is siphoning off 80 cars is reducing the accident rate at the other intersection? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct. MR. GIACALONE-Exactly. We received a letter from DOT about a year ago requesting that we bring this on the table again, in view of the improvements we were making to the existing structure, and from that point, that’s how we got to where we are. There were two concepts, if I remember right. Scenario 1 was a signal at our northern most exit, up near the liquor store, and Scenario 2 was cueing some traffic for northbound Route 9 turning movements, visa via a connector drive to Foster Avenue, to signalized Foster Avenue, Route 9. The DOT indicated that was their preferred method, and then from there it progressed to where we are. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think from what I’m hearing, DOT satisfied themselves on the correction of an accident prone exit and entrance onto Route 9, and the proposal to siphon off the 80 cars seemed to satisfy them, but I don’t know whether they really took a look at what they did. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes, they did. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, in putting 80 cars on to Foster Avenue. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. The traffic impact analysis that identified those scenarios also looked at, okay, if we do Scenario 2, how does that change the traffic patterns at the Foster Ave./Route 9 intersection, and how will that intersection operate, if we go ahead and do these improvements. MR. VOLLARO-And to what level of service is that, do you know? MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. It will operate at a Level of Service C, with an average 15 second delay, 15 and change. It operates right now with a 12 second delay. MR. BREWER-It’s currently a B, so it drops. MR. RINGER-Well, that’s because you’re putting traffic there. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t argue with a C. th MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions regarding the traffic? I have one question. Your June 15 letter, Item 2, “Presently Golub Management is contacting (lost words)” instead of having that shelter idea we were looking for, down by Route 9. MR. GIACALONE-Our Operations people are reviewing with the local bus service. We currently have senior citizen bus that pulls up to the front door, and we’re looking to see if we can’t arrange for the same thing for the other bus transportation, and have a designated bus stop there. That’s the way we thought it was better to resolve it, than to have customers traverse 500 feet or more of parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-And when do you expect a reply? MR. GIACALONE-I just checked with our zoning manager this afternoon, on the way up here, and he hasn’t got a response back from the bus company yet, but that’s totally within the bus company’s control. We can’t force them to do that, but they. MR. MAC EWAN-No. It would certainly be nice if we had an answer, so we knew if it was a yes, they were interested in doing it, or, no, they’re not. MR. GIACALONE-Yes. Unfortunately, we can’t make them do it, but we haven’t had problems on other occasions. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if they weren’t interested in doing it, I would agree with you, it’s a wiser choice to funnel a bus up through there and pick up people and drop off people at the front door, but if they weren’t willing to do that, are we still looking at the option of putting up a shelter down by the main entrance? MR. GIACALONE-I have no idea what level of (lost words) it is. I mean, I’m not saying that we would be against it or anything, but, I mean, it was brought to the table, but it’s easy to bring something to the table. I don’t even know if it would be used, to tell you the truth, and I don’t know that there are necessarily shoppers. Our issue with the bus company would be, it would make a lot more sense if they add that to their service, because it enhances their service, okay. I see no reason why they wouldn’t want to join us in that, because their movement at that point is going back into Glens Falls, which our traffic pattern that was designed internally accommodates that quiet easily. So if they have an objection, it would probably be more related to the time delay of entering into the parking lot, stopping at the store, as opposed to stopping at Route 9, which in my opinion is more of a traffic hazard anyhow. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? Okay. We left the public hearing open, if anybody would like to come up and comment regarding this application. Gentlemen, I would ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. Please feel free to come up and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, what was in the packet, Long or Short? MS. NOWICKI-I believe it’s the Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 22-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GOLUB CORPORATION , and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Before we entertain any motions, when we tabled this last month, we feel comfortable everything’s been addressed? There was a small list of items we were looking for. Has DOT had an opportunity to look at this again, for their comments? MS. NOWICKI-We haven’t received a DOT comment. MR. MAC EWAN-That was one of the things that was required when we tabled this. Our motion was we tabled until the first meeting of next month and the information that we requested is obtained, a copy of the traffic report that was issued to DOT, which we have. DOT’s comments in 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) regard to the reconfiguration of the geometry of Foster Avenue and Route 9. Did we get any comments from them? MS. NOWICKI-I believe that was part of their traffic study, was they agreed with Phase 2 of their traffic study. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Rist-Frost letter says, the entrance/exit modifications, and it doesn’t. MR. ROUND-That speaks to Route 9, though. MR. VOLLARO-Are subject to the approval of New York State Department of Transportation. Which one, that’s not the Foster Avenue? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the other. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s Route 9, yes. Right. Rist-Frost, stormwater, which they signed off on, Planning Staff’s interpretation of Warren County Planning’s recommendation, resolution. Remember that one? MR. ROUND-Yes, now I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we ever get any interpretation of what that meant? In seven years I’ve been on the Board, I’ve never seen a resolution like that. MR. ROUND-I don’t know that, there wasn’t any public comment here tonight, but I know previously there were comments as far as lights flashing on to the adjacent residential properties, and dealing with illegal parking on Foster Avenue that may provide conflicts for orderly traffic, and I think that points to a point you were making, Mr. MacEwan, regarding additional improvements that might be necessary, even though they aren’t for traffic, but they could be, we talked about potentially curbing or other pavement improvements or striping that might facilitate for more orderly traffic. I don’t think those were commented on by DOT or A/GFTC, and I don’t know if you want to still examine those issues. MR. MAC EWAN-How does Staff about that? I mean, I’ve got to be honest with you, I got really lost in the shuffle here, bouncing from letter to letter and scenario to plan and all that, and I really wasn’t sure what actually was given to DOT and what wasn’t, and what DOT’s final say is on this, as far as, will this concept work, will it not work. MR. ROUND-I think that’s because of the protractive nature of the project. I think, I didn’t review all the information in front of us prior to tonight’s meeting. I know the traffic study that was issued did address cycling of traffic out to Foster Avenue, and to that traffic light, and DOT approved that in concept. Now, I don’t know what that means. MR. MAC EWAN-What does that mean? I mean, the only other thing that I see that the applicant addressed was, a DOT concern, was to eliminating one turn north out of the main entrance of the plaza itself. MR. STARK-Craig, what about a stipulation, where you’re talking about Foster Avenue, about curbing on the entrance from Foster Avenue onto their property, you know, just to delineate, rather than to just have the road go out and no curbing or anything. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that right now it’s just a “T” out. The way it’s drawn now, it’s just a “T”. You’d have to make a fairly sharp right hand turn. MR. STARK-Delineate it, where it is, you know, it’s going through the Kokoletsus property. MR. BREWER-Why don’t we get a letter from DOT explaining what they, whether there should be improvements, whether, like George suggested, maybe put curbing. MR. STARK-We’re looking at Lowes coming out on to Bay Road, and they’ve got all curbing. MR. BREWER-So lets ask for some detail. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. HOLLOWOOD-Well, if I may, I think it’s important to note that we can’t put detail together for recommendations of nothing, and that’s what the traffic report indicated would be done at the Foster Ave./Route 9 intersection, and that’s what DOT approved, in concept, but you can’t get any more detail than nothing. We weren’t proposing to do anything at the intersection, and if they approve that in concept, how can we go any further? I mean, if you approve nothing in concept, then, ultimately, you’re approving it finally, because you’re not going to do anything in more detail. MR. STARK-No. You’re talking the light, you know, on Foster. I’m talking about from Price Chopper to Foster. MR. BREWER-Right. We’re talking about. MR. STARK-Here’s the Price Chopper going north, and here’s Foster Avenue. Curb that. I’m not talking about the light. MR. BREWER-I guess what boggles my mind, if it drops a whole level of service, and maybe that’s insignificant. MR. HOLLOWOOD-It drops three seconds. The average delay will increase three seconds at the intersection. MR. BREWER-It goes from a B to a C? MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. It goes from a 12 second delay to a 15 second delay. MR. BREWER-B to C. MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct, and that’s exactly what DOT saw as well, and DOT said, we agree with this in concept. MR. MAC EWAN-What do they mean by that, that we agree with this in concept? MR. HOLLOWOOD-That the approach that we were proposing, under Scenario No. 2, that we would modify the intersections with the existing Price Chopper, at Route 9, and we would funnel some of the traffic through Foster Ave. to the existing intersection, and that there would be no improvements at that Foster Ave. intersection was acceptable. MR. MAC EWAN-But you just said that part of your scenario was you were going to modify that intersection. MR. HOLLOWOOD-No. The modifications are the intersection, the two intersections of the existing Price Chopper driveway and Route 9. MR. GIACALONE-They’re talking about the two existing curb cuts at Route 9. The only thing that was going to be modified there was the radiuses coming in, and ultimately coinciding with the Foster Avenue connector drive, would be the installation of a fork chop to restrict left turn movement at the southern most exit. We could not install that with a work permit, because that was directly correlated to the Foster Avenue connector drive. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I will agree with you. I think that the improvements that you’re making at your own two entrances on Route 9 are very significant and well thought out improvements, and you have my endorsement 100% on that. My concern is, what’s going to happen with Foster Avenue, and I thought the Board was leaning toward wanting to know about getting some, at least, at the very least, some more ease in traffic flow through there with the timing of the lights, was one alternative we were looking at, the possibility of doing an improvement to make that Foster Avenue interchange, with even actually maybe some construction of road improvement in there. That’s where I thought we were going with this thing, and we wanted DOT’s input. MR. GIACALONE-But that’s, as part of the DOT approval of the “concept”, which evidently left a gray area in a lot of people’s minds what that really meant, was at the time, we were making no proposal. This was just a concept, as opposed to a signal at our northern most entrance. So, that’s what they reviewed the traffic study by, an that’s why they used the term, we approve the concept, because we were not making a technical proposal at that time. As far as it goes from improvements from Foster Avenue, we cannot address anything that was not identified as 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) warranted, and therein lies our problem. We don’t know how to address a non question, or a non issue. MR. BREWER-If we simply said to DOT, what improvements could be made to enhance the Foster Road connector for this project, I’m sure they could come back with a list of what could be done, or if they say that nothing should be done, then that would be our answer. MR. ROUND-Could I add some information here? I apologize for not bringing this to light earlier. th The February 13 letter, in summary, Page Five, indicates construct a two lane, one in bound, one out bound, on Foster Avenue, and it also indicates widen Foster Avenue from the existing 20 foot of pavement to a minimum of 24 foot. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Which is what you have out there. MR. ROUND-Well, no, it indicates 23 on. MR. HOLLOWOOD-We just, as part of the updated survey, which we submitted to you, the actual pavement widths were depicted on that plan, and are indicating to be 24 feet in width. MS. NOWICKI-This is the only plan that we received. MR. ROUND-This includes the topography on Foster Avenue and all the details indicates 23. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Twenty-three feet beyond our intersection, 23 feet beyond our driveway intersection with Foster Ave., but from our proposed intersection with Foster Ave., down to Route 9, the pavement is wider. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re saying that this drawing we have in front of us is not accurate, then, which is April of ’98, your date on it? MR. GIACALONE-Is there a revision date on there? MR. MAC EWAN-6/15. MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s accurate. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s accurate. You have it clearly indicated that the edge of the pavement is 23 feet on this thing. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. That’s on Foster Ave. beyond our proposed intersection. MR. RINGER-Going east. MR. HOLLOWOOD-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-Coming out on 9. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Because from our proposed intersection down to Route 9, the pavement is much wider. You actually have, the parking lots come right up to the edge of pavement. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got to tell you. I think I would be a lot more comfortable knowing that, if DOT was to come back with one of two scenarios saying, no, we don’t see any problems with this Foster Avenue intersection. We don’t see any improvements that need to be done, or come back with, like Tim says, a small laundry list of things, we think that maybe some striping ought to be done, or correlate the traffic signals with the, because there’s two traffic lights right there, that operate that intersection, that are very difficult, and I don’t think work very well together. MR. BREWER-Where is the curbing you suggested, George? MR. STARK-Where the northern entrance comes onto Foster Avenue, not the intersection, you know, where the light is. I’m talking about from the Price Chopper, on the Kokoletsus property. MR. GIACALONE-As far as it goes for the driveway connector, you’re correct. That was the only curbing that we were showing on that drawing to install. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. BREWER-What about out onto Foster Avenue? No curbing out there? MR. GIACALONE-I don’t recall any. MR. BREWER-No, that’s what George is saying, there isn’t. Maybe there ought to be. MR. GIACALONE-I think from the State’s position, they were looking at, given the existing conditions and projected conditions, there did not appear to be anything warranted. To go beyond that, you can always recreate the wheel, if you will, but that was, we couldn’t do that in the proposal because we have to get feedback from you all. If something is warranted, we approach it from that standpoint. From the State’s position, nothing was warranted. That’s all that point was. MR. MAC EWAN-But do you have a letter from the State saying nothing’s warranted? MR. GIACALONE-I haven’t received a response from Mark yet. MR. BREWER-I think the State is saying that your approach is acceptable. I don’t think that they’re saying nothing is warranted, or could be done. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. We’re caught in semantics here, and I understand exactly what you’re saying, and I don’t know if this would be palatable to the Board, but if you would entertain an th approval with the contingency of a follow up letter from DOT clarifying that their February 25 letter meant whatever you would like it to say, we can do that and have that submitted without having to come back and bother you again at another meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that we’re looking for them to tell us what we want to hear. We want to know that, you know, do improvements need to be made to that intersection or don’t they? MR. HOLLOWOOD-I understand, and I guess I’m confident that our analysis that they reviewed took those, took your concerns into consideration, and indeed the analysis indicated that no improvements were necessary. What I believe to be the problem is the wording of the original th DOT letter of February 25 , leaves some doubt in your mind that, in concept, they think it’s a good idea, but it didn’t close the loop, in your mind, and what I’m suggesting is that we ask DOT to clarify that, on our behalf for you, so that, I don’t know any other way to do it. Unfortunately, DOT’s not here. MR. STARK-They’re not ready to do a Phase 2 construction right now anyway, okay. Why can’t they come back to the first meeting next month, with the letter from DOT stating whatever. That’s not an imposition on anyone. We already did the SEQRA, the public hearing, and you’ll just have the letter in front of you. MR. BREWER-What’s, Joanna Brunso? MR. MAC EWAN-Retired. MR. STARK-Retired. Craig, I mean, I don’t think that’s a great imposition on anyone. MR. BREWER-Why don’t you write a letter to them, Craig, and ask them what improvements could be made, from us. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel overall on this? I mean, do we all share the same concerns here? MR. BREWER-I don’t have a problem with it. If they’re not ready for Stage 2, or Phase 2. MR. VOLLARO-When I look at 80 cars in a 60 minute period, that’s a lot of cars, and I’d be concerned about the timing of those signals and so on, to make sure there wasn’t any back up there. I would like to see what DOT says about that. I just have a feeling that DOT felt, when we siphoned off those 80 cars, it took care of the Route 9 problem, but I don’t know that they said, and, by the way, lets take a look at what those 80 cars are doing to Route 9. They just, it seemed to me, anyway, from what I’ve been able to gather out of this, that they really satisfied themselves on the Route 9 ingress/egress. MR. HOLLOWOOD-I understand what you’re saying. I believe that they have, and you believe that they haven’t, and that’s where we are, and I suppose we can do it either way, contingent 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) approval or if you’d like to say you’re going to table it and we’ll come back next month with the letter from DOT, then that’s what we’ll do. MR. GIACALONE-From a traffic point of view, much of that traffic that you’re talking about, those 80 cars, for the most part they exist now. It’s just how they’re ingressing and egressing the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re basically just moving them from Point A to Point B. MR. GIACALONE-Hopefully, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Hopefully. MR. GIACALONE-Nobody has a crystal ball and says, you know, I can guarantee you that the (lost word) will be X or Y. This is our best guess, given the elements that are known, and people such as Clough Harbour that are used to studying these issues. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Yes. I would say that it isn’t a best guess. It’s pretty defined, and generally accepted practice of doing a traffic analysis at DOT, and we do all the time. It’s fairly detailed analysis of what will occur at that intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-How would Staff want to approach this? MR. ROUND-As the applicant, there’s two alternatives. You can either approve it contingent upon additional clarification from DOT, and if you’re not comfortable with Staff looking at it, or the Chairman reviewing it, to make sure that it does meet your test, or you can come back, and they could obtain that letter to provide you additional clarification, and an additional comfort level, I guess, with what’s being communicated. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I don’t have a problem doing a conditional approval, as long as we get clarification from DOT that they feel comfortable with the intersection as is, that it doesn’t need to have any improvements to it of any kind. Okay. That’s my position. MR. STARK-And if the DOT doesn’t say that, there’s no approval. MR. HOLLOWOOD-Right. If DOT doesn’t say that, we’ve got to come. MR. MAC EWAN-DOT’s either going to come back with one of two scenarios. They’re either going to say the intersection is fine as it is, or they’re going to come back and say it needs to have these modifications or improvements made to that intersection, and that’s when we’ll have you back here. MR. GIACALONE-I think it would be possible, and these gentlemen over here to my right can tell me whether I’m right or wrong, but if there are some things that the DOT says are recommended, and we submit a letter accepting their recommendation, and perform whatever drawings are necessary for their satisfaction, would that satisfy a conditional approval this evening? I mean, we’re not trying to avoid some discussion, just narrow some. MR. ROUND-Put it back in DOT’s hands, I think, is what you’re saying? MR. GIACALONE-Exactly. They’re going to have to give us the design that they’ll accept for any modifications they feel are necessary. Then it’s up to Golub Corp.’s determination, on the expense of the whole project, from stem to stern, you know, whether things really make sense, given the level of what we have to do, and then they’ll either accept or reject what the State’s saying we need to modify. MR. MAC EWAN-How did that work with, for instance when we did Wal-Mart, because that was a State highway? I mean, those improvements were sent to DOT, or, is DOT involved in that right from the concept? Does anybody remember? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. Typically, this is unusual, in that they’re accessing a Town road and putting traffic on a State highway. So it’s difficult for, I mean, if we asked the State what improvements to Foster Avenue and or the intersections are necessitated, they’re going to give you one answer, and they ask the question, is this an acceptable level of service. This is an improvement, and I think Mr. Vollaro commented on it, this is an improvement to an accident, a 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) high rate of accidents to Route 9, and we would agree with you that it’s appropriate to put it to Foster Avenue, to a controlled intersection. In any case, that’s what you do. You go to a controlled intersection to alleviate accidents, and I think you’re struggling with the position, well, we’ve got a bad intersection to begin with. Are there some other improvements that we can do to enhance this whole corridor, or whole, the Lafayette. MR. MAC EWAN-I would be satisfied doing a conditional approval, with the condition that DOT either says that no improvements are needed at that intersection, or they give a list of improvements, and if they give a list of improvements, that Golub Corporation would take initiative to make those improvements. Is that reasonable? MR. GIACALONE-That would be fine. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. RINGER-I like it. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to do a motion then? MR. VOLLARO-Before we get to the motion, I just want to explore this question about George’s question about the curbing at the tee up of Foster Avenue. MR. STARK-It looks like they have the curbing on there. MR. VOLLARO-But, that’s what I was going to say, it looks like there is some curbing on there. Do you haven objections to what they have, or is that okay? MR. STARK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-He just wanted to be sure there was some there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to do a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-98 GOLUB CORPORATION , Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written by Staff, with the following condition: That the approval is subject to DOT recommendations and approval for this intersection of Foster Avenue and Route 9. That the request from Rist Frost regarding the notes for erosion control, sediment plans from New York State DOT, drawing revised 6/23/98. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 22-98 GOLUB CORPORATION for reconfiguration of parking area with proposed entrance to Foster Avenue; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps - Cover Sheet, 1 of 1, Site Plan, 1 of 2, Details dated 4/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/23/98 - Staff notes 2. 6/16/98 - Fax to D. Wick re: infiltration trench 3. 6/15/98 - Rist Frost comments 4. 6/15/98 - FOIL from K. Peaslee 5. 6/15/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from J. Kehrer (CHA) transmitting modified site plan w/comments 6. 6/12/98 - Letter to C. Round from J. Kehrer (CHA) 7. 6/12/98 - Fax to J. Kehrer (CHA) from L. Nowicki 8. 6/12/98 - Fax to D. Wick from L. Nowicki 9. 6/12/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from D. Wick 10. 6/11/98 - Memo to W. Levandowski (RFA) 11. 6/10/98 - Memo to J. Kehrer (CHA) from T. O’Brien re: info requested for 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) Beautification Comm. comments 12. 6/10/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from J. Kehrer (CHA) transmitting 3 sets of site plan and stormwater volume computations 13. 6/9/98 - Fax to T. O’Brien from L. Nowicki 14. 6/8/98 - Letter to C. Round from J. Kehrer 15. 6/8/98 - Beautification Comm. comments 16. 6/4/98 - FOIL request - J. P. Kokoletsus 17. 6/2/98 - Letter to V. Giacalone from C. Round 18. 5/28/98 - Planning Board resolution 19. 5/28/98 - Staff Notes which include A/GFTC comments of 5/15 D. Welch, Environmental Comm. dated 5/14. Warren Co. Planning Bd. dated 5/13, Letter to P. Faith from W. Logan, NYSDOT dated 2/25/98 20. 5/28/98 - Letter to Planning Bd. from L. Kendall 21. 5/28/98 - Letter to Planning Bd. from R. Smith 22. 5/28/98 - Letter to Planning Bd. from K.L. Peaslee 23. 5/27/98 - Letter to Planning Bd. from M. Rudnick 24. 5/26/98 - Letter to Planning Bd. from L. Badore 25. 5/21/98 - Notice of Public Hearing 26. 5/11/98 - Record of Phone Conversation - C. Round & V. Giacalone 27. 4/28/98 - Letter to V. Giacalone from Mr. Rudnick 28. 4/17/98 - Letter to B. Logan of NYSDOT from M. Rudnick 29. 4/3/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from V. Giacalone 30. 2/25/98 - Letter to J. Brunso from L. Nowicki 31. 2/25/98 - Summary of meeting at Town 32. 2/25/98 - Letter to J. Brunso from L. Nowicki 33. 2/13/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from Clough Harbour Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/28/98 and 6/23/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 22-98, GOLUB CORPORATION. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1998, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I just want to make sure we know what we’re saying. Is the proposal, or is the proposed condition that whatever DOT says has to be done? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m looking for. I mean, they’re confident that they don’t think they have to do anything there. At the very least, I’m suspicious that you’ve at least got to do some correlation signaling of lights or maybe do some re-striping out there to get traffic flowing in lanes a little bit better. MR. RINGER-If we make the motion this way, then if they don’t like it, they can come back and say, you know, DOT has said that we don’t want it. Then we can re-decide. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. SCHACHNER-Understood. MR. MAC EWAN-If DOT comes back and says they have to put an overpass in there, I’m sure they’re going to be right back here and say, gee, I don’t think we want to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but the proposed condition is subject to whatever conditions DOT makes, those recommendations must be implemented by the applicant? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-If they make them, yes. MR. RINGER-Otherwise, they come back. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. HOLLOWOOD-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 33-98 TYPE II ERIC PEEK OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: ROCKHURST, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 618 +/- SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR FAMILY ROOM ADDITION ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE. ANY ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 31-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 15-1- 25 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-98, Eric Peek, Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Description of Project The applicant proposes a 618 sq. ft. second floor family room addition above an existing garage. Site plan review is required for an expansion of a nonconforming structure in the WR-1A zone and in a CEA. The applicant has applied for an area variance for front setback relief (resolution attached). Staff Comments The applicant has been informed that with any expansion on waterfront zoned property, the septic system is required to meet the Town’s septic code requirements. The septic facilities will be reviewed by the Building Department before a building permit is issued. The proposal does not appear to interfere with the neighbor’s views of the lake. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-County? MS. NOWICKI-County, Warren County has “No County Impact” on the project. MR. MAC EWAN-And he got his variance? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, was this sent to Rist-Frost for review? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Okay. Good evening. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. For the record, my name is Kevin Maschewski. I’ll be representing the applicant tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you tell us a little bit about your project? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, sir. What was proposed is, as mentioned, it’s a second floor addition. It’s approximately 618 square foot, and what we tried to do, in putting an addition on the house, and it’s a family room addition. Proposed would probably have a little corner wet bar, a sink, and just open area for entertaining, a pool table, dart board, that kind of stuff. In proposing the addition, it was kept within the existing footprint of the building, just basically going up above the garage, and not going out to either front, side or rear of the house, and I guess without any further clarification, it’s really, that’s all it is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The only thing is, now that I’m looking at the plans, after we’ve been there, the plans look longer than what I visualized, or what we saw before. For some reason, it looks like there’s, that the ranch part looks longer. I guess when we were there, I expected you to put the top above the breeze, there was like a breezeway between the main house and the garage. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-But this rendering here doesn’t depict that, doesn’t show that. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The elevation, the actual addition that is going up is above the roof and approximately four feet over that little breezeway which I believe you were talking about, and the breezeway, yes, it’s only about four feet, and I’m not sure if you were thinking about that whole brick part in the front? MRS. LABOMBARD-I was thinking about that whole brick part as being the breezeway. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, the budget doesn’t allow them to go that far. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I don’t know, the house part just seems longer when I look at this drawing right now, for some reason, after I went out there. Is it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, it’s not off. MR. MASCHEWSKI-No, it’s to scale. MRS. LABOMBARD-And the part that’s going to the lake is what part, is there an elevation for that? MR. MASCHEWSKI-The elevation, it basically would mirror that front elevation. MRS. LABOMBARD-Almost the same as this, with the windows? MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that I noticed is you have the assumed location of two concrete block septic pools, and the 500 gallon tank, that 500 gallon tank, I don’t know. I guess that’s got, the septic facility will be reviewed by the Building Department? So they’ll go out and take a look at that as being satisfactory with this addition. MR. MAC EWAN-You weren’t here last week, but there was a question that we had with an application that was on Glen Lake, and actually, how does the Building Department inspect to ensure what’s there is there? MR. ROUND-We look for either information of record. In the Building Department, we do have septic inspection records that are generated, so that, it was either documented previously, or we rely on the applicant to provide an engineer’s certification that this is what exists. We really can’t go out and, we can go out and witness it, in association with an engineer, but we can’t go out and say that this septic system meets the Town Code. It’s a really difficult thing to do. The whole idea is that the land owner will identify that they’ve got a substandard system, and that they will provide an upgrade at the time new construction occurs. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. VOLLARO-How does the APA fit into this? I mean, do they fit into anything like this at all? It’s just a question I have. MR. ROUND-Generally, no. It’s handled at the local level. It’s a Health Department, or local Health Code, local Board of Health. MR. MAC EWAN-One question for you, out of curiosity. It came up when we made our site visits. Is the foundation/footings underneath the garage adequate to handle a second story over it? MR. MASCHEWSKI-At this point, no testing has been done, but I’m hoping yes, and if not, mitigation will be taken to provide that. MR. MAC EWAN-How do the building inspectors inspect that aspect of it? I mean, do they make them dig away part of the foundation to see how far down it goes? MR. ROUND-They’ll, again, rely on an engineer’s judgment whether a particular structure can handle that load. I’m not sure, I didn’t notice what the foundation was, so I can’t give you any more. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that Town Code that additions or houses up to a certain square footage don’t have to be stamped by an engineer, but anything over that has to be stamped? MR. ROUND-Yes, there is, but any construction has to be consistent with New York State Building Code. MR. MASCHEWSKI-This set of drawings actually will be stamped by a New York State P.E. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. Okay. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m just going to ask another question, but I suppose it’s going to all be looked into, from the septic? These cess pools that they have here are basically leaching devices, set about 100 feet from the lake, and they draw their water from the lake at the same time. We’ll have to see what your guys do, but cess pools are notorious devices for leaching out into the surrounding ground, horizontally. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s why the Town enacted that new Code. It was to certainly bring into compliance a lot of the older, failing septic systems on Waterfront Residential homes, and it was a good move. If it’s not in compliance, it certainly will be. Okay. There’s a public hearing tonight on this application. If anyone wants to come up and address this application, you’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAT LAMBERT MRS. LAMBERT-I’m Pat Lambert, a neighbor. LORRAINE DICKINSON MRS. DICKINSON-And I’m Lorraine Dickinson, the other neighbor. There’s the three of us on the Point. MRS. LAMBERT-And our concern is that the structure, the entrance remains the same. It’s not (lost words). There’s two brothers that own the house, and we’re concerned that they would be having separate entrances for it. MR. MAC EWAN-Entrances in what aspect, you mean driveways or something like that to it? MRS. LAMBERT-No, entrances into it, so that it would become. MRS. DICKINSON-Our concern is we didn’t want it to become a duplex, because it’s a single family. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MRS. LAMBERT-Those are single family homes out there, and we wanted to be sure it was going to remain single family. Otherwise, I don’t have a problem with it. MRS. DICKINSON-We don’t have a problem with it. MRS. LAMBERT-With the room that they’re going to put on. We just want to be sure that it’s going to maintain. MRS. DICKINSON-That it’s zoned for single family, and that it remains that way. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other concerns or comments? MRS. DICKINSON-I don’t think so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. LAMBERT-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MS. NOWICKI-I have a telephone conversation, I’m sorry. This is between Ronald Suen and Pam Whiting, on 6/18/98, at 4 p.m., this individual is very much in favor of the project. That’s it. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to do a SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Duplexes aren’t allowed in a WR-1A zone anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-I was looking at the ratio of the living area to the garage area, the living area to the garage area, and it just looked like the ratio of that was different from both of these drawings. That’s okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to make a motion? MR. RINGER-Are we going to ask him the question the lady asked? MRS. LA BOMBARD-To answer the entrance question. MR. MAC EWAN-They were worried about a duplex, it being a duplex. MR. MASCHEWSKI-To answer her question, she is correct, they both are correct. There are two brothers that own it. The house is, right now, used just weekends by both. The additional area proposed is living area. At this point, there’s no modifications being made. The house is going to be sided, in addition to the addition, but there’s still going to be the same entrances coming in. There’s a front door, which you can see on the elevation, and then the side garage entrance door will stay the same. MR. MAC EWAN-They were concerned that it was going to turn into a duplex. MR. BREWER-Or two living quarters. MRS. LABOMBARD-Like for maybe that new space above the garage would be another living quarters for one of the brothers. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. I can’t say if it would or it wouldn’t. I mean, it’s a family room. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no bedrooms or baths? MR. MASCHEWSKI-No. MR. ROUND-Yes. Generally, we control that by, if you put a second kitchen in a facility, then it’s considered to be a second dwelling unit. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you’re just keeping, everything’s the same? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-98 ERIC PEEK , Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 33-98 ERIC PEEK for a 618 sq. ft. second floor family room addition above the existing garage; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/29/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps SP-1 -2 maps dated 5/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/23/98 - Staff Notes 2. 6/17/98 - Zoning Bd. of Appeals resolution 3. 6/16/98 - Notice of Public hearing 4. 6/10/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/23/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 33-98 ERIC PEEK. 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. MASCHEWSKI-Okay. Thank you very much. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) SITE PLAN NO. 36-98 TYPE II UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVIATION RD., WEST OF MOUNTAIN VIEW LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 608 SQ. FT. PORTABLE OFFICE TRAILER ON SITE FOR USE AS A TEMPORARY OFFICE STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1305, SP 36-87, SP 4-93 TAX MAP NO. 82-3- 2 LOT SIZE: 1.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-20 RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-98, United Cerebral Palsy Assoc., Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Description of Project: Applicant proposes to place a 608 sq. ft. portable office trailer on site to use as a temporary office. Site plan review is required for schools in SFR-1A. Staff Comments: The applicant has indicated that the trailer will be leased for one year. The applicant will also seek Planning Board approval for the construction of an addition to one of the buildings for office space at a later time. The applicant has complied with site plan requirements. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-No other notes, letters, or anything else, right? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. JONES-Good evening. I’m Richard Jones. I’m the architect working with the UCP on Aviation Road. This is Larry Goose, the Executive Director for the facility. MR. MAC EWAN-At this time, you’re just looking to put the temporary office trailer on the site? MR. JONES-Yes. We’re currently working with UCP in development of a master plan for their sites on Aviation Road. They have the three facilities there currently, one on the north side and two buildings on the south side of Aviation. We are looking at a long term development for additions, renovations to the buildings. Over the past period of years, they have increased staff in the buildings, and subsequently they have taken classroom space and converted that to offices. What we’re attempting to do is develop something in a long range plan that would allow them to provide additional office space, to alleviate the need of taking over additional classrooms, so that they could reclaim that space. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What’s the trailer like? Can you tell us a little bit about it? MR. JONES-It’s a typical office trailer, portable unit. It would have a closed in skirt. It has metal siding, basically a slight pitch to the roof, similar to the office trailers that you might see at a construction site, that type of thing, only I think in a little bit better shape. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Those ones at construction sites have a tendency to be less appealing. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-How long is temporary? MR. JONES-It’s on a year to year lease. We’re hoping to develop a master plan for three sites. Some time within the next six months they’re hoping to be able to begin a fundraising campaign for their capital projects, and we feel that it would probably be in the neighborhood of two years that we would have this on site. MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to make a conditional approval for a period of one year, and if you needed to extend it beyond that, come in and ask for an extension, is that acceptable to you? MR. JONES-I think that would be fine. MR. VOLLARO-Is there any septic or water hook up to the trailer? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. JONES-The trailer itself, they have one available that has toilets on it, but we do not need the toilets in the building itself. So we have no intent of hooking them up. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they’ll be non operational, then? MR. JONES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-What about water capability going to it? MR. JONES-No. We’d have water bottles for. MR. VOLLARO-This is just strictly stand alone? MR. JONES-Right. MR. BREWER-No additional parking requirements for that I’m sure. Or is there? MS. NOWICKI-Not that I’m aware of. MR. JONES-No. We have, on site there’s actually more parking than what’s needed for the building and the trailer that’s being added. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We have a public hearing open tonight. If anyone wants to come up and address this application, please do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA is required. So does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-98 UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: As written, with one stipulation, that after one year, if they need another extension, they’ll have to come in for it, so it’s under a one year time frame, until June 30, 1999. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 36-98 UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOC. to place a 608 sq. ft. portable office trailer on site for use as a temporary office structure; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/27/98, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Maps - SP-1 dated 5/27/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 6/23/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/23/98 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to APPROVE Site Plan No. 36-98 United Cerebral Palsy Association. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) 2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 23rd day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 32-98 TYPE: UNLISTED OREST A. BOYCHUK OWNER: SAME ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE PROPOSAL IS A 40’ X 100’ ADDITION (4000 SQ. FT.) TO REAR OF J. ALLEN FURNITURE STORE TO INCREASE SHOWROOM AND STOCK ROOM AREAS. ALL LAND USES IN PC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: P9-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.25 LOT SIZE: 43,350 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-22 BILL TROMBLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-98, Orest A. Boychuk, Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 4,000 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the J. Allen Furniture store. The new construction requires site plan review in PC-1A zone. The proposed addition meets the permeability of PC-1A zone and the parking requirements for this particular commercial use. Staff Comments: The applicant was requested to supply supporting information on stormwater management and septic system. The applicant has also been informed of the need to obtain a variance from side setback. Zoning Board review is required for the expansion of a nonconforming structure that does not meet the required setbacks. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Did they supply the information you were looking for? MS. NOWICKI-Not as of yet. I’ll give you County comments. There was “No County Impact”. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. TROMBLEY-Good evening. I’m Bill Trombley, and I’ll be the contractor on the job. OREST BOYCHUK MR. BOYCHUK-And I’m Orest Boychuk, the owner of the property. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project, what you want to do? MR. TROMBLEY-Well, it’s a 40 by 100 addition. The existing building right now is 60 feet deep by 100 feet across the front, and this would be added on to the rear of it. So it would not just out on either side. It would just be 40 foot back. It’s to be used as a stock room and additional show room. The furniture store, as it is now, is kind of crowded in there for displaying furniture. It takes up a lot of room, and to show the product well and to be able to have people walk around, as far as fire safety and whatever, you could use more room. The building itself, the addition, would be 3200 feet of showroom, 800 feet of stock room. MR. MAC EWAN-Were you aware of Staff’s requests for supporting information for stormwater and septic? MR. BOYCHUK-Septic, there’s a sewer proposed, and we are, we have applied to go in with the proposed Hess Station that is going on the corner. So we would be tapping into that sewer line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BOYCHUK-There are two names on that, Hess and myself, to extend the sewer district. MR. MAC EWAN-What is Staff looking for for stormwater management? MS. NOWICKI-There currently is no stormwater management, like catch basins and items like that. I talked to Mr. Boychuk by phone, and he indicated that the area was surrounded by grass, but there’s no technical supporting information that says that the current building handles stormwater management. So it’s more of an engineer type of information I’m looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. TROMBLEY-As far as the septic system that is there, presently, there’s only one employee, basically, that’s on premises at a time, and. MR. MAC EWAN-Your addition, you’re not adding any bathrooms or anything like that, a lunchroom or anything like that? MR. TROMBLEY-We’re not adding any bathrooms, not running any water supplies, etc. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STARK-Craig, when we went down there to look at that, I really don’t think there’s too much stormwater, I mean, I don’t think the water from the back is going to be running out onto the road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t, either. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think Staff’s concern was just how it’s going to be infiltrated. That’s all, right. Is that what you’re looking for? I feel comfortable, from what I saw on the site, that the site can totally catch it. It is a requirement, though. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I mean, everything looked fine, just as long as the application is complete. MR. VOLLARO-Just to refresh my mind, that’s the building that was partially up, there’s a roof over it now? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, there’s nothing there. MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing there? It’s just a nice place to put an addition on. MR. MAC EWAN-The one we were looking at on Dix Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Sorry. I’m in the wrong place. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s level, it’s clean. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. RINGER-They’ve got to get their variance, though, still. MR. TROMBLEY-We were advised of the change in the setback on the east side, after we applied to come to site plan review, and those papers have now been in place over at the Town for the next variance meeting. I guess what we’re looking for, if possible, is an approval from site plan, contingent on the fact that we do get the variance of the 10 foot that we need. MR. BREWER-I would rather see them get their variance first, as we’ve been, the system in the past, doing that. That’s my only comment. MR. MAC EWAN-When are you on the agenda for the ZBA? thnd MR. TROMBLEY-It could be the 15 of July or the 22 of July. We’re not sure. She wasn’t sure, at the time that I took the papers over, which agenda it would be on. I think that the site plan thth review comes back the 27, am I correct, the 27 of July? rdnd MR. BREWER-I thought our meeting was the 23, 22. stth MS. NOWICKI-The 21 and the 28 are meeting dates. However, depending on how many applications come in tomorrow, there may be a third meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the summer building months. MS. NOWICKI-Just so that you know, currently, we have two scheduled. st MR. TROMBLEY-Am I correct to assume your meeting is the 21, then, of July? Which means th that we might not make it the 15, and if we don’t, then it would push it off into August? th MR. MAC EWAN-The 28. We have at least two meetings for the month of July, possibly three. th MR. BREWER-There’s a ZBA meeting the 15? thnd MS. NOWICKI-There’s a ZBA meeting the 15 and the 22. thst MR. BREWER-If they were on the 15, you could be on our 21. MR. TROMBLEY-Correct. That wouldn’t be a problem, to be honest with you. MR. MAC EWAN-What I think would be appropriate for us to do, which has been protocol for our Board, is we’d rather see you get the variance first before you get approvals from our Board, and it also, I guess in this scenario, would give you a good opportunity to get that stormwater management report complied and get that to the Town, just make sure that’s checked out. I look at that as being really, actually, a minor detail, because I don’t see any problems with it, and providing you get your variance, we can have you on the very next meeting. That wouldn’t be a problem at all. MR. TROMBLEY-And would the Town office put us on that meeting? I mean, we won’t know th until we see an agenda for the 15, or whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s safe to say, what we’ll do right now is we’ll tell you you’ll be on the st first meeting, our first meeting, in the month of July, which would be the 21. th MS. NOWICKI-And you can request that he be scheduled for the Zoning Board on the 15. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. Consider it done. MR. TROMBLEY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-What we’ll do is I’m going to open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MS. NOWICKI-I do have a letter. Do you want me to read it now, or do you want me to hold off? MR. MAC EWAN-You can read it in now if you want. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MS. NOWICKI-Okay. This is a letter from Sean Garvey, in regard to their rear addition to J. Allen Furniture Store, “Garvey KIA and PSM Autobody would like to express our support of the proposed addition and would hope that the Queensbury Planning Board will agree with us and grant approval to Mr. Boychuk. Sincerely, Sean J.T. Garvey” st MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. We’ll leave that open, and we’ll see you on the 21. MR. TROMBLEY-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck with the ZBA. What’s going on with our next application, Ferraro Entertainment? MS. NOWICKI-You’re required to open the public hearing, and table it until July’s meeting, for Zoning Board and Planning Board review. MRS. LABOMBARD-We’re talking about the next application. MS. NOWICKI-Which is Ferraro Entertainment. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MS. NOWICKI-I can read the Staff notes, and you can read your description, and we’ll. MR. BREWER-So Ferraro’s tabled, then. SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 TYPE: UNLISTED FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. OWNER: ANTHONY & MARY SUE FERRARO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, JUST SOUTH OF CINEMAS APPLICANT PROPOSES REFURBISHMENT OF GO- CART TRACK, NEW CART STORAGE BUILDING, 3 SMALL ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SKATING FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-1998, AV 1230, AV 1124 SP 6-87, SP 14-93 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/8/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/10/98 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 LOT SIZE: 3.224 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-98, Ferraro Entertainment, Inc., Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify the existing go cart track, add three (3) additions to an existing structure and construct a new cart storage building. New construction in HC-1A zone requires site plan review. Staff Comments: The applicant has complied with the Site Plan application requirements. The information was forwarded to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. Staff has no additional comments. Note to Board members: This application will be tabled pending outcome of June 24, 1998 Zoning Board of Appeals determination.” MS. NOWICKI-And the County Approved, and it doesn’t have any comments, in addition to County. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing, and we’ll leave it open, and we’ll table this application pending the ZBA determination. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Next. SITE PLAN NO. 9-98 NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C. OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER DIX AVENUE & QUEENSBURY AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 46-1996, SP 43-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/11/98 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-13 LOT SIZE: 1.728 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TIM BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT th MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was tabled from the June 18 meeting. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-98, Nutech Reality, L.L.C., Meeting Date: June 23, 1998 “Site Plan No. 9-98 was tabled from June 18, 1998 Planning Board meeting because the Board requested additional information. The applicant submitted information addressing the issues of the letter dated June 19, 1998. Staff is concerned with the storage facilities indicated on the drawing. The four (4) storage facilities located in the fenced in area are required to meet the setback of the HC-1A zone, the front setback is fifty feet and the North and West setback is 25 feet. The storage facilities need to be moved or a variance needs to be obtained. The other storage facility that is located in the nook of the building is required to be fifty feet from the principal building, Section 179-67A3. Staff would suggest the Board review the type of rental business (construction versus general), the location of other miscellaneous material (referring to comment #2 of Mr. Barber’s letter June 22, 1998), and the type of rental inventory (referring to Mr. Barber’s letter June 22, 1998 ending paragraph).” nd MR. MAC EWAN-You reference his letter of June 22. Why don’t you read in that letter for the record. nd MS. NOWICKI-June 22, “Dear Mr. Round: In response to your letter dated 6/19/98, the completion schedule is as follows: 1. Grass areas labeled on plans - completed. 2. Removal of pile of pallets - to be completed by 6/27/98. The industrial shelving, concrete blocks, and any other miscellaneous material on site, belongs to the Rental Company and is part of their operation. 3. Delineation of buffer area - completed. 4. Remaining 8’ wooden fence - as outlined in my 5/27/98 letter, I would like to construct the rest of the fence in July of 1999. 5. I am providing copies of our current rental inventory. As I mentioned in the 6/18/98 meeting, this only represents today’s inventory. As seasons and market trends change, so will the inventory. Please provide me with a list of items which the board may feel as unacceptable rental inventory for any and all rental establishments in the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Timothy F. Barber” Do you want me to read my letter? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. th MS. NOWICKI-Letter of June 19. “Dear Mr. Barber: The Big Apple Rental & Sales Site Plan No. 9-98 was tabled at the June 18, 1998 Planning Board meeting. The Board requested the submitted by June 22, 1998 by 12:00 noon to the Community following information be Development Office. Provide a scaled drawing for the entire project including but not limited to: 1) The “bounce house(s)” be located in the area reserved for future display of equipment, (within the fenced-in area) indicating how many are proposed for display. 2) The location of the six (6) foot chain link fence identified with a length of seventy-two (72) feet. 3) The location of the propane tank showing setback from all property lines. 4) Show the location and dimensions of all truck bodies. Please note that if the truck bodies are greater than 100 square feet the setbacks for principal structures apply. (Dix Avenue and Queensbury Avenue front setbacks are fifty (50) feet and the setbacks on the north and west property lines are twenty-five (25) feet.) 5) Please indicate the location and dimensions of storage within the building related to the rental business. 6) Identify all modifications to the project on the plot plan and in writing. Modification limited to, plantings on the north border of the property, types of rental and sales, display area, parking area, storage area, number of concrete curbs delineating buffer area. Provide a proposed completion schedule for: 1) Area labeled grass on plans. 2) Removal of all rubbish: pile of pallets, industrial shelving, hay elevator, snowmobile, concrete blocks, and other miscellaneous material. 3) Delineation of buffer area with concrete curbing every 50 feet. According to the submitted drawing six (6) concrete curbs should be shown. 4) Installation of the eight (8) foot board on board fence on north property line. Please provide one original and 9 copies of the requested information. Please call if you have any questions.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. BARBER-How are you? MR. MAC EWAN-Tired. We’ll get out of here early tonight. I promise you. Okay. MR. BARBER-Tim Barber. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, could you read in Kip Grant’s letter, please. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MS. NOWICKI-Yes. This is from the Fire Marshal, Kip Grant. “You requested information on the location of an above ground LP gas tank at Big Apple Rental and Sales, Dix Avenue at Queensbury Avenue. The tank constitutes an LP cylinder “fill site”, a facility at which 20 and 100 pound propane cylinders would commonly be filled from a larger tank, such as the one at said premises. Prior to opening of the business and placing of the tank, Tim Barber asked for me to stop by and discuss possible locations for the tank. The information I provided is in NFPA standard number 58, “Standard for the Storage and handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases”, the reference standard for LP installations within the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. The code permits tanks up to 2000 gallons to be located with a minimum 25 foot setback from a) important buildings, b) another container, and c) adjoining property that may be built upon. As you can see in the accompanying illustration from Standard 58, the 25 foot setback on the street side of a tank site refers to the closest property that can be built upon, across the street. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.” MR. MAC EWAN-What does that last line me? MS. NOWICKI-Such as? MR. MAC EWAN-“As you can see in the accompanying illustration from Standard 58, the 25 foot setback on the street side of a tank site refers to the closest property that can be built upon, across the street.” MS. NOWICKI-Did you all receive an illustration to go along with this? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MS. NOWICKI-I will pass this around. MR. MAC EWAN-While that’s being passed around, lets forge ahead. Lets take Mr. Barber’s nd letter of the 22. Item One, does the Staff feel that that’s been adequately addressed? MS. NOWICKI-As he’s indicated on his plot plan, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and how does that correlate with what the Beautification Committee’s approval was? MR. BARBER-There wasn’t any Beautification, Craig. They were disputing or something that month. They didn’t meet. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that when they were going through their terrible three months. This never went to Beautification at all? MR. BARBER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff Notes, did you get a copy of her Staff Notes, do you have a copy of it, Tim? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding those storage facilities? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Four of them either have to be removed, or apply for a variance. MR. BARBER-Right. I would have no problem moving them forward, but the problem would be more of an aesthetic problem, and the height of the rear of the trailer. My property, have you seen them up there, seen where they’re sitting? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re referring to the, like the old Softco truck bodies, right? MR. BARBER-That’s right. If I pull them ahead, my grade drops off there, and right where they’re sitting, the trailers sit nice and level and they’re grouped fairly tight together. If I bring them ahead, I’m going to have to block up the rear to keep them level, the rear meaning the door side. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. VOLLARO-When you say “ahead”, you mean bring them south, toward the road? MR. BARBER-No, bring them east. MR. VOLLARO-Toward your building. MR. BARBER-That’s correct, and I would have no problem doing that. It’s just that, I think aesthetically, they might not look as good if I get into a blocking situation. Right now, I think they look nice, and it’s our intentions to paint them. MR. VOLLARO-What you’d have to do if you want to leave them there is get a variance for the 25 feet. MR. BREWER-What do you keep in them? MR. BARBER-I keep merchandising for the stores, portable heaters, off season type stuff. It’s our intentions, within a year, a year and a half, depending on what our budge does, to come back and put up, like maybe a 40 by 100 or 60 by 100 facility, up somewhere in that vicinity. MR. BREWER-Right now you’ll keep winter goods in there? MR. BARBER-Right. MR. BREWER-Do they have doors that lock or whatever? MR. BARBER-Yes, just the rear door. Just like you’d see on a truck trailer. MR. MAC EWAN-Laura, just for my point, where do those storage facilities fall under? Do they fall under accessory use and structure? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, they do. MR. MAC EWAN-Whereabouts do they fall, what Section? MS. NOWICKI-They fall right in HC-1 Acre zone, if you’re in that. MR. BARBER-Is that classified temporary storage, Laura? MS. NOWICKI-It’s defined as an accessory use, whether it’s temporary or not. Accessory Use is Page 17978, and it’s Section 179-23 Number 2A, Accessory Uses. MR. MAC EWAN-“Customary Accessory Uses and Accessory Uses Structural or Incidental”. Okay, and they require a setback, and if he doesn’t move them, he has to get a variance. MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re saying it’s not appropriate, I guess, to move it, or it’s not a smart way to do it, to move it? MR. BARBER-I don’t think it’s a smart decision. I mean, if I can’t get the variance I’ll have to move them, but the only problem is, as you see them now, they sit on the ground. They all sit level, and if I throw a coat of paint on, I think they’ll look nice. If I bring them ahead, what you’re going to see is the rear, being the door side of the units, are going to be up probably three or four feet, and the fronts of the unit, being the westerly side, is going to be on the ground. MR. BREWER-What’s the side setback? MS. NOWICKI-He corners a lot. He does corner, so there’s only the front and the rear. So that that north and, I think it’s north and east or north and west side is 25 feet, and the front setback from the road is 50, on both sides of the road. MR. BREWER-Well, the nine foot, what’s that? 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MS. NOWICKI-He’s indicated that it’s nine feet from the property line. So he’s in violation of the section. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what does that, it has to be 25 feet? MS. NOWICKI-The Code says it has to be 25 feet from the property line. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, from the side yard. MS. NOWICKI-From the side property line. MR. BREWER-But you just said he doesn’t have sides. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes The side yard would be toward the neighbor. MS. NOWICKI-It’s considered a rear yard, as defined by code. MR. BREWER-All right. It would be on the corner, you have two side yards, or two front yards. MS. NOWICKI-You have a front yard and a rear yard, and that’s it. MR. BREWER-No sides. MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, probably the encouraging course of action you should take is make an application to the ZBA tomorrow, get on the agenda between now and the time they make their site visits, and paint them. You’d probably have a stronger case. MR. BARBER-What color? MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t ask me. MR. BARBER-We were going to go with a green, dark green. MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing in the spec about color, suit yourself. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next item, removal of the pile of pallets, completed by 6/27. MR. BARBER-They’re half gone now. They took a bunch out today. It actually, a fellow came in earlier this evening. He said he was going to have them out tomorrow, the rest of them, but I said to be safe, you know, they’ll definitely be gone by Friday, the whole pile will be gone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The industrial shelving, the concrete blocks and other miscellaneous material on site. What is the other miscellaneous material? MR. BARBER-There’s painting product, roof painting product, just (lost words), it’s going on our roof. They’re up there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s stuff you’re going to put on . What is the other miscellaneous material? MR. BARBER-There’s painting product, roof painting product, just (lost words), it’s going on our roof. They’re up there. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s stuff you’re going to put on you’re roof, right? MR. BARBER-Yes. It’s up there. There’s three or four different pallets, five gallon pails, actually. There’s the main baskets. There’s some 100 pound propane containers up there, within the man baskets. There’s the concrete blocks. There’s some aluminum picks up there. There’s a concrete shoot, I know it’s up there. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you rent the concrete shoot? MR. BARBER-Yes. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Was that left over from the construction company? MR. BARBER-No, that’s a new shoot, and other than maybe a few miscellaneous items, I don’t know what else is up there. There’s not too much up there, other than the hay elevators, snowmobile. MR. MAC EWAN-The hay elevator, is that a rental? MR. BARBER-No. That’s mine. If you want to rent it, I suppose I’d rent it to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Item Three, delineation of the buffer area, you have that as completed. MR. BARBER-Actually, I went out, when I was out there tonight, and I’ll have it done first thing in the morning. My paint lines where the other barriers are to be installed, I had a person who was supposed to do that yesterday, and must not have completed. I wasn’t around this morning. So that’ll be, the rest of those buffers will be installed the very first thing in the morning. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about these concrete buffers? MR. BARBER-Yes, there’s three out there, and there’s paint lines right now where I instructed one of my people to put the other three, and they must not have gotten a chance to do it yesterday. So I’ll have it done first thing in the morning. MR. MAC EWAN-And the remaining eight foot high wooden fence, you’re asking to hold off on that until finished construction, July of ’99. MR. BARBER-Basically, next year at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-And how much of a length of fence is that that’s got to be put up. MR. BARBER-I don’t have a scale on me, I don’t believe. I think it’s 110 feet or something like that. It’s fairly close. It’s probably 100 feet maybe, Craig. MR. BREWER-Do we have in our original motion, Laura, how much the fence was? MS. NOWICKI-It’s supposed to be 300 feet total. MR. BREWER-All right. How much is done? MS. NOWICKI-176. MR. BARBER-176. It’s supposed to go from the corner of the northwestern property to meet the chain link on the northeastern corner there, Tim. MR. BREWER-124 feet. Right? MR. BARBER-Yes, whatever’s left. I mean, whatever goes to the corner of the property, that’s right. MR. BREWER-So we can just put on here 124 feet to be completed by July ’99. MR. BARBER-Or to the corner, that’s where it’s ultimately got to go. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ve got copies of five, your inventory rental, and what did you mean by your last paragraph? MR. BARBER-I just, for example, today, a lift came in. It’s not in my rental inventory, a 40 foot boom lift. Arrived on the site at seven o’clock this morning. It’s not in here, not yet. Tomorrow it will be. So, I don’t, you know, I guess, not to be ridiculous, but it’s a rental shop. If you come down to the store, you see what’s in there, I think you’ll appreciate that it’s a good array of mostly construction/landscaping supplies, like a lift that came in today. It’s a specialty construction item, scaffoldings. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I think the issue that the Board had originally was, what was perceived on the application, what was perceived in the original. I, for one, was thrown back when I saw the bouncy houses on top of the roof, and I just couldn’t figure out how that was construction, or industrial related rentals, and I know that’s what you implied on your application. MR. BARBER-Well, I guess I agree and disagree with that, Craig. I emphasized the construction equipment because I had several requests from Laura, I believe via the Board, and from Chris, per se, I guess wondering if the construction was going to continue to run out of there, if you were going to see cranes and bulldozers and big back hoes there, and that was my way of saying no, this is the type of construction equipment that’s going to be on site, and I don’t believe there’s hardly any even hand tools from the construction that are in the rental. They’re still doing construction with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. BARBER-No. MS. NOWICKI-Can I add something? The sign issue. He’s been made aware of some of the sign issue. The signs that he’s displaying on, I believe, your bounce houses, are considered temporary signs, and there was a point where you were using your scaffolding to display signs. Those are all temporary signs, and need sign permits, and it’s just a point of reference. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Have you applied for any temporary sign permits? MR. BARBER-I didn’t know I had to. I’ll apply, and work, whatever we have to work with. MR. MAC EWAN-What is that, a $25 fee, a temporary sign permit? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t know what it is, off the top of my head. MR. BREWER-Did we say that the bounce houses were going to be on the other side of the fence, Tim? MR. BARBER-Yes, that’s what we were looking at, Tim, when we were looking at putting the parking over on that side, and when I was looking at redesigning this the other day, after I re- dimensioned that fence, I actually went out and measured it. I looked at how I could rearrange and get the proper amount of parking out front, and then possibly keep one bounce house on this side of the house, so that our clientele can go up, feel it, touch it, look at it. We do get an awful lot of mothers and children that come around and they go over and look at it. MR. BREWER-Isn’t there a gate on the fence? MR. BARBER-No. There’s no gate there. In order to go that way, you have to go through our main yard gate, and then over to the back side of the building where they receive and discharge equipment. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tim? MR. BREWER-The only other thing was the trailer in the center here. MR. VOLLARO-The temporary storage. MR. BREWER-Something’s got to be done with that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to be removed from the building. MR. BARBER-The big question I have is, these trailers I bought with the property, and maybe it’s more of a legal issue than a code issue. Are they grandfathered somehow, or how is it? I guess I might have to ask my counsel that. I don’t know. MS. NOWICKI-Not that I’m aware of, and the one that’s in the nook is definitely in violation, simply because, one, because of fire, and one, because of our Code. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess maybe I could expound on that a little bit more and say that, you know, if there was an outside, a real outside chance that something was grandfathered, it might be 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) grandfathered if you were continuing with the same use that was there before, which you’re not. Our counsel’s informing us that it’s not a grandfathered item, no matter what. MR. BARBER-Can you get a variance, see, the one storage trailer in the nook there, it’s kind of convenient, for cold storage. I don’t see it as a fire threat or a safety threat, because there’s no exits or entrances within that nook. MS. NOWICKI-We can certainly discuss it MR. BREWER-We can’t grant you a variance, though. MS. NOWICKI-They can’t grant you a variance at the moment, I mean, obviously, you’d have to go through the approval process, but it’s something that I would take up with the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector. MR. BREWER-All right. So as far as we’re concerned, right now, unless you apply for a variance, it has to go. MR. BARBER-Right. MR. BREWER-That’s all I have, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-I have one question. I think I had asked Staff this question before. He’s st operating on a temporary CO that was valid through May 31. Now, what is that facility operating under today? MS. NOWICKI-He’s not operating under any CO at the moment. MR. BARBER-Well, wouldn’t I be operating, Laura, under, I mean, am I? MS. NOWICKI-No. I went into the Building Department and I asked when your CO expired, and it expired 30 days from 4/27/98. MR. BARBER-Right, but my letter of May 27, when I brought these issues to Chris, not knowing what would be done with the issues, if they had to come back here, or if it was a simple yes or no from Chris’ point of view. We were ready, given, if these were acceptable to him, we were ready, at that point, for our CO inspection. MS. NOWICKI-I can indicate that that information, obviously, was not passed on to the Building Department to re-notify you that your building permit was, or your CO was expired. MR. VOLLARO-He was only temporary, though, that was a temporary CO? MS. NOWICKI-That was a temporary CO. MR. MAC EWAN-And any modifications or extensions to site plan approvals are the authority of this Board, not the Zoning Administrator. So it falls back here. MR. BARBER-I didn’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re at the standpoint, he’s operating without a CO. MS. NOWICKI-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-That was the only thing that I had any question about. MR. BARBER-So, Bob, what do you want me to do with that? Where are we going with that? MR. VOLLARO-Where are we going with that? MR. BARBER-I mean, it’s a concern of yours, what do you want me to do? MR. BREWER-Get these things done. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. BARBER-They are done. MR. VOLLARO-Going back and rolling the clock back to history, the reason that the CO is expired is because there was a note that said that, based on completion of all the things that had to st be done, the fence, that had to be done by May 31, and then we granted you a temporary CO, based on that date, and that date came and went, those things weren’t done. So your temporary CO has expired, and I guess what has to happen here, it’s got to be renewed. I’d have to ask Mark, what does happen now that a business is operating without a Certificate of Occupancy? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer, Bob, is it doesn’t have to be renewed. The Town Code Enforcement Staff can commence an enforcement action, can issue a Notice of Violation and can commence an enforcement action to prosecute the violation. It doesn’t have to be renewed. It can be renewed, but it doesn’t have to be. MR. VOLLARO-Understood, and the renewal option is up to this Board? MR. SCHACHNER-No. Well, wait a minute. Was this Board the one that authorized the initial temporary Certificate? MR. VOLLARO-I believe that’s true. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, then the renewal option would be up to this Board. The enforcement option is not up to this Board, other than you can request that the Staff enforce and issue a Notice of Violation, but if the original temporary Certificate or temporary authorization was granted by this Board, then you would have the authority to extend it. MR. VOLLARO-See, again, let me just for the record roll back some history. When we went for this temporary CO, what was on the table was not to grant a motion of approval until, not to grant the CO until all the things were done, and we reverted to a temporary CO and put a date certain against that temporary CO. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I remember that. MR. VOLLARO-And there was some concern on my part about these temporary CO’s just keep rolling over. So now we’re into the first roll over of the first temporary CO. MR. BARBER-But only because we’re trying to, you know, I didn’t have a crystal ball there, Bob, when I designed the parking. We were hoping people would park down by the road. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, Tim. I’m just wondering what, if the Town has got any exposure here with you operating under a temporary CO or not. Is there any exposure that the Town has, whether a business is operating without a Certificate of Occupancy? MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s hard to answer that question generically, but here the applicant, I mean, for example, if an applicant didn’t know he was operating without a Certificate of Occupancy, that might be one situation, but different types of businesses might lead to different types of liability exposure, but here, as I understand the situation, we have a temporary Certificate of Occupancy, or a Certificate of Compliance that was issued to the applicant, with the applicant’s st knowledge that certain things had to occur by May 31, or that, and that if those things didn’t st occur by May 31, the temporary Certificate expired, or maybe it was going to expire even if they did those things and become a permanent Certificate. I’m not sure which, but either way, this situation occurred, as I recall, with the applicant’s knowledge and consent. The date certain that you referred to came and went, and for whatever reasons, and I don’t think the reasons are relevant, for the purposes of your question, those conditions were not fulfilled. So now were in a situation where the Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance, the temporary one has expired, and the applicant is essentially continuing to operate the business at its own risk. MR. VOLLARO-At it’s own risk. MR. SCHACHNER-And I want to emphasize, it’s not the case that the Town must allow that to occur. The Town has the discretion to enforce the violation or not, and the Town can allow this to continue, but it does not have to allow this to continue. That’s an enforcement decision similar to, you know, if somebody is driving at 75 miles an hour on the Northway, past a police officer, the police officer has the discretion to go and issue that person a speeding ticket or not. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What do we do. Tim, you had some things. MR. BREWER-I, personally, would like to have a day when all of this stuff is going to be done, excluding the fence. In other words, that either you apply for a variance or get that trailer out of there, either you apply for a variance or get those trailers moved in, within the setbacks, you get the garbage out of there. This is the second or third time we’ve talked about that. Get everything done, come back to us, we’ll give you an approval. I would just as soon give you an approval, if you would get the things done. I don’t want to go over this month, after month after month. MR. BARBER-I don’t enjoy being here either, but if something changes, I guess I’ve got to come back. MR. BREWER-Tim, do this stuff and get it done, then you’ve never got to come back. As far as the, what you rent, I don’t have a problem with that. I mean, generally, he’s construction type stuff. He’s got a few things that are not, but that doesn’t bother me. I mean, a rental business is a rental business. MR. BARBER-What’s the Board’s, I guess, feeling on, is it going to be, is it just going to drag on time if I go for a variance, or do you think there’s a good point of obtaining a variance for those trailers? MR. MAC EWAN-You’d need to have a variance, or you need to move them. MR. BARBER-Or I’d have to move them, right. MR. MAC EWAN-Four of them you have to move to make sure you hit the setbacks, and one of them you have to remove altogether. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Or he can apply for a variance for that, or can he? MR. MAC EWAN-Or he can get a variance on it, yes. He’s got options. MR. BARBER-What I’m saying is, is it tough to get a variance on something like that? Am I wasting time going that route? MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t want to give you advice on that. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think Board can speculate about that. I don’t think this Board can speculate about that. It’s a different Board. It’s a different issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s not under our review. MR. BARBER-So the only outstanding item, basically, is the trailers then? And the wood pile. The wood pile will be moved by Friday. MR. BREWER-You told us last week it would be done by Saturday. MR. BARBER-That’s right. Well, I didn’t get it per your letter. I mean, that’s what I intended on doing, but when I put the letter together. MR. BREWER-My point is, you said you were going to do it, you didn’t do it, and you said you were going to do it. So lets do it. MR. BARBER-Yes, we’ll get it done. MR. VOLLARO-So on that basis, we extend the date on the CO to some date certain, is that what you want to do? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. BARBER-Well, when is the soonest I can get in for the ZBA, when is that? MR. MAC EWAN-Their submission deadline is tomorrow, right? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Get over here first thing in the morning and fill out an application and just get on the agenda. thth MR. BARBER-Would I be able to get on the 15, is it the 15? MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t answer that. Our meetings or their meetings? MR. BARBER-When’s your meeting? stth MR. MAC EWAN-Our meetings are the 21 and the 28. If you can get on the ZA their first meeting, we’ll get you on our agenda for our first meeting of the month, okay. MR. BARBER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Get your pile cleaned up. Get your variance or get them out of there, one of the two. I think I’m starting to feel, I’m getting swayed by the rest of the Board, that, personally, I don’t really have a problem if you’re going to rent bouncy houses. I’ve got a real problem if you put them up on your roof with a big sign saying “rent me”, and all that sort of stuff. That’s taking advantage of the temporary sign ordinance that the Town has. If you’re going to put up temporary signs, even for a week or so, get the proper permits that you need to do to put them up. Everyone else does it. You should have to do it, too. Okay. MR. BARBER-Is that with window placards and everything, Chris? MR. MAC EWAN-Window placards, I don’t know exactly how they fall into it. You’d have to get clarification from the Staff of Building and Codes. For me, and I’m still out as to whether I want to go along with an extension for the fencing. Things have been dragging out for a long time. You’ve said that you wanted to put off your landscaping until the end of May, but you didn’t say anything about the fence, and now we’re looking at another year before we get the fence done, and the landscaping still isn’t done the way it’s supposed to be. MR. BARBER-The landscape is done. MR. MAC EWAN-Aren’t all the plantings around the front of the building all in pots? MR. BARBER-What’s wrong with that? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, but you didn’t specify that they had to be planted. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s your luck, the Beautification Committee was going through their turmoils, all right. We’ll let that issue die. If you can get yourself on their agenda and get those things squared away. MR. BARBER-I’ll get on their agenda and get that taken care of. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table it for one more month. Hopefully we’ll get you through this and we’ll all get through it. MR. BREWER-Please don’t come back next month and say, I’ll get it done tomorrow. MS. NOWICKI-And can you list, you’re tabling him for what, and list your reasons. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table this for, One, he’s going to obtain a variance from the ZBA to have minimum setback requirements on four storage trailers. MR. SCHACHNER-He’s going to seek to obtain. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Seek, he’s going to seek to obtain, yes, and another trailer that’s located in close proximity to the building, or if he does not get his variances, that it will be moved to meet the setback, the four trailers, or the other trailer will be off the premises. MS. NOWICKI-If there’s a fifth trailer, if he can meet the setbacks on the site plan, there’s nothing that says that he can’t have that fifth trailer on the site. MR. BREWER-Remove it from that nook. MS. NOWICKI-Remove from the nook, as long as it meets the setbacks. MR. BREWER-Right, comply with the setbacks or whatever. MR. MAC EWAN-The other issue is all the remaining debris, rubble, rubbish, garbage, whatever you want to label it, will be removed. MS. NOWICKI-Can he maybe place it into the storage containers, so it’s not a site issue, it’s contained in the storage containers. Because right now it’s a site issue. If you put it in a storage container that he has on site, would that be the concern? MR. BREWER-No, the garbage? He’s going to take that off site. MS. NOWICKI-Well, there’s other items on there, such as concrete blocks, industrial shelving, the hay elevator, the snowmobile, and I think that’s it right now. MR. BREWER-What are you going to do with that? MR. BARBER-I didn’t have any intentions of moving them right now. I mean, they are going to, the hay elevator is going to be moved soon, but. MR. RINGER-The concrete blocks, he said he uses those. MR. BARBER-Yes. They use those for blocking things up. MR. BREWER-All right. The hay elevator and the rest of the stuff? MR. BARBER-Yes. That’s going up to my place here. MR. BREWER-All right, that’ll be done. MR. MAC EWAN-The snow mobile, too? MR. BARBER-That’s not mine. It’s one of the employees. MR. MAC EWAN-Make them get it out of there. What else? Temporary signs, any applicable temporary signs, he was going to get the proper permits in place for it. I think that’s all the issues we were going to hold over for the time being, right? MR. BARBER-Who do I look into those with, Code Enforcement, signs? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and the application. MR. VOLLARO-That chain link fence was supposed to be 72 feet. It is now 37.6. MR. MAC EWAN-The chain link fence. MR. VOLLARO-The location of the six foot chain link fence is identified as a length of 72 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a modification we can entertain when we review this project again. MR. BREWER-The measurement was off or something, right? MS. NOWICKI-Correct, it was not properly scaled. MR. BREWER-It was marked 72. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/23/98) MR. BARBER-But it was always 37.6. MR. BREWER-But it was always 36, or whatever it is. MR. BARBER-It was always there. There was a line error. MR. VOLLARO-A confusion in the dimensions? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Tim, if you apply and receive or do not receive your variances, just make sure the nd site plan is current, when you come back the 22. MR. BARBER-Yes, I mean, updated or whatever. MR. BREWER-Yes, just revise it. MR. RINGER-If you don’t get your variance then. MR. BARBER-Then I’ve got to move them around. MR. BREWER-Just revise it. MR. BARBER-No problem. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 9-98 NUTECH REALITY, L.L.C. , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For, One, he’s going to seek to obtain a variance from the ZBA to have the minimum setback requirements on four storage trailers, and another trailer that’s located in close proximity to the building, or if he does not get his variances, that they will be moved to meet the setback for the four trailers. The other trailer will be removed from that nook, comply with the setbacks. All the remaining debris, rubble, rubbish, garbage will be removed, any applicable temporary signs, he’s going to get the proper permits in place for it. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else on our topics of discussion tonight? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should we save all the Ferraro stuff? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Nothing else. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 57