Loading...
1998-09-24 SP (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK PLANNER -LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-We’re just going to jump from our regularly scheduled agenda here tonight for a couple of quick items that are going to be tabled. So we can just get them on and get them off Formula One Auto Body Site Plan No. 47-98 real quick. has asked to be tabled. What we’re going to need to do is open up the public hearing on this application, because we’ve done all the advertising. We need to have one because it’s not an allowed use. It’s not a modification to their, I should say, it’s not a modification to their existing site plan. It’s a new site plan. Right? MRS. MOORE-They’re going to be re-advertised anyway, because, you can open a public hearing, but you can, I don’t know how to explain it to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Never mind. We won’t open a public hearing, then. We’ll just table it, then, to a later date. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD & SANDRA BAKER OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 11.30 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 121-4-5.21 LOT SIZE: 11.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table this application, but we’re going to open up the public hearing on to that prior to that, and we’ll leave that public hearing open. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the third item is we’re going to rescind the approval for the Wegman/Wiswall Subdivision, which is Number 8-1998. This happened the other night. MR. MAC EWAN-We gave approval to this subdivision, the Wegman/Wiswall Subdivision, on Tuesday evening. We found out that the 500 foot notification mailers were not done as prescribed by the Ordinance and the Subdivision Regs. So we’re going to rescind that approval. MOTION TO RESCIND APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1998 WEGMAN CO., INC. , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ll hear that subdivision again at a later date, and it will be re- advertised. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 76-96 TYPE II MODIFICATION BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY. APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS FOR RELOCATION OF DUMPSTERS. TAX MAP NO. 105- 1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 3.12 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 76-96 - Modification, Berkshire Acquisition, Meeting Date: Description of Project: September 24, 1998 “ The applicant proposes to modify the existing Site Staff Plan 76-96 to include dumpsters for current retail uses and proposed retail use(s). Comments: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission. The original site plan did not provide adequate dumpster facilities for the potential businesses. Staff was concerned with the location of the dumpsters and the type of screening. The applicant has indicated that the screening type will be similar to the existing dumpster screening. The proposed project will meet the Code requirements for trash receptacles, Section 179-68. Staff has no additional concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here from the applicant? It’s pretty simple, cut and dried. They’re moving it over to the corner of the CVS building. I don’t have any issues with it. Nobody else does? MR. RINGER-The only thing, when we did our site visits over there, the dumpsters that they had there, all the gates were, or the gates on two of them, were open, and they were overflowed, and since that’s a drive thru for CVS, everybody that drove around drove right by those dumpsters that were opened and overflowed, where the gates weren’t closed. No one’s here from the applicant. So we can’t ask them about it, but I don’t have a problem with it, other than it was kind of unsightly when we were over there. MR. MAC EWAN-Policing that sort of thing is a difficult thing to do. That’s why I think the Town kind of stresses the fact that they be enclosed anyway to at least screen them to some extent. MR. RINGER-And it was screened, but the gate was open, which made it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, six of one, half dozen of another, I guess. MR. RINGER-If they were here, we could just mention it to them, but they’re not here. MR. MAC EWAN-We can get notification to them of this through the minutes of the meeting , and let them be aware of it. Anyone else? Does anybody want to entertain a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 76-96 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: In accordance with the resolution as supplied by Staff. The Planning Board has determined that there’s no significant change to the original SEQRA findings for this site plan. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Modification to Site Plan No. 76-96 for relocation of dumpsters, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/98, consists of the following: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) 1. 8/25/98 - Letter to L. Nowicki from M. Liu 2. Map 96233.01 revised 8/26/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was not held on 9/24/98 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 Modification to Site Plan No. 76-96, BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION. 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. SITE PLAN 86-89 TYPE II MODIFICATION THOMAS D’ANGELO OWNER: EMILY D’ANGELO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF NY RT. 9 AND MONTRAY ROAD, ACROSS FROM WALMART APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS FOR ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE. TAX MAP NO. 71-2-10 LOT SIZE: 3,200 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-23 THOMAS D’ANGELO & WENDY HAGGERTY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 86-89 - Modification, Thomas D’Angelo, Meeting Date: Description of Project: September 24, 1998 “ The applicant is utilizing an existing building for professional offices. The building currently houses two professional offices. The proposal is to Staff Comments: locate an additional office in the lower level to the rear of the structure. The project was reviewed prior to submission to cover Staff concerns. The applicant has provided enough parking for each business use. The plan shows handicap spaces in the front and additional parking at the rear of the building. The two parking areas are connected by a sidewalk for access to the different offices. The applicant has been informed that the building is considered a business complex according to the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-2. The applicant is responsible for ensuring all tenants comply with the sign ordinance. Staff has no additional concerns.” 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. PALING-What level is this on, Laura? MRS. MOORE-The new office is the lower level. MR. PALING-That’s not what my letter says. MRS. MOORE-I didn’t read that that way. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other notes? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here from the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they’re back there. They just walked in. MR. MAC EWAN-Come on up and have a seat. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MS. HAGGERTY-Wendy Haggerty. MR. D’ANGELO-Thomas Patrick D’Angelo. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Could you tell us a little bit about your anticipated site plan here? MR. D’ANGELO-Well, we just want to add an office, which is an existing building now, and we have enough parking space there to play with that office. It’s a small office. It’s about 300 feet, a little over 300 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Three hundred square feet? MR. D’ANGELO-Yes. It’s about, he’s got down there 380, but it’s closer to 300. MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the office going to be used for? MR. D’ANGELO-Well, for rent, you know, anybody who wants to rent it for an accountant or that type of thing. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have any tenants specifically lined up right now? MR. D’ANGELO-We had one. They waited and waited, and they just kind of, what they do is they make signs. They’re a sign making outfit, and they were waiting in the wings, and maybe they’re still there waiting. I don’t know, but they said they couldn’t wait any longer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MS. HAGGERTY-But it was computer generated. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? Does Staff have anything else they want to add? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set and comfortable with everything as presented? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 86-89, THOMAS D’ANGELO , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) With the stipulation that there is no change in any of the SEQRA findings for the project’s modification. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Modification to Site Plan No. 86-89 for additional professional office space, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/26/98, consists of the following: 1. 8/26/98 - Letter to Planning Office from E. D’Angelo with 4 attached drawings. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes 2. 8/26/98 - Letter to the Hair Connection from Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer regarding sign violations. Whereas, a public hearing was not held on 9/24/98 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 Modification to Site Plan No. 86-89, THOMAS D’ANGELO. 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, folks. MS. HAGGERTY-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 49-98 TYPE II DR. HOWARD WORTS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: WOODS POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF EXISTING WHARF AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. PRIVATE BOATHOUSE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL THE PLANNING BOARD. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-30 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-98, Dr. Howard Worts, Meeting Date: September 24, 1998 Description of Project: “ The applicant proposes to demolish and reconstruct a boathouse and modify the existing dock. The applicant is also applying to the Lake George Park Commission for Staff Comments: the proposed project (permit attached) The applicant has complied with the site plan review requirements for the construction of a boathouse. During a site visit to the property there did not appear to be any visual interference to neighboring properties. The boathouse is in compliance with the shoreline regulations in regard to height and square footage of the structure. Staff has no additional comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any other documentation in there? MRS. MOORE-There’s No County Impact. MR. MAC EWAN-No County Impact, okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. DR. HOWARD WORTS DR. WORTS-Dr. Howard Worts. MR. CREEDE-John Creede. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about the project. MR. CREEDE-Well, we’re going to be removing the existing L-Shaped part of the dock, and re- building a new U-Shaped crib dock parallel to the west side existing crib dock, and there’s an existing iron boathouse that’s going to be removed, and a three foot cat walk near the shoreline that’s also going to be removed. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that all that you had to tell us? MR. CREEDE-Well, we are going to build a custom boathouse over the new U-Shaped proposed dock. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not objecting to it. I just want to understand this drawing, okay, so I can th understand what you’re doing. You’re using the 3/16’s architect scale on this. I used that, and I’m looking at your length overall. Look at the plan view. Take a look at from the crib on the left all the way out to that walkway, where it says existing to be resurfaced, there’s a walkway out, 37 feet long. So when I look at the 27 feet and the 37 feet, I get 64 feet length overall on this structure. Now, I think 179-60 talks to no more than 40 feet protruding into the water. I’ll have to take a look at that. If I’m wrong on any of my comments on the drawing, you let me know. MR. CREEDE-Well, first off, sir, we are going from 40 feet from the mean low water mark, okay. That’s what we’re allowed to go, and the existing dock is plus or minus, within inches, okay, and we are going out from that 12 feet over, with an eight foot wide pier, okay, which is 40 plus 4 on that side, is 44 feet, okay, and the existing one is close to 54 feet up onto the shoreline, but it’s 40 feet from the mean low water mark, okay, where it is 44 feet overall length. MR. PALING-Why don’t we get this up on the board somehow. This is, it’s getting a little hard to follow. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the middle of the drawing, to that piece that moves out from the dock, right there. MR. CREEDE-Okay. This is existing. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s an existing piece that measures, by my rule, 37 feet, plus or minus an inch or two. MR. CREEDE-No, it’s 32 feet. This, here to here, is seven feet. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about, the piece that moves out, by my rule, is 37 feet to the front part of that structure. That dimension, 37 feet. MR. CREEDE-Okay. Well, we have it documented as 32 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, then the drawing is wrong or my ruler’s wrong, one of the two. MR. CREEDE-Okay. Well, then maybe your ruler’s right and our drawing is off, okay. MR. VOLLARO-In any event, when I look at the sum of, lets call it, if you want to call it 32 feet, call it 32 feet, then the width of the other structure, which includes the new eight by forty dock, which is connected down at the southern part of the drawing, below there, so that whole structure is now 27 feet, by my ruler, it might be something else than what you have. So those two connected together are in the area of 60 foot from the back to the front, and 179-60 says no dock shall extend more than 40 foot off shore from the mean low water mark. MR. CREEDE-Okay. Well, that low water mark is out here, sir, okay, and it’s calculated, you know, four feet off the shoreline. DR. WORTS-John, it sounds to me as though the gentleman might be confused as to where the lake actually is. MR. CREEDE-Yes. This is the lake out here. This is all the lake. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We were there. MR. VOLLARO-We were there. I understand where the lake is, and the rear end of that structure, is that very close to the shoreline, where your finger is now? MR. CREEDE-Yes. Right here, it’s only four feet from the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So now lets give or take the four feet from the 60, you’re still, I can’t get to the 40 foot requirement that’s in 179-60. MR. CREEDE-Well, this is 40 feet, sir, okay, right from here out to here. That’s 40 feet. MR. VOLLARO-I recognize that, but that’s along the shoreline. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s where the measuring starts, right there. That’s the mean low water mark from the lake. This here, all the way back to the shoreline is like a freebee. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-See, that’s where you actually start measuring it to meet the Ordinance, from there to the edge. MR. SCHACHNER-And, Bob, the 37 foot plus 27 foot that I think you’re adding together is actually the width of the structure, not the distance from, the structure goes into the lake. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. All right. So this is going out into the lake this way. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-All right. That’s what confused me. All right. There’s only one other thing, and that’s the height requirement here. Where are you measuring the height from, on the upper right hand drawing? MR. MAC EWAN-In the elevation. MR. CREEDE-It’s 14 feet from the mean high water mark, which is about 22 inches out of the water this time of year. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that line that’s in there, is that projecting the water level, the line on top of the crib? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. CREEDE-No. That’s just this part of the dock back here, the slip walkway. MR.VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Hold up here, I want to continue with Bob’s question. Show me again how you get 14 feet to this, on that drawing, to the mean. MR. CREEDE-I can’t explain it to you through the drawing. The only way I could show you, it’s located on the shoreline, the mean high water mark. It’s calculated off the Roger’s Rock reading. MR. PALING-I know where it’s calculated from, but this doesn’t help me, then. MR. CREEDE-I don’t have it listed on the drawing, where the mean high water mark is on the drawing, and where the boathouse is. MR. PALING-All right, then answer this question. What’s the height of the wood I’m looking at, from top to bottom? MR. CREEDE-This is an eight foot column, plus two feet, that’s 10 feet, plus three more feet for a railing, 13 feet. MR. PALING-It scales to be higher than that. MR. CREEDE-Well, then our drawing is off. MR. PALING-Yes. It’s off, this is at least the second place it’s off. MR. MAC EWAN-You definitely have to have this drawing revised. MR. CREEDE-Well, we just try to do these as simple as we can. These are just simple schematics. MR. MAC EWAN-But if you’re presenting the drawing for review and the drawing’s done to scale, and the scale doesn’t match up with it, I mean, I could understand if it’s off six inches a foot or so, but on the overall length here, one of the cribs, I mean, you’re off by, I’m measuring it right now at 39 feet, and you have it noted as being 32. That’s a pretty significant difference. MR. CREEDE-Well, all I can say is that we’re going to be building the dock according to what numbers you have listed here. A drawing is a drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-But, you know, for the review process, and for the Building Inspectors who go out and inspect the site, I mean, down the road, I mean, I know what you’re conveying to us now, but we’re not the ones who are going to be doing the inspection of the dock. It’s going to be one of the Building Inspectors who are going to go out, and it could be interpreted, when you get out there and say, gee, no, it’s 39 feet, throw a scale on it, that’s what it is. I don’t know how it got 32, it must have been a mistake or vice versa. I mean, he could come out and say to you, well, why have you got 32 when you’re supposed to have it 39? Do you understand what I’m saying? MR. CREEDE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So as far as documentation, and for record keeping, I would ask for anyway, my request would be to have the drawing accurately depicting the overall lengths here, what you’re looking for. MR. PALING-And the overall height. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Because it doesn’t depict it right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you all set? MR. CREEDE-Okay. I can understand that, that it doesn’t, but I’ve gone through these processes, I mean, you’ve seen my face here every year for how many years, okay. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. PALING-You’re diagram doesn’t even specify a height and the scale is wrong. MR. CREEDE-Okay, but why are you bringing this up now, when I have done this. MR. PALING-Why shouldn’t we bring this up now? We would bring this up to anyone who comes before this Board. MR. CREEDE-Okay, but why wasn’t it done in the past? MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve not noticed a discrepancy in your drawings that you’ve submitted on past applications. MR. CREEDE-Well, this is the same drawings that we’ve done over and over in the past. I wouldn’t have brought you something, you know that’s trying to misrepresent what we’re trying to do here. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not suggesting that. It was just an error. We just want to get it corrected. That’s all. MR. CREEDE-Okay. Well, we’ll try to correct that in the future for you. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re going to want it corrected on this drawing. When you get ready for your building permit, submit for your building permit, should you get your approvals tonight, we’ll ask that you have the revised drawing depicting the lengths. MR. CREEDE-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-Yes. I think we should have an acceptable drawing. This gentleman there has been before the Board many times, and I can recall every one that’s ever been before here has testified to the height, or the overall height of the structure, and always to the length and width and location, and we’ve got a drawing here that at least in two cases doesn’t picture what you’re trying to tell us, whether you’ve been here before or not, and I think if you have, you’ve been asked this before, and I’m surprised that you do it like this. MR. CREEDE-This is news to me, okay. The last time I was here, as a matter of fact, I think you were the one to ask, as long as the structure isn’t more than 14 feet from the mean high water mark, it’s a go. Okay. I mean, that’s pretty cut and dry. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we can put this to bed very simply and say that if we have missed something in previous applications that you’ve represented, shame on us for not catching it. We caught it this time. It’s not a big issue. We just want it for housekeeping, so that records done in the future will indicate exactly what was built, so we have a record that’s accurate of it. It’s required in the Ordinance. That’s what we’d like to have. I don’t consider it a big issue. Lets move on. MR. CREEDE-Okay. Very good. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add, John? MR. CREEDE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have a letter. Okay. It’s addressed to Cathy LaBombard, “I reviewed the Worts application for removal of an existing boathouse and a portion of existing wharf and construction of a new open-sided boathouse and wharf. I have discussed the application with both Dr. Worts and Mrs. Worts. The existing boathouse is directly in front of my house. I am certainly in favor of the proposed location of the new boathouse. I would have preferred that the existing wharf not be reduced in size. The existing configuration provides a measure of ice protection, not only for 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) another Worts wharf, but for my property as well. His preference notwithstanding, I have no objection to the application as submitted.” This is addressed from John N. Boomer. That’s all. MR. SCHACHNER-I think we should just point out, just for the public record, this is a letter that was faxed to the Planning Staff, and it’s a beautifully typed letter that is not signed and is not pretended to be signed. So I guess I would suggest you not place any great weight on that letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to entertain a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-98 DR. HOWARD WORTS , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: With the following provision: That a drawing be prepared and submitted with the application for building permit, and that drawing meet all the applicable requirements of Supplemental Regulation 179-60, entitled Shoreline and Wetland Regulations. That the motion is based on the resolution as it is written by Staff, and that the drawing depict the height of the boathouse, up to the top of the small railing that’s on the top of it, and the dimension of the 37 foot versus 32. Those are the two dimensions we’re looking for on the drawing, particularly, but the drawing should accurately be scaled to what is going to be built. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 49-98, DR. HOWARD WORTS for modification of existing wharf and construction of new open sided boathouse, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/98, consists of the following: 1. 8/25/98 - Application and maps dated 8/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes 2. 9/11/98 - LGPC permit 3. 9/9/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/24/98 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. 49-98, DR. HOWARD WORTS. 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. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Sorry about the confusion. MR. CREEDE-No problem. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL TYPE: UNLISTED WENDY STEWART OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF LOT 4 OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BRAESIDE SUBDIVISION (2-87) INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.00 ACRES AND 2.183 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 3.183 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WENDY STEWART, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1998 - Preliminary & Final Stage, Wendy Stewart, Meeting Description of Project: Date: September 24, 1998 “ The applicant proposes to subdivide Lot 4 Staff Comments: of the previously approved Braeside Subdivision into two lots. Staff recommended the applicant provide a map showing a house, septic, well and access to the site at sketch plan. The applicant provided an updated drawing, however, slopes in the area of the house site and access are in excess of 10%. Section A183-24 - Layout of Lots in the Subdivision regs indicate the grades between the pavement and setback line shall not exceed 10%. Additionally, Section 179-65 - Soil Erosion Standards requires the slope of a driveway not exceed 10% and maximum cut or fill of a residential lot shall not exceed six (6) feet. Staff has requested an individual lot grading to demonstrate that the proposed one acre parcel will adhere to the Section 179-65. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-However, he has submitted a new drawing that moves the location of the driveway. MR. MAC EWAN-Flipped it, mirrored it, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and that addresses my concerns about lot grading. My concern was about the driveway and the 10%, and now he can meet that 10%. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a new drawing? th MRS. MOORE-September 12. th MR. VOLLARO-September 12 drawing. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Originally it was opposite, closer to the property line. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MS. STEWART-Good evening. Wendy Stewart. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we have everything pretty much in order. Did we determine that, in our conversations today, that a note had to be on there for the erosion control? MRS. MOORE-It should be on there. MR. MAC EWAN-Make sure that, prior to the plat coming in for a signature, it has the note on there for soil erosion control measures, according to New York State DEC. It’s a standard boilerplate that your surveyor should put on there. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. PALING-Just a comment, to make sure this doesn’t bounce. The original print was stamped and signed by McCormack, and the revised print is stamped, but unsigned. Is that all right, going to get through? See, the stamp is here, but it’s not signed. The other, the original is signed. I just don’t want to see it get through and then bounce because of that. MR. MAC EWAN-I would think prior to being signed, it has to be signed by the engineer. MR. PALING-I don’t think you want to process it without a signature. MR. SCHACHNER-The stamp is signed. The stamp is what counts. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment regarding this application? Any letters? MRS. MOORE-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, Short Form. MRS. MOORE-They submitted a Long Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They did? All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WENDY STEWART , 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 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE WENDY STEWART , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Approved as written. As written. That the final plat needs to have the DEC soil erosion control note on it prior to submission for signature. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 7-1998, WENDY STEWART for subdivision of lot 4 of the previously approved Braeside subdivision into two lots of 1.00 acres and 2.183 acres, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/31/98, consists of the following: 1. Application with Map F-372 revised 9/12/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/24/98 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 Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 7-1998. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1998 FINAL STAGE WENDY STEWART , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written. That the final plat needs to have the DEC soil erosion control note on it prior to submission for signature. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 7-1998, WENDY STEWART for subdivision of lot 4 of the previously approved Braeside subdivision into two lots of 1.00 acres and 2.183 acres, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/31/98, consists of the following: 1. Application with Map F-372 revised 9/12/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/24/98 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 Final Stage for Subdivision No. 7-1998. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MS. STEWART-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-98 TYPE: II WILLIAM M. DUTCHER OWNER: DANIEL GWINUP ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: 1374 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE FORMER GWINUP’S STORE AND RESIDENCE TO AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH RESIDENCE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 52-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES SECTION: 179-25 BILL DUTCHER & PATTY GARRAND, PRESENT 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-98, William M. Dutcher, Meeting Date: September 24, 1998 Description of Project: “ The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building for a residence and Staff Comments: a professional office. All uses in the NC-1A require site plan review. The applicant met with staff prior to submission and has complied with the site plan review requirements. The proposal identifies approximately 1500 square feet of gross leasable floor area (GLFA). Twelve (12) parking spaces are required - 1 per each 150 sq. ft. of GLFA (10), and 2 per the residential use.” MRS. MOORE-The County approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. DUTCHER-Good evening. MS. GARRAND-My name is Patty Garrand. MR. DUTCHER-I’m Bill Dutcher. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the proposed usage. MS. GARRAND-We were looking to purchase this property to change it into an office for the current Americade. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any alterations you anticipate? Basically you’re going to move in and? MR. DUTCHER-We intend to make the interior contemporary. It’s currently the way Orly Gwinup left it several years ago, and it needs gutting and updating, modern electrical systems, modern heating system, modern walls, floors. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How much parking do you anticipate that you will require for the site? MR. DUTCHER-We have four employees. MS. GARRAND-We’ll require or that we’ll be needing? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I guess I’m trying to find out exactly how much traffic you plan to generate at the site. MR. DUTCHER-Infinitely less than there was when it was a retail store. We operate in kind of a quiet manner, and we have every intention to continue in that manner. As I said in a jocular manner to Warren County Planning, if we could operate with no sign whatsoever and let people think that it was an old grocery store that hadn’t changed, that would also be fine with us. They asked, at one point, are we going to stage any Americade events there, and I assured them a hearty NO. We like to do our administrative work quietly and uninterruptedly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. PALING-Just clarify on your drawing. You’ve got three different parking spaces. I can see two of them. How many spaces does that add up to when you add those together, all the parking? I’m looking at the sketch which says Page 02. MS. GARRAND-I don’t have a copy of that, I don’t think. Are you looking at the tax map? Yes. MR. PALING-Now I see parking up near the building, and I see parking to the right of it, which accounts for about three spaces. MS. GARRAND-Well, the two in front are the two for the residential, that’s two in front of the garage. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s two. All right. Keep going. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MS. GARRAND-And the ones on the side are the four that we intend to use for the employee parking. It doesn’t show four, but it’s just a block of parking, and then in front would be any customer parking or sales parking that we would have but we normally don’t even have that. MR. PALING-All right, but you’ve got six spaces out back, and your balance are in the front for customers? MR. DUTCHER-Exactly. MR. PALING-Fine. MR. DUTCHER-Incidentally, it would be my intention to examine the possibility of putting some sort of a road break between the front of the store and the road right now because frankly it’s quite noisy, with trucks roaring up that road right in front of Gwinup’s store, and I’m going to pursue with the Town whatever is possible by way of, perhaps a low shrub or something to kill the terrific racket that comes from trucks roaring by, but that’s not critical to the mission. That’s just what I’d like to do. We may do that next spring after we get moved in and sorted out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s a great idea. MR. VOLLARO-In the description of the project, you talk, at the very end it says, will change the office building with residence. Is anybody planning to live there? MR. DUTCHER-Nobody plans to live there. However, there are three bedrooms upstairs, and were I in a situation where I were commuting back and forth, it would be nice to have the option of spending a night or two there. I certainly don’t, at the moment, have a plan to live there on a permanent basis. I would not, I would specifically not plan to live there on a permanent basis, but might avail myself of the fact that the facilities are there, if I had to do an overnighter. MR. VOLLARO-In connection with that, with the residency aspect of the thing, there’s a facsimile thing here from Tom Jarrett to a Patty Garrand and Bill Dutcher, dated 8/14/98, and it says, Bill and Pat, “Reviewed test results last night. Results from the tank excavation show no evidence of leakage…..Kitchen tap results are not encouraging. In my opinion, there is some type of contamination present. Not surprisingly, the contamination looks similar to that I’ve seen in relation to municipal landfills, with the exception that iron is usually elevated in landfill leachate.” And it goes on to talk about that. Do you have any comments on that at all? MR. DUTCHER-Yes. We are going to be drilling a well, very shortly. Assuming that we get permission from you folks to go forward with this project, we plan to close in the near future, and then immediately upon that, we would have a well drilled. If the output of the well is still subject to the possible problems of being adjacent to the County landfill, it’s our intention to merely drink bottled water, as we have been doing forever. Speaking to Tom Jarrett, he said, in fact, it is legally drinkable, but if it were his family, he would choose not to drink it, and I would certainly share that concern. Bottle water is fine. If we had to use it for flushing the toilets, and if it didn’t pass muster, the intention was just to use it for flushing the toilets, primarily. Again, if I should happen to overnight there, I conceivably might use the upstairs shower, but it’s not something I’m looking forward to. MS. GARRAND-I think the other possible problem with that test was we found, after the fact, that it does run through a water softener, the kitchen tap does, and that that could be some of the results of the high readings there. MR. DUTCHER-But in any case, we’ll be getting a new water source, because part of the deal is that we cease using the water supply which currently comes from Dan Gwinup’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you suppose that some sort of in-house filtration system would take care of a lot of the contaminants that are coming in? MR. DUTCHER-I guess we’ll have to wait to see what we get out of the new hole. Certainly, when you’re drilling a hole, from what I’ve been told, all bets are off and you see what comes out. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess a question for Staff on this is that, this is the first time I’ve ever seen this kind of report come across in front of us. What provisions does the Town have for assuring the quality, let me back up. What provisions do we have that would kind of be like a triggering mechanism to ensure that people don’t move into a situation where we have the potential for 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) contaminated water? I mean, like our Town Board acting as the Board of Health, I mean, do we have any regulations and procedures that they need to follow, as far as testing water or something like that, to assure that it is safe for consumption? MR. SCHACHNER-The local Board of Health’s jurisdiction is principally septic and sewage. MS. GARRAND-They have approved that. MR. MAC EWAN-New York State has? MS. GARRAND-There is a report in there from New York State DOH. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t see it in my packet. That’s why I was asking. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it, either. MS. GARRAND-That’s part of what we sent to Tom Jarrett to review. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Maybe if we don’t have it, you can get an extra copy of it. Do you have a copy of it, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Not from DOH. I just have the testing results from the HES. I mean, these are DOH standards. MR. MAC EWAN-And you said that they have tested the water? MS. GARRAND-They have told us that the reports there are from the water test and from the soil test that they did for us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Who’s “they” who told you that? MS. GARRAND-The Gwinup’s, I believe. We sent over to Tom Jarrett reports of the water test and the soil test. MR. SCHACHNER-The tests are the result of a private environmental testing company called Hudson Environmental Services, HES. I think what we’re trying to find out is, I understood the applicant say there’s also something from the New York State Health Department or there is not? That was understood the applicant say there’s also something from the New York State Health Department or there is not? That was my confusion. I don’t know about the Board’s. MS. GARRAND-I’m sorry. I thought that that’s what those were. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. It sounds like we don’t have anything, actually, from the Health Department. It sounds like. MR. MAC EWAN-Should we require it? MR. SCHACHNER-If you were approving, for example, a single family residential lot for a new single family residential construction, and this was brought to your attention, one of the concerns is that the residential lot have adequate septic, well, you know, or some sort of water source, and you would be within your authority to, if you knew that there was a water problem, you would certainly be within your authority to ask an applicant to provide something like, the “that” I’m referring to being the Health Department letter. The district office is run by Brian Fear right here in Glens Falls and they typically are willing to get involved in something like this. This particular applicant, first of all, we have an existing structure, not a new single family residential lot. This particular applicant is evidently indicating that he intends not to use this on any kind of full time basis as a single family resident. The principal basis for site plan review here, as I understand it, is the commercial aspect. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-The commercial aspect of the building. So that’s a long winded way of saying it’s kind of up to the Board. If you want to say that you’re approving this for it’s commercial use and limited residential use, I think that’s within your site plan review authority, and that’s what I’m hearing from the applicant. If you want to require Health Department 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) correspondence to indicate that the drinking water meets standards, it sounds like the applicant would be willing to get that also. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, for me, I’m only thinking of your well being. MS. GARRAND-We currently have a water bottle that we use. I mean, we don’t even use tap water in where we are now. MR. DUTCHER-Yes. So it’s our intention to continue to drink bottled water, unless this new well that we are now forced to get anyway, in other words, the water test that you’re looking at is totally irrelevant, because we’re going to end up getting a different water source within the next month because we have to, as terms of the sale from Gwinup to do so. So it’s a new ball game when we drill the hole, and obviously well being. MS. GARRAND-We currently have a water bottle that we use. I mean, we don’t even use tap water in where we are now. MR. DUTCHER-Yes. So it’s our intention to continue to drink bottled water, unless this new well that we are now forced to get anyway, in other words, the water test that you’re looking at is totally irrelevant, because we’re going to end up getting a different water source within the next month because we have to, as terms of the sale from Gwinup to do so. So it’s a new ball game when we drill the hole, and obviously we’re concerned that what comes out of it is potable, but if it isn’t potable, we’ll continue to drink bottled water and use it for flushing toilets and taking showers. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, could we limit this to just the commercial aspects of it? Because when you say a “limited residential use” I don’t know how to, what is that, four out of seven days, three out of seven? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It creates a difficult enforcement issue, certainly. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We could just treat this as a commercial, now if he wants to overnight in a commercial building, dealer’s choice, I guess. MR. PALING-Yes, but this is a commercial building that the public uses, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s what’s kicking me. MR. PALING-You have people from the public coming into the building? MR. DUTCHER-Just our employees. MR. PALING-Employees only? And you’ll put a sign up that says, the water’s not drinkable? MR. DUTCHER-We certainly could. MR. PALING-I would be more comfortable with drinkable water there, but if it’s permissible to do this. MR. DUTCHER-We don’t want to see the public. We want to work quietly at our computers like we do right now. We have no desire to see the public. MR. PALING-Yes, but if somebody gets a quick drink of water, they might get sick. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask this question. Who was it that told you that the water was drinkable now and it passed the test? MS. GARRAND-Well, if you read Tom Jarrett’s report. MR. DUTCHER-Tom Jarrett’s report. MS. GARRAND-Read the bottom of it. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s he basing that on? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. DUTCHER-That’s right. That’s based on the water coming from Gwinup right now, which, as it turns out, is irrelevant, as I was mentioning, because as terms of the sale with Gwinup, he insisted that we drill our own well and not use the water from his property. His residence is that water. MR. MAC EWAN-In his fax to you, quickly, “may wish to inquire who ordered the test and why, and also may wish to check with the lab and see if the organic contaminants are significant. (they are at very low levels)” He’s not really putting a stamp of approval on that at all, saying that it’s drinkable, that it’s acceptable, that it’s been passed by any health organization that’s reviewed or tested it. So I guess what I’m kind of concerned about, this is just from my point of view here, is that I would want to see you start inhabiting a building that could potentially have a hazard, health hazard in it with relationship to the water, but I’d be willing to do, for my own peace of mind, is that you get the water tested, the current tap water that you have in the house now, get it tested, and it passes a New York State approved testing facility of some kind, whether it’s Hudson Environmental testing. MR. DUTCHER-We’re not going to use that water. Regardless. MR. MAC EWAN-But even if you dig a new well. MR. DUTCHER-Right, which we have to do. MS. GARRAND-Then we can get the test done. It would be silly to have the test done now. We’re not even going to be in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s what I’m saying. Okay. Maybe we’re missing each other here. The new well that you’re proposing to put in. My concern is that, if this well that’s there now is down 75 feet, and you go down 125 feet, are you still going to run into the same problems? MR. DUTCHER-You can bet we’re going to test it. I wouldn’t drink something that came out of a well in that area without getting an incredibly clean bill of health. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my worry. MR. DUTCHER-I have no desire to subject myself or my employees to a question mark. So obviously we’re real concerned with what comes out of the new hole, but we aren’t going to know what it is until we dig it. We were mostly concerned that there might have been some cross leakage from the gas tanks that were taken out, but the gas tanks got a clean bill of health when they were taken out by DEC and Hudson testing. MR. MAC EWAN-The interesting thing about this is that if this site has water problems, how many other homes up around there have water problems. MR. RINGER-This water’s coming from the house next door. MR. DUTCHER-Yes. MS. GARRAND-Which is currently a residence. MR. RINGER-Which they’re using. MR. DUTCHER-Yes, which has been a residence for a family for decades. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I have a public hearing scheduled for tonight. Does anyone wish to come up and comment regarding this application? Any letters? MRS. MOORE-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to put something out. Trying to think of how to get around the water issue? MR. RINGER-I really don’t know that the water issue is ours. They’re going to be drilling a well, and it’s going to have to meet some specs when they drill it. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, can you maybe enlighten us a little bit about that? If we gave an approval tonight without any conditions attached to the quality of this new well that they’re going to install, certainly in order for them to inhabit it, they have to have certain levels of acceptance by the State, right, when they get tested? MR. SCHACHNER-For their Certificate of Occupancy, they would have to demonstrate. MR. MAC EWAN-Regardless whether it’s a commercial or a residential use? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe so. MRS. MOORE-I believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. MR. PALING-Don’t they have to meet a certain level of water quality? MRS. MOORE-They would have to apply to the DOH. MR. PALING-What are we even talking about then? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re trying to get squared away. I just want to be clear about this. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think the “what if” you’re playing is what if it doesn’t meet that. MR. MAC EWAN-If it doesn’t meet that, lets suppose he digs his new well and the new well is just as bad as what’s currently there now, does the Department of Health have a certain set of minimum standards to say, okay, this doesn’t meet our standards, therefore somehow you get triggered in the Town that says, it didn’t pass the water test, so therefore you can’t issue a CO until some sort of mechanism is put in place to guarantee quality water? MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure about that, with commercial units. That I’m not sure. MR. SCHACHNER-The Building Department people that issue the Certificates of Occupancy would know the answer to that question. MR. MAC EWAN-It certainly would seem to be reasonable that if a condition was put on approval, that some sort of means could be met, whether it be a filtration system that you would have to install or something like that, for the water system. MR. DUTCHER-Yes. Lets play worst case scenario. Say the stuff that comes out of the ground is petroleum. We certainly would, any intelligent human would continue to drink bottled water, and it wouldn’t be suitable for a residence, because you couldn’t trust the little kids not to suck it out of the tap, I suppose. Fine. We only intend to use it as a professional office anyway. So, up to the point that it became suitable for habitation, that would be the point at which we might, at some point in the future, want to sell the building, and if the water were drinkable, then it would be useful for habitation or not. MR. MAC EWAN-If your new well proves not to have the quality of water that you’re looking for to meet the Department of Health standards, a filtration system or something that you would entertain, even if it wasn’t required by the State? You can get these in-house filtration systems that you put right in your main water line for a few hundred dollars. MR. DUTCHER-If it was a few hundred dollars, I suppose we would do it, sure. That would be more desirable, but frankly, I would feel more comfortable with my staff drinking bottled water, rather than some substandard water that was made less noxious by a filtration system. I would still feel more comfortable with us drinking something that we trusted the purity of, but if it was a 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) couple of hundred bucks one way or the other, sure, stick it in the line. We’d still drink the bottled water. MR. VOLLARO-I think this thing pivots on the Certificate of Occupancy. I guess my question is, would they be able to get a Certificate of Occupancy on water that doesn’t pass the New York State Department of Health criteria? MR. SCHACHNER-As a residence, probably not. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, as a residence, probably not. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I don’t think we know the answer for a commercial. We, sitting here at this table, don’t know the answer for a commercial, and we’re not the people that issue Certificates of Occupancy, but one approach here is to look at this as a proposed commercial use, and either not approve it for residential use, or approve it for residential use, if that’s your pleasure, only on condition of having a water test that does pass, and the applicant doesn’t sound very interested in this residential use thing, especially in the short term. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. That could probably save a lot of hassle. I’d be willing to do that. Would you be willing to do that? MR. DUTCHER-Would you re-state it? I think I understand it. MR. MAC EWAN-Granting an approval for commercial use only, with the determination that if at any time it’s to have a residential use of any kind that the water quality needs to pass New York State standards? MR. DUTCHER-Sure, with the assumption that, if I chose to over night, that I’m not going to be manacled and dragged away to the local calaboose. MR. MAC EWAN-As long as you don’t drink or bath. MR. DUTCHER-Yes, right. Don’t catch them drinking or bathing. Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How does everybody else feel about that? Doable? Someone put a motion for it, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-98, WILLIAM DUTCHER , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: In accordance with the resolution as submitted by Staff, with the following provisions: That this approval of the site plan be based on commercial use only, and that if a residential use is to be used, that the water quality must pass New York State standards, in order to qualify for residential use. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 48-98, WILLIAM DUTCHER for proposal to change the former Gwinup’s Store and residence to an office building with residence, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/25/98, consists of the following: 1. 8/25/98 - Application with attachments Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes 2. 9/22/98 - Rec’d revised map 3. 9/9/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/24/98 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 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) 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. 48-98, WILLIAM DUTCHER. 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-With the following provision. That this approval of the site plan be based on commercial use only, and that based on testing of a future well to be drilled by Mr. Dutcher, and that tests be performed by the New York State Department of Health. If the tests prove satisfactory, then the building can then be used for residential use, and the Certificate of Occupancy should also be based, if the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re getting too bogged down here. I think we can simplify it and say, lets approve Site Plan No. 48-98 for a commercial use only. That if a residential use is to be used, that the water quality must pass New York State standards before it can be used for residential purposes. Is that safe enough? MR. PALING-But that this resolution does not automatically grant a permit for residential use. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I said commercial only. MR. PALING-Well, yes, but then you qualify it later on. I think you ought to add that. Because you say if the water’s okay they can use it for residential purposes, and I don’t think you mean that. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I said the water quality must pass New York State standards, before it can be used. MR. PALING-No, in order to qualify it for residential use. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So be it. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DUTCHER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 50-98 TYPE: UNLISTED WEGMAN CO., INC. OWNER: R. GEORGE WISWALL CHARLOTTE WISWALL ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: EAST SIDE WOODVALE ROAD BETWEEN GLENWOOD AND COUNTRY CLUB APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 84 UNIT ADULT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. ALL USES IN MR ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 8-1998 BEAUTIFICATION COM.: 9/7/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-21.1 LOT SIZE: 7.38 ACRES SECTION: 178-23 TOM NACE & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff before we go too much farther, because the subdivision has not been approved, can we go ahead and review and approve the site plan? MRS. MOORE-Chris Round wrote you a memo that indicates that you can do so. MR. RINGER-Chris wrote us a memo? Have we got it? MRS. MOORE-No, the only copy is in Craig MacEwan’s hands. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If the Zoning Administrator says it’s okay, it’s okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 50-98, Wegman Co., Inc., Meeting Date: September 24, 1998 Description of Project: “ The applicant proposes to construct an 84 unit Adult Assisted Living Staff Comments: Care facility. All uses within an MR-5 zone require site plan review. The applicant has provided a set of building plans that show architectural style and elevations. The use appears to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The applicant has implied that the site would not generate large amounts of traffic due to the clientele (very few to none may have access to a personal vehicle). However, the applicant should ensure that the road can accommodate delivery trucks and truck access from Country Club Road and Glenwood Avenue. The Beautification Committee has indicated that the landscape plans were acceptable and would recommend not deviating from the submitted plan. The site is an open meadow with some trees along the property line. Staff would recommend additional plantings to break up the visual impacts of such a large building. The site plan was referred to Kip Grant, Fire Marshal for turning radius and other fire related concerns. In addition, the plans may be reviewed by the local EMS/Fire Dept. in regard to access. Staff is waiting for correspondence from local EMS/Fire Dept. and the Fire Marshal.” MRS. MOORE-I do have some conditions that the fire company did have a comment on, but I’ve talked to Tom Nace about them earlier today. Do you want me to list them? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, for the record. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Fire was looking for a re-location of the hydrant to the entrance of the facility. Two, they’re looking to re-locate the connection to the front of the building. I don’t know if you want me to reference location where they are. MR. MAC EWAN-No. You’re just reading generalities, because you’ve got a copy of it. MRS. MOORE-And, Three, re-configure parking area to accommodate turning radius of fire trucks near the canopy, and that goes for the height of the canopy, for EMS access. The fire company would like to have a drive aisle behind the west wing, and that’s for trucks to be able to have a hard surface, so they can have access to the west wing, and then the last thing was emergency exits that are located in the rear should have some pathways, and I have a letter from the Warren County Department of Public Works. Do you want me to read that into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is addressed to Chris. “Warren County has traffic related concerns with the 84 unit assisted living facility proposed on Woodvale Road, due to its connection on either end to Warren County roads. Both Glenwood Avenue and Country Club Road have seen a large growth in traffic over the past few years. We feel that their intersection with Woodvale and traffic generated from the proposed site will be a problem without proper mitigation. We would like to request that a traffic impact study be completed for this site, and any roads affected by it.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a fairly general letter. Do they have any basis for substantiating those concerns? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MRS. MOORE-When I discussed it with Lisa, she was concerned about the weekend traffic, but I do have letters from Tom Nace today that addresses those comments. The Warren County Planning Board did approve this. MR. VOLLARO-When Warren County approved this, they said Staff is concerned about depth to groundwater and associated impacts. What’s the significance of that statement? MRS. MOORE-That was Warren County staff concern. I didn’t call them up and ask them what this was in regard to. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered in a minute. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Was this sent to Rist-Frost for their review? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it was. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments from them? MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s addressed to Mr. Round. “We have reviewed the document submitted with the above referenced application, and have the following comments. 1. Water and sewer connections are subject to the approval of the Town Water and Wastewater Departments. 2. Entrance and exits are subject to approval of the Town Highway Department. 3. Fire access should be reviewed by the Town Fire Marshal.” MR. MAC EWAN-Did you read in the Department of Wastewater’s letter as well? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you, please. MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Tom. “Please refer to the following comments in reference to the Wegman’s assisted living project. I. Sheet SP-6: A. Sanitary manhole detail; the manhole ring and cover should be brought to a final grade by concrete riser donuts or manufactured rubber adjusting risers. (No bricking) B. Grease trap detail; all seams must be mortared with nonshrink grout. Inlet and outlet pipes must be core drilled to proper pipe size and have high density polyethylene pipe seals or equal. II. The sanitary mains must be air tested and TV inspected. III. Supply one set of “As-Built” plans of the sanitary sewer mains and manholes.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. With me is Joe McEntee from Wegman Companies, and also here is Jim Miller from Miller Associates, Landscape Architects. Also for the record, I didn’t realize it until you were reading other letters into the record. I have a letter from the Water Department with comments, and I had assumed that they had sent a copy to the Planning Department, but it doesn’t appear that they have. So I’ll give the original, if I can have it back, I’ll give you a copy tomorrow. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is from the Water Department, addressed to Tom. I reviewed your plans for water supply for the Wegman Assisted Living Facility on Woodvale in Queensbury, I would offer the following comments. The water line on both Country Club Road and Woodvale Road should be eight inches to comply with the district’s future needs. I realize that the six inch is probably sufficient for your project. It is Queensbury’s policy to require the developer to install the larger eight inch, and the Water Department will reimburse the difference in cost. However, we must agree on that cost prior to the start of construction. I would suggest that you offer to us a recommendation of the cost differential for approval. A “T” should be placed at the intersection of Country Club and Woodvale with three valve patterns. At the end of the eight inch on Woodvale, place a “T” with a valve and hydrant for future extension of the line to Glenwood Avenue. By placing the hydrant as shown on the diagram, it will allow us to leave the valve there, keeping the 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) 84 units with water, relocating the hydrant as necessary. You should be sure that the eight inch valve is routed to the eight by six “T”. We would recommend, but not require, a six inch valve be added at the “T” to the rear of the building in case the six inch line had to be turned off. It would allow the hydrant to remain in service. Please be sure that the electrical service is installed in a separate ditch from the water. The water main should be six feet deep where it crosses under pavement in the rear of the building to prevent freezing. We would recommend the changes that are listed on Detail Sheet SP-5.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do I interpret that letter that they are asking you to bear the cost of running a new eight inch main from Country Club all the way over to Glenwood? MR. NACE-No. The Town, as has been their policy in the past, is saying that for future planning purposes, they would like the pipe line, as it goes along Woodvale, to be eight inch. MR. MAC EWAN-Only to your site? MR. NACE-Only to our site. Okay. So we will install that as eight inch, and they will pay the cost differential between six and eight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead with your presentation. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me respond to comments first, and then I’ll give a brief overview of the project. I guess first, since we just read Ralph’s comments, I have a letter that I gave a copy to Staff this afternoon, and very briefly it says that we will comply with your request. I’ve addressed it issue by issue, but in essence, all of Ralph’s requests, as far as changes to the water system, we will accommodate, and I have changed the plans accordingly and have transmitted a set of revised plans to Ralph for review. The same with the Sewer Department comments to Mike Shaw. We’ve agreed to do the changes that he’s requested, and we’ve shown those on the plans. The County, let me address the Planning Board thing first. I’m not quite sure where this Staff concern about depth to groundwater and associated impacts came from. I was at the meeting. We discussed the stormwater issues. They were interested in how we were handling the stormwater, to make sure that we weren’t impacting any off site areas, but that was reviewed, and they agreed with the approach, and there was no further concern, once they reviewed that. The County Public Works Department, Highway Department. I talked to Lisa a couple of times. Her initial concern was based on numbers she pulled out of Institute of Traffic Engineers. Unfortunately, she pulled them out for a use category that I believe is elderly housing attached, which is more of an independent type of living facility, where it would be say apartments or condominium type complex inside a village area where there were stores and restaurants, that type of thing, to serve the residents. What we’re talking about is an assisted living facility where the residents need help in their day to day activities. There’s a centralized cafeteria where everybody eats. Very few, if any, of the residents will have cars or the ability to drive themselves. MR. MAC EWAN-And your trip generation numbers came from? MR. NACE-Well, I looked through the current ITE categories, and there is what’s called a congregate care facility, and I wrote a letter, a copy of which I gave to Staff this afternoon, which says in essence, I’ve looked at the traffic generation three ways, one, I said I know how many employees we have. I know those employees will come and leave once a day. I know how many deliveries come to these types of facilities, that the same developer owns in other places, and I know how many visitors they have experienced at their other facilities, and the total number of employees is 29, total deliveries is two to three per day, and total visitors are 20 to 30 per day, and if you add all those together, multiply by two, so that there’s one trip in when they arrive and another trip in when they leave, you come up with a maximum generation of 124 trip in’s per day. With the Wegman Companies, Joe faxed me information to day, which I’ve attached, which are actual counts they took at one of their other facilities over the period of a week, and those counts all add up and show that there’s a maximum, actually, during the week on a Tuesday, of 110 trip in’s per day, for a 78, this is a 78 unit facility. We’re 84 units. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s it for, like, on a weekend? MR. NACE-Weekend, I was surprised, Saturday it’s 62 trips, trip in’s, and Sunday is 96. The rest of the week is fairly levelized. Monday is 96. Tuesday is 110. Wednesday’s 98. Thursday’s 102. Friday’s 108 and Saturday’s 62. So, if you adjust that for the difference between 78 units and 84 units, you come up with 119 trip in’ per day, maximum, okay, using the 110 as the maximum they counted during the (lost word). So that corresponds fairly closely with our general logical 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) approach. Then I also looked at ITE Trip Generation rates for congregate care facilities, and if you use those, you come up with the maximum day for an 84 unit facility, being 180 trip in’s. The maximum a.m. peak hour being five trip in’s per hour, and the maximum p.m. peak hour being 14 trips per hour, and I might point out that the ITE numbers, unfortunately, are based on only two studies, and we have no idea what type of, you know, what the facility was really like, that those two studies were conducted at. So I think the correlation between our two approaches that I presented first make those a logical assumption that they’re pretty close to what’s going to happen, but even if you take the ITE numbers, that 14 trips an hour, that’s only one car ever four minutes, at the very peak hour, which is very little traffic, considering the volume of other traffic on both Country Club and Glenwood. This is, it’s very small. So I, personally, don’t feel that there’s an issue here, and that’s, in essence, what I’ve said to Lisa Penistan in my letter, that I feel that we’ve shown that there’s really no need for a traffic study, that it’s not going to tell you anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have copies of all that documentation? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. NACE-They do. Okay. Other comments, let me address, first of all, lets take a little troll through the site, and then I’ll address the fire access issues. I think you’re all familiar with the site on Woodvale. There are no other accesses along Woodvale. On the other side, there’s a strip of land with the NiMo power lines and a substation up here. We’ve set the building fairly far back off the road, to try to establish enough area that we can buffer the parking a little bit from the road. As we go through the landscaping, Jim will show you that we’ve done some berming to try to buffer the parking area a little better. Single access point, into a drive that leads into a covered canopy for dropping off of people. There’s also a by-pass of the canopy that’s available to fire trucks, and that’s what they were talking about, fire trucks coming in and making this swing outside the canopy. It may turn out that we need to pull this island back a little bit to give them a better radius. We’ll check that and review that with them to make sure that they have what they need. As far as the canopy goes and the height for emergency access, that will be handled as part of the building plan review for building permit. The site utilities, there’s no existing sewer or water on Woodvale. We are connecting to the end of the sewer down on Glenwood, and bringing a new sewer line up along Woodvale and into the site. The water, there’s water both on Glenwood and on Country Club, but the Town traverses to connect on Country Club, because that’s the higher pressure side of the system. So we’ll connect here, bring the line down. One of the comments from the fire department was that they would like the hydrant located opposite the entrance, so that when they pull up with their pumpers, they can hook on and then pull the lines in as they come in. So we will accommodate that. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re going to extend the line down? MR. NACE-We will have to extend the line down to do that. MRS. MOORE-Actually, it’s on the other side. It’s actually on the same side of the entrance they’re requesting, because if you hook up on the other side, you’re going to have lines crossing the road and causing traffic, traffic can’t go over the (lost word). MR. NACE-They do that everywhere anyway. That’s common. MRS. MOORE-It’s just a recommended suggestion. MR. NACE-I mean, you don’t have fire hydrants on both side of the road. You run water on one side. We’ll be glad to talk to them about it, okay. If it’s practical, we’ll do it, but we’ve kept the water on this side, as well as the sewer, to stay away from the interference with power lines, and also there’s a drainage swale in here that will still be maintained, that contains some Federal wetlands that we want to stay away from. That’s utilities. This is just a layout plan, but drainage, what we are doing is trying to maintain the existing drainage patterns. A lot of the site, the central portion of the site, along with the whole southern end, drains into a low area that’s just south of the site, and eventually outlets through a very flat drainage way into a ditch line that goes up through the remaining portion of Mr. Wiswall’s property. We’re going to maintain that drainage pattern, in that we’re collecting from a central portion of the site, including most of the building roof, all of the parking and paving in front. We’re running that stormwater, collecting it and running it through a detention basin. So that we can outlet it slowly, at about the same rate that it’s, actually a smaller rate than what it presently does, and that’ll go out and connect into that same ditch line. Some of the site to the north, from about here north, presently drains into, it’s shown on a larger scale, drains into a little, it’s called stream on this plan, but it’s really more of an intermittent 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) stream, ditch line that runs out through Mr. Wiswall’s property to the north here. What we are doing with the area here, we’re allowing that to continue to drain that way. We’re taking just half, the north half of this building roof here, that slopes off, and we’re creating a shallow swale in here, and it shows up on a grading plan, that will help detain that water, and meter it out slowly through a very flat swale, back into the same area that it goes now. The ditch line up along the road will continue to drain the direction is does now. We’re really not adding to it at all. We will have a culvert under the driveway to keep that ditch line from being interrupted. MR. PALING-Is the depth to the detention pond as it is on the print? Is that where it’s going to be? It’s awful shallow. MR. NACE-It is shallow, yes. I’d have to look back at the report, but I think the maximum height of water is something less than two feet. So we’ve made it very flat. It’s designed as dry pond, so that at all periods, except during a storm, it would be dry. It would be mowed. We’ve kept it flat and very shallow slope so that it won’t look like a pond. It’ll look like just a depressed lawn area. MR. PALING-It’s pretty good size, and you must have sized it. MR. NACE-Yes. We sized it so that even at a shallow depth, it can store enough water to meter it back out slowly. I’ll let Jim talk for just a second on landscaping. MR. MILLER-Like Tom mentioned, the location of the building would be set back from the road. One of the points is the land slopes gently to a high point back here, so the building’s actually being set back on top of the hill. The main approach, the main driveway, is laid out in a way, there’ll be a freestanding entry sign, very nicely landscaped, with a sweeping driveway to the main entrance, and we’ve located the parking off to the side, from that driveway, and a service road also forks off and goes around, to create a very dramatic entrance to the building. Also, the way the building is turned, if you look, and we have an elevation of the building, that elevation’s a little deceiving, in that if you look at the shape of the building, what they’ve done in the elevation, they’ve actually stretched it out, so it really appears longer in the elevation, and you’ll see, in the approach, the layout of the building is such that the main approach of coming up Woodvale will be able to be looking right into the main entrance in that main canopy, and will have this fairly formal driveway. The driveway will be lined with sugar maples. Also, site lighting, we tried to develop a site lighting plan that was very much residential in character, and the driveway will be lined with 12 foot high, decorative lights, a traditional style. They’re high pressure sodium. So they’re the warmer light. They’re not the intense white metal halite that you’re seeing being used more commonly now. The parking lot is only 45 cars. Tom mentioned, we have set aside, 45 is the number that’s required, because the residents will not drive. So we don’t need the full 84, and as the one plan showed, there was, we have plenty of green space along the roads and off the south side of the parking lot to accommodate the additional parking, but there’s no need. The parking is also laid out in a way that we have enough green space that we’ve provided islands with green space around it, to create some gentle berms, up to four foot high maximum. So people passing by on Woodvale, what they’ll be able to see is the building rising above, but these berms surrounding the parking lot will be such that it will screen the paved area, and will also substantially screen the cars, and in addition to that, we’ve provided planting along those berms. A fair amount of it is going to be evergreen pine trees, to add to that screening, and then additional shade trees around the parking lot. One of the Staff’s comments was, you know, additional planting, and I think if you look at the number of trees that are being proposed, that for people passing by on Woodvale, it’ll be fairly heavily planted, which will break up that elevation. In addition, we’ve provided additional parking, up along Woodvale and this area, which is sort of two way. We introduced that to screen the sub station from our view and from the resident’s view, and also that will provide some additional softening of anyone approaching southerly. The only other lighting we have in the parking area, in the sense it’s a large area to light, we did have two cut off fixtures, double luminars, and those are only 20 foot high. They’re located directly in the middle of the parking area, so that there’d be a minimum of light spill. One of our other concerns is we don’t want to create light spillage onto the buildings and the rooms. So the parking lot will be lit with cut off lights for efficiency, but the main lighting along the driveway is low level. The service road, the cafeteria is located to the rear, and the kitchen adjacent to it, so that there would be a service road that’ll come off that main driveway through a couple of service doors. The dumpster will be located to the rear. The transformer will be located to the rear, away from the cafeteria side. This is vacant land, lands to be retained by Dr. Wiswall, and we’ve treated that in a similar fashion as we did the other parking area, though. While there’s nothing there now, we anticipate, at some point in the future, there may be some other development there. We’ve maintained an existing high area as a berm, and introduced screen planting of pines and Oak trees along that property line to 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) create a buffer area against that service area, if and when something would ever be constructed to the east, and with that, I’ll give it back to Tom. MR. NACE-Okay. Joe would like to speak just a minute about the building, give you a little idea of what it’s going to look like. JOSEPH MC ENTEE MR. MC ENTEE-Briefly, Wegman Company has developed, owned and operated assisted living facilities throughout New York State for over 25 years. We currently have nine homes that we provide care for, approximately 800 residents, the nearest of which is Colony Manor in the Town of Colony. We touched on traffic before. Out of the 800 residents, when I had checked about three or four months ago, we had six residents who actually had cars, and they probably didn’t drive. They wanted to maintain their cars at the home. Our average resident is about 83 years old, and it’s a need driven lifestyle. The building itself is 52,000 square foot, brick with vinyl siding, and it has included an 84 individual living units, 12 of which are one bedroom. The remainder are efficiencies or studios, approximately 300 square foot, with private bathrooms and kitchenettes. We do have a common dining room and provide three meals a day for the residents. We have various lounges and common areas, t.v. room, activity center, wellness center. We greatly encourage the residents to participate in activities and to socialize. That’s a key reason why people choose to live in a residence such as ours. We’ve done a market feasibility study and determined there is a need in the area for a home such as what we are proposing. Does anybody have any questions on operations or anything? MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. RINGER-Two stories is customary for this type of? MR. MC ENTEE-Actually, most of our other homes are one story. Two story is actually pretty popular. It allows us to have larger rooms. We will have an elevator. MR. RINGER-In relation to Adirondack Manor, how big is Adirondack Manor, how many homes? MR. MC ENTEE-Actually, I think the Adirondack Manor has 64 units, where we have 84. So I’m not sure, square footage wise. MR. RINGER-Adirondack Manor is one story? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. Their room sizes are probably similar. MR. VOLLARO-How does this facility relate to a thing called a health related facility versus a nursing home facility? Those are specific terms, I know, but I’m familiar with, I’ve been through this with my mom. MR. MC ENTEE-Well, and actually “assisted living” is a generic term that covers a number of things. We would actually be licensed as an enriched living facility. The State has different classifications. There’s an adult home or an enriched facility, an assisted living facility is another technical determination, and then a nursing home. It goes in that order, based on the health of a particular resident or patient. MR. VOLLARO-Is this designed to go through the steps or does somebody living there get transferred to some nursing home facility? MR. MC ENTEE-Right. We are not a nursing home, and somebody who can’t maintain a certain amount of health, as determined by our staff, and also by the Department of Health, which does periodic assessments, would have to be transferred to a nursing home. The majority of our residents eventually get transferred to a nursing home, unfortunately, and actually we’ve designed the building to have 20 units, as a special unit for memory impaired, Alzheimer’s residents. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question, just more as to what the services are. I guess I was thinking about something else. You said that you have an adult home, then it comes assisted living, and then nursing home, in that order? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. MC ENTEE-Yes, this is similar to, this would be an enriched living facility, which is similar to an adult home, and it’s for people who need some sort of assistance with daily living, bathing food preparation, medications. We’re not a nursing home, and can’t. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but is there a staff that’s going to be employed? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. There is a staff of dining room help, housekeepers and resident aides. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything like LPN’s or RN’s on staff? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. We would have one nurse on staff, at least, possibly two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So would there be somebody that would stay there overnight, 24 hours, around the clock? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. We have actually three shifts of employees would be there. Residents, based on State requirements, are actually free to come and go as they please, but we lock the facilities at night and have sign out sheets, and need to know the whereabouts of each resident. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’re free to come and go? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. MR. PALING-That’s not a picture of what’s on the print, what you have up here? MR. MC ENTEE-It is a picture when, you don’t get the angle on that. MR. PALING-Okay. Are those air-conditioning units sticking out the front? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. MR. PALING-And it’s the same except that you don’t get the angle of it from there? MR. MC ENTEE-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-What do you mean air-conditioning units? MR. MC ENTEE-Under each window. MR. PALING-And that’s the way you heat them also? MR. MC ENTEE-Individual heating air-conditioning. MR. PALING-That’s heating and air and it’s not a central heating with? No? MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the center building is like the main lounge? MR. MC ENTEE-Correct. When you walk in, there’s a main lounge, a reception area, a living room with a fire place, and if you go directly in the back is the dining room. Upstairs, the large window is a, actually, it’s a chapel and there’s some other common areas upstairs. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there a cellar in this? MR. MC ENTEE-No, it’s built on slab. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll follow up with Bob’s questions regarding your air-conditioning and heating. What you’re looking at from street side is basically great. You’re not actually looking at a unit sticking out of the wall? MR. MC ENTEE-No. They are actually inside the individual unit. MR. MAC EWAN-Do the rooms have, each room, is it equipped for a call system of some sort, so that if someone needs assistance, they’ve got a button, alarm they can throw or whatever? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. MC ENTEE-Correct. Each room has an emergency call system. MR. MAC EWAN-Are any provisions to coordinate yourselves with the Glens Falls Transportation bussing system, so that you have the buses making routine runs up through there? MR. MC ENTEE-We will probably have, actually, a bus that will take residents shopping or to the doctors. We do, at other facilities, and we probably will here. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Anything else that you guys wanted to add? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are each of the rooms zoned individually, with their own heat? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. Each of those p-tack units are individually controlled. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When do you plan to start construction on this? MR. MC ENTEE-Actually, we would like to start doing the site work, hopefully if we get approval tonight, we would start site work in October, and we would like to have the foundations done and a lot of things done before January, and it would be approximately a 10 month building process, and we would like to open the end of next summer. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else have anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there going to be like, I missed it at the beginning, like a walk area? I know you have nice driveways, but a walk area where people could get out and just walk around the grounds, or have a place where maybe they could just go outside, with lawn furniture and things like that? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes. We have that on the front porch, and there are sidewalks. Our residents, for the most part, won’t be, you know, it’s unfortunate, but they won’t be using the bike path, and a lot of things that are, that we’d like them to. The front lounge area and the porch is the congregate area where most people hang out. MR. PALING-You do have sidewalks, though, you said? MR. MC ENTEE-Not going all the way out to Woodvale, but they’re around the building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Around the premises. MR. PALING-They’re not shown in any case, but you’re going to have them? MR. MC ENTEE-Yes, we will. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question for Staff regarding the comments for additional plantings to create pocket parks? MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to be able to break up the visual presence of a large building, and it sounds like Jim Miller demonstrated that when he went through his potential plans. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re in agreement then, we think we’ve covered that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to come up and comment regarding this application? Come on right up and identify yourself for the record, please, so we can get your name on tape. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOTHAR BARCOMB MR. BARCOMB-Good evening. My name is Lothar Barcomb. I’m President of the Homes of Westwood Homeowners Association, and coming here, it was kind of interesting. A few weeks ago, we had a picnic, and George Wiswall and his wife were one of the guests, and he showed us the whole plans of the project, and basically, speaking for the people that I spoke to, there’s no 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) objection at all. We believe that a facility like this is probably necessary, but there’s a reservation that we have about a couple of things. The traffic, I guess, if it’s 120 turn in’s, that’s acceptable. Parking is not a problem. The biggest problem is the property itself, because we live next to it. The field itself is, we have a very high water table there. In fact, on our property also, and when we do have these prolonged rains and heavy downpours, it gets like a lake, and I’d like to know what kind of assurances we have, since the property itself takes up a lot of the soil, covered with asphalt, the water moves, and maybe it’ll be moving toward us and cause a possible problem. What do we do about this? With the buildings, the facility itself, no problem. We like to work with our neighbors, and we’re not coming and fighting everybody, as you’ve seen me before, but this could be a problem for us, and we’d like to know what assurances we have that we won’t be hit with extra water, since our buildings are only about eight inches above the ground. We are concerned. We have here 11 people who came from our complex, and we are not fighting anybody. We just need some answers, and we want protection, and we’re looking to you to help us. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the answer would be appropriate to say that the applicant’s engineering staff has taken great lengths in designing a retention system that will keep the water on site, and infiltrate on site, without going off site, and added on top of that is our own Town engineer, Rist- Frost, our consulting engineers, have reviewed the project, and concur with the calculation that they’ve done and the design standards that they’ve done to ensure that the water will remain on site. I think it would probably be a fair statement to say, given some projects that have happened in past history in the Town, that these are one of the topics that are given very close scrutiny to ensure that we don’t have a repeat of history. MR. BARCOMB-Well, we all know what’s going on with the weather, it’s changed the patterns, we’re getting more and more rain, and living in an area where you have basically a very high water table, this is a big concern. So I’d like to really have a guarantee of some kind, because our people are getting nervous about that. We have water all around us, and losing all of this topsoil to asphalt, driveways and buildings, it might create a problem. Also another question is, the height of the berm. I didn’t hear that before, but will there be a berm across the full length of the building, and how high will it be? Because these are not one level buildings. They’re two story buildings, and we have a kind of a nice place. We’d like to take care of it, and we also like that we are a little bit protected, also. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have the engineer re-address those for you, and comment on those. MR. BARCOMB-And the other thing is the site lighting. I know that was mentioned, but I’d just like to have a guarantee that we don’t get hit by these heavy powerful lights. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BARCOMB-Outside of that, there may be some of our other people have a question. I’m finished. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask one question. On your buildings, they’re built on slabs? MR. BARCOMB-They’re built on slabs, and actually the average building is only eight inches above the ground, and if we do have a lot of water, this could be very serious for us. So it’s a legitimate concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? BILL PRIEST MR. PRIEST-Good evening. Bill Priest. I’m the neighbors of the Wiswalls, and that was one of my concerns, too, is water, all right, this water table, and it’s awful wet down in there, and as the gentleman said here, that this runoff would go down into a ditch and empty into a field in the back, or whatever, does that mean it’s going to empty into my property? He’s saying this water would be running down into this ditch, this runoff water would be running down into a ditch, and then back into the woodlands out in back. Does that mean it’s going to affect my water table out there also? Like I say, I am the next door neighbor. MR. MAC EWAN-Whereabouts do you live? MR. PRIEST-I don’t live there. I own the property there. My mother-in-law lives there. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Whereabouts is the property? MR. PRIEST-39 Country Club Road. MR. MAC EWAN-39, so it’s like the first house? MR. PRIEST-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Up on Country Club? MR. PRIEST-Yes. Like I say, that is a concern, and I’m glad the other gentleman brought it up. MR. MAC EWAN-For you and everyone else, we’ll re-address those, and have them go back over that again. MR. PRIEST-Yes, and then the other thing is, Woodvale Avenue, I don’t know how many of you guys travel that, in the spring time or winter time, that is wet, and sometimes it’s below water. That is below water, at times. So, that’s something you might want to look into. That road is narrow, and if you’re going to have delivery trucks coming in, I mean, should it be wider? I don’t know. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PRIEST-Other than that, I have no problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PRIEST-The water’s the biggest thing. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get you to come back up? Obviously, the overwhelming concern is water retention on site, versus going off site. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me address that first. As I stated, what we are doing with the water is trying to maintain the natural drainage patterns that presently exist. Okay. Presently, there are really kind of three drainage patterns on site. There’s sort of a divide that runs through here, okay, something like that, and a little bit of a divide here. The area to the north presently sheet flows this direction, and the gentleman from Country Club Road lives right up here. Now there’s a drainage ditch/stream/whatever you want to call it that runs down through here, okay, flows this direction. That is between our site and his house, okay, and that drains this area, plus some area up on Country Club, plus a little bit of area across Country Club drains that toward the northeast, and eventually into a brook that leads into Old Maid’s Brook and eventually into Halfway Brook. The major portion of this site presently drains to the south, okay. There’s a low spot sort of in here. It drains into that low spot, and eventually drains back, and up this ditch line, which wanders up through and eventually reaches the same area, the same drainage pattern, into Old Maid’s Brook. For reference, this is 50 scale, the Westwood Homeowners houses are over about in here, which is, there’s 400 feet, 800 feet, I don’t know, maybe 800 to 1,000 feet away from our rear property line. There’s a little front portion of the property that drains down to this ditch line along Woodvale, from about somewhere in here, that ditch line drains very slowly to the south, and eventually flattens out and comes back into this same low area that outlets this direction. So, a good portion of the site presently drains that way, and a small portion to the north drains into this drainage pattern. The soils on the site are clay. We went out and did a whole bunch of test pits, and I can tell you that there is very little, if any, infiltration even occurring now. The soils are classified as what we call in hydrology Group D, which means that a very high percentage of what hits the ground, in the way of rainfall, eventually runs out and doesn’t really soak into the ground. There is some high bedrock up in here. There’s sort of a little knoll of bedrock back in this area that comes up within I think maybe two and a half, three feet of the ground surface. What we are doing, again as I said, is maintaining the existing patterns. We’re taking, and I don’t know whether I have this divided exactly in the right place or not. You’d have to look in the drainage report, but we’re taking this area and bringing it into a detention basin here, and outleting that detention basin back into this same ditch line, okay, and we’ve designed the volume of the basin and the outlet of the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) basin so that it mimics what is presently happening. It mimics the runoff that is presently getting into that ditch line. The same up here. We have a very shallow, very flat swale, north of the building, that picks up runoff from the north half of the roof, and that swale outlets into the area where this presently sheets off and gets into the same drainage pattern. So, in a nutshell, you know, we’re doing everything we can to keep the peak runoff rates below what they presently are. Okay. The other issues were berming. We haven’t considered it necessary to berm, other than to shield some of the parking lot from the road, and there’s some berms, I think Jim pointed out, in the landscaping plan, but you can see them, I think, a little better, and the grading plan, we’ve bermed around the parking lot here and here, here. Along the back, as you can see, there’s a little bit of a knoll here, and if you look at the landscaping plan, there’s a stand of plantings we’ve put in here to provide buffering from that direction, and again, it’s 800 to 1,000 feet over there. So we think that that will be effective. The same with lighting. The only lights of any significance, as far as light spill, are these cut offs, and they’re only 20 feet. So that’s a lot less than, say for instance, what you see down here at Lowe’s, and those would be shielded from people at Westwood by the building itself. The rest of the lighting is very low and typical colonial fixtures. MR. MILLER-The other thing I wanted to mention is if you look at this overall plan for screening, you can see on the lands being retained by Dr. Wiswall, back in this area in here, there’s an old stone quarry and some rock outcrop, and the ditch line runs up in that direction, and it’s an area that Dr. Wiswall has not been able to mow over the years. So you can see there’s an existing stand in that vacant land of trees which provides an additional buffer in that 1,000 foot separation. I mean, it’s not on our property. We don’t control it, but it will be there initially. MR. VOLLARO-I guess what you’re intimating is that the permeable area that’s there now, is about the same as it’s going to be when all of that building is done and all the macadam is put in? Because the present land does not perc at all. MR. NACE-The present land perc’s very little, okay. The soils, if you look at the runoff co- efficients, and I don’t have the report right here in front of me, but if you look at the runoff co- efficients, they’re very high for a field. Normally in a field you get a lot of saturation of the rain. The permeability itself probably does decrease a little bit because of the buildings, okay, that the existing land, like I said, is very impermeable, but the buildings are totally impermeable. So there is some increase in impermeability. What we’re doing is creating the detention to hold that additional runoff back, so it doesn’t go out immediately. So, you know, it waits until the rest of the runoff has had a chance, you know, and again, we’re up at the head of the drainage area, here. So by detaining that and holding it back, we’ve allowed the rest of the runoff to make its way down Old Maid Brook and into Halfway Brook, you know, before the bulk of this is released. MR. PALING-You’re not creating that drainage, that detention area? That’s there now? MR. NACE-No. We are creating it. There is just a low spot in the field that’s down here, that slows the runoff down some, and it’s actually, because that’s there, that’s, you know, existing, slowing the runoff down in this flat area, has made us create even more detention volume than we normally would. MR. PALING-But you’re going to grade to the print, and that’s the new detention area? MR. NACE-That is correct. That is the new detention area that’s up in here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess we could safely say that almost 100% of the water from that site is going to go off site? MR. NACE-Well, not 100%. If you look at the, you know, not knowing the figures. MR. VOLLARO-Well, pretty close. MR. NACE-Yes. Probably in the 80% range, which normally, for a site around here, is high, because we’re used to working in the sands, okay. This is an area that we don’t have our good old Queensbury sands to deal with. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, maybe I’m missing the point here, but isn’t that statement that he just made kind of misleading because what you’re doing, even though most of the water is going to be leaving the site, you’re slowing up the rate that it’s actually leaving the site, significantly more than what’s happening now. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. NACE-That’s correct. We are slowing up the rate. That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-You’re slowing up the rate, Craig, but the total volume is there. The retention pond’s just going to hold it back, so it feeds slower. MR. NACE-Right. Most of the drainage problems we see are ones that are created by intense rainfalls, slugs of water, you know, flooding low areas, and creating those kinds of problems, and that deals with the rate of runoff, okay. We probably will increase, you know, any time you increase the permeable area, you end up increasing the amount of runoff, but you make up for that in your drainage design by holding it back and decreasing the rate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question concerning the same thing we’re talking about here. I still have, would like somebody to address why Warren County is talking about concern of depth to groundwater and associated impacts. Either that, or they’ve mislead with this statement, one or the other. MR. NACE-At the meeting, the Staff had a full set of plans. The individual members of the Board only had a portion here of this plan. So they had no idea what we were doing for drainage, and they had a lot of questions because they knew that the soils in this area are difficult soils. So we went into an in-depth explanation, the same as I just did with you guys. That may have been interpreted into this comment somehow. I don’t know, but when we were all said and done, they understood what we were doing and didn’t have a problem with it. MR. VOLLARO-Laura, could we have that taken out of the Warren County response? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-That has nothing to do with our Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I hear you. If that’s their response, and Tom is saying, well, they just didn’t understand the problem, and I have a problem with that, I mean, a little bit of a dichotomy I can’t resolve in my mind. MR. MAC EWAN-I just don’t think they had all the information to utilize their decision with. That’s all. MR. PALING-I’d just like to make one comment, that I understand what you’re saying about the lack of permeability in the present land and how it won’t be decreased that much, and you’ve designed the stormwater detention area to accommodate that, but I wonder if there isn’t some way to introduce some kind of insurance that in the event there’s excess rain or for some reason the detention pond isn’t enough, that there would be something else done to make it more so, if you will. MR. NACE-There is a lot of freeboard in the detention pond, even at a 50 year storm, a 50 year design storm. It would be possible to put a restricter on the inlet, so that you could actually physically go out and adjust, put in new orifice plates to adjust the amount of, the peak amount of water that was going out of the pond, and still have enough volume to do that. So it is possible, if we experience problems, to go in and adjust the design or adjust the pipe inlet that goes out of the pond, so that you increase the amount of control. MR. PALING-How about digging the retention area deeper? MR. NACE-No, we could not. We’re limited on depth by the elevation of the discharge plain, but we do have, the way it’s designed, there is quite a bit of additional volume that’s available within the pond, okay. So like I say, if there were a problem that occurred, the first thing that would be done would be go into the pond and put a restricter plate on the inlet to the pipe going out of the pond. MR. PALING-That’s the only thing you could do, in so far as changing the existing design. MR. NACE-That’s right. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) MR. PALING-I wish that could be made part of the motion, in some form, and this is only in the event of failure, there is flooding or excess water somewhere. MR. NACE-Yes, and if there is excess, it’s hard to define failure. All that I’ve said is that if we needed to, we could slow down that rate even more by putting a restricter plate on and detaining more water than we are. I think, you know, what I’ve done is a prudent design. It’s a 50 year design storm, and I’m confident that it will work. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it that much more work for you to put that retainer plate on, just for peace of mind? MR. NACE-Well, I wouldn’t put it on initially, because then you’re making the storage depth in the pond deeper than you need to, okay. We’ve kept it shallow because we don’t want a liability issue of a deep pond. So, I’m just saying that if somebody discovered, in other words, I’m saying the design is not so rigid and fixed that if we did find that there was a problem down the road two years, we couldn’t come in and do something about it. There is the ability to do that, if need be. MR. PALING-You wouldn’t have to make that detention area deeper, but you could make it wider. You could flat the sides, or something, I would assume. MR. NACE-Yes, but I don’t think we need to, Bob. I’m confident that there’s enough volume there to do the job presently. I’m just saying that, in the event that something happens we hadn’t planned on, or couldn’t foresee, that there is a way to modify it, very easily, with very little expense to the owner. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s safe to say that if something didn’t work out right, rest assured the Town would come knocking. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m comfortable with all the calculations on the water and the plans to move it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I am, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody else got anything else? We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 50-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WEGMAN CO., INC. 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. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 50-98 WEGMAN CO., INC. , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 59-98, WEGMAN COMPANIES, INC. to construct an 84 unit Adult Assisted Living Facility, and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 8/26/98, consists of the following: 1. 8/26/98 - Application w/Stormwater Management Report 2. 8/26/98 - Maps - SP-1 thru SP6 and A6 thru A6A dated 8/25/98 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. 9/24/98 - Staff Notes 2. 9/21/98 - Rist Frost Comments 3. 9/10/98 - Michael Shaw, Dept. of Wastewater comments 4. 9/9/98 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution 5. 9/8/98 - Lisa Penistan, Warren Co. DPW 6. 9/8/98 - Memo to K. Grant from L. Nowicki 7. 9/98 - Letter from R. VanDusen to T. Nace Whereas, a public hearing was held on 9/24/98 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. 50-98, WEGMAN CO., INC. 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. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/98) 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. th Duly adopted this 24 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: MR. NACE-Excuse me, Craig? Because we’re reserving some of the required parking, in accordance with your zoning, does that require any special waiver or anything from the Board? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so, only because you’re demonstrating that you have adequate space for it on the site plan. MR. NACE-Okay. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you very much. th MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going back to the 17 for site visits? MR. PALING-When’s daylight savings time, the end of October. One more time. th MR. MAC EWAN-So you want to do it on the 15. MR. PALING-Yes, that’s the normal one, right. ththth MR. MAC EWAN-And meetings on the 20 and 27. Bob, for the 8 I’m not going to be here. If George isn’t here, would you run the meeting. I’ll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 37