Loading...
1999-12-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ALAN ABBOTT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 21, 1999: NONE September 23, 1999: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 AND SEPTEMBER 23, 1999, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-The next item is not written on your agenda that you have, but we’d like to discuss Site Plan No 37-99. MR. MAC EWAN-Your five minutes of fame. When we did site visits on Saturday, we happened to go past there, just to see how development was coming on the project, and we noticed that there was no longer a camp standing, which we had approved an addition to. Based on a conversation you and I had today, and some of the comments and questions that the Board members had the day that we were out there, just kind of give us a clarification of what has transpired. MR. ROUND-I guess we’re talking about the Koenig site plan application. There was a building permit for a 40 by 28 addition to a seasonal camp. The application received an Area Variance for height. It was in excess of 28 feet, and they proposed to go up to 32 feet in height. So they’ve requested relief. It was also restricted by a holding tank variance, restricting it to seasonal use, meaning that there will be no heating system installed. The project was that this addition was to be attached to an existing camp and porch structure, and it wasn’t clear, in the public record, whether there was proposed to demolition a portion of the camp that’s out there and as you saw that, as a part of the construction activities, they did demolish the camp that was in existence, and they do not propose to rebuild that camp, and I guess the question was, is the site plan approval void because there’s a significant variance from what was approved. What you approved was a 40 by 28 addition. There’s been no change in that structure. It no longer requires a variance. So it’s no longer necessary. If the application was to come in new, it wouldn’t require, an Area Variance wouldn’t require site plan review. So I guess that’s my understanding. If I could answer a question, to clarify that, I’d be happy to. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a question. To start it off, Mr. Koenig was asked a question by, and said what I wanted to do originally was tear the camp down, and put up a new one, but because of the holding tank, it’s State law, from what the attorney mentioned, you can’t do. So the only thing I can do is put an addition to my present camp, and that’s what the proposal is, that’s what this proposal is. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. ROUND-Right. Holding tanks are allowed, by variance, from the Town Board of Health only in the case of a seasonal use structure, or replacement of a failed system, failed septic systems, and Mr. Koenig is not the authority on what the requirement was, and I think he was paraphrasing it, is he had asked to expand his camp and turn it into a year round facility, and we had indicated you cannot build new construction and use the holding tanks, it’s not allowed, new construction for year round residences, that is. Seasonal residence, if you’re going to build a brand new seasonal use residence, you could request a variance to utilize a holding tank, and that’s what Mr. Koenig did. What he articulated, and what’s reflected in the notes is not the complete picture of the direction Mr. Koenig was given. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the building. MR. ROUND-The building permit’s valid, the septic tank variance is valid. I don’t think there’s anything else out there. From our administrative standpoint, there isn’t an issue with the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. End of discussion. Thank you. RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN NO. 70-99 – GREAT ESCAPE, ACCEPTANCE OF SCOPE FOR DGEIS COMMENT PERIOD EXTENDED – MOVE TO DEC. 28 AGENDA MR. MAC EWAN-And then we’re going to do a resolution, no, we’re not moving it. That’s a typo. We’re not moving it. We’re doing it tonight. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re doing it tonight. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Background on that for us, please? MR. ROUND-Yes. New York State DOT received our Scoping Document, hadn’t had adequate time to meet with the applicant’s consultant on the scope of the traffic analysis that’s going to be performed as a part of this project. We met, last week, with the Consultant with DOT in trying to address what the scope of the traffic analysis would be. We expect DOT’s going to issue their final comments before the first of the year, before whatever date that you establish as the close of the comment period. MR. MAC EWAN-In all fairness, because DOT asked for this comment period to be extended for 10 days. I would move that we extend the comment period to the end of the month, end of this month, for people who were under the impression we were closing out the comment period, what, on the 20 or something. th MR. ROUND-The 13. th MR. SCHACHNER-The 13 was what it was originally. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 13. So now they asked for another 10 days, which would make it the 23. thrd Why don’t we just, in all fairness, round numbers and housekeeping just say until the 31. st MR. ROUND-The 31 is a Town holiday, and we won’t be receiving any mail. The 30 would work stth better for us. MR. MAC EWAN-Make it the 30. That’s fine. th MR. PALING-I’ve got a question on that, on the scoping document. Does this have any effect on our ability to comment on or change that document? MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, can you explain your question. MR. PALING-We still have the option of modifying that scoping document? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It’s your document. As the SEQRA Lead Agency, you, as the Planning Board, are responsible for generating the final scoping document. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MOTION TO EXTEND THE COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE DGEIS SCOPING DOCUMENT TO DECEMBER 30, 1999, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Paling, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE PLANNING BD. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TOWN BD. LEAD AGENT RE: VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK MR. ROUND-The Veterans Field Industrial Park is a project that we anticipate receiving a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on, which you’re now becoming familiar with. We expect that we’ll receive, actually, to back up, they’ve requested, the Town Board circulated notice seeking lead agency status for the SEQRA review for the project. They sent out notices. The Planning Board, as an interested or an involved agency that potentially an approval may come from the Planning Board. The project involves a change in zone. There’s a portion of the property that’s zoned single family that will be zoned, seeking to be zoned Light Industrial. There’ll be a change to the actual Town Zoning Ordinance to reflect a change in allowed uses in the Light Industrial zone. What we’ll be approving, or what the concept is to approve some model site plans for the project to allow a perspective developer to construct a facility with a building permit, and not have to seek site plan approval for that project. So what’s in front of you tonight is just to consent for the Town Board to act as lead agency for the purposes of that review. You will have opportunity to comment on the project, as a part of the public hearing process, and you will be requested to make a recommendation on the change in zone, as you normally do, for change in zones within the Town. MR. RINGER-We won’t be doing a site plan? MR. ROUND-We don’t anticipate that you’re going to be doing a site plan review. You’ll be receiving a site plan, as a part of a zone recommendation, and we’ll look for your comments on the proposed site plan, but you will not be doing a site plan approval for this. MR. MAC EWAN-Or individual site plan review. MR. ROUND-Or individual site plan review. So it’s important that you look at it critically, when the information’s presented to you, because your comments are going to be substantially related to a site plan review, and we want to make sure that we’ve identified those site plan related issues, so that there’s an issue that we won’t have missed as a part of the SEQRA review. MR. SCHACHNER-And keeping in mind that part of the purpose of doing this is so that, ultimately, project applicant’s would be in a position to not require site plan review, so long as they fit within certain parameters. MR. MAC EWAN-“Shovel ready sites”. MR. SCHACHNER-Quote unquote. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Does someone want to introduce the motion? MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 431-99 FOR VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONSENTS TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENT FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Before we get into this evening’s Old Business, I’d like to mention that Hiland Park Overlook is off the agenda this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 54-99 EIS/FINDINGS ACCEPTED (7/2/87) THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOW, INC. OWNER: EDDY PROPERTY SERVICE INC. AND GLENS FALLS HOME, INC. AGENT: DAVID WENDTH ZONE: PUD LOCATION: HAVILAND & 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MEADOWBROOK RDS. FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. APPLICANT PROPOSES A RETIREMENT CENTER CONSISTING OF A TWO STORY APPROXIMATELY 126,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY CONSISTING OF 62 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS AND 44 ENRICHED HOUSING UNITS AND 18 COTTAGE UNITS IN 9 DETACHED BUILDINGS, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING ROADS, UTILITIES, PARKING AREAS, OUTDOOR COURTYARDS AND LANDSCAPING. CROSS REFERENCE: HILAND PARK, PUD BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 46-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 45 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JOE SPORKO, KEVIN HASTINGS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-99, The Glen @ Hiland Meadows, Meeting Date: December 21, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant is requesting final approval of a 126,000 square foot retirement facility containing 62 dwelling units, with 9 detached buildings containing 18 dwelling units, including 44 enriched units. Staff Notes: The applicant’s final plans were found to be in compliance with the PUD objectives and the Town’s regulations. The following comments are based upon review of the final plans and the applicant’s November 1, 1999 letter addressing the Town’s comments: Road, Water and Wastewater The Town’s Highway Department has recommended acceptance of the road. The Wastewater and Water Departments have supplied comments outlining some information needed for implementation. Public concern was expressed in regards to the speed on Meadowbrook Road. Pedestrian Traffic The plans do not identify the sidewalk from the cottage units to the main facility as identified in the November 2, 1999 letter. The Board had encouraged the applicant to include additional walkpaths, the plans do not identify additional paths. Landscaping and Recreation The plans identify a stone wall and signage on the wall. The final plans should identify the scale of the stone wall and the size of the sign. The proposed use is allowed two freestanding signs at fifty square feet located fifteen feet from the property line. The plans identify a gentle slope on the south side of the entrance with generous landscaping. The north side of the entrance outside of the entrance plantings does not include plantings. The landscaping outside of the entrance plantings on the north side should be clarified as to what type of landscaping will be there, such as an open field or a manicured lawn with associated plantings. The applicant has indicated there will be walkways and open space for recreational purposes. Staff would request the applicant formalize an agreement with Family Golf in regards to use of the facility by the residents. Fire Safety The plans were further reviewed by the Fire Marshal and the Building Inspector. They have indicated the planter island at the main entrance may inhibit the larger fire apparatus when gaining access and may also make snow removal difficult. The canopy area with a driveway loop should include additional detail, such as canopy elevation, drive width, and turn-radius. The driveway loop proposed around the main facility should include a graveled drive to complete the loop for Emergency access. Engineering The proposed lighting plan has been forwarded to Rist Frost for review and comment. The lighting plan provides details of location, type and light intensity to be associated with the project. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the plans with the following conditions: 1. The main facility loop road be maintained in a manner to facilitate emergency access around the entire facility. 2. The landscaping on the north side of the entrance area be a maintained field area until a future site plan is reviewed and approved for expansion at such time a landscape plan of the area will be required.” MRS. MOORE-And I have a lot of other letters included, and I don’t know which ones you’d like me to include. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the one from, the fax that was received on December 8 we can skip. It th just denotes that it’s talking about overall build out, I believe it is. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-December 10 letter from the LA Group, as much as you’re going to hate me, th you better read that one in. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read through that, December 10 versus December 16? The thth last time that the LA Group responded was on December 16. th MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, let’s take that one. MRS. MOORE-Okay. A December 16, from the LA Group, addressed to Mr. Round, “Regarding th the December 14, 1999 from Chris Jones, Fire Marshal, concerning the review of the Glen at Hiland Meadows, we have the following comments in response: 1. The existing Town water main in Meadowbrook Road is 12 inches per the approved Hiland PUD utility drawing M-4. 2. A hydrant was located closer to the building in a previous submission, but moved based on comments received from the Town Water Department, which requested that the hydrants be placed on the same side of the road as the water main. It is suggested that the fire company coordinate this issue with the Town Water Department. 3. As discussed previously, the loop road will be completed when the 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) independent living unit expansion is built, along with the adjacent parking for this expansion. There will be no restriction to accessing the path of the future road extension. Furthermore, the subgrade of the road will be graded and drainage will be installed to allow travel over such path, should it be necessary. Also, we are not aware of any code requirement which necessitates access by vehicle to all sides of a building. 4. It is not possible nor desirable to locate the road or the road extension closer to the building. There must be adequate horizontal curvature of the road, space to accommodate the future parking area, detention area, and future expansion of the building, as shown on the plans. With the expansions constructed, the building will lie less than fifty feet from the edge of the road. 5. The center island at the entrance road will provide a pleasant boulevard and serve to help provide some distinction and ambiance for the Glen at Hiland Meadows. These types of boulevard islands are commonly used, and should not impede or restrict emergency vehicle access. There will be a minimum of twelve feet of width at each lane at the entrance and exit, and no restriction to sight distance in either direction. 6. The driveway at the main entrance to the building will be a minimum of twelve feet in width to the outside of the front canopy. Also, the turning radius on the inside of the center island is sized to accommodate fire trucks, so that fire apparatus will be able to pass without restriction from the canopy. Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Joseph G. Sporko for The LA Group, P.C.” Do you want me to finish with the Rist-Frost letter? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-This is dated December 20. “We have reviewed the additional information from th the LA Group, dated December 10, 1999, submitted in response to our comment letter dated November 23, 1999, and have the following comments: 1. The additional information in regards to the interim drywell structures being replaced with permanent catch basins is acceptable. 2. At your request we reviewed the site lighting information provided. The types of fixtures and mounting patterns proposed appear to be reasonable for this type of project. The applicant did not submit a site plan showing light levels so this was not reviewed.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just in the interest of time, because there’s so much documentation that’s going along with this project, any resolution that we should pass tonight will just reference that we’re going to include all these correspondences as part of the resolution. So we’re keeping track of it. Good evening. MR. SPORKO-Good evening MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. DAVID WENDTH MR. WENDTH-David Wendth, Senior Project Manager with Northeast Health and the Eddy. MR. SPORKO-Joe Sporko with the LA Group. LEN ANGERAME MR. ANGERAME-Len Angerame, Angerame Associates. MR. HASTINGS-Kevin Hastings with the LA Group. MR. MAC EWAN-Who wants to go first? MR. SPORKO-I guess I will. Good evening. I think it would be helpful to the Board if I review the letter of the Staff notes, and I will cover those in order, beginning with road water and wastewater comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SPORKO-The first comment, we believe that we have resolved with the Water Department and the Highway Department all the issues. We are still in discussions with the Wastewater Department regarding the sewer main, and I think Kevin Hastings, our Project Engineer, would give a recap of that. MR. HASTINGS-I spoke with Mr. Shaw at the Wastewater Department today regarding the status of the collector sewer within the project site, and according to Mr. Shaw, this should not hold up or impede your Planning Board approval. However, there is some ongoing discussion with whether portions of the sewer will become public collector sewers, and that is being explored right now by the Eddy Group. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Can you elaborate on that? MR. HASTINGS-Well, we’re exploring options as far as whether that sewer through the cul de sac area. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking the sewer main, right? MR. HASTINGS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HASTINGS-The gravity sewer within the street, whether that will become a public sewer. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the road going to be dedicated to the Town? MR. HASTINGS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why wouldn’t it become part of the Town? MR. HASTINGS-The definition of a collector sewer is that it serves multiple residences or private owners, and in this situation, the cottages may not be considered private residences, and therefore it could be a private sewer in the public right-of-way. MR. MAC EWAN-Then if that’s the case, why wouldn’t the Town want to accept your road as a public road? MR. HASTINGS-That’s separate from the utility. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I don’t understand how you can separate one and not the other. MR. HASTINGS-Again, according to Mr. Shaw, there can be private sewers within the public right- of-way. MR. MAC EWAN-He doesn’t make any reference to it in his December 3 letter. Do we have rd anything else, Staff, that he’s referring to? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Shaw spoke with me and reiterated the same things about the sewer line along Meadowbrook Road and in the project. MR. HASTINGS-I might add that we have a number of ways in which we can work this out, and those discussions are ongoing with Mr. Shaw and we would obviously need to resolve those issues, and Mr. Shaw suggested that, and we agree that it’s not an issue that should effect final approval one way or the other. I think it’s an issue that will get resolved with him. There is, I think, some coordination we still have to do possibly with the project next door with us, regarding the sewer. We also have a possibility of continuing a sewer line out to Meadowbrook Road, which was discussed with Mr. Shaw as well. So, these options and these factors we’re continuing discussions with him on. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you would hope that when you get to the point of seeking final approval, that all these items will be, so to speak, signed, sealed and delivered so that you can move on and try to get your final approvals. I just don’t know how, I’ve never had this happen to us before. I don’t know how this fits in the scheme of things. Can you give us some guidance? MR. ROUND-Typically, for a final approval process, issuance of final approval by the Planning Board doesn’t obligate the Town to accept either public highways identified on the plan or potentially public infrastructure, water, sewer lines. Those approvals don’t come until after a Planning Board approval is issued. So you have no way of knowing whether the Town’s going to accept those or not. I think in this case, typically with subdivisions that (lost words) process that occurs. In this case, there’s a debate amongst the Wastewater Department whether they want to accept it. I don’t know if you understand the Town’s position. The Wastewater Department is not sure whether they want to accept this infrastructure, not that the applicant’s not willing to give it to them. So, if they do not accept it, it’s the obligation of the applicant, it’s going to be a further burden on the applicant to maintain those facilities, and the same case with the Highway Department. The Highway Department has given you a note that they recommend acceptance, but the Town Board, again, this is not a typical project. The Town Board may choose not to accept the highway. I think the applicant, on good faith, is relying on the Highway Department’s willingness for the Town to accept the highway, but again, we don’t know that the Town is going to do that. That’s another decision that has to be made by the Town Board. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any other instances in Town where sewer systems, sewer mains are privately held within the Town right-of-way? MR. ROUND-I’ve got to believe that there are, but I can’t throw one at you. It’s not uncommon that we get involved with these issues between, it’s typically in a community type residence, or there’s a homeowners association involved, and where does the private infrastructure end and the public infrastructure begin, and that’s, I think if you’re familiar, I know it’s been an issue with Bayberry or Baybridge and Cedar Court, etc., is where is the lateral, the private responsibility, and where does the collector begin. So it is an issue, and it’s something I don’t think that you’re going to resolve tonight, and that you won’t resolve, even if it was an issue, it wouldn’t be resolved until the Town Board makes a decision on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-If the Town turns them down, what’s your alternative? MR. SCHACHNER-The facilities remain private. MR. PALING-Okay, but what happens to the wastewater? MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a private transmission line. MR. PALING-Okay, but does it hook to the Town sewer? MR. ROUND-It’s within a sewer district. They’re going to have to provide a connection to the Queensbury or the Hiland Park Sewer District, and the sewer district discharges to the City of Glens Falls. MR. PALING-One way or another, they can hook to the? MR. ROUND-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. ROUND-I think Mr. Nace came up, and we have a project right now where there’s a private sewer main, and it’s the West Glens Falls Fire Department, and the CVS, the Berkshire, LLC Plaza on Main Street, Corinth Road in Queensbury are serviced by a private sewer line within the public. MR. MAC EWAN-But they hooked into the Glens Falls Sewer District though, right? MR. ROUND-No. They aren’t incorporated right now. They’re not within the sewer district. We’re trying to incorporate them right now, but it does happen. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move on, I guess. MR. HASTINGS-Okay. The next issue refers to pedestrian traffic. The sidewalk from the cottage units to the main facility is the sidewalk along the main entrance drive. We had not intended to locate a sidewalk along the cul de sac road. That would be a low use, not families. There won’t be children playing in the streets. So we didn’t feel that it was necessary to put a sidewalk along the cul de sac road. However, the connection sidewalk we spoke of and show on the plans connects along from the intersection of the cul de sac road and the entrance road, down along the entrance road, all the way to the main entrance of the main facility, and that would facilitate pedestrian travel from that cul de sac to the main facility, because there will be residents walking to the main facility periodically. MR. MAC EWAN-I think there were some discussions, though, during the preliminary, that there were some members of the Board that were looking to have the sidewalks put along the main entry road. Didn’t we discuss that? MR. VOLLARO-That was in the Schermerhorn discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-Schermerhorn, okay. All right. Move along. I’m wrong. We’re up to landscaping. MR. HASTINGS-Okay, landscaping and recreation. Regarding the sign, and the setbacks, on Sheet L-2, we indicate that the setbacks for the sign, the sign is built into a stone wall, and the sign is located on the piers of that stone wall, and they’re located 23 feet from Meadowbrook Road and 15 feet from the new entrance road. The sign itself is two feet by three feet, six square feet total, and there would be one on either side. The wall is shown on a little perspective sketch that we included on the detail sheet, and the height of the wall, the height of the pier, which is the highest point of 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) that wall, would be seven feet. Then the wall would taper from six feet, curve down to two feet, and along the curbing portion of the wall it would be two feet. MR. VOLLARO-What plan did you say that was on? MR. HASTINGS-It is on Detail Sheet, perspective, the detail on the Detail Sheet. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see anything in the drawings, and I looked all these over, to give me a really good view of that, and if you could show me where it is on here, then maybe I missed it. MR. HASTINGS-Sure. MR. PALING-Which sheet is that? MR. ABBOTT-L-12. MR. RINGER-L-12, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-L-12. Yes, I looked at that, and in my view, that’s not enough detail for me to really get a good look at what that’s going to look like. Now maybe you think it is, but I was looking for a little more detail, because that’s really the entranceway to the whole operation, and it really sets the pace for what that’s going to look like, and I expected to see a little more detail than that on the entranceway. That’s just my own view. MR. MAC EWAN-Detail of the drawing wise, or more of an elaborate entrance? MR. VOLLARO-Well, detail on the drawing wise. I mean, as far as I’m concerned, that sketch, that’s not. I’d like to see a larger view of it, so that I could see some details of what it’s really going to look like. This is an artist’s rendition of what it’ll look like. I want a building drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Where did you come up with your dimensions? MR. HASTINGS-The dimensions, well, on Sheet L-2 we have dimensions of the sign from the road. We don’t have construction dimensions on that detail. That detail was not meant to be a construction drawing. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m really looking to see, the construction drawings would then tell me exactly what that’s going to look like. MR. HASTINGS-Right. We did not provide construction drawings. That’s true. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what I was really looking for. Because I felt that this entrance was going to really define, be a very defining point on the way in, and it was certainly worth coming up with a construction drawing for that, at least one that would give at least me a view of what it was going to look like, but it’s not here. MR. HASTINGS-It will be a pretty substantial wall. As I indicated, it’ll be seven feet in height, tapering down to two feet in height, made of stone. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I can approve, when I sit on this Board, is what’s on these papers. I understand that you try to do a nice job of it, but I don’t have a good feel for it, and what I have always endeavored to do is approve what I see on a set of drawings, and not what’s, you know, talked about up there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is the sign going to be vertical, like the one on the logo with the flowers, where it says the Glen at Hiland Meadows? Because that’s the way it looks on the little pillar where you have it on that drawing. MR. HASTINGS-The actual sign face hasn’t been designed yet, but I believe it will have the logo incorporated into it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s all fine. I mean, I see where this gentleman’s saying, yes, that’s fine, tell them that, but, you know, I’d like to see a drawing. I would, anyway, to understand what it looks like. Right now I have no real concept of what that looks like. I’ve got an artist’s rendition. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a concept. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve got an artist’s rendition of what it’s going to look like. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, I mean, I can visualize it pretty good. MR. VOLLARO-You can? You’re doing better than me, Cathy. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with her. MR. RINGER-Me, too. I’ve got a two foot by three foot sign. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just stating where I’m coming from, guys. MR. RINGER-No problem. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No problem, that’s all right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What about the question regarding the open field? Landscaping outside of the entrance plantings on the north side should be clarified as to what type of landscaping will be there, such as an open field or a manicured lawn with associated plantings. What’s the deal with that? MR. HASTINGS-Okay. What that is in reference to, on the entrance drive, approximately opposite where the cul de sac to the cottage units is. MR. MAC EWAN-The parcel to the north. MR. HASTINGS-Yes, we have no planting there. Planting will consist of the lawn along the right- of-way and the remainder of that parcel, which will be undeveloped, but developed in the future, will remain meadow. The meadow will be periodically mown, but will stay meadow until such time that the expansion is built. We’re not showing any planting along that side of the road because we do not want the planting to interfere with how that design eventually gets built. So our envision is that the planting would be added at the time that cul de sac gets built in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-I know someone’s been haying that entire parcel for the last several years. Will you continue to allow them to hay that undeveloped section? MR. WENDTH-It’s certainly something that we can look at and evaluate, yes. It’s actually one of the dude ranches up north here that comes down periodically and will hay the field. MR. MAC EWAN-That way it would ensure that your site would stay manicured and not go forever wild, so to speak. MR. WENDTH-That seems reasonable. Are there any other questions on the landscaping and recreation comments? MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s move to fire safety. There’s a lot of comments on that. MR. WENDTH-Okay. I guess the first issue on fire safety that the Fire Marshal brought up is the boulevard island. We would like to have that one in place, but we’re also asking that the road be turned over to the Town. So it’s your choice on whether you want the island. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t speak for the current Highway Superintendent or the one who will be taking office on the First, but if I were to guess, I’d say that he probably wouldn’t want that island there. He would rather have it striped. MR. WENDTH-We’ve had a few discussions with Mr. Missita. He’s not indicated to us that that island was a problem. The Fire Marshal raised it as a potential emergency access impediment. We looked at the radii of those two entrance points, and figured out that an emergency vehicle could make those turns, and that would not be an impediment. Granted, in the wintertime, the snow plow issue exists. That, I don’t believe, was raised to us by the Highway Department. I would suggest that the maintenance staff would put markers out at the curb, so they know where that boulevard island is, and also I think our design would include a beveled granite curb, rather than straight granite curb, so that in case a vehicle did cut that corner real tight or if you drove over the curb, it would be okay, but our vision for the entry was the boulevard, to have it planted nicely with flowers. It would really set that entry apart from other roads and kind of make it some place notable. MR. MAC EWAN-Your main boulevard road is not going to have wing swales? MR. WENDTH-Yes, it has wing swales. The curbing I’m talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Where does the granite curbing come in? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. WENDTH-On the island itself. MR. MAC EWAN-On the island itself. MR. WENDTH-Yes, and I might add, too, that the entrance at the point of where the island is, is widened. It’s a widened right-of-way. We’ve widened it, I believe, 10 feet, to allow for that island to be put in place, without impeding the width of the road. MR. MAC EWAN-And the Fire Marshal’s concern with that island is that the turning radius may not be enough for the Queensbury Central ladder to get in there, or tower truck. Did I see that in here some place? MR. VOLLARO-It’s right here. I’m trying to understand it myself. You have a 40 foot sweep radius, but I asked Larry about it. Does Staff understand this drawing that Kip Grant supplied on turning radius? MRS. MOORE-To some extent, but my understanding is that there’s still, the Fire Marshal is still in discussion with (lost word) from the LA Group in regard to this. So the last comment I have it dated today, and Darryl was provided with those radius turns that you have in your packet. MR. VOLLARO-Has the LA Group looked at that, at those radius turns? MR. WENDTH-Yes, we have, and it’s our, we based our design on those radius points, and the radius in question, I believe, is the 41 and a half foot turning radius. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not going to be able to comment on that, since I don’t have enough time to even look at the drawing. MR. RINGER-This is what came with our tower, these things here. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is your design is going to reflect this Tower Number One. MR. WENDTH-Yes, and we are continuing to discuss this with the Fire Marshal. If there’s some additional modification he’d like to see to that island, we would make it. MR. MAC EWAN-When you get to this point, I’ll say it again. I would hope that we’ve pretty much got all our T’s crossed and our I’s dotted, that we can move forward and give a final approval of this, but the more I’m hearing, the more we’ve got a lot of unanswered issues. MR. WENDTH-I just got this letter today. We just got this letter today, the letter from the Fire Marshal. MR. MAC EWAN-We did, too. MR. WENDTH-So we had hoped that we had it solved, too. We did not know that it wasn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t like getting things at the last minute, either. It throws a monkey wrench into things. I also found that there was a letter in here, too, from the Deputy Highway Superintendent talking about accepting the road. MR. VOLLARO-From Missita. MR. RINGER-He felt it was okay. MR. MAC EWAN-See, his Item Number Three is he doesn’t know which roads are going to be turned over to the Town, and you’re indicating to him that your wishes are to turn that main boulevard over to the Town, but yet keep that granite island, and from what I’m understanding in this, he’s not sure himself which roads you’re talking about turning over to the Town. MR. WENDTH-Let me clarify. The granite island would be turned over to the Town. The granite island is in the main boulevard. So that would be turned over to the Town as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know, but he’s saying, Item Number Three in his letter dated November 22, unless there’s one since then, says we need confirmation as to which roads will be turned over nd to the Town, and furthermore, and it goes on to name six more items that are things that he wants clarifications and understanding to. MR. HASTINGS-These items are contained in the LA Group response dated December 10. th 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-December 10. You sent this letter December 10 to me and to, you didn’t thth send this to the Highway Department. You’re only addressing the concerns based on the November 2 letter from Rist-Frost. You were responding to those. Am I not correct? nd MRS. MOORE-Craig, we forwarded the letter from the LA Group from 12/10 to Rick Missita. MR. MAC EWAN-To Rick Missita. Has he responded to the December 10 letter, do you know? th MRS. MOORE-Not in writing, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move on. MR. SPORKO-The other issue brought up by the Fire Marshal is the driveway loop near the canopy area. This is at the main entrance, and taking that comment into consideration, and by the way, we did just receive that comment. The turning radius of that inside loop allows the fire truck to make the turn, and we are going to reduce the inside of that island slightly from what it is now, which would even make it easier, so that the vehicle doesn’t go into the island. The question was, is there enough clearance between the canopy and the edge of the road for the fire truck to make that turn, and it is. That loop is sized similar to a cul de sac, as you would have in a Town road cul de sac. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you corresponded that with the Fire Marshal? MR. SPORKO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Has he signed off on it? MR. SPORKO-No, because that discussion is. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s back up one paragraph, under Landscape and Recreation, the top line on that second page, regarding Staff would request the applicant to formalize an agreement with Family Golf for recreational use of the facility by residents. Where do we stand on that? MR. WENDTH-We’ve continued discussions with Family Golf. I think everybody’s aware that over the past month and a half there was speculation as to whether Family Golf was going to own Hiland Golf, and as a result, or the outcome is that they are going to maintain ownership at this point in time. So we would resume those discussions with them. I think both parties have met, initially. We both agree that there’s an extreme benefit for us to have some type of shared relationship, the possibility of a cart path that would connect our project to the clubhouse, if you will, through the back part of our parcel, or the east part of our parcel, would seem beneficial, and I think that’s something that we definitely will pursue with Family Golf and/or whoever the ultimate owner of the golf club would be. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s something that still has to be put together. MR. WENDTH-Yes, again, I think it’s something, not knowing where they stand, can we approach that subject. We really need to talk to them, as we get closer to the point of bringing on Staff, so that they can begin to dialogue, from a program standpoint, to see what relationships can exist, versus just putting in a path. So we see it as a benefit. I know Family Golf, in talking with them, saw it as a true benefit, and again, it’s something that we’ve just got to come to terms with down the road, but it’s something we want to pursue. I mean, that’s just a nature for our project, to link it with the golf course. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Engineering. Do you want to address, I mean, what’s the deal with the Rist-Frost comments here, under engineering, with the lighting? MR. ANGERAME-We had submitted a lighting plan with (lost words) and based on what we were told to submit, we weren’t advised that they did want to see lighting levels on the drawings. MR. VOLLARO-I’m surprised at that. I looked at this, and all I saw was the cut sheet, so now I had had a comment that I would like to see some lumens on the ground, at least take a look at the off site impact of lighting. MR. ANGERAME-Well, based on the fact where the lighting is, and where it is on the site, there’s no impact off site. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not true. We had the same situation with Stewart’s where they did supply a lighting plan on the ground. MR. ANGERAME-Again, Rist-Frost did not require that from our information. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-Well, he makes a comment and says that the applicant did not submit a site plan showing light levels so this was not reviewed. That would indicate to me that he might have been expecting to see the same. That’s in Rist-Frost’s letter of December 20. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess maybe at this point, is there any other questions from Board members on any of the things we’ve covered so far? MR. VOLLARO-Not on the things we’ve covered so far. I do have questions, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get to them. We’ve got a ways to go yet. MR. PALING-We have an awful lot of pending items. I wouldn’t be willing to vote on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know we do. MR. PALING-And I also agree with Bob Vollaro, on any kind of a project like this, we normally see a sketch of the entrance, along with dimensions and what’s going to be planted there or what’s going to be bricked, and I’d like to see that, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-But we’ve got a lot of stuff that should be done outside of this Board and brought back to us finished. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s still a lot of items hanging. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-As far as what we’ve discussed already, I agree with what Bob is saying. There’s a lot of open items here. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s move on to, a couple of things. Chris Jones’ letter, who’s the Fire Marshal, of December 14 brings up a lot of issues which you started to respond to, but I think they need to th be further clarified before we would go any farther, that you need to supply some additional information for. MR. SPORKO-The LA Group letter of December 16 is the letter in response to the December 14 thth letter that you’re referring to. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but we just got through talking here a couple of minutes ago, too, and I don’t think you’ve addressed it yet, one of the things was the canopy height that they’re looking for, the turning radius in front of the building they’re looking for, right? Did I miss that? MR. SPORKO-We addressed that, and what I said was that there’s adequate room to make the turning radius without impeding on the canopy. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what? What documentation are you supplying him or the Town to review? MR. SPORKO-Our drawings, our existing drawings. We’ve reviewed them, and since we just received this comment today, we are further going to reduce the center of that island to make that radius even. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re going to revise the drawings? MR. SPORKO-Yes, and the canopy won’t be an issue because it won’t be in the way. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to revise the island, so that it keeps vehicles away from the canopy, that’s a revision you’re going to be making to the drawings, right? MR. SPORKO-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the Town of Queensbury’s Department of Wastewater letter, December 3. How do we stand on all of those six items that they outline? Item Number One. rd MR. SPORKO-Again, these are responded in our December 10 correspondence. th 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-And what date did you respond? MR. SPORKO-December 10. th MR. MAC EWAN-The December 10 letter again. How long do you think it will take you to come th up with some sort of conclusion as to who’s going to retain or give up ownership of the sewer mains, and so on and so forth? Is that something that you see being concluded in the next couple of weeks or the next couple of months or the next couple of years? MR. WENDTH-I think, as owner, it’s in our best interest, obviously, to pursue having the Town assume responsibility for the sewers. We are going to work with the Town here in the near future, you know, it may be within the next quarter, to resolve that issue, so that we can move forward. It obviously does impact if there is any proposed project coming down the pike across the road, because that’s where they would be tying in, and whatever the relationship with that third party in that whole development, how that would play out. So, you know, we’re going to work with, and again, it’s in our best interest to have you folks take care of the sewers, versus ours. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. December 20 letter, which came in yesterday, from Charles Mellon, th who’s the Chief at Bay Ridge Fire Department. There’s five things in there, some of them cross referenced over into the Fire Marshal’s concerns. I think those should be addressed as well, and clarified it, I guess, to say the least. Like Item Five with the canopy. You say you’re going to revise your center island so that the turning radius will avoid the canopy. MR. HASTINGS-It actually avoids the canopy now, but revising the radius on the inside will make it even easier. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess at this point I’ll turn it over to anybody who wants to ask a question on the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I do. On the engineering report for stormwater management, I looked at that, and basically the design is for a 25 year storm event, and we’re looking for a 50 year storm event normally in this Town, I believe, is that right, Chris? MR. ROUND-I think Mr. Sporko or Mr. Hastings could answer that. Typically, it’s 50 year design storm for retention and detention basins, and I think the project is designed for a 50 year design storm, and it’s 25 year design storm for associated structures like pass through structures. MR. VOLLARO-In reading it up front it says, the proposed peak runoff for the project is designed not to exceed the pre-development peak runoff conditions for a 25 year storm event. That’s in the overview. MR. ROUND-Right. It’s in that, and I think if you look deeper in the report, it’ll indicate both. MR. VOLLARO-I did. I saw some minor references to 50 year in the back of the report, and I guess I don’t understand the difference between this 50 year proposed condition and the majority of the report that talks about 25 years. I looked at that pretty carefully, and I couldn’t see the connection between those. MR. ROUND-The Town’s engineer looked at that and has approved it and didn’t have any issues with methodology or the design criteria, and they signed off on it as part of their review. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. I’m just taking the report on its face value. Up front, where it talks about 25 year, when I review it, it looks like a 25 year plan, to me. MR. ROUND-Sure. Maybe Mr. Hastings could respond. MR. HASTINGS-The 25 year design storm is according to the Town regulations for the collection system. The 50 year design storm is for the basins only. So the bulk of the report talks about the 25 year storm as a benchmark, but then for the full size of the basin, the 50 year storm is also modeled. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s at the rear of the report where you talk about 50 year areas? MR. HASTINGS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed in the engineering report it referred to a master plan, which was kind of intriguing. It’s mentioned several times, and was that plan ever submitted or did I miss it? MR. ROUND-I’m not sure what the reference is. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-In the engineering report itself, engineering report that’s dated 22 September 1999. MR. HASTINGS-If I may, Mr. Vollaro. The terminology was used in reference to the full build out. As a term master plan, that was not intended to reflect a submitted plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There is no, essentially, master plan, that’s not part of this application? MR. HASTINGS-No. That was only intended to describe the full build out. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I want to do is I just want to take a look at a facsimile that came in, and this was updating your previous full build out capacity where you talked about retirement village being at 704. I just want to quickly read something that I’ll probably be reading again at the next application, but it says, this is with reference to retirement village, this is part of the PUD summary now. This is not a distillation from somebody else’s report. This is part of the PUD summary, and it says the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population is elderly, 65 and over. As baby boomers reach their senior years, the elderly population will increase even more rapidly. Hiland will be developed as a retirement village comprised of 670 units, ranging from single family to multifamily condos and townhouse dwellings. I won’t go any further with that, but that kind of flies in the face of 704, and I tried to find 704 in the PUD, and I can only come up with 670, and I’m taking these words right out of the PUD. MR. WENDTH-Right. The retirement center in the PUD, and I have it actually here, the document, consisted of congregate care facility of 240 units. There was multifamily of 344, within that area, as well as a critical care facility, which is 120. Now where I got that 120, and that’s what the note is there, based on our experience in running three skilled nursing facilities in the Capital District, and I questioned the administrators. I asked them, what is the optimum size, from an operational standpoint. They said clearly you would not want to build anything less than 120 unit skilled nursing facility. So when you look at critical care, again, it does not talk about it specifically in the PUD. I had to assume that that’s what they were talking about, that a critical care facility would be a skilled nursing facility. It would be a natural partner, if you will, within a retirement living complex, for that continuum of care. MR. PALING-The critical care units are addressed, I thought, and it calls for 160. MR. WENDTH-160. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. WENDTH-Okay. MR. PALING-I agree with your first two numbers, but I don’t know where you get the 120 from. MR. WENDTH-120, again, I wrote here, based on optimum size of a skilled nursing facility. That’s based on our experience. I said it’s 120. I’m identifying 40 less than what was identified then. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing I can go by is, see, you made certain assumptions to get to your number. What I’m trying to do is to get to it by the statements in the PUD itself, and the PUD definitely talks about 670 units, and I’m just, it isn’t going to effect very much, other than making the record clear that we’re trying to, in some way, agree with the PUD. MR. PALING-The 670 units, as far as I know from the PUD, does not, there’s no critical care in there. There’s congregate care. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct. MR. PALING-There’s 86 single family, 344 multifamily and 240 congregate care, and the 160 is the critical care unit. MR. VOLLARO-Is critical care units, right. MR. PALING-Yes, but then that brings you up to 830, when you do it that way. MR. VOLLARO-That brings you up to 830, but the 86 single, 344 multi and 240 congregate care is where they get 670. MR. WENDTH-Again, if I may, and it’s the actually the 86 single family units falls on the parcel, based on what we’re looking here and some of the natural landmarks that exist, such as the drainage 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) stream that goes through the property, that falls on to the next applicant’s property. So that’s why I didn’t include it. MR. VOLLARO-The next applicant being the Schermerhorn? MR. WENDTH-Yes. That’s why, I have the actual PUD map right here, and it’s clear that it’s not on our parcel where it’s been subdivided, based on our purchase. MR. VOLLARO-I just thought what I’d try to do, because this is going to come up again, is to continue reading just a minute here, where it talks about the full service concept will consider special needs and financial circumstances available in many areas, housing, single family, condos and townhouses, nutritional meals, health related services and so on. What I’m trying to get at here is to introduce to everybody on this Board and in the audience what the concept of this PUD really was and really is, and in my mind what we’ve really done, what we are doing here, is in some way we’re convoluting the intention of this PUD, not from your application, but from a total look at retirement village, and I’ll be getting into that later on I think. MR. MAC EWAN-If we’re going to get into a discussion about what the intent of the PUD is, that’s not our bidway. MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m not going to get into the intent of the PUD. I’m not getting into it here. MR. PALING-I think we have got to find out, accurately, what the numbers of units are. MR. MAC EWAN-Numbers, I’m all for it, but the philosophy of what the intent of the Planned Unit Development was isn’t part of our review process, because we’re dealing with a designated zone, and we’re dealing with the density issues within that zone. MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I did, from a density point of view only, is to carry this out and say, the Eddy’s total build out project is now 300 units, based on your last submission, and the Schermerhorn projected is 120. So we’re up to 400 and. MR. WENDTH-But again that excludes, the numbers here exclude the 86 units that would fall on the Schermerhorn property, on the property he’s looking at. You would have to add the 86 to the 704. You’d be up to 790, in total, based on the density. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we’re up that high, then we’re passed the definition of the PUD, at 670, in my mind. See, you came in with your, your density picture was. MR. ROUND-I think the difference in numbers, geographically where you draw a line on the map, the 670 or 860. That is not the total density that was allowed on the entire PUD, Hiland Park. I think what’s in question right now, what I hear Mr. Vollaro questioning, is the critical care facility was either 120 or 160. At the time that they approved this, they didn’t do enough work to know what kind of facility they were going to build, and there’s a certain level of flexibility on that, and I think, from a build out standpoint, and the impacts that it’s going to have on our community, whether it’s 120 or 140, from an infrastructure standpoint, is not going to be a significant impact, especially highway, traffic related, water, or wastewater. The single family residence is going to have a larger impact on the landscape than, I don’t think you’re going to notice the difference between a 120 or a 140 unit critical care facility. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think you are either. I’m just trying to get the numbers straight. MR. ROUND-No, but it is important for the record to be clear on what was and what has been consumed by the current project that we’re contemplating approval. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, if you take a look at both of these projects, and you step back just a minute and you take a look at this retirement village project that’s comprised of Mr. Schermerhorn’s application and the application from the Eddy, I tried to step back and look at this as a total project, as opposed to half and half, and I’m trying to take a look at what the total build out is, and based on their last revision, they come up with 300 units, and Schermerhorn’s projected is 120. So we’re only at 63% of the allowed 670, if 670’s correct. 670, right now, both of the applicants are in the retirement village area, as I see it, and 670, so that we get the numbers right, 670 is what I’ve got to stick with, because that’s what’s in the PUD, and for me to try to change the PUD numbers around doesn’t make sense to me. MR. ROUND-I don’t think both projects fall in the retirement center area, and again, we’re having a problem because we have two different developers. We’re drawing lines on a piece of land that don’t necessarily correspond to, so we’re not re-districting densities by, you know, we’re not partitioning off densities when we draw a line on the map. What we have to be cognizant of is what’s the total 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) density within the development, and don’t worry about where the lines are, but we have to make sure that they’re not exceeding that density, because the original proposal was a concept plan, and whether this is what was originally envisioned or whether somebody else had a different vision, it’s not critical. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is, we’re looking at Overlook. We’re looking at the entire PUD now. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And saying that, the way the PUD was drawn is not what we’re looking at anymore. In effect, we’re really not following the requirements of the PUD anymore, with respect to density, or we’re at different places or place. MR. ROUND-No. I think, you know, take it back a step further, is you can’t look at it, or we’re getting very hypothetical and very academic here. That was an original plan for retirement. The whole facility, the entire Hiland Park was retirement facility, in the most generic sense. This was to be a retirement facility, different components, different nodes within this village had specific designations on a plan, and the fact that we’re massaging those or changing those a little bit is not significant. I think what or place. MR. ROUND-No. I think, you know, take it back a step further, is you can’t look at it, or we’re getting very hypothetical and very academic here. That was an original plan for retirement. The whole facility, the entire Hiland Park was retirement facility, in the most generic sense. This was to be a retirement facility, different components, different nodes within this village had specific designations on a plan, and the fact that we’re massaging those or changing those a little bit is not significant. I think what your concern is what, and from a SEQRA review, is did we envision a 900 unit village, or did we envision a 3,000 unit village. Those are significant differences. I don’t think we’re reaching any of those thresholds with either of the projects, but from a record keeping standpoint, you’re correct. We have to make sure we know what was approved in the PUD ordinance and what is being consumed with each of the project approvals that we’re seeing. MR. PALING-Well, could we at least clarify one question. It seems over simple. How many units is the Glen asking to be approved? MR. WENDTH-The Glen, today, is asking for approval of what is on our application. That is, yes, it’s 124 units. Anything over and above that, we would have to come back before this Board with a separate application. So if we were looking to develop additional cottages on the site, possibly in another cul de sac, we will be back before this, as a separate application. MR. PALING-Okay. Chris, I would make one comment, though. I know there’s been talking of massaging the PUD, but if we’re going to start massaging numbers at all, I think we ought to take a very serious look at it. I’m not going to take that lightly. MR. ROUND-No, what I said, I don’t think either of the projects are, I don’t think you’re reaching a critical point where, you know, 20 units is going to make a difference whether they exceed it or not, because they’re well below that maximum build out threshold. MR. PALING-It might have something to do with the type of units, though, that are being built. So we shouldn’t be too careless with the numbers. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m looking at it from a total build out point of view. Total build out is 300, based on your latest submission. MR. WENDTH-That’s what we would be envisioning on total build out. MR. VOLLARO-That’s your total build out. MR. WENDTH-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-All we have to worry about right now is 124. MR. WENDTH-124. We put together this spread sheet for you and actually supplied the Planning Office with the actual diskette, so that you folks can take this and massage it any way you want, develop your own tracking system as you move forward. So, again, we’re only in here for 124 units. We’d envisioned total build out would be 300, and that’s where we would stand. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have anything else? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-What do we do? What is your pleasure? MR. PALING-Well, what I would like to see happen is that the applicant approach the different functions within Town government and get written approval from them on the various engineering items we’re talking about, and come back to us with that plus a sketch of the entrance. Because I think everything we’re hung up on tonight is engineering, and where we can approve or disapprove, but we’re waiting for the Fire Marshal or whoever to approve it. If we get that and an entrance thing, then I don’t see any problems. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve come up with a list of things, as we’ve been talking here, and been writing. Anybody jump in at any time and tell me that it’s not important or add to the list. Number One is to get something that’s detailed about what is going to happen with that undeveloped field, be it however minor it is. That seems to be a concern of Staff, whether that’s going to continue to be manicured or hayed, two, three times over the summer or whatever. If we could get something from you. MR. WENDTH-Could I go on record to resolve that right now? MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s go through our laundry list here first. MR. WENDTH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The second item is with respect to the Town taking over dedication of the roads. At this point, it seems like the Highway Department is not sure what roads the developer wants the Town to assume, and I think that needs to be clarified. Within that, if the Town is going to take over dedication to the main boulevard that you’re proposing, is what’s going to happen with that granite island at the entrance. My guess is that if the Town’s going to take it, they won’t want it. Clarification on your drawings regarding the turning radiuses in the main facility area for fire access in respect to both the center island and the canopy. You’re going to revise your drawings, something to clarify the access to the Family Golf Center for the residents of your development. I know you said that it’s an ongoing thing. I think the Board would like to have something a little bit more definitive. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right now, I think that that might be something very difficult to procure. I mean, I don’t even think Family Golf is in a position to even sit down and discuss. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the Board’s looking at it not so much, gee, are they going to have lifetime memberships over there, but I think we’re hitching ourselves more to the sidewalk going over that way. That’s what we’re looking at when we’re talking about access, not the ability for them to be able to play nine rounds or use the tennis courts or whatever. MR. WENDTH-Again, today’s management at Family Golf, we believe, is in favor of it. However, of late, because of all the issues, we have not had the opportunity to sit down, again, with them. Again, it’s something which I think we will bring to fruition, once we have staff hired and they’re developing programming for the facility that’s exactly the opportune time to get in. We don’t want to do anything pre-mature, because we may do something above and beyond. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we were ever talking about whether they were going to have golf memberships or that. We’re talking about just access via sidewalk or whatever. MR. WENDTH-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not something you can get them to commit to? MR. WENDTH-I can’t speak for Family Golf. Again, we’ve had discussions, but they’ve been, I don’t want to say hesitant. They’ve just, because of obviously issues that they knew that were going on that we had no control over, and we were not aware of, they did not come forward and come to any agreement, but they seemed very interested and said, yes, it’s something we need to work with you folks into the future on. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, one of the design requirements of PUD is to have that accessibility throughout the community, that’s one of the theme’s behind developing it, so we’d like to see it go that way if we could. MR. WENDTH-Okay. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Getting it resolved, the septic, sewer main ownership, whether the Town is going to take it or whether you want the Town to take it. Could we get something definitive from the Wastewater Department about where that’s going? And last but not least, detailed dimensions of the entrance signage and the wall. Did I leave out anything? MR. RINGER-Lighting. You didn’t cover lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting, yes, to be reviewed by Rist-Frost. Okay. Anything else? Bob, are you happy with that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. ABBOTT-Fine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure, but, I mean, I just can’t hold them to making any agreements with Family Golf. From what I’ve heard, they don’t know what they’re doing up there. I mean, I think if they make an attempt, fine, but I wouldn’t base my approval on that. MR. MAC EWAN-No, and I’m not saying that either, but that’s one of the issues we’d like to see resolved. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, it may not be resolved, and if it isn’t, that isn’t grounds for disapproval. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s saying that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to get it resolved, because that’s one of the requirements that’s within the PUD, to have this interconnection between the community. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that, and I think down the line when Family Golf’s not there down the line, you’re going to see better direction in that regard. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to comment on that. If you look at the PUD, the PUD gave the original Hiland Park Corporation a lot of say in the way this PUD was going to develop. So when Family Golf bought that, I had asked our Counsel about that, whether or not all of the obligations that were in the PUD or in the PUD of the original Hiland Park Corporation, were then transferred to Family Golf by the sale of the Corporation, and I never really got that clear in my mind, because if you read the PUD, it definitely says that the Hiland Park Corporation has, for example, architectural review, as one of the things they talk about. The ability to maintain the theme of the PUD, another thing they talk about. This was all on Hiland Park. Did those things transfer over to Family Golf, or did Family Golf, in their resolution, say, or in their acquisition of the Corporation say, well, we’re not going to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-You got a vague answer because I don’t know the precise answer. To the extent that the EIS that was done for Hiland Park, incorporated specific conditions, as part of the SEQRA Findings Statement, the document that the EIS process culminates in. The subsequent owners are bound by those, the SEQRA Findings, okay. To the extent that other language in the EIS simply indicated that the then owner of the project had certain authority over various components of it, if those issues were not part of the SEQRA Findings, if those were not part of the specific conditions of the SEQRA approval, then they may or may not evolve down to the subsequent owners, depending upon the nature of the transaction between Hiland or whomever and there was trustees and bankruptcy and all sorts of parties there, and the subsequent owner. I don’t know the answer to that. MR. ROUND-I’d just add to that. If Family Golf, if the current owner wanted to control the architecture, what’s occurring on this site, they could, through the sale contract, and if you sold a piece of property to somebody, you could provide a provision, I’m going to review all the architecture or whatever facility’s going to go on there. I don’t know what the contract is with the organization we have in front of us, but the ability is there. So is Family Golf exercising all the power that they have? They may not be. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and to that extent, keep in mind that they may have an opportunity to do something but not an obligation, and those are two different things. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up to table this? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 54-99 THE GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS, INC., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until all the issues that Craig has enumerated have been addressed: 1. Clarification of landscaping of undeveloped land. 2. Resolution of Town Highway issue regarding what roads are proposed to be dedicated, and who is proposed to maintain the granite island. 3. Identification of turning radiuses on final plans in relation to emergency apparatus turning radius requirements. 4. Provision of additional detail of the relationship of the Glen and Family Golf. 5. Resolve Wastewater Department issue regarding ownership. 6. Provision of scaled dimensions for the entranceway on the final plans. 7. Provision of a detailed lighting plan. Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I want to tie it to a specific date. MR. ROUND-I don’t think it’s necessary to have a public hearing, so that to tie it into a specific date is not required. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 53-99 EIS FINDINGS ACCEPTED (7/2/87) SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. OWNER: FAMILY GOLF CENTER AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: P.U.D. LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK RD. HILAND PARK P.U.D. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 120 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN, APPROVAL OF THE PHASING PROJECT TO FIVE (5) PHASES REQUIRING A “SUBDIVISION” OF THE SITE, AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PHASE (22 UNITS) OF THE PLAN. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 10/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 46-2-2.1 LOT SIZE: 75.34 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, RICH SCHERMERHORN, JIM MILLER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing was on October 26 and is continuing tonight which is th December 21. st STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 53-99, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: December 21, 1999 “Project Description and Notes: The applicant proposes a 120 unit Townhouse project within five phases. The applicant requests preliminary approval for all phases and final approval for the first phase of 22 units. The applicant has revised the previous plans to reduce the density and modify the architectural design. The changes were made upon the Planning Board’s request to modify the design of the project. Staff Notes: The applicant has complied with the Board’s request and has submitted a letter addressing each of the modifications made. A few of the improvements include an interconnecting pathway through each of the phases to the recreation areas, landscaping and building arrangement. The plans also show specific detail of the building types, entrances, front and rear views, and window styles. The Water and Wastewater Department have provided comments about final plan details and implementation requirements. Rist Frost Associates found the plans for Phase I acceptable with a note about resolving Town issues as to easement and ownership. The Highway Department has indicated the Phase I roadway may not be accepted. Recommendation: Staff would recommend preliminary approval for conceptual plans and final approval for the first phase of the project.” MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost letter of the 14. th MRS. MOORE-From December 14, addressed to Mr. Round, “We have reviewed the revised th documents forwarded to us dated December 3, 1999. The revised plans for Phase I are acceptable assuming the issues related to easements and drainage system maintenance (see attached letter) have been addressed to the Town’s satisfaction. Please feel free to call if you have any questions.” MR. MAC EWAN-The Town of Queensbury Water Department. MRS. MOORE-Water Department, dated December 3, 1999, this is addressed to Mr. Lapper. “The preliminary plans for Hiland Springs Project, Phase I, in the Town of Queensbury have been reviewed by this Department. If the installations are carried out as presented in the plans, this project will meet the requirements of this Department subject to the regulations and general requirements relating to this project in the Town of Queensbury. Once construction is completed, 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) your water mains must be pressure tested to AWWA Standards. Your engineer should certify to this Department that this had been completed. Please send an original copy and I will stamp it with approval. Sincerely, Ralph Van Dusen Superintendent” Wastewater? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Wastewater of December 2. It’s addressed to Mr. Nace, “Please refer to the nd following comments as a result of the above-mentioned review. I. Utility plan layout, Page SP-1. Plans show existing 8” sanitary sewer main on the east side of the townhouses. The existing main is not in that location. II. Utility detail, Page SP-4. Detail sheet needs to include sanitary manhole, sanitary trench, backwater valve and mainline trap. III. Plans should include sanitary sewer main profile. If you have any questions on these comments, please call me at my office. Sincerely, Michael O. Shaw, Deputy Director” MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s save the, there’s a letter from Miss Chandler and you have one from Mr. Coon, we’ll save those for the public hearing. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Did you read my letter into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Did we? Did we skip it? I don’t have one. MR. PALING-Here it is. I’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have it, Laura? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it tonight’s? MR. RINGER-No, we got it last week. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Here it is. I have it. MRS. MOORE-This is dated November 24, addressed to Chairman MacEwan, on behalf of Rich th and Beth Schermerhorn, I hereby submit revised plans for the proposed Hiland Springs townhouse project. The plans show that the project has been substantially modified in response to the issues raised by the members of the Planning Board at the November meeting. The following is a summary of the most significant modifications: 1. The eight unit buildings were all decreased to six unit buildings. 2. Five buildings were changed to include one level cottage style wings to break up the bulk of the buildings. 3. The overall density has been reduced from 140 units to 120 units. 4. All of the buildings have been “staggered” so that the front and rear of the buildings are not perceived as “row style” buildings. 5. The rear elevations have been redesigned to appear more like single family residences and the rear exit doors have been moved to avoid a dormitory look. 6. The common walkways have been connected to provide a walking path throughout the 21 acre site. 7. By reducing the number of units and modifying the building designs, more space has been provided between buildings. 8. Phase I, which will be the most visible from Meadowbrook Road, has been reduced by six units from 28 to 22, the paving has been moved back a greater distance from Meadowbrook Road and the buildings have been moved back as well to provide more green space. 9. The design of the buildings have been modified to be more architecturally compatible with one another and arch moldings and more roof lines have been added. 10. The total building coverage has now been reduced to 8.5%, paved areas have been reduced to 19.6% and permeable area has been increased to 71.9%. Rich is hopeful that you will find these changes to be very responsive to the comments of the members of the Planning Board. We are looking forward to presenting this revised plan. Please place this matter on the agenda for your first meeting in December, if at all possible. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, Tom Nace and Jim Miller. We took your comments very seriously. You gave us a very specific list of issues last time, to address, and we think that we’ve addressed all of them. The project is substantially different than when we started six months ago, and in fact substantially different than where it was a month ago. Some of these changes were beyond what Rich had anticipated he would have to do, but he was very happy with the final product, a much nicer building. We think it’s a much nicer project now, after going through the process, and we hope you’ll agree. We’d like to start out by having Jim Miller just go through the site plan and show some changes. MR. MILLER-Good evening. I’d like to just first look at the overall plan. That shows the entire property, as you know, with the four lots, and the main thing that we’ve done is the density, as Jon said from 140 to 120 units, and that was done by removing six units from the Phase I, six units from Lot 2, and eight units from Lot 3. The existing townhouses with the garage units remain the same. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) Primarily this was done in two ways. One is all the eight unit buildings were removed, and replaced with six unit buildings. In addition, there was a design request done where there was a one story unit added to the end of some of the buildings to step them down and provide more accessible units, and the way we placed those units was the fourplex townhouse units along the road would be the one story end units, and the reasoning for that was to put them along the main road, along the access road where they’d be most visible, and you’d see them reduce the scale of the building as you entered, drove down the road. In addition, it’s placed on the higher portion of the site where the taller buildings have more impact, and then the taller two story buildings were left in the lower area of the site to have less impact. In addition, to the overall scale, we looked at the request, now sidewalks connect all the way through the units from cluster to cluster so they’re now pedestrian linkage along all of them. With that, I’d like to look at Phase I and show specifically some of the improvements to this plan, to orient you. It’s turned now, with Meadowbrook along the top. Originally, we had a secondary driveway to create a loop in here. We responded to try to increase the amount of green space along Meadowbrook. We eliminated that second driveway, and now all the traffic will come down through the parking areas. With this unit developed, reduced down from 28 to 22 units, we’re less concerned with congestion in front of these units than we were previously. So the setback from the pavement was increased substantially. Now from the property line to the pavement, we have about 108 feet, and then of course from pavement from Meadowbrook, the edge of pavement to our pavement is around 120 feet. The buildings to the south setback an additional 70 something feet. So we have just less than 200 foot to the main buildings at this point. Where it turns, where we have the turnaround in the cluster, we originally had had about 30 foot setback. This has been increased to about 53 feet, and again, that’s from the property line, and we have an additional 12 feet or so to the edge of the road. What we’ve also done, by going to the smaller units, in creating more green space, being able to stagger the buildings, create more green space between the buildings which was a request. Our drainage in this area, we need detentions basins to detain water before it goes down into the wetland areas, the lower portion of the site, and the drainage from the parking areas will drain forward toward Meadowbrook Road, and we have detention basins in that area, and what we’ve tried to do, we’ve tried to work those, they’re going to be a dry detention basin. They’re only going to detain water, then they’re going to drain down enough to hold water. What we’ve tried to do along Meadowbrook is to create some grading where when we have pavement, we’d have mounding, and the mounds aren’t going to be a consistent mound right across the road. It’ll be fairly close. In this area where it’s narrow, the mound will then wrap back toward the dumpster, and then comes back up toward the sign, the entry walls, and in between those areas are detention basins. So the intention is that what we’ll have is a rolling grass mound, similar to what you’d see at the golf course. You can also see from the landscape plan, we’ve increased the amount of vegetation in this area. So the intent is that the mounding will provide an immediate screening of the pavement areas, and then in addition, the berms will be planted with a combination of flowering trees, shade trees and evergreens to provide additional screening, and really create more of a woods like effect along Meadowbrook, and this portion of the property. In addition, we’ve mounded where we have an island in the center. Rather than use that as a low detention area, we’ve mounded that off so, again, to further reduce the amount of pavement that’ll be visible. Lighting is very low level. The primary lighting at the entries is at the door. The only area we have four, 16 foot high cut off type lights. One’s at the driveway entrance. One’s at the middle of this parking area, and then back in the area around the turnaround where it’s away from the entrances, just for security and safety lighting. MR. PALING-What is a cut off light? MR. MILLER-Well, that’s one’s where the light is up in and it shines directly down rather than a visible source lighting. So as you drive down Meadowbrook, you won’t see the light from these. It’s just cast down directly onto the pavement, and that pretty much summarizes the changes. MR. LAPPER-Next we’re just going to have Rich quickly show you the changes in the architecture. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. I gave everyone the small plans, but I brought the larger one so you can get a better look. This was a recommendation that I had from a couple of members to make some single level units. These were the ones that Jim was discussing, if you go up the roadway, going through the project on higher parts, with the lower level units. These will be what I call I guess my cottage style ones, where they’re all one level, and then in the middle, of course, I’ll have my upstairs, downstairs units. This is basically the same building, just a little different design, just to give a different look. This particular building here, it’s changed a little bit. I’ve just added some more dental moldings and crown moldings over the windows, a few more roof designs. I’ve stepped this up, where before it was just one little stray roof line. This particular building that was the one that’s going to be up the hill, which is going to face the Eddy, that seems to be the most concern, what’s the back of this going to look like. So the back of that building now, that is a four unit building, but what I did is I actually have the doorways coming out of the units in these alcoves that are indented by six feet, in and out through the back of the building, and then there’ll be concrete patios, and the purpose of the concrete patios, too, is it’s a little less maintenance, but you won’t see those visibly when you’re driving down the road. You won’t see a bunch of decks along the back. So I’ve more or less kind of camouflaged the, instead of having sliders all across the 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) back here. This is just a quick view of some of the roof lines from a side elevation of it, what it would look like. This particular building is the six unit building. We’ve obviously added some more gables. I’ve added more window treatments. These are all things that are up in the Hiland Park homes now. We also put some more roof design. It’s kind of hard to see the detail, but this actually steps out, if you scaled it on some of the plans, these actually jog in and out, six feet, eight feet, four feet. So if you were to look down the side of these buildings or drive down Meadowbrook Road, you’ll see that there’s a lot of, not just a straight line. I think that’s about it for the plan. Actually, this is the same six plex again it’s just in blue ink, and this is the back of this building, which would be, when you’re looking at them from Meadowbrook of course the back of these doesn’t have much of a visible effect from the Eddy side or from any side of Meadowbrook, but I do show two sliding glass doors here, and then the other doors are on the sides, each here, on each end. Because I believe that was a concern that everybody had with the back of the buildings. MR. LAPPER-We think this is very responsive to what you asked us to look into, and hope you agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Leaps and bounds in the right direction. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. Do you want to go through and just address some of the comments, or what do you want to do? MR. NACE-Okay. Regarding the sewer comments, I met with Mike Shaw, and he had been looking at an old, one of the subdivision plans, which showed what we had proposed as municipal sewers in a different location than they are now. What we’re proposing now is one sort of centralized collection sewer that’ll start up in here, come down along the road, then down this property line between Lot One and Lot Two, and into an existing manhole down on this southeasterly corner of Lot One. All of these units back in this lot line would feed directly into that. These two units down here would feed into an existing lateral stub that is on the present sewer down here. Mike’s concern is that he doesn’t know at what stage the Town is going to be willing to take over that sewer, okay. We have agreed with him that that would be constructed as a municipal sewer, to the standards of a municipal sewer, regardless, okay, whether they take it over or Rich maintains maintenance of it. Certainly, as far as the development of Lot One, it would be maintained as a private sewer. When we go on to future lots, develop lot two and lot five and lot four, it all contributes to that sewer. At that point, the Town will make a determination whether, if those are still in Rich’s ownership, whether they will take it, or whether they’re going to require waiting until one of these lots transfers to some other owner, and at that point, they certainly will take it. Okay. So that was Mike’s comment. As far as the design and construction of it, it would be the same regardless of what they decide to do. MR. MAC EWAN-If the Town takes it over, and you’re also talking, if they were to take over the sewer, it would be also along that property line by Lot One. Would it not? MR. NACE-It would be, the only sewer that we would ask them to take over, eventually, and only because we have separate lots here that may end up some time in the future being owned by separate owners, okay, but the only sewer we’re asking them to take over is the one coming up this property line, crossing the road, and coming up the road to serve these townhouses on the north right here. The rest of the townhouses in Lot Four and Lot Three, all of the buildings here and some of the buildings on the back side of Lot Two would be served by private sewers that connect directly into one of the existing lateral stubs on the present sewer. Okay. So those are all going to remain private, because they’re each contained within a separate lot. It’s only this one sewer that transgresses the lot lines which eventually, when those become separate ownerships, the Town really has to take it over. We would certainly construct it. They would inspect it as if it were going to be a municipal sewer, and, you know, it’s their decision whether they want to take it as soon as it’s all completed or whether they want to wait until one of those lots changes hands. Okay. So that’s the real issue. As far as the design and construction, it’s going to be the same regardless, and Mike reviewed our location for it. He does have details for the construction of it, and we’ll get, obviously, a sign off from him before we start construction. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, what do you mean, when the lots change hands? MR. NACE-Well, this has been broke into separate lots for financing purposes and for future sale. Okay. If somebody owns this all as one property and wants to sell it 20 years down the road, or whatever, you attract a very limited number of potential buyers because of the size of it, because of the total dollar magnitude of it, but if it’s in separate lots, you’re potential ownership may encompass a larger number of buyers. So that’s why we’ve broken it into separate lots, and if some 20 years down the road, 10 years down the road, 5 year down the road, Rich decides to sell one of the parcels, with the buildings on it, then that sewer has either got to be a municipal sewer or there’s got to be a private transportation corp. to own it, okay, and the Town has agreed. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-Is there going to be some sort of a maintenance agreement as to how, so that we get some conformance between lots, that if they are under separate ownership from different people, that those people will maintain those lots to some standard, whatever that is? MR. NACE-As far as the? MR. VOLLARO-Just upkeep of the lots, because there’s going to be a good deal of maintenance on those lots, grounds maintenance, maintaining of shrubberies, trees, that kind of stuff. MR. LAPPER-Bob, Rich and Beth have no intention, at this point, of selling them. Tom was talking somewhat hypothetically. They have apartment complexes that we’re all aware of in Town, and their financial goal is to build and own them, but Tom was correct, that any time you have a subdivision, and the reason for the subdivision is merely because, for construction, so you can have separate lots, so that you can get financing individually, so he doesn’t have to borrow X million dollars to do everything at once. With that said, and what Tom is saying is that any time you have separate lots, you have to contemplate, as you are, that they could some day be in separate ownership, so that each of these are design so that they stand on their own, and respect to the sewer, as compared to the last project, these are all essentially laterals that just serve this project. The Townwide issue on the prior project was that those are mains that could some day serve on the other side of Meadowbrook, so that there’s a Town interest in owning the sewer lines up north to connect to other parts of the Town. Here it’s just a question of who’s going to be responsible for the maintenance. This is all proposed to be private now, but we just contemplate that, at some point, because that’s going to go over one lot to get to another lot, that the Town may decide that they want it, and because it’s being designed to Town standards for ownership, at any point it could be taken over by the Town, and that’s really it. MR. VOLLARO-But until that time. MR. LAPPER-Private. MR. VOLLARO-It will be privately maintained, sewers as well. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Why can’t you accomplish the same task of phasing without having to do a subdivision? MR. LAPPER-Because you have to give a the bank a separate, a mortgage on a piece to finance one at a time, because they’re, and that’s just really the practicality of commercial finance, of real estate, that each of these is a. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t recall. Did we do subdivision across the street? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Hunterbrook I bought, it was pre-existing. There was, I believe, nine lots there, and it was already pre-approved, and Walker Lane, if we all recall, that was just one project, but that was 48 units compared to 120. It clearly, the only reason that I broke up the lot is for financing purposes, because to walk into the back, for example, I need $9 million for the whole project, I won’t get it, but if I go in and I say, gee, I need $800,000 for Phase I or a million dollars, my chances are much better. That’s the only reason I broke up the lots. I have no intentions to sell the lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. Any questions? MR. PALING-No. I think that the applicant should be complimented, though, on the way he’s changed not only the design of the buildings front and rear, but the color they’ve committed to, also, and I think this makes a heck of a difference. It makes it a lot easier to approve, and I hope it’s a signal to others and what not to get with this Adirondack design and make an improvement to the neighborhood. So it looks real good. MR. MAC EWAN-This is how planning works. MR. ABBOTT-I’m duly impressed with the changes. Very impressed. I didn’t even pick up on the sliding doors on the sides until you pointed them out, and it’s a great idea. I think the density’s right, the positioning of the buildings is good, and the connecting walkway is excellent. Excellent job. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is. It’s great. I like the layout. It’s real nice. The buildings are nice. MR. LAPPER-Sometimes we actually listen. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I really like the layout. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll have to add to that. I think you did a great job on the architecture, Rich. It looks good to me. I wish you had thought about that on Walker Lane. What I did want to comment on, however, was in this chart that’s up there now, where it says Hiland Springs, they’re referred to there as townhouses. I think to keep the record straight here, to make sure that we’re not convoluting this thing, I would like this project, and if I make the motion I’m going to put that in the motion, if it’s okay with the rest of the Board. I would like to define these as rental apartment complexes as opposed to townhouses, because that’s what these really are. MR. LAPPER-How about townhouse apartments? MR. VOLLARO-Townhouse apartments is just fine, as long as the word “apartments” gets in there. I don’t want us to walk away from here and think we’ve approved a townhouse development when we really haven’t. The application for approval, is this for approval of Lot One or Phase I? I’m a little confused about that. MR. LAPPER-Concept approval on the whole thing and final approval on Phase I. Because we haven’t submitted detailed drawings, final drawings, for the rest of the project. MR. ABBOTT-And subdivision? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and subdivision. In the PUD there’s this issue about whether it’s called site plan or subdivision because the Town PUD reg’s, and Chris and Mark can elaborate on this, call it site plan, even though we all view it as subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Clarify, by pointing out on the map, which is Phase I. MR. MILLER-Phase I is the same as Lot One. MR. LAPPER-You see where all the trees are? We haven’t done shown trees on the rest of the project. MR. ABBOTT-And when I looked at this map, or I looked at this drawing, for the week I had it, I looked at it and looked at it, and couldn’t figure out why Lot One looked so much denser, because there’s more detail on the drawing. I’m like, why does this look more crowded than the other ones, and I realized it’s because of the grading of the landscaping and stuff. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re talking four, five total phases. MR. LAPPER-Five. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And in Phase I, we’re having the four complex. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Three, six unit buildings and one, four unit building, which is a total of 22 units. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, yes, right, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Now we’re coming back in, if we approve this tonight, each subsequent phase will need site plan review. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Beautification requested sprinklers. I saw their comments in here. Do you agree to the? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I believe at the first meeting I addressed it, and I said I have no problem with that. I planned on putting the sprinklers in the front anyway. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They said on Meadowbrook Road and also on the entranceway road. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, it was a recommendation and I agreed to it. MR. LAPPER-And also on? MR. VOLLARO-On the entranceway road. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, all of the entranceway, most of Meadowbrook, actually. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In the Rist-Frost letter dated 12/14, it says that Phase I is acceptable, assuming issues related to drainage system maintenance have been addressed to the Town’s satisfaction. I guess I’m still puzzled as to whether we crossed that loop or not. MR. NACE-Okay. The issues they were talking about is grading with the future grading and drainage issues, with the future phases of the road, okay. Obviously, the drainage from the lot itself is all private, is all going to be maintained by the owner. What they’re talking about is in the future, if the road is accepted as a Town road, and turned over, then there are some detention basins which serve the road itself, and who would maintain those. MR. VOLLARO-I see, but obviously we’ll have to address that when we come down the pike at the next phase. MR. VOLLARO-Now, why has the Highway Department said they may not accept the Phase I roadway? MR. NACE-I think they’re stating that because simply Phase I will just be an entry into the first lot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they’re saying when that road is complete, is that the idea, when that whole road is complete, then they might accept it as a total road? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-In future phases. MR. VOLLARO-My last question here has to do with the site development data. I think that has to be re-submitted now. This site development data had to do with the last application, the existing square footage. MR. NACE-For the subdivision, it would have to. For the site, did we re-submit a site application? MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure that that’s ever happened. I mean, just the way this iterative process works. You submit an application and you revise your drawings, and I’ve never been involved in re- submitting applications. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see where they’d have to change that. We’re asking, they submitted a plan, and we said no, let’s revise this plan. MR. LAPPER-And that information is on the plan itself, showing the new green space. I mean, it’s all changed for the better, less building coverage, more green space, less pavement. MR. MAC EWAN-The weight of the approval is going to follow through with the drawings. MR. ROUND-Yes, typically, it is an iterative process. You may not approve a 65,000 square foot retail facility. You may approve a 50,000 square foot retail facility, and you don’t have them change the application. You’re approval reflects what you’re granting, and I think as long as you document on the approved plans what you’re approving, then it satisfies our normal requirements. MR. ABBOTT-Those were hypothetical numbers. MR. LAPPER-I’m glad. MR. MILLER-We would file the plans, and it would have all that information on it. MR. VOLLARO-On the setback requirements, are those front setback now, the original setbacks were 31.8 and 31.1, are they still that from the roadway? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MILLER-No, it’s 53 here and it’s been increased to 40 here. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m really talking about is how far the building is set back off the road. MR. MILLER-Off the Town road? MR. MAC EWAN-He just gave you that. MR. MILLER-Here’s the closest one. This is 53. It’s about 190 here, but we made it to the closest one. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-On both sides. MR. VOLLARO-From both sides. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I think your changes are good, though. It’s a good looking project. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-My comments. You did a great job. I’m happy with it. I’m very happy with it. Where did we leave off on coloring, siding? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t think we really discussed it. We wanted to keep it in earth tones or close to the colors at Hiland. So I drove around the other day, and there’s white and there’s gray, and there’s tans and there’s yellows. MR. PALING-Don’t do whites. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly won’t, but I’m not opposed to keeping it the earth tone colors. I actually thought of the Walker Lane colors, but do maybe green shutters. Do a blend. I actually was going to see what the Eddy was going to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ve already formulated with them. They’ve actually submitted, you have the information. They submitted the vinyl siding that they’re going to use and the color. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I brought that last time. I didn’t pick a color. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I like the color that you had in the original renderings with your original pictures. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I actually thought about mixing the phases, so that they weren’t all the same color throughout. MR. MAC EWAN-I would like that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We can specify that Phase I will be one shade of an earth tone color. Then maybe we’d off set it with another, and change the shutter color, similar to Cedar Court. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, does the Board want to have something definitive like we did for the Glen? I mean, are you looking for? They did spec out color and manufacturer. MR. PALING-I’d like to see it closer to earth tone than Cedar Court. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, one person’s vision of earth tone may not necessarily be another person’s vision of earth tone. MR. SCHERMERHORN-They spec out a clay color here which is very close to what I call a Monterey Sand. It’s the color that I put on the Walker Lane buildings. The weather wood shingles that they spec out is the same shingle that I have on Walker Lane. That’s a very popular color, because it will mix with different shutter colors. As far as, they don’t have a shutter color on here, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) but they may not be showing shutters on their buildings, but as far as shutters, I mean, the Hunter Green colors, the Colonial Blues, even the Navy Blues are. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get you to at least, for this first phase, maybe just spec out those things, colors and shingles for this first phase? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-And as we go along each phase subsequently, you come in and make sure that you have the colors that you want? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Absolutely, yes. Phase I, for the record, will be the Weatherwood Shingles, the architectural. If it’s okay, I’ll call my siding the Monterey Sand, which is the same as Walker Lane. It’s an earth tone color, and I think, not to duplicate Walker again, maybe we’ll go with a Hunter Green shutter. MR. PALING-That’s good. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. How do you feel about your project now, versus when you first came in? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ve already had calls for all the one level units, for people that have interest in those. It’s a huge improvement and I’m glad I went through the process. It didn’t take me but an extra meeting to do all this, and here we are. So I think it was very good positive recommendations everybody made, and I think it’s going to benefit me. MR. MAC EWAN-And the community as well. I think it’s a nice project. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have a letter dated November 23, addressed to Cathy LaBombard. “I’m rd contacting you regarding a proposal to build a proposal to build multi-family homes on the corner of Meadowbrook and Haviland roads by the Schermerhorn Construction company. My husband and I are not opposed to single family homes being built in the proposed area. We feel that the area’s standard minimum of 1 acre lot(s) should be observed to maintain the beauty of the area. Single family homes, such as the ones built by Schermerhorn Construction on Meadowbrook road, are lovely and add a nice quality to the area. We do not want the look of the multi-family dwellings on Bay and Haviland roads. They do nothing to promote the beauty of the area. The traffic level increased dramatically. Currently on Meadowbrook Road cars fly by at literally 90 miles an hour. Not only that, but the increased traffic level of the proposed project combined with the assisted- living housing will put the level way over the maximum! What kind of a road will this be? This does not add to the quality of living for the residents of Queensbury in any respect. In addition, there is an extremely high water table on the road. I am very concerned about the very real possibility of flooding. The only negative thing I have to say about the existing houses that Schermerhorn Construction built on Meadowbrook Road is that the land is cleverly sloped so that the water flows away from the houses and floods the street!! What precautions will be taken to prevent a similar situation? This time it will be far worse with all the proposed building sites. I would like to remind the Board of the terrible ice storm of a couple of years ago that closed this street! Please take into consideration this very real potential for disaster!! I feel that while you are planning all of this expansion, it is not right to ignore the current beauty and landscaping standards of this area. In addition, my husband and I have very real concerns about the results of the project where traffic and water problems are serious issues. Thank you for your consideration on our concerns for the proposed building projects. Sincerely, Bonnie Chandler” MR. MAC EWAN-Does she actually identify where she is? She lives on Meadowbrook? MRS. MOORE-She says she lives on 260 Meadowbrook Road. MR. MAC EWAN-260. MR. SCHERMERHORN-For the record, it’s the home where the logging truck parks on the edge of the road. It’s the mauve colored, pink colored house. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. MRS. MOORE-I have a letter dated December 21, 1999, addressed to myself. “I have met with Rich Schermerhorn regarding his proposed development on Meadowbrook Road. I have seen improvements in design, set-backs and landscaping for the first phase of his proposed subdivision. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) At this time I have no further concerns regarding the initial phase, but would like to be kept informed as the project progresses. Sincerely, Douglas W. Coon” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Does someone want to introduce a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-99 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: For Phase I, consisting of 22 units. The first letter to be documented here is the letter from Ralph Van Dusen, dated December 3, concerning the Queensbury Water Department. The second letter rd is from the Department of Wastewater, dated December 2, from Michael Shaw. The third nd documentation is that this project is to be in accordance with Hiland Springs Master Plan. The Master Plan has been initialed and dated by Richard Schermerhorn. The next document to be added into that is their site Plan No. 1, revised November 24, 1999, of four sheets, Sheet One through Four. The drawing entitled Hiland Springs, which has been signed off by Rich Schermerhorn on 12/21/99 includes the renditions of the newly designed units, and they’re attached to the Hiland Springs. The next thing is talking about the siding of the building, shingles would be Weatherwood shingles, and the other is Monterey Sand for siding, and Hunter Green shutters, and those are the color distributions on the 22 units of Phase I. The motion also includes the final approval of the entire subdivision, consisting of five separate lots, each lot to be phased. Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st MRS. LA BOMBARD-What if Rich sees some better colors when he’s going through all the, I mean, all of a sudden we just say, yes, sand and hunter green. We haven’t seen all the colors. MR. VOLLARO-He has 100 units to go. He’s doing 22. He’s got 100 to go . So what his suggestion was is to mix it up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that. I’m just saying, how can we just tell him what color, when we haven’t even seen all the colors? MR. LAPPER-Cathy, we appreciate that. We’re comfortable. At this point, the Board definitiveness, and we’re comfortable with that, and if Rich changes his mind, he’ll come in and talk to the Board again. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine, I mean, because you might just say, my gosh, this is a prettier mauve or something with a little different. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to say that, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Believe it or not, there’s not a lot of variations in colors in vinyl siding. There’s probably, with earth tones, there’s probably three or four, and that’s about it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I forgot. MR. RINGER-Bob’s motion was to approve Phase I of the site plan, but then we also have to approve the subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-He didn’t include that in his motion. MR. MAC EWAN-He hasn’t finished yet. MR. RINGER-All right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry, I interrupted. I didn’t mean to. I’m sorry. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. PUD SITE PLAN NO. 2-87 MODIFICATION MASTERS COMMON SOUTH OWNER: TEO MACERO AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: PUD LOCATION: MASTERS COMMON SO./HERITAGE PT. APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 3 & 4. MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP NO. 46-7-3, 4 LOT SIZE: 0.69 AC., 0.69 AC. SECTION: 179-58 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PU D – Site Plan 2-87 – Modification, Masters Common South/Heritage Point, Meeting Date: December 21, 1999 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment between lots 3 and 4. Modifications to previously approved site plans require Planning Board review and approval. Staff Notes: The proposed modification will increase the area of lot 4 from 0.69 acres to 0.71 acres and reduce lot 3 from 0.69 acres to 0.66 acres. The parcels are in the same ownership and there is no anticipated neighborhood impacts. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the modification as submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. STEVES-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-I’m Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, and I represent Teo Macero on this application. The reasoning for the adjustment to the lot line, because of the angle, and as you can see the configuration of Lot Four with the way it aligns with the intersection, and how he wants to try to keep any potential house in flow with the character of the neighborhood, the way the rest of the houses are, is to allow just a little bit more room in that back lot line for a couple of different house plans they’ve been looking at, to rotate it a little bit more toward the intersection, to keep in character with the other houses. As Staff said, it doesn’t make any adverse effect on either lot. All it does is make Lot Four a little bit better of a building lot, and that’s the reason for it. It doesn’t effect the setbacks for Lot Three whatsoever, because as you can see, Lot Three is a quite wide lot with a lot of road frontage. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from any members of the Board? Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 2-87 MASTERS COMMON SOUTH, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: As per plans submitted , site plan map dated November 24, 1999. Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW OWNER: D’AMBROSIO TEXTILE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 24.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS OF 2.97 AC., 2.48 AC., 2.49 AC., 7.86 AC., AND 7.78 AC. FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 12-1999, SP 44-99 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 24.71 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, WILLIAM THREW, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 20-1999, William Threw, Meeting Date: December 21, 1999 “Project Description and Comment: The applicant proposes a five lot light industrial subdivision. The applicant’s previous approval on this subdivision has expired. The subdivision has not been 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) changed from its original proposal. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the subdivision as submitted.” MR. STEVES-Good evening again. Matt Steves. I represent William Threw. This is a subdivision that you previously viewed earlier this year. It was submitted and approved, and then the mylars were sent up to the Town, and because of some reasons that we weren’t able to obtain the mylars back before the 62 days, here we are. It has been re-notified. MR. MAC EWAN-I signed it. For the record, I think it should be clear that the Highway Department didn’t sign off on it. MR. STEVES-Right, and regardless, I’m back here to beg the mercy of the Board and get this thing through again. I think there’s a couple of things maybe potentially down the road that Chris can expand upon that maybe we can change in the reg’s as far as subdivision is concerned, that all approvals are deemed to be conditional until such time as all signatures are applied to the mylar, and then you can revert back to Town law as it’s written by the State that states that once you have all signatures on the mylar, then you have the 60 days in which to file. MR. MAC EWAN-That would take a resolution by the Town Board. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I’m just stating a fact. MR. MAC EWAN-It certainly would make things painless. It hasn’t happened a lot, but when it does, it creates an administrative nightmare for everybody involved, and this is probably, as long as I’ve been on the Board, maybe the third or four incident of it happening. MR. ROUND-We’re exploring that change, and the other change is that it’s not required that the Highway Department or the Water Department or Wastewater Department sign subdivision mylars. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why go through the exercise? MR. ROUND-It’s one of those things, it’s what we’ve always done. MR. MAC EWAN-A new millennium coming, maybe we should change our procedures. You’ve got my support on that. Okay. Any questions from the Board members? This is just pretty much an administrative kind of thing, I guess you could say. Any questions, comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Short Form? Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM THREW, 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 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1999 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As drawing submitted dated August 25, 1999. Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Matt. MR. STEVES-I thank you and apologize for any inconvenience. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not your problem. We apologize. SITE PLAN NO. 60-99 TYPE II EDWARD & LYNNE COLLINS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA LOCATION: 38 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION OF CRIBS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING COVERED SUN DECK . SUNDECK TO BE INCREASED IN SIZE FROM 531 SQ. FT. TO 819.5 SQ. FT. LG PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 EDWARD COLLINS, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on November 23 was tabled. rd STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 60-99, Edward & Lynne Collins, Meeting Date: December 21, 1999 “Project Description: The site plan was tabled at the previous Planning Board meeting. The applicant was requested to submit additional information on the increased size of the sundeck. The applicant proposes to relocate the cribs of the dock and expand the sundeck to the north side. Staff Notes: The applicant has submitted updated drawings that show the existing sundeck to be 531 +/- square feet, and the proposed sundeck to be 819.5 +/- square feet. The drawing also shows the existing dock at 659 +/- square feet and the proposed dock to be 657 +/- square feet. There are no other alterations proposed to the dock or sundeck. The proposed construction would not appear to cause any environmental or neighborhood impacts. The applicant has applied to the Lake George Park Commission for review. Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. COLLINS-Good evening. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. COLLINS-My name’s Edward Collins. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Collins, we tabled this last month because we wanted some clarification. I believe it was on the expansion of the sundeck, right? MR. COLLINS-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And you submitted a new drawing, and a couple of us up here are scratching our heads. We can’t figure it out. Would you respond, please, to the four, six by six pressure treated posts that you’re driving into the lake bottom that are going to support span of your deck? MR. COLLINS-They’re just to support the center span of the 22 foot span. MR. MAC EWAN-What are those six by six posts actually sitting on in the lake bottom? On the lake bottom? MR. COLLINS-I believe on the lake bottom, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s to prevent those six by six posts from continually sinking into the lake? MR. COLLINS-I believe that that’s how they do it. I’m not the dock builder, to be honest with you. I can’t really answer that. I’m sure that he knows how he’s going to set them in there. MR. VOLLARO-He’s got to put concrete piers down there in order to hold that, some concrete casting. MR. COLLINS-I think he talked to me about some sort of a casting, but I’m not sure what it was. MR. VOLLARO-It should be shown on the drawing. Right now, actually, it doesn’t even show it into the lake bottom. That six by six is flush with the water. It looks like it’s floating there, to me. So it doesn’t show anything interfacing with lake bottom at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s building this for you? MR. COLLINS-I really haven’t hired anybody yet. I’ve talked to several good people. MR. MAC EWAN-Who drew up the plans for you? MR. COLLINS-A friend of mine, a fellow named Vince LeFara. MR. MAC EWAN-Is he a licensed engineer? MR. COLLINS-He’s an architect. MR. MAC EWAN-An architect, and he wouldn’t stamp it. MR. COLLINS-I didn’t ask him to stamp it. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Other than, those are structural, weight bearing posts. Now maybe, is this, are we on the right track here or what? MR. ROUND-Generally, we don’t evaluate structural design, as a part of our process or as a part of the site plan review process. That construction detail, you’re talking about the lake bottom details. We don’t normally look at those. The Park Commission issues a permit, and they’ll comment on the impact to the lake, and they have specific construction details, and specific construction methodology that they have to follow. MR. MAC EWAN-Will that fall under part of the inspection process that the Town inspectors will go through? MR. ROUND-The Park Commission will be out there. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking about our Town Building Inspectors. MR. ROUND-We do issue a construction permit for docks, yes. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but will our Building Inspectors be going out and making an inspection? I mean, enlighten me. Do they do these docks/sundeck combinations like they would a house? Do they do a footing inspection, a rough framing? MR. ROUND-They don’t typically. Typically, the below surface stuff they’ll, the Park Commission regulates what structures you can put in the water. We don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-So the Park Commission, then, will sign off on this thing for structural integrity? MR. ROUND-Nobody’s going to sign off on it for structural integrity. The Town doesn’t sign off, regardless whether the details are shown or not? I mean, we don’t assume liability for a structural, we don’t do structural analysis for anything. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not asking you to do a structural analysis. I think a couple of us have concerns about the design of this and whether it’s going to. MR. ROUND-As a part of the building permit process, if there’s a question about structural integrity, they will raise it, and ask for the building permit to address that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and who’s “they”? MR. ROUND-The Building Department will ask for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Our Building Department. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. ROUND-As a part of an inspection of a house, there’s typical span distances, etc., and they’ll identify deficiencies, but they will not certify or they’ll look for an engineer, if there’s a question, an engineer or an architect. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not asking them to do that. MR. ROUND-Okay. Because I’m just trying to clarify what we do, do and don’t do. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if he comes in and seeks a building permit, is someone in the Building Department going to, well, what kind of foundation are you putting or footing are you putting underneath those center posts? MR. ROUND-Right. They will. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I want to be sure of. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have to, this is one of the rare instances that I did not get to this site, and I just feel that I’m not in the position to make any kind of a comment here. I thought we went when we went last Saturday? MR. ABBOTT-We didn’t go back to this one. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. I’ve been thinking it was one that I missed. All right. I’ve got to recollect. We did this two months ago. I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-You were actually driving that day, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I remember. Yes, it was the white house. I remember. I thought it was very pretty out there. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s got a problem with it. There’s no SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second, when it came up that Tuesday, I was gone. I wasn’t even in the Country. What was the reason that we tabled it? MR. MAC EWAN-We wanted more information. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Regarding the structure? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. VOLLARO-No, the sundeck hadn’t been shown that it was going to expand along with the pier. The drawing didn’t show that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We had a public hearing left open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-99 EDWARD & LYNNE COLLINS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: In accordance with the drawing submitted dated November 24, 1999. Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. COLLINS-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Just make sure that between now and building permit time, identify any kind of footings or piers that are going under those six by sixes. MR. COLLINS-I will. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re welcome. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 6-99 NIGRO COMPANIES OWNERS: J. SKINNER, III, D. SKINNER, M. TIPPETT, C. TIPPETT, J. MADDISON, S. EDICK, L. GREENE, B. GREENE, B. PLUNKETT, T. CLARK, D. CLARK, M. VAUGHN, C. SHATTUCK, D. SMYTHE CURRENT ZONING: LI-1A PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF PROPERTIES ON HOMER AVENUE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE ACRE (LI-1A) TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL-ONE ACRE (HC-1A). WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/99 TAX MAP NO. 107-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, & 47 LOT SIZE: 1.93 ACRES JON LAPPER & FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there was a public hearing back on October 26, and did you keep it th open or did you close it? MR. MAC EWAN-We left it open. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone, Nigro Companies, Meeting Date: October 26, 1999, Tabled to December 21, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant has requested a zone change for Tax Parcels 107-1-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 47 that front on Homer Avenue. The proposed change is from Light Industrial (LI-1A) to Highway Commercial (HC-1A). The applicant proposes a 65,000 square foot grocery store to be located on the adjacent properties. The application has been referred by the Town Board for a rezoning recommendation. Staff Notes: The Planning Board requested additional information regarding the proposed project. The applicant has submitted visual representations of the building, a traffic impact study and stormwater management report for review. Staff considered the following factors for review of the proposed project: 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The project developer is allowed to utilize the land in the manner proposed. The change in zone will allow the site to be configured as 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) proposed. The project developer may be able to develop the site without the proposed change, however, the proposed configuration limits the development on the adjacent parcel in regards to setbacks. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The Highway Commercial (HC-1A) zone. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with the adjacent zones? Adjacent property is zoned HC-1A and LI-1A. this is consistent with the existing zone. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site is generally level, serviced by municipal water and sewer, stormwater management and wetlands present design constraints. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? The HC-1A (proposed) and LI-1A (existing) have similar effects on the public infrastructure. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? Limited potential for industrial development is anticipated given the location, adjacent uses, property size, and individual lot configuration. Light industrial use on the subject property may have a negative impact on adjacent residential properties. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Refer to EAF completed by applicant. The Town Board has requested SEQRA lead agency status. Impacts anticipated include increased traffic, noise, light spill, diminished wetland area, increased stormwater generation, among others. 8. How is the proposed compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? The 1998 Comprehensive Plan makes no property specific recommendations regarding zoning changes for the site. Relevant portions of Section 2.0 Townwide Plan include references to maintaining the rural nature of Queensbury, sensitivity to landscaping on commercial areas, architectural review of commercial development, and examination of parking standards to reduce visual impacts. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? The proposed rezone increases the amount of land associated with the Highway Commercial zone. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the zone change request.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We just read a portion of the Staff Notes here, though. MRS. MOORE-Correct, because the remaining portion is information that I provided you on October 26, 1999. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right, Gentlemen, good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Steve Powers, and Frank Palumbo. Preliminarily, I’d like to make one general comment, that we’re here to talk about every site issue that we know is appropriate to talk about now, and hopefully, if we get through the re-zoning issue, to talk about as SEQRA and as part of the site plan with you, but I’d just like you to consider that if we were here asking for approval of an industrial project on the two acre industrial zoned property that we’re talking about, we would have the room filled with neighbors from Garrison and Fort Amherst and Homer and everywhere else, because they would be threatened that that would really seriously negatively effect the character of those residential areas that are nearby. MR. MAC EWAN-But we’re not. MR. LAPPER-But we’re not, but we think that by adding these two acres that we’re principally here talking about, in terms of the re-zoning, by adding those two acres to our eight acre parcel to make it a 10 acre parcel, but at the same time, to limit the development to just this one 65,000 square foot building, which creates 46% green space for the entire parcel, that this rezoning makes it a better project. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of other site and design issues and impact mitigation issues that we have to put on the table and talk about, but in terms of the rezoning that we’re principally here to get your rezoning on tonight, we think that the rezoning makes it a better project. To add those two acres, to take out those houses, so that they can go move to a residential area, because clearly this is a mixed area already, before we came along, and use that area to buffer the residents that are across the street, that are still zoned Light Industrial, and will probably some day be sold for Light Industrial use, along with the Duke property that’s behind them, but we think that it makes it a better project. That said, we’re prepared to address all of your comments and concerns. We submitted the stormwater report, as you asked, and Rist-Frost has looked at that stormwater report. Just to summarize, shows that we’re holding the water on the site, detaining it longer. So the water leaves the site slower and that’s an improvement, in terms of the pre-built condition to the condition that we’re proposing. We’ve submitted our traffic report. That’s been reviewed by both the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council and their comment was that our report was more conservative than the Volume report that was done on behalf of the Town, and that they didn’t have a problem with it, and Volume has just recently submitted a letter which is a little bit different, but in general what those traffic letters say is that our project can be handled. There are some design issues, some mitigation issues that have to be addressed, but that capacity wise we can be handled on the existing road network. We’ve talked to the County Highway Department, the Public Works which is 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) responsible for Quaker Road, and they agreed that we should have the two entrances to split it up, as we had proposed. They seemed to be favorably inclined to approve this, but it’s just too preliminary to get there. You also mentioned that architecture, building color design was important. We understand that. We had, and I guess I’d like Frank to go through this, but we had the architects do something in earth tone, and then we tried to do a photo simulation of what this will look like, and we’ve got some different elevations from what was submitted that were just done this week. So, with that, Frank can go through that. MR. PALUMBO-Good evening. What we have, and I’ll answer any questions and go back and forth with any of the plans that you would like to see. This is the architect’s rendering of the building. This is the façade of the new prototype that Grand Union is going with, and it is called Mega Save. There is a drivet façade for the majority, with a canopied roof, at this point, with the main focus being on the entrance to the store, the primary entranceway. This was done by Grand Union’s architect. As Jon said, there were initially some different colors for this scheme and they wanted to do something with some more earth tones, and these were the colors that they selected at this point. What we did was to do some photo simulations, and I’ll bring each one of these up. What we have done is we’ve taken the actual position of the building, the elevation of that building, as it is in the field, as it would be in the field. We have put that into the computer model. We have taken the sizes and the elevations of that front elevation, and incorporated that into the field of view. We actually go out. We take photographs from specific locations, and then put the image into the field of view, as it should appear in the build condition. This picture here was taken from the entranceway of the driveway of the Adirondack Bagel, and we were standing right out at the point where the driveway meets Quaker Road. This is looking into the site, and I’m going to take this down for a moment. We chose this shot because we were taking it right from here, looking into the site in this direction, right toward the enter and exit location on the building. This is the way the building would look in the field of view of this photograph, this location. So it’s a fixed point at that point. I have to say that anything we represent here is giving the best representation we can give. It is not our eyes. It’s not what we can see in the peripheral vision that you have around you, but this is how it would basically look in relation, if you were standing at that point and the depth into the site, with the height. That is all modeled in through the computer. Important factors that I think are important, this mass of trees here. That will stay. That is right over here at this point, just outside. Here’s the Denny’s. We’re taking the shot in like this. The cars that are parked in that field of view are right between the Adirondack Bagel and the Denny’s. Right at that point is where the wetlands begin. That’s wetlands that we are not touching. Those trees are sitting in that wetland. We are not disturbing those areas. Some of those trees are probably actually right on the border between the Denny’s property and our property, so that we could really not legally touch them as it is, either through property ownership or the regulatory effects of the wetlands. What we have shown in the field of view are also trees. These trees that are positioned in the site are the actual trees from our landscaping plan. These trees are a more mature tree, a five to ten year growth tree. That is not exactly how it would be when it was planted. We do that representationally on site plans. I think that the general practice is to try to show what the mature field of trees would look like. MR. PALING-Question. Put your previous picture up if you would, please. Was it necessary to take all those trees out? MR. PALUMBO-In here? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. One of the things, that area right there is right here where we have the front detention. To do the site in the manner, trying to save as much. Jon has mentioned we have 46% green space, but we do have the physical needs of maintaining that storm drainage. This was an ideal location for it, being that it was not in the, you know, we could have moved it over here, but then we would have had greater wetland impact. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the visual issue, for the tenant and the developer, this is not what we consider an ideal site because it’s sort of hidden from Quaker Road. You’d like to have it like Hannaford, where it’s all open and everybody can see it, and if you just look, because this, which is all shaded, is all wetlands from here, and we’ve got the Hughes Insurance Company, which has some trees in the back, this is essentially the view, this is the only view you’re going to get, when you’re on Quaker. You’ll also see it from Bay, and Frank has this view, which is much more open, but you’re going to be able to look in between King Fuels and the Bagel shop here, which we’re not showing, and in between the Bagel shop and the Denny’s, which we are showing, and that’s essentially it, in terms of seeing the building, because all along behind the Denny’s, and all the way to our entrance, it’s all trees. It’s all wetland, I mean, technically designated wetland. It’s not really wet. It’s a forested area, and we’re not going to touch that. MR. RINGER-The houses that are remaining on Homer Avenue, across the street that you’re not buying, what kind of view will they have, and what elevation will they be from? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. LAPPER-We have that and we’ll get to that, but in terms of those, I think that there’s only four now, across the street there that, again, are zoned industrial, but I think there’s only four residents in that area that have C.R. Bard right down the street, and a mix of industrial and commercial uses. I mean, that’s something we have to take into consideration, and we have, and we’ve provided the buffer in the back to address that, but they’re sort of the anachronism now. That’s no longer prime residential area. It’s more commercial and industrial. MR. RINGER-No, but you’re asking us to rezone this property, and certainly the value of those houses are going to go down considerably with the rezoning. MR. LAPPER-But those houses are now zoned industrial, as is the land we’re asking you to rezone. So if it’s industrial, and some day somebody comes in with an industrial project, which is what you’d expect in an industrial zone, because the people that want to sell to us would want to sell to industrial use. They just want to get out of there. MR. RINGER-That’s great, Jon, but there are still some people left, and chances are an industrial tenant’s not going to come to the remaining houses that are on Homer. MR. LAPPER-Well, across the street, they probably will, because it’s all attached to the Duke Concrete products property, which is across from Bard. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s fair to say or suggest that that may or may not happen. We’ve got to deal with what we’ve got here in front of us tonight. MR. LAPPER-Granted, but we’re talking about zoning, to start with, in terms of what it’s zoned, and of those houses, there’s an automotive, some sort of an auto body on the end, restoration. The first one on the corner of Bay is not a residential use, window tinting, and the one closest to Lockhart Chiropractic I’ll be in to talk to you about next week. We just got a variance so that that can be used as a home occupation massage therapy, which is on, I mean, because it’s just changing, and I was here last month for Phil Morse to talk about Heritage Creations, on the other side of the day care. So in terms of what we have there, there’s really only a couple of houses, four houses I think that’s left that are residential, on the other side of the street, and saying that, we’re doing an awful lot to use this area as a buffer, to do a significant buffer, which Frank will talk about, to protect their view. MR. MAC EWAN-On the subject of green space, just for a minute. You said 46%, is that the number you used? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is any of that site that you’re proposing to develop going to be left untouched and treed? Or will the entire site be leveled and re-sodded or landscaped accordingly? MR. PALUMBO-This area right in here is all going to be left in its nature state. This area over in here is all left in its natural state. These areas here, we have the 75 foot setback from Bay Road. There are existing houses there that would be removed, but those areas would basically be left untouched, with one exception, if during site plan review someone were to ask for a berm over there, the next view I’m getting to is the one from Bay Road, but right now that is planned. The grading shows that that whole area, with the exception of the removal of some of these houses, that is all left as it is. This area over here, we have shown some grading. That was done initially for the purpose of, if we were going to try to do some onsite wetland mitigation. We conceivably could leave a good portion of this area as well, because it is not functional for our stormwater management, and we are not planning, at this point, we brought up at the last meeting, that our goal is to do a joint effort with the Town’s Recreation Committee to do off site wetland mitigation project. Okay. So this area we had intended, initially, to do some. So this area over here can be left pretty much untouched. So there’s a very, I think a very substantial portion of that which will be left in a natural state. MR. PALING-I can’t visualize your not touching trees, based on the first print that you put up, and those trees disappear. Those trees right behind that parking lot, right there, point to those on this here. MR. PALUMBO-What we have, because the surveyor generally will pick up trees of a significant size. They’re not picking up every tree. There’s an existing tree line right here. There’s a pine right here, a pine, a pine. These are all four inch caliper trees, another pine. So there’s a clump of pines right in here. MR. PALING-Yes. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. PALUMBO-That’s directly behind that parking area. Some of those are what you’re seeing. Some of what else you’re seeing is this tree line that runs right up like that. That’s an existing tree line. MR. PALING-Yes, but how about the ones that I’m looking at? MR. ABBOTT-That’s what he’s pointing to. MR. PALING-All right. MR. PALUMBO-That’s what I’m saying. As you’re standing here, you’re looking into this site like this. You’re looking right up into here. MR. PALING-Then why do the trees disappear? MR. PALUMBO-Some of those trees are right in this area where we’ve got parking. Some of the trees that you are seeing in this view, let me bring it a little bit closer for you. MR. PALING-I don’t think you need to bring it closer. These trees disappear, right here. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. They disappear. That’s the point I’m making. MR. PALUMBO-Right. Many of those trees, as you can, you can see where some of these trees are, the base of these trees. Then you see others behind them. You can see how those sort of go back into the site. The mass that you see there, that spreads back into the site. MR. PALING-Is that tree going to stay? MR. PALUMBO-That tree right there, I can’t tell if it’s, it looks like it’s one of these maples right here that’s down in this detention basin area. I mean, the only thing we could try to do is, during site plan, we could try to adjust this detention basin some, if that’s a directive to try to save those. MR. PALING-It’s not, I can’t visualize, standing out on Quaker Road, with those trees, and looking right straight through there to that building, and those trees staying there, too. That’s what my problem is. MR. PALUMBO-No. Our plan is that those trees would go. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. I’m not saying, we’re not trying to pull anything over here. Those trees, in this view, are taken out. MR. PALING-So you can get a better view of the building. MR. PALUMBO-No, not entirely. We would like a better view of the building. Jon was telling you the honest truth there. We’re not going to have views of the building through here. This is going to be heavily treed. This is going to be a primary location. Yes. We want some visibility of the building, but the main reason that most of those trees are going to be gone is because of what we’re doing with the development in front of the building. The parking is here, all this. I’m tracing the line of the existing tree line right there. All those trees come out with that parking. MR. PALING-I understand that, that part of it. MR. PALUMBO-The trees right down here, this smaller clump of trees that are probably in the area of where some of these smaller ones are right behind the parking area. That’s in the area of our detention basin. What I’m saying is that we can try to fine tune that. Now that we’ve gotten a look at this and how it’s going, we can try to fine tune our detention basin to try to maintain some of those trees. Those trees are not, the ones that you’re really seeing in this, the heaviest section of trees here, they’re more so up in this area where the parking is, and that’s why they’d be coming out. MR. PALING-Well, I think you answered my question now. Okay. Because you’re taking out some so you can see the building. MR. PALUMBO-It’s really a function of the site plan. I’m not going to try to kid you that we want to have a view of the building there, but we couldn’t do away with that parking area. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. PALING-No, I’m not asking you to. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Move along. MR. PALUMBO-The next shot is from Bay Road. This existing garden is right here. There’s an existing 18 inch apple tree, right there. That tree is right here. Okay. This is the building, in its field of view where it would be. This apple tree, Mr. Chairman, where you were asking, this is in that area adjacent to Bay Road here. That area right there would stay, with the exception of the houses, that tree doesn’t get touched. That stays there. These trees are representative of the trees coming in along the entrance drive, and that building is where it would be, in the field of view, and that is the height of it. I’ll point something out, just because it’ll be important on the other photos. This height right here is approximately 34 feet on the corner of this building. You can see that that went straight across. The person that was doing the computer simulation didn’t have all the side elevations. We had the front one. The side elevations will drop successively down to the rear of the building that I believe is at 26 to 28 feet. So this does come down some, and that’ll become important when I show you the rear elevations, but this is where that parking, that green space that’s between the road and the parking, and where I had mentioned that if there was a desire to try to do something with a berm, over in this area, the possibility is there. I wouldn’t want it to be something that would, I’d want it done back into the site a little bit, so it doesn’t obstruct the views of any of the cars turning in and out of the site, but right along here, where we have these trees, we could probably do a berm to screen a lot of that parking area, even further. MR. VOLLARO-How are you defining the height of the building in the back? Are we going to use some data to determine that, like the height of the road, for example, let’s say Homer. If we were to put a transit on Homer and shoot the top of that building, and we knew the distance of the transit from the back of the building, we could then determine the height of the building, from that triangle. MR. PALUMBO-I want to check something for a second, because I know that our floor elevation did come up. I want to make sure I’m telling you the right information. On this plan, we had had the elevation 316, which based to the USGS data. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a finished floor. MR. PALUMBO-And I believe we came up to, it wasn’t changed right there, but we’re up to 317.2. We have a 317 contour. So what we did was we, when we did the stormwater analysis, the full stormwater analysis that we didn’t have at the last point, we realized we needed to bring the building up primarily because of the drainage out of the truck loading area. MR. VOLLARO-So you had to put fill in there. MR. PALUMBO-No, we’re not bringing fill in, necessarily. The existing grades in that location are, we’ve got between 315 and 316. MR. VOLLARO-Up from what? MR. PALUMBO-The existing grades are 315 and 316. Our proposed grade is about 317.2. So what we are doing, is we are coming up some. A lot of that will get made up in just the thickness of the slab and the under grade of the slab. So when we talk about fill, I don’t want to say, I can’t tell you right now yes or no that I have this site completely balanced. That’s the type of thing that once we get past a lot of the issues that we’re talking about, that I’d be able to tell you exactly how this fill, right now the plans that we have, I’m pretty confident that we’re at a balance situation. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the height of Homer? MR. PALUMBO-The height of Homer? You have, let me go back to this one, up close to the intersection with Bay Road, there’s a 317 contour. Down toward the other end, you’re down as low as 313, down at this point. So you go from 313 to 317, with the last part here being a little bit steeper. I think most of Homer Avenue stays between 316 to, about 316 right in through here, with the highest point being the 317 up here, the lowest being the 313. So our floor elevation is pretty proximate to Homer, and then in between that is where we’ve placed this berm, that we came up with a three on one slope to get up as quick as we can, to come to an area at the top, which is about 321, okay, the dropping back down the other side. So right along where we have this fence, at the top, is 321. So you’re up from Homer, in a range of, you know, depending on where you are. This end up here you’re about four feet up at this point. Down toward the middle here you’re more like six to seven feet. Okay. So the floor elevation is at 317.2. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you continue on and show us the different elevations here? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. PALUMBO-Yes. This shot was taken, there’s two barns right here, or garages, a garage and a garage, with this house. Those are right here. Here is the house, where my finger is, the one garage, the other garage. This middle garage is here is that one right there. So this shot is basically coming in. There’s a telephone pole across the street from Homer, and that’s looking into the site, pretty much like this, almost right toward the corner. The back corner of this building is almost touching the back part of this garage, okay. Now what we’ve done here is we’ve really, I’ve done the opposite of what we did in the first one. These trees are shown at a more realistic planting height. We really wanted to give a worst case scenario on this. What we have is the garage, the house, everything’s out of the field of view. Here’s the edge of Homer. We go straight up in that point, three on one slope to get to the top of the berm. What you see on this plan is a chain link fence. We did that by mistake. That fence, we’ve already said, is going to be a wood fence. Once we did that, I said, well, I want to see that, because I want to see, this is what the earth will block, right there, from that perspective, if you were standing over by that telephone pole, that utility pole. The earth berm itself will block that much of the building. This building, as I pointed out before, is up probably about six feet higher than it would actually be, because they used the 34 foot. So that would come down. This fence, this line that I’m going to go along here, that would be the top of a solid stockade wood fence that you would have no view through. So, if you can picture that, that is the area that you would see above the fence. This landscaping, I think, is minimized, appropriately, because we did not want to give any misrepresentation that, they’re just showing a lot of landscaping, and that’s what they’re trying to hide the building with. There will be a large amount of landscaping that we have already shown on here, and we could throw more of them into the field of view, but we wanted to give you the presentation of what the earth itself will do, the berm, and then what the fence will do on top of that, but I think this does address a lot of the concerns, in terms of the residents that will be across Homer. There were concerns about, would they see the trucks. I believe I can say, no. I believe that the wood fence will help induce some of the sound attenuation that came up at one of the previous meetings. I’m not going to try to say that there would not be any impact at all. I’m saying that I think we’ve mitigated the impact to a great extent. MR. MAC EWAN-What height is that rendering supposed to be taken? I mean, from eye level? This one on the easel? MR. PALUMBO-That is directly, the image is taken, and the location of that is taken, directly from this existing photograph. The whole perspective of that drawing is modeled in, based on this perspective. So where you are standing, and where the person took that picture, we do them all from eye level. We don’t get down like this, or do anything like that. We do, and we try to get close to a fixed point, something that’s going to be there, that people can represent, the telephone pole across the street, so that you can stand there, and from eye level, that’s the perspective that you have. This is flat. This goes in flat. If you went out there, you would see, and you would be looking down toward the bottom of that garage. You’d be looking at eye level, at that porch area, right about where those, about midway between the porch and the windows. So that is modeled in from those points. MR. RINGER-What’s the distance from the fence to the other side of the street on Homer? MR. PALUMBO-From the fence to the other side of the street, let me grab the scale and tell you exactly. To the actual other side of the pavement to the fence is a little over 60 feet. The telephone pole that I’m referencing is about 70 feet to the fence line. So standing at that eye level. MR. RINGER-And the loading dock would be in the rear, too, correct? MR. PALUMBO-The loading dock is in the rear. MR. RINGER-And that would come closer to the fence from the building that you’re showing in the picture. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. We have a total, from this right of way line, for Homer Avenue, it’s 70 feet to the edge of that loading dock. So that is the closest point of the building, and there are two. MR. ABBOTT-So you’re picture that you have there, are you not showing the loading dock, or are you saying it can’t be seen? MR. VOLLARO-The loading dock’s behind the berm. MR. PALUMBO-I would say, from my understanding of this, that it cannot be seen. This loading dock point was actually even lower than the back of the building. If this is a solid wood fence, and that’s 34 feet high, and we come down to, I believe it was 28 feet. I think the top of the loading dock was down in the range of 22 to 24 feet. The other thing that’s happening with the perspective is that that berm and the fence on top of it, if you’re standing across the street, your line of sight is going up, which is helping to block the view of the trucks, I think. The last one, this is a view from the 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) other end of Homer. There’s a line of spruces, right in here. They’ll be in the back part of the building. Those are at the back of the lots of Homer. They’re almost right along the property line of the zoning line that we’re talking about. This shot comes from this direction looking in here. There’s a house right here. That house is this one. This fence line is right here, right along the line of that loading dock, okay, with the spruces being right here. Again, you can actually see something in this picture. You can see how the grade of that house is up a little bit. This is the point where the road is going down, and you can start to see how these buildings are sitting up a little bit, and there’s a little bit of a berm that comes along flat and then raises up to that building. So this is the lower part of the road. Again, the building is higher than it really would be. The fence is not there. This is just the chain link fence. That black line running right through there would be the top of the fence. You’d be looking up. You’d be screening it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m curious as to why there’s screening on the other side of the fence where it’s not really effected? MR. PALUMBO-We had done that because, one, the amount of area that we have to plant. That is an area where we can plant, and eventually, when that grows, and it grows up above the fence, it will add to the buffer. We could, we wanted to put the fence on the top, because we felt it gave it the most value. We have to get up then we have to get back down. So that’s why the fence was positioned where it was. If there were a way that I could have that fence back closer to here, I would do it, but that’s where we could get it at the maximum height, and take advantage of its height, but the trees on this side will eventually grow and add in to the fill of a buffer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. PALUMBO-I think that’s what we’ve got right now, in terms of the view. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why has the building changed color? Like the original, I mean, we have more of a brown and then now it’s more of a cream color. Are you only doing the brown on two of the sides? MR. LAPPER-That was pretty much a mistake. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, probably. This one was done last, and I bet that was. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but even on the upper rendering. MR. PALUMBO-You can see here, the shading on this one, for the shadow area, it looks a little bit more like that. So I think that they probably, what they do is they really touch up the tones of this, and somebody probably stopped touching it up because they didn’t refer back to the other one and get it to the same level. MR. PALING-Can you tell us, at this point, how visible the mechanical equipment on the roof will be? MR. PALUMBO-I would say that it’s not going to be very visible at all, because of, from these vantage points, again, by looking up, given the proximity of the building to the vantage points, you’re looking up. So again, depending on the location. I don’t know the exact location of those units. MR. PALING-In that view you have there, how far below the level we’re looking at is the roof line? MR. PALUMBO-How far below this? MR. PALING-Yes, on the inside. MR. PALUMBO-How big is the parapet wall. MR. PALING-How tall, over the roof line? MR. PALUMBO-I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-You also mentioned, along the lines of mechanical, that that side view from Bay Road, the building as it progressed toward the back wall, was going to be stepped down. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So you definitely would have a chance of seeing the mechanical from the Bay Road side at least. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. PALUMBO-You’d have a chance. Again, what I don’t know, what I couldn’t tell you, is exactly where those are located, and so your point’s well taken. If that steps down and there’s a unit right on that corner, from this point here, you’d have a chance of seeing it. The only thing I could say is that we could certainly, you know, we could get more detail. That would be the kind of thing I would like to do during the site plan review. We’d like to get past the zoning issue first. MR. PALING-Okay. It’ll be an item for site plan. MR. PALUMBO-Once we’ve got this modeled in, we can really, we can do some things, as questions come up, to give you exact views from different points. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said you were going to change that chain link to a stockade fence. Just correct me if I’m wrong. When we did Wal-Mart, and they wanted to block the Wal-Mart from the people over on, and the residents on June Drive and those places, was that an eight foot fence that we did over there? See, one thing about that chain link fence, the way the rendering is, it’s nice and clean and level, and, boy, you can butcher those stockade or those wood fences really bad. I mean, I like that fence. The only problem is it just exposes too much. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t buffer sound. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It doesn’t buffer the sound, and you would see. MR. LAPPER-We’re flexible in terms of the design and materials. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I mean, I would be really adamant about putting in an eight foot really strong, good wood fence, and then again, you’ve got, the maintenance is something that you have to consider, too. MR. LAPPER-In terms of that, again, this is the Nigro Companies, and we have the example of the Taco Bell on Glen Street that used to be the old Carvelle, and I mean, if they can come in and put up a Taco Bell and make an improvement in Town, which they did, because it’s sprinklered. The landscaping is very nice. I mean, they’re not a bottom line oriented, they don’t cheap out when they do this, in terms of the caliper of the trees, the maintenance. That Glen Square Plaza is very well maintained. MR. MAC EWAN-No, but, Jon, we’re comparing apples and oranges. We’re comparing a 5,000 square foot fast food restaurant to a 65,000 square foot store. MR. LAPPER-All I’m saying is that, in terms of maintenance, this is not a developer that you have to worry about that the thing’s going to look like hell down the road. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of questions I’ve got, actually at least one. I think Bob beat me to the punch on the mechanical, again. In our October 26 meeting, a lot was said, and you don’t digest it th all right away. When I sat down and read these minutes, there was something that you said there that kind of struck me, and I’m curious as to the meaning behind it. We were talking about the overall concept of the store at that point, and one of the questions I asked you about was, you have 65,000 square feet, why couldn’t it be 40, and you gave us some answers to it, but one of the things that you said in there, I was talking about architectural, what it was going to look like, and you made a comment in there that said that’s something that will probably change as the process moves forward because that’s what the Town Board indicated was what they were going to want to have input on was the architecture of the store. Could you elaborate on that? Why would the Town Board be involved in that? MR. LAPPER-For the rezoning. The Town Board is asking you for a recommendation. It’ll go back to them for the vote on the re-zoning. So they can also condition that re-zoning on visual impact issues, so that they may tell us that they want us to make changes. MR. MAC EWAN-But your comment alludes to the fact that they’re going to have architectural input, that they’re going to help determine what the store’s going to look like. MR. LAPPER-Because when we were before them, and again, this was some of the members of the Town Board who aren’t going to be here after January 1. st MR. MAC EWAN-That’s almost all of them. MR. LAPPER-Dick Merrill said, when he saw the building, he said he’s going to want to see the building changed, and that’s what I was referring to. That was a different building than what we started with. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MRS. LA BOMBARD-The blue one? MR. LAPPER-It was blue, but it didn’t have the treatment all the way along the stucco façade that came out. It just sort of ended, and then it was the brick. MR. MAC EWAN-And the issue of fill, bringing it in, was something else that’s still sticking in my mind. Considering some of the information that we were able to garner out of the public hearing when it was left open the last time was that there seems to be a very high water table on Homer Avenue. How deep do you typically go down to put in your footers? MR. PALUMBO-To put in the foundations for the building, I think typically you’re going to be down about four feet, plus or minus, depending on the design of the foundation and the type that they use. What we have done. MR. MAC EWAN-How much plus or minus? MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s probably three, because if we’re going to be above, one foot above the existing grade at 17, you’d probably have to go down three feet. MR. PALUMBO-Down from existing. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-Right. If you’re down four feet from the finished floor elevation, in this case 317.2. If you go down four feet from that, you’re at 313.2. In many points of this (lost word) of the building, there’s 315, 316. Right now what we have is we have the geotech study that was done, that identified the average locations of the water table. We have borings that were done, and I believe they were actually submitted to the Department, the geotech. I’m not positive of that, but we have done that. We know that, and in fact I can say that we have adjusted the site accordingly for some of the groundwater, and that’s what brought us up to the 317.2. As I mentioned that drainage issue, the worst point I have is in that loading dock area, and so we had to bring that up a little bit, so that we could keep that out of any water table area. MR. MAC EWAN-How much did you bring it up? MR. PALUMBO-We were at 316 before we came up to the 317.2. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re up a little over a foot. How deep, typically, do you put footers? Don’t you have to go down below frost line, down 24 inches at least? MR. PALUMBO-Well, the four feet is going to be factored in on, one, the type of loading that they’re going to have, and what type of, you know, what will occur is that a final geotech analysis is going to be done for the building. That will be done in conjunction with the architect who’s basing his information on the specific loads within the building, and the different. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you done other stores this size before, have you personally worked on them? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, how deep do they go down with their footers? MR. PALUMBO-I think on the Home Depot, we were down four feet with those. MR. MAC EWAN-So you could say typically you’re going to go down four feet here. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-But from finished grade, not from existing grade. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where I’m going with this. If you go down four feet from where you are right now, without bringing any fill in. MR. LAPPER-No, four feet from the finished floor grade. MR. VOLLARO-He’s saying he’s going to be at 313, is what he’s telling you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. In order to come up to the finished floor grade, are you bringing in fill then? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. PALUMBO-We do not envision, right now, that we’re going to be bringing in fill. We have areas where we are cutting on the site that we are going to spread that around on site. We had talked, somebody had mentioned, we had been talking with some residents, and somebody had mentioned the fill that took place over at the Lowe’s. We’re in a greatly different situation. Our floor elevation here is basically at or above the Quaker Road elevation. That site goes almost entirely down from Quaker Road quite substantially. We are not looking at this site in any terms of having to have the type of construction activity that had to take place, the amount of fill that was brought on. We’re going to be doing ever y attempt to balance this site, so that we don’t have to bring material on. MR. MAC EWAN-But you seem to be somewhat evasive with me on this. I’m just trying to get an understanding that I know that there’s a high water table on that side of Quaker Road right now. MR. PALUMBO-The water elevation that I recall, I don’t have the data right in front of me here, but the information that I recall was that the water table was down at 310. MR. VOLLARO-One thing you could do is you could freeze the design on the finished floor at 317, and you’d be stuck with that number. MR. PALUMBO-No. The design is going to be, well, if that’s what you were inclined to do, I think it is a site plan issue, but if that was what you were inclined to do, the design of the building, there’s other means of addressing that. If we found that our water table problem was worse than we thought, there’s means and ways of designing buildings and doing de-watering during construction, and as I said, the type of foundation that’s going to be used is going to have a large part of that. We have designed this right now, and we have valid information, and that valid information is on our plans. Those borings are located on the plans. They’re not on this one right in front of me, or else I’d tell you exactly what it is, but we have information. The wetlands itself is down at about 309. It’s the draw that comes up through the middle of the site that’s at about 310. That area dives down. We have borings in these locations where we are planning on doing the buildings and we have designed accordingly around those. I’m confident that we can put this building in at the elevation that we did. MR. MAC EWAN-How big of a building could you put up there to satisfy Grand Union if you didn’t acquire that additional property on Homer? MR. PALUMBO-We could actually do this building, to your site plans, on the other site. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why do you need to acquire the additional property? MR. LAPPER-We don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Then why go through it? MR. PALUMBO-It’s a better project. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what? That’s what I’m trying to understand. MR. LAPPER-Based upon we anticipated that the neighbors that were backing up to us wouldn’t be that happy, and we get to move away from the wetlands, which is good in terms of protecting the wetlands, and it’s cheaper to have to fill fewer wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-But you argued before, two months ago, that the wetlands were insignificant and that your stormwater management plan with the detention basin you were going to put in was a better system than what was there now. MR. LAPPER-We’re still planning on disturbing 42 one hundredths of an acre of wetlands, but what we’re leaving is that wetland which both acts as a visual buffer and as a filter for the water on the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Why couldn’t this project be scaled down to a 40,000 square foot building? MR. LAPPER-We can’t do 40,000 because, just like Hannaford across the street, at 65,000, this is the prototype for a full service market is 65,000. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I don’t think the Hannaford market had any impacts on the surrounding properties that this one’s going to have. MR. LAPPER-I would venture to guess, and I could be wrong, that Hannaford’s site is fewer acres than the 10 acres that we have here. I think Hannaford is closer to seven or eight, but I don’t know that. I haven’t looked at that in a long time, but in terms of the impact of putting a 65,000 square 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) foot building, and leaving 46% green, where the Town requires 30% green, we’re not maxing out the site, and we’re buying the land in the back to make it a better project, and it’s costing a lot of money to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-It just seems to me an awfully tremendous impact. MR. LAPPER-But we’re here to talk about the impact of whether those two acres get included, and that has to be considered less of an impact because we’re not doing an industrial use. We’re not maxing it. If we were trying to keep 30% green space, so we were trying to get the biggest building we can, and we were buying those two acres so that we could get more building on the site, the 65,000 square feet on the eight acres, we’re still well above the 30%. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hung up on the aesthetics, the impact to the neighborhood on Homer Avenue, the impact it’s going to have on traffic and infrastructure to the Town. Those are the three things I’m hung up on. MR. VOLLARO-Traffic I think is the biggest one, for myself. MR. PALUMBO-I guess what we’re asking you for there is, is somewhat of a comparison. MR. MAC EWAN-A comparison to what? MR. PALUMBO-To this project. The traffic, in this situation, would be worse. It would be the same amount of traffic, based on the ITE generations, but basically. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Palumbo, not to cut you off, but stop right there. If you’re saying that this other project that you would build on this site without acquiring that other property you’re admitting would be a worse scenario, why on earth would you think this Board would approve that? MR. PALUMBO-Because we’d be coming in for a site plan approval. MR. MAC EWAN-And why do you think we’d approve a project like that if you’re admitting to us that traffic would be worse? MR. PALUMBO-No, what I’m doing is I’m not admitting that this is any worse than any other project we’ve done in this Town. I’d say that we could do this project to your. MR. LAPPER-He means worse compared to if we take that two to two acres, because there will be traffic generated by the two acres for industrial. MR. PALUMBO-What we’re looking at is not, I’m not asking you for a comparison between this one and the other, relative to whether you would approve this. What we have come in with is we’re asking for this rezoning because we think we can do this building, this same size building, better on the larger piece of property, than what this would be, all right. Yes, you have the ultimate decision, in terms of approving this site plan. What I’m asking you to look at is, is this one a better situation by adding those two acres, and doing the site in a better manner. If we come in with the other one, and we meet Town requirements, and we come through and we show the green space and we show the parking, and we can show that we can do traffic mitigation, just as any other applicant would try to come in and do, then who’s benefiting, if we show that we can do those? I’m not saying you have to approve it, but if we show that we can do those, and it was subject to an approval, you are now going to have folks on Homer here, right next to that building. We’ll still build a berm here. We have the 50 feet. We can build a berm there, but we’re going to be right in their back yard, and the people across the street are not going to have that much less of an impact. They’re still going to see through to see this building, and they’re still going to see the traffic that comes with this building. What we’re asking for is the zoning modification on this tract, so that we can do the same size building, the same amount of parking, in a better way. MR. MAC EWAN-I see that plan right there still having the same problems that I’m concerned about with aesthetics, traffic and the impact on wetlands. MR. PALUMBO-But you’d still have to entertain that application. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. MR. PALUMBO-And that’s what we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Which brings me back to, why can’t you build something smaller that’s less of an impact? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. PALUMBO-On which site? MR. MAC EWAN-On either one. MR. PALUMBO-Well, why would we acquire that land? If I think I can do 65,000 on the other one, within your Town Code, why would I do that 40,000 on that site? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m asking myself the same question. I can’t figure it out. MR. PALUMBO-I can’t, either. This site is better than the other one. This land is better used in this site in this way. Even if I did a 40,000 on that other one, I’m going to be right in their back yards. MR. MAC EWAN-I can tell you, the plan that you’ve got right now, you guys haven’t convinced me tonight. That’s one guy’s opinion. MR. VOLLARO-Is the traffic generation from both plans the same, roughly? MR. PALUMBO-The generation would be calculated as the same because you have, you know, the ITE for a supermarket, the generations would be the same. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then added to that is Jon’s position that that’s commercial back there, light industrial, and that could be purchased by somebody else, adding to the traffic volume, is that correct? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is that where you’re coming from? MR. PALUMBO-Yes, which would be higher than the residential use that’s currently there. MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody else got any questions? I’ve taken up enough time here. MR. VOLLARO-My questions are mostly to do with traffic. We haven’t talked about that yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-In taking a look at the overall traffic analysis, and then taking a look at what Scott Sopczyk of Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, a couple of things bother me. One is the left hand turn going, lets see if I can remember from all of this, the left hand turn going north on Bay, making a left turn on Quaker. Got that picture? MR. PALUMBO-North on Bay, left onto Quaker. MR. VOLLARO-Left on Quaker, and they’re saying to make a lane there, a left turn lane only, of about 120 feet if I remember. MR. PALUMBO-No. The 120 foot lane is, that was I think one of the typos that Scott pointed out, if I’m correct. The 120 foot lane would be for the left hand turn movements into the site, back up at this point. So as you’re coming here, Bay Road would be widened to the location of the shoulder, re- striped, basically, because it’s already out there, the pavement’s there. So what we would have is, at this point, 120 foot lane for left hand turns into the site. I believe that’s what we have, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just take a look at the wording here. MR. ABBOTT-Going south on Bay. So how many lanes would you have? MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t want to interrupt, but I do have a question, when Alan’s done. MR. ABBOTT-Going south on Bay, from Quaker, how many lanes wide would you have there then? You’d have right turn into Hannaford, straight through and left turn into? MR. PALUMBO-You have four lanes. Basically the taper is made up, so as you get past Hannaford, you have a single lane going through, and then the left hand turn lane. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. SCHACHNER-My question is a perspective or a focus question, and that is that, and it may be off base, and if so, just tell me to shut up. I’m hearing a lot of questions from the Board that seem to me to be focused on whether constructing this type of commercial project at this location of this approximate configuration and this approximate size is a good thing or a bad thing, an approvable thing or a non-approvable thing, in site plan, and I’m just wondering if we’re focusing on the issue that’s currently before us, which is the request for a recommendation for the rezoning of the approximately two acre property, whether that should remain zoned light industrial or become zoned commercial, to facilitate this project. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my response would be, in order for us to come to some sort of determination of whether those properties should be rezoned, the developer and the applicant has asked us to consider this proposed site plan and how it’s going to impact that, and I think that’s what, even though I agree with you, these are site plan issues, we’re trying to look at the whole picture here. MR. PALING-We’re also only commenting on what they’ve submitted, too. We’re not making. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I understand that, and again, if I’m off base, I’m off base, and I’m not trying to throw a monkey in the works here, but I’m hearing a lot of questions that will be the same, some questions I’m hearing seem to me to be questions that you would ask whether this were before you as an eight acre project or a ten acre project, and if that’s true, then those don’t strike me as the most relevant questions for your inquiry, because the issue that’s before us tonight is not whether this is a good thing, site plan wise, or a bad thing, site plan wise. The applicant may think that they can knock this thing down and get it approved under either scenario. You, as Planning Board members, may feel that it’s highly unlikely under both scenarios, but I mean, and again, we can debate this for as long as anybody wants to debate it, but from perspective as Counsel, I just feel like part of my job is to make sure that you’re focused on the proper issue, and I just wanted to raise that comment to make sure that we remain on that focus. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Do we want to entertain anymore traffic questions, or is it inappropriate? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s inappropriate. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, we’re fully prepared to answer any of your questions on traffic. MR. PALING-In the traffic study, it appears that in several cases, the improvements you’ve made, have made the traffic conditions worse. I refer you to page B39, as compared to B57, where an eastbound turn, after you’ve gone through the existing, the background, the combined and the combined improved, the intersection is rated as C as against a B, which it was previously. I’m running right down like this, okay, and where you have an eastbound turn, all the classifications of D and it becomes C, that’s not too bad, but down here, when you do it on Saturday, the C classifications in four cases become D’s, they become worse. MR. PALUMBO-Do you know exactly where you got that from? MR. PALING-Yes, B121. MR. PALUMBO-Page B121. MR. PALING-That would be part of it, yes. Across the bottom here, Level of Service. MR. PALUMBO-And you’re comparing that to? MR. PALING-All right, go back to B103. Now, see, when you go across the same thing, and now these are C’s above the B. MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that we’re looking up here? MR. PALUMBO-We’re comparing Page B103. MR. ROUND-There’s a Level of Service Summary Appendix C that’s going to contain that same information, and there are instances, at 254 and Glenwood, I think what you’re referring to, Bob, is the 2,000 combined, which means the. MR. PALING-No. I’m doing only 254 and Bay. I saw that, but I didn’t do those. MR. ROUND-254 and Bay there’s one instance, I think, where. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-What page are you on? MR. PALING-Compare Page B103 to B121. MR. ROUND-Again, there are instances where the 2,000 construction, with the improvements, is worse than without the improvements. I think that’s the point you’re trying to make. MR. PALING-Yes, why is that? MR. ROUND-Well, any time you construct a turn lane, you’re affecting the traffic movement. It depends on what intersection you’re talking about. MR. PALING-Well, the only one I addressed was 254 and Bay, and in the instances I’m talking about, the level of service was lowered after improvement from a C to a D. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. PALING-That doesn’t seem logical that that would happen. MR. ROUND-I’ve got it highlighted here for you. MR. PALUMBO-We’ve got the background and combined, we’ve got the existing and background, and then the combined, and then with the site improvements. I’m going to have to check that. What it is doing is, one of the things, is that it is not necessarily, I know this is a concern for you, and a valid one. So I will check on this. What, generally, they will do is show that the overall improvement, intersection is functioning at the same level of service, and not necessarily every turn movement, but I will check into that to see. MR. PALING-Yes, you’ve got one, two, three, four. You’ve got four turns there that are affected at this intersection. MR. PALUMBO-Right, which was on, as Chris was saying, all that information that you went through those pages for is on the summary in Appendix C. Although in the Appendix it’s not registering as many of those. So I will have to check on that. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I’m concerned with those four, and with the one, the eastbound. Okay, there’s one in the afternoon and four on Saturday I’m concerned with, the five of those, and I know there’s others, like up near Meadowbrook and all, but I didn’t go into the detail on that. MR. PALUMBO-So you’ve got westbound left, westbound. MR. PALING-You could do it by page number if you want. Is that easier? MR. PALUMBO-Well, what I’m doing is I want to get an idea of why these that are in the summary are different from on those pages, because there may be something that I’m not aware of, as to why that comes out that way. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-So we can check that, because in here, as you can see in the summary, it’s not showing all those decreases. So I’ve got to check on that, why it comes out that way. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. The other thing is, and we’ve had this happen to us a couple of times in the last couple of years, that we haven’t been forceful or creative enough in nailing the applicant to do something better than what I’m looking at at those prints. I visualize a beautiful lot, all kinds of great trees, and as far as I know, there’s only one big apple tree been saved, and there must be a lot more creativity that can be applied, and as I look at this, and I look at the lot and I think of the impact, I don’t want to go ahead with it, either. MR. LAPPER-Well, we have a developer here who’s willing to spend the money, frankly, to do a good project. So in terms of the caliper of trees, in terms of the landscaping, we can do a nicer job than what you’ve seen in some of the other commercial properties, and I can prove that by asking you to go look at Glen Square Plaza, which is nicely maintained and much nicer planted than some of the other plazas in Town. Just to back up for a second, back to the zoning issue, the question before you tonight is whether it’s appropriate for these two acres to remain industrial or to be zoned commercial, and if you look at it from the five homes, seven lots that we’re proposing to buy, eight lots, this gives those people a way to get out. They’re in a mixed area right now, that has nothing to do with us. If this project happens or not, you’ve got C.R. Bard right down the street, Duke 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) Concrete products making concrete block all night long, all the commercial corridor on Quaker. That Homer Ave. is an existing mixed area, and by buying these people, it lets them go move to a residential area, so that they’re not impacted. It still leaves four houses across the street that we have to address, but is it appropriate that it’s zoned industrial? MR. MAC EWAN-Is it appropriate that you come in and take those homes and convert them into commercial endeavors to meet the needs of this proposed site plan? MR. LAPPER-If you look at Queensbury, there aren’t that many areas that are zoned for commercial. We’ve got the Quaker Road corridor. We’ve got the Route 9 corridor, and there are a few other areas, but primarily that’s commercial, and everything else in Queensbury is residential, which, I mean, that’s just where we are. So, is this the appropriate place at the corner of Quaker and Bay? That’s the commercial hub of the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-That is a commercial property. You’re trying to add to it to create a buffer from the other people who live on the other side of Homer Avenue. That parcel that you’ve got right there, with the 65,000 square foot store on it, can be developed. It’s already zoned Highway Commercial. The problem is, you’re trying to put something too big on it. MR. LAPPER-What you don’t agree with me, or you don’t believe me, is that, if you look at the Town, and it has nothing to do with site plan. You have plenty of control on site plan, but it’s just, if you look at the requirements in the Town, can you put a 65,000 square foot building on eight acres in a commercial zone in the Town, and you can, because those constraints are to comply with parking and green space, and in terms of the green space, we can fit it. We can have that big a building, or bigger building, on eight acres, so this is not the case where we’re trying to max out the site, and I could see, in another context, where you would look to us and say, look, we want you to go buy a couple of acres so you can spread the thing out and make more green, because you’ve got too much pavement and not enough grass. So what we’re doing here. MR. MAC EWAN-Has this Board ever said that to you? MR. LAPPER-No, but I could see you looking at a site and saying there’s too much stuff in one box, and we want more green. I mean, we’re at 46% green. You can’t point to a lot of other commercial property. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the first time this Board ever said to an applicant, go out and buy some additional acreage to make your project work, we’d be strung by the nearest tree. MR. LAPPER-But we went and did that ourselves, without the direction, at a cost of many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars, because I have a responsible developer client which fortunately has a deep enough pocket to do this, which we think makes it a better project. So it just seems to me that with the two extra acres, it’s a better project, it takes care of a lot of issues. We’re not putting traffic onto Homer Ave. We’re building a berm. If you’re telling us that you want to recommend to the Town, and I think what Counsel was saying was that a lot of these issues are site plan issues, which are absolutely valid, traffic mitigation and everything else, landscape mitigation, design of the building, but in terms of the focus question in front of you tonight, about whether or not this should be rezoned, it just, to me, it’s a better project to have the two acres in here rather than not, but if you’re telling us you don’t want to see the two acres, because you want to keep the Homer Ave. residential in character or whatever, if you don’t want to see the two acres, I mean, we’ve got the land under contract. We’ve got a tenant that wants to be in this location. So we can go back to the drawing board and come back with an eight acre project rather than a ten acre project, and you can approve it or deny it, but what I’ll tell you is that that will be per the site constraints in Town and part of the design standards, in terms of green space, and parking and everything else. MR. MAC EWAN-And you know as well as we know up here on the Board, because it’s zoned a certain way and allows a certain size development on that zone, doesn’t necessarily mean that every zone can be developed to its maximum. MR. LAPPER-No question, but this is the commercial hub of the Town, with Hannaford across the street and Lowe’s across the street, and all of the new car dealers down the road. I mean, this is where it’s happening for commercial. So it’s the obvious place where a commercial development would go, and then you’ve got all this industrial use right behind it, Bard and Duke and a lot of mixed use on Homer Ave. I think it’s appropriate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jon, your point is well taken. I have one question. Is the final sale of those properties that those people are moving out of their homes on Homer Avenue, is the final sale contingent upon okay of the site plan? Let’s say, hypothetically, that we give our recommendation and the zoning gets changed, well then let’s say down the line, you come before us, and all the issues 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) that you just said that we will address during site plan review, well, let’s just say that it doesn’t go through. Do those people still get to sell their properties? MR. LAPPER-No. Because if we don’t have a project. So, it’s all contingent contracts. It doesn’t mean contingent upon getting that exact site plan that we’re asking for now, but on getting our project approved. MR. PALING-Okay. I would like to add something to what I said, having said what I said, I think al the reasons behind it are site plan. I can vote for a zone change, but I think that the applicant has got to be forewarned that I’ve got all kinds of site plan reasons against this application. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. PALING-But if you look at it purely from adding that strip of land on Homer and the future of it, I can go for that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I can, too. MR. LAPPER-We’re not shying away from the site issues. I know this Board, projects change. You’re going to want to see some more, and maybe we’ll get there, maybe we won’t, but those are site issues that are legitimate issues that we deal with every month this is different. This is a zone change. MR. ROUND-Could I just bring you back to focus, and I think Mr. Paling’s comment was well taken, is it’s talking about changing property from one zone to another. I know you, the Planning Board, wanted to see the site and what are the impacts of the particular project, but there’s specific requirements that the Town asks for when considering a zone change, and I’ll just, and we provided that in the original notes, and what needs are being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone. That’s what you’re struggling with, is there really a need to change this from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial, just so this particular applicant can benefit from that. I realize you’re struggling with that. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? It’s the Highway Commercial zone. That’s without question. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? It’s a Highway Commercial zone adjacent to it. It’s in a commercial area. The Light Industrial zone is not incompatible with Highway Commercial. They’re very similar impacts. So the change from, I could see if there was a change from Single Family Residential, to Commercial, then a lot of the concerns that you have would be well taken. We really shouldn’t move forward with a residential to commercial because we don’t want to have commercial growth sprawl. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? Well, the adjacent site is zoned Highway Commercial. So it makes sense that that’s suitable for the two acres that are adjoining it. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? That’s highway, water, sewer, etc. That is sewered. The highway system is adequate for it. There are going to be mitigation measures that are proposed as a part of a Highway Commercial project. That’s a site plan issue. I think that the area is appropriate for commercial development. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? That’s a question that you haven’t debated tonight, is it really appropriate for the industrial? I’ll make an argument that we should retain it as industrial, because there’s limited industrial land, but the likelihood that that’s going to be developed in an industrial manner, is not high. It has sewer, which is an advantage, but the lot configuration is not the best to make Light Industrial to happen, and you’re going to see even greater public concern that you have Light Industrial occurring across the street from a residential neighborhood. What’s the environmental impacts? That’s what the SEQRA review is going to deal with. That’s some of what we’ve been talking about, traffic, noise, groundwater, stormwater, etc. You haven’t built the greatest comfort level with those issues. How is it compatible with the Comprehensive Plan? That’s up in the air. We didn’t speak specifically on the Comprehensive Plan about this particular property. Typically, Comprehensive Plans don’t speak to properties specifically. They speak area or corridor specific. It’s a commercial corridor. Quaker Road’s our commercial corridor. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? That’s, again, a point of debate that I don’t think you’ve had to discuss, that a lot of the benefits are going to serve the applicant, by zoning it commercial, but the applicant has argued that by changing it, the wider benefits are, they’re going to be able to mitigate the impacts better, or provide better mitigation to the adjoining neighbors, and provide a better project, and that’s the zoning issues we’re talking about. Just to bring you back, to discuss some of those issues. MR. MAC EWAN-That last comment you made I wouldn’t necessarily agree is a zoning issue. That’s a site plan issue, because they’re trying to buffer the neighbors. In order to buffer the neighbors, they’re trying to acquire more property. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. RINGER-The property is zoned Light Industrial, but it’s primarily residential, the street. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a good point. That creates a pretty awkward situation that’s occurred in a number of other places in Town, where there are areas that are zoned Light Industrial, but not occupied so much by Light Industrial uses, but again, and Staff has a position, and I don’t have any position, because that’s not my job. My job is just the legal side, but on the legal side, it seems that you should focus on the questions that Staff has talked about, that the applicant has talked about, that you’ve asked about, but also be mindful of the fact that the applicant is portraying this as something of a project specific rezoning, but remember, that’s not the case. To a degree, when you make this recommendation, you should also be looking at the broader perspective, and deciding whether, in your view as a Planning Board, this two acre area is, whether the entire Town is benefited, as well as the particular area in question, by this two acre area being changed in zone to commercial to Highway Commercial from Light Industrial, and not focusing too specifically or exclusively on the particular project that’s currently proposed. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a good point, because if this project ever comes to fruition here, and the zone change is changed, now you’ve got several lots sitting amongst Light Industrial zones that are zoned Highway Commercial. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, they’re also near commercial lots, but that’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I think I’d like to open up the public hearing. We left it open. I’d like to hear some comment if there’s people that want to come up. Come up to the table and comment. When you do, please identify yourself for the record. Any questions you have, you can address them to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOYCE THOMPSON MRS. THOMPSON-My name is Joyce Thompson, and I live on Garrison Road. I was at the last meeting, several months ago, and I have a lot of ideas about this project, but what I’m here mostly tonight is about the traffic. I have a letter from Freda Solomon. She wasn’t able to attend. She lives on North Road, and I’d like to just read it. She says “Traffic is becoming an urgent issue, on cross streets between Bay Road and Glen in the Town of Queensbury and Webster Avenue in Glens Falls. Very few drivers consider the 30 mile speed hour limit, and they are often driving so fast they cannot stop at the stop signs on the cross street of North Road. There are no sidewalks on Garrison Road, between North Road and Bay Road. I walk daily with my husky traveling east on Fort Amherst Road, and continuing west on Garrison. I walk at different times of the day, and at peak traffic hours, early morning, mid day, and late afternoon. The traffic numbers and the speed are incredible. It is difficult for homeowners to back out of their driveway, as most have no turnaround. A year ago, a very large deer was hit broadside and killed, leaving three fawns. This past summer a young woman going so fast on Fort Amherst Road to Bay, drove through the ducks crossing the road, killing at least 30 ducks. These fatalities could easily be human fatalities if traffic speeds are not restricted, or traffic patterns not changed with buffers, speed bumpers or traffic police. I urge you to correct the traffic problem before you approve any issue that will increase traffic on these cross streets, which are increasingly used as cut through streets between Bay Road and Glen.” And I just wrote a short statement, too. I just said, any development which is being contemplated with the Grand Union on Quaker Road has an adverse effect on the already existing traffic problems on Garrison Road in Queensbury. It is imperative that a traffic study be done on Garrison Road if this project is being seriously considered. Garrison Road is a highly taxed residential area which is being used as a highway thoroughfare at the present time. This area, which also includes Fort Amherst, was not intended to be a public thoroughfare. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Could I ask you to leave those letters with Staff, please, so we can make them part of the record? MRS. THOMPSON-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? BEVERLY KERR MRS. KERR-I’m Beverly Kerr. I reside on Garrison Road in the Town of Queensbury. I have with me a petition with 38 signatures. I will read the petition. The petition, I believe, is on file. “Interested citizens of Garrison Road, Fort Amherst and North. We, the undersigned, residents of Garrison, Fort Amherst and North Roads, wish to register our concern and complaint against the development of another box store in Queensbury. The area of Quaker Road, Homer Avenue and Bay Road has seen more of its share of commercial development and excessive traffic in recent years. Permission to continue with this project will further intrude on the lives of the homeowners in the 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) area. The fact that there are two major markets and two convenient stores in the immediate vicinity should be sufficient to provide adequate shopping choices for members of the broader Queensbury community.” I would just ask that the Board be courageous in this decision. I know it’s a difficult one, but we must, as some point, maintain development in our community in order to provide the lifestyle that we all wish to maintain. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Do you have a copy of that petition, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MRS. KERR-It’s with the Town Clerk. I brought it to the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? JAY BROWER MR. BROWER-Yes. I’m Jay Brower. I’m the son of Mrs. Brower who owns the seven acre property that they’re trying to develop. My mother’s in the last house on Bay Road that is a residential home in the Highway Commercial property. It’s no longer suitable for a residential position. I live at 314 now, when they re-did it. I raise my family there. It is highly trafficked. It would be better suited to a development than a residence, but even on Homer, there’s not many children or families growing up there anymore. It’s just not the proper area for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Your mother’s house is the one that’s right next to the insurance place? MR. BROWER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The property that they’re requesting to rezone is the property, the parcels that are on Homer Avenue, not on Bay Road. MR. BROWER-That is correct, but you asked for comments, and I’m just giving a comment that I think the whole project should be approved to help the Town of Queensbury have a nice looking, another supermarket, whatever, but it should be approved so, because it looks like, to me, they’re doing a fine job. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? BETTY POTTER MRS. POTTER-My name is Betty Potter, and if you’re looking at this design, I live right on the corner across from Homer Avenue on the top of the map. The gentleman did not address that catch basin issue, didn’t even mention it. My house sits across from there. The gentleman says if you stand there and look up, you won’t see the back of this supermarket. It’s a raised ranch. I’m not going to stand on the ground outside and look at the supermarket. I’m going to be looking out four big windows in my living room, at the back of a supermarket. Okay. The gentlemen, when they appeared before Warren County, stated they were going to put a six foot high berm. When they appeared before you it’s going to be a seven foot high berm. I don’t believe you gentlemen or lady is going to tell them how high to make that berm. So who says they’re going to make it five, six, seven feet high? They do. MR. MAC EWAN-Should it get to site plan approval process, this Board will dictate to them how high any berm would be, as we would with any applicant. MRS. POTTER-Okay. On the catch basin that they’re doing, okay, how deep is it? How wide is it? How fast will the water drain out of it? I have a five year old granddaughter. That basin is there, and my granddaughter’s playing outside and goes over there and falls in it, who’s liable? Now, the gentleman said they’re not going to raise the property, the level. When I built that house two years ago, the Town of Queensbury told me I had to, before I could even start digging, raise the level of that property one foot, because the water table was down 32 inches, and I had to have a four foot frost wall. I could not put the footings in water. Not only did I have to raise the level of the ground a foot, I had to backfill the house four foot. Just to meet the Town. They’re going to be different and not have to do that? They’re stating that, in order to leave that Light Industrial, it’s not productive, or someone else could come in and build something in there. According to the building codes, they have to have, between zones, a 50 foot berm. They have to build 50 foot from the road. The lots are 143 feet deep. I don’t know of anyone who’s going to come in and buy all those properties to put something in 43 feet of space. So it’s very limited. If you change the zoning, you are automatically letting these people come in, because that’s what they want. They want to build a bigger store. I can understand the people on that side of the road wanting to sell their property. They’re getting more than double what their property is worth. I can understand that. When they 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) say there is a massage therapist coming in, they’re right. She wants to buy the house next door to my father’s house. However, every building that is a business on that road closes between five and six o’clock at night. They’re closed on weekends. So that neighborhood still has the peace at night and the quiet on the weekends. Duke concrete does not make blocks. They are not open at night, and they do not own the property behind the house. There’s a 50 foot strip that is owned by a person who lives, I believe in Florida at this point in time, because I tried to buy the property behind. Okay. It’s wooded. So it completely blocks my house and Duke Concrete. So you cannot see it. What these people propose to do is to ruin the neighborhood and force those of us that are actually going to be remaining there to sell our house, or put up with what’s going on. Their deliveries will be all night long. You’re going to hear truck drivers out there, yelling in the middle of the night, and talking back and forth. You’re going to have those lights. There is no way that this berm that they want to put in is going to stop my view out that window. If they cut down all those trees that they want to put in this business, I’m going to be able to look right straight through to Quaker Road, from the upstairs windows of this house. They can’t build within 100 foot of that stream. That’s what the code says. That’s why their holding basin’s going to be on that side, and that’s why they need all the green, because of the high water table. Okay. By not changing the code, the zoning code, you’re prohibiting them from acquiring that property. So that our quality of living will stay the same. If they buy it and they get to put in that store, which the Town of Queensbury is more than likely to let them do, our whole quality of life is going to change from what’s left there. So I guess my next question would be, if they build that store, and I have problems with the water table and my quality of life, do I sue the store, or do I sue the Town of Queensbury? MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t answer that question for you. I’m only Chairman. BEV PARADISE MRS. PARADISE-Hi. I’m Bev Paradise. I live at 18 Homer Avenue, and since Miss Potter was required to build her house up four feet, every time there’s a rainstorm, my cellar’s full of water from the brook, and according to the report from Hudson Environmental Services, that brook contains two numerous a count of coliform to identify. We’ve had, every time we have a lot of rain, and then not only that, they talk about the traffic, but if you put traffic coming out of the Grand Union turning right, they’re going to take the next right on Everts, the next right on Homer., and then back over to Bay again. We’re just not going to be able to live on Homer Avenue. I asked one of the men from Grand Union if he was interested in buying my property, because if they build there, I can’t stay there because I can’t live with my house full of water all the time. I just had to put a new furnace, a new hot water heater, and if they build, I can’t live there, but like Betty says, who do we sue, the Town or them? I offered the property to them, they’re not interested. They’re just interested in terrorizing us, but I just hope you leave it zoned like it is, because it’s bad enough already. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. PARADISE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MRS. PARADISE-Does anyone want this water report on the brook? MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of that? How old is that report, just out of curiosity. MRS. PARADISE-11/23/99, that’s when that was done. MICHAEL INGLESTON MR. INGLESTON-My name’s Michael Ingelston. I live on the corner of Homer and Bay. I’m the same guy, two months ago, that still doesn’t want this place built outside my back window. The traffic on Bay and Quaker right now is nuts already. Like Mr. Smythe said two months ago, he has to wait through two red lights to make a right hand turn on Quaker. My wife sat through three of them the other day. It’s very frustrating. There are a lot of children on Homer Avenue right now. Maybe they tried to do some other impact studies, but they didn’t do the impact study on the neighborhood, because they never questioned anybody on the neighborhood, either side of the street, other than the people they wanted to buy at twice the price. If they put this building up there, there’s going to be two loading docks outside my back window. Tractor trailers deliver 24 hours a day. I work at Finch Pruyn. They run along the clock, seven days a week. I don’t want to hear this noise all night when I’m working days, and I don’t want to hear it all day when I’m working nights. The lights are going to be on all night. Two months ago, this store was going to be 22 feet high sticking out of the ground. Now tonight it’s going to be 28 feet high on the back, instead of 22, and 40 on the front. When they take the trees out, so that you have a view from Quaker to see this store from Quaker, now you’re taking a noise buffer down where I’m going to hear Quaker Road, just like you can hear the Northway, if you live on the side of the Northway. I don’t need that. I’ve already got the traffic 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) on Bay. Now these people are telling you all night about Light Industrial could come in here and do this and do that and do this and do that, well, I want to tell you the facts, nobody’s beating down my door to put a Light Industrial in there, okay, and I’ve got a double lot. I’m on the corner. So I guess I’ll have 86 feet instead of 43 feet maybe. I guess that’s it. I don’t know, I just don’t think that the left hand turns on Bay and Quaker, I think they’re asinine. Traffic’s unreal there now. They need six lanes on Quaker and four lanes, five lanes on Bay right now, without that store going in there. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else? BETH PLUNKETT MRS. PLUNKETT-Good evening. My name is Beth Plunkett. I own a piece of property on Homer Avenue, and I’m directly effected by this approval, whether it be approval or disapproval of the rezoning. One of my homes is the effected home. My concern is that, from what I hear and what I understand, what I’ve looked into, the store could go in, according to building code, with or without the purchase of my home. My concern, of course, is it then would literally be in my back yard, not 70 feet from me, but in my back yard. I wouldn’t have a 70 foot buffer. I would have maybe 20. It’s an area that is so grown now, it’s no longer a residential area. It’s a commercial area. I’ve seen it. I’ve been there 15 years. I’ve seen all the development. I’ve seen concrete, all the asphalt go up. It’s just not the type of area, it’s not like it was when I moved in. I have an opportunity to now go somewhere else, into a residential area, and if I have that option, I should be able to go. Some people have the misconception that some of us are making three times, four times the value of our home. I, personally, am not. I don’t know what anybody else got, nor do I care what they got. I got a sufficient price to move on with my life. I’m still going to have a mortgage. I’m still going to have a car payment. So when they insinuate that we’re walking away with hundreds and thousands of dollars, I’m not. I don’t know what anybody else is, nor do I care. I just want the point made that I’m directly effected by it. If it goes in with me still there. That’s my concern, is then it literally is in my back yard. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-My name’s Bob Sears. I’m a realtor. I’m involved in the sale of the, proposed sale, of the property on Bay and Quaker, the Brower estate. A couple of comments as far as the traffic goes on Garrison/Fort Amherst and some of the other streets, Webster on the other side of Bay. There’s not many signs up there for traffic to begin with. They could put signs up there saying no trucks on these streets. They could patrol those streets better than they do. They could put better speed signs up there and they could police it better. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Sears, in reality, it doesn’t work. I can give you an example right on Main Street in West Glens Falls, right where the Cumberland Farms is and the cemetery, right through there, and the emergency squad, that’s all marked right there. There’s no stopping or standing whatsoever, and they put those signs up there for about an 800 foot stretch of that highway on both sides, specifically because tractor trailers were coming in there, parking and going in like to the Cumberland Farms, the Subway or the Pizza Hut. They still do it. MR. SEARS-I think in reality it will work, especially that area of Town. Number One, you don’t have near the traffic. Number Two, you put a patrol car out there during business hours, and leave it sit there for a couple of weeks, and you’ll issue some tickets. You get a citizens committee up, a vigilante committee set up. You make a few phone calls. You’d be pretty focused on what should be done there, and it should get done. Now to say it won’t work there, or anywhere, I get that all day long. That’s part of my job. People say no to me all the time. The thing you have to do is look at ways to solve a problem, and one way to solve a problem is to start focusing on stopping traffic going down there, using a thoroughfare, and that hasn’t even been attempted, at least from my vantage point. As far as, everyone is assuming that the residential properties on the south side of Homer Avenue are going to lose their value. Basically, a residential property on Homer Avenue is going for $75,000. That’s the estimate, that’s the opinion, and I think that’s a fair estimate. If you take all those residential properties out on one side of Homer Avenue, on the north side, and you have all green area all the way down through that north side, which you will have if this project does evolve, then you are, in some respects, creating a fairly park like setting, especially if you put some trees up and so on. You have a 50 foot buffer there of trees. You have an elevated berm there. You actually might have some visual impact, but you will not have any other development on that side of the street. So those properties on the south side that are existing, I don’t want to say that they’re going to lose value. I don’t know. I had a discussion earlier tonight with the residents. My initial response was, yes, they will lose value, but stop and think about it for a minute. You take those properties out of there, and now all of a sudden you’re not looking across the street into somebody’s garage, or into somebody’s picture window. Yes, you could say, well, there’s a huge building on the 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) other side of that berm. If that is mitigated with a fence and with trees, over time, the properties on the south side of Homer Avenue all of a sudden have more of a residential flavor, or argument could be made that they have a more residential flavor and have more privacy than they did before. That’s a question. I’m not saying they would or they wouldn’t, but I think that’s a question that could be debated. I don’t think that this Board should automatically assume, or the residents on that side of the street, should automatically assume the value of their residential properties is going down, or that their neighborhood in general is going to erode, as a result of rezoning the north side. I think that’s debatable, and I think the value, as a residential property, is also debatable, whether or not it will improve in value residentially or not. I appreciate your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you one quick question? MR. SEARS-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-The properties, all the properties on Homer Avenue, on the north side of Homer Avenue, are they all under contract, from Bay Road all the way over to Everts? MR. SEARS-I don’t know for sure. I don’t, I’m not privy to that information. MR. MAC EWAN-The comment you made was something to the effect, well, all those properties were taken over would create some nice green buffer over there. My understanding is not all those properties are under contract. MR. SEARS-Well, lets put it this way. There’s enough properties to have a very strong visual impact of green area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SEARS-Well, let’s look at the map, Craig. If you look at the map, you can see the majority of those properties are all going to turn into green. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t share that philosophy. MR. SEARS-Well, it’s a question that I’m asking the Board to at least consider, whether or not, there’s been an assumption here that those properties are going to lose their value residentially. I’m saying that that assumption might be debatable, from my perspective as a real estate person. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I’m not looking at whether people are going to gain or lose monetary value on their properties. I’m looking at the impact by taking a handful of properties and rezoning them from what they are now to another zone, and what the benefits would be, versus what the negative benefits would be, the positive. MR. SEARS-Absolutely, and my response is this. That assumption is that their lifestyle, residentially, is going to have a negative impact. I’m saying, because of that additional green area, taking all those houses out of there, putting in a decent fence and putting in a number of buffer trees, there is a debate here that could go on all night long, that maybe their lifestyle will improve residentially, and I think that’s debatable, and I leave it up to you. You’re the Board that’s going to have to decide. I’m glad I’m not in your shoes. Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, Mr. Sears, you’ve got to remember, we’re not really deciding. We’re here to make a recommendation to the Town Board. So whatever we recommend, they don’t have to take our recommendation, and they’ve been known in the past not to. MR. SEARS-Right, but it’s incumbent upon you to decide the zoning issue, and the zoning issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it isn’t. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. We’re just here to make a recommendation to the big guys, the Town Board, and then they will decide the zoning issue. That’s their call, but then, if they do indeed decide that, then the applicant comes back to us for site plan review. MR. SEARS-Right, but you have to make a recommendation as to whether or not to rezone the property to commercial or leave it as it is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but what I’m saying is our recommendation, whether we do or don’t, doesn’t mean, either way, that it’s going to change. MR. SEARS-No, but you’re taking it to the next level. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. SEARS-Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? GREG FISH MR. FISH-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Town Board, I don’t have a lot to say, but I just want to go on record as saying I’m against the rezoning change. Greg Fish, 7 Homer Avenue. I just want to go on record as saying I’m against the zoning change and I’m also against the whole project. That’s all I’ve got to say at this time. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. Any additional comments, questions? MR. PALING-Yes. I think I just have a comment. If we’re going to go through these things, why don’t we discourage the applicant from submitting reams of information that really have nothing to do with what we’re here for, and stick to the subject and objective at hand. We had a whole bunch of information submitted to us, concerning traffic and impact and all, and style of the building, and it doesn’t have anything to do with zoning, but couldn’t refrain from commenting on what was submitted to us, and maybe we could encourage them not to submit this kind of stuff and approach the subject differently in the future. Outside of that. MR. LAPPER-Bob, I think you weren’t here. We were asked to submit that, so that the Board could get a flavor of what the whole project was about. MR. PALING-We’re here to make a zoning recommendation. MR. LAPPER-We completely agree with you, but just in terms of the first comment, stormwater and the traffic and the visual stuff was requested at the last meeting, and that’s why it was submitted, and I don’t know if you were here when that request was made. MR. PALING-Yes, I was here. We shouldn’t have asked for it. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but our job is just to do what we’re told by the Board. MR. PALING-No, I’m not, because this happens to everyone. Every time something like this happens, we do request or get this information, and I think we should re-visit the septic. Let’s put it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think our Board has established a policy, a long time ago, that when we entertain a rezoning request, that we kind of like to get a feel for the entire project, and how it’s going to go, not just the parcels that are going to be rezoned, but what’s the entire project. We’ve asked for it before, and I don’t think it’s reaching too far for us to ask for that. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, all right, getting back to the subject at hand, we’re asked to make a recommendation regarding rezoning, and again, I’ll say I don’t like the application, but I think the idea of rezoning could enhance that property, make it a more usable piece of property, whether this applicant would use it or not, but the uniform zoning I think could enhance the value of that property, whoever gets it, and I think Light Industrial and Commercial are not that far apart either, that this shouldn’t be done. So generally I’d favor a positive recommendation to the Town Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I think at this point the use of the two acres in this project is better than not using the two acres in this project. I’m not saying that either one of them are approvable at this point, but I would go for recommending the rezoning to use that two acres with the larger parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I favor rezoning, but I’ll tell you, there are so many issues that we need to come together on, and this is something that is not going to happen overnight. I feel optimistic that 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) something can be done about the thoroughfares that are being made of those nice residential streets, and I think Mr. Sears had a good point there. You shouldn’t be thinking of ways why something won’t work, and thinking of being more upbeat and optimistic, but I was the one that said at the beginning when you came here, months ago, that is really scary, and you’re pictures do shed a different light on things, but I do believe that the project as you’ve proposed it, there’s going to have to be a lot of work in coming together on both sides, just like we did with a previous applicant that was here tonight. MR. LAPPER-I was just going to say that, that that shows how the process can work. We understand that you’ve got, in many cases, significant design issues, in terms of the site plan, and we’re here to work through those. We don’t expect that this is something that’s going to happen overnight, but we have to get through the rezoning issue first before we can deal with the design issues. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I do appreciate the fact that the company is willing to go and purchase the extra land, but like I say, I’ll vote for the recommendation for the rezoning, but as far as the whole project itself, I’ve got a lot of sleeping to do on that one. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t support the rezoning, and I’ll tell you why. You’ve already demonstrated, with an alternative site plan, that you can develop this parcel without having to have those three or four parcels that you’re requesting now. Secondly, by rezoning that area that’s Light Industrial to a Highway Commercial zone, would change that zoning area without a real bonafide basis for needing to do it. You’ve demonstrated that you can build a store, without having to acquire this extra land. I think by changing it also to Highway Commercial from the current Light Industrial zone it is, upsets the harmony of that zoned area right there. Given the fact that it is a residential area, I don’t see any benefits to you, as a developer, for changing those parcels. Furthermore, out of the ten people who spoke here tonight, only three were in favor of it, and those three all have a financial gain by this project, the other seven don’t, and I can’t support a rezoning on it. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, before I even get into the zoning situation, and I’ll address that quickly, but as far as I’m concerned, when I look at the traffic studies, looking at Adirondacks and looking at the Vollmer Associates, I don’t see these things squaring with one another at all. There’s an awful lot of conflict. Having said that, I think not granting the rezoning certainly, and if, in the not granting it, Nigro goes forward with the project, by spinning that building 90 degrees, then I think that the people that are going to be living in the back of that building, it’s an awful impact for them. It’s much worse by not granting the zone then by granting it, but what really happens is what you do when the zoning is granted. MR. LAPPER-But we can’t do anything without your approval. MR. VOLLARO-No, what they propose at that point. In other words. MR. MAC EWAN-Propose doesn’t mean approval, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No, I know it doesn’t mean approval. I understand. I have a lot of problems with this, with the site plan as well, but I see not granting the rezoning as the lesser of two evils, and I would probably be in favor of granting the rezone, but reluctantly granting it, because I don’t know what the next step is going to be. MR. LAPPER-The next step is to work with you and to listen to you and to make project changes to hopefully get a modified site plan approved that you can all support. That would be our goal. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s going to condition itself on the size of the building, and you always said to Craig, you know, that’s probably not a possibility because 65,000 square feet is the prototype for that type of business. MR. LAPPER-We might be able to lose some parking, though, and add some green and move the building, you know, there are other things we can do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I would vote against the rezoning because I feel even though this is zoned as a Light Industrial, that it is really a residential area, and so for those reasons I would, and then there would be some site plan issues, too, but mainly I feel this is a residential area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, based on that, does someone want to introduce a motion? 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/21/99) MOTION TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THIS RE-ZONING REGARDING THE PETITION PZ6-99 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-So no action was taken on that. So I can only tell you, and I’ll try to convince my fellow Board members, that rezoning, a zone change from a Light Industrial zone to a Highway Commercial zone is not necessary for this applicant’s project to work. They’ve already demonstrated that that 65,000 square foot store can fit on that parcel without having to acquire that land. By going to a Highway Commercial zone, just like Larry said, you are upsetting a residential area, even though that’s zoned Light Industrial over there, it’s still a residential area. That’s all I’ve got to say. I’ll introduce a motion to deny the applicant’s request for a zone change, and that the zones given under application PZ6-99 be left as they are. MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE, AND THAT THE ZONES GIVEN UNDER PZ6-99 BE LEFT AS THEY ARE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 1999, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-So I guess we’re kind of stuck here. Best of luck to the Town Board. MR. LAPPER-All I can say is that if we do come back here, which we hope that we will, that we will work with you and make a good project. MR. MAC EWAN-Bring a smaller store. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 58