Loading...
1999-03-16 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 1999 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK ROBERT PALING TIMOTHY BREWER ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD LARRY RINGER SENIOR PLANNER-CHUCK VOSS PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI RESOLUTIONS: SUBDIV. 12-1998 STEWART’S ICE CREAM – RESCIND APPROVAL OF 2/16/99 FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the audience’s purposes, we’re rescinding this resolution. It’s being put forth because when we approved the Preliminary and Final Stage Subdivision last month, the applicant didn’t send out his 500 foot notices for adjoining properties. So, does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO RESCIND SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998, STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer SITE PLAN NO. 6-99 TYPE: UNLISTED PREMIER PARKS, INC. OWNER: SAME ZONE: RC-15/LC-42A LOCATION: THE GREAT ESCAPE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AMUSEMENT RIDE CALLED THE “FORMULA ONE – GO KART TRACK” AND ASSOCIATED SITEWORK. AMUSEMENT CENTER IS AN ALLOWED USE, NEW FACILITIES AT THE SITE ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1403, 1404, 1447, 1449, UV 35-1989, AV 87-1998, SP 22-88, 34-88, 66-888, 68-88, 4-89, 13-90, 14-90, 10-93, 36-94, 57-96, 75-96, 49-97, 26-98, 62-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 36-2- 3.1/LOT SIZE: 248.96 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-21 MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to move the schedule around just a little bit. We’re moving the last item, Site Plan No. 6-99, for Premier Parks, to the next item on the agenda. Do you have a letter from them requesting tabling? Did he send something to you? MR. STARK-Yes, right here. MR. BREWER-I’ve got a copy of it, Laura. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s addressed to Mr. Round. “By way of confirming our discussion of a couple of days ago, I have an unavoidable conflict next Tuesday, March 16 which is the Planning th Board meeting at which the Go-cart application for the Great Escape is pending. You have indicated that there is another meeting March 23 and I would ask if you would kindly move the application of rd 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) the Great Escape for site plan review to that date. We understand there may be a charge if an additional public hearing notice is required. If so my law firm will pay it. Thanks again for your continued courtesies.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here that wanted to address the Board regarding this application? We're going to open up the public hearing, and we’re going to leave it open. I would encourage you, if you did want to speak regarding this application, to just maybe hold off, and we’re going to have this on the agenda for next Tuesday night. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LAURIE GRAVES MS. GRAVES-My name is Laurie Graves. I live on Ash Drive over on Glen Lake. I’ll be unable to make the meeting next week, so I would like to express my concern. I’m not opposed to the expanding of the Park itself. My concern would be the noise. I know there is a go-cart across the street that has created a lot of noise in the Twicwood area. This is moving a little bit closer to my home, and I am concerned about the noise level. They have a new roller coaster that’s coming in, but that’s going to be enclosed, and I didn’t come to the meeting for that because I didn’t feel that noise would be an issue from that ride, but I do, I don’t even know where this ride is being planned for within the Park. I don’t know what the noise level, the decibel level of the noise would be. So I don’t know what the repercussions would be. Are there any kind of studies that will be done for the noise levels? MR. MAC EWAN-They have submitted, with their application, some manufacturers readings of decibels regarding the go-carts versus other types of noise levels that you would have. I don’t know if we’ve gotten information back from Rist-Frost yet. Have they reviewed those, the noise? MRS. MOORE-The noise level? No. MR. MAC EWAN-Between now and Tuesday, we’ll have that done and get some input from the engineering. MS. GRAVES-Is it wrong for me to ask where, within the Park, this ride is planned? MR. MAC EWAN-No. They plan on putting it in the area of the Bobsled ride. MS. GRAVES-Okay. I do know that there are times when the noise from the Bobsled ride is quite loud over in our area. So, I definitely would be concerned about the noise level from the go-carts. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that’s a concern of this Board, too. MS. GRAVES-There is one other thing that probably isn’t relative to the issue of the ride itself, but it is a concern of the parking situation. There is a utility road along the Fen of the Glen Lake, and I believe it was when the roller coaster went in, that it was put into the Town records that there would be a setback on this utility road, and that the cars wouldn’t be parking along there because of the oil and antifreeze and everything that can leak into the lake, and I do know, last summer, on several occasions, that the Great Escape was allowing parking on this utility road, and I would like that put into the records that something needs to be done to correct that issue. MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, as part of the condition of approval for the Comet Roller Coaster, there was some conditions in there regarding parking along that road. We’ll have to pull the resolution and see what that was, but I recall there were some setbacks regarding parking down there. MS. GRAVES-Yes. MR. BREWER-I believe it was 100 feet, as I remember, and the item you just mentioned, I think the last time the Great Escape was in, I mentioned that, about the parking, because I happened to go by one day and that lot, so to speak, was jam packed full of cars. MS. GRAVES-Yes. They’re backing the cars in. They’re packing them in on to the east side of the utility road, right up to the water, right up to the Fen. MR. BREWER-My memory, if it serves me right, I’m not positive, but I thought there was a condition in there that there was no parking over there. MS. GRAVES-Exactly. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. BREWER-In my mind, I remember that. Maybe Staff can pull all the resolutions that we approved for them, but I’m pretty sure that’s what the Board said at that time, George. I’m not positive, but that’s the way I remember it. MS. GRAVES-Okay. If it does occur again, can someone tell me what we do? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if they are indeed violating the parking over there, and it was a condition of approval for the Comet to be approved, then they’re violating the conditions of their site plan approval, and it’s an enforcement action. MS. GRAVES-Do I, you know, if we see it, do we write, do we call? I don’t know what to do. MR. MAC EWAN-If I witnessed it, I’d call the Town and say that they were violating a condition of approval, but I, personally, for myself, I want to check the record and make sure exactly what we did approve. I do recall that there were some setbacks. I've just got to get it clear in my mind as to exactly where and where they couldn’t park and how far they had to be back away. We’ll bring that to their attention, though, next week. MS. GRAVES-Okay. Now, back to the go-cart ride. Do we know how many go-carts they would have available on the track at one given time? MR. BREWER-Twenty. MR. PALING-No, I’m sorry. They’ll have 10 operating, with a total of 20 cars, with 10 in reserve. This is the way their application states it. So there’ll be no more than 10 running at one time. MS. GRAVES-Now do they plan on like enclosing the carts at all, to cut down on the noise at all? MR. VOLLARO-No. They’re going to muffle the automobiles. MR. MAC EWAN-Other than the muffler systems that come on the cars, we’re not aware that there’s any other type of enclosure put on. MS. GRAVES-So they’re liable to be as loud as the ones that are at the Pirates Cove ride, possibly? MR. MAC EWAN-They could very well be. MS. GRAVES-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? IRWIN FUNK MR. FUNK-My name is Irwin Funk, and I live at 17 Twicwood. I just want to make a statement about the noise that’s coming from the Great Escape now. There’s a ride that went in there I believe it was last year, and it’s shaped in such a way that there’s large curves, and I think they call it the Alpine Slide. I was there this summer, and the curve on this ride, and the walls, they cause the sound waves to intensify and get directed right toward the Twicwood neighborhood, and every time that ride goes around, it sounds like thunder, and the thing that concerns me about another ride there is are these cars going to have the noise echoing off that same ride? Is that going to be like a loudspeaker for these cars? Because right now, it does act like a loudspeaker. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good point. MR. FUNK-That’s my statement. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. We're going to leave this public hearing open. Like I said, we’re tabling this application this evening until next Tuesday night. I would certainly welcome all of you to come back and address this application at that time, to let the applicant know your feelings as well. We're certainly going to address the issues regarding parking, but the noise issue regarding the Alpine Slide has been brought up before, and hopefully we’ll try to address that issue and see if we can’t get some sort of commitment out of the applicant as well. Okay. Okay, we need a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-99 PREMIER PARKS, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until March 23, 1999. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. BREWER-Craig, we’re going to have Staff get what resolutions for? MR. MAC EWAN-The Comet Roller Coaster. MR. BREWER-Well, I think it might even go back further than that. MRS. MOORE-I have a note to pull them all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 4-99 TYPE: UNLISTED FORMULA ONE AUTOBODY OWNER: RICHARD EGGLESTON ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 384 BAY ROAD APPLICANT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR AUTO COLLISION REPAIR (SP 11-93, SP 63-93). APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE ADDITION OF AUTOMOBILE SERVICE/RENTALS. PER § 179-23 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE AND IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 11-93/SP 63-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING: MARCH 10, 1999 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1.6 LOT SIZE: 0.79 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 SHERI LIEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 4-99, Formula One Auto Body, Meeting Date: 3/16/99 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to expand an existing (autobody collision repair) with the addition of vehicle rental. The applicant’s rentals will be U-Haul trucks and National Car rentals. Site plan review is required for automobile service (rentals) in the HC-1A zone. Staff Notes: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to discuss the proposed use, property issues, parking and landscaping. The applicant received approval of 36 spaces for parking, storage, employee and customer vehicles – SP 61-93. The applicant’s drawing adequately identifies the location of all potential vehicles on the lot. There are no plans for additional parking, and the applicant has indicated that the existing parking can accommodate the collision repair and rental businesses. The applicant met with Staff to discuss landscaping for the front of the property. The area to be landscaped will include the front portion of the property as well as an area encompassing the sign. Staff suggested “street trees” such as the Bradford Pear spaced every 30 ft. which a 2 ½” – 3” caliper. This would include some low shrubs around the sign with the suggested area to be seeded with grass. The applicant was receptive to the idea and would be willing to landscape within a reasonable time frame. The trees would assist in providing a corridor effect for Bay Road. Staff would recommend that the Planning Board review any additional future use on the property relating to automobile/vehicle use, including vehicle sales. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-Warren County, they granted approval to this project. MR. MAC EWAN-No conditions? MRS. MOORE-No conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you please read in Formula One Auto Body’s letter of February 24. th MRS. MOORE-“To Whom It May Concern: We currently run an auto body shop at 384 Bay Rd. in Queensbury where we have already been approved for 36 parking spots. In addition to the body shop, we are looking to rent vehicles. This would not be a complete franchise with a large fleet, but rather a satellite station off from the main locations. We do not feel that we need any additional parking spots. We should have sufficient space with the parking that has already been allotted. The 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) spaces will be designated as follows: **1-2: Rental vehicles **3-6: Customer parking (finished cars awaiting pick up and people who come in for estimates) **7: Handicapped parking **8-13: Vehicles waiting to be repaired **14-19: Rental vehicles **20-25: Employee parking **26-31 Will not be cleared and used unless the need arises **32-36 Vehicles that have been declared totals and are waiting to be picked up The additional landscaping that we would like to do is to level and plant grass around the sign. It is currently unlevel dirt. We will no longer be parking/driving vehicles in that area. Sincerely, Sheri Lien, President” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here from the applicant? MRS. LIEN-My name is Sheri Lien. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re here asking for a modification to run the National Car rental franchise? MRS. LIEN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything that you need to tell us or want to add to what’s already been entered into the record? MRS. LIEN-No, I think everything was covered. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. STARK-You seem to have a lot of violations on your property from the first site plan approval. The dumpster isn’t enclosed. You push snow on property in the back that doesn’t belong to you. Sometimes the right-of-way is blocked off for the Harts. You had three businesses operating there for a year and a half, and I don’t know what happened to the car sales, but you were supposed to lease the land next to you, and that fell through, or you’re not going to sell cars now. You never lived up to the first approval, site plan approval. Do you want to talk about that? MRS. LIEN-It’s not an excuse, I wasn’t part of that at that time. This corporation took over in May of ’95. As far as the dumpster enclosed, I know that has to be done. That will be taken care of. The car sales, the person that was going to be handling that is no longer part of this corporation. That’s not going to happen. The snow I know was addressed this year, and they talked to the people that were plowing adjacent with us, and they could come to an agreement on how to plow. I’m not sure what else you have on your list. MR. STARK-You’re aware of the State Supreme Court Order about that right-of-way? There can be nothing parked in that right-of-way. Did you ever see the Order? MRS. LIEN-The Order itself? No. MR. STARK-Do you have a copy of that? MRS. MOORE-No, we do not. MR. STARK-Linda didn’t give it to you? MRS. MOORE-No, she did not, and I've asked her to. MR. MAC EWAN-Our original site plan approval for this application, while we’re talking to her, could you fish it out, so we can go back over what conditions there were for approval, so we’re really square with what we’re doing there? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I have a couple of things. On my application it says the applicants rentals will be U-Haul trucks and National Car Rentals. Do you plan on expanding beyond National Car Rentals to U-Haul trucks? MRS. LIEN-It would only be like two U-Hauls on the property at any one time. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. VOLLARO-Well, will you have a franchise contract with U-Haul? MRS. LIEN-It’s not a franchise. We're not an actual franchise U-Haul like Exit 18 has. That’s all they do. I guess we’re described as like a satellite. If we need it, we have the little computer there to rent them, but it’s just. MR. VOLLARO-So there won’t be large amounts of U-Haul vehicles on the site, like trucks and things like that? MRS. LIEN-No. Two would be the most that there’s ever been and will be. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I notice that this is, on your application, when you made your application itself, the one you signed, it said continuation of automobile repair and body shop to add vehicle rental. Now, are you claiming to just rent cars, or is there a repair function associated with the rental? MRS. LIEN-Just auto body repair. MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m talking about prep of automobiles and repair of those rental vehicles. In other words, is all the repair done by somebody at National? If a car breaks down, are you going to do the repair of it on repair. MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m talking about prep of automobiles and repair of those rental vehicles. In other words, is all the repair done by somebody at National? If a car breaks down, are you going to do the repair of it on your site, or does that go some place else? MRS. LIEN-If it needs auto body repair, we do repair National cars. If it needs mechanical repair, we have another shop at Exit 17. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’ll be limited to auto body, just like you’re doing now? MRS. LIEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just one other thing. I notice it says that the applicant was receptive to the idea, this has to do with landscaping. It says the applicant was receptive to the idea, would be willing to landscape within a reasonable time frame. I’d like to make that reasonable time frame a time certain when you are going to do it. MRS. LIEN-I guess when I said that, I just wanted to make sure it didn’t have to be done now, like with the snow. MR. VOLLARO-No, but I would like to make it, if it’s okay with the Board, as part of the resolution, that you pick a date, down stream, that you’ll have all your work done, as opposed to using “reasonable”. We’ll pick a date. If you want to, you can pick it yourself, May, June, whatever. MR. BREWER-What’s got to be done, you said? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the applicant met with Staff, and it says, the area to be landscaped will include the front portion of the property, as well as an area encompassing the signs. Staff suggests that street trees such as Bradford Pears spaced every 30 feet with two and a half to three inch caliper. MR. BREWER-If we do do that, I would like to see a plan on paper. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BREWER-So that we know, specifically, the reason for that is enforcement. If you say you’re going to put 10 trees in, at the meeting here tonight, and we have no record of it on paper, the enforcement issue becomes tough. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe Staff has already sat down with her and sketched it out. MR. BREWER-Do we have it? MRS. MOORE-Just a sketch. MR. BREWER-I was going to ask about the amount of cars. You’re only going to have five cars, two trucks? How do you determine what size trucks are going to be there? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MRS. LIEN-There’s enough locations, as far as the U-Hauls we’re talking here, there’s enough locations that are really close together that they are always switching back and forth, whatever size is needed. No location has, except for like 18 is strictly U-Haul. No location carries like every size that could possibly be requested. They’re always swapping back and forth. MR. BREWER-Hypothetically, suppose you get requests for four trucks on a particular Saturday. What do you do? MRS. LIEN-It hasn’t happened. Our Exit 17 location also rents them, and they could go down there, depending on where they live and what’s closer for them. MR. BREWER-But if we limit you to two U-Haul trucks, and you get four reservations, what are you going to do? MRS. LIEN-We can put them down at the other shop, if that’s a problem. MR. BREWER-If you say two, and we limit, then that’s going to be it, two. MRS. LIEN-I mean, if we get a one way vehicle that comes in, I mean, if I have two on the property and a one way vehicle gets dropped off that we don’t even know what’s coming in, I mean, it’ll take a little while for us to ship it out. MR. BREWER-If you see a situation that could arise, lets get that number straight so we don’t have to come back and go over it again. It seems reasonable to me. MRS. LIEN-I guess with the two spots that were in the front and the six that are on the other, between the cars and the trucks, I can’t see that it would be more than the eight total, but it might be three and five rather than two and six. MR. BREWER-Then maybe that’s the way we could word it. That would be fine with me. That’s all I have right now. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you going to do with the vehicles that are currently stored behind that chain link fence area where you’re proposing putting the rental cars? There are vehicles there now. There were Saturday anyway, when we were out on site visits. MRS. LIEN-Right. They’re either waiting to be picked up, if they’re totaled, or to be repaired, and they’ll need to go to the other side or to the back. MR. MAC EWAN-My question is, if you’re proposing spaces 14 through 25, which are on the northern side of the building inside that chain fence area, for your rental cars and your trucks, what are you going to do with the vehicles that are already sitting there in storage? MRS. LIEN-They’ll be moved. MR. MAC EWAN-Where will they be moved to? MRS. LIEN-Depending on what they are. If they are totals, they’ll go to the back, 32 through 36 there. If they’re waiting to be repaired, they’ll go on the other side of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-So vehicles 32 through 36, which are going to be totaled vehicles, are going to be kept right along your back property line, which is right along that easement area that’s got to be left open. Is that not correct? There’s a right-of-way through there. MRS. LIEN-That’s on the other side, though. MR. BREWER-Isn’t that right down the middle of the parking lot, on the right, if you’re facing the building? MR. STARK-The far right is the right-of-way. MR. MAC EWAN-Right behind there. MR. BREWER-Where does it show behind there? MR. MAC EWAN-Look at parking spots, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36? MR. BREWER-I see them. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-You see right above that “Lands of Harts”? MR. BREWER-Yes, but the right-of-way to that land is this 25 foot right-of-way here, through their parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-But this is their property up here as well, Tim. MR. BREWER-Yes, but if it’s on their side of the line, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-But the problem where people are talking, where it’s coming from right now, is that she has been pushing snow over on that property line. MR. BREWER-I guess what I’m saying is, how can we stop them from putting something on their own property? MR. MAC EWAN-If you’ll let me finish, I’ll get to my point where I’m going with this. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Already when they’re doing snow removal, they’re putting it over on Harts’ property. So if they put these vehicles here, raising my question, what are you going to do with your snow removal? That shouldn’t be going on your neighbor’s property. MRS. LIEN-No, I know that, and at this point, all I can tell you is that the gentleman that was plowing is no longer with us. I’ll address it with the current one. I don’t know right now at this point what to tell you as far as the snow. MR. VOLLARO-There would be one way to help that, and help eliminate that, is to fence that line, so that the snow plow can’t go past there at all, and nobody has that option. You can’t put the snow on the lands of Hart. MR. MAC EWAN-Estimate, if you can, the distance from the back of your building, to your property line. As I recall, just from memory, it looked to be about maybe 25 feet. MRS. LIEN-That’s the number I was going to say. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my concerns that I’m having with this modification to it, it seems like there’s going to be an awful lot of vehicles stored on a rather small parcel. When the winter time comes around, with snow removal and moving vehicles and access in and out, you already have a problem right now with what you have, overflowing onto your neighboring property. My concern is how we’re going to be able to address this, so that we don’t have that problem in the future, if we should go ahead with this modification. MRS. LIEN-I mean, some snow can go over near 26 or 31. We're not using those spots. MR. VOLLARO-You mean you would eliminate 26 through 31, as spots? MRS. LIEN-They’re not being used now, and we didn’t feel a need to clear it back any farther and use them. MR. MAC EWAN-For Staff, what do they need to show for number of parking spots for this? What does the Code require? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know what it is off the top of my head. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think it would be off the top of your head. I knew you’d have to look it up. While Staff’s doing that, your dumpster area, as I recall the original condition of approval was there wasn’t going to be any storage of used, excess, junk parts out there, batteries and such, which are being stored out there, not necessarily batteries, but car parts being stored there. MRS. LIEN-Until we get the guy to come over and he doesn’t come over often. MR. MAC EWAN-How often does he come over and pick up? MRS. LIEN-Pretty much at this point when they call. I mean, they can call more on a regular basis, or they can ship it down to the other shop. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, the fact that it’s being stored out there is a violation of a previously approved site plan. Did you ever get a copy of what was approved for this site? You’re aware of what the conditions were for approval? MRS. LIEN-I don’t particularly remember that one fact. I know I do have some old papers here that were given to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that not a condition of approval? Storing parts outside? MR. STARK-Any fenders that they would take off and like that would be picked up two or three times a week, and all that stuff. I have a question for Laura, too. MRS. MOORE-She needs 24 parking spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-four total? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. PALING-I have 36. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ve got some room to play here. MR. STARK-Laura, is there anything in there about the paint booth, in the approval? MRS. MOORE-Not in 61-93, but let me check in the other one. MR. BREWER-What do you mean, George? MR. STARK-Remember, Tim, there was supposed to be a State of the Art paint booth and no fumes were going to get out and everything? When they’re painting the cars now, you can’t stand the smell outside, but if it’s not in the approval, you can’t do anything. MR. BREWER-I think we hashed over that, and they did say they were going to put the State of the Art, but there was no Town regulations as to. MR. STARK-No State regulations I don’t think, either. MR. BREWER-I think it had to be inspected by the State, and I don’t think there was anything we could do about how much fumes or whatever, as long as it was approved. I remember we had the Fire Marshal look at it. As long as it was an approved paint booth. MR. VOLLARO-Does OSHA get into that in any way? MR. BREWER-I think so, for air flow and all that. MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s a thought. Eliminate the parking spaces 26 through 31 along your northerly property boundary, utilize that area for your snow storage in the winter months, so that your cars won’t be parked taking a chance on going over the line onto your neighbor’s property in the back. Does that sound doable? MRS. LIEN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to need to have your dumpster enclosed. You’re going to need to have more routine pick up of used parts that are being stored outside. My personal preference, I’d rather see you enlarge your dumpster area which is going to be fenced in, and store what parts you have in that fenced in area so they’re on-site. That’s my idea. MR. STARK-It’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-And all your rental vehicles are going to be stored in the fenced in area. The only things out front are the store’s customer parking area. MRS. LIEN-Those two spots, one and two. MR. MAC EWAN-One and two, which are rental vehicles, and you’re also having those up front. What kind of rental vehicles are going to be up front? Are they going to be autos or are they going to be trucks? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MRS. LIEN-It’ll probably be the U-Hauls. U-Hauls aren’t always trucks. They’re sometimes little trailers. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you planning on putting up a sign saying that you are a U-Haul rental? MRS. LIEN-Basically the truck kind of does that, but there is a small one in the window, on the building. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to continue with the National as well, National Car rental? MRS. LIEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to have a mix of U-Haul and Nationals on the site for rentals? MRS. LIEN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I think aesthetically, as long as you have a sign in the window, and you have your National Car rental sign up out front, is my preference is to see all the vehicles behind that fenced in area alongside the building, not sticking out like a sore thumb up by the road. MRS. LIEN-So no cars either up front then, you’re saying? MR. MAC EWAN-I necessarily don’t have a problem with the cars. It’s just the big orange and black U-Haul trucks. That’s one person’s opinion here. Anybody else have anything to add? MR. BREWER-I don’t share that opinion, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t see a problem with, if they’re renting vehicles, to have them out front. MR. STARK-No. Say we don’t approve the site plan, it’s going to continue to look the way it does, and I would just like to see the whole place cleaned up there, the dumpster enclosed with a bigger area to put the fenders and stuff in, and whatever, and pans and everything, and landscaped. I think it would be an improvement, but everything has to be in that motion. Everything, and time limit, too. MR. BREWER-Did everybody look at that landscape plan? MR. PALING-No, I haven’t. MR. VOLLARO-I brought it up to Laura because I thought we wanted to date it, to put it in the motion. MR. BREWER-I want to look at that and discuss it and make sure it’s okay for everybody, and okay for her, and make that part of the motion also, so that. MR. PALING-Because this will contradict the last sentence in your letter. That’ll have to be eliminated. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. LIEN-Yes, that was brought to my attention afterwards. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you feel about the displaying of U-Hauls out by the road? MR. PALING-I guess I don’t mind cars. I’d just as soon not see trucks. MR. MAC EWAN-I share that opinion. MR. VOLLARO-I share the same opinion. I just don’t, because of the U-Hauls, they’re very noticeable from the road, and if it’s one of the bigger U-Haul trucks, they’re going to be greatly noticeable from the road. MR. PALING-U-Haul trucks have ads on them, you know, that’s the way they are, but the cars you rent I don’t think will have any advertising on the body of the car, and so that looks like a car lot or a parking lot. That’s not good, but it’s not that bad either, but I would like to see trucks out there. MR. STARK-If everything that we talked about is in the motion, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of the original approval? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MRS. MOORE-I have 11-93 and 61-93. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets do the first one. What were the conditions? MRS. MOORE-I’ll just read through the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MRS. MOORE-Okay. “For the operation of an auto collision repair shop on the east side of Bay Road with the following conditions: One, that the applicant provide a large drawing showing the size and location of the 12 parking spaces, the size and location of the easement to the landlocked Hart property to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff, that the Harts access will not be infringed upon by the site plan, and direct the Town Planning Staff to send the applicant back to site plan review if the applicant cannot meet those requirements, and that parking and storage of the cars be limited to the 12 designated, marked, painted on the pavement parking spots, and that the applicant appropriately mark the south entrance as an entrance and the north part of the curb as an exit to Bay Road, creating a one-way traffic flow around the curb. That the applicant include the recommendations by the Beautification Committee.” There is no curb anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious, what were the Beautification’s recommendations? MRS. MOORE-You’ll have to give me a second. Can I read through 61-93 and then I’ll go back? 61-93 with the following stipulations: “One of the front parking space areas one through six should be reserved for employees and walk-in customers, and that the handicapped parking spot be re- located closer to the door. Two, that the screening of the facility be done through the Beautification Committee’s recommendations of a chain link fence with a slating in it, and that the fence on the south side not be required. Three, that the trash containers be located to the rear of the building. Four, that the spaces 26 through 31 be moved back off the line by 10 feet in a southerly direction, and that all these conditions be met by July 1, 1994, and that the site plan be fully implemented by July 1, 1994.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just back up. The parking space that were to be moved off the line, which ones were those now? MRS. MOORE-Twenty-six through thirty-one. MR. MAC EWAN-To be moved off the line. So we’re improving that even more by eliminating it. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And the only outstanding issue is what was the original Beautification Committee’s recommendations? MRS. MOORE-I have 61-93 comments for Beautification “Proposal is to conduct an auto collision repair in an existing facility, lot size, originally approved by the Committee in March of 1993, and landscaping put in, propose extending chain link fence to either side of building, already on one side, in front, and add gray slats. On north side, add Honeysuckle to wooded area in front on Bay Road, eliminate circular drive and have an entrance/exit and four foot strip in front and take low shrubs, junipers, from other area, replace them here with bark chips.” MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing was added by the Beautification the second time around, was it? MRS. MOORE-This is the second time around. I didn’t get to the first one. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It’s going to take me a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. While you’re looking that up, I’ll go to Chuck. When you sat down with the applicant regarding this landscaping plan, is this what you come up with, these four Bradford Pears? MR. VOSS-Yes, that’s correct. The species we kind of left up to the applicant, and we advised her to discuss it with our local landscaper to determine what would be the best species for the road conditions out front, but we did advise a considerable green strip out front. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we need to nail it down much more specific than that, is just from an enforcement capability, if we don’t specify what we’re looking for, we can never enforce it. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. VOSS-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-And what were you looking for around the sign, just low lying evergreens of some kind? MR. VOSS-Sure, low shrubs, anything that kind of covers the base of the sign. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I found it. Site Plan No. 11-93 “Split rail fence left side of building and freestanding sign with annual flowers. Split rail fence front of building with planter of annual flowers, marigolds, geraniums, chrysanthemums. No shelves because of blacktop around front of building, metal building will be painted an earth tone, no other change, permeability of seven percent, only six to ten wrecks on site at one time, wooden fence around dumpster in rear, wrecked cars in rear, discuss screening from neighbor on right. Applicant will discuss with Mr. Dickinson grass at perimeter of pavement. Maintenance by applicant.” MR. MAC EWAN-To Staff’s knowledge, was any of the landscaping completed that were part of the requirements? MRS. MOORE-Some of it’s done, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Some of it’s done? It’s hard to tell with the snow. Okay. What’s the Board want to do? MR. VOLLARO-I think we can come up with a motion, but the motion has to be pretty encompassing. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Well, lets open up the public hearing first. I’ll open up the public hearing on this application. Anyone that wants to come up and address the Board regarding this application is more than welcome to. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any correspondence? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. STARK-We have to do a SEQRA on this, and it’s a Long Form. MRS. MOORE-Actually, it’s a Type II. MR. BREWER-It says Unlisted. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I recognize that. I don’t have, just reading through, going from memory, SEQRA says that. MR. BREWER-Can we, before you make the motion, pick a date when you think you can have this stuff done? MR. MAC EWAN-She hasn’t even heard what she has to have done yet. MR. BREWER-Well, then maybe we ought to make a list of what’s got to be done, and then. MR. MAC EWAN-We're looking at landscaping. MR. STARK-Dumpster. MR. MAC EWAN-Enclosing of the dumpster area. Eliminating the parking spaces on the northeast portion is not a problem. Elimination of dumping the snow on the neighboring property, that’s no big problem. MR. STARK-June 1? st 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-So basically really, what she’s looking for, things that she’s got to bring up soon is the enclosure of the dumpster and the landscaping, the planting, by June 1. st MR. BREWER-June 1. MR. VOLLARO-What we’re asking you is that you accomplish the plantings by June 1. You look st like you might have a problem understanding what we’re doing. MR. MAC EWAN-And the dumpster. MRS. LIEN-No, that’s fine. I’m not going to do either myself. I’d have to get somebody, but as far as the landscape, the time of the year to plant, as long as that can be done by then, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-June 1 is okay? st MRS. LIEN-Yes. MR. PALING-Did you say you won’t be here? MRS. LIEN-No, when they just said those, I said I wouldn’t be that myself, building for the dumpster. I’d have to get somebody, but as far as planting, I wouldn’t plant the trees myself. I’d have to check with the landscaper as to what time of the year, but June 1, I’m sure everything would st be planted by then. MR. PALING-You realize there’s a little lack of confidence on the part of the Board for compliance, based on the previous work with this applicant. So we’re going to be looking at this one pretty hard. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does somebody want to go for the motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-99 FORMULA ONE AUTO BODY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: In accordance with the provisions provided by Staff, and in addition to that, the following: that the dumpster that is currently out in the back be enclosed and enclosure be of sufficient size to hide all miscellaneous junk parts and trash; elimination of six parking spaces – No. 26 through 31, on the drawing that has been submitted, on the drawing dated 2/24/99; make provisions along the south side, on the line bordering the Hart’s, that no snow shall be put on the Hart’s property; and that all the beautification be completed no later than June 1, 1999, four (4) street trees, two to three inch caliper, thirty foot separation along Bay Road, and along the sign. In addition to that eight (8) low- lying evergreens be planted around the sign. That no more than eight (8) vehicles will be for rent at any one time, and that the U- Haul trucks will be displayed and stored inside the fenced-in area only. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 4-99, Formula One Auto Body for the addition of Automobile Service/Rentals (applicant was previously approved for Auto Collision Repair (SP 11-93, SP 63-93); and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 2/24/99, consists of the following: Application w/map Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 3/16/99 - Staff Notes 3/10/99 - Warren County Planning Bd. resolution 3/9/99 - Notice of Public Hearing 3/5/99 - Meeting notice letter From SP 11-93 - map (87-18-C) From SP 11-93 – Beautification Comm. comments Returned 500’ notice – Matthews Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 4-99, Formula One Autobody for the addition of Automobile Service/Rentals . The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. The conditions shall be noted on the map. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 1999, by the following vote: th MR. MAC EWAN-And that the U-Haul trucks will be displayed and stored inside the fenced-in area only MR. BREWER-How is anybody going to be able to see them, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-A U-Haul truck, you can’t miss it. MR. MAC EWAN-If they’re in a fenced-in area with the? MR. MAC EWAN-She’s got a sign that says she’s advertising them. How are people going to know it’s a National Car Rental sign, I mean, National Car Rentals, signify what color Monte Carlo you have, or something like that. I just don’t think that the vehicles should be stored out by the road. I just don’t think it’s. MR. VOLLARO-Where would you want to store them on this drawing, for example? MR. MAC EWAN-Right where she’s going to store all the vehicles, or rental vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-Fourteen through twenty-five? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t see any problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-If you guys don’t agree with me, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-No, I tend to think that, you’re going to have a sign that displays the fact that you’re going to be a U-Haul, that people can rent a U-Haul truck at that site. MRS. LIEN-Right now it’s just a small one in the bottom of the window. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but people can see that. If I want to rent a U-Haul truck and I go up and tell you I want to pick one up at a certain time. MR. BREWER-The point is how are you going to know they have U-Haul trucks? In other words, if you go up on Corinth Road, they’ve got them all over the place. That tells people that’s a U-Haul rental. If they have a little sign, two by two, in the window. MR. MAC EWAN-If you go to rent a U-Haul truck, you’re not going to get in your car and drive all over Town looking for a U-Haul rental place, are you? MR. BREWER-No. I know where they are because I drive around and I've seen them there. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets put it up. All those in favor of who wants the vehicles out front by the road, does it matter? MR. STARK-Yes, it does. Behind the fence is better, I think. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. PALING-I’d like to see just cars out front. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll echo that. MRS. MOORE-Are you saying that she can put her National Car Rentals out front? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The National Car, we don’t have a problem with the cars being in those parking spaces one through seven out there toward the front of the road. We do not want the U-Haul trucks to be displayed out there. U-Haul trucks are to be displayed in Parking Spaces 14 through 25, in that chain, fenced area. MRS. MOORE-She’s explained there may be times when a truck is dropped off, I mean, she’s explained, I’m sure they can put them in the fenced in area, but I’m sure we’ll get a call for Code Enforcement that says there’s a U-Haul truck out there. Just an awareness. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ll make a phone call and say move it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There’s got to be some allowance for the drop off of a vehicle and then the re- parking of it to the right place. I mean, we’re not going to expect that the renter knows what’s in these motions. They’ll just drop the vehicle off, and it’s up to the people who run the facility to take it and park it in the right place. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. Good luck. MRS. LIEN-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE CREAM OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA BRASSEL ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.70 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.327 ACRES AND 6.463 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-1999, SP 65-98 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 LOT SIZE: 7.70 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS. JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-1998, Stewart’s Ice Cream, Meeting Date: March 16, 1999 “Description of Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision. Staff Comments: The February 16, 1999 Planning Board approval for Subdivision 12-1998 will be rescinded because notification to neighbors within 500 feet were not sent by the applicant as required per §A 183-9 J and § A 183-10 D(2). The original subdivision proposal has not changed. A new approval may be granted provided the certified mail receipts are received. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-I have a letter for the public hearing from Mr. Brassel. Do you want that read now? MR. MAC EWAN-No, as part of the public hearing. Good evening. MR. GILLESPIE-Good evening. Jim Gillespie from Stewart’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any changes from the previously approved one we had to rescind, approvals? MR. GILLESPIE-We added easements for the sewer district extension. That was it, to the subdivision. That’s the only difference. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s the only change you made to it? MR. GILLESPIE-To the subdivision, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-To the subdivision, yes, since it was approved before. Anything else you want to add? MR. GILLESPIE-We have our receipts. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that was my next question. MRS. MOORE-I’ll take them. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-All there and accounted for. Good. Okay. This ought to be relatively easy, considering we’ve already done this review last month. Any questions? Does Staff have any comments, concerns, questions? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Nothing else to add, Jim? MR. GILLESPIE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment regarding this application for the subdivision only? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Did they do a Short Form SEQRA, or did they do a Long Form? MRS. MOORE-They filed a Short SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And keep in mind that in answering the SEQRA questions, that the SEQRA review is for the entire project, the subdivision and the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-For both. Okay. MR. STARK-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. PALING-Well, traffic is on that situation. It could. MR. STARK-It could be mitigated. MR. PALING-It could be mitigated, yes. MR. STARK-You’re saying small to moderate? MR. PALING-I’d say small to moderate. I think we ought to erase my comments. I think I was thinking site plan. MR. STARK-This is for site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is for site plan and for subdivision, both we’re talking to here. So your comment is still applicable. MR. PALING-Wait a minute, now. If this is for site plan, this includes them putting a bank on this property? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-A bank, because I said that I was thinking only in terms of a subdivision, but if you’re talking site plan also, and we’ve got a bank, which is not an allowed usage on this property, then I’d rather handle them separate, is what I’d rather do, but you’ve got to handle them together, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how does the usage of a bank impact SEQRA? MR. PALING-Traffic, for one. It could impact. It’s not an allowed usage, I don’t even see how we can go ahead with it. Wait a minute, then, you just said it was both. MR. BREWER-It is. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to consider the cumulative impacts of a SEQRA. You can’t segment the SEQRA process. MR. PALING-All right, then just to be sure, if this has anything to do with the bank, then we shouldn’t do it, but if it doesn’t, we’re just doing subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-We're doing subdivision. MR. PALING-All right, then let it go. MR. BREWER-But you have to consider the use that’s going to be on there, Bob, if you know what it is. Don’t we? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I think you’re confusing two parts of your determinations. First, as far as the actual determinations you’re making, you’re first reviewing a subdivision application, and then if that subdivision application is granted, you’re reviewing a site plan application, but for the SEQRA review, your SEQRA review encompasses the entire project, which is both the subdivision and the site plan. So, when answering the questions on the Environmental Assessment Form, you should not be answering them, as Craig says, you should not be answering them just regarding the subdivision. You should be answering those questions regarding both the subdivision and the site plan. I’m not sure that I’m understanding, Bob Paling, your comment about the bank not being an allowed use. I’m reading the Staff Notes, and speaking with Staff, I don’t believe we’re requiring a Use Variance here for the bank facility, and if we’re not requiring a Use Variance, then I understand that to mean that we’re treating that as a permitted use. MR. PALING-It is not listed in the Ordinance as an allowed use. MR. BREWER-Did Chris make a determination that it was an allowed use? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Chris made a written determination that this was an allowed use in this zone. MR. PALING-How can that be when right in our own Ordinance there is no such listing? MRS. MOORE-In the beginning of the Ordinance, there’s, it can be used as illustrative, or as listed. Chris understood illustrative as being, even though it’s not listed, it’s currently existing in current areas within the Town, and so therefore Chris made a determination that this was an allowed use in this zone. MR. PALING-Is this a recommendation or a ruling? MR. BREWER-A ruling. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I haven’t seen it, but generally, if Chris made a determination, that would be a Zoning Administrator determination, and he 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) does have the authority to make initial determinations, interpreting provisions of the Ordinance. That’s part of his role as Zoning Administrator. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not listed there as one of the allowed uses, but as Staff is saying, those allowed uses are for illustrative purposes only. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer to your question is, Chris Round, as Town Zoning Administrator, has apparently made a written determination, dated February 19, 1999, which I can read all of it or a part of it, whatever the Board prefers, but in relevant part, he makes the determination that, he states “It is my determination that a banking facility is an allowed use within the HC-1A zone”. MR. PALING-Where is it listed as an allowed use? MR. SCHACHNER-He’s not saying it’s listed. He is saying, as Staff pointed out, that there’s a provision in our Zoning Ordinance that he does not quote, but I know there is such a provision, that says something to the effect of the list of permitted uses is illustrative and subject to some interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. In this letter, which is addressed to Mr. Tom Lewis of Stewart’s, our Zoning Administrator references the various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. He says that banking facility is an allowable use requiring site plan review by the Planning Board, in the commercial residential zone and the neighborhood commercial zones, and he then states, and I’ll read the entire concluding paragraph, “Based on examination of the location of existing banking facilities within the Town of Queensbury (along commercial corridors including the HC-1A zone), uses allowed in the HC zone, and bank facilities consistency with the character of those uses, it is my determination that a Banking Facility is an allowed use within the HC-1A zone.” He does have the authority to make that determination, as Zoning Administrator. MR. PALING-Where does that leave us, then, as a Board? And why isn’t it, if it’s a permitted use, why isn’t it listed as such? MR. SCHACHNER-Because, as Staff indicated, the Zoning Ordinance does not list each and every allowable use in each and every zone, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that, in some instances, those who wrote the Zoning Ordinance couldn’t envision the existence of some uses. This issue has come up before, if not to this Board, to the Zoning Board, where there are some uses that didn’t even exist when the Zoning Ordinance was written. MR. PALING-That doesn’t apply. MR. SCHACHNER-No, that doesn’t apply in this case. MR. PALING-I think it’s too loose, and I think now if somebody comes in 500 yards from here, with a similar situation, then the Zoning Administrator has the power, as an individual, to say they may or may not have a bank? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, when you say the Zoning Administrator has the power as an individual, part of the role of a Zoning Administrator in a Town in the State of New York, is to make the initial interpretation of questions involving provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He has that responsibility, or that authority, and that’s an authority that this Board does not have. There is another Board that has authority to rule on those interpretations, if anyone feels that he’s wrong, but that’s not this Board. That’s the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. PALING-Right, and I don’t know why this isn’t there for a Use Variance. MR. SCHACHNER-Because the Zoning Administrator, and I want the Board to understand, I wasn’t aware of this until I just read it, but the Zoning Administrator clearly has made a determination here. Evidently, nobody has been aggrieved or disagrees with that determination, because as far as we know, and I’m sure Staff would know, no one has appealed that determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. BREWER-We didn’t even know about it until right now, though. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, same here. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, you know what would be interesting to find out, was Trustco put there or allowed there under a variance or was that put there as an allowed use? MR. SCHACHNER-Put where? MR. BREWER-Where Trustco is. MR. VOLLARO-Trutco’s right across the street, essentially. MR. BREWER-I think that’s probably what prompted him to make that decision. I won’t speak for him. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I don’t know what the exact case is, but I know we’ve researched it. MR. BREWER-But the thing that bothers me about it, Mark, is it’s a listed use in other zones, not in this one. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand both the Board members comments, and I haven’t the faintest idea, other than reading that letter, what Mr. Round, what went into his determination, but that does seem clearly, to me, to be a determination of the Zoning Administrator. He does have the authority to make that determination, and unless anybody appeals that determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that determination stands. MR. BREWER-Laura, could you do me a favor? Find out whether Trustco got a variance to be there or not? For next week, and maybe we’ll appeal it, or I’ll appeal it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I feel satisfied with this interpretation. I feel comfortable with it. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was of the same mind Bob was this morning, until I heard Mark say that Chris Round definitely had the authority to make that judgment. If that’s the case, and if that’s set up in the way the Town is established and the laws of the Town, then I’d have to buy that. MR. PALING-Well, it seems, there’s no restriction on where he can apply this, then. He can make that exception, I guess, in anything he wants to. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not that he’s making an exception. He’s making a determination, I would guess, not speaking for him, but based on the fact that he looks at where other banking locations are in the Town currently. MR. PALING-I guess I don’t know when you go before the ZBA with a Use Variance now and when you don’t. Just go to the Zoning Administrator and get it done. MR. SCHACHNER-Everyone does go to the Zoning Administrator before they go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. You have to seek the authority to do something before you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and when the Zoning Administrator or some other member of Staff says, no, you can’t do that. It’s not an allowed use, you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There’s nothing new in that. MR. PALING-Okay. I still feel like I feel. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We have the SEQRA. We have the motion for a Negative Dec. We need a second. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll second that motion. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-1998, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STEWART’S ICE CREAM, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-We need a motion for Preliminary approval. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 12-1998 – Stewart’s Ice Cream for subdivision of a 7.70 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.327 acres and 6.463 acres; and 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99, consists of the following: 1/27/99 – Preliminary Stage Application Map – Santo Associates, Drawing No. 4444 dated 9/22/98 Maps – Lawrence Rutland, Jr. S-1 dated 11/2/98 revised 1/26/99, S-2 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/25/99, S-3 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/26/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 3/16/99 – Staff Notes 3/10/99 - Rist Frost sign-off letter 3/5/99 - Meeting Notice 3/2/99 - Revised Information to Rist Frost 2/22/99 - L. Moore to T. Lewis 2/22/99 - T. Lewis from L. Moore 2/22/99 - J. Gillespie from L. Moore 2/17/99 - Letter transmitting Planning Bd. resolution 2/16/99 - Staff Notes 2/11/99 - Fax to Rist Frost – 12/16/98 letter from L. Penistan – DPW 2/10/99 - Fax to T. Lewis, Stewart’s – Rist Frost comments 2/2/99 - Meeting Notice 1/29/99 - Fax to T. Lewis, Stewart’s regarding planting plan 1/27/99 - Fax to T. Lewis, applications 2/16/99 - S-2 rec’d Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary Stage for Subdivision No. 12-1998 – Stewart’s Ice Cream.. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. STARK-Final? MR. MAC EWAN-We can go right to a motion on Final. MR. VOLLARO-Before the motion on Final, Craig, since this was done the last time, when the Preliminary and Final was before this Board, the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council letter of February 16, I don’t believe, was th part of that approval process, or was it? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it was part of the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-It was part of the original site plan approval? Okay, because I thought this came in after that. MRS. MOORE-It’s listed in the site plan resolution. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cover that in the next item. MR. VOLLARO-Right, because I think there’s some important information in that letter. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1998 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 12-1998 – Stewart’s Ice Cream for subdivision of a 7.70 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.327 acres and 6.463 acres; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 1/27/99, consists of the following: 1/27/99 – Preliminary Stage Application Map – Santo Associates, Drawing No. 4444 dated 9/22/98 Maps – Lawrence Rutland, Jr. S-1 dated 11/2/98 revised 1/26/99, S-2 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/25/99, S-3 dated 11/24/98, revised 1/26/98. Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 3/16/99 – Staff Notes 3/10/99 - Rist Frost sign-off letter 3/5/99 - Meeting Notice 3/2/99 - Revised Information to Rist Frost 2/22/99 - L. Moore to T. Lewis 2/22/99 - T. Lewis from L. Moore 2/22/99 - J. Gillespie from L. Moore 2/17/99 - Letter transmitting Planning Bd. resolution 2/16/99 - Staff Notes 2/11/99 - Fax to Rist Frost – 12/16/98 letter from L. Penistan – DPW 2/10/99 - Fax to T. Lewis, Stewart’s – Rist Frost comments 2/2/99 - Meeting Notice 1/29/99 - Fax to T. Lewis, Stewart’s regarding planting plan 1/27/99 - Fax to T. Lewis, applications 2/16/99 - S-2 rec’d Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/16/99 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Final Stage for Subdivision No. 12-1998 – Stewart’s Ice Cream. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision approval process. Duly adopted this 16 day of March 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) SITE PLAN NO. 65-98 TYPE: UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE CREAM OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA BRASSEL ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A STEWART’S SHOP (CONVENIENCE STORE FOOD/GAS STATION) AND ATTACHED BANKING FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES. HC ZONES ALLOW ALL USES PERMITTED IN PC ZONES. PROPOSAL REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW PER § 179-23 AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 3-1999, SUB. 12-1998 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 12/9/98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-11.1 LOT SIZE: 1.327 ACRES SECTION: 179-22, 179-23 JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 65-98, Stewart’s Ice Cream, Meeting Date: March 16, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop (convenience food/gas station) and attached Banking facility. New uses within the Highway Commercial zone require site plan review. Staff Notes: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission of application materials. The applicant has received conceptual approval for subdivision of the parcel with shared access to the tenant(s) to the adjacent parcel (Brassel’s remaining parcel). Staff agrees a shared access will be beneficial to the traffic circulation of Bay and Cronin Road. Warren County DPW has granted conceptual approval for the discharge of storm drainage into the Bay Road stormwater collection system. Warren County Planning Board also recommended approval of the proposal. The Beautification Committee approved the landscape plan. The applicant has received a variance for pavement and canopy within the 75-foot corridor requirement. There are several projects proposed along Cronin and Bay Road. The cumulative effects along with the Stewart’s Store could have an effect on the traffic patterns on these two roads. Staff would recommend consideration of the existing and anticipated traffic movement for the proposed use. MRS. MOORE-Rist-Frost comments, “The March 2, 1999 letter and attachments from Stewart’s satisfactorily address our comments.” A memo from Mike Shaw, “The proposed Stewart’s Shop located on the corner of Bay and Cronin Roads, (tax map #60-2-11.1) is currently out of the Central Queensbury-Quaker Road Sewer District. Stewart’s Engineer, Brandon Myers, is preparing a Map, Plan and Report proposed to extend the current district to include this parcel. The current plan is for the Town of reimburse Stewart’s to extend the sanitary main an additional 200’ to Stewart’s northern most property border. This will enable us to extend the main up Bay Road in the future.” MR. MAC EWAN-The A/GFTC? Do you have that letter? MRS. MOORE-Yes. “The A/GFTC Staff has reviewed the site plan for the proposed new Stewart’s store on Bay Road and submits the following traffic related comments: From the information provided, it appears that the Bay Rd. entrance abuts the north property line and would be conducive to establishment of a future shared drive with that property when it develops. Further, provisions for future off-road system access to that property appear to have been allowed for. These are both positive elements from a traffic management point of view and should be supported. Ideally, this type of shared access should also be extended to the Social Security building property adjacent to the east. However, given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by this property, such a provision is not crucial given the current tenants. Are there any specific plans developed for the remaining lands owned by Brassel that would affect traffic generation? I am not familiar with the development limitations of your HC-1A (Highway Commercial?) zoning, but the remaining 7.7 acres is a significant piece of property that might development into a significant traffic generator. It appears that this is the second subdivision of an original parcel, how many more are allowable and/or under consideration? If additional development is envisioned, the Town may wish to consider requiring a traffic study for that entire corner, including the Stewart’s, Social Security and the undeveloped 7.7 acres. Such a study could consider an access plan for that corner that would limit access points to two, one each for Cronin and Bay Roads. It could also consider if primary access should be provided from Cronin Rd. for the entire group, and if such development would warrant a new signal at the intersection with Bay. The proposed project will result in some increase in traffic entering Bay from Cronin Rd. Left turn movements here, already the cause of some delay, will be made worse by increased queues on Cronin from vehicles exiting the new development, and by new left turn movements occurring from the other new driveway directly onto Bay. A right turn lane on Cronin might help reduce the length of delays but would not aid the left turn movements. At this point a new signal is probably not warranted at the intersection, but as Bay continues to develop an access plan for the entire length between Quaker and Haviland should be considered.” MR. MAC EWAN-And how about the letter of February 19 from Chris Round, make that part of th the record. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MRS. MOORE-“Dear Mr. Lewis: The referenced tax parcel located at the intersection of Bay and Cronin Roads in the Town of Queensbury is zoned Highway Commercial 1 Acre (§179-23, HC-1A). Banking facility is not identified in the schedule of allowed uses within the HC-1A zone. Sections 179-24 and 179-25 of the Town Zoning Ordinance: Commercial Residential zone (CR-15) and Neighborhood Commercial zones (NC-1A and NC-10) identify “Banking Facility” as an allowable use requiring site plan review by the Town Planning Board. Based on an examination of the location of existing banking facilities within the Town of Queensbury (along commercial corridors including the HC-1A zone), uses allowed in the HC zone, and bank facilities consistency with the character of those uses, it is my determination that a Banking Facility is an allowed use within the HC-1A zone.” MR. MAC EWAN-What this letter is saying, too, that they’re not identified as being in a Plaza Commercial zone, either. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I can think of, right off the top of my head, three banks that are located in Plaza Commercial zones within the Town. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. BREWER-Where? MR. MAC EWAN-You have Evergreen, up on Aviation Road, in Sokol’s, the Plaza. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got Trustco. MR. MAC EWAN-Trustco on Quaker Road, Quaker Plaza. MR. BREWER-Trustco where? MR. MAC EWAN-On Quaker Road, right up there where O’Toole’s is. Quaker Plaza. MR. BREWER-Fine, but that goes back to, did they get variances? I think we discussed this last meeting, when we had these people in here. I’m not positive, but do we have the minutes? I’m uncomfortable. I mean, if everything’s fine, everything’s fine, but I don’t feel comfortable just saying yes, I guess is my position. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why you have the Zoning Administrator. MR. BREWER-Right, but it doesn’t mean we always have to agree with him, just because he says something. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. MR. BREWER-That’s why there’s seven of us. MR. MAC EWAN-Five tonight. Is there anything else to add? I’ll turn the floor over to you. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. Well, as you’ve already said, we’ve received a number of approvals here. We’ve received, well, we’ve just received our subdivision approval for subdivision of approximately 1.3 acres of the existing 7.8 acre parcel at the intersection of Bay and Cronin, to incorporate this project, which includes the construction of a 2500 square foot convenience store, a 2,000 square foot bank, with a drive through, a 24 by 30 canopy which will shelter two gasoline fuel islands, and accesses from both Bay and Cronin to both parcels in the anticipation of the future development of the lands of Brassel. We’ve received our entrance permit from the Warren County D.P.W. We received the necessary variances from the Zoning Board. We’ve received approvals from the Town Engineer, or at least we’ve addressed all his comments, Mr. Levandowski, and we’ve filed the necessary sewer extension data for including us into the sewer district and we’ve addressed all the comments from the Queensbury Wastewater Department. I’d just like to add that, I don’t know if this will have any effect on your decision whether to appeal the use of the bank, but if this, we’re really going to be back to Square One here. If we lose the bank, we really lose the need for this, as you all recall the extra 30 feet of land. I mean, if we lose the bank, we’re going to lose the, we’re not going to build the bank unless we have a tenant, and the bank is really our only tenant at this point. So if we lose the bank, we lose the need for the extra land, which kicks us back into the subdivision approval. It really puts us back into Square One. I’m just kind of hoping that you can go along with Chris Round’s determination and see that this is really a good use for this intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have anything to add about the site plan? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. GILLESPIE-The site plan, I think we’ve addressed most of the concerns, except for the public and this Board. If we can address all of those tonight, we’d like to get a final approval, final site plan approval, and that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? I have one. I’ll direct it to you, Chuck. In the Staff Notes here, it says, “Warren County D.P.W. has granted conceptual approval for the discharge of storm drainage into the Bay Road stormwater collection system off the site”. I’m assuming that just means only stormwater runoff off this site is going to go into the County drainage system? MR. VOSS-That would be my interpretation MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know off hand, in your experiences, is there anything that is engineered into the applicant’s drainage configuration to kind of like filter out the gasoline, oil residues that would normally get into that, that could be part of stormwater runoff that you would get with the gas station? MR. VOSS-Typically, with service stations, you’ll have oil/water separators on site, which usually handle drainage in the bay areas, the work bay areas, and things like that, floor drains and they’ll go that way. It’s not been my experience that I've ever seen a canopy bay, fueling station where they have had that kind of a facility to handle normal runoff. Typically you don’t get a lot of oil discharge or grease discharge from vehicles, or gasoline discharge. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just didn’t know if there were any standards set forth for this sort of thing or if it was just not considered much of an impact. MR. VOSS-I think typically it’s considered not much of an impact. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOSS-However, you will get an occasional overflow or spill out. Typically, it evaporates off the concrete pad, but that could be something that could be researched, I’m sure. MR. GILLESPIE-That was a comment from the County Planning Board, and we agreed to add two oil water separators in our catch basins. MR. MAC EWAN-You did? Are they noted on your drawings? MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They are? Could you point them out to me? MR. GILLESPIE-They are on here. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff, do you have an updated drawing? MRS. MOORE-They have an eight and a half by fourteen. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the public’s input, noted that he does show two of them located on the site. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. BREWER-I just go back to the letter from the Transit. Do you know if there’s, I know you can’t speak for Dr. Brassel, but any plans that or spill out. Typically, it evaporates off the concrete pad, but that could be something that could be researched, I’m sure. MR. GILLESPIE-That was a comment from the County Planning Board, and we agreed to add two oil water separators in our catch basins. MR. MAC EWAN-You did? Are they noted on your drawings? MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They are? Could you point them out to me? MR. GILLESPIE-They are on here. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff, do you have an updated drawing? MRS. MOORE-They have an eight and a half by fourteen. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the public’s input, noted that he does show two of them located on the site. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. BREWER-I just go back to the letter from the Transit. Do you know if there’s, I know you can’t speak for Dr. Brassel, but any plans that you’re aware of for the other, it’s kind of tough to ask him questions when the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you know what I think would be a good idea, I think it would be a good idea if this other seven plus acre parcel ever comes in for subdivision, that we note that we want to see a traffic study. MR. BREWER-That’s fine, but I just guess I would say that if Dr. Brassel was here he could answer that question. I’m sure he left it with the access that there is going to be something there. MR. GILLESPIE-He hasn’t shared it with us. Honestly, I don’t think he knows what he has planned, but I can’t really speak for him. MR. BREWER-If this was put off a week, would it put a damper in your schedule? MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Well, I would just ask, find out about the variances for the other banks, and ask Dr. Brassel what he has plans for for the other parcel. I don’t see that as a big. MR. GILLESPIE-Whatever plans he has are going to come before this Board. MR. BREWER-Understood, but if he came in here tonight and said that there was going to be something that may generate a lot of traffic, we might ask him for a traffic study. I’m not saying we would, but it’s possible. It’s just a thought. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I would just like to say this, that, from what I've heard, and I talked to Laura a little bit about this on the phone, I think, this has nothing to do, essentially, with this, but the whole Cronin Road thing ought to be looked at from a planning point of view, as to what happens with Dr. Brassel’s additional property, and is there validity to the idea that they’re going to build an assisted living facility on Cronin Road. We probably ought to look at that from an overall planning point of view, and see what’s going to happen there, and keep our eye on that kind of thing. I think that’s kind of in keeping with what the A/GFTC had to say in this letter. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-I think as far as the traffic on the site, we’ve tried to address that by, you know, by the subdivision prior to this having future access incorporated into this site plan, so it’s a step in the right direction. MR. VOLLARO-It sure is. MRS. MOORE-Craig, I believe all Board members received a proposed, future subdivision for the Brassel property as a map this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-We did? MR. BREWER-We did? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I've got something here. This comes under the heading of last minute information, Laura. MRS. MOORE-It’s additional information. It’s not necessarily a. It shows you a description of the access road. MR. BREWER-Yes, but it doesn’t tell us what’s on there. MRS. MOORE-No, but your concern was access, and he’s indicating that all parcels will share existing accesses. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application, you’re more than welcome to do so. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have letters? MRS. MOORE-I just want to include Dr. Brassel’s note. It says “Dear Mr. MacEwan: My wife Barbara and I will not be in Town to attend the meeting regarding the Stewart’s property on Tuesday, March 16. We have discussed the project and it has been presented to you along with an extension th of the sewer line up Bay Road, which we are willing to do. I hope that the application will be approved as I think it will satisfy all parties involved and benefit the Town of Queensbury. Very truly yours, Roger W. Brassel, M.D.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up? MR. PALING-Are we going to go with Tim’s suggestion that we find out about what happened with the other banks? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s asked Laura to look into that. Are you planning to do that? MRS. MOORE-We’ve looked into it. I don’t know which banks received variances and which ones didn’t. MR. STARK-Did any of them? MRS. MOORE-I can’t say off the top of my head. We did it a while ago. MR. STARK-And even if we did challenge, who would challenge? You only have a certain amount of time, don’t you, Mark, to protest the Zoning Administrator’s determination? MR. VOLLARO-Thirty days, I think you have. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s 60, in which case, somebody would be well within it. I can check while you proceed. MR. STARK-It doesn’t matter anyway if they did or they didn’t get one. It’s too late now. MR. BREWER-Why is it too late? MR. STARK-Well, I mean, those banks have been there for more than 60 days. MR. BREWER-No, nobody’s talking about them. We're talking about this application in front of us, George. MR. STARK-He made the determination. MR. BREWER-But that doesn’t mean we have to agree with it. MR. VOLLARO-They’re talking about a 60 day period from the time he makes his determination to the time of the challenge. MR. BREWER-That’s this application. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Board want to do? Do you want to table this thing for one week while we get, what are you hoping to find? MR. BREWER-I just want to find out why he made that decision and if there were variances granted. I don’t have a problem at all with Stewart’s being there, but if he’s, if the bank on the corner of Bay and Quaker got a variance, if the bank over on Quaker Road got a variance, by O’Toole’s, then I don’t feel, personally, that it’s right that this one doesn’t get a variance, in that zone, and I’m uncomfortable with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, well, he’s, by his letter, made the determination that this application doesn’t need to have a variance for the bank, because he’s determined it’s an allowed use in the zone. It’s his determination. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. BREWER-That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, Craig. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying I’m right and he’s wrong. MR. MAC EWAN-So what are you looking to do? Do you want to table this thing? Do you want to proceed with it? What do you want to do? MR. VOLLARO-I think you’d have to poll the Board and find out. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m doing right now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BREWER-I would like to wait and get the information that we’ve asked for. Now, I know we discussed it last time they were here. I don’t recall getting any answers. MR. MAC EWAN-We discussed it. We asked the question. He responded to it with his letter. MR. BREWER-He didn’t respond. MR. MAC EWAN-The Zoning Administrator did too. MR. BREWER-He made a determination. He didn’t come back and say, I made a determination upon your request. We didn’t know he made a determination until we got in here tonight. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t want to make a big deal of it. I just said. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I just want to know where everybody’s going with it. That’s all. MR. BREWER-That’s where I’m going with it. MR. VOLLARO-Based on the Zoning Administrator’s determination, I would like to continue going forward with the application. MR. STARK-Likewise. MR. PALING-I want to at least see what happened with the other banks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we’ll have to table this. I go along with moving forward to approving this, but we don’t have enough votes to do that. MR. PALING-And I’d like to make another comment. This thing has been known now, this situation has been known for quite a while. I don’t think anybody on this Board really objects to seeing a bank there. We let you know, Staff, ahead of time, what our objections were. So that we wouldn’t have to rinse it out here. You could have replied to us much fuller than you did, in more detail, and we, perhaps, could have avoided this whole thing, but instead it was dumped on us tonight, and I feel, as Tim does, that I didn’t have time to really understand what’s going on, and I’d like to know about the other banks, how they went through the process. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to table this tonight, and then what we’re looking for is a list, from Staff, as to what other banks that are in Queensbury that fall within a Highway Commercial zone. MR. BREWER-I think the banks that we’re speaking to, Craig, are the, I’m not sure if it’s a Trustco. MR. PALING-The immediate area, yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, the one on the corner of Bay and Quaker, and the one up by O’Toole’s. MR. PALING-The Truscto Bank, the corner of Bay and Quaker, the Trustco Bank in Quaker Plaza. MR. BREWER-And also there was a site plan, as I remember, for the ATM bank right across from O’Toole’s, where the insurance company is. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Is that Troy Savings in there? MR. BREWER-I don’t know. MR. STARK-Yes, we had to approve. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. BREWER-Right, and I don’t know whether they got a variance before they came to us or not. I don’t remember. MR. STARK-No, the bank never came in front of us, just the ATM machine. MR. MAC EWAN-And what was the other thing you were looking for? You had two issues. MR. BREWER-No, that was the only thing. I just was wondering about the determination, how he came to that, whether the other banks had variances or not. MR. MAC EWAN-Put a motion on the table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 65-98 STEWART’S ICE CREAM, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Until next Tuesday night, March 23. rd Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Vollaro ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 5-99 TYPE: UNLISTED STEVEN & DONNA SUTTON OWNERS: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1066 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 7,200 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE AND A 1,600 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE “TOY COTTAGE” AND ASSOCIATED SITEWORK. PER § 179-23 RETAIL BUSINESSES AND CUSTOMARY ACCESSORY USES ARE ALLOWED USES IN THE HC-1A ZONE AND ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 441, 490, SPEC. PERMIT 83, SP 49-89, UV 120- 1992, AV 119-1992, SP 52-92, 39-96, 18-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/99 TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15, 13.2 LOT SIZE: 6.86 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE SUTTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-99, Steven & Donna Sutton, Meeting Date: March 16, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to expand the existing “Toy Store” and add warehouse structure for storage. The expansion and construction of new facilities requires site plan review in the Highway Commercial Zone. Staff Notes: The applicant has provided drawings for the expansion of the “Toy Store” and location of the warehouse. The site development data addresses parking for each use, permeability per parcel, and existing conditions. Staff would suggest the final plans include the NYSDOT curb closures with additional attention paid to landscaping. The proposed uses do not appear to interfere with the current access to Sutton’s. We would suggest examination of re-stripping of the parking area. Reconfiguration of the parking to orient the parking parallel to Route 9 may mitigate configure with on-site circulation patterns. The east border contains a fifty-foot zoning vegetative buffer as required when a commercial zone is adjacent to a residential zone. Staff would recommend additional planting within the buffer and along the road in an attempt to alleviate noise from Route 9 to the residential neighborhood. Staff has no additional comments.” MRS. MOORE-Warren County was a “No County Impact”. Rist-Frost, “Rist-Frost has received and reviewed the information submitted with the above referenced application. We agree that the percolation test and test pits should be made in the area of the proposed seepage pits to verify design parameters prior to building permits being issued.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Hello. For the record my name is Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing the Suttons. With me is Steve Sutton. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. NACE-Okay. I guess first just a brief run through of what the project is, this is an overall map of two parcels that Suttons own. The existing furniture and Sutton’s Market store parcel is the large parcel here. The “Toy Store” parcel is the smaller parcel. As Staff has indicated, we have separated all the site statistics for both parcels. The proposed project entails a doubling of the size of the “Toy Store” by adding on to the back of it and behind, the front facade of the existing building, and general architecture of the existing building will be maintained. The second part of the project is a warehouse to serve primarily the furniture business, and that will be out and behind. It’s also served by a new service drive and truck turn around area. There will be an enclosed loading dock area where the trucks can pull back in to unload, so the actual dock will be back inside there. During unloading operations, the truck will be in under the roof and inside the building. Staff comments, on was there was a drafting glitch, and there’s an existing, a curb cut that we show as existing here that is no longer there. That’s one that Sutton’s had blocked off during previous work. Staff indicated they would like to see one of the other curb cuts closed off. As you’re aware, DOT has been going through here and has a project to close off curb cuts in some areas and install sidewalks. They’ve already reviewed the existing curb cuts with Sutton’s, and have agreed that the existing curb cuts, being the one directly in front of the Market, the one here that serves the Market and the Furniture Store, and the one here that serves the “Toy Store”, DOT has agreed that those are viable curb cuts, and should be left as is. I should mention also that before Steve did some landscaping last summer, there was an additional curb cut here for the “Toy Store” that has been blocked off also. So right now the two properties have three curb cuts. Staff indicated they wanted to see this one possibly blocked off. I think from a traffic safety standpoint, that may be a mistake, because it would load up this curb cut with additional traffic, in fact considerably more traffic than it sees now, going into the main complex, and because that’s a short entry way and doesn’t lead directly into a travel isle, once a car comes in here, they’ve got to make a quick decision on where to go, and that leads to a safety issue of traffic backing up into the road while a driver decides where he wants to go park. Whereas, this entrance now enters into a travel isle, and people can come in, get well off the road while they make their decisions where they’re going to go park. MR. PALING-You have a total of three accesses now? MR. NACE-For the two properties, and there have been, over the past couple of years, there have been two that have been closed off. MR. PALING-Now the part to the right of that little hill, where your finger is, is that an access? MR. NACE-That’s the, yes, that’s an access into the. MR. PALING-Wouldn’t that make it four? MR. NACE-No. This one, that’s a drafting mistake. That should not be there. That was closed off. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay, so there’s three. MR. BREWER-Is that by the 443.34? That one there is closed, you mean? MR. NACE-Yes. The one directly above New York State does not exist. So there are three. Other issues Staff brought up, landscaping, I’ll let Steve address a little bit because he’s done considerable work on the property to make it look nice over the years. We did including landscaping where we thought it was important. What we’ve done is in behind the warehouse we’ve planted, or we’ve shown white pines to be planted back in here, to help reinforce the buffer between the residential and commercial zones. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of white pines are you talking about? MR. NACE-They are Eastern White Pine. MR. MAC EWAN-Size? MR. NACE-Size is three to four foot height, balled and burlapped. So White Pine is a fairly fast growing tree. Within a matter of four or five years, those are going to be 14, 15 foot trees. Staff brought up an issue of landscaping up along the front of the entire property, and I’d just as soon have Steve address that, if he would. MR. SUTTON-I guess my thoughts on landscaping all along Route 9, there’s a couple of issues. One that the store sits down off the road so far, there’s a visibility issue, but really the main thing, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) we’ve taken a lot of pride, right along, in the way we keep our buildings, and the way we landscape. If you’re familiar with what the “Toy Store” looked like as the “Christmas Shop” before we took it over last year, I think it’s a much better looking building. We landscaped. We put picket fence up, and where we blocked out voluntarily a curb cut, landscaped around our sign, and I think did a pretty nice job there. The problem, well, right now we’re losing three feet, right now, to the State, to put the sidewalks in. The Staff comments were to take another 10 feet for green space and what not. I've never been able to grow anything along that road, without re-planting it year after year after year after year. I think in front of the restaurant we’ve always done a really good job at maintaining our landscaping, not letting it fall apart, not letting it get overgrown. So I think we do a really good job. My wife, particularly, is always after me, you know, I wish we could do another area, another oasis somewhere along there, but when you’re talking right along the road, with the State trucks going by at 30 miles, 40 miles an hour, and plowing salt right on those evergreens, it makes it really difficult to maintain anything up there. If you’ve gone by, you can see we have a crab tree out there. We had daylilies for quite a while right along the road, where the State used to have the brick, we took the brick out and tried to keep things in there, and it’s just been a monster for us. So we really try to keep our property looking as best as possible, but as far as those comments, I just find it difficult to foresee doing something all the way along that strip of Route 9. It would just be an expense that would be done, you know, I look at other people’s that they’ve done right close to the road, and it just seems like they just don’t hold up at all. So that’s my feeling on it, and it’s been that way, and I can’t quite understand the feeling that this would be tied in to this site plan, because nothing we’re doing affects what we’ve already done on the road. I mean, it’s been there, and I think we keep a nice looking place, but that’s my feeling on the landscaping. I’d rather take those same dollars, at this point, and cushion that warehouse in the back, and mitigate what we’re doing as far as taking trees down and what not, and be able to maintain something that looks good back there. Any other questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else that you wanted to add? MR. SUTTON-Nothing other than the reasons why the warehouse is necessary, and that we’re in a growth pattern, and we’re having a really hard time handling people’s special orders and what not, and in order to have growth for our employees and everybody, we just feel that we really need this project, and we’ve looked at this whole property, anywhere we could put this thing, and that’s really the most logical spot and the only spot where trucks can get in. The other thing that we’re also accomplishing here is we’re taking those trucks that come in during peak hours, and we’re keeping them to the south end of that property. They’ll no longer be driving, weaving in between our parking at busy hours to get up the hill where the house is on top of the hill. For years those trucks have had to come through right during peak hours, and it’s very disturbing, especially to a lot of the ladies that shop there, that these big trucks are going through. So we’re really alleviating a lot of that. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of curious. Was there any thought to locating the warehouse directly down behind the “Toy Store” addition, in that big, flat open area that you have right now? MR. SUTTON-There’s really not a turn around there or anywhere to facilitate that and get a truck in and out, plus a building like that, from the Route 9 side, I just felt from what we’ve done, just with the way the furniture store looks and the toy store looks, and then the parking that we use behind the toy store and whatnot at times, just didn’t make it logical. MR. MAC EWAN-So that big cleared out area you use for overflow parking, behind the “Toy Store”? MR. SUTTON-Some of the employees park there now, and that’s all extra space there, I guess, that we have, but Tom could probably address that better. I mean, he knows what it takes to pull a tractor trailer in and get it in and get it out. MR. BREWER-It would be easier to use as overflow parking than probably that area up where the warehouse is. MR. NACE-I think our thoughts in locating the warehouse where it is, is it does tuck it, it’s buffered from Route 9 there, okay, where you’re not, along Route 9 you don’t want to look at a warehouse type facility, and it’s also, it’s tucked in behind the warehouse, there’s a pretty good hill, and the warehouse is still down relatively low, near the road level. It’s only eight feet above or maybe, not even eight feet above, six feet above Route 9, and there’s a good hill that goes in behind it, and that hill tends to buffer it some from the residential behind. So it’s in an area where we’ve gotten the maximum buffering we can from both the Route 9 visibility and from residential. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, how high is the warehouse going to be, or what’s it’s elevation? MR. NACE-I believe the total height is, to peak, is 32 something. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. SUTTON-It’s 32, 5. That’s with a three twelve pitch on the roof. MR. NACE-What Steve has done is increased the roof pitch. A normal warehouse type facility roof is somewhere around a quarter to a half inch per foot, and it looks like a flat warehouse building. He’s increased the roof pitch to make it look more like a residential or more like a normal roof. It’s a three twelve. MR. SUTTON-We did that just typically for aesthetics. We’ve also added a 20 year pine art finish to both the roof and the building, that will give it an evergreen, dark, you know, the trim and the roof, instead of just having like a sheet metal roof. It’s with the best finishes that we can get. It’ll be that Adirondack Green type color. So we plan on using the coloring and what not to blend the building in with the environment. MR. PALING-Okay. Here we go again, getting myself back in trouble. Once again, we have a specified use of a warehouse. This is the term you use. It’s a freestanding building. The question has already been directed to Staff. It’s not an allowable use in that zone. It’s not specified as being allowed. MR. NACE-Are you sure it’s not an accessory use? MR. VOLLARO-It’s not there either, Type II Accessories, I looked. MR. PALING-I address again to Staff, how do you explain this one? MR. SUTTON-Let me ask you this. A storage building, is that an allowable use? MR. PALING-It’s a warehouse? MR. SUTTON-It’s a storage building. I mean, you can name it anything you want. We're storing furniture to deliver it. MR. NACE-How do you run a commercial business without being able to? MR. SUTTON-I mean, if we want to get into names. MR. PALING-This question was directed to Staff last week, again. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to answer it? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I thought I addressed it when we spoke on the phone. We consider it a customary accessory structure to a permitted use, a storage facility for his business. MR. SUTTON-Is a permitted use. MRS. MOORE-Is a customary accessory use. MR. PALING-Okay. That wasn’t forthcoming when we talked, if you’ll recall. You said no comment. MRS. MOORE-Now you understand the answer that as far as we consider it a customary accessory use. MR. PALING-If this were part of another building I’d go along with it quickly, but it is a freestanding building. They’ve already talked about running the big trucks up to it, and I wonder why a warehouse is not a specified use within this zone. There must be some reason for it, even though this is auxiliary to the business. MRS. MOORE-I’ll give you, the definition of a warehouse is “A building used to temporarily store or hold products or articles for use in assembly or manufacturing or for future transmission of said products or articles to another location.” That’s why it’s located in a Light Industrial zone. MR. NACE-This would not be a warehouse. MR. PALING-That does not fit the description, that doesn’t fit what they’re doing. MRS. MOORE-No. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-Then it shouldn’t be called a warehouse. MR. NACE-I’ll be glad to take the term off the drawing. MR. PALING-Thank you, make it a storage building, but that’s the way it has been described, and in your own terms you described it that way, too. MR. SUTTON-Right. I think we covered the same issue eight years ago when we were storing things in the building on the top, the garage on the top. I know we hit the same issues. MR. BREWER-That dates me. I said five years ago, Steve. MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question. The proposed size of the storage building, is there any way we can get you to scale it down somewhat? I mean, this is the minimum you’re using, or are you building it to the maximum for future expansion or what? MR. SUTTON-Well, we were in here for site plan two years ago, Tom, for the addition of the furniture store in the back, and in realizing the way our business has grown, you have to understand the furniture business. It’s different than the gift business. If each one of you folks were building an addition on your house, and you were coming to us, we special order furniture for you. We don’t have it on premises to sell, but when it comes in, you might be doing three or four rooms of furniture. That’s bulky, big stuff, and all of you might be ordering at the same time, and you order it, and when it comes in, your home isn’t ready. The contractor’s behind schedule. We have to store it for you, and we have to store it without damaging it. The problem that we’re having now with the growth that we’ve had is that now I’m moving your furniture four times, because I have to get to his furniture, and it’s just become a log jam, and it’s a good problem to have. We’ve been very successful. We're doing bigger jobs all the time, and I've done a lot of research on this. The building as it stands today is probably a little bit bigger than I need it today, but it’s not bigger than what I’m going to need three or four years from now. So, I mean, that’s what came about with the size of it. Right now, on given days when we get a load of furniture in, we’re outside, and if it’s raining, we don’t know what to do. I mean, we’re just moving. So we’re kind of, you know, we felt that we could fit that in there. We felt that we were within both our use and our area variances. We didn’t feel we needed to come for a variance. I wouldn’t have even tried to do that. That property obviously, at one time, we never envisioned being able to use it over there, but now that we have the toy store and what not, it becomes usable. We’ve looked at other spots around Town to try to warehouse. It’s not economically feasible for us. We have 80 employees now. They’re looking for growth. They’re looking for, just like a lot of people are looking for a higher income next year and the year after. So I have to look down the road and I have to see where our growth is taking us, and so we feel that the building really fits with what our plans are in the future. So, I mean, it also means that I don’t feel that I’m going to be coming back here, 18 months from now, and saying, I want to add on to the end of it. I mean, it’s a big building, and we’re going to grow into it, but it fits the site comfortably, and Sutton’s is, we’ve always built sales area, and now it’s come a time where we’ve outgrown any storage that we’ve ever had, and we just. MR. BREWER-What’s the use going to be for the garage up on the hill? I know at one time, when you first started, that’s what you used to put the furniture in, wasn’t it? MR. SUTTON-Well, it’s still there, and it was originally for greenhouse supplies. My vision for that now is to take everything that we have on that property that’s outside, tractors, lawn mowers, snowblowers, things that are getting ruined that nobody would want outside, that we have to leave outside, it’s a garage. So I would like to think that we could keep things under cover. We could keep the property neater. Old displays, I mean. MR. BREWER-You still, I’m sure you have plenty of use for it, but did you at one time put furniture in there, didn’t you, because you didn’t have room? MR. SUTTON-To sell or to store? MR. BREWER-To store. MR. SUTTON-Well, that’s still where we’re storing furniture. MR. BREWER-Right. So when you move that furniture out of there, you’re just going to put all the incidentals on the property in there? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. SUTTON-Exactly, and old displays. Anybody that knows our store knows it changes constantly. As soon as I get relaxed with it, my wife’s got a new idea and we’re pulling out some old displays, but we’re not taking them to the dump. We're going to put them in the barn, and right now lots of them are outside, and they’re unsightly. So we’re hoping to put them inside, get them out of sight, get them out of the weather. I've never yet had enough space. MR. BREWER-We never do. We just put an addition on our house, and we need more room now. MR. SUTTON-Yes, right. So I know some of the neighbors have comments and they’re very concerned about it, and I don’t blame them. They’re in a residential zone right there, and I’m sure you want to hear their comments. We’ve tried to mitigate that as much as possible with plantings and we’re open to ideas. MR. VOLLARO-I’m reading the Highway Commercial zone, and in 179, I've been going over it, and I went over it today. I’m just try to get this operation to square with what we have in the zone, and looking at all of the areas in the zone, we’ve got to pick something, I guess, that fits that definition. Laura, can you re-read to me how you worded this warehouse? Just read it one time. MRS. MOORE-It’s considered a customary accessory use to a permitted use. I’m on Page 17978. It would be Section 179-23D(2)(a). MR. MAC EWAN-How is this to a residential use, then? Am I reading the same one, Page 17978? MRS. MOORE-It says “or”. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Sorry. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it on 17978. Maybe I’m missing it. MR. SCHACHNER-Make sure you’re looking at page number, not section. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m in 179-78. MR. MAC EWAN-George, what do you think? MR. STARK-Tommy, describe the building, the siding, color and so on, the warehouse, now. MR. NACE-Well, how about a picture or a drawing? MR. SUTTON-We also have the builder here with us. So he can answer any, he’d be happy to answer any questions you have. MR. STARK-Steve, the reason I asked the question, too, was I’m sure everybody in the audience would like to know what type of, what the building was going to look like. MR. NACE-It’ll be a typical, standard gable end, peaked end, ridge down the middle. As Steve said, the roof slope is three on twelve, which is considerably steeper than most metal pre-engineered buildings. He’s gone to a special long lasting finish and high quality roof. So it’ll have a green color to blend in. The walls, probably, Steve, you were looking at more of a buff color on the walls. MR. SUTTON-Yes. That’s not very representative of the color. That’s much lighter than what we’ll be talking about. MR. NACE-It’ll be a lot more of a buff, an ivory, buff color. MR. SUTTON-No, it’s a darker color than that shows right there. MR. NACE-Darker than this? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. I don’t know what else I can tell you. The loading dock area will be just a shed extension on the one side. Only one overhead door in the back, one personnel door in the front and probably one in the back in the warehouse, and you are going to have windows in the front? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add, gentlemen? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have written public comment, if you’d like me to start with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Go with it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. “Dear Planning Board Members: This past Sunday a few of us were able to meet with Mr. Sutton and learn more about his proposal. What concerns me is the loss of woodlands, the scope of the project and the proximity of large freight trucks driving up to the warehouse from Route 9. Part of the charm of the Twicwood community is that it is nestled in the woods. When you take a walk, as many neighbors do, you can listen to birds, see trees, and enjoy the secure feeling of a wooded buffer that hides the fact that Route 9 is behind the development. Unfortunately, over the years many of these woods have been cut down. We’ve learned the hard way that the loss of these woods has negatively impacted the entire development. As it is right now, especially in the winter, you can see and hear the sights and sounds of Route 9 from Twicwood Lane. Therefore, any further development of the remaining wooded area protecting us from commercial businesses and Route 9 would not just affect the property owners within 500 feet, but would also impact the entire development. A 7,200 square foot warehouse would replace existing woods, as would a large parking lot area so the freight trucks could turn around and unload. It appears from the plans that these large trucks would be unloading less than 100 feet from our property lines. As I understand, the warehouse would also be able to undergo future expansion, which would mean more trees cut down, a larger metal building, and more freight trucks unloading. In addition to altering the atmosphere of the neighborhood, this proposal, if approved, would lower property values of the homes within 500 feet of the warehouse and parking area, which would ultimately lower all the property values in the development. Although the property is zoned Highway Commercial, this project seriously threatens the neighboring residential area. Because the entire Twicwood development would be effected by approval of this plan, I am asking the Planning Board to delay their vote so that everyone effected can be informed. The Twicwood Homeowners Association Board has a scheduled neighborhood meeting this Sunday. I urge the Board not to make a decision until everyone involved has an opportunity to speak on their behalf, since only the immediate surrounding property owners were notified of this meeting by the Planning Board. As I stated previously, this is a large project that would impact the entire Twicwood neighborhood. Also because of the nature, size and location of this project, I hope that the Board would postpone their vote so that all aspects of this project’s potential impact can be studied and the fullest and viable alternatives investigated.” And this is from Karen Sabo. It’s dated March 16. This is addressed, th “Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: We respectfully request the Town Planning Board deny approval of Sutton’s proposed project. We object on the basis that removal of any trees or brush to accommodate the expansions and associated site work on the Sutton’s property will drastically and adversely effect the adjoining residential neighborhood. This buffer was originally designed to shield and protect the Twicwood subdivision. When we purchased our home and adjoining lot in April of 1973, the healthy dense strip of vacant woods behind our property was zoned Single Family Residential. We were informed that this was a designated buffer forever wild area. In 1988, the Town of Queensbury re-zoned this portion of Sutton’s property from Single Family Residential to Highway Commercial One Acre. However, none of the neighbors were directly notified. Notification was attempted through public notices posted in the Post Star. That was insufficient. Many neighbors hold positions requiring frequent and lengthy travels. Due to absences and the fact that not everyone in Twicwood purchases or reads The Post Star, the rezoning notification was easily missed. You can be assured that if we had been aware of it at the time, it would have been challenged. In part, because of this rezoning and approved variances during the last 10-15 years, the erosion of sight and sound barriers has had a detrimental effect on marketability and property values in the Twicwood subdivision. We feel further clearing will cause permanent devastation. Those of us in close proximity to Suttons’ property are above, on a hillside approximately three to four stories high, overlooking their land. The trees still in existence are presently in excess of 100 feet tall. This along with the relatively dense brush gives us far more protection than any plantings proposed as future barriers. Neither height nor density can be replicated. We specifically chose to live in Queensbury, and more specifically Twicwood, rather than Clifton Park or other suburb of the Capital District, where we worked, because of the beauty of the trees, and the peaceful tranquility this community then offered. Buying in Twicwood in 1973, we looked forward to our future home for life—one that was close but convenient to schools, medical facilities, shopping, and such features as the YMCA, yet somewhere set apart from the rat race and congestion known to the Capital District. We treasured our home during the infrequent private moments, particularly enjoying the wildlife that inhabits the woods behind us. We treasure such creatures as pileated woodpeckers, cardinals, tufted titmice, chickadees, hairy and downy woodpeckers to mention a few. On occasion, we also (during warmer weather) enjoy rabbits, occasional deer, and even the squirrels while having early morning breakfast on our deck. This will no longer be possible if the land is cleared to within 50’ of our back lot line. Through our own 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) investment of somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 in landscaping improvements to our land, we have sought to create a park-like atmosphere for our own enjoyment and as an improvement to the neighborhood. With each expansion at Suttons’, we see our hard work and substantial investment undermined. And it is just the homes adjoining Suttons’ property that are suffering, because the low sale prices of homes near us have effected all the homes in Twicwood. This effect is taking tax money away from our schools. On more than one occasion, we have lost quality neighbors for want of residential-friendly zoning. Residents are the backbone of this community. Help us rebuild a quality atmosphere-not take more away. We ask that other options be explored and taken whether it is locating warehousing off-site, or drastically scaling down the current project to conform to the existing cleared land, leaving all the woods and bush in back of us intact. We also request that if the Suttons are permitted to expand, that the quality of the exterior—sides and roof— be in keeping with their existing buildings, disallowing the use of metal exterior surfaces. Sincerely, Linda S. McNulty Charles A. McNulty” This is addressed to Cathy LaBombard, “Dear Mrs. LaBombard: I do not have any objection to the above referenced matter which is scheduled for a public hearing on March 16, 1999. Very truly yours, Marianne McDonough” Again, this is “Dear Mrs. LaBombard: I do not have any objections to the above referenced matter which is scheduled for a public hearing on March 16, 1999. Very truly yours, Thomas J. McDonough” This is addressed to “Gentlemen: I am a property owner on Rt. 9. My business, The Village Collection, is bounded on two sides by Suttons and the new warehouse will be directly behind my property. I have no objection of any kind to this proposal. (Site Plan No. 5-99). The Suttons run a fine business and are good neighbors. Sincerely, Betty-Jane Baxter” I have a phone conversation of today, at 4:09, with myself and Chris Wettersten, “She is requesting the application decision be tabled until the Twicwood Homeowners Association has met.” This is addressed to the Planning Board. This letter is to comment of the Site Plan No. 5-99 for Steve and Donna Sutton. We are in favor of this application. Steve and Donna Sutton have had a long and working relationship with the community. Their success is evident. This expansion of the “Toy Cottage” and building of a warehouse not only benefits their business but also those in the immediate vicinity. Sincerely, Mike and Jim Valenti Glens Falls/Queensbury Agway” And that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, does someone want to come up and speak? Come on up. AUDIENCE MEMBER-There was another letter. MR. MAC EWAN-There was another letter submitted to Staff? AUDIENCE MEMBER-From Chris Sabo. MRS. MOORE-I've got it. This is “Dear Planning Board Members: My name is Chris Sabo; I live at 12 Twicwood Lane. My property borders the southeast corner of the proposed project. I strongly urge the Board to deny approval of this proposed warehouse for the following reasons. I purchased my home in Twicwood six years ago. At that time, we could not see or hear Route 9 or any Route 9 businesses. Since then, the removal of trees surrounding our development has created a much different environment. All night long we view bright lights from The Honda Dealership, Skateland, and Suttons, as well as other businesses on Route 9. We listen to truck back-up signals, horns, general traffic noises, music pounding from Skateland and the business’ intercom systems. When I purchased my home I knew I had selected a development with a history of stable property values. I knew the home was close to commercial land but I assumed the town would protect my borders from commercial development. Frankly, our borders have not been protected. I invite all of the Planning Board members to visit our neighborhood to see the transformation in our landscape and to see first hand how our property values and our quality of life have greatly diminished. Communities ask of their Planning Boards to protect residential areas not only to protect ignorant home buyers, like myself, but it is economically the smart thing to do for the community. No successful community would plan manufacturing facilities next to their schools or locate hospitals on steep, narrow roads. We also don’t plan for warehouses in commercial strips and definitely don’t plan for warehouses in residential areas. It is not enough to simply reject the proposed plan. I am suggesting three objectives for the Planning Board. First, reject this current proposed plan. Second, develop a plan to rebuild and restore an adequate buffer and finally, create a plan to prevent future development in the new buffer. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Christoper R. Sabo” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Now are you ready, Mr. Funk? Do you want to come up and speak? IRWIN FUNK MR. FUNK-I've got a couple of comments. Probably my first comment is that Mr. Sutton made a comment to your suggestion that he place this warehouse on a flat piece of property that was 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) available, but he didn’t want to locate that building there, because it wasn’t suitable to fit with the rest of the décor around his facility. Now what I don’t understand is, why would this warehouse be suitable to fit with the décor of the homes around it? To me it seems like it’s a better thing to locate a warehouse closer to the buildings that are actually going to be using it, and if this warehouse is only going to be used for moving furniture into the building, out of the building to people’s homes, what does it have to be located there for? The furniture’s not going to be used in those buildings. It’s just going to go to people’s homes from orders. It doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, the situation, it just, the comments that are made by Mr. Sutton just don’t fit with our neighborhood. Another thing I’d like to find out is whether or not a tractor trailer truck can turn around on that road that’s there. It doesn’t look to me like that a long tractor trailer could pull up that slight grade there and then turn left, and then back up into that opening. Actually, what I’d like to see is, do we have any kind of a paper model that we could put on that map to see that a truck can, in fact, back in there or pull forward and then back up? If it can’t do that, that means that that road has to be expanded later on. Those are basically my comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DALE NEMER MRS. NEMER-My name is Dale Nemer and I live in the neighborhood. I just had a question about the metal roof, and will that be noisy when it rains? And how far will that sound carry? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that question answered. MRS. NEMER-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? DENNIS BUHER MR. BUHER-Dennis Buher. I live at 13 Twicwood. I know that when I will be looking out the front window of my house, I’ll be looking directly at his warehouse/storage shed, whichever, and they said that they will be planting trees, and in five years, they’ll be 15, 18 feet tall, but the building is going to be 32 feet tall. So, it’s going to take 20 to 25 years before that building won’t be visible from my front room, my front lawn. MR. MAC EWAN-Does your property abut Suttons property? MR. BUHER-I’m just directly across the street from where the proposed building is going to go. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re like looking between houses or something like that? MR. BUHER-Yes, and also again to address the noise. We have to put up with the go carts that are going on there now, Storytown, or The Great Escape, we listen to that ride just constantly beating all day long. We also have the pleasure now, with the Knights of Columbus, the pavilion that they built, they have bands back there that play until eight, nine ten o’clock at night, sometimes they’re playing so loud that you have to close your windows in your house during the summer to reduce the noise. Now we’re going to have this building with, again, just trucks all day long, backing up, loading, unloading. I would like to see the Town reject it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. BUHER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MRS. NEMER-I have one more question. The other question I had was, at night, how well lit will that building be, and will it be greatly illuminated for the neighbors that abut that property? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that answered for you. MRS. NEMER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Please, come right on up. KAREN SABO MRS. SABO-My name is Karen Sabo. I live at 12 Twicwood Lane, and what I wanted to present to the Board, too, before they make a decision, is when we speak of the 50 foot buffer that was 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) discussed on paper, unfortunately, our property lines, up to our property lines, there is really very little wooded area. The woods start right at the end of our property line. So the actual warehouse would start, I believe, 52 feet from the McNulty’s line, which only gives 50 feet of buffer, and what I’d like to do is I took some photos of the neighborhood to actually show the buffer that we’re speaking about, and a few of these pictures, one is an actual recent loss of buffer that we’ve had and how we can see straight through to Route 9, now, and that is from our deck, and then there’s another photo taken from our deck of the McNulty’s woods, and I tried to draw in, going from that picture, exactly where it seems like the warehouse would actually be, so you could get an idea of how much buffer is actually there, and then another one is from my living room, I can see Route 9 from the windows in my living room, as well as other people have mentioned hearing all the noises and stuff from inside my house as well, and then I took photos just from walking along Twicwood, showing the woods and the woods that would have to come down to accommodate the warehouse, the service drive, and the parking lot area. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MRS. SABO-The other question I have is I have a map that my husband obtained here a while ago, showing a buffer zone around our neighborhood, and it was to our understanding that there is a 50 foot buffer zone from our property, and I have the map here. I was wondering if, the understanding that we had was that none of that 50 feet of wooded buffer could be taken down, and I’m wondering, in building the warehouse, if it’s only 52 feet from the McNulty’s property, would they also be cutting into that 50 feet of buffer for building? And I just wanted to know what the Board thought of that, and also the other comment I have is, our house, on the plan, is the house with the retaining wall, and that retaining wall was built a couple of years in preparation for us to put in a swimming pool, and with something like this going on, you wonder, do you want to put the money into your property? Do we want to invest in our backyard, and also I think it’s interesting that I could fit nine of the pools that we planned to put in into the warehouse, just to give you an idea of the size that it would actually be, and I really believe it would hurt our values, and our home’s value, and I’m not for the project, and wish you would consider these things. MR. PALING-Let me ask you a question. Can you see any of the Sutton buildings now from your house? MRS. SABO-From my windows, as you can see from those photos, they’re not the clearest, but I can see Route 9 and some buildings. I’m not sure if they’re actually the Sutton’s, but we’re actually the luckiest, because we still have some woods behind our house, but I was in like the Martins’ house, they’re here today, and they can tell you, you can see all of the Suttons’ buildings from their breakfast area. Because we were looking at the plans, and they say, this is this building, this is the shed, this is this. There’s the toy cottage, and this is right where the road’s going to come up, and I worry, too, that where the service road is going to be, that’s going to leave us straight. That’s not going to have any buffer, because that’s going to be straight from the parking lot, from Route 9, right up into about, it looks like 50 to 100 feet from the Twicwood line. So, that’s going to be right up from Route 9. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Anyone else? VIRGINIA FUNK MRS. FUNK-Hi. I’m Virginia Funk at 17 Twicwood Lane, and I've got a couple of comments. First, we’ve been in our house for 25 years. When we moved there, we found that there were two things I really liked about the neighborhood. One, it was close to everything, and yet it was very private, very secluded, very quiet. Well, one of the things I liked about it, being close to everything, is coming back to bite us, because everything’s getting too close to us. We have the woods, the noise, and every time something has gone in, they take down trees. You can’t put them back, and that effects us. That effects the noise. The woods are a natural buffer, and I don’t think that I have any problem with the building as much as what they have to do to put up the building. They’re going to take down woods that have taken hundreds of years to grow. They can’t get them back, and they served a purpose, and I don’t know what you do about it, but I know we’re the ones that are going to get hurt. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-I’m Linda McNulty from 14 Twicwood Lane. We wrote a letter. In addition to the letter, I have some photos taken from our back yard which does adjoin Suttons’ property, and with the last variance that was given for their garage, or whatever it was, we do see through their property, and the photos will show that. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. This is your back yard? MRS. MC NULTY-This is our back yard from our stairwell. That’s Route 9. MR. PALING-What is that? MRS. MC NULTY-That’s over the Agway. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-You don’t see anything in the summer, do you, with the leaves there? MRS. MC NULTY-Yes, it’s mild, but. I've got some pictures here that also show the back yard from our most southern corner looking toward Suttons, and there is a little better buffer. If you look close, you can see, I have the buildings here and there, but we have spent a small fortune trying to improve our property, and it has been undermined. This one shows over where they just recently cleared. On Karen’s photo outlay you’ll see how much of that woods is gone, but 50 feet is not an adequate buffer. Prior to the re-zoning, we would have had an additional 70 feet. So we would have had a total of 120 shielding us. MR. MAC EWAN-The additional 70 feet would have come from where? MRS. MC NULTY-The area that was Single Family Residential, that has now been re-zoned, as of 1988, to Highway Commercial. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m not really sure I followed that. If the previous zone was Single Family Residential, you would have had an extra 70 foot of a buffer zone is what you’re saying? MRS. MC NULTY-That area was taken away from residential. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s prior to 1988. MRS. MC NULTY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what that area was? MRS. MC NULTY-It was Single Family Residential. I don’t know, other than that. If you reference the tax map prior to 1988, you will see the full development, and that area was Single Family Residential. MR. BREWER-Why is it blank on that? Is that now a part of this piece of property? MRS. MC NULTY-It was all owned by Suttons, but part of it was Single Family Residential. MR. BREWER-This line here is the zone line? MRS. MC NULTY-That’s the zoning line. (Lost word) the property line. MR. BREWER-They moved the zone line back to here, so along the property lines. Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? STEVEN MC GEE MR. MC GEE-My name is Steven McGee, and I live at 11 Twicwood Lane, directly across the street from the Sabos and the McNulty’s, who are going to be effected the most by this development. My big concern is the noise factor. I don’t know if I’ll have a visible site line to that building, because I can’t really tell, but from the upper stories, the houses on our side of the road are two story colonials. The houses across the street are ranch homes that are cut into the back of the hill. So we’re way up above them, and I know that the noise and the vision could be a problem from the upper levels of the homes on the opposite side of the road, and the noise is really just the main thing, because over the last couple of years, the amount of increase in noise, it’s not the Suttons’ fault that that’s happened, but it’s just part of, you know, the development of everything around us, and it would be best if it was limited. I know the Suttons’ will do a good job, if they put up a building and say it’s going to look nice and maintain it, that’s a given, but the noise generation from the trucks, the cardboard compactor and the other things, and the lack of the trees that will be there if you don’t do the building will effect us all. So, thank you. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I think for the time being I’ll leave the public hearing left open. Do you guys want to come back up to the table, please. Obviously, you’ve heard the concerns. MR. NACE-Okay. Would you like us to start with our list, or would you like to start with yours? MR. MAC EWAN-Lets go with your list, if you want, and if my items are on your list, we’ll hit them. MR. NACE-Okay. Obviously, this issue on the change of that zone line, I don’t have the old map in front of me, but I would think that that’s a moot point. The zone is what it is now. Your Code requires a 50 foot buffer, that we have provided. The definition of buffer, I think one of the people questioned whether that buffer had to remain totally undisturbed. In your Code that buffer, I don’t have the words in front of me, but in essence, it says that either maintain naturally or replace through remediation, which is what we’re proposing. We will, because the building is about 52 feet from the property line, we will be disturbing a portion of that buffer during construction. We’ll try to keep that to a minimum, but the area that we will disturb will be replanted with the White Pines. The issue that seems to come up over and over and over again is noise, noise, and I don’t disagree. There’s more traffic on the roads, as our Town grows. Two different areas that we need to discuss with noise is one, off-site generated noise, being mostly from either adjacent properties from the amusement type properties, or from Route 9. The removal of the trees, and how they affect that noise depends on the time of year. The trees that are in there now are mostly deciduous. During the period of the year when the leaves are off those trees, they provide very little buffer, okay. So, for half of the year, those tree really don’t add that much. We are going to be replacing screening, replacing a part of that buffer with the screening of pine trees, and the building itself will provide somewhat of a noise barrier. I don’t know how effective it will be. I don’t know if anybody could ever analyze that, but the trees in there are certainly not 100 feet tall. I’m not sure, maybe they’re 50, 60. The building will be 32. So they’ll, the building itself will provide some buffering of the noise. As far as the site generated noise, the issue comes up of trucks coming in and out of the site. One thing we need to put on the table we haven’t is that there are going to be five trucks a week approximately. MR. SUTTON-That’s really worst case scenario. We get generally two tractor-trailers a week from our main suppliers. Occasionally, we’ll get as many as five, which would average one a day. They’re in there, usually in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon, always between eight and four, usually between ten and four. They’re in and they’re out. I mean, it’s not going to be a constant coming and going of tractor-trailers. I mean, we get, a company called Shelva Johnson delivers to us regularly, once or twice a week, and then we have a couple of other suppliers like Harden Furniture that come maybe once a month, but it might be that week when the other two are there. So I’m saying worst case scenario, five a week, averages out one a day. I mean, it’s not a high traffic. We don’t have tractor-trailers pulling in and pulling out. MR. PALING-Are all of these during business hours? MR. SUTTON-Yes, sir, and none on weekends. MR. NACE-The other issue with the tractor-trailers, the unloading of those tractor-trailers, as I mentioned before, are going to be back inside the building, okay. So any unloading noises will be inside the building. The building has insulation on it, which will keep any noise generated inside the building from being at all significant from the outside. The question was asked about noise from rain hitting the metal roof. This is relatively heavy gauge, standing seam metal roof. It also has an insulation blanket draped underneath it. I would not anticipate any significant noise, except maybe a little bit inside the building, but from the outside, I wouldn’t anticipate any significant noise from rain hitting the roof. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting. MR. NACE-Lighting. Outdoor lighting, we have shown on the plans one security light in the southwest corner of the building, adjacent to the loading, adjacent to the doors to the loading dock. That would be all, and that would be a wall mounted, a wall pack with a cut off shield, so that it would be directed downward. MR. MAC EWAN-No proposed driveway lighting or parking or turnaround lighting? MR. NACE-No. Again, as Steve said, it’s all during business hours. MR. SUTTON-Our guys quit at 4:30. They lock the door, and that’s it. MR. NACE-Truck turnaround. I don’t have templates with me, but I’ll guarantee you that I've used templates on the computer to make sure that there is sufficient truck turnaround room. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. BREWER-They’ve got 90 some feet for them to turn around. MR. NACE-Correct, and I think there’s about 110 there available. Okay. Re-zoning. One thing I might point out, as far as visibility, the existing garage is significantly closer to the property line than this proposed building. The question of the entrance road wiping out the buffer, really right now there are three large pine trees along the front end of the entrance road that will have to go, but those are up front. There is no vegetation back to approximately here, and you can see the contours, the existing contours here where they’re fairly close together. This is an area that had been filled over the years, and any ground cover right in that area is very low. I don’t know if you’ve been to the site, but most of what’s in here existing right in this area is brush. So right now there’s very little buffer along that entrance road area. So we’re really not removing any significant buffering there. Visibility from across street. There was some concern about the visibility from properties of the project itself. As I pointed out before, the residences up on Twicwood, and especially the ones on the other side of the street, are significantly higher, and I think some of those photos probably showed that, significantly higher than the site, and in general, the site line will be out across the top of everything. You might see a little bit of the green roof through the trees, but I would not expect to see any significant portion of the siding. Night lighting we covered. The buffer, number of trucks, enclosed loading areas. Property values, all that I can say is that this is zoned commercial. It’s been zoned commercial. Anybody who bought there has been aware of that I’m sure. It was never, at least in my recollection, designed that that whole piece of property would be a buffer. Your Code addresses the required buffers. I guess that covers what I've written down, Craig. Anything else on your list that I haven’t covered? MR. MAC EWAN-I have my own questions, but that pretty much covered the comments from the audience. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. PALING-Okay. It may be in your stormwater report, but let me ask anyway, because I don’t know. The paving to the warehouse is new? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. PALING-That will be new, and what about the percent permeable and all, but what is that? How much land are we talking that’s left for drainage? MR. NACE-I’d have to look at the drawing to see. Do you want the whole, or just the? MR. PALING-The final, yes, the whole. MR. NACE-For the main Market property, these are his Final. I guess I've got to look at the application. I’m sorry. Okay. If I look at the whole property, right now there is 64.1% green. When it’s all done it’ll be 56.9% permeable. MR. PALING-It’s right here. Okay. All right. The other area I have a question in is the line, I don’t think noise is going to be too much of a factor, but the line of site kind of bothers me. If all of a sudden these properties are looking directly at this building, where they were before looking through trees to Route 9, and all of a sudden the building looms up there, that I’m having a little trouble with. Is there anything we can do about the height or the location of that building to get it down? MR. NACE-It already is down, Bob. To give you some idea, I haven’t looked at those pictures, but just looking at the grades, the finished floor of the warehouse is Elevation 98, okay. The back edge, the lower edge of these properties, are anywhere from 104 to 110, and the properties are fairly steep. When you get up to the top of this retaining wall, there’s probably another 10 or 15 feet. That would bring you up to say, 100 and, well, 10 feet would bring you to 120, and the warehouse floor is 98. So that’s 22 feet. So just standing on the ground, up in their back yards, you would be 22 feet higher than the warehouse floor. Okay. Your line of site would be looking at the top of the roof, really. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I get 16 feet. Why is that? I’m using your 104, your finished floor at 98. So there’s 16 feet, and you’ve got 32 foot building. MR. NACE-No, I’m sorry. You’re looking at 104 right here. I’m looking at 110. MR. VOLLARO-You’re using the best side of the information. I’m using. MR. NACE-No, I’m not. Because I don’t have contours all the way up into their back yards to know exactly how much it drops. I’m guessing. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. PALING-But don’t you add 98 to 32, and get the roof peak? MR. NACE-Yes, that’s correct. That would be 130 feet. MR. PALING-One hundred and thirty feet. MR. NACE-Okay, but what I’m saying is in their back yards, and I’m estimating, Bob. You’re going to be somewhere around 120 at ground level, in their back yards, adjacent to their house, okay. So six feet above that, it’ll be visible, but you’re not going to be, it’s not going to be this big thing that you’re looking at, blocking that whole area. MR. VOLLARO-There’s still a degree of visibility based on those elevations. MR. PALING-And, lets see, what’s the dimension that they’re going to be looking at, the width? MR. NACE-The width here is 100 feet. MR. PALING-One hundred feet, yes. One hundred feet wide. MR. NACE-Okay, which really is, if you do a comparison, this is also about 100, in fact, this is I believe a little more than 100 feet, and it’s much closer to the property line here. Now it’s not as high, okay, but it’s also up on the top of the hill. One of the reasons we chose area was that we could tuck it down lower, and have the advantage of it, sitting down in a hole makes it less obtrusive, less visible. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-Not right now. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. STARK-Yes. Steve, I thought I heard a letter. Did you meet with the homeowners association, or did you have a meeting or talk to some of the people? MR. SUTTON-Mostly the folks that are here today, I invited down to the office to take a. MR. STARK-Was anything resolved? I mean, did you do anything to alleviate their concerns, you know, the placement or height or anything? MR. SUTTON-Well, I think they had to go home and digest it, and that’s what brought them here tonight with their concerns. MR. STARK-I mean, you have to have it in that location? I mean, I know that’s a low location, as far as your property. You could come over more toward the old green house building. MR. SUTTON-I can’t help but be bothered a little bit that those woods are there, and they’re buffered on our property. Now every tree was cut on their properties, with their line right up to their line, using our woods as a buffer. Now, nothing is said about buffering the other way. MR. MAC EWAN-I think a reasonable response to that would be that the houses that I’m familiar with that are sitting right along your back property line, the ones that were built prior to the Master Plan re-zoning in 1988. MR. SUTTON-But the builder at that time was assuming that nothing was going to happen with that property. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a pretty safe bet. I mean, you build a house, you build it abutting what you think is going to be residential property for the rest of your life. MR. SUTTON-I don’t know whether the zoning changed twice, but in ’75 when we bought the property, it was our understanding that it was all commercial at that time. We’d have to look at it, but it’s a moot point at this point. I mean, zoning is set up, I understand, for a certain reason. We're going to leave, I don’t want to cut a tree any more than the next person, but we are in business there now, and it is a permitted use. It is well within our boundary lines, and I hate being put in this position. I feel like I’m on trial here, and I hate alienating neighbors, and I know that most of the things you worry about in life tend to not be as bad as what you thought. I mean, we’re going to make this building nice. We're going to plant trees back there. That’s not a cheap investment just to 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) re-forest that, where we’re going to take. We're leaving 30 feet. I mean, the most we’re going to encroach on that 50 foot buffer is probably 20 feet around the building. I mean, the builder, I've already talked to him to be as careful as possible, but try not to take a tree that they don’t have to take. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t encroach on that buffer at all. MR. NACE-Take a look at your definition, Craig. MR. SUTTON-We're not encroaching on the buffer. The buffer will be there, but we’re going to put it back, but there’s also, we’re also leaving 30 feet of forest that’s there, and then we’re going to also plant trees back for, right as you see around there, I think he’s got 35 pines in there. That’s not a small investment by any means. So we’re doing everything we can. I mean, I've seen the growth in Queensbury myself. I live up on Bell Mountain Road now. I look down on the valley. I can tell by the amount of lights I look at, there’s a lot of development. It would concern anybody, but I mean, I also have 80 employees that are, like I said, depending on their futures, and I see this as an acceptable use. I really think, when it’s all said and done, the impact is going to be very low here, and I know my neighbors won’t agree with me, but all the onus is being put here, but I've had that property for 25 years, and now I have a use for it. So I’m certainly looking at it from that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, do you have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SUTTON-There is another, when you talk about the height, which our original roof pitch was a one twelve, not a three twelve. We made it a three twelve to make it a more attractive building. If you notice most steel buildings, the pitch is like this. A more attractive building to my eye is a little steeper pitch. So I asked Larry Warner here, you know, what will it cost to make this pitch a little bit bigger, put a nice color on the roof, make it nicer. If we wanted to lower that a few feet, we could do it through the pitch of the roof, but it’s going to change the look of the building. It will not be as good looking a building. I mean we have done things right along, before I even came here, to make this building attractive, because I knew that this would be upsetting the neighbors. I didn’t take it lightly that I would be upsetting people. I really feel that there’s three or four neighbors that are impacted by this, and I feel for them, and I've watched the other projects that go on in Queensbury. I think I’m asking for a reasonable thing here. We definitely had them in mind with the building materials we’re using. We're spending a lot more not to have this look like the cheaper metal buildings that you do see around Town in different places. So I think we’ve already done that. I mean, I could have come in with a cheaper plan and then when you asked me to come up with some ideas, come some up with some of these ideas, but we tried to do that before we got here, to make this as attractive as possible for this property, and, yes, we’ve looked at every other spot, George, on this thing, and it just doesn’t work anywhere else. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at that cardboard compactor. What’s the story on that with respect to noise? Does anybody know? MR. SUTTON-Again, it’s a daytime operation. When we uncart the furniture, we take the cardboard out. We get rid of it. We're hoping to have a unit there that will only have to be picked up once, possibly twice a month. So as far as a truck coming in and the noise you hear of them actually dragging the thing away will be once or twice a month. MR. VOLLARO-Is that an active compactor? In other words, is it enumatically active? MR. SUTTON-Well, that’s kind of our thoughts right now. We haven’t even talked to Waste Management about it. We just know that we need to handle the cardboard in some manner. We have a compactor on the other side of the property now for waste for, you know, it’s a hydraulic unit like you’re talking about for restaurant waste and whatnot. Right now we’re carting cardboard ourselves over to Fort Edward, twice a week, loading it in our own truck, and that’s becoming a nightmare. I think when Warren County had their place down at the old Cieba Geigy there, and we were the second biggest cardboard recycler in the County. So it creates a lot of work for us. So we’re hoping to handle it in a much better way. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to think a little bit about your comment, Craig, about that building being right behind the toy store. The objection to that was trying to get into that building with a truck. Right now you already have a proposed service drive there, and that in your mind is the way you’re going to get your trucks up into this warehouse onto the loading dock. MR. SUTTON-Right, and I’m relying on the professionals for that. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. NACE-We looked at a bunch of different options for locating the building. MR. VOLLARO-What were the reasons that option was rejected? MR. NACE-Right in behind? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right in behind the toy store addition, yes. MR. NACE-Trying to get trucks turned around into the service doors and back out onto the road, without taking them through the rest of the parking lot was the biggest objection. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s it for me for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tim? MR. BREWER-Two things. Has any thought maybe been given to putting a loading dock on the other side of the building, and move the building out further away, or would that give you a broader view? MR. NACE-Out this way? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. NACE-It would be six of one, half dozen of another. MR. SUTTON-Well, then any concerns of noise would be taking it closer to the neighbors. I mean, we’re keeping everything. MR. NACE-The loading dock has to be lower than the floor level, if you kept it on the low side, you’d probably keep the whole building (lost words). MR. SUTTON-So the way the grade goes. MR. BREWER-The second thing is, there were a couple of comments from, and this is not to you, but to the audience, that you wanted us to table this until your homeowners met. What would be the purpose of that? Or what reason? Anybody could answer. Can somebody answer that for me? MRS. SABO-Hi. I’m not a member of the Board or anything like that, but first can I say, I don’t feel any ill will toward the Suttons. I mean, they’re trying to make the bet use of their property, and it is their property, and it is zoned that way. I mean, I don’t feel any ill-will. I mean, it’s their right to come up with a proposal and present it. The way I feel is then at this point, you know, you’d want to look at the whole picture of like your community as a whole and the neighborhood as a whole, and he is our neighbor, and just look at the big picture, and the reason I believe that we should wait for a homeowners association meeting is because it does effect the whole neighborhood. We have realtors in our neighborhood, and they can tell you as well as anybody else, better than anybody else, that with loss of buffer, with loss of the wooded atmosphere, the sound buffer, the aesthetics, the whole essence of what the neighborhood was like, the property values are going to go down, as well as, you know, the immediate houses along with all the houses in the development, because that’s how they do the price thing there. So I think that if we, it effects the Twicwood community. It effects everyone in Twicwood. Like I mentioned in my letter, you know, because it is a neighborhood and people walk around all the time and use it that way, for walking their dogs, for taking their children for walks and stuff, and for that reason, and I believe also for the property value reason, and it will effect everyone, and I think that everyone involved, which would be everyone in Twicwood, should get all the information and be able to speak on their behalf, on how it will impact them. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, could you identify yourself, please. MRS. SABO-I’m sorry. It’s Karen Sabo. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I have one question for Tom. Tom, is the location of this building in any way slave to your proposed service drive? In other words, is this drive in now, is it existing, or will it be existing? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. NACE-It will be. It’s not existing now, no. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not existing. So, there’s no sunk cost, essentially, into this driveway yet. You haven’t paid money into this driveway. MR. NACE-No. MR. SUTTON-Just from the road in. MR. NACE-Exactly. We're using the most logical curb cut to bring tractor-trailers in, and that exists, okay. We don’t want to bring them in through the parking lot, if we can help it. This is the most logical place to bring any truck traffic. MR. VOLLARO-Just looking at the drawing and seeing from the, I guess it’s the eastern end, back of the toy store, whether or not that driveway could be re-configured in some way to handle the warehouse down a little lower. The reason I asked whether the drive was in and you had sunk costs, I could understand, from a financial point of view, you wouldn’t want to rip up something that was already in there, but can that be looked at one more time, and see whether that warehouse would fit down there? MR. NACE-You mean down behind the toy store? MR. VOLLARO-Somewhere behind the toy store, yes. MR. NACE-Well, one of the things you want to preserve down there, too, is future commercial use of the property. If you look at the overall numbers on the property, there is still room for additional parking if it’s required, for other services, other facilities, and the area down behind the toy store is one of those areas you would like to preserve. Okay, but, from a practical standpoint of getting tractor-trailer traffic in and out, there might be some way of turning stuff around, but you would end up probably coming over into part of the parking area, the existing parking area to the north of the toy store, with your tractor-trailer movement in order to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that may be an internal problem. It may not be something that you can’t live with. I mean, I think there’s a give and take here. I guess I’d like to ask Mr. Sutton, what’s your future plans for build out on this property? In other words, do you have sort of a building plan, a three year plan, a five year plan? MR. SUTTON-Well, the three year to five year plan is to put the expansion on the back of the furniture store. This is what the expansion is a lot about, is expanding the furniture. At that point I feel like we’ve pretty well developed the property. I mean the area behind the toy store, if we added another square foot of retail anywhere, even without that, there are days when we need that parking there. I mean, that’s a viable spot to park overflow cars. Suttons is a popular place, and I think it’s important to this community that Suttons stay viable. I mean, we get compliments every day that people bring their relatives there. They like to come there, and so we’re popular, and I can be punished for that because we fill that parking lot right up, and ingress and egress is hard sometimes, but it’s a popular place. It’s a fun place. It’s gotten bigger than I am or bigger than Donna is. I mean, it is what it is, and I feel a little bit like I’m being punished for the go carts going in across the street, the golf course going in across the street that’s well lit right up until midnight at night. Our parking lot lights go off at 9:30. Right after the girls are out of there and they can get safely to their cars, our lights are off. I think I've been a good neighbor. I think this is really a low impact situation, compared to what I see going in. Skateland is putting in, just took down a bunch of trees over there, I’ll admit. They’re putting in a race track, and that’s a noisy type operation. This warehouse is not going to be noisy. Everything is confined inside. We're not pounding hammers or anything like that. We're uncrating furniture, putting it on a shelf, waiting for the next piece, and we’re even backing our truck in to load the trucks, so that the noise factor and all that is really negligible, and I just think, you know, we’re going to put that property back as best we can. It’s all wooded to the south, behind Mrs. Sabo’s house there. She’s still going to look down into all those woods. I understand their concerns, but I also have my concerns for my own employees and for the health of that business, and if we’re not doing something, you know, we’ve gotten so popular, if we’re not doing something, our people are disappointed. So, they expect a lot from us now, and we’ve built a monster there, and we love what we do, and this is just something that we feel we need to keep that thing profitable and going and supporting the people that we have working. So, I would love to say, okay, that’s great, we’ll take that and we’ll move it over here, but unless, the Village Collection that’s the most effected, other than the homes, wrote the letter in favor of us. The only way we could bring it down further would be to get a variance from her on her back set back. I mean, we’re already right to our line there. We brought it back an extra couple of feet. So we kind of fit it in figuring, you know, we have this property. We own it, and we’re going to do the best we can to make it attractive when we’re all said and done and have as least impact as we can. If we plant trees and they want us to 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) plant more trees, I’m all for it. I mean, I hate taking down a tree as much as the next person, but I've got my employees and my people, and these aren’t minimum wage jobs I’m talking about. These are all people that are sales and in the furniture store and they’re looking for their future, as well as my own and my family, and I just feel that we’re kind of entitled to put that building there, and it’s a part of the business that we need. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We're in a difficult situation. MR. SUTTON-Of course, you always are. I wouldn’t want your job for anything. MR. MAC EWAN-We're walking that very fine line, trying to help with an applicant get their project through, and also looking out for the best interests of the community. MR. SUTTON-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Probably the down side of it for you is that our obligation is to look out for the best interests of the community. So what can we do to help your project progress along, while looking out for the interests of the neighboring properties? Or making it less or an impact on the neighboring properties? Some of the ideas that some of the members have tossed around up here is maybe relocating the warehouse to a different location on your site. You said that that’s not really a plausible idea. Has any thought been given, because you’re going to do some major excavating up there on that hill, as to lower, deeper into the hill? You’re looking at, right now, your driveway elevation right around the toy store being 90 foot. You’re looking at the finished grade being 94. Is there any reason why you can’t come down lower, and excavate more out? MR. SUTTON-You’d have to ask the expert there. MR. MAC EWAN-Bringing it lower down where it would be less obtrusive to your neighboring properties. My personal opinion, I don’t think that what you’re proposing is going to impact what noise levels are already there that the neighbors are facing. I think the noises are coming from other areas. I don’t think what you’re going to do is going to effect the noise level that they’re dealing with now. The size of the building, being the fact that it’s a metal building, may impact the echoing effect, I guess you could say, or the reverberating effect of the noise level. That might be a plausible point, but I think that the biggest impact that this proposed structure is going to have is going to be the visual impact those neighbors are going to have. So what can we do to minimize that as best we can? MR. SUTTON-Well, Tom says we can lower the site two feet. The roof pitch is an issue. I think by lowering the roof pitch you have a less attractive building. MR. STARK-How much would you save, Steve, if you had a standard pitch roof? LAWRENCE WARNER MR. WARNER-My name is Lawrence Warner. I was just going to point out that when Steve first initially contacted us, our first initial proposal to the Suttons was including a standard one on twelve roof pitch which can typically be even down to a half on a twelve roof pitch. Steve’s concerns were aesthetics, tying in with the balance of the other facilities on his property, and at that point asked me to increase the roof pitch to a three on twelve to give it more of a gable type roof appearance, to change the roof to a stand in seam roof, which is aesthetically better than a typical dura ridge screw down, and also to apply a 20 year Kynar finish. MR. MAC EWAN-What is a Kynar finish? MR. WARNER-It’s the premium in the industry. It’s as good as, what it means is that in two or three years, it’s not going to be rusting out and starting to deteriorate. It’s got a 20 year warrantee, versus a typical five or ten year warrantee on a finish. It’s an industry premium. It’s the Cadillac in the industry. So Steve, and again, I had to go back and re-price this all for, and Steve has already agreed to pay this additional monies, which in my opinion, he’s upgraded the building substantially, for aesthetic reasons, versus, you know, we’ve done typical buildings with shed type roofs, half on twelve, one on twelve Galvalume finish on it, no finish on it at all, and again, from an aesthetic standpoint, Steve came back and did ask us, which it cost him money. I mean, I know that because I did the estimate for him, change it to three on twelve, a structural stand in seam roof, and a Kynar finish all added substantial cost to the project, which he’s already said that he wanted to do that. He was concerned about the neighbors in the back, and that he wanted this to be aesthetically as good looking as he could, and again, reiterating, he did also indicate to us that he wanted us to be very careful, minimizing any of the clearing that was only necessary for construction of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. STARK-I have a question. Would you draw the one on twelve roof, what it would look like? MR. WARNER-Sure. Let me just give you a guideline, is I’ll take this right straight across the main frame of the building, which a one on twelve, which actually, what that actually does is raise the eaves height on the (lost word) by reducing this on the main building, but this would be from this ridge here to here is an increase of about five feet, (lost words) add additional roofing, additional insulating, and additional framing costs. So this was an added expense Steve asked us to add on to the building for aesthetics. Structurally, there’s no reason for it. We do one on twelve every day of the year. It’s strictly aesthetics that he asked us to do that. MR. STARK-Okay. Steve, what’s the height of the furniture store now, the high point of that, from the finished floor level, roughly? MR. SUTTON-We have 10 foot ceilings, and then 8 foot, 18 to the peak. MR. STARK-That’s more than 32 now. MR. SUTTON-I was going to say. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it’s at a lower elevation, isn’t it? The finished floor is below 98, I would guess? Isn’t it? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, with what he’s proposing, on the one on twelve, and if you could save five feet there, then what can we do to reduce the elevation from 98 down to something else? MR. NACE-You can bring the loading dock area down to about 92 instead of a 94. So that gives us two feet. So that brings the whole building down seven feet, if you do both together. MR. VOLLARO-Seven feet. MR. PALING-That could be critical, and I’d like to find out some way, and we’ve had these profile drawings in before, put that picture of the new building into the side of the building, so we can see what the neighbors will be looking at. MR. MAC EWAN-Sectional elevation, could you get one? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Another thought that I’m having, along these lines of storage, has Kip reviewed this for what may be required for fire code accessibility? MR. NACE-Dave Hatin has. MR. MAC EWAN-Dave has? Do you have a letter or something from him that he reviewed it? MR. NACE-I don’t know that he gave a letter. He talked to me on the phone, and he had two comments. One was he wanted a fire hydrant, and this was after the plan was submitted. He wanted a fire hydrant installed within 500 feet of the building. So that would mean out somewhere in front of the toy store, installing a fire hydrant on the existing main. MR. MAC EWAN-An ideal location would be somewhat halfway up that road, within the proximity of that shed area. MR. NACE-No, no. This would be out on Route 9. They’d rather have a hydrant so it’s a public hydrant, installed on the public main out, right on Route 9. MR. BREWER-Aren’t there hydrants out there now? MR. NACE-There is, but there’s one down in front of the restaurant, and the next one is up in front of the insurance, the Leonard Insurance, and puts both of them further than 500 feet from the store, or from the storage building. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to get some sort of statement (lost words) or need for requirements for accessibility for fire access. MR. NACE-Okay. The other issue that Dave had, he wanted, not around, just on one side. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-I believe what you’re saying, but I want to hear it from him. I want it in writing. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. BREWER-I thought over a certain square foot has to be around the building? MR. NACE-What you do, you have a basic fire area, depending on the classification of the building construction, and the occupancy, and then as you add accessibility around additional sides, you increase that basic fire area, but we’re all within the basic, allowable, as long as we just have one side accessibility. MR. BREWER-I’m sure you would be, Tom. MR. STARK-Steve, Bob and I were just talking. I don’t think a week is going to matter that much to you. MR. SUTTON-No, but a month will. MR. STARK-I realize a month will, and we have a meeting next week, too. MR. SUTTON-Because we do have increases in costs on this building coming up. MR. STARK-But we would like to go out and do our own elevations, you know, float a balloon, go up in Twicwood, you know 25 feet, 32 feet, go check out each one, and we’d do that ourselves this Saturday. MR. BREWER-How would you get the balloon, George? MR. STARK-Well, how do they do it? MR. BREWER-I know, but I mean you’re going to have somebody down under the hill at 98 feet and then just run it up? MR. STARK-Run one at 25 and one at 32, and see where we are, and I think that would be to your benefit if we could do that. MR. NACE-Sure. I can get a balloon. The surveyors have done that all the time. MR. STARK-Yes, I know they’ve done them for the towers over there and everything. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. STARK-But I would like to do that? MR. BREWER-Late Saturday afternoon? MR. STARK-Well, at your convenience. MR. MAC EWAN-We have to advertise. Normally don’t we advertise when we do site visits? I thought we did? MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have legal notices about your site visits. MR. BREWER-Just a quick release in the paper? MR. SCHACHNER-No, you don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Okay. MR. SUTTON-Can I ask the Board a question? As far as the toy store? MR. BREWER-I don’t think that’s a problem, not even a question in my mind about that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MR. SUTTON-So I could proceed with contracts, this, that and the other thing? MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t proceed on anything until you get a written approval from this Board. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. SUTTON-Right, but I didn’t know whether you could separate that out or approve that tonight? MR. BREWER-We can’t, legally, do half a site plan. MR. SUTTON-Okay. One week from tonight we would come back? MR. STARK-If you could have Tom go out, the center point of that building, where the peak would be, put a stake in the ground, color the stake or something, so when we go out. MR. NACE-So you know how far above that point the peak is? MR. STARK-And that’ll be a location stake, too, not just height wise, and then when we float the balloon, then go up on Twicwood. MR. SUTTON-You should do it in two points, because there’s five feet that we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-Did I hear you say you were willing to do that, you do that all the time with surveyors, you’ll put the balloon up? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Can you pick a time and a date to do that? MR. NACE-You tell me when you want me there. MR. STARK-Bob, three of us can be there anytime. MR. MAC EWAN-Saturday. MR. BREWER-Well, if he’s going to put the balloon up, Tom doesn’t have to be there. MR. SUTTON-My only point is when you do this, to consider both buildings, height wise. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You want us to put it at the one and twelve and also at the three on twelve. MR. SUTTON-Exactly, because I really feel, both for the neighbors and for our aesthetics, I mean, it’s going to cost me more money. If you go with the one, twelve, I've just saved quite a bit of money, but I think it’s a nicer, better looking building with the higher pitch, but if we’re going to get this done by lowering it, if we’re going to do it that way, we’re going to do it, but I think you should take a look at both and see if those five feet really make the difference that we’re talking about. MR. BREWER-Well, the two balloons and tell the difference. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-What we really want to do is we want to be standing at Elevation 98. We want to float the balloon to the proper level, then pull it down another two feet to see what lowering the building two feet will look like. So we want a number of profiles that we can take a look at. Do you know what I’m talking about? MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. STARK-Do you have balloons, Tom? MR. NACE-Yes. We just go out to the store and get them. MR. SUTTON-I think lowering it to two feet is a given, at this point. MR. NACE-We can do that and we will do that. MR. VOLLARO-You mean the elevation down to 96? MR. SUTTON-Exactly. MR. BREWER-So if he put them up Saturday morning. We could go up Saturday any time and look at that. MR. STARK-Fine. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MR. MAC EWAN-I would also like you, and I think I heard an agreement from the Board, is give us a sectional elevation. MR. NACE-I’d have to send the surveyors out, and we’d have to get permission to get on the private property to be able to see up through their lots, what that look is going to look like, okay. I can give you a sectional of what’s on our property, and just off on to theirs. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. All I’m looking for is right up to your 110 level that you show on there. MR. NACE-Okay. I think for your objective, what you’re really looking at is the view from the neighbors, I think your balloons are going to tell you more objectively than a cross section. I’ll draw you a cross section, no problem. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have it. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. PALING-So you’ll have two or three balloons across the width of the building? MR. NACE-We’ll put one on either end. MR. PALING-One on either end, and I think we should announce the time and the date, so that any of the neighbors that want to come can also witness this. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s available for the neighbors to come and see. Then you might be kind of teetering on violation of Open Meeting Laws. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and as your Counsel, you know that I've advised you in the past, you should not be discussing, engaging in substantive discussions of these applications, during your site visits. Your site visits are there for your visual observation, and they’re not really meetings of the Board at which substantive discussion should occur between you and the applicant, you and the neighbors, you and yourselves, or you and anybody else. MR. BREWER-So you’ll put balloons at either end, both elevations? MR. NACE-I’ll put balloons at the three on one peak elevation, and five foot lower, at the one on twelve pitch. MR. PALING-At each end of the building? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s your mission, in addition to, you’re going to provide us. MR. NACE-A typical cross section. MR. MAC EWAN-We're going to table this until next Tuesday. Is that enough time for you to do this cross section and get it to Staff? How long would it take you? Could you get it there by the end of this week? MR. NACE-I’ll have that to Staff Thursday morning. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. BREWER-So we’ll have it Friday afternoon. MR. MAC EWAN-And Staff’s mission is to forward this application on to the Fire Marshal, the Building Inspector, and get their interpretation of this as well. MR. BREWER-That allows the homeowners association to meet Sunday and come back Tuesday. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With your permission, we’ll table. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Make a motion someone. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/16/99) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-99 STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until next Tuesday, March 23, 1999. Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 1999, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any other? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. MR. BREWER-I’ll second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 51