Loading...
2000-04-18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER ROBERT PALING LARRY RINGER MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LA BOMBARD ALAN ABBOTT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 21, 1999: NONE December 22, 1999: NONE December 28, 1999: NONE January 18, 2000: NONE February 8, 2000: NONE February 15, 2000: NONE February 22, 2000: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 12/21, 22, 28, 1/18, 2/8, 2/15, 2/22, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME AGENT: THE LA GROUP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 71 BIG BOOM ROAD THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT INCLUDES AN EXISTING EXCAVATION BUSINESS AND MATERIAL PROCESSING ON THE 7 +/- ACRE SITE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS OF REGRADING, REVEGETATION, AND RE-LOCATION OF PROCESSING MATERIALS TO A DEFINED LOCATION ON THE SITE. THE EXISTING BULDING IS ALSO BEING OCCUPIED BY A COURIER BUSINESS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 71-96, 33-94, SUB. 9-1994, 14-1994, AV 52-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/12/2000 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) WILLIAM NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-2000, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: April 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The Planning Board tabled the application at the February 22, 2000 meeting for the applicant to comply with the NYSDEC letter of January 10, 2000. Staff met with the applicant and NYSDEC at the site on April 13, 2000. The NYSDEC has requested that item #2 of January 10, 2000 be completed by mid May of 2000. The current site plan is for approval to fill the rear of the property and to continue soil processing, as well as do re-grading for future development. The applicant is allowed through site plan review to operate an excavation company in the Light Industrial zone as a business where machinery equipment supplies and materials are stored and maintained for use or installation at another location. The operation of the business includes 15 vehicles as described by a letter dated February 15, 2000, the storage and processing of stone, sand, and mulch. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with DEC requirements 2. Removal of all items associated with a junkyard by May 15, 2000.” MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, come on up. Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. NEALON-Good evening. William Nealon, attorney for Glenn Batease. GLENN BATEASE MR. BATEASE-Glenn Batease, owner of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you maybe bring us up to date? I know that there was supposed to have been a joint meeting, along with DEC, on your site, last week, the week before. Could you bring us up to speed on what came out of that meeting, if anything? MR. NEALON-We did have a fruitful meeting last week with Craig, Laura, and representatives, two representatives from DEC, Bill Lupo and Tim Post. I do commend the Town, through its representatives, Craig and Laura, for thinking perhaps a little outside the box in terms of what grading postures might be adopted to affect some of the issues the Board has concerns about, and I’m not sure whether Craig has brought those concepts before the Board, but I would explain a little bit about what he offered by way of his very constructive recommendation. The Board, on the last appearance, had essentially wanted a timetable whereby the slopes at, as far as I can understand it, at particularly the property boundaries, could be established, and we did have some considerable to and fro at the last meeting about timetables for that, which are really heavily dependent upon the availability of fill and other issues. Craig offered a suggestion whereby certain of the existing materials that are already on site could be relocated and graded to establish the two on one slope, moving back from the property boundary, but for the area around the weak or protected stream area, to establish that two on one slope and get it graded and seeded, within a timetable that would meet with the requirements of the Department of Environmental Conservation. I think all who were present last week agreed that that was a workable solution which, one, met with the realities of the availability of fill for that site, and, two, offered ENCON and the Town a way of measuring the rate of fill and addressing some of the other concerns that had been expressed. We believe that proposal is workable and intend to adopt it. As far as DEC is concerned, all recognize that to establish the grade and seed requirements that DEC was looking for, we’re now at that point in the growing season where that’s beginning to be a realizable issue, and the proposal that Craig put forth I think will permit us to go ahead in that particular scheme, whereby as fill becomes available, we are essentially creating a two on one slope coming up from the property line, and then a void, which would be filled as time and available material permitted. I believe Craig ran some site lines back from the building and so on, and basically the fill area is within the parameters that we had expressed in our plan. We did talk about some of the items that were unrelated, as Laura would have it, to the construction business, and we are making arrangements to move or otherwise dispose of those items within the timetable that Staff has recommended. In short, I think that we have, through the efforts of all, a plan which will allow that site to be developed in an orderly fashion, and to realize its maximum utility as far as both the Town and Mr. Batease are concerned, and will address the issues that ENCON has expressed its concerns about, in an economically viable fashion. So, I’d be happy to answer any questions the Board might have, but I think it’s sufficient to say that the hurdle that I felt existed on our last appearance, particularly an insistence on a timetable to realize the final grade, may be leapfrogged, as it were, by adoption of the concept that Craig and Laura had given their thoughtful consideration to, and will allow a measure by which the applicant, Mr. Batease, and Craig and Laura and officials within the Town can monitor the rate of fill and the adherence to the required slopes on the site, as fill continues to be available. We would, therefore, urge the Board to consider a thoughtful approval of the plan, as advanced with the conditions expressed by the Board’s 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you in compliance right now with DEC’s letter that was issued to you on the 27 of December? th MR. NEALON-No, we are not. MR. MAC EWAN-Did they give you a timetable or a timeframe to come into compliance with that? MR. NEALON-I believe Laura just expressed that. We’re expecting a second letter. I did not receive a letter today, but we are advised by Mr. Post and Mr. Lupo that that requirement looks toward the middle of May. I don’t have a specific date in the middle of May, but that’s what we had agreed upon at the meeting that was held at the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before I turn it over to members of the Board to ask questions, Craig, I’d like you to give us your impression and what your recommendations are and thoughts of the site, where you’d like to see things go. MR. BROWN-Well, I think the meeting that we had on Thursday discussed all of our concerns, and I think Mr. Nealon’s presentation and his, hopefully, subsequent adoption of the plan that we discussed at the site should take care of all the issues, as far as erosion control, stormwater control, establishment of the slope to monitor the placement of the fill, and beyond that, we discussed some of the items on the site that had to be removed, and I think that’s also something that we can work with, with the conditioned approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. BROWN-Not at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. PALING-I hope we’re going to have a specific, item by item list of what’s to be done and when it’s going to be done. MR. BROWN-As far as the completion of that? MR. PALING-All the issues that we’ve already discussed and covered in your letter, the junk yard issue. I was up there yesterday. It looks like a work in progress, much further along than it was before, but I’d still like to go back and get a list of what’s going to be done and when it’s going to be done, and what kind of assurance do we have that it will be done? MR. BROWN-Well, I think with the applicant’s and the Board’s acknowledgement of a date when the filling or the original, or the first 50 feet, we’ll call it a buffer area, is to be completed, I think both people can agree on a date consistent with what my understanding of the DEC’s additional time is going to be, some time mid-May I think they talked about. I think if everybody’s comfortable with that, that’s a firm date you can say, this first 50 feet needs to be completed, stabilized, maybe not stabilized, but constructed and some sort of vegetation started. The junkyard issue, the property right now doesn’t have any approvals to be a junkyard. There’s no special dispensation given to store discarded debris on the property. If you say that in the approval, then it’s a matter of me and Mr. Batease dealing with what is associated with his business, and what he needs to have there, versus what is discarded debris, unwanted materials, things that need to be disposed of in another area, salvage yard, junkyard, landfill, and that’s something we can work out, hopefully not as an enforcement matter, but if it needs to be that, we can pursue it that way, unless you specifically want to tell him certain things you want him to store on there, it would be a scrape pile here, a scrape pile there. MR. PALING-Well, I agree with your item number two. As a matter of fact, you put a date on it, removal of all items associated with a junkyard, that’s pretty specific, and I think anything else ought to be as specific as that. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. MR. PALING-Like the 50 foot you’re talking about, a better definition, and when, and mention was also made by the applicant of ENCON. Now we’ve talked DEC, and our own Staff. What’s the ENCON thing? MRS. MOORE-DEC. MR. SCHACHNER-ENCON is DEC. I think you’re getting confused, Bob. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. PALING-Yes, I know that, but what’s. MR. NEALON-They’re both the same. MR. PALING-You’re saying DEC and ENCON are the same. Okay. MR. NEALON-The Department of Environmental Conservation and ENCON. MR. PALING-All right. Well, that’s all I have for now, but I would still be looking for more specifics, dates and what’s going to be done. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really just have the same questions, and I guess the question is kind of vague as to what would be a reasonable deadline to have some of that work completed, the grading and the buffer zone. I didn’t see any specific date. Maybe we’re sort of at a loss because we don’t have that, apparently there was a letter forthcoming that we don’t have, but I guess that would be, just echo the same comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The first thing I’d like to ask, I’d like to ask this of Staff, I think. The motion to table Site Plan 6-2000, introduced by myself and seconded by Catherine LaBombard, it said until the meeting of April 18, which is today, for purposes of clarifying Rist-Frost’s letter that was received th today, February 22, regarding the performance bond. Is that off the table now? nd MRS. MOORE-I haven’t looked any further into it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that was brought up by Mr. Paling the last time, and was put into this motion for the purpose of addressing the performance bond, just to make sure this work was done. Are we going to just take that motion and cancel it and don’t go with this one, or what’s the, I don’t understand the procedure here. MR. BROWN-We in the Planning Department, Senior Planner, Marilyn Ryba, Laura and myself, discussed I guess the variables associated with a performance bond and the accuracy level that you really want to have or need to have to make it something that’s worthwhile. Where you don’t create a bond that estimates the work to be $500 and it turns out that it’s $5,000. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s why we asked Rist-Frost, if you go back in time, Rist-Frost replied to us, and the oral request for a performance bond, and said in order to accurate estimate this project, we need the following information. MR. BROWN-Updated contours, proposed grading plan. MR. VOLLARO-I just don’t know how we get by a motion that was approved by an entire Planning Board, and just jump right over that. Procedurally, I just don’t understand that, I guess. MR. BROWN-I think the Board, as a whole, can acknowledge that they don’t want the performance bond anymore. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. If you’re asking can you essentially ignore your earlier statement about clarifying the performance bond, you certainly have the authority to do that. If you’re asking should you, that’s a different issue. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a different issue. I still think that a performance bond, somebody said that, I think Bob Paling just said, how do we ensure that this work is done? The performance bond is what you use as an insurance document, and I don’t see why we’re not pursing that. I spent a good part of the day reading all the way back to 1997, which was a letter that went to Jim Martin from Mr. Levandowski, who was at that time the engineer for Rist-Frost, talking about this very same project in 1997. It’s unbelievable. Anyway, having said that, I’d just like to ask this Board how they feel about the motion that we approved prior to this meeting, which called for a performance bond. Do we want to ignore that as a Board, or what? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it wasn’t necessarily a motion to approve. We did a tabling, pending that additional information be supplied to us. That’s what we did. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct. Now that that information is not being supplied, do we want to just ignore that? If we do, we do. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m willing to explore alternatives to ensure that the site comes up to speed and where we want it to be relatively quick, and Mr. Batease seems to be of the persuasion that that’s what he wants to do. MR. PALING-Well, we’ll have the same question when we go over what’s going to be done and when. We’re going to have to ask ourselves the same question again, and the performance bond will come up again. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. MR. PALING-And then we’ll have to act on it at that time, but I think first we should see what’s going to be done and when, and then make a judgement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I still have a couple of things I want to, in your letter, Craig, of, it doesn’t have a date, number two says no fill be placed on the site prior to completion of item one, and completion of item one is compliance with the DEC, and in order to get that 50 foot mark down below on your drawing, you’re going to have to bring some fill in to do that or can he move existing material around to place that pyramid, if you will, in there? MR. BROWN-I think that’s the most feasible alternative for the applicant, rather than, to bring fill in, he’s got plenty of material on the site. MR. VOLLARO-Would the applicant agree with that? MR. BROWN-I think they offered. MR. VOLLARO-You can build up on that. So you can start your two on one slope from that? MR. NEALON-I would offer this to the Board. That, yes, there is fill on the site, and, A, there is fill on the site, but, B, a significant amount of fill is required in order to bring, there is sufficient fill on the site to perhaps create this 50 foot margin down at the boundary of the property with the adjoining parcels of land. The issue that I have concern about and would ask the Board’s indulgence on is that fill is not something that we know is going to be available today and it’s not going to be available tomorrow, or it might be available in three weeks. We have no way of knowing when that fill is going to be available. We can begin, and I’m confident that Glenn can affect the slope profiles that are contemplated here, using fill on site, perhaps supplemented by others, other fill, but I would ask the Board not foreclose his acceptance of fill, whether it come from the Town of Queensbury, which in fact it has in the past, or come from the State of New York or some other source. There’s a great deal of fill that is required in order to fill the gap that’s depicted schematically. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’re looking for right now is just to have that berm made, never mind making your entire two to one slope there to meet the berm, but to get the berm made. MR. NEALON-I’m not suggesting that additional fill is necessary to do that. MR. VOLLARO-I think the reason Craig did this was to establish the pre-disposition of the two to one slope. That was the idea of you creating that little pyramid down there, so the back side of that would begin to identify the two to one slope, and then when you fill to that, the rest of it, if it followed a straight line to that, would be the two to one. MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s one of the items. More importantly, to keep any stormwater on the site, any erosion on the site. That original. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a two pronged position. MR. BROWN-Protection of the stream. MR. MAC EWAN-Just to interrupt here for a second. Clarify this. When you were on his site, in a meeting with these two gentlemen and DEC last week, did you talk about, Mr. Batease, you need to do this by a certain date, or generalities of dates, that you were looking for things to be remedied rather quickly? MR. BROWN-The date that was of record, at the date of our meeting, April 13 was the meeting. th The date that he was supposed to have things done was April 15. Obvious that that wasn’t going to th be done. Mr. Post seemed to be acceptable to afford Mr. Batease more time. He said early May, mid-May. He didn’t seem to want to consider a lengthy amount of additional time. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m getting a sense from you, Mr. Nealon, is that the middle of May is not even doable for you. The impression you’re giving me is that as fill comes in, well, you’ll start making a little bit here and a little bit there. MR. NEALON-No, you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m indicating that you, well, maybe I misunderstood you. So let me restate what I think you are proposing. I think you are saying that you want to preclude the acceptance of additional until such time as the 50 foot margin at the boundary of the property is established. What I am saying to you is that this property margin that is under discussion is 7 or 800 feet long, and the volume of fill necessary in order to ultimately bring the contours to the two on one slope that is contemplated is significant. In some places not so significant than others, but in any case, it represents a substantial amount of additional fill that would be required over time. I’m suggesting to you that the margins at the property boundary, the 7 or 800 foot property line along that eastern boundary of the property, can be established, while at the same time accepting fill from sources as it becomes available to fill in the gap, so to speak, between the margin that would be established at the property line, and the existing contour of the slope. So to preclude acceptance of additional fill simply delays the ultimate completion of the project, because once the fill has gone somewhere else, it has gone somewhere else. Nobody is going to bring it back. So I’m telling you that it would be our plan to develop the perimeter 50 foot margin, or buffer zone, with the two on one slope, and whatever drainage or erosion control practices are required by DEC, whilst at the same time accepting other fill to fill in the void as that fill becomes available. MR. VOLLARO-That means you don’t have a time certain to do this. In my mind, to do what you’ve said, there’s no time certain? MR. NEALON-You’re asking me when are we going to finish the entire project, and we’ve been around this course many more times, Mr. Vollaro, then I care to count. MR. VOLLARO-I did not ask you that. I’m sorry, I did not ask you that. I’m asking you how long it’s going to take to put this berm in. That’s all I’m asking. MR. NEALON-Yes, and I think we have settled on mid-May as a time to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-Do you have enough fill now to do that? He didn’t say he didn’t. MR. NEALON-There is, is there sufficient fill? There’s sufficient fill to do that. MR. RINGER-Then why not just do that and not bring anymore fill in until it’s done? That’s what Craig was asking. That’s what I thought Craig was asking. MR. NEALON-Because when the fill is available, the fill is available. If, we have more than an adequate amount of space within which to place fill that is not actively being used to create that 50 foot margin. If you tell us we cannot accept anymore fill, whilst that margin is being established, that fill is gone and gone forever. MR. RINGER-You’ve been working on this project for, what, six, seven years now. Thirty days we’re talking about, the amount of fill you’re going to lose in the 30 days. MR. NEALON-It could be substantial. We don’t know. The construction season is just beginning. MR. RINGER-It just doesn’t seem like 30 days, when you’ve been working on it for 6 years, is a long period of time. I’m having difficulty with that. MR. NEALON-Again, that fill, once declined, is gone forever. It is not a matter of our being able to tell the guy, well, come back in 30 days. We can’t do that. MR. RINGER-I realize. It just doesn’t seem like you’re going to get that much 30 days, if you had 6 years to do it. I mean, you might lose a truck here and a truck there by not being able to bring it in. MR. NEALON-There can be as many as, I don’t know, 15 or 20 trucks a day, maybe more, that run all day long. MR. MAC EWAN-If you were to start making that berm tomorrow, how long would it take you to do it? And make it to the requirements of the DEC letter, inclusive of starting the plantings on the easterly side of the berm? How long would it take you to do it? Two weeks, three weeks, three months? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. NEALON-There’s seven or eight hundred feet of material that has to be moved, linear feet of material that has to be set forth on a two on one slope. It’s a substantial job. It would probably take a while. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no doubt about it it’s a substantial job. We’ve been looking for it for a long time to get accomplished. How long will it take? MR. NEALON-It would take at least a month, I would expect. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-That’s what DEC has given him, mid-May. That’s the month. MR. NEALON-I don’t think we’re disagreeing on a timetable that it will be a substantial effort on the part of Mr. Batease to accomplish that, but he’s willing to do that, but what we’re saying is there is no practical benefit to anyone in saying, in the meantime, you can’t do anything or accept any materials that would ultimately finish this job, in the slope configuration as proposed. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, item two basically was to prevent any further deposits of loose soils into the stream. If it can be placed in a manner where it’s used to construct this berm, or if it’s placed in an area where the berm’s already constructed, if they’re halfway through it and they want to put some fill in one side. I think that would be reasonable because the berm would be constructed in that area and they could place this additional fill in that area. That condition was just to prevent any additional fill that’s not protected, I guess. So I think it’s reasonable to allow them to accept fill if it’s for construction of the berm or an area that the berm has been constructed. Because it is for the ultimate completion of the project. That’s what he wants to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a way of getting dump trucks with clean fill down there at the bottom of the bank, to construct a berm? MR. NEALON-The fill would be drawn down with a large excavating machine. MR. MAC EWAN-Back hoe or something like that? MR. NEALON-A very large back hoe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-If you were constructing that berm and you did get fill, is that what you would do with it? MR. NEALON-It would depend on the nature of the fill. Obviously, there are some types of fill that might be concrete from a roadway that you wouldn’t necessarily use to surface that berm. MR. PALING-Don’t complicate it further. If you’ve got fill you can’t use, I don’t think that’s our problem. I assume the fill you’re talking about now is fill you can use while you’re building the berm, that you’re concerned with. What would you do with the fill you can use, while you’re building the berm, if it comes in? MR. NEALON-It would either be used to further the construction of the berm, or fill in behind the berm that’s already been constructed. MR. PALING-Okay, and it wouldn’t cause you any problem? MR. NEALON-No. I mean, there’s 800 linear, or 700 linear feet. MR. PALING-I understand that. What would you do with the fill that’s not acceptable, concrete and logs or whatever? MR. NEALON-Well, there’s a major distinction to be drawn there, Mr. Paling, between concrete chunks and bricks and so on. MR. PALING-And acceptable fill. MR. NEALON-That’s acceptable hard fill. Logs and so on wouldn’t be accepted on the site to begin with. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I don’t see the complication. When I asked the question, you brought in the complication of unacceptable fill. You didn’t use that term, but that’s what I’m using. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. NEALON-Well, you wouldn’t try to establish grass on something that won’t grow grass. Okay. I don’t know where you’re going. MR. PALING-Okay. It’s complicated unnecessarily. I’m trying to find a way for you to accept fill while you’re building the berm. All right. MR. NEALON-Yes, what’s the problem? MR. PALING-I don’t have a problem, but you introduced a new factor when you talked about fill that couldn’t be used while you were building the berm. MR. NEALON-No. I said there are types of fill that you would not use, necessarily, to surface the slope. MR. PALING-Well, is it going to impede your progress to do the job? MR. NEALON-To construct the berm as Craig and Laura? MR. PALING-Is that kind of fill, if you receive it, going to impede your progress to do the berm, to fix the berm? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a difficult question. It’s not a trick question. MR. NEALON-With all due respect, fill that would be accepted there on the site, has to meet certain requirements, and to the best of my knowledge, the fill that has been accepted there meets those requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to grant an approval to you tonight, could you have that berm completed and sodded, seeded and start some vegetation on it by the end of May? MR. NEALON-A, it will never be sodded. That is prohibitively expensive. It will be seeded. What was the date you offered? MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, the original site plan, the SP-1 there that we have, what’s the last revision date on that drawing, we were looking at before the meeting? It has a planting schedule on it. MRS. MOORE-2/3 of 2000. MR. BROWN-February 3. rd MR. MAC EWAN-February 3 of 2000. Would you be able to come into compliance with that, as rd well as the DEC letter of January by the end of May? MR. NEALON-I don’t recall all of the details of the planting scheme. I think there were trees and other things set forth in that planting scheme. I think that’s probably a large order, at this point, since we’re trying to. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like everything we ask is a large order. MR. NEALON-It’s a large piece of property, Mr. MacEwan. MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but you know what, we didn’t screw it up. MR. NEALON-Neither did we. MR. MAC EWAN-No? Explain to me why DEC has written you letters telling you to come into compliance or they’re going to start fining you? Did that happen magically overnight? I don’t think so. This Board has been working with Mr. Batease for almost three years on this site. I think this Board has been more than patient in trying to get this site to come into compliance with not only what the Ordinance calls for, previous approvals and DEC’s asking for. I don’t think we’re being too hard on Mr. Batease or you in trying to get you to commit to some sort of plan that you’ll come and fulfill by a certain date to make everyone happy. That’s all we’re asking for, and it seems like every time you’re in front of us, it’s another rally around the table why we can’t do this, we can’t do that, we can’t do this, and I just really would like an answer, and I’m sure everyone on this Board would like an answer. MR. NEALON-Your Staff and the applicant and myself were at the site, along with representatives 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) from the Department of Environmental Conservation. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re aware of that. MR. NEALON-We discussed a timetable. MR. MAC EWAN-Good. What’s the timetable? Tell us right now, what is the timetable? MR. NEALON-The timetable was mid-May. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the Board is being flexible. We’re going to give you an extra two weeks, if we do an approval. Can you do it by the end of May? MR. NEALON-We can establish the slope. We can get the jute mat and seeding in place on that slope within the 50 foot boundary that we’ve been discussing, by the end of May, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-For the 800 feet along the property line, give or take? MR. NEALON-That is what we’re all talking about, the eastern boundary of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I didn’t mean to interrupt you there, Larry. Have you got more questions? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. I just noticed, I was there the other day and had noticed that there’s been considerable improvements made on the property, and I commend your efforts for that. I thought it looked a lot better than it did this winter. I was quite pleased with what I saw. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? Anything to add, comments? MR. BROWN-Unless you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-No. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, don’t we? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it’s a Short Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll let you do it. MRS. MOORE-“Does action exceed any Type I threshold in 6NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. MOORE-“Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted actions in 6NYCRR Part 617.6?” MR. MAC EWAN-Is DEC considered coordinated review in this aspect? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know what they’re doing with SEQRA review, do you? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. I don’t think any application has been made to the DEC to review the project in any way, at this point. In the future there will be, SPDES. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. The answer I guess would be no. MRS. MOORE-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. 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?” 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Groundwater. MR. RINGER-There could be. MR. MAC EWAN-Erosion. Small to moderate, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you’re reviewing SEQRA Short Form. If you’re going to answer in the affirmative, and I’m not discouraging you from doing that. Your answers are what your answers are, but typically, if you have affirmative answers on the SEQRA Short Form, that’s going to lead to one of two conclusions. Either that you need a SEQRA Long Form to flesh out those answers, or you’re going to need to evaluate the importance of the impacts that you identify in the Short Form and decide whether they warrant preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose I would be inclined to go to the Long Form. That’s one person’s opinion up here. How does everybody else feel? I mean, to answer the question, do you feel it’s significant enough or not? Would you re-read the question for the Board? MRS. MOORE-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. 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, you’ve got two items there, groundwater and erosion. Maybe it would be clearer to everyone if we did use the Long Form. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my feeling is that the primary purpose of the project is to improve the situation, with respect to erosion and groundwater. So I don’t think that there would be an adverse impact. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll vote for the Long Form. MR. RINGER-I think we could go with the Long Form. MR. METIVIER-I agree that I think that, with everything that’s outlined, that we’re trying to keep the erosion and wastewater problems down to a minimum, and this is the process we’ve been going through for that. MR. MAC EWAN-The Long Form has it. That’s what we’ll do. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, and you understand we can’t do that tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. He needs to complete the Long Form and re-submit it. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. The applicant would need to complete Part I of the Long Form EAF. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our agenda like next Thursday? Is it heavy or not? MR. PALING-Five items. MR. SCHACHNER-Staff, apparently, is of the opinion that if the project is conducted, I guess this is pretty much what Mr. Hunsinger just said, that if the project is carried out in the manner that’s proposed, that I believe it’s Staff’s opinion that there would not be significant impacts for the reasons Mr. Hunsinger said, but I’m not dissuading the Board from the Long Form. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t the object of the EAF to identify potential problems? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true. MR. MAC EWAN-And whether those problems can be mitigated through the construction of the project? MR. SCHACHNER-To some extent, that’s correct. I’m not dissuading you from the Long Form at all. Staff asked me to voice their opinion. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s on the agenda next Thursday? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MRS. MOORE-You have four items on the agenda next Thursday. MR. MAC EWAN-And what are they? MR. RINGER-Konover, Boats by George. MRS. MOORE-Actually, it’s five. It’s Northeast Power Systems, Byron and Judy Rist, and Vasiliou. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table you until next Thursday. MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, tomorrow evening you only have four items on the agenda. MR. SCHACHNER-What about next Tuesday? Do you have that handy? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Next Tuesday. MR. RINGER-We’ve got Nigro. MR. SCHACHNER-I was only saying that because the other two are nights that I’m not going to be here but I’ll have colleagues here. MR. MAC EWAN-And what was on tomorrow night? MRS. MOORE-You have Breda, Northway Plaza, Mason and Forbes. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table you until tomorrow night. Give you time to fill out a Long Form. MR. NEALON-Tomorrow? That is not likely, given my schedule. We’ll do our best. MR. MAC EWAN-It takes about 10 minutes to fill it out. MR. NEALON-Well, I haven’t seen exactly how the questions are going to relate to this particular project. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we table you until tomorrow night. Okay. Consensus of the Board? MR. PALING-Yes. Should we cover any other questions that we can cover tonight? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ve pretty much covered everything. The issue I think we’re all hung up on is when. We know what we want. They know what we want. Staff knows what we want. It’s just a matter of when, and that’s what we need to address. MR. NEALON-With all due respect, Mr. MacEwan, I don’t think the when is in dispute. Staff, ENCON, and the applicant are all focused in on the middle, latter part of May, which is what the Board is asking for. MR. MAC EWAN-Then it’ll go really quick tomorrow night. MR. NEALON-I don’t see why we’re talking about the when, then. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then it’ll go very fast tomorrow night. Okay. Introduce a motion to table until tomorrow night, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2000 GLENN BATEASE, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Pending the completion of the Long Form EAF. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-And as a footnote, I’ll re-open the public hearing, and leave it open. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I’d just like to add, for the benefit of the Board, while the applicant’s still here, if you approve this application tomorrow night, and if you attach conditions to that approval, I’m going to counsel you tonight, 24 hours in advance, to be very clear in whatever conditions you might attach to that approval, so that the Staff can readily understand them and that they’re objective as possible, so that if we’re involved in enforcement situations, we don’t have a lot of waffling and a lot of wiggle room, based on interpretation of vague terms. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 MODIFICATION WALMART # 2116 OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN, WHICH REQUIRES BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. MODIFICATION IS FOR THE ADDITION OF AN OUTDOOR SEASONAL DISPLAY TO OPERATE ANNUALLY FROM APRIL 1 THROUGH AUGUST 31. TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3.2 LOT SIZE: 11 + ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MARK DENNIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-93, Modification – WalMart #2116, Meeting Date: April 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to modify Site Plan 31-93, Walmart to add a seasonal outdoor display area. The approximate area is 16,200 square feet or about 68 parking spaces. The applicant has also indicated this area is to be used as a Christmas trees display area from the day after Thanksgiving to December 25. The garden display areas are marked on the drawing submitted and include display of items such as peat moss, potting soil, mulch, nuggets, topsoil, manure, cement products, trees and shrubs. The applicant has indicated the storage height would not exceed 96 inches as done with a similar site plan. Staff would suggest that additional landscaping be added to the existing parking area divider islands, such as shrubs. The additional landscaping would add definition to the islands, currently many of the islands have low-lying vegetation or no vegetation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan contingent upon additional landscaping being added to the site.” MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have in mind any kind of particular landscaping you’re looking for? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here from the applicant? Good evening. MR. DENNIS-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DENNIS-My name is Mark Dennis. I’m Assistant Manager at Wal-Mart. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you tell us a little about your request here, Mr. Dennis? MR. DENNIS-The request is for, like the application states, a seasonal display area, basically for the shrubs, trees, bagged goods and concrete that we would be selling to the customers. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Did Staff talk to you about doing some plantings in your islands, your parking islands? MR. DENNIS-I spoke with the Store Manager about it yesterday. He said that we have gotten shrubs in this past week. If you have any specifics you want planted, let us know, but if not, we could start the planting before the end of this week, contingent on no more snow. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Just out of curiosity, now, give us a little bit of history of the Wal-Mart store. Do you own the entire Plaza, where Ames is, or do you just have your half? MR. DENNIS-As far as I know, we just have our half. I’m not sure of the specifics of it. I’ve just been in that store for two weeks now. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. DENNIS-Not at this moment. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only question I had was I just wasn’t real clear on how the area would be blocked off from vehicular traffic. MR. DENNIS-We would have in place landscaping timbers and concrete blocks, the blocks being spray painted either blaze yellow, blaze orange, or red, basically the entire perimeter of the area concerned. That would be done. MR. RINGER-It’s already done now, isn’t it? MR. DENNIS-We’ve got the blocks and the timbers in place, but they’re not painted yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask about the proposed propane tank exchange. I noticed it’s right adjacent to a driveway. Is that going to be cordoned off in some way? Are you just exchanging models there, of tanks? MR. DENNIS-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no propane filling or anything like that? MR. DENNIS-No. MR. VOLLARO-So propane won’t be escaping in any way from that. Okay, and the other thing I have, with the peat moss and the potting soil and the topsoil and manure, all of that, all of the stuff that’s going to be stacked in this cordoned off parking space, that’s all bagged material? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Nothing loose there? MR. DENNIS-No. The only loose items would be the concrete. MR. VOLLARO-Nothing else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-Two comments. First, I’d like to compliment you on where you located this. We don’t like these things hanging out on the main routes and the like of that, and you’ve put that in about as good a place as you can get it, and that’s great. The second thing is, I would think that the approval of this should include dates, not only for the summer season, but for the winter period, also, and I would suggest that that be, the day after Thanksgiving through December 25, and that th both periods be included with dates. That would be satisfactory? MR. DENNIS-Certainly. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. DENNIS-In all actuality, I don’t believe that area would be used much after probably the middle of July, until Thanksgiving. They propose until the end of August, but in my experience with a lot of those goods, if they’re not gone by the beginning of July, we get to keep them. MR. RINGER-Last year, when you had that stuff up there, toward the end of the year, when the stuff started to go down, it got really messy up there because you had a huge area and I realize you 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) weren’t there, but it was really messy. MR. DENNIS-I’ve been told that, and basically, my marching orders were, it’s going to be right. It’s going to stay right, or I’m not going to stay. So you have my assurance that it will look good. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a couple of questions for you. Your proposed propane tank exchange, isn’t that sitting right in where handicap parking is? I mean, what’s the purpose of having it in the parking lot? Why don’t you have it up on the sidewalk right near the building? I mean, you’re talking the metal cages that the tanks are in? MR. DENNIS-Yes, they are up on the sidewalk, along the side of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you don’t have your parking area delineated here. Okay. All right. My next question, I know I years past you’ve had like those versatile storage trailers up there. They’re like the containers, the shipping containers, for storage. Are you planning on having those at all? MR. DENNIS-There’s one in this area currently that should be getting moved in about a week. We need another trailer for the extra patio furniture that came in. We weren’t expecting it, and basically had no room for it, but at the rate it’s selling, it should be gone within the next two weeks. If necessary, we can move it out back with the others. MR. MAC EWAN-What does the Ordinance say about those things? We’ve had some questions on this in past applications regarding these storage containers. MRS. MOORE-About what, site location or their being an allowed use? MR. MAC EWAN-Not being allowed. MRS. MOORE-I can look into it further, but my understanding is many stores such as this have a storage trailer out back, and I don’t think we’ve brought it any further beyond that we know that they exist. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. My quick tally up here says you’ve 18 parking islands there, on the Wal- Mart side. What is Staff looking for for plantings? We need to have some direction here, I guess. MRS. MOORE-I suggested shrubs, and the only reason why that was is because it would fill up that island. It’s basically up to either the Board or the applicant. They’ve indicated that they’re willing to do some type of vegetation out front, and I’ll leave it to them because they’re more of a landscaper than I am. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have an idea of how much, how little you’re looking for? MRS. MOORE-I just thought a little more vegetation would be, spruce up the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any suggestions as to what you’re looking for, you’re willing to do? I mean, you know, landscaping can be pretty intense or pretty sparse. MR. DENNIS-Well, my proposal to our Store Manager was to showcase some of the shrubbery that we do sell. So, in that case, we would have an abundance of it because we have an abundance of different varieties. How far do you want us to go with that or need to go with that, if you have suggestions, that’s fine, but I’m looking to spend some money there and make it look good, and so far I’ve been given carte blanche to do that. MRS. MOORE-You may have the opportunity, instead of making it a condition of your approval, making that a recommendation. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. VOLLARO-I think you could condition it in any approval with some fairly broad language to state that the islands will be planted with shrubs and evergreens, the choice of the Wal-Mart garden section. In other words, let them decide what’s going to go in there. Just condition the motion that, in fact, that it will go. We don’t need to have a recommendation here ourselves. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s doable, I guess. All right. Anything else? Staff comments? Any other questions from Board members, comments? Does someone want to introduce a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Just before we do that, do we have any SEQRA information? MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing you’re going to do is do your non-significance. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MRS. MOORE-Actually, it’s included in the prepared resolution. MR. VOLLARO-The requirements of the State Environmental, is that the one that’s prepared? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-It would be the part below that, in that this would be a modification. So if you feel, assuming you feel this way, the language in the prepared resolution says that the proposed modification does not result in a new or significantly different environmental impact. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Assuming you feel that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Someone put a motion up. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 WAL-MART STORE #2116, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 31-93 for Walmart # 2116 for the addition of an outdoor seasonal display to operate annually from April through August 31, and; st WHEREAS, the application received 3/20/00 consists of the following: 1. 3/20/00 – Letter from Asst. Manager outlining modification w/maps labeled Parking Lot Usage – Lawn & Garden and map dated 8/23/94 with highlighted area. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/18/00 - Staff Notes 2. 4/5/00 - Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing was not held 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, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff 2. That the dates should be included – April 1 through August 31 and the day after stst Thanksgiving through December 25. th 3. The parking spaces in front of the garden center, in accordance with the way the site plan drawing dated August 23, 1994 be utilized from April 1 through August 31 stst and the day after Thanksgiving through December 25. th 4. The plantings will be made in the parking aisles in accordance with Walmart’s determination whether they should be evergreens or a store material that’s available. 5. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. SCHACHNER-I’m concerned about the planting condition. If I’m understanding it correctly, it basically is saying. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a recommendation, isn’t it? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If that’s the case, then it’s fine. Is that the case? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it’s a recommendation. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s merely a recommendation. It’s not a condition of approval? MR. VOLLARO-No, I made it as a condition of approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think Mr. Vollaro made it as a condition of approval, and the way the condition was phrased, as I understood it in the motion, was basically, I’ll boil down in my opinion, was Wal-Mart can plant whatever it wants in the islands. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just want to make sure. MR. VOLLARO-That was my intention in the motion. Because we here, or Staff, has no specific plan. So I’ll lean on Wal-Mart’s Garden Center to do it, whatever way they thought was good for them. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So recognize that, as a matter of enforcement, if that condition is part of the motion, and the motion is adopted, and I’m not here to create trouble or suggest that you should not impose the condition about planting, but if they decide that the most appropriate planting is quarter inch cactuses, one on each island, then your decision is that’s fine? I just want to make sure the Board understands that. MR. VOLLARO-The Board understands that, Counselor. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. DENNIS-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BRB GROUP OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 35.12 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO A 14 LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. TAX MAP NO. 60-7-1.1 LOT SIZE: 35.12 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1999, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, BRB Group, Meeting Date: April 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The Planning Board reviewed the sketch plan stage in July of 1999. The minutes indicate that access to Lots 6 and 7 were to be combined as per the sketch plan. This access has not been shown on the preliminary plan. The applicant was to provide County comments concerning access to Blind Rock Road. In addition, a bus stop off Bay Road was suggested as part of sketch plan review. Subdivision Requirements The following items are suggested for consideration as per the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Code: 1. Show Old Maid Brook on the plat. 2. On-site septic locations need to be shown. Percolation testing and soils analysis is to be performed and noted. 3. Will sidewalk connections be needed? 4. Will there be 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) street trees along Bay Road? 5. Will the site be graded in its entirety or for the proposed road only? If phased, project timeframes/scheduling should be noted. 6. Density calculations should be included on the plat. 7. Blind Rock Road and Bay Road are both considered arterial roads. An arterial street is defined as “a street for through traffic connecting major land uses primarily for fast or heavy traffic”. Any access to Blind Rock Road should have significant sight distance due to faster moving and frequent numbers of vehicles. Sight distance information should be provided by the engineer. 8. The applicant proposes to re-grade the bank at the edge of the property along Blind Rock Road. The applicant should be asked if any other curb cut requests off of Blind Rock Road have been made to the County? The applicant should be asked to identify all curb cuts and note sight distances from each lot proposed to access onto Blind Rock Road. 9. Utility placement and t heir easements for lots #5, 6 & 7 needs to be shown. 10. The access to lots #7, 6, and 5 is not noted. How will access be accomplished? Lot 7 access is difficult due to the wetland. Lot 5 is closest to the inside curve at Blind Rock Road. Alternatives to access off of Blind Rock Road should be considered due to sight distance limitations and the arterial road designation. One alternative would be a curb cut opposite the westernmost Hunter Brook Lane access with a service road to lots #5 & 6 parallel to Blind Rock Road. Another alternative is access from lot #4, cutting across a small amount of wetland to lot #6. This would increase the amount of disturbed wetland by approximately .05 acres, but the impact of total wetland disturbed would still be small (it is currently estimated at 0.2 acres). Should alternative access be designed, a revised stormwater management report should be submitted to reflect additional roadway. 11. Street signs need to be shown at both proposed road access points. 12. Confirmation via on-site investigations for the stormwater management report submitted, is needed. Recommendation: The application should be tabled until all concerns noted can be addressed.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Michael O’Connor for the applicant, BRB Group, and Tom Nace is the engineering consultant on it. What we’d like to try and do is walk our way through each of the Staff Notes and comment on them and see what the Board’s feelings are on the Staff Notes. Tom, I think, is going to do most of this. MR. NACE-Okay. Staff Notes and engineering notes boil down to a couple of issues. One is the fact that this is a commercial, i.e. professional office, type subdivision. It’s not a housing subdivision where a house is generally a certain size, and it’s three, four, five bedrooms and you can plan a septic system for that particular house, and show how each of the lots lay out. What we’ve done is show typical lot sizes based on what land within those lots is developable, and made sure that each of them is large enough, or has a large enough developable area, to support a commercial building that might be typical. Now some of them are larger lots. Some of them are smaller, but what I used as my basis for that was a building that had a footprint of 40 by 40. Now that would turn into a, if it were a two story office building, would turn into 1600 square feet of office space, and would, I said 1600, it would turn into 3200 square feet of office space, and would require about 32 parking spaces. All that adds up in impermeable land area, the building footprint, the walkways, the drive, the parking, adds up to approximately 11,000 square feet of impervious space. Each of these lots has, I believe, a minimum of about 33,000, I said 1100, 11,000 square feet of impermeable. Each of these lots has a minimum developable area of 33,000 square feet. So that leaves a permeable area, or a green area of about 66%, and if you’ll recall in a lot of the site plans you’ve seen, some of them get down to only 30, 35, 40% of green space remaining. So I think the lots are large enough, each of the lots have a large enough developable area, to support an office building. I tend to resist showing a typical layout on each lot, simply because we have no clue who’s going to buy the lot or what size building they’re going to require. It’s also possible that if somebody wants a very large building, they may buy two lots and put them together for a building, but I have gone through my homework far enough to know that each of the lots will support more than a 1600 square foot footprint, for an office building, a two story office building. MR. VOLLARO-Are you creating an envelope of 40 by 40, essentially, is that what you’re trying to do here? MR. NACE-Well, okay. Let me explain it a little bit better. Okay. One of the other issues is grading, and maybe I ought to sort of meld that in. One of the things that sets the developable area on these lots, or at least on the back lots, is the level area available. If you’re familiar with the site, the top of the hill up here is rolling. It has some pretty high hummocks, and it’s just a very contorted landscape up on top. What we’ve done is create a grading plan for the entire subdivision that will take a lot of this soil, the excess soil up here, and move it out to the back of these lots, so that it creates flat enough area on these back lots to be buildable. So when I look at a buildable space on a lot, here’s say, Lot Four, it’s huge. It’s got I don’t know how many acres, but quite a few acres, but in fact the only buildable area is from the road back to the top of the bank, okay, and that’s the smallest lot, and I believe the smallest lot was number eight, here, where we have about 33,000 square feet of buildable area. It’s just from the road back to the top of the bank that I’ve considered to be buildable, an what I’m saying is if you consider a typical office building, small size office building, to 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) be 40 feet by 40 feet, which is a good size house, and consider it to be two story, so it would have enough floor area to require a reasonable amount of parking, that to put that on this lot and still have 66% permeability on the lot. So I think that’s a fairly reasonable approach. One of the questions dealt with, are you going to phase the grading, or how are you going to, you know, are you just going to construct the road? In reality, because a lot of the material from up here gets moved to the back, when you build the road, you’ve really got to come in and do all this grading, and that’s what we would propose is that, it’s possible that maybe one of the two, one of these two lots or one of these two lots, could be developed with access on the future right-of-way, as a single lot, but before you build this road in here, or when you build this road in here, you’ve got to do all the grading at one time, and that’s what we would anticipate. The other question that came up, in several instances, was sight distance on Blind Rock Road, and the buildable area on Lot Five, okay. I said this one was the smallest. It’s really not. Lot Five is the smallest, but after reviewing Staff comments and the engineering comments, I went back and took a better look at these three lots back here, and in reality, Staff is right. Between the access problems for Lot Five and the small amount of buildable area on Lot Five, it makes a lot more sense to take those three lots and combine them and only break them into two, and then require that those two lots have a common access drive. That common access drive then would be right opposite Hunterbrook Lane, and I think that makes a much better development for access and for buildable area. MR. VOLLARO-How about the sight distance? MR. NACE-We only got Staff comments Friday. So I just haven’t had a chance to go and measure for certain. One of the, if you’ve walked out here or even just driven, you’ll notice one of the big impediments right now to safety on this turn is that fact that there’s a bank along the side here, and that bank severely limits your site distance just along the road for accident stopping sight distance. What we’re proposing to do with the grading plan is to cut that bank away, okay, so that that bank no longer blocks site distance. Now that’ll greatly improve sight distance here. So sight distance on this driveway or on the main road, I can guarantee you, although I haven’t measured it yet, and I will, I can guarantee you that that is adequate. The site distance on this driveway, I will have to verify, okay, I just have not had time yet to verify that, but we will. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the scale on that map? MR. NACE-This is 50 scale. So there’s 400 feet there. MR. PALING-I have two questions of this print. The part that you’re showing wooded is also designated wetland, according to this, and I don’t think that the part between the two Hunterbrook Lanes is wooded at all, and it’s certainly not wetlands. I’m talking this cross hatch. MR. NACE-Okay. The cross hatch is wetland. The wooded is this tree line. Okay. MR. PALING-I’d question that. I’d say that that’s not accurate. I stood there today, right there, and I followed all, there’s nothing there. There are no woods. MR. NACE-Well, if you’re looking this way, there isn’t. Yes, there are. MR. PALING-I ask that you check this. MR. NACE-Sure, I will. I will gladly. MR. PALING-I don’t think that’s accurate, and I don’t think there should be any, if there’s going to be an access from Blind Rock Road, it should be an eastern most Hunterbrook. That, I walked this, and I did it both ways, in a vehicle, and I don’t think you’ve got the sight, especially coming from the west, even if you take this, if you level this lane. MR. NACE-Okay. As I said, since we just got Staff comments Friday, I have not had a chance to verify this, okay. I have verified, in my own mind, that we’ve got plenty here, but I will survey that to measure it, but we will also verify that we do here, before we progress further with this option, and I will, while we’re there, Bob, I will definitely take a look at that, but it may be a little bit of an illusion, because this goes down quite a ways, and this is, you know, back in here is quite depressed from the road. MR. PALING-It is, but there are no trees there. MR. NACE-I’ll look. I’ll verify that, but that is off a field survey that Van Dusen and Steves did. So, we’ll certainly verify it. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I maybe get you to jump back here, and let’s get back on line with both the engineering comments and the Staff comments, and maybe pick them off one by one. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s start with the engineering comments. I mean, your position is, regarding item number one, is that you don’t think you need to put typical building footprints and show septic systems because? MR. NACE-Because we have looked at the smallest lot, and taking just the developable area of that lot, we’ve determined that there’s more than sufficient area for parking, access drive, building, of a 40 by 40 office building, still leaving 66% permeability, which allows plenty of room for a septic system. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if that’s the case, then, if you jumped quickly down to number three, how did you come up with the numbers for your stormwater management plan? MR. NACE-Okay. The stormwater management report says specifically that it addresses only the road, okay, that because of the soils, and again, there’s something we have yet to verify, because we haven’t had a chance to get out there, once the frost was out of the ground, but based on our knowledge of the soils, I’m confident that they’re sandy and that stormwater from each site can be handled on site, the same as was done across the road. So the stormwater for the subdivision simply deals with the impervious surface of the road, and again, any development that comes in for one of these lots will be subject to site plan review. There will be a stipulation on the subdivision that that drainage is handled on site for each of the lots. MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t had a chance to really address either one of these comments here tonight, either the engineering comments or Staff comments, really? MR. NACE-I got them Friday, and I’ve been up to my eyeballs yesterday. MR. MAC EWAN-The best for us to do would be to table this thing so that you can address them. MR. O'CONNOR-We’d like to get your comments, though. MR. NACE-Sure, we’d like to go far enough that we make sure we. MR. O'CONNOR-Because there’s certain things on here that I think we could address fairly quickly. MR. NACE-Yes. Let me continue down through the engineering comments. We discussed access to lots five, six and seven, okay. Our tentative proposal will be to combine those into two lots, provide a common access drive, and before we’re back here, I will verify that we have adequate site distance for that access drive. Stormwater management, as I said, the report specifically states that each of the lots will handle stormwater management from the lot development on their individual sites. Number Four, as I discussed earlier, we’re proposing that the grading all be done when the road is constructed, and feel that that’s necessary, because of the movement of material from one side of the road to the other. Number Five is really the same as we discussed earlier in Number One, that, you know, I’d verify that, if you would like, I’d be glad to give you a layout, take the smallest lot there and show you that a typical layout works, but I’ve roughly been through the numbers and am confident that it does. The road radii on intersections of Bay Road, that’s a drafting issue. We will indicate those, and I will be glad to provide C.T. Male with back up of the Hydro CAD analysis. Staff comments, Old Maids Brook, I don’t believe Old Maids Brook actually appears on this property. I don’t think, when it crosses, that Brook crosses Blind Rock, I don’t think that’s, at least on the maps I’ve seen, it’s actually labeled Old Maids. I could be wrong, but I think Old Maids actually starts somewhere, either behind us or south of us, in the Woodbury property. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t cut like that through that wetland area? MRS. MOORE-From our GIS System, I have, in the southwest corner, it’s one lot. MR. NACE-It is labeled, at that stage it’s labeled Old Maids? I’ll be glad to label it, then. I’ll be glad to research that, and if it does occur, I’ll label it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that pretty much it for C.T. Male’s comments? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Other than the Hydro CAD. MR. NACE-Yes. I said we would provide them with the Hydro CAD backup. MR. O'CONNOR-Is the Board comfortable with the answer that each applicant, or each purchaser 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) will be coming in for site plan, and at that time, they will show you the actual location of their parking, their septic and whatever? MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, for me, I don’t have a problem with that, but what I would like to see is some sort of typical, maybe architectural rendering of what kind of buildings you’re proposing. The only reason why I’m saying that is because the new Ordinances that are being developed and will probably be adopted within a couple of months have some really specific schemes of what they want along that Bay Road corridor. MR. NACE-Wouldn’t that be something, then, would it be applied to an applicant coming in for site plan review for one of those parcels? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, what’s triggered me asking this of you is I heard you making a comment that you were talking about two story office buildings. MR. NACE-Only to indicate that you could accommodate a two story office building. I figured that would be the worst for parking requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-But if the new Ordinance says that it’s only going to be single story. MR. NACE-Then that means I have more green space. MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I don’t have a problem with reviewing them as individual site plans. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not our plan to restrict the building per site, other than make them go through site plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what do you mean by the phrase “restrict”? MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t plan on building any buildings. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I understand that, but by the same token I don’t think you want a potential developer to come in there with an idea of building something that’s not going to fit in to what they’re looking to have in that corridor, are you? MR. O'CONNOR-I haven’t gone all the way through with trying to decide whether or not we, our thought, at this point, is that we will not put restrictions on the building, other than that they will have office buildings. We would restrict the use and let them determine their own style or. MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage you to develop your plans that are going to coincide with the new Zoning Ordinance. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think they would have to comply with the new Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, just so that you know, everyone will be on the same page right out of the starting box here, that, you know, anybody who’s looking to develop an office, or build an office up there knows what they’re getting into before they make an application to this Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that they are subject to that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not limiting the footprint. In other words, when somebody comes to you, you’re not going to make a footprint limitation of 1600 square feet? MR. NACE-No. MR. VOLLARO-You’re just using that as a typical. MR. NACE-I used that as a typical for one of the smaller lots that would show that you could put an adequate sized building on it. Okay. The Staff comments, then, we do, as I stated before, we do still have to complete the soil testing, to confirm what we think we know, and that will be done before the next meeting. Sidewalk connections, I’m not quite sure I understood what Staff was getting at. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s in reference, most likely, to site plan, but if we have it on a subdivision a note that there be some type of walkway interconnection, whether it be by sidewalk or by pavement, by road. MR. NACE-Connection to adjacent properties? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. O'CONNOR-For an office complex, or are you talking more about commercial? MRS. MOORE-No, an office complex. Depending on how many different appointments someone has, they may have one in a couple of, it’s just a suggestion. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, none are planned, sidewalks aren’t planned. MR. NACE-I don’t think the Town wants them in the right-of-way. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be, you know, that you go into the parking lot of the particular office, visit that office. If you’re going to visit another office in the same subdivision, you’d go to their parking lot. This is pretty much like the subdivision down the road of professional offices. At least that’s what’s envisioned here. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Where all the doctors are down there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, small, professional type offices. MR. RINGER-Don’t they interconnect, though, Mike? I thought some of those. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a semi-circular drive when you come in. MR. NACE-But that’s a Town road. That’s the same as. MR. RINGER-Where they connect, where that comes around? MR. NACE-That’s a Town road. MR. RINGER-I was up there last month, and it seemed like I was in one doctor’s office, and then I had to go to another doctor’s office, and I stayed right in the complex. MR. O’CONNOR-That’s the same thing here. This will be a Town road, that you go on the subdivision road and stay on the subdivision road, and just go in another office. MR. RINGER-But I thought I stayed in their driveways, but perhaps I didn’t. MR. VOLLARO-I walk that every day, every day. So I know exactly every stone in the road there. MR. NACE-Okay. Street trees along Bay Road, we had not anticipated any. That could be something when each of the lots develop, depending on how the lot develops. You could require, I don’t think the County actually wants any trees in the right-of-way, the same as the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Trees tend to interfere with site distances, too. So I wasn’t sure about that comment myself. MR. NACE-That’s correct. We had, again, covered the grading. We’re proposing that the entire site be graded when the road is constructed. Density calculations. I’m not quite sure I understood what that. MR. VOLLARO-Can we stay on the grading for just a minute, and refer that question back to C.T. Male’s question number four, and they talk about the schedule should be provided to demonstrate control of runoff during the interim construction of phases. That’s usually a tough thing to do is to contain your runoff when you’re doing extensive grading like that, and I think that’s what C.T. Male’s talking about there. MR. NACE-We’ve provided silt fence around the entire lower edge of the perimeter, okay, of the extent of the grading. MR. VOLLARO-That’s at the western end of the property? MR. NACE-All along the dark line you see along the bottom of the toed slope there is all silt fence, and the typical erosion control notes on the drawing require them to comply with the New York State Erosion Control Guidelines, which are fairly detailed when it comes to a construction site. So I think that should address the issue. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. NACE-So, density calculations. Laura, what are you looking for? MRS. MOORE-In Section 183 of 22 of the Ordinance it has a density calculation. I ran it out on my, I did it according to that, and you have 34 acres. I took out so many acres for wetland and so many acres of slopes greater than 15%, because that’s what was on your SEQRA form, and calculated how much acre of road, and I had 15.3 acres of undevelopable land, if I added that all up, which you came out with either 150 residential units, that’s on your SEQRA form, or 81 commercial developable lots. So you’re now down to a 13 lot subdivision, definitely not at the max. The max would be 81. MR. NACE-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So what did you mean? MR. MOORE-Just to provide that information on the subdivision plan. MR. NACE-On the plan. Okay. So you’re just looking for the thing from SEQRA. Okay. Number Seven addresses the site distance issue which we’ve discussed. Are there any further questions on that or, as long as we measure site distances? MR. MAC EWAN-Personally, I’m not totally sold on the idea of having a driveway that far down Blind Rock at all. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather see you try to internalize the whole thing some way, if you could do it. MR. NACE-I’ll take a look and see if that’s possible. MR. MAC EWAN-One we were just talking about, instead of having the three lots back there, even by taking the two lots and having a common drive serve the two, I’m not really in favor of that. I think, Tom, if you even take out and re-grade that whole hill, that curve is tight enough that, with the woods right there, that you’re still not going to be able to have good site distance. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, let me go measure it. Like I said, we really haven’t had a chance to verify that. So, let me measure that and make sure what we’re talking about. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my feelings anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-We will have to get another curb cut approval by the County. That’s a County road. To answer that question specifically. MR. NACE-Okay. Item Eight ties into the same thing. Item Nine, utility placement and their easements for lot five, six and seven. Laura, do you know what that means? MRS. MOORE-I think you only show them for the lots fronting on Bay Road. MR. NACE-Okay. That’s for the utilities internal to our site, okay. Where we’re putting in new utilities, and creating a new Town right-of-way, we’ve established an easement area, typical easement area for NiMo and cable, what have you. Along the existing frontage, on Blind Rock, that’s not an issue. The utilities would be served from Blind Rock, for those lots, and there is no easement, other than what already exists. The access to lots, okay, this is still the same issue of access to Blind Rock for those three lots. Number Eleven, street signs, yes, those are required before the road is dedicated, and on-site investigation of stormwater report, meaning the soil testing, we’ve agreed has to be done. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you plan on scheduling that? MR. NACE-About a week and a half ago, when it snowed. MR. HUNSINGER-I wanted to go back to the stormwater management. I mean, I know I’m just an alternate on the Board, so I might not even be here when you come back. I mean, it’s a tough site to work with. I can appreciate a lot of your comments, but I would encourage you to think about an overall stormwater management for the whole parcel, particularly since you have so many wetlands toward the southwest. I think there’s an opportunity to use them for the benefit of some of the other lots. You might find, down the road, that it would be difficult for an individual developer to provide for stormwater management on-site, on a specific lot, where you could really add value to the overall project by having an overall stormwater management, you know, based on certain 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) assumptions and assumed conditions where you could use the wetland areas to handle stormwater for the whole parcel. MR. NACE-I understand your concern. One of the things is we can’t just dump stormwater into the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I know that. MR. NACE-Because of the regulations. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-And I’ve been both routes. With a development like this where each lot develops differently, as far as the amount of impervious area and the location of impervious surfaces. It’s very difficult to plan for that. I’ve done it before where I’ve been in bad soils and absolutely had to provide central facilities, but you never know how many times you’re going to have to go back and revise it and re-do some of the infrastructure, simply because a particular lot buyer decides he wants to use it differently than you’ve anticipated. In soils like this, where they’re sandy, where we can get on-site infiltration, the way that was done across the street at the apartment complex, there’s normally very little difficulty in providing either drywells or surface infiltration on site for the individual lots, and that would be our anticipation, that each of those lots, as they would develop, would use drywells and shallow trenches, etc. to infiltrate stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-In general, what is the soil condition up there? Is it sandy at that corner? MR. NACE-Yes. It’s almost identical to what’s across the street. As you come down the slope and get down into the Woodbury property, we did quite a few test pits in that Woodbury property next door, and as you get into the, in the front of it, it’s still sandy, but as you get toward the back of it, which would be south of the rear of those lots, where we have the bank there, as you drop down off the bank, it starts to get tighter. It’s siltier. It’s not really clay until you get further down to the west and south. MR. VOLLARO-I know when, I watched the development across the way, it was cut into the hill, there was just an awful lot of sand there. MR. NACE-Yes. Well, in the back side of Rich’s property we dug 18 feet deep, and we were still in the same sand. MR. VOLLARO-So this should be pretty good infiltration there. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And the lots that aren’t connected to the wetlands themselves are fairly large. The only thing that we’d be thinking of taking the water from the front lots and bringing it to the back. Those lots in the front are fairly large. MR. HUNSINGER-Again, your green space calculations are pretty large. MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got the corridor setback from Bay Road, and that would provide a pretty good area for infiltration. MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be your responsibility to prep the lots, I guess. Because that’s what you’re planning to do. You’ll prep the lots pretty well so that somebody coming in can see what the lot looks like. MR. O'CONNOR-We will have to rough grade everything, probably re-seed it. I don’t anticipate that this is something that this is something that’s going to fill up quickly, and as far as timing and what not goes, once we get approval, we will try and market some of the end lots on the connector road, before we do the grading, and then after we get maybe a contract on a lot, we will then do the grading, but I think we can probably market the most southerly lot, without doing any site grading or any substantial site grading, or maybe one of the lots up on Blind Rock Road, or even the corner lot, you could do it and grade that particular lot, have that transaction completed and then go in and do the rest of the project. I don’t know if there’s a market for the project. Woodbury himself had a site further down Bay Road with professional offices, and that hasn’t filled at all. MR. NACE-Across from Lowe’s. MR. O'CONNOR-Across from Lowe’s. I mean, he put the infrastructure in, put the curbing in and everything else, and it still sits there. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, then we approved another site plan for, wasn’t it an apartment complex? MR. NACE-It was for my office, which we never built because the Zoning Board shot it down. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know about the market. I even, in my own mind, am still toying whether or not multi-family is the way to go with the site, as opposed to offices, but I’d prefer to go offices. We initially bought it with the idea of building a nursing home. MR. VOLLARO-What would you think if, just let your mind drift a little bit, if the sewers were to come up Bay Road? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it would make development much easier, but I’ve seen the figures. The figures are kind of astronomical. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve seen the figures, too, and I think we can disprove them, but that’s, you and I can talk about that. MR. O'CONNOR-Every time somebody has asked me, would I be interested in representing the group that owns the property interested in sewers, I’ve said yes, and I’ve attended some of those meetings, and I’m not sure what rock they’re going to drill through to get there, but it appears to be very expensive. I would welcome sewers coming that far, because then it would only be one more step to go to Glen Lake. Some day you’re going to have to sewer Glen Lake. That would be a good step for the community. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. O'CONNOR-Is my feeling that your concerns, main concerns is what we’ve got is that access to those lower lots on Blind Rock Road? MR. MAC EWAN-I think that seems to be the consensus up here. MR. PALING-And the traffic, and the access on that eastern end. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what he’s referring to. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he’s referring to. MR. MAC EWAN-The whole enchilada. MR. VOLLARO-Those three combined lots. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to leave the public hearing open. So if we table this thing so you can address the engineering comments and Staff comments and do your soil tests. MR. NACE-Realistically, why don’t we attempt to get back in for the May meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-May 16 meeting. Submission deadline is the 26. thth MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion to table, please. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 BRB GROUP, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Until the May 16 meeting, to address the C.T. Male comments, Staff comments, and to do a soil th test. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 37-96 TYPE II OSCAR & DEBRA SCHREIBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ADDITION OF A PEAKED ROOF OPEN SIDED COVER TO AN EXISTING DOCK AND NOW REQUESTS A 16’ X 32’ SUNDECK COVER. COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-543 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-30.2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16 OSCAR SCHREIBER, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a curious thought, before you go any farther, why wouldn’t this be just considered a modification? MRS. MOORE-It is a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s not noted. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a modification to a previous site plan. Because when we went there, there’s nothing up there now. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-96, Oscar & Debra Schreiber, Meeting Date: April 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan to change a peaked roof on a covered boathouse to a sundeck over a boathouse. The proposed boathouse has not been constructed as of yet but has received a building permit for the peaked roof proposal. The Board’s previous approval was granted in July of 1996. The proposal does not change the intended use of the project for boat storage or use of the existing dock. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification to the site plan from a peaked roof to a sundeck over an open sided boathouse.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. SCHREIBER-Hi. Yes, my name is Oscar Schreiber. I own 111 Seeley Road in Cleverdale. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you tell us a little about your request for a modification? MR. SCHREIBER-We previously applied to this Board and received approval for a peaked roof open-sided over our existing U-Shaped wharf. That was in July of 1996. Since then, our house is winterized, but we only use it really on weekends and during the summer. Since then, we have decided to move to that house year round, and I’ll probably be in front of the Board eventually because we’re going to expand the house a little bit, not a lot, and we will, and since then we’ve had two children. MR. MAC EWAN-A lot, then. MR. SCHREIBER-Hopefully not. The main reason we did a peaked roof before is we weren’t here a lot in the winter, and my neighbor, who is a year round resident, Michael Kaidas, said you better watch it if you do a sundeck. You have to take the snow off or it’s going to collapse eventually. So then we did a peaked roof. Now that we’re going to be here year round, I can go up and take the snow off. That’s the sole reason. We always wanted the sundeck, but because of the snow and the fear that if I’m not here for a couple of weeks, and a lot of snow gets up there, we didn’t do it. Now that we’re going to be here, also the children. I guess eventually, they’re three and a half and eight months. So it really doesn’t matter now, but people tell me eventually they will want to jump off that. They say that’s a fun thing to do. I did it as a kid. I don’t know how deep it is. I think it’s nine feet at the end of the docks. If they do it, they’re going to jump, not dive. MR. MAC EWAN-We all did dumb things when we were kids. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. SCHREIBER-We just want a 16 by 32. There’s no variance requested, of course. There’s no, it’ll match the docks. It’ll be open sided. I note that in the plan given to the Board, it says optional railing system. There will be a big railing system, with two kids. I can tell you that. The neighbors have no problem with it. On one side of me is a completely enclosed boathouse. On the other side, Mike Kaidas has a double open-sided sundeck. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any questions? MR. RINGER-With the railing, what will be your maximum height? MR. SCHREIBER-As high as allowed by the Board. With two kids, as high as you will allow it. MR. RINGER-Does he show it on the print? MR. VOLLARO-Well, 14 feet from mean water mark, then, that’s what the spec is on that. MR. SCHREIBER-Then that is what it will be. As high as allowed. MR. VOLLARO-The high water mark, I’m sorry, not mean, the high water mark. MR. SCHREIBER-With two kids, I want it as high as possible. MR. RINGER-I think we should show that on the print, that 14. I don’t have anything else. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. There’s a note on the drawing, one of the drawings that were submitted, and it says the setback must meet or exceed the requirements as set forth in Special Condition Number Three of Permit 5234-25-93. That intimates to me that the permit was issued in 1993. MR. SCHREIBER-That was for the docks. MR. VOLLARO-That was for the docks. MR. SCHREIBER-Just the dock. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This drawing is really not germane to what we’re talking about? MR. SCHREIBER-No. When I spoke to Mr. Craig Brown, he said submit a plan showing the docks in existence. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what this plan does? MR. SCHREIBER-That’s the only one I had, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHREIBER-That was submitted to this Board in ’93, to get approval. When I bought the property, there was a single stake dock. We removed that. No, I’m sorry, that’s what it is. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t understand that there was essentially a disconnect between this project and this drawing. MR. SCHREIBER-The house was built in ’93. That’s what that was. That was the original approval for the U-Shaped wharf. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHREIBER-That’s what that note was there for. MR. VOLLARO-And you said you were going to take advantage of the maximum height allowable, so that you’re going to build your deck to the current specs, but you will raise your railing as high as you can? MR. SCHREIBER-If the Board has no objection, yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you can get from high water mark to the top of the railing, 14 feet. Is that something we probably want to put in our motion? MR. SCHREIBER-That’s fine. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-And it won’t be any greater than. MR. SCHREIBER-I believe at the present time, I’ve read the plans, it’s 11 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Your plan is 11. MR. SCHREIBER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And so you’ve got three feet to go. MR. RINGER-That’s with the railing. MR. VOLLARO-That’s with the railing. MR. SCHREIBER-Right. So could we put in there maximum allowable would be 14 feet. MR. VOLLARO-From high water to top of railing. MR. SCHREIBER-That would be fine. I don’t know if we’re going to use all 14. I can’t tell how high, in this picture, the railing’s going to be. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s Code that specifies the minimum height, and I can’t swear to it, but I also thinks Code specifies a maximum height, too, not for the height above the mean water mark. I’m talking about strictly for a railing, regardless of the high water mark. He can’t build anything beyond the mean high water mark, which is the 14 feet. MR. SCHREIBER-Yes, that can be a condition. That’s fine. I’ll speak to the builder. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when you apply for your building permit, they’re going to come out and check it anyway, but it’ll be clearly denoted on your building permit application, your drawings that you’re going to submit, the height. You’re going to have to have construction details for your permit application. MR. SCHREIBER-I mean, logically speaking, I would think that someone with small children like me would want a higher railing. MR. VOLLARO-Well, whoever lays out your dock has got to do it aesthetically for yourself. So that he would, it would look awkward with a five foot railing on top of the dock. MR. SCHREIBER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So what Craig is saying is really the right way. You go from your high water mark, and the top of your railing should not be greater than 14, and then let the guy design within those parameters. MR. HUNSINGER-Frankly, his drawing shows 11 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. HUNSINGER-To me, that’s better than 14. MR. VOLLARO-It is better than 14, but he’s saying now, I don’t think they knew. Did you know 14 was the limit when you did the drawing? MR. SCHREIBER-No, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHREIBER-And I didn’t realize, I don’t know how, if the railing is three feet high, and that makes it eleven feet altogether, I think three feet would be fine. I just want something where kids can’t climb over it. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got some room to move there. MR. SCHREIBER-That’s the only thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff satisfied with these drawings? Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Why do we have a public hearing tonight on a modification? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MRS. MOORE-Because it’s been so long. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 37-96 OSCAR & DEBRA SCHREIBER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 37-96 for a 16’ x 32’ sundeck cover. Covered Docks in WR zones require Board review and approval, and; WHEREAS, the application received 3/23/00 consists of the following: 1. Letter requesting modification w/maps of front view, side view & framing plan, previous PB resolution of 7/16/96, letter from M. Kaidas, L. McCollister WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/18/00 – Staff Notes 2. 4/5/00 - Meeting Notice 3. 4/11/00 - Notice of Public Hearing WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 4/18/00 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); WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. SCHREIBER-Thank you very much. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 22-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED VOGEL REALTY OWNER: PAUL VOGEL ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPPOSES A THIRD TENANT, SWINTON’S TRUCK & EQUIPMENT REPAIR BUSINESS, WHICH WILL OCCUPY A 3,600 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. NEW EMPLOYEE PARKING AND OVERNIGHT STORAGE ARE THE ONLY EXTERIOR CHANGES. TRUCK REPAIR FACILITY IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE LI ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 77-96, SP 68-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.746 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 JACK SWINTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-2000, Vogel Realty, Meeting Date: April 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to utilize 3,600 square feet of the south side of the existing on-site building to operate a truck repair facility. The proposed use would be sharing space with Vogel Excavation business office and JTS Trucking. The site is bordered by the Northway on the west and some vegetation to the east. The site does not have paved or defined areas for storage or parking. Each of the three businesses involves outdoor storage of equipment and associated material. These storage areas should be identified on the final plans and clearly marked in the field. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the following conditions: 1. No salvage work is to be done on site. 2. All vehicles on site are to be registered 3. The new parking area be moved to the back of the building . 4. Additional screening be added along the roadway.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. SWINTON-Hello. Jack Swinton, of Swinton’s Truck Repair. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Swinton, could you tell us a little bit about your proposed project? MR. SWINTON-Right now Mr. Vogel occupies part of the building. Basically, I want to move my operation from Big Bay Road to Big Boom Road. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the purpose of you wanting to move locations? MR. SWINTON-Where I am now, the building doesn’t accommodate what I do. I’m doing a lot of work outside. There’s beams in the building that aren’t high enough. The doors are 14 foot but the building’s only 13 on the inside. The average truck, typical truck, is 13’ 6” high. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you aware of the letter dated April 6 from Dave Hatin, Director of Building th and Code Enforcement? Have you received a copy of that letter? MR. SWINTON-I’m not sure to be positive. MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding the use of your current facility over on Big Bay Road, the stripping of vehicles and race car repairs and dismantling and so on and so forth? MR. SWINTON-I haven’t seen any letter, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what do you plan on doing over on Big Boom Road? MR. SWINTON-Truck repair, equipment repair. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of equipment? MR. SWINTON-Bull dozers, excavators, back hoes. Just typical construction equipment. MR. VOLLARO-If you move over there, do you still plan to rent some of your space to a Frank Kineke? MR. SWINTON-No. Where I am now, that is his property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and may I ask, was he the owner of some of those race cars? MR. SWINTON-No. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-Who was? MR. SWINTON-Me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SWINTON-Me, and I wasn’t aware that I wasn’t suppose to be working on them. I just found out yesterday that I’m, actually, what I’m allowed and not allowed to work on. MR. VOLLARO-Because we’re talking about a full time truck repair facility here. MR. SWINTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. METIVIER-You have no plans at all of collecting junk trucks and leaving them there? MR. SWINTON-No. I never have. I am not positive on how long ago, I did have a few where I am now, but due to the weather, spring, we have thaw, and then the snow, I couldn’t take them to the salvage yard. They’re all gone now, just to try and make things look cleaner for t he salvage yard. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you remove them from the property? MR. SWINTON-Three went the middle of last week, a few before that. It was just after this latest thaw that we had. MR. MAC EWAN-Because I went by there Saturday, and I pulled in there, and there was still stuff there. MR. SWINTON-Yes. There’s still some stuff there, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-When do you plan on getting rid of that stuff? MR. SWINTON-This week. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that stuff is on the Big Bay Road? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Big Bay Road is going to be who’s property when you leave? MR. SWINTON-It belongs to Frank Kineke. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. METIVIER-And you’re leaving Big Bay Road? MR. SWINTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else except I want the motion to definitely talk to a full time truck repair facility only. Very specific about that. MR. RINGER-I agree with Bob that all vehicles on the property are to be registered and no salvage work to be done. I think that should be in the motion. MR. MAC EWAN-My question is, how does that fit into the scheme of working on skidders, back hoes, and tractors and what not? I’m assuming that some of your customers probably are delivering vehicles that aren’t registered that they use in the woods all the time. MR. SWINTON-Yes, and also that they use on the highway. That’s one issue why I wanted to make sure that I got here, because Mr. Vogel wasn’t clear. Some seasonal, such as, right now for example, I’m working on a fuel truck. That’s not registered. They’re not using it right now because plates for something like that cost a lot of money. So they take it off the road for me to fix it. So it’s an unregistered vehicle. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. When you’re done fixing it, how do they get it back to where it came from? MR. SWINTON-Tow it, a tow truck, that, or if it’s the right time of year, they put it on the road. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. RINGER-How long will it be on your property, normally? MR. SWINTON-Normally, average, two weeks. MR. RINGER-And how many of them would you have at a time? I’m just trying to get an idea of how many unregistered vehicles. MR. SWINTON-Yes, I’m trying to think of what I have right now, because I’m going through a lot of trouble right now just finding out what I’m allowed and not allowed to work on, and I didn’t know I couldn’t have so many vehicles. This was a bombshell dropped yesterday. MR. RINGER-I think we’re concerned with the junk vehicles and that. If they’re repair vehicles that you’re working on and not salvage stuff that you’re working on, that’s one thing. MR. SWINTON-Yes. The typical is, right now I have four. One is waiting to be picked up. So actually I would have three, but they haven’t picked it up yet. MR. VOLLARO-See, I think one of the things we’re concerned about is if you bring an unregistered vehicle on the property that you’re going to intentionally go to salvage, take out, generate or take out an engine, for example, which is not something that could be rebuilt, parts of automobiles that you could use and stuff like that, and I think that’s some of the concern here is that you stay within the circle of truck repair and that, this word “equipment repair” now is where skidders and back hoes and those kind of things fall under. In other words, equipment repair, to you, is something that would be other than a truck? MR. SWINTON-Yes. It would be anything like from an excavator, biggest case scenario, down to, we work on, right down to a chop saw. It’s a small hand held saw. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s a fairly large spread. Equipment repair could cover an awful lot of ground here. MR. SWINTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re really not talking about, literally, a truck repair facility. We’re talking about much more than that here. MR. SWINTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not how I viewed this application, when I viewed it. I didn’t get the feel that there was a lot of other equipment that could be repaired here, right down to a hand held chop saw. Going from a skid steer to a chop saw, there’s a lot of stuff in between. MR. SWINTON-Yes, there is, but there isn’t, it’s all construction related equipment. It’s not like I’m going to have 30 back hoes on site at one time. MR. VOLLARO-And maybe that’s how this application should be worded, to be worded correctly, is a truck and construction equipment, as opposed to, because when I read this, I felt it was, what we were trying to drive at was strictly a full time truck repair facility, and obviously we’re looking at more than that there. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, to push the envelope here, suppose he was repairing construction jack hammers and needed to test them? It’s construction equipment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s a lot of noise. MR. SWINTON-I don’t fix jack hammers, for one. MR. MAC EWAN-No, you don’t, but you said that you’re going to repair construction equipment, and that falls under the realm of construction equipment. MR. SWINTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I, personally, would rather see it just, your application if we should approve this, limit it to motorized vehicles. You’re just asking for trouble. MR. RINGER-That would eliminate the skidders and stuff that he may have in there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a motorized vehicle. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-That’s a motorized vehicle. He’s trying to. MR. SWINTON-Eliminate noise, yes, I see what he’s trying to do. MR. VOLLARO-He’s trying to eliminate, other than mechanized, motorized vehicles. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m strictly looking at it, I guess, from an enforcement capability for the Town. If it should become an enforcement issue, what did we approve and what didn’t we approve? MRS. MOORE-I’ll just add that I had provided information to Mr. Vogel in regards to a definition of truck repair facility, and if you look in the Light Industrial zone, it says, truck repair facility is one allowed use. A use just below that is heavy machinery repair facility, and if you look up the definition for heavy machinery, that would cover his skidders and other items. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the other items, though? MRS. MOORE-It’s listed as vague as. MR. MAC EWAN-What Section are you looking at? MRS. MOORE-I’m looking at the definition of Heavy Machinery Repair facility, in the front. MR. VOLLARO-Doesn’t that fall into a different zone? He’s in the Light Industrial. That falls in the same zone? MRS. MOORE-The same zone. You could have Heavy Machinery as a service business, where heavy machinery is maintained and repaired and not including sales, and then if you look under Truck Repair facility, it says large trucks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re moving from one definition to another, now? MRS. MOORE-I assumed that we could utilize the word “truck repair facility” for this operation, but if you want to gear it towards both, and the other item is in regard to the items that he’s repairing on site. If they’re associated with his business, then he has permission to utilize those items on site. If they’re not associated with his business, then they shouldn’t be there, and that refers to unregistered vehicles, salvage work, things like that. MR. PALING-I think really what the concern is is noise and vibration, and couldn’t we say that this applicant would be subject to the forthcoming noise ordinance, which we don’t have one now, but we will have, and that he’ll have to comply with that ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we can. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if we can do that. MR. SCHACHNER-I can’t recommend that. Two problems. One is that we don’t really know that there’s going to be a noise ordinance. I think that’s speculation. I’m not saying there isn’t going to be, but, and then as a couple of Board members just mentioned, without knowing what the provisions of that are, and even whether it’s going to exist, I think that’s too speculative. MR. PALING-All right. Well, Mark, if there is a noise ordinance that’s enacted, are they subjected to it? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on what the provisions of the noise ordinance are. I mean, that’s a perfect example. MR. PALING-If we say it’s retroactive or not. MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on what it says about grandfathered status of existing or approved operations. It depends whether it’s applicable to all zones, all operations. Who knows? MR. PALING-Okay. I thought we had an easy way out, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question. Laura, this note to file, is that you? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Item Seven, how is grass screening? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MRS. MOORE-Vegetation. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that all you’re looking for is vegetation? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s going to be responsible for that? Is Mr. Vogel going to do that? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Vogel is. MR. MAC EWAN-And is that supposed to be part of this resolution, if we approve this thing? MRS. MOORE-You can. MR. MAC EWAN-How can we do that? MRS. MOORE-You can say that along Big Boom Road, additional vegetation is to be added. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s going to be responsible for it? Mr. Vogel is not here to say that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as far as that goes, that’s not up to the Board to decide who does it. If you impose a reasonable condition of site plan approval that relates to your site plan considerations, which screening clearly does, then that’s a condition of site plan approval. Somebody’s got to do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s good enough for me. Any other questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I think we just want to try and get it clear, in my mind, that we will call this Swinton’s Truck and Equipment Repair Station, equipment associated with his business. I’ll use some words in there, but construction equipment repair associated with his business, and I think what we want to do is make sure that there’s a link to what he’s repairing that is definitely associated with his business, as opposed to stripping down cars or doing anything like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Just call it simply a truck repair facility and a heavy machinery repair facility. They’re defined right here in the Ordinance. MR. RINGER-Yes, which is in the zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? We’ve got a public hearing scheduled. I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEVE & STEPHANIE WRIGHT MR. WRIGHT-My name’s Steve Wright. This is my wife Stephanie. We’re residents on the Big Boom Road. We had a couple of concerns. Number One, with the noise that the new business is going to generate. Second concern is going to be the amount of vehicles that’s going to be stored there, and that’s about it. MR. MAC EWAN-How far away do you live from the Vogel site now? MR. WRIGHT-Directly right across the street. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of noise are you hearing coming out of there now? MR. WRIGHT-They’re actually really good. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m trying to envision how far away you are from the batch plant. MR. WRIGHT-I’d say probably 100 feet from the main Vogel building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and how far away are you from the batch plant? MR. WRIGHT-150, 200 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-How noisy are they? MR. WRIGHT-They’re a little noisy. Just in the morning. They have a microphone that they call the 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) trucks up with, and the whole neighborhood can hear that, but other than that, they’re really good. I do have to say there is a pile of trash, at least a tractor trailer full, of I don’t even know what. It looks like white goods, in the back part of the Vogel’s lot. I’m kind of concerned with that. MR. MAC EWAN-It looks like what now? MR. WRIGHT-Just a great big mountain of trash. I don’t know if it’s white goods out there or, you know, just junk metal. MR. RINGER-We saw that when we went and looked at it, too. MRS. WRIGHT-It just got there probably about a month ago. MR. WRIGHT-And so we’re kind of concerned with the other equipment that’s going to be laying around with this other business coming in. Being a repair center, you know older equipment’s going to be coming in. Older equipment, it’s always louder, missing mufflers, things like that. So we’re really concerned. We just purchased the house last year, and we weren’t expecting something like this to come across the street from us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. We’ll get those concerns addressed for you. Is there anything else? MR. WRIGHT-No, that’s about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MR. WRIGHT-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else want to speak? Mr. Swinton, come on back up. I saw something in here in the notes about where vehicles were going to be parked, stored, whatever. Where was it, overnight parking for equipment. It’s behind the wooded area. Okay. So it’s screened. The proposed parking area is going to be screened, so that you won’t be seeing it. How long do vehicles typically are dropped off to you before your repairs are completed and sent back, typically? MR. SWINTON-Usually the same day. MR. MAC EWAN-What if you have to order parts or something like that, for a skidder or something you may not have? MR. SWINTON-We try and order the part beforehand so that it’s in and out and they need the machine and they like to keep stuff going, but the longest case, three days. MR. MAC EWAN-How many vehicles do you anticipate having on the site at any one time? On an average? MR. SWINTON-Five at the most. I’m just trying to think back from when we’ve been in business so far on the average. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. RINGER-Can he address the noise issue? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SWINTON-As far as noise, we don’t test much of anything. Yes, there is old equipment. We try and bring it right in. We open at nine in the morning and are done at five. We try to be a good neighbor. I’ve had bad neighbors myself. I try to be a good neighbor. MR. MAC EWAN-I think, as a Board member, my gravest concerns are not to have you embark on repair and doing business things that are not associated with either heavy equipment repair or truck repair, and, two, turning it into a junkyard. Any other comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to ask, are there any internal repair facilities, in other words, part of this building, it’s 80 by, it doesn’t give a dimension on the other side but it looks like it’s 80 by 80, roughly, 80 by 100 maybe. Is there any internal repair capability there, in other words, when the weather is bad, how do you work outside, if you’ve got an engine job to do there? MR. SWINTON-We would do it inside. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-So you have internal repair facilities? MR. SWINTON-Yes. I don’t know if you have this drawing that I have here, the building is 40 by 90, what I would be in, 40 by 90. MR. MAC EWAN-Which drawing are you looking at? Hold it up so we can see that. Okay. We’ve got the same one. Are you in the side that’s the proposed addition or the side that’s the existing block? MR. SWINTON-Existing block. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SWINTON-Yes, as you look at it and it says office, that’s where Mr. Vogel will be. The rest would be mine, where it’s existing block and there’s offices under where his office. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got 100 foot of building where you can get, easily, two trucks end to end in that building. MR. SWINTON-Exactly, yes. MR. VOLLARO-And it seems to me with 40 by 100, even a skid steer, two skid steers can go in it. Most of your repairs can be done internally. If you fire them up in there, you’re going to have to have a way to exhaust it out. That’s another thing you can think about, but I’m just trying to address that gentleman’s concern about noise. If you’ve got to fire up an equipment to see that the repair you did is working, you’d probably have to find a way to exhaust it, too, outside the building. MR. SWINTON-I’m not real sure. It probably already does. It’s basically been a repair facility for 12, 15 years. MR. MAC EWAN-And he’s done all his own maintenance on his own trucks and stuff there for years. MR. VOLLARO-They must have a way to exhaust. MR. SWINTON-Yes. I do all of Mr. Vogel’s work now, and it’s just easier for him just to rent the space to me. I do it anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Would you have any objection, well, not an objection. What I’m thinking of doing is making the motion contain a statement that repairs will, for the most part, be done inside. In other words, in the nice weather, you’d probably be wanting to work outside. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’d want to see all repairs done inside. MR. SWINTON-Inside, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SWINTON-That’s the whole reason for moving. We’re doing a lot of work outside now. MR. VOLLARO-So we can make the statement that all repairs will be done within the 40 by 90 building, termed existing block building, and that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that was a given. I think we were anticipating that anyway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it doesn’t say it in here, though. We had to even ask him what building were you going to be in. We didn’t know. I didn’t know. Now we know, it’s in that existing block building. It’ll be done inside. No place in the stuff I reviewed said that repairs would be done inside, and I think that that would address that gentleman’s concern that the repairs are going to be done inside and the noise will be kept down considerably in a block building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. PALING-Are you committing to an eight a.m. to five p.m. operation, so far as hours of operation are concerned? MR. SWINTON-Since I’ve been open where I am, I’m nine to five. MR. PALING-Nine to five. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. SWINTON-Yes. MR. PALING-And no Saturdays? MR. SWINTON-On occasion Saturday, if I have to do a service on a truck, an oil change. MR. PALING-So you would be willing to say nine to five, six days a week? MR. SWINTON-Nine to five, five days a week. Six is just on occasion. Saturdays is not very often. MR. PALING-Okay. Because I think as important as inside/outside is, is the hours of operation. If he was there evenings, that would be a big factor, but he’s willing to commit to a nine to five work schedule, and I think that goes a long way in helping that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s a good idea. Any other comments? MR. METIVIER-Do you intend on adding any additional lights, lighting in the area? MR. SWINTON-I believe Mr. Vogel does. He was going to be here. He had an emergency come up. I’m pretty sure he, did he speak to you? MRS. MOORE-He mentioned some outdoor lighting, but that’s something that we are going to further discuss, but right now that’s not the proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-If he needs to put outdoor lighting, then you’d have to come back and ask for a modification to the site plan and we’d have to discuss it at that time. MR. METIVIER-My only concern is for the neighbors, in the evening. MR. SWINTON-Yes. I know, like where he has parking figured now, he wanted to put it there, so the neighbors, depending on what it was, mind you, could see it, so that vandals couldn’t touch it, type of deal. MR. METIVIER-But that’s not part of this. That’s something that you would come back for. MR. MAC EWAN-Specifically, where is Staff looking for the grass to be planted, and defined on this map? I’m looking at two sections on here, and they’re both woods right up to the road. MRS. MOORE-Where is says just parking, that’s the area that he mentioned putting grass in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-Just in that area? How big is that area? MRS. MOORE-Just along the Bay Road side. MR. MAC EWAN-Just along the Bay Road side, I don’t follow? MRS. MOORE-You could say from, you know, his property line down, from, he mentioned that he would put additional vegetation in there. I’ve not, I didn’t want to get more specific with him because that’s a monetary value, and I’m not a landscaper. MR. MAC EWAN-No, true, but if we say we want, you know, you’re recommending that grass be planted, we need to have some specifics so we know where it’s to be planted, just so that when you go back out and check it and see if it’s in conformance with the approvals that we give, is it where it’s supposed to be, and that’s what I’m trying to figure out, where is it supposed to be? MRS. MOORE-It’s a recommendation, and I have it along the Big Boom Road side. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 22-2000, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: VOGEL REALTY, and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) 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 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MR. VOLLARO-Before the motion is introduced, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just ask a question, and maybe it doesn’t impact, it probably does not impact this, but the drawing I looked at, I’d like to ask Mark a question. The drawing I’m looking at, Mark, has an engineering stamp on it dated 3/27/97, and that drawing is being marked up with proposal changes, you can see that there’s, in some cases you can see that there’s a difference, but anybody looking at this drawing wouldn’t know that. What I’m really getting at is, should somebody be marking up a stamped engineering drawing, or should this have been resubmitted as a new drawing? MR. SCHACHNER-I think my answer to that, Bob, would be that if somebody’s marking up a stamped engineering or surveying or any other type of licensed professional drawing, it should be very clearly indicated which portions or what is the information that was on the original certified document, and what information is new and not part of that licensed professional certification. MR. VOLLARO-See, I see, for example, there’s a north pointing arrow here that looks to me like it might have been added to this drawing. I’m not sure. There’s a tax map number that looks to me like it might have been added to this drawing. There’s proposed changes that look like they may have been added to that, and so on. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That’s an excellent point. There are also limitation, legally, on one’s ability to, for lack of a better term, modify drawings that are stamped by licensed professionals, and again, although it’s not our position enforcing that, I totally agree that if we have a document prepared by a licensed professional, it’s important that we have some clear indication of what information is or is not part of that original certification. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I asked the question. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s appropriate. MRS. MOORE-It’s marked. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s something that Staff ought to really look at. Because I’ve seen that quite a bit here, drawings that are a couple of years old, with an engineering submitted with the 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) application, with changes on it. MRS. MOORE-I agree with you and we’ve taken care of those. This documented, he has it highlighted in red, as I can see you have one that’s highlighted in red that those are the changes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I see that, but there’s some spots on it that I’m not sure of, whether the tax map number is. MRS. MOORE-Well, the only changes he’s made are highlighted in red. MR. VOLLARO-And other than that it’s the original, all right. I see. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Again, does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, you have to close your public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought I closed it, didn’t it? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Now, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2000 VOGEL REALTY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: 130 Big Boom Road. WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 22-2000, Vogel Realty for the addition of a third tenant, Swinton’s Truck & Equipment Repair which will occupy a 3,600 sq. ft. portion of the existing building. New employee parking and overnight storage are the only exterior changes. Truck Repair Facility is a Type II Site Plan Review use in the LI zone, and; WHEREAS, the application received 3/30/00 consists of the following: 1. 4/18/00 – Staff Notes 2. 4/06/00 - Meeting Notice 3. 4/06/00 - PB from David Hatin, Director of Building & Codes 4. 4/11/00 - Notice of Public Hearing 5. 12/28/99 – PB minutes – Swinton’s (Pro-Craft site) 6. 4/12/00 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation – No County Impact WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 4/18/00 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); WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers & Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The applicant is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) additions: a. That the applicant operate a Truck repair facility and heavy machinery repair facility. b. That all work on vehicles will be done inside the 90 by 40 foot building that would be occupied. c. That the applicant will agree to a work schedule of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-That the applicant will agree to a work schedule of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., do you want to make that five or six days a week? We gave you that option. MR. SWINTON-You better make it six because there are occasions I do work on Saturday. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I think you tracked that language pretty well. How did you describe the activity in that motion? You said something and heavy equipment repair. What was the first part? MR. RINGER-Truck repair. MR. VOLLARO-A full time truck repair facility, and MR. SCHACHNER-Heavy equipment. MR. MAC EWAN-Heavy machinery repair facility. MR. SCHACHNER-That was the correction, okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The word was replaced by machinery. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Dave Hatin’s letter says equipment repair, but I’m not sure he was looking at the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I’m looking right at the Ordinance, right here, the definition in the Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-And the definition is Heavy Machinery repair? MR. MAC EWAN-Heavy Machinery repair facilities, a service business where heavy machinery and equipment is maintained and repaired, not including sales. MR. SCHACHNER-Good. All right. Mr. Hatin’s letter, ironically says, truck repair and equipment repair as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, but it sounds like you’re looking at it. So, good, very good. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Any other business? MR. VOLLARO-I would like to just ask a question or make a recommendation that goes back to the Batease application, and I think that somebody on this Board, myself included, could be included, should write up the motion very carefully, because if this turns out to be, and I think you mentioned it, Mark, if this turns out to be an enforcement problem, we have to have a motion that’s very clear and very specific here, and somebody should, I guess, pay some attention to preparing that motion, even before he comes back, and it might have to be modified slightly, but that’s my question. MR. SCHACHNER-And for what it’s worth, I mean, as Counsel, I’ll say that I not only support that idea for this particular application, but any time you have what we might call a potentially sensitive application, that’s a fine idea, and to the extent that you want to do that, what did we end up with Batease on, tomorrow night? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so, tomorrow night. MR. SCHACHNER-To the extent that any Board member ever does that and has concerns about the accuracy or enforceability of that type of language, I would encourage you to share that language of that motion with Staff and with Counsel, before the meeting, even, you know, the morning, the day, whatever, days before, we’ll be happy to try to massage that around with you. MR. VOLLARO-Unfortunately, my day tomorrow is full. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, whatever. I’m speaking generically. MR. VOLLARO-I understand, but I just wanted to know how the Board felt, how this Board feels about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and actually, I’d like you to draft that tomorrow, Laura. MRS. MOORE-I guess, what would you like me to, other than the recommendations that we had, Craig Brown included three recommendations, and two of them were two of mine from my Staff Notes. Those three recommendations I thought were adequate, and maybe add the fourth, that we referenced the site plan dated February 3 of 2000, which includes grading and the drainage. rd MR. MAC EWAN-And the plantings. MRS. MOORE-And the plantings. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with that. That’s good. MR. PALING-We discussed this, though, after that, and back and forth here. I think we were asking for more specifics, and you and Craig were wording it too generally, if you would. MRS. MOORE-The word “junkyard” that’s covered under the Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Also, when we got specifically talking about building that berm, we talked about the 50 foot and then whether he needed to do the whole 800 feet in length, and it kind of was getting bounced around there, and I wasn’t really sure where we were going with it. MRS. MOORE-There was construction of the entire berm by May 15. th MR. PALING-Fine, something like that, very specific. That wasn’t the way the discussion was. MR. VOLLARO-See, what I was driving at, Mark, is that when that’s prepared and you look at it and you look at it as an attorney who says, let me think what the Judge thinks when he sees this. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s why I think it’s got to be reviewed by you. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m all for it. MR. VOLLARO-So that when this is put together, whether it’s put together by Staff or one of our Board members. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s why I encouraged and endorsed your suggestion. I think it’s a fine idea. I’d be happy to do it. MR. VOLLARO-I would volunteer, but tomorrow’s not a good day for me, and since he’s coming in tomorrow night. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to put something together tomorrow? MR. PALING-I’ll read what Laura’s going to put together. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to take the two of them and put them together? MR. PALING-I’ll work with Laura on it, sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Consider it done. Anything else? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 41