Loading...
2000-07-25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER, ALTERNATE JOHN STROUGH, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALAN ABBOTT SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MRS. LA BOMBARD-The first item is the acceptance of the DGEIS for the Great Escape as being complete. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please? MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PRESENTED BY THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, Great Escape Theme Park proposes expansion of facilities to accommodate an increase in visitor capacity, and WHEREAS, The Town of Queensbury Planning Board (Planning Board) as lead agency issued and filed a SEQR Positive Declaration on November 23, 1999 requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted a Scoping Document for the proposed EIS on February 8, 2000, and WHEREAS, the project applicant submitted a proposed Draft Generic EIS on May 30, 2000 and the Town Planning Staff and its consultants Chazen Companies have reviewed the proposed Draft Generic EIS, and WHEREAS, the Town Planning Staff and Chazen Companies have recommended the Planning Board accept the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement as complete for the purpose of public review and comment, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby accepts the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Great Escape Theme Park, LLC as complete for the purposes of public review and comment, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury authorized the Director of Community Development to file the notices required under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury wishes to conduct a public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment, and 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury establishes a public hearing on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 at 7 p.m. at the Queensbury High School Auditorium as identified on the attached Notice of Completion of Draft Generic EIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board shall receive written public comment with the close of comment on Monday, September 11, 2000 Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Next item. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED RENALD DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE OWNER: GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK AGENT: MICHAEL MULLER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 49 BOULEVARD (SOUTH SIDE) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR RETAIL SALES OF BILLARD TABLES AND ACCESSORIES. A USE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED BECAUSE RETIAL SALES IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN A LI ZONE. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VARIANCE 51-2000, SV 52-2000, AV 18-1991, SP 18-91 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/12/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/00 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-13 LOT SIZE: 50’ X 133’ SECTION: 179-26 MRS. LA BOMBARD-Requests to be tabled to the August 15, 2000 meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing on it and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2000 RENALD DEVINE, CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-Next item. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The next item is Site Plan No. 39-99 North Country Sports Medicine, and this is for a request for a one year extension to August 31, 2001. MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 39-99 NORTH COUNTRY SPORTS MEDICINE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: To August 31, 2001. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll jump right into our regular agenda. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 52-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GERALD NUDI OWNER: SAME AGENT: WILLIAM TROMBLEY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 281 DIX AVENUE, WARREN ELECTRIC APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,460 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION TO WARREN ELECTRIC FOR ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE SPACE AND NEW OFFICE AREA. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-90 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.28 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 BILL TROMBLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JERRY NUDI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 52-2000, Gerald Nudi, Meeting Date: July 25, 2000 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 5,460 square foot addition for a defined office area and more warehouse space. Warren Electric is a retail establishment selling lighting fixtures and components. They are proposing to expand to accommodate growth within the business. The applicant met with Staff prior to submission and has provided the requested information. Project Analysis (Section 179-38:) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed addition is an allowed use within the zone. The existing site contains a 20,420 square foot building that is utilized for sales of lighting and electrical supplies, office, and warehouse space. The applicant has indicated the existing storage trailers will not be needed when the new addition is built. Site Overview The addition will be located mainly on existing pavement with only a few square feet of green area to be removed. The applicant has indicated an additional light will be added to the warehouse addition at the door, as noted on the plans. The existing light fixtures as noted on the plan will remain in the same location. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The existing site contains two curb cuts and an access driveway that loops around the entire building. The warehouse area driveway is noted to be one way. The existing accesses and on site circulation will remain the same. The applicant has indicated there are no anticipated changes in the amount of traffic visiting the store. There is adequate room on the site to provide additional parking if needed. The new addition is not pedestrian related. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant has provided a drawing identifying the existing utilities on site. The stormwater information was forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. See attached comments from CT Male. In addition the site was reviewed by the Fire Marshal for review and comment, please see the attached comment. The applicant has indicated no additional plantings are proposed. Areas of Concern or Importance The site will be 33% green when the addition is completed. Any further improvements to the site in regards to impermeable surface should be carefully considered. Conclusions (Section 179-39) 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) The proposed project will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because it is located on a preexisting impermeable surface, and the use of the addition will not generate an increase in traffic to the site. Suggestions The addition should be architecturally compatible with the existing building. The existing storage trailers are to be removed from the site upon completion of the addition. *Density Requirement The applicant’s proposal does not meet the density requirements of the highway commercial zone. The applicant may choose to reduce the size of the proposed addition to meet the density requirements or request the application be tabled until an area variance is applied for and received approvals. Based on the property size and the existing building size, the site would allow approximately 4,778 +/- square feet more of building.” MRS. MOORE-I will make a comment that I received a letter from Dave Hatin. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you read that in to the record, please. MRS. MOORE-It’s dated July 25, 2000, it says, “Dear Planning Board Members: Please be advised that the 20 foot separation between a leachfield and a dwelling as stated in Appendix A of Chapter 136 is not applicable to the Warren Electric Site Plan as the leachfield will be adjacent to a commercial building and the foundation will not be an open type foundation typically found in a basement or cellar of a dwelling.” MR. MAC EWAN-And I notice that all our information refers to letters up to and including I think the 13, right? th MRS. MOORE-Correct. There’s a C.T. Male comment, dated today. Do you want me to read that into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please. MRS. MOORE-“We are in receipt of the response letter dated July 24 for the referenced project. th The letter was prepared by William Montgomery in response to our comments of July 13. We offer th the following additional comments. Comment 3. The applicant provided a stormwater management report which did clearly indicate the pre and post runoff conditions. The added runoff from the site is proposed to spill onto the grass area and percolate into the ground. Although this is typically not the preferred method of controlling excess runoff, the quantity is relatively low and should not adversely impact the downstream facilities. Comment 4. It is our understanding that the applicant’s agent has spoken with the Town Code Enforcement Officer in relation to the proximity of the septic disposal system to the new foundation. Once the actual location of the sewer lateral and leachfield are determined, the septic system may need to be relocated or replaced. Also, the existing leachfield is shown below the proposed paved road, which will likely require replacement if it is confirmed in this location. If you have any question related to our comments, feel free to call our office.” MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got anything else? MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read in William Montgomery’s letter of July 24, 2000, which is in addition to this revised site development data sheet? MR. MAC EWAN-That would be fine. MRS. MOORE-This is dated July 24, 2000, addressed to C.T. Male, “This letter is with reference to our phone conversation on July 21st, and Jim Houston’s letter of July 13, 2000 to Chris Round regarding the site plan review next Tuesday for the proposed 2-building addition for the Warren Electric Company on Dix Avenue in Queensbury, New York. I will list my answers to Jim’s comments in the same order as they appear in his letter. 1. The tax map ID and zoning information will be added to the Morse Engineering Plan S-1. 2. I will add my seal and signature to the S-1 drawing as it applies to the drawing revisions made by me to the copy of the original. 3. I have prepared a Stormwater Control Report showing the impact that the proposed building addition and site modifications will have on the existing retention basin. My findings indicate that the additions & site modifications will have no adverse effect on this retention basin. 4. Since there doesn’t seem to be any record of the “as built” construction of the existing wastewater disposal system, the following comments apply: a. Mr. David Hatin, Director of Queensbury Code Enforcement Office, has stated that the subject leach field may be adjacent to the new frost wall/slab of the new building as long as the construction does not interfere with its operation. This will be done with inspection and approval of the Queensbury Code Enforcement Office. b. If construction and leachfield conflict with each other, the leach field will be modified, where necessary, to ensure its satisfactory operation. This will be done with inspection and approval of the Queensbury Code Enforcement Office. 5. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) The S-1 drawing will be modified to show the driveway limits in the area west of the new warehouse and the resulting truck access to warehouse and driveway. 6. The adjoining car wash facility has sufficient outdoor lighting for lighting the west side of the new building additions. The lighting note included in this application will be added to the S-1 drawing. 7. The parking information note included in the application will be added to the S-1 drawing. Hopefully, this letter will satisfactorily address Jim Houston’s comments and be acceptable to the Planning Board. Please let me know if there are any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely yours, William E. Montgomery, Jr. PE” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. TROMBLEY-Good evening. MR. NUDI-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. NUDI-Jerry Nudi. MR. TROMBLEY-And I’m Bill Trombley. I’m Jerry’s agent. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your proposed project. MR. TROMBLEY-Well, the project that Jerry is looking at is he wants to add 4,060 square foot of office area. His present office area is cramped, to say the least, and his business has expanded quite a bit in the last 12 years. The remaining part of that building would be 1400 square foot, which would be additional warehousing, which would basically tie in with what you see on the plot plan as the 70 by 80 existing. That will include two loading docks for trucks to come in on an angle. That would be a one way circle going around the building, for easy access going back out. Chris Jones, the Fire Marshal for the Town of Queensbury, asked for clarification on two items. I don’t know if you have a copy of his letter or not. One is “Please clarify the width of the fire lane (pavement width) along side the addition, which I believe is the South West Corner of the property”. That measures 16 feet in diameter, at the beginning of the property, which is ample height. I think what Chris is looking at is whether fire trucks are capable of going in it or not. Sixteen foot is quite wide. Number Two, “Will delivery trucks be received during the day only, or is it possible that trucks could be left unattended?” Mr. Nudi explains that trucks are unloading there and loading on a limited time basis, daytime only, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and, no, there will be no tractor trailers there overnight. So there will not be any impediments in that lane for fire trucks to get entirely around the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. TROMBLEY-Not really. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Yes. The Staff had a concern with the architecture being compatible with the existing building. Can you discuss what kind of architecture you’re going to have as an addition? MR. TROMBLEY-Yes. If you’ll look over your right shoulder, you’ll see the block that’s going to be used for the exterior of the building, and that will be stained, in compatibility with the rest of the building. In other words, it won’t be a regular concrete block where you’ve got a take and put what they call stow application on to make it look decent. It’s going to be this split type block and then stained accordingly. MR. STROUGH-Is that like the rest of the building there? MR. TROMBLEY-No. The rest of the building is a stow application. MR. STROUGH-But that block will kind of compliment what is there? MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, it will. MR. STROUGH-And it’s designed that way. Okay, and the trailers I’ve been assured are going to be removed. MR. TROMBLEY-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-Because this will give you the additional storage that you need. The next thing on my list is the density requirement. I see that you’ve downsized it, but it still looks like it doesn’t meet the Town Code for density requirements. MR. TROMBLEY-Well, it was downsized, if you’re looking at the S-1 blueprint of the plot plan, the original figures that Morse Engineering had were not correct on the first line which said buildings. The first building that was put up for Warren Electric was the 80 by 120, the front building, which is 9600 square feet. The second building to be built was the cold storage building to the back or the rear, which was 4320 square feet. If you add the two of those together, it does not come up with 14,820. It comes up to 13,920. Which means there’s a 900 square foot discrepancy, and we were only over by 688 square foot, according to the density factor of this property. So that means that, in essence, we’re over 200 square feet under the density limit right now with the new addition. MR. STROUGH-Well, what is the total square feet of the building with the addition? MR. TROMBLEY-With the addition, 24,980. MR. STROUGH-All right, and I get the density requirement or allowance would be 24,120. That puts you, according to my calculations, 860 square feet beyond the density requirement. MR. TROMBLEY-I was told, by the Town, that it was 25,000. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get some clarification on that from Staff? MRS. MOORE-I re-did the calculations, and he’s within the requirements. If you want to compare some notes further on, I’ve done the calculations, and I went through them. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not a big issue. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But, okay. We will go with Staff. Okay. The septic area, has that been determined, the location of the septic area? MR. TROMBLEY-According to Bill Montgomery, who is the architectural engineer who did this revision, he said there was no such as built blueprint of where the septic system is. It’s only on the plot plan as a given area. It doesn’t mean that the laterals, in fact, are under the road. They could be alongside of the road. There’s no way to really determine, other than to have it detected, have someone come in and run a line through the D Box, and it can be, at that point, I assume, detected. When I talked to Dave Hatin, when he called me back on clarification of the 20 foot rule, at that time he said you could go right up to the foundation because it’s on a slab, rather than being a cellar, where you could get leaching back into the cellar. So, consequently we stopped at that and said, hey, that’s great, and he said the only problem is is he said when you’re digging your footings and you go on out and if you hit a lateral, you’ve got to address it. It has to be changed, and whatever you’re taking out of that lateral has to be put somewhere else. There’s approximately 50 foot of grass area, well, about 30 foot, excuse me, 30 foot of grass area from the beginning of the new addition up to where the parking lot is, in here, where we could add that lateral if, indeed, we did strike that lateral on this corner. MR. STROUGH-So you and Staff are going to work together to make sure that gets determined, and then you might have to deal with it. MR. TROMBLEY-No, that’s a given, because to be perfectly honest with you, it’ll never get past the Building Department. When they come to inspect the footings, they will see whether there was a lateral there or not. I mean, the footing is wider, you know, the ditch is going to be wider than the actual footing, and if it’s there, we’d have to change it. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and do we know for sure that it is or is not under a paved area? MR. TROMBLEY-We do not. MR. STROUGH-So that’s going to have to be determined. So the realization is it might have to be relocated during the construction process. MR. TROMBLEY-It’s a possibility. I would say on a given probably 10%, more than 90, for the simple reason that if we don’t interfere with that, if we don’t hit a lateral going out on this one corner here, then there isn’t any. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. TROMBLEY-And the septic system has never had a problem, according to Mr. Nudi. He’s not increasing any employees to his property. So there’s not any increased usage. I would assume if there is anything under that road, that it would have collapsed by now, and if it would have collapsed by now, he would have indeed had a problem, if it wasn’t leaching properly. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well there isn’t really a significant burden on the type of enterprise that he has here. MR. TROMBLEY-And another thing, I don’t know if two years from now or four years from now, there’s a possibility that the sewer system is going to come down Dix Avenue. We thought it was almost there two years ago when we did the J. Allen project, and at the last minute we ended up throwing a new septic system and leaching beds out back on that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the other concern that I had was truck accessibility. Could you tell us what kind of trucks and how the delivery works? MR. NUDI-Yes. Trucks drive in on the right side of the building, all the way around the building, and we’re going to be putting in two angled loading docks. So the trucks will, as it is now, the trucks have to be at a 90 degree angle to the building, and they’re reaching nearly over toward the neighbor’s yard, at least toward the drainage area. MR. STROUGH-Towards the car wash? MR. NUDI-Towards the car wash. Now with the angled docks, they’ll have easier accessibility to. MR. STROUGH-Now, are we talking about big semis? MR. NUDI-Like 40 or 45 foot tractor trailers. MR. STROUGH-Do they back into there? MR. NUDI-Yes. MR. STROUGH-They back all the way around? MR. NUDI-No, they drive in. They drive straight around, and then they back up to the dock. They would be headed out and nearly out of our drive, and they back up to the dock. MR. TROMBLEY-They come around the east side of the building, down here, and they do a complete horseshoe, and then when they get over here, they just back into the slip. What Mr. Nudi is saying is right now they have to back on a 90 degree angle, like that, and by the time they’re out there, they’re out there. Where this way here, you kind of take up less room because you’re coming in on an angle, because you’re coming in on an angle. It’s easier for the tractor trailer driver to back into that loading dock, and it’s obviously a lot easier just to drive back out again. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not fully convinced. I don’t see how they can do it, but you say they can, and you don’t have any problems with that. MR. NUDI-No, they’re backing in there now at a 90 degree, without these angular docks. These are to relieve that situation. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now do you have any plans for landscaping, around the new additions or anything like that? I didn’t see anything come from the Beautification Committee on this. Laura, these are not submitted to the Beautification Committee? MRS. MOORE-I don’t think we did. MR. TROMBLEY-Basically, on this drawing, it’s grass right up to the front of the new addition. There’ll be a front door, obviously, that’ll come into the front of this, with a sidewalk, but that’s grass from the parking area, right up to the front of the addition. On the west wall of that addition, that pretty much takes you out to that roadway, given probably, I’m going to say it looks like maybe 10 foot of grass, about a third of an inch there, that you have a 10 foot grass strip down through there. When you get back here where these angular docks are, that’s gravel, and they’re backing in on the gravel area, and that pretty much takes you around, there’s a fence on the back corner, which is the north wall, which is only 28 foot wide. There’s actually a page fence there in which a lot of the piping conduit is kept, behind a fenced area there. So that pretty much ties into that. So the only green area would be, basically, would be in the front, and that’s going to remain green. That is green 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) now, and the green area down along the side of the building, until you get down to this first corner, where it turns to gravel, where the loading docks are. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you very much. I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The two biggest issues that I had I think the applicant already addressed. That was the density issue and then the septic tank, and I’m pretty comfortable with that. So I guess I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I feel the same way, no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking on the drawings to try and determine from them that this is a slab on grade. I can’t find anywhere that it states that, particularly on S-1, which is the site plan itself. The septic system is hinging on the fact that you’ve got a slab on grade design, and I don’t see that depicted anywhere on the drawing. In other words, if I’m new to this drawing, these things don’t jump off the drawing at you. MR. TROMBLEY-Okay. You mean as far as, we’re not having a basement under the addition at all. MR. VOLLARO-But it doesn’t say that. My problem is when I look at a drawing, I only see what I see. I don’t see that it’s noted that there’s a slab. This is a slab on grade design. MR. TROMBLEY-I’m sorry that that wasn’t included. I don’t know if that was an oversight. MR. VOLLARO-Because a lot of that hinges on the fact of Mr. Hatin’s statement concerning that you could build this right up to it is dependent on the fact that this is a slab on grade design, and if the drawing doesn’t reflect that, at least I for a party of one up here don’t know that. MR. TROMBLEY-Okay. All the buildings that I’m familiar with along that entire part of Dix Avenue are on slab. That is all bedrock down through there, and quarry rock. You couldn’t get a basement in there. If you did, it would cost you a fortune. I know even when we put a septic system in, two years ago, two doors down, we had to dynamite it to actually get low enough to set the tank. Hess, when they did the station at the same time, they were doing a lot of dynamiting down there. So this is on a slab. I mean, there’s no way that you could get. MR. VOLLARO-I understand everything you’re saying. I’m just saying that the drawing doesn’t say that. That’s all I’m saying, that for somebody who reviews a drawing without knowing any of that background, comes in from Mars and sits here to review this drawing, he knows nothing about bedrock, how deep it is. The drawing reflects all the details we’re trying to depict to the reviewer, myself and the rest of the Board. If it’s not on here, it’s not on here. That’s part of my problem. MR. TROMBLEY-Okay. I have an elevation drawing that we’re putting the foundation, it’s out in my car. I mean, I don’t know if that would solve any question anybody had. MR. VOLLARO-I have no doubt that it’s a slab on grade. I just know that the drawing doesn’t depict that. It doesn’t tell the reviewer that that’s what you’re doing, and when we sit here without the benefit of all of your background, and having built in that area presumably before, I know nothing about that. I only know what this drawing tells me. That’s part of what I have to deal with. The other thing is, the drawing itself, on S-1, when it says we don’t know anything about where the septic system is, the drawing says it’s in the existing septic area. Now how did that get on the drawing? Was that sort of happenstance, somebody decided maybe that’s a good place to put this dotted line, or how did that get on the drawing? MR. TROMBLEY-That is the area of the septic system. That is the area of the septic system. Within that area are the laterals for this septic system. What we’re saying is it doesn’t mean that the laterals are under the driveway. It could run alongside of it. This is a proximity, when this drawing was done, this was before anything was installed. This was before ground was broken, when this S-1 was done. So that’s a proximity of where it was going to be located. We know for a fact that the manhole is where it says right there, where the MH is, and we assume that the septic system is there, but the laterals doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re under the road. They could be on that side of the road which is approximately 30 feet from the line or it could be on this side of the road. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have the pump outs set up to grade? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. TROMBLEY-Never had to, no. MR. VOLLARO-In other words, when you pump, some place in there there’s a septic system, a septic tank. How do you pump the tank? MR. TROMBLEY-That’s right here where this manhole is, but he’s never had to do that. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see a manhole on my drawing. I just see, okay. This is the distribution box, that’s the manhole. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve never had to pump the septic? MR. NUDI-Yes, it’s been pumped. MR. TROMBLEY-It has? MR. NUDI-Bill wasn’t there. MR. TROMBLEY-I wasn’t aware of it. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s where you pump the septic, right there where that manhole is? MR. NUDI-I don’t do it, but, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, is that manhole bringing the septic clean out to grade? A manhole is a manhole, but. MR. NUDI-What it is is a steel cover which is actually sitting on the tank, and then it’s paved right over there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the clean out is at grade. I guess that’s what I’m asking. MR. NUDI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So if that’s the case, and that’s the manhole for the septic, the septic’s not where it’s illustrated on the drawing. MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s some place else. We don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s behind the building. It has to be right underneath that manhole. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds like it’s got to be right here somewhere. See, this existing septic area, according to the scale, is 60 by 30. In a 60 by 30 area, you can’t get a septic tank plus a leach field. MR. TROMBLEY-I’m sorry. The septic is where the manhole cover is, and it runs to the D Box. We assume that it goes down there, because they say it does here. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re assuming the 60 by 30 has got laterals in it that essentially forms up your leach field? Is that what you’re saying? MR. NUDI-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-We’re getting there. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else, not right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine for now, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you want to add? Any other questions from Board members? Staff? We’ll open up the public hearing for this application. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please just come up and identify yourself for the record. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-You have one letter. Read it in. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated July 25, 2000, addressed to the Planning Board. “I am the adjacent owner of the property and building neighboring the applicant’s business, located on his eastern boundary property line, designated as 287 Dix Avenue. I have reviewed his proposal for expansion and fully support his endeavor to add warehouse and office space. Warren Electric is a good neighbor for our business, and I wish him success for this project. Sincerely, George A. Hagerty” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other ones? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone want to speak to this application? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Is it the Short Form, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 52-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GERALD NUDI, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think there should be, before we go into a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve taken eight items down. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think they’ve been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking for items that would be inclusive of a resolution, if we were going to do one, and the only one I’ve seen so far, two of them, actually, is confirmation that the lane width is accessible and approved by the Fire Marshal. There was a discussion on that. Right? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 16 foot. He said it was, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we haven’t gotten confirmation from the Fire Marshal on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-And the second item that I see is verify where the septic is located, the septic field or the leach field, and that be done prior to a building permit being issued. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone comfortable with those? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2000 GERALD NUDI, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 52-2000, Gerald Nudi/Warren Electric. Applicant proposes a 5,460 +/- sq. ft. addition to Warren Electric for additional warehouse space and new office area. New uses in HC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference SP 50-90. Tax Map No. 110-1-1.28, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/28/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/maps S-1dated 5/7/90, Maps 20-1- sheets 1 thru 3 dated 6/28/00, and letter dated 6/28/00 from W. Montgomery, Jr., P.E. WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/25/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/25/00 C. Round from CT Male Assoc – eng. review comments 3. 7/25/00 PB from D. Hatin, Director Bldg. & Codes 4. 7/25/00 PB from G. Hagerty (property owner within 500’) 5. 7/25/00 Revised Information Received – Site Dev. Data, letter dated 7/24/00 from W. Montgomery, PE, Stormwater Control Report, Map S-1 revised 7/21/00 6. 7/19/00 L. Moore from C. Jones, Fire Marshal 7. 7/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing 8. 7/17/00 Fax to B. Trombley (agent) from L. Moore – eng. review comments 9. 7/13/00 C. Round from C.T Male Assoc. – Eng. review comments 10. 7/12/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation - NCI 11. 7/6/00 Meeting Notice 12. 7/700 Pre-Application Meeting notes 13. 7/5/00 Transmittal to C.T. Male Assoc. WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/25/00 concerning the above project; and 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town 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, if applicable, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; 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 as per resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions: a. That the drive in is at least 16 feet, which is the minimum width for the fire trucks to pass through and this should be approved by the Fire Marshal, and b. That the exact location be determined, where the septic system is, before a building permit will be issued, and c. That the S-1 drawing show that the following building has a slab on grade design. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GARDENTIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES OWNER: G. HEWLETT & GARDEN TIME, BARRETT AUTO SALES AS CONTRACT VENDEE AGENT: F. TROELSTRA ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DISPLAY AND SALES OF RV’S, SHEDS, GAZEBOS AND PLAY SETS. VEHICLE SALES AND RETAIL USES ARE TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USES IN HC ZONES AND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-2000, AV 38-1999, SB 6-1999, SP 65-90, UV 64-1994, SP 32-94, P4-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 109-4-11, 110-1-1.21, 110-1-1.23 LOT SIZE: 4.00 AC., 11.42 AC., & 1.96 AC. SECTION: 179-23 DAN HOGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; JIM BARRETT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, I have a question. Vehicle sales and retail uses are Type II Site Plan Review, but we have this categorized as Unlisted. MRS. MOORE-It’s Unlisted because it’s a display area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-2000, Gardentime/Barrett Auto Sales, Meeting Date: July 25, 2000 “Project Description 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) The applicant proposes to utilize a 6.54-acre parcel for the display of Camper/R.V.’s, gazebos, sheds, and play structures. Barrett Auto Sales and Garden Time propose to share the parking, and access area for delivery and customer convenience. Project Analysis (Section 179-38) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed use of a display area is an allowed use within the zone. The existing site is currently vacant and not utilized for commercial uses. A portion of the site that has frontage on Quaker Road is open meadow and the other portion is a paved driveway that has access onto Dix Avenue. Both businesses utilize outdoor display of items to sell the described merchandise. The applicant has also applied for an area variance for setback relief (resolution attached). Site Overview The drawing indicates interconnections to Garden Time and Barrett Auto Sales for customer access. The customer parking area separates the display areas for each business. Each of the display areas is designed to encourage vehicle travel through the display site. Traffic, Circulation, Parking The site’s main entrance is on Quaker Road with an eighty foot access drive. The site can also be accessed by a driveway from Dix Avenue and interconnected business drives. The applicant has indicated the Dix Avenue entrance will be gated to discourage customer travel. The deliveries will occur at the Quaker Road and Dix Avenue entrances. The site has a variety of ways for access that could cause a conflict between delivery vehicles, customer vehicles, and pedestrian traffic. Staff would suggest elimination of the Quaker Road access, because the applicant has provided interconnections as recommended from the Town Ordinance Section, 179-66.1. The location of the interconnections could be enhanced with walkways to provide a way for pedestrian traffic in addition to customer vehicles. The Dix Avenue entrance could be limited to loading, unloading, and customer pick-up. The site drawing shows 45 customer parking spaces, this appears adequate for the intended use. The ordinance does not identify display areas for parking calculations. The applicant has indicated that the interconnections would be utilized for pedestrian traffic. The areas for customer travel should be clearly identified with stripping or signage. This would minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant has indicated that the stormwater generated on the site will be maintained on the site. The property is adjacent to a drainage area that appears to come from the Cedar Swamp, it is not a NYSDEC designated stream or wetland. The application was referred to CT Male for review and comment. Please see attached comment. The applicant has indicated there will be no utility improvements to the site including no lighting, water, and no signage. The drawing identifies new tree and shrub locations. The landscaping should identify type of plantings. Additional plantings should be added on the entire site. Areas of Concern or Importance The site should be maintained in an orderly fashion. Quaker Road is part of the National Highway System (NHS). The Town and County will be preparing access management policies for Quaker Road. The proposal is contrary to acceptable access management principles. Conclusions (Section 179-39) Staff would encourage the applicant to provide additional information in regards to the accommodation of stormwater on site, and the landscaping of the entire site. Suggestions Staff recommends elimination of the Quaker Road access. In lieu of elimination, the access drive should be limited to twenty-four feet or industry acceptable minimums. Staff would encourage the display area boundaries be clearly marked at all times. All areas for customer travel, including display, parking, and interconnections, should be signed or striped for direction of traffic flow, and shown on the site plan.” 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got more? MRS. MOORE-No, not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please. FRED TROELSTRA MR. TROELSTRA-Good evening. Fred Troelstra from Garden Time. MR. HOGAN-Dan Hogan, attorney for the applicants. MR. BARRETT-Jim Barrett, from Barretts. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. HOGAN-Mr. MacEwan, before we, can I just have the Staff notes re-read about the in lieu of provision that was in the Staff recommendations? MRS. MOORE-It states, “In lieu of elimination, the access drive should be limited to twenty-four feet or industry acceptable minimums.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. HOGAN-Thank you. Just by way of background, I think we’ve provided a four or five page handout. I don’t know if the Board has had an opportunity to review that. Yes. In it, I think we highlight some of the benefits that this particular project proposes to both of these local companies, one being Garden Time, Inc., and the other is the various Barrett Enterprises that operates in Queensbury. It’s Barrett Transportation Services, Inc. This is a fairly unique proposal. This is 5.078 acres that currently exists between the Garden Time and the Barrett operations. The closing on this real property is scheduled for tomorrow. Bill and Jim Barrett are purchasing this property from the Hewletts, and what they plan to do is lease essentially half of the real property that’s adjacent to Garden Time to Garden Time, and the other half will be display areas for the Barrett businesses, and what they have entered into is a lease arrangement, so that there will be an entrance, and that’s what we’re seeking tonight, ingress and egress off of Quaker Road, at 60 feet, so that customers for both of these entities can get in a bulb like parking lot and look at both of their wares, namely recreational vehicles and vehicles on the Barrett side, and gazebos and sheds on the Garden Time side. I think, aesthetically, this is an improvement to what we see currently on Quaker Road, I think it’s the west side, or the east side, is where Garden Time has its sheds and gazebos. They would be consolidated to that area adjacent to the Garden Time facility, and I think this would largely spread the volume of vehicles that Barrett has over a four plus acre parcel, now it exists just under two acres. What I have reviewed is the Staff notes, and I think that the recommendation, initially, was to eliminate the ingress and egress off Quaker Road, and we find that objectionable, essentially because when I read the statute which the Staff is, the Ordinance that they’re relying upon, it’s Section 179-66.1, and I’ve provided a recap of that on Page Four of our synopsis. It really talks about situations that I envision where you have one owner of real property that says, has several parking lots, and you want to get an interconnector road. The few examples that I could even think of would be the CR Bard project, the Mall, maybe Lowe’s, where you have one owner, several parking lots. It’s feasible under that Town Ordinance, that you can compel them, in the Planning Process, to put a 20 foot road in. We think that’s reasonable, but in our scenario, we essentially have three separate lots that are going to be combined, and we don’t think that an interconnector road is what we are envisioning for this particular project. There will be two 20 foot interconnector roads, one from existing Garden Time facility to the new two and a half acres they’ll occupy. The same on the other side with Barrett, but it’s not a road that connects all three of these parcels. As a matter of fact, both of these applicants don’t want their customers to be able to drive from Garden Time through this interim parcel to Barretts. We want to discourage that flow pattern, and there will be a fence to prevent that. So we think it’s essential, under these circumstances, that we have the ingress and egress off Quaker Road, so that the large vehicles, I know that Garden Time, with their gazebos, takes a large, it’s a form of a semi out of that facility, or will be, and I know Barrett’s RV’s are quite large as well. So they need an accommodation for those vehicles to get in and out as well as customers to get in and out. That’s why they’re seeking a 60 foot ingress and egress off Quaker, and I think that that’s a reduced footage, square footage or width footage, than they sought before the ZBA. Lastly, I think that one other thing that should be taken into consideration, acknowledging the Staff’s considerations, if this wasn’t fortuitously the same owners, then this would be a third party that’s going to come in and buy that property, and equally would be seeking ingress and egress off Quaker Road to conduct their business. We think it’s a reasonable application. We’re willing to field any other questions, unless these gentlemen want to add anything. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, maybe what we could do, in the interest of your presentation here, is ask Mr. Troelstra and Mr. Barrett to each give a little bit of a description of what your proposed usage is, on your side of the property, what you want to do. MR. TROELSTRA-Certainly. I think it’s warranted to give a little background on the project, and I think most people on this Board recognize who we are for what we do. Currently, we’re occupying an acre and a half across the street as a sales and display area of sheds and gazebos. It’s our effort here to combine that with our current facility, back on, let me call it the major portion of where Garden Time resides, on the west side. This effort is going to also be combined with what Jim and Bill Barrett have established as recently with the RV sales, if you will, and I feel that we’ve given a concerted effort and thought process into developing a plan that’s going to be mutually beneficial for us both, and ultimately for the Town to see that we’re trying to accomplish a reasonable sales area with the aesthetics and safety in mind. I will reserve my thoughts for now until I hear what the Board’s concerns are, and I’ll address those issues as they come up. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Barrett? MR. BARRETT-Well, the property between Garden Time and our place is suited nicely for display. We’re not going to be building any permanent buildings up there or anything like that, and when I bought the property, I looked at it, and you know, you stand there and you envision how you’re going to get in and out of it, as a customer driving down Quaker Road, and we’ve put a lot of thought into this, and I went over and talked to Fred and said, you know, instead of putting two separate entrances into Quaker Road, and causing more confusion, you know, more break lights down on Quaker Road, that a common entrance would be a pretty good idea, an area where my customers can park, and like Fred was saying, they can look at his gazebos, and at the same time look at our display of trailers, pop up’s up to full size 40 foot pushers, and this traffic, we’re looking at traffic flow, aesthetics, as Fred was talking about, an area that is going to be pleasant to stop and shop at. You’re not going to have to find your way around, in and out of that place. It’s going to be easy to get in and out of, and we just try to make it simple, not make it complicated, and this seems to be the simplest approach. Anything else gets complicated and confusing, in our opinion. So, it just looks, you know, if you’re driving down Quaker Road, it just looks easy to get in and out of, and that’s what we’re looking at here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. BARRETT-No, other than the fact that we’re display RV’s which can be moved, and there’ll be times when there’ll be, depending on the season, they’ll come and go. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, we’ll start with you, any questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Really the only questions I had are related to the contingencies that the Zoning Board adopted, and I just maybe your comments on those contingencies. One is that the only structures that are allowed within 50 feet of the property line are the sheds, gazebos and play sets. I mean, I assume that’s okay, but then the second one was related specifically to the egress and ingress point, somehow delineated with painted lines and lanes. I guess I wanted to hear additional comments on the gazebos and play sets and sheds, too. MR. TROELSTRA-Since that’s my side, I guess I will address it. Currently, the Travel Corridor Overlay is 75 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TROELSTRA-We have pushed and had or proposed and had accepted, if you will, from the ZBA, a 50 foot variance. This was approved that on the basis that if for some reason the property line was to adjust, meaning adjustment due to the fact that the road would widen, then we would also then maintain a 50 foot setback from it. The likelihood of that expansion on Quaker Road is pretty minimal. Everyone understood that at the ZBA, and a point of fact, the right of way is extremely wide as it is, and Quaker Road does pass closer to the property that we’re discussing tonight. There is more room on the service side, if you will, the East Quaker Service Road. So that is the first point, and then secondly, we had applied for an 80 foot opening, or ingress/egress. We have agreed to 60, and what we will be doing is identifying with paint markings, as opposed to any raised median or curbing, the ingress/egress, and more specifically two 15 foot wide egresses, if you will, with arrows pointing left and right, a 10 foot striped buffer between that and the ingress of 20 feet. Now the purpose of that, just briefly, as we’re seeing that from our experience, it is difficult to maneuver large vehicles with what I understand a 24 foot entrance. Neither one of Barrett or Garden Time’s entrances are that narrow, and to date, it’s an experience trying to get in and out with a large vehicle. It’s a difficult experience. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any other questions. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’d just like to address, let me ask you this, do you folks have a copy of C.T. Male’s July 24 memorandum? th MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, I do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess in their Comment Number Four, and I’ll just go over this real quickly, because I’ve underlined some of it, “the proposed site does not meet the Town site plan regulations, as far as the proposed methods of analyzing the stormwater management”, and they end that with an accepted method of stormwater runoff and pipe sizing will be needed to be provided”. I assume that they’re talking about the four locations of your 12 inch diameter culverts. In some case it’s 30 inch diameter, some it’s 12, and I think they mentioned that before, in their previous review of this plan. So what’s your answer to that, to their position on that? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, do you have a copy of my letter dated July 24 to them? th MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t, but that letter, if today is the 24, would require a reply from them. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 25. th MR. VOLLARO-The 25. th MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. What I did, I had a response to the July 13 letter addressed to Mr. Round, th and they had indeed, I believe you must have a copy of that, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. TROELSTRA-And they had identified by bullet items of concern. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, that’s their letter. MR. TROELSTRA-And I have addressed each one of those. If you wish, I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Fred, did you supply Staff with a copy of your responses? MR. TROELSTRA-No, I did not. I assumed that it would make it over to Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-And you sent it right to C.T. Male? MR. TROELSTRA-That’s affirmative, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and that was done yesterday? MR. TROELSTRA-That was done yesterday. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No, we haven’t received copies, or you haven’t received copies of it, have you? MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. I will go right to the chase. I will address that particular bulleted item. There was a, if I go back to the letter dated July 13. th MR. VOLLARO-What bullet are you at? MR. TROELSTRA-I think that would be then the fourth bullet down. I call it Item Four, okay, so the comment four, item four and bullet four all correlate, but “There are three (3) 12 inch diameter culverts and one (1) 30-inch diameter culverts proposed and no supporting calculations. The calculations should be submitted.” What I in turn did is address it as such. “Culverts have been sized according to Talbot’s formula, table attached. Notwithstanding, sizing has been determined by culverts up and down stream, specifically, 12 inch culverts will connect retention basin areas, while the 30 inch culvert will be placed in the existing ditch.” Let me just expand on that. There is a ditch that runs, if you will, the east, a majority of the east side of the property. It comes from the north, it comes from underneath Quaker Road. It comes from Earl Town project across the street, okay. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-The land that time forgot. MR. TROELSTRA-That’s correct. There is current 30 inch culverts in, underneath Quaker Road, stretch across the entire front boundary of Garden Time, and then downstream there’s this road, if you will, the road that is depicted on your site plan. There’s another 30 inch culvert over by what is now Albany Ladder. We are not draining to the ditch. I am not adding to the volume of water there. So in turn, we are putting in a culvert of similar size, if not exact size, to what already exists, but Talbot also gives what size culverts would be required if you’re talking acres of level country. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. He mentions that in his response, when he says “Talbot method which does not indicate specific storm events, rainfall intensities, and frequencies of return”. What he’s really referring to there, does this drainage plan handle a 50 year storm event. I believe that’s what he’s referring to. I think what the Comment Number Four from C.T. Male is really saying is he’s looking for a stormwater management plan to go along with this application. That’s my interpretation of comment Number Four on his July 24 memorandum. th MR. TROELSTRA-And if you read further, he did not have, at that point, a copy of the contour plan, the grading plan, and my point is, the culvert that’s going, that 30 incher that’s going in the ditch, is like the other culverts that exist up and down the stream. MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying that C.T. Male hasn’t seen this drawing, so that he could interpret from it what your contour lines are and slopes and so forth? I’m sorry, I’m just asking Staff a question. MRS. MOORE-He did not receive that. MR. VOLLARO-So that, in his comment number four, he didn’t have the benefit of taking a look at this contour drawing? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. TROELSTRA-But if you look at that contour drawing, nothing is draining to the ditch area, and those 12 inch culverts then just connect retention basins. There is no. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this whole thing along Quaker Road is an existing drainage ditch, all the way down to this portion here, and he’s got a drainage ditch that runs here and here, and goes out behind their property now. MR. VOLLARO-The question is, I think what C.T. Male is saying is, is this capable of handling this? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not changing anything, though. MR. TROELSTRA-I’m not changing anything. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, really what they’re going to do, basically, is mow down the weeds that are there now, and put stuff there. What is the surface of your proposed driveway made of? MR. TROELSTRA-We’ll be using what’s called “rubble”, that’s No. 2’s and less. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No asphalt areas? MR. TROELSTRA-Negative. MR. MAC EWAN-Concrete? MR. TROELSTRA-There is a suggestion on the apron to be paved, and Jim Barrett and myself agree to that, because that’s only prudent to do so. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob? MR. TROELSTRA-And I can make that revision to the final site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Again, at the end, and I’m just reading this. I just got this tonight myself. So I’m trying to get up to speed on what C.T. Male had to say here, after their last comment of July 13, but th he talks about, “As an additional comment which addresses an issue by the Town, the primary entrance to the proposed site appears to be eighty feet wide.” Now you’ve mentioned in here that it is now 60 feet, as a result of the ZBA. Is that correct? Okay. “If the intent of the applicant is to accommodate tractor trailers as a design vehicle, a turning radii of 34 feet and a driveway width of 26 feet, respectively, can handle the trucks. The site plan shows the entrance apron at full width with 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) the two rows of parking spaces. This would likely pose an ingress/egress safety problem since the vehicles parked perpendicular to the entrance drive will be in direct conflict with entering vehicles. Access should be controlled such that a defined driveway throat width of 26 feet, then widened at the proposed parking layout, be installed.” So fundamentally what I see there is he’s saying that because of this ingress/egress off Quaker Road, and being designed to handle large vehicles, like tractor trailers. He sees, I think from this comment, some interface between private cars and large trucks, and I think that’s the essence of what he’s trying to say here, in his last comment. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. Having not spoken to, the first letter is done by James Houston and the second letter is done by James Edward. I haven’t spoken to either of these individuals. I think, Mr. Vollaro, that he’s maybe just associating that turning radii with the fact that it is tractor trailers, and more specifically it’s going to be pusher RV’s at 40 feet towing probably an auxiliary vehicle pulling in there. Tractor trailers for our part, the most part, are to be going to the rear area called the drop area, off of our access road. That is for the event of sheds and gazebos being dropped. Okay. It’s going to take a couple of iterations to get my drivers out of Lancaster associated with that, but they catch on pretty quick. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying you’d come in on this asphalt road in the back? MR. TROELSTRA-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re looking at this ingress/egress as primarily a customer convenience. MR. BARRETT-Just customer. We have no reason to have truck (lost word) go in there at all. MR. TROELSTRA-No. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have right now, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Why would your customers be pulling a tow vehicle with an R V, a tow vehicle with an R V, are they coming to your property, they’re coming in to your property to look at RV’s, to purchase, I presume. They wouldn’t be bringing an RV. MR. BARRETT-They don’t always come in towing a vehicle. I mean, Fred just said that they could come in towing a vehicle. They can, if a guy’s in Town, he broke down here. MR. RINGER-But normally a customer wouldn’t be bringing his RV in to look at an RV, would he, with a tow vehicle attached. MR. BARRETT-The come in for service, too. MR. RINGER-Where are you going to service? You don’t have any buildings to service. MR. BARRETT-Yes, I do, adjacent property. MR. RINGER-So they’d be coming in this driveway. How would they get, what access do you have from here to the building where you’re going to do repairs? MR. BARRETT-There’s an access road that we’re going to put in the middle, but, you know, a guy coming in for service, okay, he’s going to come in where the building is, where our service building is. He won’t be coming in to that area. He’ll probably call first and say, you know, I’ve got a problem with my unit, where are you located, and we’ll tell him how to get there. That’s usually how that happens. In the event that he does come in there towing a car, he’ll have plenty of room to park his unit and take his car off if he wants to. MR. RINGER-I can see that, with 60 foot. I’m just wondering why you need the 60 foot. MR. BARRETT-I’m not talking about the 60 feet. I’m talking about once he gets in there, there’ll be plenty of places to park. There’ll be vacant areas to park, which is why we want to do this. We need the parking, and 60 feet is, again, we brought this up at the zoning. You try to take a left turn off these Quaker Road narrow driveways and, if there’s a guy behind you, sometimes you’re there for 15 minutes trying to take a right turn. It’s bad. It’s not enough room. You try to take a left turn coming out of any of these businesses on Quaker Road. MR. RINGER-I don’t disagree with you on that. MR. BARRETT-So this kind of alleviates that problem. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. RINGER-When your customers come in, to buy or look, they’re going to come in and park in this area, then they’re going to walk to Barrett Auto Sales building? MR. BARRETT-We’ll walk over to them. They could walk over if they wanted to, but they’ll probably browse around. These things require room. People like to have room when they’re driving them. You don’t want to go to a place you can’t pull in to. MR. TROELSTRA-Mr. Ringer, I can do this by observation. The other day, I was shooting the contours for this property, and I observed a 40 footer pull into Barretts, with a tow vehicle, and he got the majority of the way in, and he stopped, and looked to see which way he should go, either right or left around the building, and my point was this, that it made, in your mind you’re saying, well, most of the customers are coming in to buy one of these vehicles, but it’s not uncommon to see someone pull in. I believe once this is established, to pull in with their existing unit. If they are travelling currently, I foresee these units pulling in to this facility to shop. MR. RINGER-I’ve got nothing else right now, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m just confused. The main drive is going to be paved, correct? MR. TROELSTRA-The apron in to the facility is going to be paved. From that point, from the property line on is going to be rubble. MR. METIVIER-And each side you’ll have entrances to your existing areas. So I guess I’m concerned, if somebody wants to get over to Garden Time, are they going to be able to go through here to get over, or are they going to have to go back out onto Quaker, make a loop, and go into Garden Time? MR. TROELSTRA-The idea here is to have them isolated to shops, sheds, and gazebos, specifically to Garden Time. MR. METIVIER-Right, so they find one that they want, and are they going to have to get back on the Quaker Road to go and pay for it, or are they going to? MR. TROELSTRA-No, what we will do is lead them, I see us quickly being able to, we’re going to get a couple of golf carts here and use our 20 foot connector to go back and forth. MR. HOGAN-Okay, because currently now I think there are instances where people are walking across Quaker Road, and finding a sales person out there. MR. RINGER-I’ve done that myself, that’s scary. MR. HOGAN-That’s one of the things we’re trying to eliminate here. MR. METIVIER-Right. So my point is, I wouldn’t want to see somebody trying to, you know, make the loop from this over to Garden Time. Because I can just envision somebody driving down the median to get there, not the median, but, my only other concern, too, if you have a 40 footer, pulling on to this facility, or even the other one for that matter, and let’s say a car’s pulling out, or there’s a car parked, and they want to get out, would you always have enough room, let’s say 50 or 60 feet, for somebody to pull in and not be stopped midway by a car that’s pulling out. Do you understand what I’m saying? Not by pulling out onto Quaker Road, but pulling out of your parking area, to get on your drive. MR. BARRETT-Are you talking about the new parking area? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. TROELSTRA-Tony, those first parking stalls, I think it was raised by C.T. Male. That’s over 100 feet from the fog line, is what they refer to as the white line. One hundred feet is from here to that parking lot or better. MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-John? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-I’ve got a few things, but, you know, I could see, Fred, it’s going to be a better project for you, a better project for everybody, safer for the community, and, Jim, I can see your need for it. I was driving around your place the other day, the place is packed. That’s good. MR. BARRETT-We have a need for it. There’s no doubt about it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I also want you to understand a couple of things, too, because it can be a better project, but, you know, I went to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was recently accepted for the Town, and I looked in this area, and I wanted to share a few things that that said about this area, and this is kind of the umbrella ideology that we’re supposed to be guided by. It says that “traffic flow, road design, and limiting access points and internal circulation need to be addressed”, okay, emphasis on internal circulation. “See what can be done to improve the visual quality of this area and develop a coordinated plan whenever you can”, coordinated landscaping plan, and this is a great opportunity for a coordinated landscaping plan, because three of your properties together, and this is the east entrance to the Town. There’s a lot of good possibility, and I know Fred, landscaping, right. The Comprehensive Plan says make sure that landscaping of the site creates an asset to the area and follows a coordinated plan, it was repeated. Now in the Code book, of course it says that Quaker Road is, you already, I was at the Zoning Board meeting, so I know all that. So you recognize that Quaker Road isn’t addressed as an arterial road. Lots abutting arterial roads should be restricted in their access. Okay, because they go on to argue in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you can hinder the safe and efficient movement of traffic. Lots fronting arterial roads shall be discouraged, and this is in reference to having access to arterial roads, and I suppose if we were to do Quaker Road over again, seeing the direction that Quaker Road’s going in, we might put service roads on the side that would feed the various commercial enterprises, but, okay, that’s hindsight, but just keep this in mind. In our Code book, 179-38, we want to allow for an internal flow of traffic. This is something that we’re going to work on, and this is something I’m going to work on, too. I know you don’t want to, but I think we’ve got to go in that direction, and then the Planning Board should consider the adequacy and the management of vehicular traffic access and circulation. The Planning Board should consider that the arrangement, the appearance and sufficiency of parking and loading. The Planning Board has to consider the adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic. That’s something nobody’s addressed, but I’ll ask you about that in a minute, stormwater drainage, landscaping, fire lanes, emergency zones. Some of those have already been answered. Then it talks about grading measures, and we’ve already talked about some of those, so I won’t bring those up again. It does say that all parking should be adequately lighted, and you may want to talk about that, and then the Staff notes. They suggest the elimination of the Quaker Road access. Location of interconnection should be enhanced with walkways to provide a way for pedestrian traffic. This site should be maintained in an orderly fashion. Quaker Road is part of the national highway system. The Town and County will be preparing access management policies for Quaker Road. This proposal is contrary to acceptable access management principals. That comes from both the County and the Town. Okay. What this boils down to, for me, is three things that we can look at to improve the project. Now I don’t want to sound worried here. I just think there’s room for movement. Okay. I’ve listed as my first problem, as the one most important to me, is the internal vehicle and pedestrian circulation. So I’ve got a few questions, in reference to your plan. Now what I’m saying is what we would like to see, and you can see that it’s on the Comprehensive Plan. It’s in the Code Book. It’s the direction we’d like to move in for arterial roads, is we don’t want another Million Dollar Mile. We’d like to see as many commercial properties interconnected as possible, and we’d like to see it done early on. So what I’m suggesting is can we drive a car in your place, Fred, through both display areas, and go to yours, Jim? That’s what we’d like to do. MR. BARRETT-You can’t do it. It would be an absolute disaster. MR. STROUGH-So who owns the asphalt road that you park your trucks on? MR. BARRETT-I will, as of tomorrow. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you own it. MR. BARRETT-Right. MR. STROUGH-We can use it for internal traffic flow, can’t we? MR. HOGAN-You mean access off Dix Avenue? MR. STROUGH-No. When I pull into Fred’s, okay, Garden Time, I want to be able to get to Jim’s, without going through Quaker Road. MR. BARRETT-Do you know what it’s going to be like trying to find this parking lot back here, in this place. It’s a maze. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-But it can be done. MR. BARRETT-It’s a maze. You can’t, I had a hard time, I live here, trying to find this parking lot. It took me ten minutes to get from there to here, because it’s a maze. We don’t want a maze, and you’re going to create a maze if you do that. With all due respect, we don’t want people going to Quaker, getting lost in there, and I don’t want Fred’s customers coming through my parking lot, with the congestion that I anticipate hopefully having. I don’t want his congestion in my area. He doesn’t want my congestion in his area. MR. STROUGH-No, but I don’t want cars going back out to Quaker Road, because Barretts may not always be Barretts. Garden Time may not always be Garden Time. So we’d like to see, and as part of the Town Code. MR. MAC EWAN-Then if that’s the case, down the road, that’s when you address the new applications and new site plans. MR. STROUGH-Well, I can see an easy way of accessing these properties right now. I mean, this is coming from the Comprehensive Plan that’s. MR. MAC EWAN-I disagree with you. I don’t think it’s a necessity for this one. MR. HOGAN-Well, also, just your point with the Miracle Mile, it falls in line with the situation where one owner owns all three of those parcels. That one owner you can place those restrictions on them to say, make it an internal road, visa vi your three separate entities. In this situation, you don’t have joint ownership, and it just happens to be that two adjoining land owners are going to use it, but if it were a separate third party that came in, they would be making the exact same request as we’re making today, ingress and egress off Quaker Road. That’s what every business needs to survive, and even the comfort level that I’ll have to give, you know, Barretts’ perspective purchaser down the road, is not going to buy that property unless there’s ingress and egress off Quaker Road. It’s of no value, or limited value with that real property. So I understand the concerns, but when I interpret the Code and the Master Plan, it is to get a hold of those large scale, one owner projects early enough, so that you can impose restrictions of a service road or something of that nature. That does give you the ability to interconnect those businesses. MR. STROUGH-Well, we have imposed the interconnectability on different owners, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me jump in here for just a second. Sitting on this Board for the eight plus years I’ve sat on it, I’ve had a number of opportunities to deal with interconnections, whenever possible, for site plans, commercial site plans, and we’ve done maybe two or three of them in the last eight years, where we’ve proposed interconnects. Although it’s highly encouraged in our Zoning Ordinance, it’s not something that this Board can mandate as part of site plan approval. MR. STROUGH-It’s encouraged. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s encouraged. There’s a big difference between encouraging it and mandating it. MR. STROUGH-And you’re of the mind that we shouldn’t encourage it, and I’m of the mind that we should encourage it. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I didn’t say that. There are opportunities where I would highly encourage it, and I have in the past, and an example is Hanneford and the CVS Plaza, farther down Quaker Road, where I recognize that those are two intensive commercial uses that would go hand in hand with each other. I don’t necessarily share that opinion that this site plan application would. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, as far as having that accessibility, that outside lane, I believe it’s a graveled area to the drop area. MR. BARRETT-I think you’ve got good intentions here, but, because we don’t want a project that’s going to be a disaster. MR. STROUGH-Jim, the rest of the Planning Board may not agree with me. This is my opinion. MR. BARRETT-Yes, I know. I just wanted to ask you, if you were visiting that site, would you want to go back in that access road and take a left turn and come back in our back driveway? MR. STROUGH-I’d like to have that ability, and I can see it’s relatively easy to do. It’s already gated. You have a gravel area there. It could be made serviceable by automobiles, so that they could go to 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) the asphalt road, whatever the name of that is, and then access the parking area, you have a gate there, so it’s not a big stretch, Jim, and then you already have the access area off that asphalt road to your place. MR. HOGAN-But, John, what you’re getting at is to eliminate the entrance off Dix Avenue, so that the only access that you’re going to have to this parcel. MR. STROUGH-No, I didn’t say that. MR. BARRETT-How would you get in, John? You’d get in through our existing driveway? MR. STROUGH-As far as I’m concerned you get in your existing driveways, and you have that entrance off of Quaker Road into here, right? Now, he’s talked about limiting access to that, but I personally didn’t make that point myself at this time. I’m saying, my point is, make the properties interconnectable, so that I could drive, but the other Planning Board members may not agree with me on this one. MR. BARRETT-Fred’s got the same problem over there. If you look at his parking lot, the way he has to park his automobiles over there. If he had people coming across an interconnect, you’d have accidents right there in his parking lot, particularly in Easter and places like that where people fill his parking lot right up. MR. STROUGH-Well, where his opening is is right there where you already have an access point. You know the second light pole, Fred, that’s about where you’re proposing an access point for this. Isn’t it? MR. TROELSTRA-Well, John, I’ll answer that. I just need a little clarification on the question. You’re saying the second light pole, I’m sorry, I’m confused, on my property? MR. STROUGH-There’s two light poles. There’s one near the Quaker Road, and there’s one that looks like it’s. MR. TROELSTRA-Correct, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-John, let’s move it along, because I feel your sense of interconnect will die a quick death. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, just one minute. What Jim was leaning to, John, is this. I think the proposal for interconnects works out well, in theory, for what I’ll call virgin properties. We have currently existing businesses. We have pretty much developed at both parcels, Garden Time and Barretts, at max right now, and to now impose an interconnect through, I’ll just be specific about our property, is going to be a difficult issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Fred, I can say you the time. I took an informal pole. We’re not going to be looking for one. MR. STROUGH-Let’s go on to Item Number Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Item Number Two, in summary, is some kind of coordinated comprehensive landscaping plan. Now, I see eight trees and grass. Can we do better than that? MR. TROELSTRA-You didn’t catch the shrubbery out front there, at the entrance way. We’re putting a split rail fence in. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay, and it is our intentions on the Garden Time side, to create more of a pleasant environment, instead of what has been deemed over the eight years I think Mr. MacEwan’s been here, Shanty Town. MR. MAC EWAN-Hey, that didn’t come from me. MR. TROELSTRA-Maybe it was Mrs. LaBombard, then. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-No way. I’ve said some things, but not that one. There are successful businesses that are selling my product, and I’m looking to model ourselves after that, is that we’re looking to put vignettes in place for these sheds and gazebos. I need to, instead of looking at a field approach to putting these in, that we’re going to create some nice landscape projects, retaining walls, that type thing, to display a gazebo, for example. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I mean, it would look beautiful if there was a park like setting for those gazebos. MR. TROELSTRA-Exactly. What does that do? That promotes my product. MR. STROUGH-Right. You certainly want us to emphasis landscaping. MR. TROELSTRA-Right. That’s beautiful. I certainly do want you in my court. All right, at a minimum, we’ve proposed these trees. I’m open for anything that the Board wishes to put in there. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of trees are you proposing? MR. TROELSTRA-Two inch columnar, they’re a type of maples. MR. MAC EWAN-Maples? MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, Jim, I come over to your place, and I just won the lottery, so I want to buy one of your RV’s. Do I pull right out onto Quaker Road, or are you going to ask me to go out to Dix? I’m an inexperienced RV driver. I want a 35 footer. MR. BARRETT-Where are you going to pull in? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not. I’m going to buy one, but I’m going to test drive it. I’m not going to buy it unless I try it out. MR. BARRETT-I’d have you pull out our new access road to Quaker Road. MR. STROUGH-Right out Quaker Road? MR. BARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Me? Inexperienced driver? MR. BARRETT-I think it would be a good experience. You could go out the back way if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-If was you, Jim, I’d ask him for a performance bond. MR. BARRETT-John, we’re going to try to get a red light there next. So maybe that’ll help. MR. STROUGH-Well, if you got a red light, okay, but in the meantime, I’d feel more comfortable if you directed the new R V drivers, in any event, who are testing. MR. BARRETT-Most of these guys aren’t new. I’ll tell you what, these guys that come in know 10 times more about RV’s than I do, 100 times more. These guys that use these things, they know their way around. They’re not inexperienced guys, really. MR. STROUGH-Well, I may stand alone, once more. I’m used to this, but I would encourage that you direct the RV traffic to use Dix Avenue access and away from Quaker. MR. BARRETT-I can do that. That’s fine. That’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-I would remind you that that should stay at a suggestion only, and if we should make any approvals, not part of a condition of approval, because it would be a very difficult thing to enforce. MR. BARRETT-That’s a good idea. I can certainly encourage that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m just a little hesitant getting out on the Quaker Road, and the dust and stormwater management plans I guess have been addressed previous to me. So I won’t bring those up again. They want to move on. So, thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. Anything from Staff? MRS. RYBA-Yes. Excuse me. Many of these comments are based on the information that Staff just received this evening. So I apologize that I haven’t been able to address them earlier to the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-No apologies necessary. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I just wanted to note a couple of things. In terms of traffic on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, on Page 23, the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council Long Range Plan states that “A stringent policy of access management should be applied to limit intersections onto Quaker Road as development occurs. In addition, agreement should be made with new developers to require them to contribute to the improvements to Quaker Road in the area.” The second item is in reference to the National Highway System, of which Quaker Road is. The National Highway System is a Federal designation that includes roads that provide interregional transportation. Routes 149, 254 and 32 are so designated. “Queensbury Avenue, which provides a link from Route 32 to the Warren County Airport in the Warren/Washington Industrial Park, is a possible addition to the National Highway System. Roads within the System are to have a limited number of access points in order to assure the effective use of the road for commercial transportation.” The next item is in reference to the fact that the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council Unified Work Program for 2000/2001, this is a plan that has to be put in place in order to get funding from the Department of Transportation for Planning Projects, and one is that they will be performing an access management plan in late fall 2000, which will be complete by summer 2001, and I just wanted to note that access management principles reduce curb cuts, provide interconnecting service roads, and the result is really to maintain a traffic flow so that there are fewer conflicts, and since Quaker Road does provide that commercial traffic flow, this is the reason for putting together an access management plan. The next items is the fact that as part of the National Highway System, both the State and the County have purview over this road, and there are some standards. New York State Department of Transportation Policy and Standards for Entrances to State Highways, dated February 1998, for a typical minor commercial driveway outline, the driveway width is 24 feet. The next item is that, in terms of Item 19 that was submitted by the applicant, there were really no figures regarding the amount of traffic that’s going to be going in and out of the development, and so I was wondering what the basis was for their conclusion that there would be stacking, if they did not get the access, new access point. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you back up to the one where you’re talking about the Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council, and the part of the reviewing of the access along Quaker Road. Was that a grant that they’re getting, or have gotten? MRS. RYBA-A plan has to be put together in order to get any funding from the Department of Transportation, to look at corridor analysis, and so it’s part of the budget. MR. MAC EWAN-Part of? MRS. RYBA-The State budget. MR. MAC EWAN-The State budget. Have that gotten acknowledgement that they’re going to be included in that? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-They have? And that’s supposed to take place this fall? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. RYBA-No. MRS. RADNER-Craig, can I make an additional comment? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. RADNER-Whether you choose to require interconnection for this parcel or not, the suggestions being made, that Section 179-66.1, only applies to parcels owned by a single owner, for example a subdivision where they’re putting in roads. That is not what the Section says, and it’s not how this Board’s applied it in the past. It is not limited just to one owner. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I have just a comment, that there’s an awful lot of data on this particular, I mean, some of the consensus up here on the Board is that this is a fairly straightforward application, and we seem to be spending an awful lot of time, but the problem is we have comments from C.T. Male that, Fred, you’ve made responses to, that C.T. Male hasn’t responded to your letter yet, and while this looks like a very simple, easy to do project, there seems to be an awful lot of input from different places, input from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998, input from C.T. Male, that we have to deal with up here, at least I do, as a party of one, have to read this stuff and try to, you know, assimilate it and integrate it as best I can to a position, and right now, I feel, at the minimum, I would like to see C.T. Male’s comment on your comments to their July 24 letter. That’s what I would like th to see. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, excuse me, that’s what you do have. I responded to them by e-mail and fax yesterday morning, and they in turn turned around, dated the same date, a response to my letter, and I could get a copy of that to the Board for that purpose, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Right to Staff. MR. TROELSTRA-To Staff. I’ll get that to Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so you know, in the future, any responses that you are going to make regarding an application should go directly to Staff, not through to the consultant, so that they can funnel it, and that copies can be given to Board members and Staff would actually have copies. MR. TROELSTRA-Staff had recommended that I get in touch with C.T. Male directly. So that’s what I did via letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Still, the correspondences need to come through Staff, so that we’re in the loop on it. MR. TROELSTRA-I have a little problem with that. I have everything that is directed toward Mr. Chris Round, but then I just get a fax dropped on my desk, there’s no cc to me or Mr. Barrett either. So that would be a concern of mine that we are included in the loop, except by just a fax being dropped off on my desk. Just a recommendation. MR. STROUGH-Fred, when do you want to have this project, when do you want to go on this? MR. TROELSTRA-As soon as we practical can. We are interested in getting this going. Just FYI, I’ve been granted a brief stay on the parcel across the street, and we’re looking to get this expedited in an effort to remedy the fact that I am not in compliance across the street. MR. HOGAN-And in addition, the closing on the real property is tomorrow at 11 o’clock. So I think that Mr. Barrett, who’s paying a sizeable amount of money for that parcel, is looking for some comfort for the closing tomorrow as well. MR. VOLLARO-Pressure, pressure. MR. MAC EWAN-My position is going to be, considering the amount of information that we’re lacking right now to put a good stamp on this thing and seal this thing as being a complete application for us to move a motion on, I’m not willing to do that at this point. I think that C.T. Male needs to have the last shake on this, to analyze Fred’s responses that he sent to them yesterday. Because we have no correspondence from C.T. Male, to verify that. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, they’ve done that, and the only situation that I see is they are stating that the Talbot method does not meet the Town site plan regulations, but my point to them would be we’re sizing pipes according to what’s already in the ditch, and comment five, in response to your letter. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. If that’s your position, that’s great. I want to know that C.T. Male says okay, we agree with your position. MR. TROELSTRA-Well, it says here, an accepted method of stormwater runoff and pipe sizing will be needed to be provided. I need to have that, I guess, as a part of the final site plan anyway. So we 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) can include that when the final copy comes in. Comment Five, to further this, driveway apron, we’ll do that. MR. HOGAN-I’m sorry, Mr. MacEwan, was your comment that you were concerned with the C.T. Male on the issue of the culvert and the pipe sizing, was the one thing that was holding this up, such that we could get a condition imposed that we would have to resolve that before final, or at least put that condition upon the project? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not the only thing I came up with. I’m looking at, C.T. Male needs to respond to this Board and to Staff regarding his comments that he faxed directly to them yesterday. I want to make sure, in my mind, that C.T. Male’s satisfied with the information that you’ve provided to make your site plan work, and not create a problem down the road. They don’t even have, as you said, a copy of the grading plan. Okay. They need to have a copy of that grading plan so that they can review it and make sure that it’s adequate. I also want to know, on your site plan, you need to revise your site plan to indicate how much of the area you plan on paving for your entrance/exit apron, how deep your going in with that, so it’s noted on the plan. It needs to be revised to be a 24 foot width, the entrance/exit, and that’s all I came up with for now, but it seems to me the biggest hinge on this, which is, honestly, probably more housekeeping than anything else, is to make sure that C.T. Male is satisfied with your calculations on how you’re going to handle that drainage and stormwater runoff, and that’s important. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. I just want, for the record, to note that they have responded to my letter, dated July 24, with their own letter of July 24, and I do believe you have that in front of you. thth MR. MAC EWAN-The normal letter that we get from C.T. Male saying that all the concerns, engineering concerns, have been addressed and were satisfied with them, that’s what I’m looking for. There’s these items on here, comment four, comment five, comment eight, still leave some things out in the open. MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. So I just want to know, for the record, that you did receive that letter. MR. MAC EWAN-We have that, but there’s still items left out in the open. MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt? What it sounds like you’re requesting, that Mr. Troelstra needs to respond back to C.T. Male of these comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Which he said he did. Right? MRS. MOORE-No, he hasn’t responded to this letter. MR. TROELSTRA-To the July 13 letter, I responded with my letter. th MR. MAC EWAN-You said that you responded to the July 24 letter. th MR. TROELSTRA-No. I responded to their July 13 letter. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That makes it even more. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. MR. TROELSTRA-And they, in turn, responded, they had a counter response, if you will. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s like a badminton match. Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one. Fred, on your letter of June 28, and I don’t necessarily agree th with the way the Town interprets percolation and the fact that you get, when you talk in here about, as part of the improvements of the above referenced parcel, stormwater management will aptly be handled by grading all crushed stone/gravel drive lanes to immediate grass and display areas. Display areas will be surfaced with Number Two Stone. This stone provides 100% percolation. The Town looks at gravel as an impervious, and maybe not rightly so. I don’t look at it that way, but I know what the reg’s say in the Town, and I’m bound by those. So when you say that there’s going to be 100% percolation, you’re intimating in that that you’re going to also get good drainage. MR. TROELSTRA-Just a point of clarification there. As a part of the analysis here, the percent impermeable is in the 30 percentile range for the entire acreage, including that “asphalt” road in the back, and yes, the Town interprets any driveable surface, if it’s gravel, as impermeable. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. VOLLARO-So if you take that term and apply it to all of the areas that you show as gravel surface, I haven’t done that math yet, but I don’t know what that would look like. MR. TROELSTRA-Right. Again, the drive lanes have been clearly identified on there. The cross hatch of the area underneath the RV’s are still all going to be Number Two Stone. So that will drain there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I agree with that concept. I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just saying, we’re kind of bound here by an interpretation that’s been laid down, that gravel forms an impervious area. That’s all I’m saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Are we looking for conditions? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking to table. I don’t know what you guys are looking to do. MRS. RADNER-You still have to have a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I know. MR. STROUGH-The only other comment I’d like to make is, that gate in the end of the parking, is that going to be closed all the time? MR. TROELSTRA-The gate at the end of the parking? MR. STROUGH-Yes, going to Jim’s road. MR. TROELSTRA-The main parking there? MR. STROUGH-Yes, the main parking. MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. To be honest with you, the car wash, I think we may all be guilty of once in a while cutting across, we’re not looking to promote a short circuit from Dix Avenue to Quaker Road. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s so woven, I don’t think it would make a great short cut. MR. TROELSTRA-I’ll use it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it a break away gate? Is that what your intentions are? MR. TROELSTRA-It’s going to be a swing closed gate. MR. MAC EWAN-So that if emergency access needed to get through there? MR. TROELSTRA-I’m sure they can. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a common thing. Is that what you guys would prefer, break away gates? MR. RINGER-Well, we normally carry cutters, so we cut them away, but, or we’re provided keys. We have either, keys and bolt cutters. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Anything else? Staff? MRS. MOORE-I have comments after your public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to open up the public hearing right now. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got some thing to include in the public hearing, or afterwards? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Mr. MacEwan, if you’re going to table this application, do you want to leave that open? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t know. I want to know what my fellow Board members want to do here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think you need to leave the public hearing open. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we’re going to table it, I want to leave it open. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just in case. MR. RINGER-If you table it, I agree that we should leave it open. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll introduce a motion to table site plan. MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, can I read back some Staff, I listened to what the Board said, and I just wanted to clarify something about the drawing itself. Are you looking for him to provide a revised drawing to you for a meeting date in the future? And if that is so, then you need to give him a deadline date, and you need to tell me whether you want him on for what month, and I have some of the revisions I have listed, but I want to confirm that. MR. MAC EWAN-The revisions that they need to make to the drawings are relatively minor. The big issue here is correlating the information going back and forth to C.T. Male, get C.T. Male to sign off on it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. MRS. MOORE-Because the deadline date for August is tomorrow by 4:30. MR. STROUGH-So is that the only thing that’s holding it up, Craig, is the? MR. MAC EWAN-No, before we put a motion up, I’ll retract that, these are the items I came up with, that the applicant supply additional information and correlate information with C.T. Male to respond to C.T. Male’s letter of 7/13 and 7/24. To provide the grading plan to C.T. Male for their review, to revise their site plan drawing to incorporate the area to be paved and the entrance, to delineate it to its width of 24 feet, and how much area is to be paved, and that the two inch caliper trees be of maple species, and that’s all I came up with, but the big stuff’s buried right there in that C.T. Male stuff. MRS. MOORE-I have another, that the revisions show the conditions of the Area Variance, and additional information be provided about the gates. It’s unclear whether they’ll be locked at all hours, or if they’re break away, or if they’re locked or unlocked. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want hours of operation? MRS. MOORE-For gates it may be helpful to whoever’s looking at the site plan in the future. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Throughout the course of this discussion, it was mentioned about adequate lighting in the parking area, that you. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that there’s no proposed lighting for this site. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone comfortable with that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I would just like to know where the miscommunication arose. I think, I mean, here you have, Dan’s here, Mr. Hogan’s here, and it just seems like this could have been resolved and kind of truncated a little bit easier, what we’ve just gone through. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve just gotten a lot of material on this this evening, which is something I haven’t had a chance, or any other Board member hasn’t had a chance to review. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s part of the problem. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, I mean, to me, it’s just a good project to have going on, and it’s too bad just a few little details here have to be ironed out. MR. RINGER-I don’t think anybody thinks it’s not a good project. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I understand that. I didn’t imply that. I’m just saying this to Mr. Hogan, that I kind of feel bad that they have to just wait a little bit longer. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, these happen from time to time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other discussion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Larry, don’t be so defensive. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s being defensive. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: To our August 15, 2000 meeting, with the following conditions for tabling: That the applicant supply additional information and correlate with C.T. Male the responses to C.T. Male’s letter of 7/13 and 7/24. That the revised grading plan be submitted to C.T. Male for their review. That the applicant revise the site plan to incorporate the area to be paved on the entrance and delineate its 26 foot width. That the two inch caliper trees be of maple species. That the site plan note on the site plan that we want the Area Variance to be indicated and noted on there, and that at what times the security gates will be locked, and they can submit this additional information by close of business August 4. th Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. TROELSTRA-Are you saying the entrance way, the ingress and egress is 24 feet? MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-four foot width, yes. MR. TROELSTRA-Even though C.T. Male, it its letter, says a minimum of 26 would have to be inserted? MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel about that? I’ll revise that if they want me to. MR. VOLLARO-I think 26 is fine, to stay consistent with C.T. Male’s letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll amend my motion to incorporate a 26 foot width. MRS. MOORE-Two things, in regards to the Area Variance, the conditions of the Area Variance should be provided on the plan. They gave specific direction of relief. Those things should be specifically noted on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll mention that. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then the comment about the width, it’s a DOT standard that 24 for commercial, for minor commercial driveways. That’s why that, the 24 width came up. MR. VOLLARO-Is C.T. Male’s letter incorrect? Is that what you’re saying? MRS. MOORE-I’m not saying it’s incorrect. We’ve provided you with information tonight from DOT that indicates 24 width is acceptable for a commercial. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got information tonight from DOT? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. RYBA-It’s been available since 1998, but we just had it in response to what was given to us this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-I hate doing this in the middle of putting together a motion. Let me pole the Board, 26 or 24? Tony? MR. METIVIER-24, I suppose. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I think they need 26 to make those turns. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-six, in keeping with C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine, 26. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with 26. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll stop there. Let the motion reflect it’s a 26 foot width, the entrance. AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbott MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry for the delay, gentlemen. MR. HOGAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 47-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP. OWNER: TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DISTRICT AGENT: MARGARET SMITH ZONE: LC-42A, AP A LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CO-LOCATE TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ON EXISTING TOWN WATER TANK. TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER SECTION 179-73.1 TAX MAP NO. 123-1-55.9 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-73.1 MARGARET SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 47-2000, Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corp., Meeting Date: July 25, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes to attach three cell tower antennas to the Luzerne Road Water Tanks. Project Analysis (Section 179-38, 179-73.1) The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code. The proposed co-location is an allowed use within the zone. The water tank is on a 1.01-acre parcel and is 56 feet tall. The antennas are located on a pre-existing structure and are not subject to setback requirements for the LC-42A zone. There is a clear area around the Tank and the remaining area is wooded. Site Overview The antennas will be located near the top of the tank on the east side. The antennas will be painted in the same color scheme as the existing Tank. The applicant has provided an existing view and a proposed view of the Tank, showing the approximate location of the antennas . 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Traffic, Circulation, Parking The applicant proposes to improve the utility road on site to accommodate any maintenance vehicles that will be on site. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services The applicant proposes not to alter or modify existing utilities, lighting, or signage. Areas of Concern or Importance The applicant had met with Staff prior to submission to review the requirements of co-location. The application was referred to the CT. Male for review and comment. Please see attached comment. Conclusions (Section 179-39) The proposed project does not have a significant adverse environmental impact because the project benefits the community by providing service, and no major physical improvements are being done.” MRS. MOORE-The applicant has provided a revised set of drawings addressing C.T. Male’s comments. You’ve received a memo from Ralph VanDusen this evening, and as of yet I don’t have a response back from C.T. Male in regards to the revisions. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re kidding me. MRS. MOORE-I’m not quite certain if they’ve received all the revisions as of yet. So you can ask the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Run through that again now. What don’t we have from C.T. Male? MRS. MOORE-A sign off letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record. MS. SMITH-Hi. I’m Margaret Smith. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project? MS. SMITH-Yes. I represent Independent Wireless One. They are a Sprint PCS affiliate, and we’re looking to co-locate telecommunications equipment on the Luzerne Mountain Water Tank. We have secured a lease agreement with the Town of Queensbury Water Department, and we’re looking for Town approval to proceed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Can you get right into it and tell us a little bit about the application itself, the specifics of the equipment and as much as you can tell us. MS. SMITH-Okay. What we have is we’re proposing one antenna, all right, one antenna at, let me just look at this, 56 feet. We’re not going to go above the height of the tank, and we’re looking for, and two antennas below that at 48 feet. That’s what we’re proposing right now. This is a repeater site, which basically can carry the frequency. It’s coming from Exit 18 right now, and we will be approaching you for two additional sites in the Town that these will work with. In the future, where also you’ll see on the drawings you’ll see future antennas proposed, and basically what we would do would be to take down the two antennas at 48 feet, and put up three of the same antennas all at 56 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, in your photograph here, proposed view two, is that the antennas that are just above, what would be just above the telephone pole right there near the top of the tank? MS. SMITH-In the photo simulation, is that what you’re saying? Those are future antennas, and that’s basically what it will look like if we have to build out the site completely. We are going on the back side of the tank right now, and you won’t see anything that we’re putting in. Actually, that photo sim was kind of difficult to do, because you can see the glare on the tank. So it’s even less visual. I mean, you have to be looking for it to see it. MR. MAC EWAN-So if one was just driving by it, I mean, they would just envision that as being part of the structure of the tank. MS. SMITH-You’d have no idea it was there, and all the equipment’s behind it. C.T. Male address some concerns they had with the project. Clough Harbour, and I’ve submitted that, talked with C.T. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Male and I’ve submitted the revisions they’re looking for. I’ve also talked to Mr. VanDusen from the Water Department, and he is aware of all the revisions, and what it’s basically boiling down to is that, before we can build, the Water Department has to approve our final drawings, as part of the lease agreement. So as long as the Town, you know, as long as the Planning Board’s happy with what we’re putting in, the specifics of whether they can paint the tank, or whether they can get access to the tank, that’s really going to be the judgement of the Water Department, and they have indicated to me in a memo that they don’t have any problems, so far, with what we’re saying. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MS. SMITH-I’m sure they’ll be addressed in the questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, you’re saying that the three antenna at 56 and 48 feet, that starts from the top of the tank, right? MS. SMITH-The tank is 56 feet. We’re not going to exceed the height of the tank. The top of the antenna is going to meet the top of the tank. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought you were going to, I was under the impression that you have the tank there already, so that’s going to be your vehicle for going off. MS. SMITH-No. We’re going to be on the back side, the antenna that we’re initially proposing is actually, it’s a box, a 26 by 26 antenna. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what, when I look at this, that’s what I, I said, wait a minute, and you’ll paint them the same color as the tank. MS. SMITH-And paint it the same color as the tank. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Well, then, I don’t have any problem. MS. SMITH-What we’re putting on right now you absolutely won’t see. It’s all going to be on the back side. If we need the future, what you’ll see in the photo sim is all you’re going to see. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good idea. MS. SMITH-If we get to the future, the necessity for the future antennas, it’s because the residents are using Sprint PCS, and want the coverage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There you go. All right. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Margaret, your letter of June 27 on your second paragraph, you say, “On th behalf of Wireless One Lease Realty Corp., IWO, I request a waiver of this requirement in order to conform with Section 179-73-1G(2) of the Town Code, Shared Use of Existing Tall Structures.” I read both of those, and I don’t know how we’re going to handle this, and I wanted to ask Staff that question. Are we going to just provide a waiver, or is this a variance to? MRS. MOORE-It’s neither variance nor a waiver. MR. VOLLARO-Neither one. MRS. MOORE-It does not need to meet the setbacks, and I explained that in my Staff notes. It’s like the first paragraph. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else right now. Some of the questions I would have nobody else on the Board would be interested in. MR. MAC EWAN-I respect your honesty. Larry? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. RINGER-I have no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I think a few questions have to be asked. For example, the driveway that you’re willing to put in and pave the first 30 feet, I believe, right? And it seems that Ralph has given you a variance to the culvert, in that you can put just a swale? MS. SMITH-Right. MR. STROUGH-Is Ralph authorized to okay that practice? Wouldn’t that be the Highway Superintendent that would have to look at that? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s the Water Department. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s a road thing, and it’s a water thing. MS. SMITH-I don’t know if you can call what that is around that tank a road right now. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a Town road, that’s an access. MR. STROUGH-It’s an access. It’s permeable right now, and it’s going to be impermeable, and so I just thought, shouldn’t the Highway Superintendent sign off on that? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is it’s, Ralph Van Dusen has jurisdiction over that, over the access. MR. STROUGH-The Water Department, okay. Fine. The question had to be asked, in my mind. How many antennas could we have attached to this tank here, according to contract? MS. SMITH-At the most would be three. MR. STROUGH-Well, we have subscriber antennas, GPS antenna, donor antennas, each work in threes. MS. SMITH-Right. MR. STROUGH-So you have two subscriber antennas with a donor antenna. MS. SMITH-Right, and then a GPS antenna which is the six inch antenna that basically all it does is tell the satellites where it’s located. MR. STROUGH-So potentially six subscriber antennas. MS. SMITH-No, no, no. The other ones would come down. We’re proposing to put up one donor at 56 feet, and then two subscribers, and then there’s a six inch GPS antenna that does nothing but say, I’m here. MR. STROUGH-Right. MS. SMITH-All right. What we do, if we need the additional coverage for that area. We’ll take down the two subscribers here and put up what you see on the photo sim, two in the front. So there’ll be, at all times, will be that six inch, but there’ll be no more than three telecommunications antennas. MR. STROUGH-No more at any time? MS. SMITH-No more than that at any time. MR. STROUGH-Because it looks like the contract, we’ll say you had two subscriber antennas, two and two, a total of six. Am I wrong? I mean, because we’re just looking at the maximum impact. Not that I have an issue with this, I just. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MS. SMITH-Is it going to be six antennas? I thought on this site we were only doing three. They usually do six. MR. VOLLARO-There are six. MS. SMITH-Okay, yes, there are six. It’s usually, I’m sorry about that. It’s technology. The three I thought, I thought they were transmitting and receiving. Instead what they have to do is each sector has to have two antennas and one transmits and one receives. So it’s six panel antennas that will be up there. MR. STROUGH-All right, and each one of those, do they need a separate donor antenna? MS. SMITH-No. MR. STROUGH-One donor antenna will feed all six subscriber antennas? MS. SMITH-One transmits, one receives. The only reason we would have a donor antenna is because originally it’s designed, it’s going to be a repeater site. So it’s going to be a donor antenna from the Exit 18 antenna that’s there already. If we have to go to a full blown site, the donor, the subscriber, that’ll all come down, and then it’ll be the six antennas that transmit and receive, transmit and receive, transmit and receive. MR. STROUGH-Okay, because we have to look at what the contract would allow and the maximum, not currently what it looks at. MS. SMITH-We’re looking maximum. MR. STROUGH-I mean, not that I have a problem with it. It’s just that since we have to look at it in the maximum impact, I just have to know how many. Okay. MS. SMITH-I apologize. That was my mistake. MR. STROUGH-Is the leasee insured for vandalism and damages that would occur to your equipment? MS. SMITH-I don’t know. I’m sure that’s addressed in the lease agreement. I doubt it because we have it fenced in. It’s a fenced in area, barbed wire on top, for our protection. So I think if anything happens over and above that, we eat that cost. I’m sure the Water Department wouldn’t pay for any of it. We wouldn’t expect them to. MR. STROUGH-Well, I did a quick reading of the contract, and one thing I didn’t see also, I saw the re-painting part of the contract, for the maintenance, that, you’ll have to understand that if we have to re-paint the tank, that, you know, but what if there’s a section of the tank that would have to be replaced, and let’s say you’re down for three months, six months, who will be held liable? I mean, will that, is that taken out of the rent price? MS. SMITH-And that’s one of the things from C.T. Male, that Clough Harbour and C.T. Male discussed, and that it can be, the tank can still be re-painted, but as far as replacement goes, the Town, if we have to remove our equipment, we have to remove our equipment. What we would propose to do would be to put up something temporary. MR. STROUGH-So, well, let’s say you couldn’t put your equipment up there for six months, so your lease, as it reads currently now, is $12,000 a year for the first five years. Would that like knock it down to $6,000? I didn’t see that addressed in the contract. MS. SMITH-What we would propose to do, we would have to work it out with the Water Department, as in what we’ve done in other municipalities is put up a cow, a cell on wheels, basically. So we put up a temporary structure behind it, or we’ll work with the Water Department to move it to a place temporary, while that’s going on. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s a good answer. Would this insulation of your project prevent others from using it? MS. SMITH-No. MR. STROUGH-And will you be subletting the capabilities of the antennas to other people? MS. SMITH-No. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-Microwaves, I’ve got to ask because it’s the thing. MS. SMITH-I’ve submitted to, in the revisions, because I did hear that was a concern of yours, was we have our Sprint Spectrum license, and basically, it’s been taken care of. I can quote the, “prior coordinated with all co-channels and microwave incumbents in the contour”, and the exhibit showing that we have that, I’ve submitted that. MR. MAC EWAN-I like that legal lingo. MS. SMITH-I had to write it down. MR. STROUGH-All right. So there’s, as of right now. MS. SMITH-It’s not a concern. We’re at Exit 18. There’s been no interference. We’re cleared. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and how about the microwave impact contamination of the water? MS. SMITH-There is none. MR. STROUGH-I just needed to say that. So it’s on record. MR. STROUGH-And one last thing, on your radio station authorization, which is. MS. SMITH-What that is is it shows an expiration on June 23, 2000. With our FCC License, we’re mandated to meet certain coverage objectives in the Country, because this is all mandated by the Federal Government. So after a five year, we have to submit what our build out plan is and see if we’ve met those percentages that’s required under our license. So that’s what that shows, basically. We had to submit what our thing is, but we still continue to (lost words) right. MR. STROUGH-And one last, now when we’re talking about the subscriber antennas, I have listed here the Model No. 881010, but I’ve been given examples of the subscriber antennas as Model 49,000. Which is it, is it the Model 49,000 or? MS. SMITH-It’s been submitted. It’s on the equipment cut sheet that I’ve submitted exactly. It’s a Dapa 10,000 or I don’t know the numbers, but I’ve submitted exactly what it’s going to be that’s on there. MR. STROUGH-So this isn’t what it is, a 49,000? MS. SMITH-That was what we were originally shooting for, and we ended up having to change it. MR. STROUGH-Well, I got my package and I’m looking at the 49,000, and I’m looking for the Model No. here, and it didn’t match up. So, okay, ignore that. MS. SMITH-Right, and we’ve submitted what the equipment is that we’re going with. Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m done. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone beat me to the punch. Any other questions from Board members? From Staff? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? Do you have any written correspondence? MRS. MOORE-No, I do not have any. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Your opening comments regarding, that C.T. Male hasn’t signed off on this thing, are you gearing that toward their July 13 letter, basically? th MRS. MOORE-Correct, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How much of this stuff on the July 13 letter, is this the applicant’s response? th Because most of the stuff that they’re talking about is Town owned property, with the exception, 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) well, even the driveway access is on Town owned property. What kind of arrangements are being made for that, for the Town, should this be approved? I mean, obviously you’ve been talking with the Water Superintendent. MS. SMITH-Mr. VanDusen. MR. MAC EWAN-And they’re looking for this road to be paved in there, I’m assuming as part of the conditions of letting you use the tower? MS. SMITH-C.T. Male said they’d recommend we pave the road. I called up Mr. VanDusen and said, do you want us to pave the road, and he said, because of the culvert problem, and he said, you can pave it, you don’t have to put a culvert in, you can put a swale in. So I said, okay, we’ll put a swale in, and then when we’re getting to the construction drawing phase, Mr. VanDusen will have to indicate to us where he wants the runoff on that swale to go, basically, and so we’ll incorporate that in the final drawings that he’ll have to sign off on. MR. STROUGH-Also on the final drawings, too, didn’t Staff want the location of the underground utilities noted? MS. SMITH-And that has been addressed as well, and Mr. VanDusen has to indicate that to us, and we’re going to put it, we said he could either put it on the zoning drawings, or we can put it on the final construction drawings, but he has to give us that information. So that’s going to, that’s coming down the road. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s one of their requirements under the C.T. Male 13 July letter, the underground utilities should be shown on the site plan. MRS. MOORE-The 7/24 memo from Ralph VanDusen indicates, Point Number Three, “Our contract with Wireless One stipulates that we must approve the location of their new utilities.” So I think it’s covered. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think the C.T. Male letter says show us where the utilities, underground utilities are, so that Ralph can take a look at that and say yes or no. MS. SMITH-Yes, what happened was he gave us the existing drawings, and it wasn’t on the existing drawings, so Ralph’s going to have to go out and show it to us, and he knows that, and that will be on the final drawings, then. MR. VOLLARO-Right, exactly, and I think, is that why you’re saying that this letter still has to be responded to on the July 13 letter from C.T. Male? th MRS. MOORE-No, I’m just saying that we haven’t received a C.T. Male signoff. From the information that was submitted tonight, C.T. Male hasn’t. MR. VOLLARO-Hasn’t commented on it yet? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But you could possibly condition their approval, based on C.T. Male’s signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-In this particular case, unlike the previous application, we have a double checks and balance, because not only do we have C.T. Male’s going to sign off on this thing, or make them correct anything that’s wrong with the engineering on it, but it’s also predicated on the fact that they’re going to do this thing with the Water Department, and they’ve got to have their approval on it as well. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve pretty much seen the Water Department’s approval for most of this project. MS. SMITH-They’re going to give their final approval on the construction drawings. I mean, that’s going to be the final. MR. STROUGH-Do you want to condition the motion saying that we get those approvals? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, I would, yes. Any additional discussions? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. VOLLARO-The only additional discussion is, I think, Cathy, have you taken any notes down as to what we should be adding to the motion, if the motion is made for approval? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ve been trying to. I’m not doing very well tonight, Robert, as far as taking extra notes here, on the past two applicants. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do the SEQRA first, anyway. Let’s do the SEQRA and get through that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Do you want me to do the SEQRA right now? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, Bob, back to your question I’ve made a couple of things, but I feel like things like, you know, we have to make sure that the waves emitted don’t contaminate the water supply, I mean, I feel like those kinds of things have already been addressed by our engineers, by Ralph VanDusen and so forth. MR. VOLLARO-If microwave was a contamination, I’d be dead long ago, working around it all my life. So, the answer is no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I think John had a really valid point, as far as, there’s really six antennas, only they’re on three stanchions, though, aren’t they? MS. SMITH-No. There’s two in one spot, there’s two in another spot, and there’s two behind it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that that has to, when we make a motion. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MS. SMITH-That, it is on the drawings. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, then that has to be just, it’s on the drawings, but it wasn’t in the literature, when it was, in the letter from Clough Harbour. MS. SMITH-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. They didn’t really specify. They just said antennas. Okay. MS. SMITH-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then C.T. Male has to sign off on all of this. They haven’t done that yet. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s one of the keys for an addition to the motion, is the C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and also you want to include the Water Department. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and then there was, yes, the Water Department has to approve the final drawings. C.T. Male has to sign off on everything, and. MR. STROUGH-Well, wouldn’t the condition read supply detailed installation drawings for our approval, and our approval being the Water Department, after they receive all necessary permits. Do you see where it says, “I would recommend the Planning Board condition it’s approval? And just include that sentence, and then the other condition would be. MR. MAC EWAN-Those are really the two issues I see outstanding. MR. VOLLARO-Sign off from C.T. Male, Water Department final approval after receiving all permits. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things I just noticed is that the June 28 letter from Clough th Harbour, which has the structural analysis, is not referenced as a supporting document. MS. SMITH-And the first comment from C.T. Male talks about that. So I re-submitted a signed and stamped structural analysis, with the calculations, and Mr. Goldblatt from C.T. Male has seen that, and said that that’s sufficient. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just talking about the resolution. MS. SMITH-I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll add it. MR. STROUGH-Should we add the memo from Ralph VanDusen, the 6/25/2000 memo as well, included in the documentation list? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s fine. Is somebody jotting all this down? MRS. LA BOMBARD-John is. MR. VOLLARO-You have to add Ralph VanDusen’s 7/24 memorandum? John, is that what you’re saying? MR. STROUGH-Yes, the Clough Harbour memorandum, and, yes, the Ralph VanDusen memorandum. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STROUGH-6/25/00 memo from Ralph VanDusen. MR. VOLLARO-VanDusen’s letter is today, isn’t it, 7/24? MR. HUNSINGER-Yesterday. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Staff? Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2000 INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 47-2000. Applicant proposes to co-locate telecommunications equipment on existing Town water tank. Telecommunication Equipment installation requires Planning Board review and approval per Section 179-73.1. Tax Map No. 123-1-55.9, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/28/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/Visual EAF addemdum, Short EAF, 6/27/00 – Lease Agreement between applicant and Town of Queensbury Water Dept., Radio Station Authorization, issue date6/23/95, Map AL33XC380, 6/27/00 – M. Smith to C. Round regarding issue of setback requirements, 6/28/00 – R. Terry (applicant) from D. Dagemaro (CHA) regarding structural analysis information, Deed, Maps AL33XC380T1, AL33XC380Z1, AL33XC380Z2, AL33XC380Z3 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/25/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/24/00 R. VanDusen 3. 7/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing 4. 7/13/00 C. Round from C.T. Male Assoc. – Eng. review comments 5. 7/7/00 Meeting Notice 6. 6/23/00 M. Smith from L. Moore – Follow-up letter to mtg. of 6/14/00. 7. 6/14/00 Pre-Application Meeting Info 8. 7/5/00 Transmittal to C.T. Male Assoc. 9. 7/00 Two photos – Existing View 2, Proposed View 2 WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/25/00 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 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, if applicable, landscaping must be professionally installed and maintained; 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 additional comments: a. That there be a sign-off by C.T. Male on this project, and b. The Water Department’s final approval, after receiving all permits, and c. Add to the list of supporting documentation in the prepared resolution a letter from the Water Department signed by Mr. Ralph VanDusen dated 7/24/00, and d. Add to the list of supporting documentation in the prepared resolution a letter from Clough Harbour Memorandum of June 28, 2000 containing information on the structural analysis. 2. Submission of three (3) copies of the approved site plan to the Planning Office for the Zoning Administrator’s signature. Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2000 by the following vote: 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, Margaret. MS. SMITH-So I just submit this to Laura and we’ll be all set, when the construction drawings are done? Is that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and sign off, the condition of getting your permits in place would be a sign off by C.T. Male, whose our consulting engineer, and making the people over at the Water Department happy. MS. SMITH-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Margaret, before you leave, nothing to do with this application, I just have a question for you, on the GBS antenna. Are you using this for differential? Is that what this is for? MS. SMITH-We have to have ever site put in a GPS antenna. It’s part of that coverage objective. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not a differential GPS? Okay. The other thing I’m just wondering, and I don’t doubt your engineer’s calculations, but you’ve got a separation from the large tanks and the GPS antenna of three feet. My experience with GPS antennas, when they’re close to main structures like that, masts of ships, for example, there’s a thing called signal stealing. Well, I don’t know whether you’ve got a boost to this antenna or not, but you ought to take a look at whether or not its got sufficient gain to give you constant position from all, you need five satellites to get a good fix. So if that tank is stealing any of that frequency at all, you may not get five all the time. Is there a need for you to know exactly where these antennas are at all times? MS. SMITH-I don’t know. I know for Sprint, for our agreement with Sprint, we have to have this GPS, so they can tell, because we’re an affiliate, so they can see where our build out is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the only thing this is for is to give positional data to those antennas? That’s all? Okay. I have no other. I was just curious, that’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MS. SMITH-Thanks. MRS. MOORE-Can interrupt just for a comment? You requested to add something in for 6/28, this has nothing to with the applicant, in regards to, if you looked at the prepared resolution by Staff, it appears that the application received on 6/28/00 consists of the following, and the documentation that you asked to be put in supporting documentation appears to have been included, in the Whereas, so just as a comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MS. SMITH-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN E. MC CORMACK & PAUL SOKOL OWNER: SAME AGENT: COULTER & MC CORMACK ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NORTH SIDE GLEN LAKE, EAST OF HAWTHORNE RD. & NORTHWOOD DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.37 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.36 AC AND 1.01 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 36-1-23.1 LOT SIZE: 2.37 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN MC CORMACK & PAUL SOKOK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, John E. McCormack & Paul Sokol, Meeting Date: July 25, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 2.37 acre parcel in the single-family residential zone (SFR-1A). 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Study of Preliminary Plat (§ A183-10) 1. Lot arrangement a. The existing parcel has driveway access from Glen Lake Road. The proposed lots will have driveway access from Northwood Drive of Courthouse Estates subdivision. 2. Location and design of streets a. The applicant has also applied for a modification to Courthouse Estates to create a second road access for Courthouse Estates that is adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Staff would encourage the location of the driveways be limited to Northwood Drive and the Glen Lake Road driveway be eliminated. 3. Topography a. The applicant has provided five foot contour intervals for the existing parcel. 4. Water supply a. The existing dwelling is serviced by the Town water supply. The proposed parcel will also obtain water service from the Town. 5. Sewage disposal a. The existing dwelling has a septic system designed for three bedrooms and is located to the north of the house. The subdivision plat should provide a proposed location of a septic system for the new lot. 6. Drainage a. The subdivision plat does not provide information on test pit or percolation tests for the existing dwelling lot or the new lot. The Courthouse Estates test pit information indicates soils are sand and gravel. The perc tests ranged from one minute in sand and 45 seconds in gravel. 7. Lot sizes a. The proposed lot size is more than the one-acre required for the SFR-1A zone. 8. Placement of utilities a. The new lot should be connected to the Town water service. The subdivision plat should also reference other utilities such as electric or phone location in reference to the new lot. 9. Future development a. The proposed subdivision minimizes/eliminates any future subdivision unless variances are obtained. 10. Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance a. The proposed subdivision is located in Neighborhood Four of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan recommends evaluation of buffers between Courthouse Estates and Million-Dollar-Mile. 11. State Environmental Quality Review Act. a. The proposed subdivision will not have a significant adverse environmental impact because the parcel of land to be developed is adjacent to other residential homes 12. Town Departments / Adirondack Park Agency a. The application has not been forwarded to any other Town or Agencies because it is a two-lot subdivision that does not appear to have any topography or utility installation constraints. Preliminary Subdivision Review Points The subdivision plat should be revised to show the existing and the proposed septic system location. The applicant has not requested any waivers from the subdivision requirement; such items as landscaping and construction details do not appear applicable to this application. Study of Final Plat (§ A183-13, ) The final plat should be revised to add the following two items: 1. A statement that the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. 2. A statement reading as follows: "Approved under authority of a resolution adopted _____________________ by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York. ________________________________, Chairman." Suggestions The subdivision plat should be revised to address Staff’s comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Have you submitted a letter of request for waivers from Subdivision Regulations, or some of them? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MC CORMACK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please? MR. MC CORMACK-My name is John McCormack, developer of Courthouse Estates. MR. SOKOL-Paul Sokol MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you tell us a little bit about your application. MR. MC CORMACK-Yes. We have purchased, as written in the agenda, 2.37 acres of property and we’re looking to subdivide two different parcels from 1.36 to 1.01 acres. There is an existing residence, single family residential home on the 1.36 acres presently, and there’s an additional 1.0 acres of vacant property that we would like to sell as a residential property, included with the Courthouse Estates subdivision. The present zoning for the area is SFR-1 Acre, as it complies as it being 1.01 acres. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, anything else? MR. MC CORMACK-It’s pretty cut and dried, basically. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. VOLLARO-No, I can see this as a normal two lot subdivision. I don’t see any problems with it. There is a little thing on proposed driveway that I see, right off that road, but I think we’re going to talk about that in the next section. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So, as far as the subdivision is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I have no comments to it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, nothing, no comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just that I was wondering if we’re putting the cart before the horse. We’re looking at the property, and this is to accommodate the road proposal. That’s the parcel change? MR. MC CORMACK-No, it’s a separate issue, totally. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s two separate issues here. MR. MC CORMACK-Okay. I just misunderstood, then. I thought this was to accommodate the road, because I thought we would look at the road first, and then see if you needed to go back to that. So, this, your stance is this has nothing to do with the road? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-Nothing else at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Wow, this isn’t normal. Anything else to add? Staff comments? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment to this application? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM TUCKER MR. TUCKER-My name’s William Tucker, and I own the property that is bordering that proposed subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-To the north, south, east or west? MR. TUCKER-To the south. MR. MAC EWAN-To the south. MR. RINGER-Across the road? MR. TUCKER-No, right next to it. It borders it on two sides. MR. STROUGH-Bill and Constance? MR. TUCKER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-There’s some concern here as to where your property is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, okay. Right there. MR. VOLLARO-Cynthia Ellsworth? MR. TUCKER-That’s who we purchased the property from. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry, we’re with you now. MR. TUCKER-Okay. I’m just concerned about how this is going to effect my lifestyle. Until this property was purchased by Mr. McCormack, Ellsworths’ property was a buffer zone between me and Courthouse Estates, and I have no objection to this, as long as this isn’t going to effect my lifestyle, what I like to do. I cut my own firewood. I work on my cars. I own one of the little shanty shacks that everybody talks about. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STROUGH-So you’re saying in the original plan this was a buffer zone? MR. TUCKER-Well, no. MR. STROUGH-It just acted as a buffer zone for your convenience? MR. TUCKER-It acted as a buffer zone, and now I’m going to have Courthouse Estates bordering my property on two sides, and I’m a little concerned that this may impact my lifestyle. MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s already a property in back of you, right, that’s a house? MR. TUCKER-Right, that was the Kilmartin Estate. MR. STROUGH-So this would impact you on one side. MR. TUCKER-On two sides, because he’s looking to subdivide and put a house right next to me. Am I correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but the house behind you is going to stay there. MR. TUCKER-Right. I have no problem. What I’m saying is he’s looking to incorporate this into Courthouse Estates, and Courthouse Estates has a governing body, I guess, a group of people. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like a Homeowners Association? MR. TUCKER-The Homeowners Association. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. It’s not an official Homeowners Association. It’s a collection of people, but they’re not an official Homeowners Association under the rules established by the Attorney General. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. What’s that got to do with the subdivision? MR. VOLLARO-It hasn’t got anything, but I just wanted to let Cathy know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Tucker, could you give us some negative ways that a house next door would impact you? I mean, do you think they’re going to say to you, you can’t work on your car anymore? MR. TUCKER-Right. You can no longer cut your firewood. I bring in 20 foot log lengths, cut the wood up and split it. It takes me about two weeks. Someone might complain about the noise. MR. STROUGH-Well, do you do it during reasonable hours? MR. TUCKER-Yes, during the day. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It takes you two weeks? I don’t think that would be any worse than the barking dogs next to me. MR. TUCKER-Okay. Well, I’m just bringing up my concerns. So, that if some time someone in the future says, well, you should have come before us beforehand. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. TUCKER-You know, if you were worried about it, you should have done it when you got the letter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you have to remember that this proposed house is facing the Glen Lake Road. It’s still facing the same road you’re facing. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not necessarily true. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just a square on a drawing. MR. TUCKER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-No, it would have to be Glen Lake Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would have to. Where’s the other? MR. STROUGH-It’s a big hill where that Hawthorne and Northwood resides. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see, secondary proposed driveway off Hawthorne. MR. MAC EWAN-Just don’t draw a conclusion. That’s there for illustrative purposes only, that it can meet the setback requirements. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, .there is a secondary proposed driveway that could. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Mr. Tucker? MR. TUCKER-My other concern is a house in that area would block the sunlight from my house, if it was two stories or extremely large. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a height limitation on, you can’t go over. MR. TUCKER-The grade next to me goes up. I’m in the low. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it would only be for that duration of time that the sun would go from one part of the house to the other, and the house isn’t going to be that big. MR. TUCKER-Well, I’m just saying, I don’t know. I’m just bringing up my concerns. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-You might not even notice it. MR. TUCKER-Maybe not. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. RON BRYANT MR. BRYANT-My name is Ron Bryant, and I’m the resident that is closest to the proposed Subdivision No. 1-63, 3-76, which is the modification to extend Northwood to Glen Lake. I’m also the next closest resident to Mr. Tucker to the proposed subdivision that you’re entering into now, Subdivision No. 4-2000. John, I believe you were right on target. You should take the road first, and then look at the subdivision. Let me tell you where I’m coming from. We built, in 1977, that was probably the sixth or seventh house in the development, was Courthouse I. It was owned by Nelson Grigg’s. Mr. McCormack subsequently bought all the property in there. For 25 years, previous Town Boards have allowed John McCormack to develop Courthouse I to a full extent, Courthouse II, and Courthouse III. There’s many houses in there. We hear that there’s a Courthouse IV proposed. Why the earlier Town Boards never dealt with the Master Plan to deal with another road, I believe it’s a requirement to have an entry and an exit road, in case of emergencies. That development has been allowed to take place for all these years. Now he bought the Kilmartin property, alongside of me. That was one huge plot of land, and one house. Never allowed him to connect to Courthouse. He asked many times. For whatever reason, John wouldn’t let him. So now he bought the Kilmartin property because Bob passed away, and the family sold out. He took the fence down immediately, and made an entry driveway into the Kilmartin property and sold that house. He’s trying to subdivide the Kilmartin property into three houses, where it was just one with Kilmartin’s. My problem is this. The next proposal to deal with the road is in a very unsafe area. I would be backing out into the main intersection. The road itself enters from the corner of my property and goes to Glen Lake, in the middle of the hill, a blind hill. There’s been many accidents there already, albeit without an intersection. Slippery roads, people, excessive speed. They can’t seem to get over the crest of the hill coming down from the Route 9 area, and you’re talking about a main intersection there. A lot of people in the development have been looking for some relief for the Route 9 intersection that’s basically a killer. It killed a woman there once, and many serious accidents. We used to all cut through the County property. They fixed us good. They did that already, now you’ve got to go three miles to get around, and go on to Route 9. Quite frankly, we’ve been left with a lot of bad intersections, and we have a terrible time getting to work and from work, and wherever we want to go. Sometimes it takes me 30 minutes to get to True Value Hardware from that intersection, through Great Escape. I believe the Town should look at some type of, if they’re requiring John to put another road in at this time, and I don’t even know this, I’m guessing at this time he decides to put a road in, there’s got to be a reason for it. If you allow him to subdivide, I’m not saying this is my idea, but that’s a flat area of road. It would be safer. There’s an existing road t there already that’s flat. He’s trying to subdivide the property and make a multitude of money out of that, and then have you approve the road in a bad location. Until you go out and look at where this road’s proposed, I don’t think you really have enough information. I really do not. It’s unsafe. If we’re trying to remedy a situation with a proposed Courthouse IV, with an emergency, it does nothing, because Courthouse III has one big loop now. So if you had an accident in Courthouse III, you still couldn’t get out. To have a Courthouse IV development, and try to fix it with a Courthouse I road, to me, makes no sense whatsoever. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m confused. Where’s the Courthouse IV development coming from? Where is that idea coming from? MR. BRYANT-It’s been proposed. I’m not saying it’s been approved. Again, I don’t have information. I have to believe that there’s some intent on the Board’s part to request John to put a road in at this time. I could be wrong on that, but the present road, the area as it is right now is unsafe. Totally unsafe. It’s probably the worst location for a road, to connect to Glen Lake. MR. STROUGH-But are you suggesting that if the road were to? MR. MAC EWAN-Can we do this, because we have two applications going here, let’s stick with the subdivision first. Let’s not confuse two different applications and talk about them at the same time. MR. BRYANT-I’m saying it limits another area you might be able to potentially use, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-Because we may or may not approve the subdivision, doesn’t mean we are going to approve a road. The road is next. We have to look at that, but from, I think the Chairman has said we’d like to take a look at the subdivision first, either approve or deny the subdivision, and then get into the road. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. BRYANT-That’s your option. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a problem with the subdivision? Do you have concerns about the subdivision itself, the proposed subdivision? MR. BRYANT-Only that no one’s ever done a master plan where the best road location would be, and now we continue to say, let’s build more houses and worry about a good location for a road to remedy the current traffic problems let’s deal with it later. Again, we’re looking at building more houses and dealing with the road later. So, yes, I’ve got a problem with it, but it’s your option to take this first. So I’ll have my seat. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? ROY URRICO MR. URRICO-Hi. My name is Roy Urrico. I’m a neighbor just to the left of Mr. Bryant. I share his concerns, and I’d also like to know if the Section 179-30, Regulation C, has been addressed, where it says, “Effective this date, any collector road shall have two times the lot width permitted in this zone”? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a collector road. MR. URRICO-Glen Lake Road is. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not talking about Glen Lake Road. We’re talking about a two lot subdivision. MR. URRICO-But somebody mentioned that it would be facing Glen Lake Road. Mrs. LaBombard just mentioned that one of the lots would be facing Glen Lake Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no. I said the house could, would be facing it, but not necessarily, there’s a proposed secondary. MR. URRICO-But if it did face it, it would require twice the lot width. If it did face Glen Lake Road, it would require twice the lot width. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we’re not in control of that until we get a site plan on that particular portion of the subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it. We’re not going to get a site plan on a residential home. Two, that you don’t need twice the lot width in this case because, help me if I’m wrong, that that’s not considered a collector road in that instance, right? MRS. MOORE-Simply because the proposed driveway is off of Northwood. It is not off of Glen Lake Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could I ask, Angela, what is your lot number, do you know, on the map? You’ve got to show me on here. MR. BRYANT-Hawthorne’s a short road. It comes off of the main road, and there’s a corner that goes, and it’s immediately Northwood Drive. There’s only really two houses on Hawthorne. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I know where your house is. I know where it is if I, I could drive to it, but would you show me on this map where it is? MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Bryant, are you Lot 35? MR. BRYANT-I believe so. I have the corner lot there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then it is 35. Okay. MR. BRYANT-Yes, the front of my house is on Hawthorne, and the side would be on Northwood, yes. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Gotcha. MR. MC CORMACK-I have a copy of the map, if you want to see the parcel on there. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll get to you in a minute, Mr. McCormack. Does anyone else want to speak during the public hearing? Okay. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Do you gentlemen want to come back up here? A couple of speakers have commented to a proposed Courthouse IV. MR. MC CORMACK-Not true, never been true, never will be true. Courthouse Estates started, as Mr. Bryant spoke, in the early 60’s by Mr. Griggs. We purchased property to develop Section II in 1977. We purchased the property for Section III in 1984, from Ralph Tramposh, and Section III, 15 lots of Section III, have been constructed upon and have final approval, and the balance of Section III have preliminary approval, which is approximately 35 to 40 lots left. There is no Section IV. It’s Section III and always been Section III, and in the Town records it will show that it does have preliminary approval, but not final on that portion of the balance of the subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Specifically, where’s Section III? MR. MC CORMACK-To the north of Courthouse Drive. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MC CORMACK-Directly behind the Factory Outlet Malls. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Any questions or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-On the subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-Just on the subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-I’d like to get an opinion. Since these are related in some degree, although they’re separate applications, should we look at it just as a subdivision and disregard the next project we’ve got? I mean, if we look at this just as we have it, absolutely, you know, there’s no problem with a two lot subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-The easy answer to this, because we’re all kind of considering, in the back of our minds, this proposed road that he wants to do, the connection road, this two lot subdivision clearly indicates that the proposed driveway for this proposed house will come off Northwood Drive. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MC CORMACK-Not necessarily. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what you have indicated on your thing. MR. MC CORMACK-But not necessarily. It still could come off of Glen Lake Road, depending upon. MR. MAC EWAN-Then if you did that, you’d need double the lot width. MR. MC CORMACK-And at that point we would address that issue. Right now, it’s a vacant lot. MR. RINGER-Can we get an answer, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. MC CORMACK-And it meets the SFR-1 Acre subdivision, residential subdivision regulation. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Do you ladies want to comment? MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. If the proposed driveway, or rather the existing driveway, I’ll change that, off of Glen Lake Road is going to be the main driveway for the proposed house, they will need to meet the requirements that require them to have double the lot width, okay. If they’re going to do a proposed driveway and eliminate the existing driveway, then they can do it as proposed. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on it. It says the drawing without, looking at the drawing, it says we have a secondary proposed driveway. This drawing would lead me to indicate that that’s how they’re going to get into this lot, by the secondary proposed driveway. There is no other way. They’re not proposing, on this drawing, to open up anything on Glen Lake Road. This drawing does not have any indication of the new proposed access road. It just shows secondary proposed driveway. That’s all it shows there. So if this was the only thing in front of us, and we approved it this way, that’s the way he would have to get into that lot. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct, and the other comment I would add is that I did place my comment, place in my staff notes that I did not bring up again was that I would propose ensuring that the existing driveway would be not allowed. So that is in the staff notes, and I apologize for not bringing it up before. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That would just confirm. MR. VOLLARO-I see, where it says existing driveway, that goes alongside the lot, okay, that would not be allowed? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but say he takes that away, this secondary proposed driveway off Northwood would be allowed. MRS. MOORE-Correct. . MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s how I look at this subdivision. MRS. MOORE-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s the way he would get in. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-No. Where you’re proposing that driveway now is rather a steep pitch into that lot, isn’t it? I mean, there’s a block wall there. There’s quite a gradient down into where it would be pretty much the established level of this lot. So the driveway would have to be a fairly steep downward slope, is that correct? MR. SOKOL-John, actually we’re proposing no house, no driveway, any development for that lot at this time. We’re just trying to subdivide the property. Perhaps that shouldn’t have been put on there. That’s a potential possibility, and we would address that. If were to ever develop that lot, we would address the proposed driveway at that time. Right now, we’re just looking to subdivide the property. It has no bearing on a house or a driveway or a road or anything at this time. MR. VOLLARO-This is a simple two lot subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a requirement of the regulations, though. It’s a requirement of the regulations. If you’re going to do a two lot subdivision, you’ve got to illustrate that a house can be positioned on that with the setbacks. MR. VOLLARO-And they’ve done that. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He’s doing what’s required. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’ve got the house facing. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. VOLLARO-It’s not facing anywhere. It’s just a square. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments or questions from Board members? Staff? We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN E. MC CORMACK & PAUL SOKOL, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25 day of July, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Before we entertain a motion. MR. RINGER-Is it preliminary you want? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Waivers. MR. RINGER-They’ve requested none. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve requested none. Well, if they’ve requested none, they aren’t going to move on, that’s for sure. 183-9, they do need to have, so they would require a waiver, ask for a waiver to two foot contours. MRS. MOORE-There are contours located on the plot plan. MR. MAC EWAN-But they’re 10 foot contours. Our regulations say two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two foot ones, here. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking at? MRS. LA BOMBARD-On the other map. Sorry, I’ve got the wrong map. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how does Staff feel about it? Is it an issue or not an issue? MRS. MOORE-Well, we’ve seen opportunities where we have not required, as long as they’ve provided contours on the property that indicate that there’s not a problem placing a house, septic or well on the site, that we’ve accepted other contour intervals. Typically, when someone requests a waiver from the two foot contours it’s because they don’t want to show anything. MR. MC CORMACK-They’re presently shown as five foot contours. MR. MAC EWAN-Ten foot, in some cases fifteen, in some cases five. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Those are five, 475, 480, 490. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, not an issue then. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2000 JOHN E. MC CORMACK & PAUL SOKOL, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 4-2000, John McCormack 7 Paul Sokol to subdivide a 2.37 acre parcel into two lots of 1.36 ac. and 1.01 ac., Tax Map No. 36-1- 23.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/28/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/map F-965 dated 5/22/00, Warranty Deed rec’d. 4/24/00, list of property owners contiguous to lands of McCormack & Sokol WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/25/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/6/00 Meeting Notice 3. 7/13/0 GIS map prepared by Staff WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/25/00 concerning the above project (certified mail receipts received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 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 as per the resolution prepared by Staff with the condition that the proposed driveway be off of Northwood Drive and not Glen Lake Road. 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. For this application, outside agency approvals include: N/A 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Strough MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2000 JOHN E. MC CORMACK & PAUL SOKOL, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 4-2000, John McCormack 7 Paul Sokol to subdivide a 2.37 acre parcel into two lots of 1.36 ac. and 1.01 ac., Tax Map No. 36-1- 23.1, and; WHEREAS, the application received 6/28/00 consists of the following: 1. Application w/map F-965 dated 5/22/00, Warranty Deed rec’d. 4/24/00, list of property owners contiguous to lands of McCormack & Sokol WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 7/25/00 Staff Notes 2. 7/6/00 Meeting Notice 3. 7/13/0 GIS map prepared by Staff WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/25/00 concerning the above project (certified mail receipts received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town 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 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. Final Stage approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff, and note that the driveway be off of Northwood Drive, not Glen Lake Road, and that the final plat should be revised to add the following items: a. A statement that the plan is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and b. That a statement reading as follows: Approved under the authority of a resolution adopted _____ by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, NY, signed by the Planning Board Chairman, and c. That a proposed septic system field be shown on the final plat. 2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 3. For this application, outside agency approvals include: N/A 4. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2000 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-One other. In regards to septic, the proposed septic location, and information in regards to the proposed house that’s currently not on the plat. That’s something we typically do ask for in a subdivision, is anything that’s proposed, that include the proposed septic location. So it’s up to the Board, if they want to make that a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-Just show the proposed septic field. Add that, too, Larry, that the proposed septic field be indicated on the final plat. AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Strough SUBDIVISION NO. 1-63, 3-76 COURTHOUSE ESTATES, SECTION I & II MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT PROPOSES AN EXTENSION OF NORTHWOOD DRIVE SOUTHERLY TO GLEN LAKE ROAD. THE EXTENSION WILL PROVIDE A SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION. ANY MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. JOHN MC CORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-63, 3-76, Courthouse Estates, Section I & II Modification, Meeting Date: July 25, 2000 “Project Analysis The applicant proposes a second access drive for Courthouse Estates. The Courthouse Estates Subdivision has three Sections. Section One was approved in 1964 for 48 lots and was modified in 1965 for 44 lots. Section Two was approved in 1977 for 46 Lots. Section Three was approved in 1988 for 15 Lots. Section Three of the subdivision was originally reduced from 60 lots to 15 lots because the subdivision required a second access road. The files indicate there have been other discussions on the location of the second access but none have been approved. The applicant’s plans have been forwarded to the appropriate Town Departments and CT Male for review and comment. Modification of Subdivision review (§ A183-10) (1) Lot arrangement: a. The proposal would alter the lot line for parcel 37-5-1.5 and 37-5-1.4. (2) Location and design of streets: a. The separation of the two accesses for Courthouse Estates would be 360 ft. plus. (3) Topography: a. The proposed road is an 8.3% grade sloping North to South. (4) Water supply: a. The Water Department has indicated the service should be extended. (5) Sewage disposal: a. The proposed road does not appear to interfere with existing septic systems. (6) Drainage: a. The plan does not provide drainage information. (7) Lot sizes: a. No new lots are proposed. The two lots that will be adjusted in size are proposed to be combined to form one conforming lot. (8) Placement of utilities: a. Easements for utilities should be indicated on the plot plan (9) Future development: a. The second access road may generate an additional subdivision of the remainder of the property. (10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: a. The project is located in Neighborhood Four. The Comprehensive Plan recognized additional residential homes could be developed within Courthouse 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Estates. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that a buffer be evaluated to minimize impacts between commercial and residential use. (11) State Environmental Quality Review Act: a. The proposal does not change the existing SEQR negative declaration. (12) Town departments and other agencies: a. Please see attached comments Areas of Concern or Importance The reminder of the property is 42.69 acres and could potentially be subdivided if the second access road is approved. Suggestions The applicant’s plans should be revised per CT Males comments. Staff would also suggest two additional notes be added to the plat; One, "Map of Proposed Southerly Extension of Northwood Drive to Glen Lake Road a modification to the Courthouse Estates Section I and II", and Second, “The erosion and sediment control plan will be prepared in accordance with NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control.”” MRS. MOORE-And then I have a letter from the Highway Department and the Water Department. Would you like those read into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Pardon me? MRS. MOORE- I have a comment from the Water Department and the Highway Department. Do you want those read into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-And C.T. Male’s letter of July 13. th MRS. MOORE-I’ll begin with the C.T. Male comment of July 13. “We have reviewed the cover th letter dated June 28, 2000, a map of Section II of Courthouse Estates, dated March 1, 1977, and a map of proposed southerly extension of Northwood Drive to Glen Lake Road dated May 31, 2000, and offer the following comments: 1. The street grades proposed at both intersections exceed 3% for the first one hundred (100) feet. This criteria is presented on Page A18345 of the subdivision regulations. 2. A culvert pipe be installed under the proposed extension near the intersection with Glen Lake Road. 3. The resulting increase in the rate of stormwater runoff associated with the new road should be calculated and the impact on the existing drainage system in Glen Lake Road assessed. 4. The relatively steep grade (8.2%) of the extension should start at the edge of Northwood Drive versus the center of the existing road. Otherwise, the cross pitch of Northwood Drive will become too steep, approximately eight (8) percent. 5. Traffic flow at the intersection of Hawthorne Road, Northwood Drive, and the proposed extension is ill defined. Proposed signage should be shown.” MR. VOLLARO-Has there been a response to that letter? MRS. MOORE-No, there has not, and I think the applicant can provide that, but I’ll continue with the Highway Department letter dated July 24, 2000. “I have reviewed the application for the extension of Northwood Drive of Courthouse Estates. Listed below are two concerns I have for this application: *During a previous discussion with Mr. McCormack, I indicated that Hawthorne Road needs to intersect with Northwood Drive at a right angle. *The shoulder and the bank on the West side of the proposed extension of Northwood Drive poses a danger if not addressed properly. Ample amount of shoulder width and stability is necessary. If you have any additional questions or concerns please feel free to contact the Highway Office.” I have a letter dated July 12, 2000, from Ralph VanDusen of the Water Department, “I have reviewed the application for a roadway extension from Northwood Drive to Glen Lake Road. If this connection is installed an 8” water line should be installed to connect Northwood to Glen Lake Road. This will provide a second feed to the subdivision. If there is a problem with the existing water supply line the entire subdivision will be without water. A second feed would also drastically increase the fire flow capabilities. During peak summer months, we have received low pressure complaints from some residents of Courthouse Estates. This connection would correct that. Please call me if you have any questions.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MC CORMACK-My name is John McCormack, developer of Courthouse Estates. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. MC CORMACK-Where would you like to start? Do you want to talk about the access, first of all, the need of? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. MC CORMACK-This Board here is new to this subdivision, but this subdivision is certainly not new to the Town of Queensbury. Section III has been a problem with regards to access. Any subdivision over 50 lots must have two means of ingress and entry. The Planning Board at the time had agreed that if we had purchased property from Dave Kenny alongside of Days Inn, that the final approval of those lots in Section III would be in hand, once that property was obtained and secured, which we did. Unfortunately, the Town Board didn’t agree with the Planning Board, and consequently, that property now sits there in our ownership with no practical use out onto Route 9. We have been to the County of Warren eight separate times for different accesses from either County property onto Route 9 or our property which adjoins County property onto their easterly pavement, which is approximately 150 feet parallel from their road to our road, for an emergency access scenario. The Glen Lake Road positioning of Section III has a difference of anywhere from 90 to 100 foot difference in elevations. Next to bringing in individual aircraft for each home, there’s no, there was no other way of getting the secondary access into the development. Until this scenario came up, which I had brought to the attention of the Town Supervisor, Chris Round, a few of the Town Board members, along with the Highway Superintendent and the Water Department, who I brought out to the site and asked them before I got to this point if they felt that this was an adequate access into and out of Courthouse Estates to meet the requirement of emergency vehicle access and egress. Presently, there’s about 450 feet from the existing entrance to Hawthorne Road where, should a tree fall, an emergency vehicle could not get into the development. So this would alleviate that problem. We’re talking approximately about a 230 foot piece of road. I believe you all have the Section I and II map, indicating in yellow that parcel that we’re talking about. As you can see, it’s a very small piece of property. It would be a 60 foot wide width by approximately 220 feet long. It does meet the access that we need to bring in emergency vehicles, and it also, by the same token, allows us to complete the balance 35 lots of the subdivision that was zoned single family residential, 20 or 30 years ago. Without that entry way, the Town has 30 or 40 acres of property sitting out there that is inaccessible to anyone. Again, when I brought all the constituents from the Town to the site, I asked them for their open opinion about this, and they were all in agreement that this was probably the best alternative that they had seen, in the 16 years that this has been going on, including Rick Missita, who agreed that, providing that we built it to his specifications, his specifications, not our specifications, that he would be more than happy to accept it as a Town road. MR. MAC EWAN-I think, John, he meant his specifications meant the Town specifications for subdivision. MR. MC CORMACK-That’s correct. That’s what I assumed. So here we are in front of you tonight with a proposal for a 60 foot wide road. We have taken the opportunity to make the arrangements with regards to property between the adjoining owners, so that this parcel could be acquired for the roadway, and the only other thing I’d like to address with regards to C.T. Male’s comments is, Number One, the drainage issue, obviously, is an issue, at an 8.3% grade line, and culverts and pits would be installed on either side of this roadway, which is an obvious given for any construction project with an 8% grade to it. The tie in that Mr. Missita addresses with regards to Hawthorne Road, is that we’re not going to pave up to the existing road and leave it at that. We’re actually going to re-do most of that radius of Hawthorne Road, so that this new road blends in at the same levels, so that there’s no abrupt change in grade from one road to the other, and the radius point from Hawthorne Road heading southwest, down the new proposed road, would match the radius on the property on the northeast corner, which would be the Bryant property. The next issue that C.T. Male addresses is one that you’d have to scratch your head a little bit over in that they stipulate that they’re looking for a three percent grade of 100 feet from both directions. Well, we’re talking about a 220 foot piece of road in the first place. If we have an 8.3% grade, and we’re looking for 100 feet at 3% in one direction, and 100 feet in the other direction, that only leaves us 20 feet left. Well, that 20 foot would be probably a 45 degree angle, based on the criteria which they’re looking for. Do you see what I’m saying about that? We’ve got a 220 foot piece of road. One hundred foot in each direction, at three percent, when you’ve got an 8.3% grade, there’s no way that can work. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re right, there isn’t any way it can work, and maybe in this instance it shouldn’t work. That’s something I’m looking at. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, according to the constituents that were at the overviewing, the day that I brought the Town officials down there, they all agreed that the grade was acceptable, well, I mean, the person who needed to make that decision was Mr. Missita, and he agreed that it was an acceptable grade. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. VOLLARO-Well, he doesn’t say anything in his letter about the 8.3% grade. MR. MC CORMACK-Rick does not. MR. VOLLARO-Rick doesn’t. He doesn’t say anything in his letter about that. I happened to ask him about this last night at a Town Board meeting, and asked him how he felt about plowing an 8.3% grade road, and his answer to me was, not a problem. We plow those all the time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you a perfect example of something that’s even more than eight percent, is Northwest Village Road, going up West Mountain. That’s probably close to 12, maybe 15%. That’s pretty steep. MR. MC CORMACK-I think it also should be noted the actual usage of this road. If you look at your maps, you’ll see that generally most people heading to Glens Falls will follow the same road configuration that’s presently there on Hawthorne Road out onto Courthouse Drive and down Glen Lake Road. For people to use Northwood right straight through to Glen Lake Road, is actually probably I would think from their perspective, out of their way. It’s actually easier to turn onto Northwood and down Courthouse Drive and out. The actual usage here, it’s not like we’re adding an additional, 20, 30, 40, 50 lots to this subdivision, at that juncture. That portion of the subdivision is already built out. There are no more lots available. So we’re not adding additional traffic flow. We’re simply meeting the Town criteria, as far as egress is concerned, for a subdivision having more than 50 lots. So again, on a 220 foot piece of blacktop, the usage on this is really going to be minimal, but it becomes a maximum item with regards to emergency access into the development, should something happen at the entryway. So I don’t see any additional usage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-May I ask a question, Mr. McCormack? You want to finish Phase III. You would like to be able to make Phase III compliant. MR. MC CORMACK-Over time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and how many lots are in Phase III? MR. MC CORMACK-There’s an additional 35 lots, and you need to understand that I’m the sole developer of Courthouse Estates, and I only build two houses a year. So it’s not like a Michaels Group scenario where 50 lots are subdivided and approved and 50 lots come on to the marketplace within a 12 or a 24 month period. This is a 10 to 15 year additional project for me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So right now you’re just under 50 lots, 50 homes in Courthouse Estates? MR. MC CORMACK-No, there’s more than that. Between Sections I, II, and III there’s more than 50. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well that’s, I guess, my question, is you need another egress if you have over 50 lots. Well, you already have, this is in the new section you’re talking about, in the Section III. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, if you look at your map, all these sections are in the same area. They all interconnect. There’s only one entryway into all of them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s only one entryway, period, into all of Courthouse Estates? MR. MC CORMACK-That’s correct. This would provide the second emergency vehicle access point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there any way that you could put that connector road in, 200 feet in, and tell people they can’t use it, it’s only for emergency vehicles? MR. MC CORMACK-I think that would be up to the Town to make that decision. MR. VOLLARO-No. Once you accept a Town road, that becomes a road that everybody’s free to use. You can’t restrict a Town road. It’s public transportation at that point. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and probably the time that you’d need to use it for emergency vehicles, snow, ice, they might not be able to get up it. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s the other problem that I see. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second, John. Who might not be able to? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-The emergency vehicles might not be able to access the site. MR. MC CORMACK-Why? MR. STROUGH-Well, I live on Hillside Drive, or off of Hillside Drive. I’ve lived Hillside Drive for, Bill Threw ended up with that development. I can remember, that’s off of West Mountain Road. MR. MC CORMACK-What’s the name of that development? MR. STROUGH-Stonecroft. MR. MC CORMACK-Stonecroft, okay. MR. STROUGH-And I can remember the original road was proposed to follow the terrain, which would make it a 10% grade, and I can remember Paul Naylor, when he first became Highway Superintendent, said, there ain’t going to be no, and I don’t want to use his words exactly, you know Paul, but I don’t want anymore Northwest Villages. Eight percent grade, that’s going to be the max. So I see Bill Threw moving dirt and cutting the banks down, if you’re familiar with Hillside Drive, and he’d come over, Paul would pull over in front of Hillside Drive, the proposed Hillside Drive, and he’s have his little scope, measure the angle of the road, and Bill Threw would be up on his tractor and he’d say, he kept on doing it, and Bill would shake his head. He had no place to put the dirt, but he insisted that it’s not going to exceed an eight percent grade. Okay. So I’m familiar with an eight percent grade. Now we even have a little part that levels out as it enters West Mountain Road, okay. There’s a little bit of landing area, I’m not sure what you would call it, and there’s a little measure of safety, but even then with a two wheel drive vehicle and bad weather, be it snow or ice, before I bought the big, bad vehicle that I’ve got now, I would go right out into West Mountain Road, and one of the reasons why I got a big, bad vehicle, because I couldn’t get up Hillside Drive. If they haven’t plowed yet, and I had a two wheel drive vehicle, you can’t make it, and if there’s ice, forget it. So that’s an eight percent grade. So that has me concerned here, John, in that it’s a short steady and there’s no, as it enters Glen Lake Road, there’s no leveling off, no measure of security. Now I was just wondering, thinking out loud to myself, and it’s one of the things I was talking about, putting the cart before the horse, why you didn’t use that lot and extend Hawthorne Road, I mean, make it longer, so that you could make that gradient more gradual. This never occurred? MR. MC CORMACK-Well, if you looked at the topography, you’d understand that. MR. STROUGH-I did. I’ve been over there twice, okay, and this, and giving yourself more room, using some fill in, where the wall is there and the old driveway, and giving that more of a, because you’ve got more distance, because you’re going from Point A to Point B, you’re just giving yourself more road, that will take, that will take some of the grade out of the road, because you’ve extended the length of the road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good idea. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, that may be a good idea, but look at the ramifications that are created by that. Number One, you have Mr. Tucker, who was here previous, talking about the impact on his property. The minute you swing that road out, you’re talking about 15 to 16 foot lifts of fill, okay, between the top of that road. We’ve already done the topo on it, between the top of that road, and the existing grade, you’re talking about 15 to 16 foot lifts, okay. Now we’re talking about potential guardrailing. MR. STROUGH-You’re talking about that anyways, even Paul Naylor. MR. MC CORMACK-Not in this scenario. That scenario does not occur here. MR. STROUGH-Well, I had a discussion with Mr. Missita. He’s very concerned about the drop off on the east side of that proposed road. He is very concerned. We may be talking about guardrails. MR. MC CORMACK-He has not looked at the final plan and the situation of where that road now sits. MR. STROUGH-Not yet. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, it’s very important that before he makes his observations about his concern, he needs to know where it’s actually plotted on the property. After it’s plotted on the property, then if he has a concern to that, then he’s justified, but that concern was addressed by us, and it was shifted further to the east, excuse me, to the west, so as to alleviate that problem that he’s concerned about. Visually, probably his first impression is that, well, that may be a consideration, but shifting that to the west by that additional 10 feet takes care of that problem. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m just suggesting, one of my jobs, 179-15, Section Five, first paragraph, is I’m supposed to make sure that the design and construction of roads and streets are safe and convenient, and I think that this would be a safer road, because I’m familiar with an eight percent grade, and you’re actually exceeding that by a little bit, but I’m already familiar with an eight percent grade, and if it was an eight percent grade and had a little bit of a safety zone as it entered Glen Lake, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but as it is, it goes right to Glen Lake Road. MR. MC CORMACK-Which again is not going to be a primary used road. It’s going to be an emergency access road. MR. STROUGH-Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-What section of the Ordinance did you just read from? MR. STROUGH-179-15, Page 18090. Just a suggestion, but I thought that possibly you would take some of the grade out of that, obtain your secondary access to your neighborhood, and it would be a safer road. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that goes along with what C.T. Male said in their first, the street grades proposed at both intersections exceed three percent for the first 100 feet. This criteria is presented on Page 18345 of the Subdivision Reg’s. So what their talking about is flattening it out at both ends. Now, he just mentioned that a little while ago, that in flattening those out at both ends, it gets about 20 foot of road left. So, I don’t know. I happen to be with you on this one, John. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, let me just make a comment here. We’re obligated to meet the construction criteria of the Town of Queensbury’s Highway Department. Is that not correct? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s part of the Subdivision Reg’s. MR. MC CORMACK-Right, with regard to road construction also, correct? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. MC CORMACK-So, if that is the fact, then do I fall into the category of, this Board here says yes, we agree that conceptually this road is approved by this Board, under the criteria that the construction is met by the Town standards, the Town Highway Department standards? Or is it your position that you mandate the percentages of grade and the construction process of the roads to be built? MR. MAC EWAN-My opinion, no, we don’t do that. MR. MC CORMACK-That’s the Highway Department’s decision? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the Highway Department. MR. MC CORMACK-So my proposal for this road tonight is whether or not this Town Board agrees that this is a good idea to alleviate a problem that’s been in existence for 20 some odd years, knowing there are no other alternatives, literally no other alternatives, and whether the balance 35 acres are developed or not, the Town still has a problem with a subdivision that has over 50 lots in it, and no secondary access to it. Now there has to be a certain amount of given and take, to a certain degree here, because, as I say, this is 16 years I’ve been in front of these Boards, trying to get a secondary access into the development. Here’s the best case scenario of all, after all these years. MR. STROUGH-Well, John, I agree with you on the secondary access, and the need for it, but I just thought that another plan might be a little bit better, and we’ve got to keep public safety in mind. That’s part of our job. At least that’s the way I see it, and I’m speaking for myself. MR. MC CORMACK-But again, the construction of the road is based on the Town of Queensbury Highway Department’s stipulation on how they want it done, and that criteria we have to meet within that Department. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have to say this, with all due respect, I don’t know, Mr. McCormack, if you’re a Civil Engineer, because I know a lot of builders are, but I know Rick Missita is not a Civil Engineer, and I think this is probably a project that needs to have professional engineering look into it, and I agree that there definitely needs to be another access road here, but maybe Mr. Missita doesn’t have all the knowledge and the background either, as far as, I’m not putting him down or anything like that, but he is not a Civil Engjneer. He’s obtained his experience at on the job training, and maybe this is a case where somebody that, you know, that needs to come in with that kind of a 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) background, and take into account what John Strough has drawn there. I know the sad thing is to do something like that is going to cost a lot more money than you probably want to put into it, but I also have to say this. You were concerned about Mr. Tucker. Well, I was concerned about the other people that were the original builders, the people that originally supported you, like the Bryants, in the first part of your development. I would be more concerned about them, too, and how a road coming in there is going to change and effect their quality of life, too, but I think, and I have to get this off my chest, that this really is a project that needs to have some people that are in the department of building roads, and in the profession of building roads, look at. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what our Highway Department does. They build roads. MR. MC CORMACK-That’s what I was going to say. So, this Highway Department is not? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t know. It’s not headed by a professional engineer, and I have a problem with that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s neither here nor there. I mean, whether you philosophically disagree with what the academics of an individual running a department or an organization within the Town is immaterial to this Board. You’ve got a Highway Superintendent that has to go by the criteria that’s outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, before he signs off on any road being adopted by the Town and taken over by the Town, it has to meet those requirements, and if it doesn’t, the developer has to make it meet those requirements. MR. STROUGH-I’m not so convinced that we have to do that. I mean, our sense of public safety may differ from the Highway Department’s. The Highway Department even has some reservations. MR. MAC EWAN-But the Highway Department has the legal, binding authority to accept roads in this Town. MR. STROUGH-Then it shouldn’t even be here, Craig, but it is, and I drove up there looking for other alternate ways for you to get in that Courthouse Estates, and you’re pretty landlocked. I mean. MR. MC CORMACK-Sixteen years. MR. STROUGH-But I do see something that might be working. MR. MC CORMACK-That’s why I brought most of the Town people up there, to have them take a look at it. They all agreed that that was the way to go. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments, questions from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-My only question is I’d like to see some response to the July 13 C.T. Male letter. I th think that’s the only thing that, let’s see what the response to their position is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Comments from Staff? Could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes? We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? Come up and identify yourself for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANGELA BRYANT MRS. BRYANT-Angela Bryant, and I live on Hawthorne Road, and I’ll be quick, just two concerns, and they’re both for safety. One is for my family, because if you do go by my house, I’m going to be backing up, my driveway will be right at the corner. So I’m going to be backing, my daughters are going to be backing into an intersection, and my other concern is Glen Lake Road. I take that road a lot, and it’s right, in order to get into that new road, we’re going to have to stop on a hill, and in bad weather and whatever, I think it’s only going to add to more safety concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. RON BRYANT MR. BRYANT-Keep it in the family. Ron Bryant, 9 Hawthorne, directly adjacent to the proposed Northwood Drive extension to Glen Lake. I’d like to first touch on a couple of things that John said. Number One, John, I want to give you some credit here. You do build a heck of a nice house, don’t take it personal. As far as no usage with this road, that’s bunk. I live there. I take Glen Lake now, going out onto the pillars and taking a left now on Glen Lake. Why? Because although it’s a lot longer distance, it’s quicker in time. The traffic flow on the Miracle Half Mile, and with The 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Great Escape, forget about it. You’re not going to go anywhere. So it’s quicker to go Glen Lake, in the months of June through August, I’ll guarantee you that. As far as some of the negative impacts of, I’m on a blind corner there. Because of the way my corner lot is, if you’re coming from Northwood Drive and turning on to Hawthorne, where the proposed intersection is going to be, you cannot see vehicles coming off of Hawthorne now. I have extra property there in the corner. There’s foliage there. There is my garage there. The way my house is angled, you can’t see oncoming traffic. You’re going to have a main intersection right there now. You need to look at that. Where this road enters, I mentioned it earlier, but I want it on record, it enters in the middle of a hill, existing hill that’s blind. You do not see, you will not see this intersection coming onto Glen Lake, in inclement weather, until you come and go over the hill. If you’re exceeding your speed, you’re not going to have enough time to correct and to stop. You’re not going to create a safer emergency road for our development. You’re going to create a situation where there’s going to be more response to automobile accidents and emergencies. You need to look at that. We’ve had accidents already right there. Again, I’d like to feel sorry for John, but he bought all that property years ago, and it was landlocked and he got it probably for a heck of a price, because of that reason. I mean, he builds a heck of a home, but to say we’re going to give him 30 or 40 more homes, maybe it’s time to stop. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s neither here or nor there. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, I don’t know the logistics, so correct me if I’m wrong. One thing it’s going to effect is it’s going to impact my lot the way it exists now. They’re going to have to widen the road. Anybody that knows me, whenever I have days off, I’m working in my yard. There’s countless hours, a lot of money I’ve put into my property. We really value our property. You’re going to take the equity out of my home that I’ve built up after 25 years of living there. I’m not opposing a road to connect. I think the development could use another road, but where the proposed location is now, it’s not the right area. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a suggestion of where a more appropriate area may be? MR. BRYANT-I’m not an engineer. As John alluded to, there’s another option there. John wants to get money for two more lots. He doesn’t want to build a road down there, because it costs more to build the road, and he won’t get the money for the lot. He’s a businessman. I’d do the same thing. I’d come in front of you and propose it. It’s inappropriate. The way the road is proposed is inappropriate. That’s why I asked you earlier not to entertain the proposed lots. Well, we did that. Finally, my opinion is that the current proposed road location is strictly a cheap fix to a difficult problem that he’d been alluding to for 16 years. It’s the closest existing road to Glen Lake. It’s cheaper to build a road from that point to Glen Lake because of the distance. It’s not rocket science. Is it the safest? Hell, no. It only benefits John McCormack, in my opinion, the road where it’s proposed. That’s the only one it benefits. It doesn’t benefit me, a 25 year resident of that area. It’s as simple as that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-But, Ron, you would agree that there does need to be a secondary access for emergency vehicles some place? MR. BRYANT-Yes. It was talked about years ago that we could cut a couple of trees down and get just an emergency area to go to the County Municipal Center, where ambulances could respond, fire trucks could go through there, and it wouldn’t be open to normal traffic flow. That was an alternative. Of course the County has to be involved in that, and I guess at the time, they didn’t like the proposal. That to me is the perfect fix. You would not have to allow everybody to go through there, and yet just put a gate there, County property, and if somebody had to respond in an emergency, use that. It saves John money and still gives you the extra roadway. That would be my proposal. PAUL SOKOL MR. SOKOL-Hi. I’m Paul Sokol. I was up here earlier. I do have some engineering background, about three years at RPI, and if you’d indulge me for a moment, I want to roughly show you an eight percent grade. I counted the ceiling tiles in this room. There’s 22 of them. That makes it 44 feet across. These are two foot tiles. At 100 feet, an 8% grade would be 8 feet. Do we all agree on that? Fifty feet it would be half that distance, which is four feet. So this is something less than four feet, which is about here. From the floor on that end of the room to here is an eight percent grade. I am familiar with eight percent grades. I live in Clendon Ridge, over on the other side of Town. That has a 13% grade, in the entrance to that development. So, we have people screaming percentages of grade, and I don’t know if everybody on the Board understands what an eight percent grade is. That would be a very good indication of an eight percent grade. It’s not scary. It’s not steep. If you go to that site right now and look at the rough terrain going up through there, it ends abruptly at Glen 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) Lake Road. To the untrained eye, it would look very steep, but if you run a straight line from Hawthrone down, it’s not a steep grade, eight percent is not an extensive grade. I’ve had this argument with Mr. Naylor many times. Another issue that I’d like to address, and it may come up, is traffic impact on Route 9. I think one of the things that we, as a Town, have to stop doing is stop penalizing our tax paying residents for the Million Dollar Half Mile and The Great Escape. Most of the people that visit the Million Dollar Half Mile and The Great Escape are not taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury. So whatever impact our residents, our taxpaying residents have on our local roads, that should be the concern that we, we’ve almost got it backwards, in other words, we want to build some houses, let’s say, or we want to put a house on a piece of property, and the roads can’t handle, and what the roads can’t handle is our tourism, okay, and the roads should handle our residents, all right. I think they should be our first priority. Of course I’ve been on the site. I have no vested interest in this road, or anything like that, but I think it’s a pretty good proposal. I also think that Mr. McCormack, on his 40 acres that he wants to make money on, has lost a lot of money on it. I think for the last 16 years he’s paid taxes to this Town, on a piece of property he can’t use, and no matter which way he goes, nobody will give him access to, and I think that should be a strong consideration of this Board, because he is a taxpayer in this Town also. People in this Town always have ideas of what people should do with their land. That’s easy for them to say, they’re not paying for it. I think John has been a great attribute to this Town over the years. He’s built fine homes, as even the people opposing this road will admit to, and he’s got a great eye for things. He’s been nothing but an attribute to this Town, and I think the hardship he’s been through, and indeed it has been hardship, you know, and the attributes combined, that should be a strong consideration to everybody on this Board, in my mind’s eye, and before we start spouting off about eight percent grades, I think we should have a good understanding of what one looks like. MR. VOLLARO-I have a good understanding of an eight percent grade. MR. SOKOL-And I just gave a good example of an eight percent grade, reasonably good, as best as I could in this room. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. SOKOL-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-I live on an eight percent grade. MR. SOKOL-I live on a 13%. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, may I? I’m sorry, I just want to state that I still think we ought to get this 13 July memo from C.T. Male responded to. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get to that. Let’s finish the public hearing. DON SIPP MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. To begin with, this road has been needed for 15 to 16 years. In which time, 15 or 16 years ago, there were a lot more options open which were not taken. No sense crying over the problems that occurred at that time. We do need a second road. We have been living with this for longer than the 16 years, when you went over 50 houses in this subdivision. Whether this is the right one, I don’t know. It provides easy access. It is, in my way of thinking, slightly unsafe. If we take the figures off of Coulter & McCormack’s map for Section I, the difference in elevation from Glen Lake Road to Northwood Drive, as it is now, goes from 480 feet to 502 feet, which figures out roughly to be that eight percent grade that we’re talking about. I am also concerned about the grade on Hawthorne, from the top of Hawthorne, down to the bottom where it turns onto Northwood, which goes from 504 to 492, which figures out to be at that very short distance of 120 feet, to be a 10% grade. This, to me, is one of the problems here. The school bus stops on the corner of Hawthorne and Courthouse Drive. It discharges or picks up students there. Those students, then, must walk down Hawthorne, and in the middle of winter, with snow banks on either side, and that road being icy, we’ve already lost one school bus off the edge of that Hawthorne Road, I’m sure a lot of cars have gone off of there during the wintertime. When these two meet, now, we’re creating another problem, because you’re going to have cars coming up this extension of Northwood, and there must be erected there stop signs that would be big enough that people would be forced to stop, because this is a dangerous intersection. Now, if we allow another driveway to come on to Northwood, at approximately this same area, we are creating almost a four way area right there, stop sign, two of which are coming uphill, one of which is going downhill, and one of which is on the level, and to me, this becomes an unsafe proposition. I also wonder about the line of sight from the bottom of the extension of Northwood along Glen Lake Road. I am very happy that the Water Department will run us another eight inch water line, if this proposed road goes through at this point, because we do have low water pressure, particularly in the summertime. The County outlet, which was just mentioned, would work fine, in the summertime, but it wouldn’t work 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) too well in the wintertime with snow piled on Courthouse Drive, but if there is a development, and I give Mr. McCormack credit for his development, and he has a right to develop his land in Courthouse III. If this development takes place, we definitely have to have another access road, wherever it may be. My only concern with this is the safety probably to the children and to the residents in this area, because of these slopes. We have a tough enough time stopping at the end of Courthouse Drive right now, when it is icy, because there is a slight down grade, and you must pull out practically onto Glen Lake Road to get a good line of sight, and I can see, in an eight percent slope, which may not seem much to some people, but at the bottom of the extension proposed, there is quite a, well, it’s at one of the steepest parts of this slope. Whatever way it’s done, we definitely need some access road. We have been a time bomb waiting to go off there, because one storm in which a pine tree of 20 inches in diameter goes down across Courthouse Drive, we are cut off from the rest of the world, and in the case of somebody being injured, we could not, except by walking, get any emergency personnel into this area. I commend John for his way of thinking about this. I think there were a lot of lost opportunities 16 years ago that this could have been settled long before this, but whatever he decides, whether it runs parallel to this Northwood, or we extend Hawthorne down onto the Kilmartin old property, whatever is the choice here, we definitely need some kind of access road in order to promote safety within this subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? SUSAN URRICO MRS. URRICO-I’m Susan Urrico. I live on the other side of Ron, on Northwood Drive, and like Angela, I’ll be brief. I have kids. That road is dangerous as it is now. With an extension coming up the hill, it’s not going to get any better, and I’m concerned because, even as an adult driving around that corner, it’s hard now, and if you put another road coming in from this side, it’s going to be even more difficult to see. Yes, John deserves a road so he can develop his land, but that road will serve Courthouse I and II. If a tree falls across the end of Forest, nobody’s going to be able to get back into three and four anyway. You can have your emergency vehicles come in to one or two, which will be great for us, but it will not serve the back forty, so to speak. So, that’s all I have to say. I just think that it’s a plan that needs work. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. JOE GEROSKI MR. GEROSKI-I’ll be brief, also. My name’s Joe Geroski. I live up in the other end of Courthouse Drive. I came in there when it was Courthouse I, and it was one road. The Town allowed the construction to be built, didn’t the problem. They allowed Section III to be built, and they didn’t address the problem. If we’re going to solve the problem, let’s do it right. Let’s not just take any alternative, just to wash our hands of the situation. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. WILLIAM TUCKER MR. TUCKER-William Tucker. Hearing that he wants to put the road in, I’ve lived there for 12 years, and people coming down that hill have gone off the road on both sides, during the winter. MR. MAC EWAN-On Glen Lake Road, you mean? MR. TUCKER-On Glen Lake Road. They’ve also ended up in my front lawn, for whatever reason, the steepness of the road. Putting in the Million Dollar Half Mile has also increased the traffic on Glen Lake Road. People coming from Vermont have found this as a bypass to bypass the Million Dollar Half Mile and scoot onto the Northway. Adding another intersection there is just going to increase the problem more. The runoff that will come from that is going to go into that inlet for Glen Lake. The Glen Lake inlet is probably 200, 300 feet on the downhill side, and I don’t know if the added salt or anything would have any environmental impact or not. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I also have a letter of comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. ROY URRICO MR. URRICO-Hi, again. I’m Roy Urrico, and I live at 27 Northwood Drive. I’m also concerned about where this road will end up on Glen Lake Road. As you come out of the complex, the 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) proposed road, to your left, you have a blind turn, coming from the left, coming from, basically, the east side on Glen Lake Road, and given the proposals we have with The Great Escape expansion, with their light proposed and their entrance to Great Escape, proposed at Route 9 and Glen Lake Road, Glen Lake Road will become more traveled than it is now. It won’t just be. It’s highly traveled now. It will be even more traveled when Great Escape puts that extra entrance in there, when it becomes one of their main entrances. People coming from 149, Bay Road, Ridge Road, will be cutting through Glen Lake Road, and I also agree that there needs to be a solution. This area, though, it’s going to be treacherous. I don’t think we can predict how many people are going to use this access road, because I think once it’s there it will become more used, and we’re going to have a bad situation made even worse, by having more cars enter the intersection there, or enter Glen Lake Road at that proposed site. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I think for the time being, you’ve got a letter, don’t you? MRS. MOORE-Yes. This is dated July 24, 2000, from Bruce Levin, he says, “I have two purposes for writing the Planning Board. First as a resident (4 Nelson Rd.) whose property adjoins the property formerly owned by Kilmartin, and secondly as a representative of the Lake George Central School District. As a resident, I would endorse the extension of the road to provide a second means of access to Courthouse Estates. I would like to see proper signage, one indicating children playing, because of the many young children who live at the top of the hill which will be created by the extension of Northwood Drive. I would also like to see three stop signs placed at the intersection with Hawthorne to slow traffic. As a school representative, the current exit is hazardous for exiting school buses from Courthouse Estates on to Glen Lake Road. Mr. McCormack was responsive to the school concern for increased visibility for school buses and regraded the entrance in 1988 to improve the situation. Mr. McCormack has also, at his expense, moved mounds of snow back each year to ensure adequate sight lines for residents and buses. The increased visibility of the new exit would provide a safer exiting situation for the buses. I think that visibility should be a major consideration when creating the exit/entrance, and would encourage that the developer keep this in mind by avoiding large plantings or concrete structures that could obscure the view. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think for the time being, we’ll leave the public hearing open. Discussions? Comments? Ideas? All of the above? Come on back up, John. MR. MC CORMACK-First of all, it’s been addressed several times about the sight clearance from the new proposed entryway, and through a certified surveyor, being my father, Andrew McCormack of Coulter & McCormack, it has been stated that we have over 300 feet of sight clearance in both directions. Presently, the existing entrance, we do not have that same sight clearance. I think that should be noted that there is actually better sight clearance from the new proposed road. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that in the form of that letter right there? MR. MC CORMACK-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that part of the record, does Staff have it? Okay. MR. MC CORMACK-The second issue that I think ought to be addressed is that it’s been mentioned that within the 16 year period, there were other opportunities for a secondary entryway into the development, and that is totally incorrect. Because it has been 16 years that I have been working on getting this entryway into it, and primarily, I would have to say once the, especially the County of Warren asking us never to come back to address the road issue with their property line, left us no other alternative than the Million Dollar Half Mile, and I don’t have to tell you that, reiterate the story about the Town Board telling us that we cannot go out onto Route 9, even though we purchased the property for the secondary access for Section III. So it needs to be noted that we have been attempting an access into this development for 16 years now. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you jump back to that? You struck my curiosity. The Town Board told you, you have property purchased to gain access onto Route 9? MR. MC CORMACK-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And the Town Board told you? MR. MC CORMACK-Right. They didn’t care what the Planning Board had to say. They were not going to accept a road out onto Route 9. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-The current Town Board? MR. MC CORMACK-This was back when Dick Roberts was the Planning Board Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. MC CORMACK-Okay, and Dick Roberts had agreed with the rest of the Planning Board that if we acquire property from Dave Kenny, for roadway access from the back of his property, and alongside the westerly property of the present Days Inn, that little, the old strip mall there, well that 50 feet of that, right out onto Route 9, is our property now. MR. MAC EWAN-You own it. MR. MC CORMACK-I own it. MR. MAC EWAN-You have deed to it. The comment, was it Dick Roberts you said made that to you, that the Town Board won’t accept your? You’re confusing me on that. MR. MC CORMACK-No. The Planning Board, in writing, you could probably find it in the record somewhere, agreed that if we made that purchase, they would accept, or give us the final approval for Section III. Okay. So we did all that, at our expense. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Okay. MR. MC CORMACK-Okay. Then we went to the Town Board, for the approval to get out onto Route 9, and they said, we don’t care what the Planning Board has to say, we’re not going to accept this roadway. Therefore, the reason that there’s 15 lots, started in Section III, was because I threatened to sue the Town for what they had done to us, as far as making these purchases are concerned, and to alleviate the problem, they granted us 15 additional lots in the subdivision. Why? Because there was 15 lots that were not built on at the time. So we didn’t exceed the 50 lot subdivision scenario. So that appeased me and it appeased them, and kept them out of court. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it seems to me we may have a solution here in the works, then, after all. Because a couple of points of fact here. Correct me if I’m wrong. The Town Board doesn’t have authority to deny or grant your request for a curb cut, or for a road, a dedicated road. That’s the Highway Superintendent’s job. Secondly, you need to get a curb cut approval from the New York State DOT on Route 9. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, I didn’t need a curb cut. The curb cut is already there. It’s a pre-existing entryway. MRS. RADNER-You need to check the record and find out what really happened, though, before we assume anything. I mean, years have gone by. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. MR. SIPPS-Could I speak here? MR. MAC EWAN-Let us just finish up with this part. MR. SIPPS-This has to do with this, because I have the minutes of the Town Board meeting in which this was discussed. What Mr. McCormack is saying is basically true. At the time, and I can’t think of his name, but I can tell you the identifying, neck brace. MR. RINGER-Borgos. MR. SIPPS-He was the Town Supervisor. During that meeting, it was proposed, and I believe this was a 30 foot strip, 35 foot strip, and there was Betty Little. MR. MC CORMACK-It’s 50 foot. It goes down to 35 at the point where the building meets, that existing concrete building, it widens back out to 50. MR. SIPPS-Yes, well, anyway, there was a long discussion on the advisability of using this as another access road, and it was denied by the Town Board, and I have the minutes of that Board meeting. At another Board meeting it was also brought up that they would allow 15 houses to be built on Equinox, and then there was to be, you were to seek another way in or out, and I believe at that time is when you went to the County. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MC CORMACK-No, we had been to the County several times before that. MR. SIPPS-You had been to the County before that. So that what has happened here has been Mr. McCormack had a right of way, alongside of Days Inn, and it was denied as an access road, and this was before much of this Million Dollar Half Mile was done. Now, I will go back even further than when you and your father purchased the land from Tramposh, we asked you to purchase his house and driveway, which would have given you ready access to Route 9, which you did not do. MR. MC CORMACK-I don’t ever remember that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Wait a minute. I don’t want to get into a bantering, a difference of philosophy here. MR. SIPPS-But he brought it up in saying that there were other, I said there were other options. He said there wasn’t, and I wanted to make that clear. Because I have a copy of the purchase, and all that was purchased was the land, and the house and the driveway that bordered on Route 9 before, way before the Million Dollar Half Mile, there were two seedy motels on either side of that Tramposh property, of which one was practically falling down, that there was an opportunity, I believe there, to purchase a right of way, of one of those motels, to give you access to that back lot, but what he said about the Town Board denying him access is true. MRS. RADNER-What’s the date of that meeting? MR. SIPPS-It would be 1988, I believe. MRS. RADNER-Well, you said you had the minutes there. Do you have the date of the minutes? MR. SIPPS-I don’t have them with me, but I can get them for you. MRS. RADNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you call the Planning Staff tomorrow and give them that information, Don? MR. SIPPS-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anything else, Mr. McCormack? MR. MC CORMACK-No. MR. STROUGH-John, that road that you said you had out to 9, was that supposed to be part of the connector road? I mean, that came out from Exit 20, went up, went north, and then one of the proposals was to swing back out to 9. Is that the corridor you’re talking about? MR. MC CORMACK-No. This is at the northwest corner of Section III, the undeveloped portion, and straight out, along parallel the Days Inn onto Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have a question. MR. MC CORMACK-But I’ll be honest with you. That was a great alternative for us, as developers, to be able to subdivide and complete that property, but, in all actuality, it’s the worst thing that could ever happen to Courthouse Estates. Because people would use that as a cut through, okay. I live in Courthouse Estates and have been for 20 some odd years, and I wouldn’t want to see that in our development either. I have as much love and concern for this development as the rest of these residents here. I have two hats, and that’s why I’ll do things like maintain the road system so that we have sight clearance in this development, and take care of whatever needs to be taken care of, because I live there, too, and, yes, it would have been a great scenario for me, as a developer, but as a person who lives in the development, that’s a bad, bad fix, and think about it realistically. Let’s start taking residential traffic out, right alongside the Days Inn. What do you think of that idea? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The thing is, the people, they probably wouldn’t use that, but it’s there for an emergency, but they would probably use the Glen Lake one. MR. MC CORMACK-Think about the distance factor, versus 220 feet, I mean, it’s no gain to me one way or the other. It’s already paved. It’s already done. There’s no cost factor, but it would make a whole lot more sense here than it would to run a 1,000 some or 1,500 feet of this one section of road, tying in to the back side of the development. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-But didn’t somebody just say that the Phase III doesn’t have, if one of the, that woman that was here earlier, if a tree went down on one of those? MR. MC CORMACK-That’s correct, and you’ll find that in most subdivisions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, if you could get back out onto Route 9. MR. MC CORMACK-But that doesn’t help out the first, the front section then. Yes, that would allow that back section. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They would still be able to get out. MR. MC CORMACK-If you saw it on a map, you’d know what she was talking about, and she’s right, but you’ll also find that same scenario in lot of subdivisions, even though it’s got two entrances. There are cul de sacs or situations where you can’t get out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of the late hour here, I have a suggestion. I’d like to get the Board member’s ideas on this. I move we table this tonight, and ask John to prepare, what I’d be looking for is construction drawings. I want to see how that road is going to be made. I’d like that, incorporated into those construction drawings, responding to C.T. Male’s letter of the 13 of July. th Those construction details submitted to the Town Highway Superintendent for his review. MR. MC CORMACK-Well, basically, if these construction drawings are done, and sent to the Highway Department to be approved, then got back here, you’re all right with that, right? MR. MAC EWAN-The concern here is that what I’m hearing going up and down the Board is an eight percent grade, and where it’s going to come out onto Glen Lake Road. I’d like to see the construction details on how you propose to do that. In conjunction with that, where you’re proposing for this access road to come off Northwood Road, out onto Glen Lake Road, stake it, the 50 foot right of way out there, right at the road, so that when we go back out on site visits, we can see where this road’s going to come out, where you’re proposing it. Okay. MR. MC CORMACK-Okay. It’s center line staked now. MR. MAC EWAN-Additionally, I’d like to see the alternative, alternate design showing, or not a design, but showing the access where you would have going out by the Days Inn. I’d like to see that route. MR. MC CORMACK-We have that already. MR. MAC EWAN-Fine, and submit that to the Town, to the Planning Staff, and as well, stake it only from Courthouse Estate side, so we could see where it would be cutting through the woods. MR. MC CORMACK-You’d have to walk that, because there’s 40 acres of nothing to it, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Then mark it so we can get to it. So we can see it, or mark it how you would build the road, where you would start the road off, Courthouse Estates or Equinox Drive, or wherever it would go out from, just so we could get an idea, visually. MR. MC CORMACK-You’re going to walk this? MR. MAC EWAN-If we can’t get to it where it buts up to the Million Dollar Half Mile property, stake it then where it would be leaving either Courthouse Estates Road or Equinox Drive. So we can see where it’s going. Okay? How does that sound to the Board members? MR. RINGER-Is there a way that we could get an engineer that specializes in road construction? MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male. MR. RINGER-He has specialized? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we have him. MR. RINGER-I mean, we can talk about engineers, or John’s saying he knows what an eight percent grade is or, if we’ve got an engineer that says, this is going to fit, it’s going to work. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I’m asking for this, because one of the questions, Item Number Four, they raise concern with the eight percent slope. MR. RINGER-He should not only look at that and get together with Rick Missita. MR. MC CORMACK-If you have a plan done and approved by the Highway Department, and it comes to you, and it’s approved by the Highway Department, the Board is all right with that? MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. MR. MC CORMACK-As far as the construction process is concerned? MR. MAC EWAN-I think you would probably ease a lot of minds on the Board if we saw that, how it was going to work and how it was proposed with sight distance, and the steepness of the grade. I’d certainly like to see the alternative design, too. MR. MC CORMACK-I’m just saying, it would make sense to have their approval before it gets here, rather than you questioning whether they’re going to approve it first? MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’re trying to do is get a good visual concept of what this proposed road’s going to look like, how it’s going to fit in up there, before we render a decision. MR. RINGER-I think we’d need a sign off from Male and Missita. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, Rick’s second portion of Rick’s letter says the shoulder and the bank of the west side of the proposed extension of Northwood Drive poses a danger if not addressed properly. Ample amount of shoulder width and stability is necessary. That’s got to be shown in a construction drawing that it’s done correctly. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think he knows our concerns, and that’s one of the things that, rather than wasting his time, possibly wasting his time, and sticking with this proposal, he might want to consider something of a less grade. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Couldn’t the Town come to your assistance and do, because this is, why can’t the Town? MR. STROUGH-Do you know what I mean, John, or is that completely out of the picture? Potentially something that might get you a little bit easier grade, and maybe a little bit of a landing zone? MR. MAC EWAN-I just don’t see any reason here, at 11 o’clock at night, to just sit here and continue to beat this. I put something up on the table. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just have to ask, why can’t the Town go 50/50 and help Mr. McCormack construct the road that is more viable. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not the Town’s job to do that. MRS. MOORE-The comment that I would request is that the revised drawings identify the driveways of the current or, since the new subdivision is existing, those new, the new curb cuts for houses in that area. MR. MC CORMACK-You keep saying houses. It’s only one lot. MRS. MOORE-Currently, you have one house, existing. MR. MC CORMACK-It’s a two lot subdivision, with only one house there. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MC CORMACK-So it’s only one lot. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’m sorry, then the new proposed lot I’d like to know where that driveway is, as well as the existing lots that are in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone comfortable with my suggestion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MR. METIVIER-The only thing I’ll ask is, before we have him stake out anything on the second driveway out to Route 9, is this something that we could overturn, what the Town Board stated in the past? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like that researched, but to my understanding, I don’t know what the particulars are regarding that Million Dollar Half Mile and how that all came to be. So I’d like to have that researched a little bit as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Definitely. MRS. MOORE-Understood. MRS. RADNER-The date for when all this information should be put together. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t even put up a motion yet to do that, but I would suspect that we’d be looking, it’s a hefty amount of homework. I would suspect you’re looking at September at this point. MR. MC CORMACK-The filing for August is yesterday? MRS. MOORE-It’s tomorrow by 4:30. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-63, 3-76 COURTHOUSE ESTATES, SECTION I & II, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Modification to approved subdivision to our meeting of September 19, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. That the design criteria and design construction details be supplied to the Town Planning Staff for review, as well as to C.T. Male and the Highway Superintendent for review; and 2. That the applicant address the comments in the C.T. Male letter of July 13, 2000, and 3. That their proposed road extension onto Glen Lake Road be staked out at the 50 foot wide right of ways for the Planning Board to review at site visits, and 4. That the alternative entrance that was discussed, going through Courthouse Estates property to the Million Dollar Half Mile property staked out where it would enter onto either Courthouse Estates Road or Equinox Road. 5. That the plot plans be revised to identify the driveways on Hawthorne and Northwood Drive and also the proposed driveway on the newly created lot. Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MC CORMACK-Have you closed the public hearing? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I left it open. MR. MC CORMACK-Is it still open? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. If I closed it, we’d have to re-advertise, and you’d have to pay. You wouldn’t want to do that, would you? MR. MC CORMACK-No, I wouldn’t want to do that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other business for the Planning Board? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The last one, Old Business. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s tabled. We did it right away the first thing. Anything else? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/25/00) MRS. RYBA-If anyone completed filling out the survey forms. If you could submit those to Staff. Second, there’s a Planning Board workshop for August 2. It’s Wednesday. You have packets of nd by-laws and policies and procedures information, and Mr. MacEwan asked, if you have additional questions, to let Staff know, that you’d like to bring up. MR. MAC EWAN-And the only other thing is, pencil in August 29, on your calenders. The first th public hearing/comment period we’re going to be doing for The Great Escape Environmental Impact Statement. That’s going to be at seven o’clock, at the Queensbury Senior High School Auditorium. MR. METIVIER-You’ll confirm that with us? MR. MAC EWAN-When are copies going to be distributed to Planning Board members? MRS. RYBA-I think that is in the memo that Chris wrote, and I gave my copy to Cathy. It says, copies will be available, I think Friday the 28 or Monday the 31, of July. You wanted to know thst when copies would be available, the 28 or the 31. It hasn’t been pinned down. That’s what’s in thst the memo. MR. MAC EWAN-John Lemery did say something tonight about they were being copied. So I don’t know, do you have all the copies? MRS. RYBA-No. MR. VOLLARO-And what date at the High School? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s going to be on the 29 at the High School, on a Tuesday night, and copies, th we won’t be seeing copies, obviously, much more before than probably next Wednesday. If they come in sooner, notify everybody, so we can come up and get copies. Any other business? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have something. I looked at that questionnaire or the rating that you gave. There were hardly any questions in there I could answer. MR. METIVIER-Yes, me, too. MR. VOLLARO-It seemed almost foreign to me, from a Planning Board member’s point of view. MRS. RYBA-Well, I think then you answered the best you can, and that tells us something, that if you don’t know, then there’s something we might need to be relaying to you. MR. RINGER-You only want us to answer the questions that pertain to the planning. There’s only like four questions, really, that would apply to us. MRS. RYBA-Just answer what you can. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so everybody knows, we have a workshop on the 2, site visits are on the nd 12, okay, site visits the 12 at nine o’clock, 15, 22, and 29 are meetings. I move that we thththndth adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 68