Loading...
2000-05-18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT PALING ALAN ABBOTT LARRY RINGER SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 62-99 TYPE: UNLISTED NIGRO COMPANIES OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER/FRANK PALUMBO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD., SOUTH OF QUAKER RD., NORTH OF HOMER AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 65,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL STORE DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 6-99 TOWN BOARD: 2/28/00 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.; 3/6/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/8/00 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-38 THRU 45, 47 THRU 51 LOT SIZE: 9.78 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER & FRANK PALUMBO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on March 21 and April 25 were tabled, and there is stth one this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 62-99, Nigro Companies, Meeting Date: May 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: Site Plan 62-99 was tabled at the April 25, 2000 meeting for additional information. The applicant has submitted revised plans and information that addresses Staff and Board concerns about groundwater elevation, plantings, architectural rendition, and bus stop. The Board had requested test pit data supporting the depth of ground water determination. Staff was on site when four test pits were dug. Based on data submitted the building elevation proposed can be accommodated on site with adequate separation to ground water. The applicant’s submitted plans provide the location of trees to remain and location of new landscaping. The plans show the planting plan for the Quaker Road access as discussed at the previous meeting. The applicant also provided a bus stop location on the plans, and an architectural rendition of the building. The applicant has proposed two lighting plans for review. Staff would recommend approval of the alternate plan Sheet SE-1A with high pressure sodium and lexan lenses. The plan provides for poles lower than the proposed building . Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted with the conditions: 1) implementation of the alternate lighting plan sheet SE-1A with high-pressure sodium and lexan lenses. 2) the applicant coordinate with the wastewater and water departments for installation of utilities prior to obtaining a building permit. 3) the applicant coordinate with the Warren County Department of Public Works and Glens Falls Transit for installation of a Bus Stop.” MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have a couple of these read in. Let’s do the May 11 letter from Sear th Brown read in, please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. “The following is our response to the issues raised in your letter dated May 2, 2000: 1. Per our discussion, the horizontal banding depicted on the building elevation are not done with any specific block relief but instead were intended as painted bands on a smooth faced architectural masonry block. 2. The plans have been modified to more specifically identify trees to remain including those directly behind the Adirondack Bagel Café. 3. The sign locations have been changed on the revised plans to address this comment. 4. Also per our discussion, the fixtures 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) which are called out as “wall mounted”, have the same type of fixture head as on the poles. This information therefore is consistent with what we sent up previously. These are used in lieu of “wall pack” lighting which would direct light outward instead of downward. Our selection is intended to direct light downward thereby minimizing the light impact to adjacent properties. 5. Regarding Chazen’s letter dated April 17, 2000, we believe we have addressed all of the comments. Specific questions which require further discussion are as follows: a. Lighting comment #3: The cut sheets provided are for the lights shown in the lighting schedule on the lighting plan. b. Landscaping comment #1: Upon revisions made since this comment letter, we have found the interior parking lot landscaping to be 9% of the parking area. This is within the recommended 5-10%. c. Landscaping comment #2: The landscaping shown in the islands is our recommended planting plan based upon the plant materials selected and the estimated area required for root systems of such species. We believe the amount of landscaping on the plan is sufficient and will be above the standards presently provided for in the town. d. Landscaping comment #3: Caliper sizes have been added to the plans. e. Landscape comment #4: We have provided trees at the entrance with two factors being considered – the overhead wires and the ability to have a safe entrance not obscured by vegetation. There are also existing trees in the area that will remain and do not need to have new trees planted in those areas. f. We believe the building design would not be benefited by additional roofline articulation and that the present design has generally met the intent of the board’s original concerns regarding the building style. The present roofline is also necessary to block the view of the mechanical equipment on the roof. Please contact me to let us know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Mr. Frank Palumbo, RLA Site Development Group Manager” MR. MAC EWAN-The May 10 letter from Gifford Engineer. Just read the first page. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. “At your request, I observed the excavation of four test pits at the referenced site on May 9. The pits were excavated with a track-mounted backhoe by Galusha Construction th Co. Also present were Mrs. Laura Moore, Asst. Town Planner and Mr. Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer. The purpose of the investigation was to observe and document the soils encountered and ground water level within the test pits. The proposed site is southeast of the intersection of Quaker and Bay Roads in the Town of Queensbury. For clarity, Bay Road is assumed to run north into Quaker. To assist the layout, VanDusen and Steves, a local survey firm laid out two building corners (NW & NE) and points along the east and west walls, to the north of abutting properties. They marked elevations on three stakes and the asphalt along the west wall. The water level elevation, within the test pits, was measured with a hand level from the given elevation. The location of the test pits (TP) was as follows, TP-1 located 50’ north of a nail in asphalt and 10 feet outside west wall, TP-2 located 13’ NW of NW corner, TP-3 located 8’ east of NE corner, and TP-4 located 7’ east of east wall. Logs of the test pits are attached. Approximately one hour passed after the excavation for the water level to stabilize in the test pits and the water levels were measured with the following results. TP-1 311’-4” TP-2 309’-1” TP-3 309’-4” TP-4 310’-10” If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me. Truly yours, Gifford Engineering Gregory P. Gifford PhD PE President” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A couple more for you. Rist-Frost’s letter dated May 17. th MRS. MOORE-“We have reviewed the additional geotechnical information submitted by Gifford Engineering on May 10, 2000. The additional information confirms the original soils information in regards to the depth of the water table, therefore, there appears to be no need to change the finished floor elevation. We have no further comments. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. Thomas R. Center, Jr. Project Engineer” MR. MAC EWAN-Sear-Brown’s letter of May 18. th MRS. MOORE-“As a follow-up to the additional test pit information supplied to you last week, we wish to identify that the proposed building floor elevation (317.5) will not change. With this floor elevation the bottom of the footings will be at 313.5 which is still two feet above the highest groundwater level identified. We will have Greg Gifford, PhD, PE, who observed these test pits in attendance at our meeting this evening to address any specific questions the Board may have relating to this topic. Please contact me to let us know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Mr. Frank Palumbo. RLA Site Development Group Manager Mr. Paul Bohl, PE Branch Manager” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the last one is A/GFTC’s May 11. th MRS. MOORE-This is dated May 9. A/GFTC staff have reviewed the site plan drawings for the th above project that you submitted for comment. Most of the comments below touch on things that we have discussed in the past but are restated here to summarize. General Comments: 1) Route 254 is a principal arterial highway that performs a critical function for the local and regional highway system. Preservation of its ability to efficiently move large volumes of traffic safely and with minimal congestion or delay is in the best long term interests of the Town and region as a whole. While this proposal by itself may not significantly degrade the efficient operation of Quaker Rd., it contains only 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) minimal provisions to effectively preserve it. This underscores the need for the Rte 254/Upper Glen St. access management plan that A/GFTC will be working with the Town to develop later this year. When implemented, the plan should be able to enhance the Town’s ability to effectively implement access controls that support development while preserving efficient highway function. 2) The current site plan does indicate two areas for “proposed easements for potential connection to adjacent land use” , however, when either will be established and how they will work is not indicated in the material provided. Of particular concern is the potential to connect this site with the existing commercial development along Quaker between Bay and the proposed new site entrance. A well designed system of connections between these properties and the new development would not only help reduce the traffic impact to Quaker Rd. but could also enhance the convenience of the connected businesses to customers. To the extent possible, these cross connections should be better developed as a part of this project. Specific comments: 1) Proposed Site Entrance on Rte 254 – The design of this entrance will permit northbound left turn exits from the site. The project’s Traffic Impact Study completed in December 1999 determined that this movement would function as a level of service (LOS) F. Further, the TIS’s Figure 6 “2000 Combined Volumes with Improvements – Evening Peak Hour” assumes that 0 vehicles making this movement. Considering this and the potential for conflicts that could occur from this turn, a sign or other design feature that prohibits left turns from the site onto Quaker should be considered. (Note: the left turn into the site from Quaker does not appear to be an issue) 2) Northern Bay Rd. Exit from site – This appears to be a new feature that was not included in the original December TIS. Although this drive seems to contain all the necessary provisions to make it a right turn only exit, it is not clear why this new drive was added or if it is really necessary. Once built, right only drives have a tendency evolve into multi- directional drives.” MR. MAC EWAN-I found one more. Stuart Mesinger’s memo, May 17. th MRS. MOORE-This is dated May 17, 2000. “We have reviewed the revised plans for the above referenced project, as well as the accompanying letter from Frank Palumbo to Laura Moore dated May 11, 2000. The plans and letter are generally responsive to our comments, although the applicant has not yet indicated what type of lamp fixtures are proposed. As previously noted, we recommend the use of high pressure sodium, as opposed to metal halide lamps. In general, we are satisfied that the plans as presented meet the spirit and intent of the draft design guidelines. The Planning Board is now left with several policy questions. 1. Does the Board wish to require changes to the landscaping in the interior of the parking lot as we have suggested, or is it satisfied with the plans as presented and defended by the applicant? 2. Is the Board satisfied with the architectural treatment of the building, or does it wish to require more articulation of the roofline along the sides and rear? The design guidelines, as proposed, would give the Board latitude on these questions, and thus it is appropriate that the Board apply its judgment to the particulars of this proposal. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Steve Powers, Frank Palumbo, and with us tonight for the first time is Greg Gifford, the Soil Engineer who wrote the report and witnessed the test results. I am hopeful that we are here to receive final site plan approval for the project tonight, after this lengthy and intensive process, which I don’t mean by any means is inappropriate. I think that, as a result of the process, we’ve made many significant changes that make it a better project, and one that I hope that you will all be proud of. Just one general comment. The last memo that was read was from Stu Mesinger, and in there he mentioned that in general we are satisfied that the plans as presented meet the spirit and intent of the draft design guidelines, and by that I just want to point out that not only do we feel that we’ve complied with all of the Town guidelines and the regulations under the Town Code now, but we’ve gone as far, at your request, to comply with the guidelines in the draft regulations that haven’t been implemented yet. So we think that, in terms of both the architectural design of the building, of course the Town doesn’t have architectural review at this point in time, that we’ve gone farther than any other commercial developer has gone, and in terms of the landscaping and site issues, buffering, mitigation, wetlands and all the design changes that we’ve made at your specific request, including what we’ve done since the last meeting to redesign the entrance way, I think we’ve really gone far and I hope that you can be proud of it, and that you can approve it tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to respond to some of the comments that we’ve gotten since the last time we’ve met? MR. LAPPER-Certainly. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll let you start wherever you want. MR. LAPPER-We feel that, with respect to the soil and the groundwater level issue, that we’ve pretty much covered it. That there’s two feet of separation between the lowest footings, or the footings and the groundwater, which was responsive to the issues that the Chairman raised and other Board members at the last meeting. So we don’t think that that’s an issue anymore, but if there are any questions, Greg is here and can give any kind of details testimony in response. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe it would be appropriate that he give a little summary of what the tests pits, the recent test pits showed, what they indicate, and how they would support or not support the footings and foundations. MR. LAPPER-Sure. GREG GIFFORD MR. GIFFORD-Yes. First of all, my name is Greg Gifford. I’m the President of Gifford Engineering, a local consulting firm, local in Schenectady, NY area. I’ve done quite a bit of work up in this area, up and down the Northway and around Eastern New York State. I was asked by Steve Powers of the Nigro Group to investigate the subsurface conditions in or near the four corners of the proposed building, earlier this month, and to do so, I guess the question came up as to where the water table was, today, or that particular day, in relation to, I guess, a year ago when some borings were dug, during a drier than normal spring. So to do so, we hired a backhoe, came out and dug four test pits, had some elevations from a surveyor on some stakes, and some asphalt pavement, and then took some level readings into the water level, as it accumulated in the bottom of these test pits. The findings are outlined in my letter that you folks have, and was read into the records this morning. Any questions, I guess? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, maybe for the people who are present in the audience, could you maybe just give what the results actually indicated in your professional opinion, and where it leads us at this point. MR. GIFFORD-What I found was that the water level was at depths of between approximately three to four feet. That correlates to elevations of between 311 feet 4 inches down to 309 feet and 1 inch. It’s my understanding that the finished floor is planned at 317 feet 6 inches. Bottom of footings are planned at 313 feet 6 inches. The highest of those four groundwater elevations that I came across that day and measured that day is approximately two feet below the proposed bottom of footing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. PALING-How do the readings you’ve just talked about compare with the ones that were taken before? Because this was taken on the basis of a wet April, and there were readings before this. Are they about the same, or is there any difference? MR. PALUMBO-Since Greg doesn’t have all of the history of those, or actually has the results of those, and he had those before going out there, what we did with this map is locate all of the test pits that were out there, and previously, we had a map that showed this log, and I think you’ve probably seen that once before in a previous packet, and what we did is we added the locations and the boring depths of the ones that Greg had just analyzed on May 9. What we had previously were some test th pits up in this area, and some test pits and borings in this area. Those results ranged from 311, over in this area, but the ones that we had first been most concerned with were the ones that were over closer to where we were putting the building, and those were down at about 308.5, which is I think what we had presented previously. So the ones, Test Pits One, Two, Three, and Four were all up in this area, near the wetlands, near the stream, and we were initially concerned with that area, in terms of water table. What we had Greg do, and what he refers to in his letter, is that the surveyor went out there and located the corner points of the buildings, as best they could. There is the one point up here, that I’ll get to in a second. We also could not go to the back corner of the buildings, because that would have been on the lots where there’s existing residences. What we did was this is the front corner of the building here. That was Test Pit No. 3. This was the front corner of the building here. That’s Test Pit No. 2. Test Pit No. 1 was done as close, it was right along the wall. We stayed along the wall since we knew that was where our footings would be, and also try to cover as broad an area. That one was done because we couldn’t get on these, well, we didn’t want to go on these lots and start digging up people’s yards until we knew we’d have the right to, and also we have the asphalt pavement area that’s right in the back here. So we got as close as we could, and so those two test pits were separated by just about that much right there. This being the front corner, this being about mid way back along that west wall of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Which pits are those, are those three and four? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. PALUMBO-This one here is Test Pit No. 1. MR. VOLLARO-One and Two. MR. PALUMBO-Which is the one that comes up to 311 4 inches, okay. Test Pit No. 2 here, it was at 309’ 8”. Test Pit No. 3 is on this corner of the building, and that’s, I’m sorry, the first one is 309.08. They converted that to inches there, and this one was 309.25, and this Test Pit No. 4, back in the same area where we had some others, was at 310.83. MR. VOLLARO-TP-3 on my thing says 309.4, you said 309.25. It doesn’t make a lot of difference, but just so we’ve got everybody on the same page. MR. PALUMBO-Right. It should be .33, for the four inches. That’s correct, but that’s the locations on the actual map, and those relate to this point on the corner, this point on the corner, right about here, as close as we could get to the back corner without going on to the residences there, and then the last one is right over, you’ll see on a lot of your plans, that existing pipe, and I think Greg’s note even referenced that they hit a 12 inch cmp pipe right here. That’s right there where it crosses the building, and so that’s the proximity. So we had wanted to get back as close to the back of the building, but we ended up right in there, and the only other, you know, some relevance of that location is that that is, as you’ve probably already seen, that’s that one draw that we had with the wetlands that we couldn’t help but impact, given our site plan. That was primarily right in this area, and that’s the draw, the drainage draw that reaches up there, and there’s the pipe that leads into it, and that’s the pipe that Greg referred to in his report. So that’s the locations of them. I guess in one area, just as I was going through that, where you can see that Test Pit Four here that was done at 5/9/00 was at the elevation of 310.83, and other ones that were around that from the previous year, the previous Test Pit Four, they didn’t have the water on that one. So that’s not going to help, but Test Pit Two was at 308’ 7”. So those were pretty close. You had 308’ 7” last year right at this one here, and you have 310.8 right here. So those two were approximate enough that you might be able to make some comparison there. I think for our standpoint what we saw was that even with those findings, we felt very confident that we do not have to change any of our grading, any of our floor plans. The building elevation will stay where it is. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to be offering later on, but I’ll get to it now. The finished floor on the building is 317.5, plus on it’s front end it’s plus 34 feet, which it’ll give you 351.5 at the front. Finished floor at 317 50. MR. PALUMBO-This elevation up at the front. MR. VOLLARO-Is 34, right. So that gives you an overall of 351 50. MR. PALUMBO-I agree with your math. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fifth grade stuff. 317 50 plus 27, that sets two points in space at 351 50 and 344 50, the back and the front, that configures the slope. Now assuming that you can live with what you’ve got on the surfaces or do whatever you have to do, but if, for some reason during the building of that, that finished floor has to raise up, an example, finished floor has to be at 319 50. Just let’s assume that, if that were to happen, that means the height above finished floor, in the way I look at it, would have to go down to 32, not 34, to keep that point in space at 351 50. Do you follow what I’m saying? MR. PALUMBO-I follow what you’re saying, in terms of being able to meet all the other impacts that we talked about visually, like to make sure that that building elevation, the height of the building doesn’t get any higher. MR. VOLLARO-351.5. That’s what I’m saying it should be shot at, no matter what happens. We don’t have to belabor this for now. MR. PALUMBO-We have no problem. We’re very confident on. MR. LAPPER-We have two feet of leeway to the water table at other sites, and we have no plans to do it here. Sometimes you de-water and you actually put the bottom of the footings in the water table. It’s not going to happen here. It’s not going to have to, but in terms of construction techniques, there’s nothing wrong with doing that. MR. VOLLARO-Nothing wrong at all. MR. LAPPER-So we have no plans to bring in fill and raise the building. It just obviously makes the site plan work not as well, because you’re going to see the building more. So as a condition, we’re completely comfortable with what you’re suggesting. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we maybe get you to address May 11 letter from Scott Sopczyk and some th of the concerns he had regarding traffic and turning intersections and so on? MR. PALUMBO-In terms of the general comments, first. We feel as though, I’m not going to say that I disagree with Scott on those. I don’t know that there was anything more in our control to what we’ve done with the site, to meet some of these general comments that he referenced. We’ve provided these access points, as he references in Number Two, with specific intent that access be available. I don’t know what else there really is that we can do for that, but I was more concerned about the specific comments, and I’ll certainly answer any of the questions you have on the general comments, but for the specific comments, where he discusses the Level of Service F, we’ve sent a memo back to Scott, just to reference what we’ve looked at there, and for the purposes of having it on the record, it’s short. So I’ll read that comment. The first was the, there were two specific comments contained in your memo to Chris Round dated May 9, 2000 regarding our project that we wish to respond to. The first was the suggestion that the left turn movements out of the site driveway on Quaker Road be prohibited. The Warren County Department of Public Works has approved this entrance with the allowance for left turns. The Level of Service F attributed to this movement was projected using the HCS model for unsignalized intersections. This model depicts a uniform arrival of all vehicles along Quaker Road, near our proposed driveway. This does not necessarily provide the most accurate representation of this movement, as gaps will be created by the nearby signalized intersections, including Bay and Quaker Roads. The HCS model that is available for, that is the most standard one used for unsignalized intersections does not necessarily present the same kind of information that you can obtain on all the individual movements of a signalized intersection. What this does is, there’s a certain amount of flow of traffic on Quaker Road, and what it does is it takes that total number and projects it as a completely even distribution, one car every so many seconds based on that total volume. What it does not do is it does not break out any of the gaps that are normally created by traffic signals or other, you know, just the arrival times. Most of the time you’d see, if you’re driving along Quaker Road, when you get a release of cars at Route 9 and Quaker Road, you’ll see a whole lot of those cars coming at one time, and then there’ll be a gap when that movement goes to the red signal. Because it does not analyze it on that type of situation, what it does is it projects that this car waiting to make that left hand turn is being subjected to a constant, and I mean completely constant, you know, one car per every so many seconds in that case. MR. VOLLARO-Your assumption then that Level F is at the entrance itself and not at Quaker? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. That movement that he talked about in his letter was the left hand turn movement out of here. So what his suggestion was that, you know, we might have that as a prohibited movement. We don’t think that that’s the best for the overall situation here. The other thing he referred to in that was that the report also showed that there were zero movements going out of there. That I went on to say, in addition, the 0 vehicles indicated in what he referred to Figure Six of the traffic study, making this movement was done so in order to represent a worst case scenario, at Bay and Quaker intersection, by attributing all of our westbound exiting traffic to that signal. What I think we’ve, I think we’ve tried to present this before. I don’t know how well I’ve done it, but for the cars that we represented that would possibly make that turn, we took all of that. We had 10% coming in this way, and that was about 5% from here and 5% from the north side of Quaker, off of Bay, and 10% were coming in here. When we did that section of the model that Scott was referring to, we took all of those cars and projected them out here, because of the reason that we knew that we had been given comments, both by the Board and the Staff, that the left-hand turn movements, at the Quaker and Bay intersection, were the ones that were really closest to having a degradation of service, that there was already somewhat of an existing problem. So instead of taking the benefit, really, and allowing ourselves to have those cars go back out, the same 10% going back out this way, we took those additional cars, which was about 25 cars, and brought them out here, again, split that, it was actually about 13 and 12, 12 that would go straight across, and 13 that were making the left, okay. Again, going back to where we had shown them on the trip distributions coming from, and all those trip distributions were previously thought of as being right on the mark and of a conservative nature by Scott himself in some of his previous correspondence. So we did that and attributed 0 here, not because we didn’t think people would make that left, but we wanted to analyze that as a worst case scenario. Any of those 25 cars that end up turning out here would only make the improvements that we’ve made that make that function at at least, if not a little bit better, the existing system. MR. VOLLARO-I just finished reading, again, the traffic study, the big one, and you know what struck me is that the gas station on the corner there, on Quaker and Bay, was never part of that study, or did I miss that? MR. PALUMBO-No. I think we talked about that once before, and there’s really no way for us to, in the traffic study, analyze these existing driveways. It’s not really a function of the trip generation 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) of this building or the distribution thereof. That operation is going to, I guess in theory, Bob, if we can show that the signal and the movements in that area are going to operate at the same or equal level, the County, which approved the plan, is the one that says the movements of here haven’t changed, and we’ve kept the system functioning at the same level. So then therefore the impact to those movements would be negligible. MR. VOLLARO-See, I just looked at it really quickly, but there’s two things. There’s the gas station and there’s the Hollywood Video. Both of those input/outputs to Bay are not considered in the study at all. They’re not added in. The Hollywood Video certainly isn’t there. MR. PALUMBO-No, it is not in its entirety, and we did not get into counting the cars here because there’s really no way of us, you know, we’d end up with the same unsignalized intersection complexity that was occurring, that we’re talking about here. I guess in the straightest theory is you have an existing driveway here that’s crossing a certain amount of traffic, and that certain amount of traffic has a relationship to these intersections, and the way that the traffic models are basically looked at by the County, in their form of approving this, is what we’re adding to it, with our improvements here and the additional lane length here, with those improvements, we have kept this signal operating at the same level, and therefore, in theory, this system, which is an existing problem, would then get no worse. One of the things that you’ll recall is that the County did ask us to move this down here, really not out of a concern of anything with our traffic, other than its location along with some of these driveways. The Hanneford driveway being here. So we have, really, addressed many of these driveways, even though that’s something that really was an existing problem for many of those driveways along the road there. By incorporating the double turn lane here, we’re actually providing more areas for cars to get shelter to make turns into all of these driveways. So I cannot really address, Bob, the problem of the existing situation down here, other than that theoretical side of saying that if we keep the intersection operating the same, then this driveway should really operate the same. MR. VOLLARO-Keeping the intersection operating the same is what I’m having a problem with. I just don’t see how we can set aside certain pertinent factors and say, well, this really doesn’t, because that intersection is going to handle every car, north and south, east and west, north and south on Bay, east and west on Quaker. It’s going to see every one of them, regardless of where that car comes from, whether it comes out of Hollywood, whether it comes out of the garage, whether it comes off your site, whether it comes from Hanneford. They’re all going to accept the cars that are going south, that every other vehicle will probably get impacted at that intersection. Your position is you’re keeping that intersection operating as it’s operating today. MR. PALUMBO-In some of the instances, slightly better. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s just through signalization. MR. PALUMBO-It’s a combination of some of the improvements made along Bay here, the form of distribution that we’re using, and I would say, just for the benefit of the audience that wasn’t here at some of the previous times, it’s not solely our opinion. Our traffic study is, and I have to repeat this, was reviewed by Vollmer Associates for the Town, by A/GFTC, on multiple occasions, each time a package has gone back to you, I think a package has been forwarded on to each one of those agencies, and then the last of those, and the one that has the actual right of allowing us that driveway, even if you approve this plan, the County could have denied us, in one sense. They’re the approving agency for that curb cut there and for that curb cut there, and actually also that one here. The fact of the matter, all those agencies, in more cases than not, felt that our analysis was conservative in nature, and that it did provide what was necessary, and I think at the last meeting you saw the letter from the County, basically approving those entrances. Did we read this in at any other time? This was very short. It was from Warren County. “Warren County has reviewed your revised conceptual design and responses to our letter dated April 18, 2000. We feel your comments and changes are very positive and accept your conceptual driveway locations and highway plans. When you are ready to obtain a Warren County Highway Permit, please contact and supply our office with your final plans.” The nature of this is that we’d have to get your approval in order to submit those for an actual permit, but they have approved the concept. MR. MAC EWAN-Does the Town have a copy of that letter? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look. MR. PALUMBO-It was April 25, 2000, and it was cc’d to Chris. MRS. MOORE-I’m assuming it’s in the file. I don’t. MR. PALUMBO-I guess I’ll go back to any questions, but the last comment that Scott had was about this ramp here. I think we talked about that last time, but one of the things that we saw as an 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) improvement of that was that, when we moved this intersection down, what we saw was that we could have something that works well for our internal circulation, but that I think also works well out on Bay Road. When the people are leaving this parking area, giving them an access to get out to Bay for the right only gets those cars out here, instead of coming up here and making the right and going past all of these driveways here. It keeps them from having to go up and through this more circuitous route. By moving that driveway up there, it’s no longer the straight shot to the front of the building, which we had initially proposed, and we believe that that would not really, and you would have the control over whether or not that would ever revert to a full access in and out. We see it only as a benefit, as an exit. There’s no sense for us in terms of trying to go and obtain a full access entrance here, when the County actually already asked us to move it from here back to here. I don’t think we could get that approved by the Planning Board or the County. I mean, I think that they saw some merit to getting that traffic out more easily, rather than coming up and providing, you know, that is our majority movement down there, and so by freeing some of those movements away from this intersection, in a one directional movement, and getting them past where all of these driveways are, just eliminates a lot of flow, which unnecessarily would be on a greater section of Bay Road. MR. RINGER-Couldn’t you angle that driveway to make it so it was forced to be a right hand turn only? MR. PALUMBO-We’ve got a hook there, and that would be curved, right at that point. MR. RINGER-It doesn’t look like it’s curved very much on a, we’ve got a situation similar to Price Chopper, where it’s a right hand turn only, and they don’t have it angled very well either, and many, many cars are taking a left out of there. MR. PALUMBO-We’ve got room there, you know, the only condition that we would have placed on ourselves, I think what we tried to do was there is an existing tree right here that we were trying to save, right on this corner. If we did not preserve that tree right there, we can actually get that bend started a little bit sooner, still within our property boundary there. It’ll be close. I mean, we can do something there, but to do this any more dramatically, we have to get closer to this corner. I mean, it’s going to be pinpointing the. MR. RINGER-I think the more difficult you make it for someone to make a left there, the better it is. MR. PALUMBO-I understand that. I mean, we can adjust that, I mean, if that were a condition of the plan, we can certainly make adjustments. MR. VOLLARO-I think what Scott is saying here, that he says lots of right hand only drives have a tendency to evolve into multidirectional, he’s saying that if people want to make that left bad enough, they probably will. MR. RINGER-That’s why if we make it difficult. MR. LAPPER-We agree with that. MR. RINGER-Lowe’s has done a pretty good job, but apparently people are still trying to make that swing around there. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. A lot of what will happen with that, to just make it as clear as possible, is what’s happening out in the road at that time. I mean, if you’re doing that out of Lowe’s and making that turn, you better be sure that there’s not, it better be a light use on Quaker at that time, because if you try to make that move, it’s tough. MR. RINGER-People are doing it. MR. PALUMBO-And the same thing would be occurring right here, where, I think that what was going on on Bay is going to actually restrict that probably more than anything we do here. I’d greatly fear for my turning movement if I tried to turn back when you’re going to have cars stopped right here to be making turns into Hanneford at times, but we can adjust that design, and fine tune it to try to achieve that. MR. PALING-Sticking with traffic and going to southerly access from Bay, I’m a little confused with the signage that you have on the prints, in regards to trucks. You intend the trucks go only back to the loading area. You don’t want any cars back there. Is that what the trucks only sign is? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. PALING-That has nothing to do with the access? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. PALUMBO-Correct. Yes. We want cars to stay from this road down here. Now, there really is no advantage to a car that would think of going around. I can’t think of any reason why they would want to go that route, but just as they come, and I think that they’ll know that they’re heading toward the front of this building, but we did put a sign there to indicate that we didn’t want cars back there. MR. PALING-And how about on the other side of the building? Are you going to restrict cars from going back to the loading zone? MR. PALUMBO-I believe we have a sign right here that I thought was supposed to be a trucks only sign. Again, if somebody were to come back here, you know, the sign has a certain level of control. I mean, we have to keep the roadway the same since the trucks have to get through there, but we put it at a point where they’d still be able to, if they obeyed the sign, they’d still have the ability to turn around using the parking areas here. MR. PALING-The striping that’s painted on Bay in the southern most point in the print, on both of the prints, seems to stick out in front of the exit. If you came out of there and turned left, you’re going to have to go across the paint. That’s what the drawing is going to say. MR. PALUMBO-That’s something that when we, again, these were conceptual level plans for your, I see what you’re saying there. The person coming out, that does look like it sticks down. MR. PALING-Too far. MR. PALUMBO-Too far, but if you look at it from where this center line is of the driveway, then that is still above it. MR. PALING-Well, the center line of the driveway, they’ll be on the south side of that. MR. PALUMBO-Well, they’re going to be coming out here. Okay. So they’re, if you just go back a straight line, so it is down into the intersection. Your eyes aren’t deceiving you. It is down there, and as we do what the County will ask us for, for that final highway permit, is a 20 scale drawing of this, and all of that will, in much greater detail, specifically where the double yellow lines are and exactly where they are, where that island is and exactly where it is. So this is pretty close, because everything we do on the computer is just, you know, one scale to the next. MR. PALING-Now what about the bus stop? MR. VOLLARO-That’s got to come out. MR. PALUMBO-That was a kind of a, I think Laura had addressed that more. What we had done at the previous last time, I’ll go first. We had identified a location where the bus stop could go, and I think Laura’s comment at the last meeting was that the Glens Falls Transit really had, at least on first blush, they had no desire to really come in to the plaza, and so what they talked about was, you know, they’d much rather pick up over here. MR. PALING-So the final on the bus stop is off the site? MR. PALUMBO-I think that that’s what they’re, Glens Falls Transit, I haven’t communicated with them. Laura has, but I got the sense that they didn’t have any liking to come in to the plaza. They’d want something over here, and I guess then it’ll be just how that is achieved, which will be, I think Laura’s last comment is to arrange that with Glens Falls Transit and Warren County, as we do the final highway plan. MR. PALING-But they seemed pretty firm, I thought, in their letter that it shouldn’t be on your premises, rather on the street. MR. PALUMBO-That was the impression that I got. MR. PALING-Okay, and the bike lane is no more? MR. PALUMBO-No. We do not have a bike lane that long here, and I think that that was, the County had actually. MR. PALING-I don’t think there should be a bike lane there. MR. LAPPER-That bike lane was always provided so that we could do what we’re doing now, that it would some day be paved and be another lane, and it’s just been used as a bike lane, and now that the bike path has been put in, the bike path is the place that people should go. When you approved 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) the Lowe’s we talked about the fact that that intersection is not the appropriate place for bikes to cross Quaker Road. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to address? MR. PALUMBO-I’d rather answer your questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions on anything? MR. ABBOTT-I don’t have your traffic study in front of me, unfortunately. I didn’t bring all the paper. What was the date of your traffic study? MR. PALUMBO-The initial traffic study was December 1999. MR. ABBOTT-And that’s when you took your traffic counts of the current conditions there? MR. PALUMBO-The counts were conducted in late November or early December. I’m sorry November 12 and 13, Friday and Saturday. MR. ABBOTT-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And then after that we did some counts on Garrison and Fort Amherst to address issues that were raised by the public. MR. ABBOTT-That’s all I had on traffic right now. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s a question about anything, I have several written down, but I’ll go through them as quickly as I can. I want to talk about the lighting. On drawing SEL1, up in the upper right hand corner, I can’t get that lighting information on there to square foot with the cut list, for some reason or another. Now maybe you can help me out with that. I’ve got the cut list here, and the drawing itself, when I get down to the lighting plan, that talks about 30 foot poles, and I think you talked about 20 foot poles. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Bob, we had proposed it at 30 feet. Chazen came back and said that the new design standards are 20 feet. We suggested that 20 feet would mean more lower poles, and that the Board might prefer fewer taller poles, but we’ve now acquiesced. MR. VOLLARO-We’re at 20 feet. MR. LAPPER-We’re at 20 feet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where we are now. My problem is in the upper right hand corner of SEL1 drawing, it doesn’t state that. It talks about 30 foot poles there. MR. LAPPER-It’s only in writing, the letter. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing has not been changed? MR. PALUMBO-Bob, do you have the 1A plan? MR. VOLLARO-I talked to Staff this afternoon for the latest, one of my problems, Frank, is that the drawings don’t have rev’s on them. They don’t have revision numbers, none of them do. So they said the latest plan that Staff recollects is that Staff says we received May 5, 2000, and that’s the drawing I’m using. MR. PALUMBO-It was SEL1 is the one that you were looking at, and the one that has the 20 foot high poles is SEL1A. It should be right after your drawing, and that should show a 17 foot high pole on a 3 foot base, for the 20 foot. MR. VOLLARO-I see it, yes, okay. So the rev is really the “A” on SEL1? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Talking about the current ratio of parking spaces. It’s X number of spaces to every thousand square feet I think is what I read. Is that correct? Where are we now, where do we sit in spaces per thousand square feet? MR. PALUMBO-We still reflect the total number that worked out to the five per thousand was the 325. What we have are 21 held basically in reserve. So the 304 would be, if anyone’s got a calculator on them, they can figure it out. It’s going to be slightly less than five. It’s be four point. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s call it nominally five, okay. Let’s not split hairs on it, and that’s the current standard? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. There was some talk back up stream, and I know that this talk had to do with an almost litigation problem, we might not want to get into it, but we talked about status on Denny’s exiting traffic allowing traffic to go through the Mega Save property. This was Denny’s. Is that still a viable solution, or is that off the table? MR. LAPPER-That’s sort of a multi-part answer. When Denny’s was proposed, which was before we proposed this project, we knew that that was on the table, and we came in and unveiled this and said, hey, we’ll be coming to you in the next few months with a project and we want to show you this and maybe we could tie it all together, and Denny’s was able to persuade you that it was premature at that point to deal with it, and it wasn’t a part of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Just to clear up the record should indicate that we weren’t interested in entertaining it because you did not have a formal application, and that’s what we based our decision on. MR. LAPPER-In good faith we were just trying to say, hey, it was kind of in a rush, but saying, hey, look, this is what we’re planning, but we didn’t know that they were going to come in that fast either, but in any case, it turns out that the area behind where we had talked about connecting to them is a main wetland that shouldn’t be disturbed anyway, but what we’ve proposed here, and what Scott references in his letter, the last go around we talked about the potential, when their attorney came in and said, why don’t we buy that expensive piece of property, that there is a potential for them to connect to our drive if they want to. It would be fairly close to our access point, so I don’t know if that’s preferable, but it’s on there as something that could be done in the future. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not part of this proposal any longer. MR. LAPPER-It’s certainly not something for us to do because it’s something that we would just, under the Code, in the commercial zones, we have to leave an easement or show that we would not oppose it if they were to do it, but they would have to make the connection. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Something about roofline articulation. I think that comes out of the Chazen letter, the recent Chazen letter, where they asked us about roofline articulation. I guess I have a preference in that I just want to make sure that the roof mechanicals are hidden. MR. LAPPER-That’s the preference that we went with in the letter from Frank. We said if we articulate the roof, we’re going to lower it in some places, and you’re going to see mechanicals. MR. VOLLARO-So, as a party of one here, I’m not speaking for this Board, but as a party of one, I’d like to see that back line reasonably clean and not articulate it. That’s my own opinion. MR. LAPPER-That’s how we’re proposing. MR. VOLLARO-Detention ponds to have dry bottoms. Explain dry bottoms to me, somebody. MR. PALUMBO-What Rist-Frost pointed out, the detention basins that we had had on there previously had wet bottoms. They were, the storage area for the detention basin all began at the elevation 310 and went up. So there was no change in our design, and no change after our conversations with Rist-Frost, and when they pointed this out, that the Town doesn’t want, desire, or allow the wet bottoms. The only benefit of the wet bottom, the reason that we had shown that, because you’d see some contouring in our basins that went below the 310. So it wasn’t adding storm control. What it was is that in some cases, you, by having some water in the bottom of that basin, what you’re allowing is for some of the detention there or the sediment that may come into that basin is then held down by the water. It doesn’t become a dust particle just being sort of churned up. It’s held in that water area. It’s one style of a design over another. There’s no real impact one way or the other. We told Rist-Frost that we had no problem with modifying the basin to just eliminate 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) those lower contours. It doesn’t change anything from the, and I think Rist-Frost verified that in their letter, that it doesn’t change anything from the impact off site. MR. VOLLARO-The detention pond is still functioning as it should function? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just that, I guess what you’re saying, it has some water, some standing water in it, when things go (lost word). MR. PALUMBO-The way we had it designed, but then, and I have to admit, we did not realize that, according to Rist-Frost, that the Town does not allow the wet bottoms. For whatever past reason or past, he told me that they generally do not allow them. It doesn’t change anything we’ve done really other than really taking out a couple of contours. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s interesting. MR. PALING-Are you saying that you raise the level of the bottom? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. In a sense, yes. The bottom of the basins, we had designed them down to I think about 306. So you had about four feet below that pipe, and so water that would get in there would be held. It would have no release. It would sit there and either percolate in, or just sit in the bottom. It would have a small percentage of the area at the bottom of that basin that would always be wet, and what we’ve done is by, when you say raising the bottom, we’ve brought that up to the level of the design for the stormwater mitigation. MR. PALING-I understand. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got one question for you. Where did we leave off with trying to restrict hours of delivery for Grand Union? MR. LAPPER-Eleven p.m. to seven a.m., I think, what did we say, that Grand Union agreed that they would use their best efforts, that they would tell all of their drivers, and that what we talked about is except in some emergency situation that it wouldn’t happen, and you said, hey we just want you to say as a condition that it won’t happen, and we’re comfortable with that as a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe we asked for a letter to that effect from Grand Union. Did we ever get it? STEVE POWERS MR. POWERS-No. MR. LAPPER-But we would accept that as a condition of a project approval, because it’s the developer that owns the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Herein lies the problem with conditional approvals. That from my experience in almost nine years on this Board, what an applicant says in front of this Board is great that they’re willing to live up to it and honor those conditions, but, you know, a store manager who comes in from out of the area, he’s not familiar with what conditions were put on by this Board. Before you know it, things are happening that aren’t supposed to be happening. MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s why we have Craig Brown as the Code Enforcement Officer, and he does a good job. MR. MAC EWAN-Our job is to try to eliminate Craig Brown having to do any more of his job duties than needs to be done. MR. LAPPER-All I’m suggesting is that if it’s on the plan as a condition, on the final plan it’s a condition, and that the Town has all the enforcement that they need. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that it was specifically asked for, a letter from Grand Union. Why wasn’t it followed through on and given to us? MR. POWERS-It was a discussion with Grand Union that I think I discussed last time that they can’t guarantee it, that a trucker wouldn’t show up at two o’clock in the morning. So for them to say that they’ll certainly use their best efforts is I think is what they said, or what I said to the Board last time, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) and in this case, this is a developer owned building. It will be our responsibility, like it will be to cut the grass, that they adhere to a condition that is part of the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Then you’re suggesting that you’d have a representative of Nigro on that site at al times, or on call, if a neighbor calls up and says, hey, look, there’s a delivery. It’s three o’clock in the morning. There’s a guy out there running a diesel truck in the middle of January? Are you going to send somebody over there and tell them to move? MR. POWERS-We have a person on call 24 hours a day, every day of the year. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? MR. PALING-I’ve got one more. Just a point of clarification. On SECP1, which is the landscaping, grading. You refer to a proposed tree line. You’ve got a continuous line. What is that? MR. LAPPER-A no cut line. MR. PALING-It says proposed tree line. MR. LAPPER-That’s what we’re not going to cut. MR. PALING-Okay. That doesn’t refer to any kind of plantings or anything like that. All right. That’s the cutting limit. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Bob, we also did add that from the last time we were here, the trees behind the bagel shop. There were some existing significant sized trees that we added back in. MR. PALING-Right. I think you’ve got seven or so total. Now, Mesinger wrote a letter on March 9 and May 17 regarding changes to landscaping. Have you done all of those? thth MR. LAPPER-That was in terms of specifying the caliper of the trees. MR. PALING-Well, there was more to it than that, I think. We’ve got too many letters here. MR. LAPPER-There are a lot of letters. MR. VOLLARO-That’s his April 17 letter, Bob, I believe. You’re talking about Chazen’s letter? th MR. PALING-Well, that’s one of them. Yes. Because under landscaping, density of the plantings, evergreen deciduous planting mix, type to be key to location and so on. Has that all been, this is all done? MR. PALUMBO-What I think that he referred to in his most recent letter was that we have shown a level of the landscaping in the islands that are, as he phrased it, toward the intent of the guidelines, and he had had some, at a previous time, some more specific aspects of the guidelines where he talked about that mix. My response to that is that, just like any guidelines, is we get into the specifics of the as, now I’m talking as the landscape architect, the area of those islands, and what we’ve shown planted there, the type of trees. It is my professional opinion that the health and really the prosperity of those species require the space that they’re within. MR. PALING-You said that before. All right. Did you add a row of trees on the property abutting the Koncekowski property? MR. PALUMBO-I’m not sure, which one is that? MR. PALING-That’s on the corner. MR. PALUMBO-Right along here? Yes. What’s here is there’s an existing row, hedgerow right in this area. We have some evergreen trees right here. We had that existing deciduous tree right there, and what we have is a row of trees right along here. It’s a very narrow area. I don’t have the actual species right there, but we did add trees right in that area there, intended to match the hedgerow that is right in this location. MR. PALING-Now does Staff have any comment? Stu Mesinger made quite a few specific references in March and April. I’m looking at eight of them right now. That was just one of them. I’m looking at, there’s March 9 I think, and there’s a May 17 letter also. th MRS. MOORE-Mr. Paling, I would just refer to Chazen’s letter of yesterday. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. PALING-May 17? th MRS. MOORE-Yes, of yesterday. I would refer that, he must feel that the landscaping has been addressed, and he’s left some decisions up to the Board, in regard to intensity. MR. PALING-Yes. The density I think I agree with the applicant and what they say. All right. If you’re satisfied that all of that laundry list is done. MR VOLLARO-Yes, but it says that the Planning Board is now left with several policy questions. They’re leaving it up to us to figure it out. MR. MAC EWAN-They threw it in our laps, basically. MRS. RYBA-Right. Excuse me. I think one of the questions, I think what he means by policy questions are those items that are in the proposed Zoning Ordinance. For example, the internal parking lot islands. That landscaping, for example, that would be a policy question. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members. MR. VOLLARO-Just one other thing. I just want to make sure that on the lighting program, on the drawing, we’re trying to go with high pressure sodium here, and on the cut list, are you going with high pressure sodium using 240 volts, or which one of those are you picking? Because there’s 120, 208, 240, 240’s really 220. MR. PALUMBO-I thought there was a combination between the schedule and what was on, the cut sheet was covering. First off, let me answer the question. I believe that we have somewhere in the correspondence, we already responded that, yes, we are using high pressure sodium lights. That was a straight out statement we had made previously. MR. VOLLARO-Again, even on SEL1A, I can’t. See, I’m looking for that information to be on the lighting plan, very specifically and without interpretation between 15 letters, 10 weeks from now. MR. PALUMBO-Well, I guess to cut it short, we’re using 20 foot high poles. We’re using the high pressure sodium lights. We will use the lexan lenses, and I believe that that was the, and that’s on the record. If it’s a condition of the plan that we add a note clarifying that on the landscaping plan, or a condition of the approval, we have no problem with that. I believe that the cut sheet was provided to show the multitude of factors that were joined with the schedule, and if we weren’t clear enough, I apologize for that, but we are using the high pressure sodium that they recommended, and we will use the lexan lenses. MR. VOLLARO-But I get back to my original thing. The voltages that the voltages that they use really effect the wattages that those bulbs are at. I’m trying to determine what wattage those bulbs are going to be at to accomplish the lighting plan that you have, like this version that you have on the plan. It’s going to be directly related to wattage on that bulb. MR. PALUMBO-I see one here listed with a 250 watt. I believe, Bob, the lamp designation, LU-400, on the lighting schedule. MR. VOLLARO-On the schedule itself? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-The lamp being LU-400, that 400 refers to the lamp wattage. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’ll be at 400 watts, which means somehow or other you’ve got to get 480 volts out there, because that’s what that wattage requires, 480 volts, it seems to me. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. The electricity for the lights will be provided through the building. There’ll be conduits with the wiring under the pavement, leading to those lights, and it comes off of the electrical panel in the building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they’re 400 watt high pressure sodium with Lexan lenses at a height of 20 feet. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-To encapsulate that spec. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? We left the public hearing open from our last meeting, and we’d certainly welcome any comment. Considering the large group of people here tonight, I’d ask you to keep your comments as short as possible, if you would. When you come up to the microphone, please identify yourself and your address. Any takers? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOYCE THOMPSON MRS. THOMPSON-My name is Joyce Thompson, and I live on Garrison Road, and I’ve been quite interested in this project from the very beginning. I have a few questions. It’s difficult to see this map from the audience. So you try and follow a lot of the details, but I think I missed a few. I had a couple of questions. First of all, like how many access roads will there be actually on Bay Road? I mean, will there be one access road going into it, or is there one going in and one coming out? I’m just concerned about Bay, because that’s where the heavy traffic is. MR. MAC EWAN-The main access on Bay will have both ingress and egress, and there’s also another one that just has egress only. MRS. THOMPSON-So there’s three. MR. MAC EWAN-No, there’s two. MRS. THOMPSON-There’s two. Would they be sort of like opposite where the Hanneford access is, similar to that area? MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Paling’s going to point to it for you. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. MR. PALING-This is the two way access. This is in and out. MRS. THOMPSON-Out, off of Bay. MR. PALING-Off of Bay. This one is right turn only, going north. MRS. THOMPSON-Onto Quaker? MR. PALING-No, going onto Bay, across Quaker. MRS. THOMPSON-I see. MR. MAC EWAN-Point to the Hanneford driveway for her, Bob. MRS. THOMPSON-So that’s quite a ways down then. It’s quite near Homer Avenue. MR. PALING-Well, Homer’s back here. MRS. THOMPSON-Yes, but, okay. So, okay, now where will the trucks go in and out? Do they, okay. So the trucks are basically going to be coming up and down Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. Thompson, in the interest of time here, if you have specific questions, ask them of us and we’ll get the engineer to answer them for you. MRS. THOMPSON-All right. I’m sorry, but I don’t know if a lot of people really understand this, because it’s hard to follow the diagrams. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely no problem. MRS. THOMPSON-How many entrance roads would there be on Quaker? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. LAPPER-One. MR. MAC EWAN-One. MRS. THOMPSON-So in and out on Quaker? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think Mrs. Thompson should be able to get her questions answered and have Bob point it out to her. Because she’s sitting up here now, and now she can actually see it. Before she was sitting back there and she could not. It’s only going to take 90 seconds. MRS. THOMPSON-Well, sometimes in the presentation it’s hard for you to see it and the audience both. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, the thing is, if you go back there, and then they come back and answer your questions, you’re going to be back where you started. MRS. THOMPSON-Right MR. PALING-This is the Quaker Road. MRS. THOMPSON-Access. MR. PALING-In and out. MRS. THOMPSON-And that’s next to Denny’s, right. MR. PALING-No. Denny’s is. MR. RINGER-It’s way down by the power lines. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. So it’s quite a ways down then. MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. All right. Now the other thing I’m concerned about is when they come out on Bay, way down there, and you said that they would make a quick right hand there, I mean, coming out and they’re going to go toward Quaker. MR. PALING-If they’re going to take a right hand turn toward Quaker, they’re probably going to use this exit. MRS. THOMPSON-Well, if they use that one, you mentioned the King Fuel gas station on the corner, I mean, are you going to be going right into the lane next to that gas station? MR. PALING-They’re going right past it, yes. MRS. THOMPSON-So that could be a heavy duty turning lane right there. I mean, it’s pretty heavy duty right now, and that’s going to put a lot of extra pressure on it. How many lanes will there be on Bay Road? Like, I mean, if you just took Bay and looked at it, would you have four lanes or six lanes or all these turning lanes going left on Quaker, right on Quaker, going straight across? MR. PALING-I’d rather Frank answer that one. MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask, Mrs. Thompson, that you just direct the questions to us, when we get all said and done, then they can come up and answer them all, just like we normally do. MRS. THOMPSON-All right. That’ll be fine. I just wanted to present some of the confusion. I’ve been involved in this for a long time, and if I’m confused, maybe some other people are, too. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get them answered for you. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. The other thing I was concerned about, when they were talking about the water level, and how they’ve been measuring it in different places, but they can’t go in the back area because they don’t own that property yet on Homer Avenue, and I just wondered if, you know, when they get around to measuring that, if that’s not going to conform, is that going to be a huge problem? Because some of the people that live on Homer Avenue have talked about all the water 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) and the flooding that’s in their basement and on their property, and I just wondered if that was a concern. I have a letter, I don’t know whether you want a letter read from a neighbor that couldn’t be here tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to read it in, you’re welcome to. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. Thank you. “To The Members of the Queensbury Town Planning Board: I cannot attend the Board meeting this evening but want to have my “voice” on file regarding the proposed supermarket near the intersection of Quaker and Bay Roads. In my opinion the project should be rejected. The neighborhood I live in is greatly affected by the flow of traffic between Glen Street, Bay Road and Quaker Avenue. Traffic down my street has been steadily increasing over the approximately 10 years that I have lived here and it is very often too heavy, goes too fast, and ignores the stop signs. It is foolish to believe that the project, with access to both Quaker and Bay, would not have an impact on the traffic in not only my neighborhood but in all surrounding neighborhoods. My concerns go beyond traffic, however. It is frustrating to live in a community that seemingly ignores its citizens and allows building for building’s sake. Development should provide not only expansion, but should also allow for improvement. Allowing the project to proceed would, however: deteriorate the traffic flow in the surrounding area, have a negative impact on the area’s water table, decrease the surrounding property values, increase the current visual clutter and lack of aesthetics, increase noise levels with shopping and delivery traffic, assault the evening skies with store and parking lot lighting, create competition that someone has to lose, resulting in yet another failed business and empty building surrounded by an empty expanse of pavement – this is only exacerbated by the fact that the planned tenant is a company with known financial instability and uncertain management direction, and create low paying jobs in an economy struggling to find employees – local businesses are already facing serious personnel shortages. Queensbury is a struggling community, a community commonly referred to as being decades behind the times. The times require wise planning and decision making that take all factors into account. Let us be a community that looks to the future and has the courage to say no. Sincerely, Margaret A. Meath” And she lives at 19 Garrison Road. I guess that’s all I have to say or inquire about. I appreciate all the changes that these developers have made, and I think they’re trying to conform, but I still feel very opposed to it, and I’ve talked to many, many people in Queensbury, and I really haven’t found hardly anyone that thinks that another big market is good for our community, and such a huge, big box type building. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Could I ask that you give that letter to Staff on your way out, so that that could be made part of the record, please. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I do have a copy of that letter already. MR. MAC EWAN-You do. Okay. BEVERLY KERR MRS. KERR-Beverly Kerr, 47 Garrison Road. I have also spoken before and want to reiterate just one more time. Just because this project can be done does not mean that it should be done. We do not need another market. Competitive prices, at this point in time, are not an issue. There are too many unresolved issues that might create greater problems for residents in the future. Those attending this evening’s meeting wearing green and white ribbons are opposed to the project. As far as we know, the only residents who favor the proposal are those who would sell their houses to Nigro Corporation, and other than that, those residents, the other residents, the others favoring the proposal are the developer and the real estate agent, period. Thank you very much. MRS. THOMPSON-Could I just ask one question, or not a question, but everyone that has a ribbon here is not going to speak, which is good for you guys, but maybe, just to show the support that we have, you could ask them just to stand. MR. MAC EWAN-We would encourage everyone to come up and address the Board. It’s to their benefit. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. All the ribbons you want? But I’d like to just have them stand for you, because I know they won’t all come. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MRS. THOMPSON-This is the group that is not so in favor of the project. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? BEV PARADISE 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MRS. PARADISE-I live at 18 Homer Avenue, as you well know. Bev Paradise. My main concern is we’ve had businesses come in on Homer Avenue, and we’ve had them go, and we’ve had them block off the whole street because the business that was allowed to go in stayed for a short time and then moved on and somebody else came in. We haven’t been able to get out of our driveways. Our sump pump runs continuously, and they say that the water level is two feet. Well, before we dug down to put the sewer in, we had to get a sump pump to get the water out so they could put the pipes in. So the water level is a lot higher where they haven’t tested, and the turning of traffic right on Quaker Road will bring the traffic to Everts and Homer Avenue, where there’s children walking up and down the street, and it’s not safe for them, and Denny’s was also an existing business, and I feel like the others do. We don’t need a Grand Union because they’re in financial trouble all the time and they don’t pay their bills well, so they don’t stay, and they don’t give them any benefits. So I don’t see why we need another Grand Union, because when they fail, something else will go in, and they won’t have the same rules to follow that Grand Union’s promising you. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? TOM JACOBS MR. JACOBS-Thank you. My name is Tom Jacobs. I’d just like to clarify the statement that was made about the cycling, or bicycling, if you will, access, because we now have an extension of the County, Warren County Bike path. That is not going to alleviate all of the wants of the bicycling or cycling population in this community. The ability to go up the Bay Road, for years, has been a favorite path, and a bike path does not solve the situation of the pleasure of cycling. The Bay Road path that is to be available is now so crowded that nobody, none of us, and myself included, I’ve been cycling around here for 32 years, and that used to be a favorite path to go past the Community College, but it’s not accessible anymore. It’s just too much traffic. It’s too difficult, and it’s too dangerous, and the bike path, which is a wonderful addition to the community, offers another route, but it’s crowded with people on skates and baby carriages, and all sorts of activity, which is a wonderful thing, but to say that the cycling opportunities are going to be taken care of by the new bike path is not proper and it’s not correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? JUDD GREY MR. GREY-My name is Judd Grey. I live at 16 Fort Amherst Road in the Town of Queensbury, on the wrong side of the street, the good side of the street. I’d like to make a couple of short comments. About the 65,000 square foot building, no matter what kind of façade you put on it, it still is a big box. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. The traffic survey. I don’t think one error compounded on another error makes the third error correct. A traffic survey taken in November and December does not reflect the actual problems on Bay and Quaker. Yesterday at 4:15 I tried to exit Fort Amherst Road to go north on Bay. Six minutes later I was able to get across the road. The traffic light that allows you to go onto Quaker allows a left hand turn for eight seconds. Those who are waiting to get through that light have to wait for sometimes two changes. It’s backed up as far as below Hanneford on certain days. I came down from Lake George this afternoon at 1:30. The left turn to go onto Quaker Road was backed up to Ray Supply. The people in the back of the line had to wait for at least two traffic changes before they got onto Quaker Road. As far as, Grand Union is a good citizen, they were here before and they left. They’ve been in and out of bankruptcy. According to the Wall Street Journal, they’re about to go back again. Their financial officer stole two million dollars, and they caught him just before he got on a plane to go to Brazil. Is that the kind of corporate citizen you want in Queensbury? I don’t believe it. Now that I understand the source of real information, the Post Star, that they want to put three more boxes up on Aviation Road because of the traffic problem they were going to have in their original plan, and I’m sure you’re going to have fun with that one. The living quality in Queensbury, I’ve been in the area all my life, and I had my 78 birthday Monday, and the quality of life in Queensbury th in the last 10 years has slipped tremendously because of all the development, and a traffic survey made in November and December is not valid. All the seasonal people have gone home. All the tourists have gone home. Those who can afford it have all gone south like snowbirds. I suggest, before you make any decision, you have a new traffic survey made, in May, June, or July, to find out what the real situation is on that road. You can’t get up and down Bay Road half the time. Sure they’re (lost word) but also there’s fender benders. There’s no way the people coming out onto Bay Road to go up to Quaker Road will ever get through that intersection, the way the traffic is now, especially with another 300 places to park cars, and I would strongly suggest to you that you have a traffic survey done now, or in July, when the people are really using that road, instead of November and December when nobody’s here. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) BETTY POTTER MRS. POTTER-My name is Betty Potter, and I own a house on Homer Avenue. As a matter of fact, the house has been discussed several times at the past meetings, and I missed the last two. The first comment was that the house did not face the back of the store, so, consequently, I wouldn’t see the store. The window that’s over the garage is the master bedroom suite. That window faces the back of that store on the second floor. I lived in LaRose Gardens for nine years, behind Price Chopper. My bedroom was on the second floor. I know what goes on at a supermarket overnight. When the massage therapist got permission to put her business in the store next door, the house next door, I didn’t object, because the business closes around six. She’s not open on weekends. It shouldn’t bother me. The first thing that she did when she moved in was she cut down those great big pine trees and took all the privacy away. Now, the nice big wraparound deck on the back of the house can see all the way over to where the store is going to be. If you take down those trees and you put that supermarket in there, you are not only giving us the noise from the supermarket. You’re giving us the noise from Quaker Road. That green span is a buffer, for all the traffic noise that comes from Quaker Road. You’re taking it away. When you talk about the traffic, are you considering the fact that you’re allowing all these other developments to go in up in that area, like up where Hiland Golf Course is? Or off of Bay Road where they want to put in another development. That’s, eventually going to cause twice as much traffic as we have now. The other thing that I would like to ask Mr. Vollaro, he mentioned that, because of the water table, if, when they put in their footings, that they put them in water, that that was okay. Did you say that? MR. VOLLARO-They can build them that way. It’s been done. They can get down, eventually, down to soils that will support, what I’m trying to provide here is that the finished floor of that building remains at 317.5, no matter what, but there are engineering techniques that will allow them to build in that kind of a, it’s just a fact of life. They can build in water. MRS. POTTER-I agree with you, but my question is this, when I built my father’s house, I had a diagram for an architecturally designed footing that went in water, because the footings underneath the garage door had to go down four foot for a frost wall. I was told I couldn’t build that in Queensbury, and it cost me $6,000 to raise the level of that property so that I could put the footings not in the water. So are you saying that it’s okay for a business to put them in water, but not for private residents? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not for this Board to determine. That would come from Building and Codes. That would be a determination from them. MRS. POTTER-But isn’t that what they’re doing, in essence? MR. MAC EWAN-They claim they’re not going to do that, that they’re going to be above the water table. MRS. POTTER-But Mr. Vollaro said if they weren’t, I would be okay to put it in the water. MR. MAC EWAN-No. What he was questioning was the engineering, was there engineering out there that would allow them, or allow construction of footings in water, and there are techniques that will allow you to do that. He can speak for himself, but I don’t believe he was agreeing to that. He was asking the question. MRS. POTTER-Well, then let me ask you as a Board, if they do hit water, will the Town of Queensbury allow them to put those footings in water? And if they do, isn’t that discrimination? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a question neither I nor anyone on this Board could answer. That would have to come from Building and Codes, and there are State building codes that everyone has to abide by. MRS. POTTER-Well, then, that was my question. I mean, if you’re going to ask one to do it, you should ask another. The last thing is that I’m assuming that all of you people have been out in that area. You know what it looks like. You know the way the houses are. Picture Hanneford in that spot, and then tell me that that’s not going to hurt the neighborhood that’s going to be left. I don’t think you can do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MATTHEW VAUGHN MR. VAUGHN-Hi. My name is Matthew Vaughn. I live on Homer Avenue, and I’m one of the properties that are to be bought, and I’m not for the store just because they’re buying my property. I feel that this is the most useful, the best use of the property. The people on the other side of the street are going to have a 50 foot buffer that’s going to block the noise and the lights. As I sit right 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) now, Lowe’s, their lights shine right in my kitchen window. There’s nothing between us and Quaker Road. This would be more beneficial to the other people on the other side of Homer Avenue to have that buffer there. This community that everyone talks about is not really a community. There’s just a couple of houses on this road, with businesses going up Bay, down Quaker, businesses coming up Everts. Our houses are being engulfed. Why not use the area to bring commercial business in? As far as tax revenue, I saw in the Queensbury magazine, Hanneford pays four and a half million dollars in taxes. Price Chopper, they have another four million in taxes. Lowe’s is eight million in taxes. We have to think about the Town of Queensbury when we’re considering this store, and the amount of annual tax revenue, the jobs it will create. This also has to be taken into consideration. And as far as the boxiness of the store, the way it’s going to look, I’m sure when you drove down Quaker Road, you noticed when they were building Lowe’s every day, but now when you drive down Quaker Road, unless you’re going into Lowe’s, you don’t even really see it. This more or less impacts about five houses, one on our side of Homer Avenue, and four on the other side. So this has very minimal impact on the community, while giving the community much more improvement. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? KATHLEEN GRIFFIN MS. GRIFFIN-I’m Kathleen Griffin. I live on Garrison Road. I am opposed to this project. The fellow who was just speaking, saying there’s not much community really on Homer. A lot of the people are being, it seems, forced out because businesses are coming in, but if the businesses went on the other side of Quaker, it would seem the people who live, the houses, the families on the other side, on the south side of Quaker, would have more space to be families to be the community, and you can have more development on the other side. It just seems kind of crazy to me to keep moving in towards Glens Falls when you have all that space on the other side, and I do think that the traffic would be increasing on our street. I mean, I see it a lot. I don’t know how the study could say that it wouldn’t be effected, but it seems to me that it would be, and we’re seeing more of it, and I would really like to see this project moved elsewhere, rather than where it’s being proposed. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? FRED GIARDINELLO MR. GIARDINELLO-My name is Fred Giardinello, and I live on Garrison Road, and I’m opposed to the project also. It seems to me that if a project were moving into Town that were consistent from the outset with the planning regulations and zoning regulations, the Town Fathers would have a very difficult time preventing that project from coming in, and here we have a project that, from some of the comments you’ve already heard, certainly doesn’t seem to be especially desirable for us. I’ve been here long enough to have seen Albany Public Market go by the boards, and of course I think of Grand Union as well, right now Hanneford and Price Chopper are beating up on one another, and it just doesn’t seem to me that it’s going to enhance very much in the Town, and it seems to me further, and perhaps most important, that the Town has had to the Planning Board, and whatever other bodies are involved in this, have had to accommodate this project, in that I believe, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that this is not, at least at the outset, consistent with the zoning ordinances and planning regulations in the Town. Isn’t that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-It did get a zone change, yes. MR. GIARDINELLO-In other words, we really do have to accommodate them to let this project come in, and it seems to me that we could exercise some judgement then, on the basis the type of project, before we make extensive accommodations for a project that I think is of questionable value, and as a matter of fact, I even have some reservations on how the company ever decided that this is the appropriate spot for another food market. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. John? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Just three things that I might offer for consideration. One is in reference to the westbound exiting traffic, and I’m talking to Quaker Road. That one of the things that was not considered in the argument was a public safety interest, because the traffic on Quaker Road is not only more numerous, but it’s faster. So that I wish you would consider that, in addition to possibly achieving an F Level of Service, that there be a public safety interest issue at that access point as well, and the second thing that I would just offer for consideration, is turning lanes. I know I’ve mentioned that before, but I’ve seen no discussion of it, but wouldn’t turning lanes, especially in the Quaker Road access area, help minimize the disruption of traffic flow along Quaker? I didn’t seem them on the, okay, and the third thing that I might suggest for consideration is that if 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) we make a motion for approval that we also attach to that motion that if any enterprise is located adjacent to this, that not only will this applicant not deny access to those adjacent sites, but would help accommodate access to adjacent commercial sites, future commercial sites. We’ve run into this problem before where, you know, we start getting a string of enterprises, and it would be more sensible if we could link them in some way, but we’ve always had the applicants say no. If we could get it in a motion that they would not deny, and even accommodate access to adjacent sites in the long run, just a suggestion. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, could you give me an example of where we would have to have an adjacent site? You can’t have it on the south because there’s a road there, there’s Homer Avenue. MR. STROUGH-There’s a corner piece, and just as, you know, should that gas station not remain, and should that become something in the future, we might want to tie access into that as well. I’m just saying that we leave the door open, and, you know, as a rule I’d like to see us leave the door open, as these applicants come in. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see where you’re coming from. MR. STROUGH-All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PETER BOVEE MR. BOVEE-Hi. My name is Peter Bovee, and I have at least 25 years experience living in this neighborhood. Three things that I’ve noticed about this map are, A, the distance between the curb cut for the entrance and exit on the Bay Street part of the building and Homer Avenue. Homer Avenue gets to be quite busy during the evening hours and the morning hours, for one reason. There’s a day care center at the end of the street. I’m not sure of the numbers of the traffic that goes through there, but if you’re sitting out on mother’s porch in the morning, you’ll see lots of traffic go by, not to mention the business at Lockhart Chiropractic. As far as the Quaker Road entrance and exit, you mentioned a study. This would be my question for you to carry on to the next. You mentioned you counted 10% or estimated 10% of your traffic into your store using that entrance? I’m asking which way would that traffic be coming from? Would it be westbound or east bound? Because if your study was only a calculation of 10% of traffic using that entrance, then your purpose for putting that building at that location, facing that angle, is pointless. Maybe I’m misheard something. I don’t know. Other than that, this weekend I returned a video to, actually, no, it wasn’t this weekend. It was Tuesday night, I returned a video to Hollywood Video right on the corner. My wife is one of these paranoid people. Her foot went down on the imaginary break on her side of the car. Why? Because somebody was pulling out of Hollywood Video to make a right turn out onto Quaker Road. This is already one busy intersection, and someone, the previous speaker here mentioned, (lost word) all these businesses into one kind of area, which is the only idea that truly makes sense, but adding another business with more curb cuts just doesn’t add anything to our quality of life in this neighborhood, and, yes, it is a neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. BARBARA BALLANT MRS. BALLANT-Barbara Ballant, Dixon Road, Queensbury. I’m pretty much a spectator on this. I live on the other side of Town. However, rather than take a position, I’m just offering this as a statement. I was a Grand Union shopper for many years, until Hanneford and K-Mart came in, and with Price Chopper competing, they all had lower prices than Grand Union, and the last two or three years Grand Union was here, all their prices were higher than all the other supermarkets, and I drifted away. Now I go over to the nearest Grand Union, which is South Glens Falls, regularly, because I can buy products there I cannot get in Hanneford or K-Mart, and I can also buy different sizes there that I can’t get in Hanneford and K-Mart. I don’t want the super jumbo sizes. I can get my size, and I also can get it in a variety of brands. So Grand Union offers what none of the other stores offer, however, their prices are all higher still than any of the other supermarkets. So they still haven’t changed. I think that’s what caused them to go out, and that hasn’t changed. Their prices are still all higher, but they do still offer something the others don’t offer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. JOANNE BRAMLEY MRS. BRAMLEY-Joanne Bramley, Queensbury. I have one question before I’d like to read a short statement. Mr. Lapper made reference to complying to future guidelines that are not yet in place yet for the Town, and I was not, I’d be interested in knowing if that is the Chazen study he’s referring to, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) and how that information was acquired. It’s to my knowledge that that has not been made public yet. I would like to say that the developers and their representatives are being paid to promote this project. The public that is here tonight is motivated by their desire to protect their property value and their quality of life, not only for their neighborhood, but for our community. We’re not motivated by a desire to object to business development. As residents, we sit here we listen to developers and Board members tell us that our community is changing and we must embrace that change. I ask this Board to lead the way for change in this community, and to start now to set a new direction for development in Queensbury. Each developer wants their project approved , and will cite others who came before them who were approved. This cannot be the rationale for continued approvals. Developers also tell us how much the public is going to like their project, yet the public before them, the public most directly effected, seems to have minimal influence in these matters. We repeatedly come before the Board, residents of Glen Acres, Homer, Garrison, Fort Amherst, North Road, neighbors of the Prospect School Development, the Indian Ridge Development, Courthouse Estates, Glen Lake, Twicwood, and we all express the same concerns. The scope of the negative impacts associated with this project include the economic health of the company, the delivery schedules, the size of the building, the water tables, and infringement on the neighbors. The anticipated development on Quaker Road does not seem to warrant the type of access that this development proposes, and I am awestruck by the logic used to evaluate the traffic flow at this already busy intersection, and I would like to quote Mrs. LaBombard from the last meeting in April, and she said once this land is gone, it’s gone forever, and I also have sat here many times and listened to Mr. MacEwan and other members of the Board say that everything isn’t black and white here, that, as Mr. Mesinger said, and I hope I don’t misquote him, that there needs to be some latitude, and there needs to be some room for your judgement in reviewing and approving of these applications. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? DONNA SMYTHE MRS. SMYTHE-Good evening. I’m Donna Smythe. I live at 4 Homer Avenue, and we’re one of the houses that are under contract with Nigro. Having been to numerous of these meetings over the past eight months, I have a few comments I’d like to share in regards to the passing of the Nigro plan. My husband and I have lived on Homer Avenue for almost 18 years. When we first moved onto Homer Avenue, the only business on the street was a blacktopping company, and Quaker and Bay Road were far from being commercially developed. We bought the house because it was off the beaten path and was very close to things in both Glens Falls and Queensbury. Through the years, Duke closed off their street to traffic and commercial building began to occur, which we feel has been very beneficial for the growth of the community. My first comment is regards to the area being residential. Homer Avenue hasn’t been overly residential in the true sense for a long time. Since we’ve been on the street, seven businesses have popped up. Of course some of these businesses are individual homes, yet they are still businesses. At this time, we don’t feel that any one of us on the street would be able to sell our home for only residential family living. In regards to the turning right onto Quaker Road and coming back right onto Everts and then coming down Homer, we kind of feel that people, if they’re going to want to turn left onto Bay to come out on Homer, which is only 100 yards, or 100 feet or whatever away from that, that they’re not going to tend to come down Homer, that they’re going to travel all the way down Everts and possibly use Lexington either out to Ridge or back out to Bay, in that direction, and to my knowledge, I don’t see anyone here from Everts Avenue being represented as far as traffic possibly increasing on their road. In regards to the bike trail, we find that it’s very beneficial to ride your bike down the trail, across the bridge, and then come back down Glenwood to Bay and head up towards the campus in that direction. Next, even if Mrs. Brower chooses to sell her property for residential building, once again, we don’t feel that anyone in their right mind would want to build a new house over our way, due to the commercialness of the area, because that was brought up at one of the past meetings, that, why doesn’t she sell and have homes built down there. Thirdly, as far as the area being a park like setting, which has been mentioned at previous meetings, we already have several nice parks in Queensbury. Hovey Pond is just down the street, and we often take our dog down there at different times of the day, and there never seems to be overly that many people there, compared to the number of people that live in the Town of Queensbury. Plus a park like setting is really of no use for Mrs. Brower to m maintain on her own. Finally, in regards to the water issues, we haven’t had a water problem at all this spring, nor have we had one for the past few years, at our residence. We feel that Nigro has gone out of their way to make sure that many of the concerns that have been shared over the past few months have been addressed and taken care of . They’ve done a good job developing and maintaining other properties in our community and keeping businesses in them. We hope that, tonight, you vote yes for this project so that we may all get on with our lives. Thank you for your time and consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MIKE INGALLSTON 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. INGALLSTON-My name is Mike Ingallston. I live on the corner of Homer and Bay, 302 Bay Road. As you can tell, she didn’t have a ribbon on. I have a couple of questions to ask this Board. It was brought up in previous meetings, and these questions haven’t been answered yet. Does this Board, and Town, think that Quaker Road, the building on Quaker Road, is going to cease being expanded after the Grand Union gets in on this Nigro property? Therefore, the traffic problem will not increase any more than what Nigro is going to do to us? Maybe it will stop. I don’t know. Maybe they’re going to go to all different roads and Quaker Road will die. I have no idea. I believe, I’ve been told by people and contractors, and people that have dealt with this Town in a number of years, that this Board cannot enforce anything that is not in law. So, if we’ve been talking about meetings, for the last three or four meetings, about tractor trailers running all day and all night, for air conditioning and heat, the Board has asked for letters from the Grand Union that they will not be on that property running from eleven o’clock until seven o’clock in the morning. The representatives of Nigro have said they cannot get that letter, have not gotten that letter from the Grand Union yet. This Board does not have any authority to enforce anything if those tractor trailers are running on that property, I believe. Can you answer that question right now? MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to approve any site plan, be it Grand Union or anyone else, and we had conditions with that application that restricted the premises to certain things, if they were violating any one of those things and they weren’t in conformance with what the approvals granted, it’s enforceable. MR. INGALLSTON-As of what? What can happen to Grand Union, Nigro, what can happen? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s enforcement actions, court proceedings. They could be fined. They could be made by the courts to remedy the situation. MR. INGALLSTON-If they’re spending $10 million to build this project, you think they can pay fines? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to get into a debate with you. I’ve answered your. MR. INGALLSTON-Okay, but it has to be in writing and it has to be in the specs. Any condition of approval would have to be listed in any resolution that this Board would pass. Be it this site plan or anyone else. Okay. Mrs. Paradise’s sump pump has been running continuously year round. My sump pump, I live on the corner of Homer and Bay, has been running this spring. Mrs. Smythe apparently is in a higher elevation than I am. Hers does not need to run. I don’t know, but I’m telling you the truth, mine is running this spring. I have a white pipe coming out of the cellar window so I keep it from going next to the wall out into the middle of the yard. If you’ve driven down Bay Street this spring, you’ve seen my little white pipe sticking out there, because you can see it in the snow and you can see it on the green grass. I asked, a couple of meetings ago, to have this Town Board, Planning Board, check into, I gave you a copy of the advertisement in the Post Star, to see if the zoning was changed legally from residential to light industrial. MR. MAC EWAN-Which it was. MR. INGALLSTON-Okay. I wasn’t there at that time, so I don’t know. They’ve stated that one of the residents that is selling his property for a little bit more than twice of what it’s worth, has stated that the taxes that this Grand Union is going to pay. Apparently, Grand Union wants to come into Queensbury for a reason. So if they don’t come into this situation between Homer and Bay, which they shouldn’t, they’re going to come some place into Queensbury. It might cost them a little bit more to get property on Ridge or cost them a little bit more to get that property where Woodbury’s used to be, but they want to be in Queensbury. So as far as you guys worrying about four and a half million dollars in taxes going out the window, I think this situation is going to happen some place. Nigro is spending a lot of money, so far, to get this installed. So I don’t think the taxes are going to leave the Town if it does not get installed on this piece of property. I asked, two meetings ago, because I couldn’t make the last meeting. I was out of town, about their $10 million project, about full trees being installed. I haven’t heard anything about the full trees, I haven’t heard anything about higher walls being installed on top of that berm. They were asked, two meetings ago, to install these, by me, I asked the Board to ask them. I haven’t heard anything, nay or yea about it. MR. MAC EWAN-More trees on the berm you were referring to? MR. INGALLSTON-I wanted full sized trees installed on the berm. Because unfortunately, if this thing does slide through the fingertips of Queensbury Boards, I don’t want to look at it because I live on the corner of Homer and Bay. It was asked two meetings ago, and one of the members asked this company to re-design that building 180 degrees and put the docks on Everts Avenue. Nothing has been mentioned tonight, at this meeting, about those two docks and turning that building. Nothing whatsoever. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-That was done the last meeting. They showed an alternate plan the last meeting. MR. INGALLSTON-I believe that it was tabled. You had a meeting then? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’ve had a meeting since. MR. INGALLSTON-Okay. So they don’t have to do anything? Their building can still go as far as? MR. MAC EWAN-This is the plan that they’ve chosen to want to push forward on. MR. INGALLSTON-Okay. After the Board asked them to change it and move those docks and turn the building, right? Okay. Now, I’ve said this many times before, and I guess I want to say it again. This Board was elected by the people of this Town. It’s here to benefit the residents of Queensbury, and we’re not as good salesmen as professional people that are in business. So we’re trying to save our residences. We’re trying to keep our living style from slipping lower than it has been in the last few years. I’ve mentioned a few meetings before about, we need to look at the long term planning, and not just tomorrow. We need to look at next week. So, hopefully for that reason only, that this gets turned down, but the other thing, it was brought to my attention that apparently the go karts on Route 9, the last couple of weekends, have been running into the wee hours of the morning, and apparently nobody has any authority to do anything on that, but maybe that wasn’t in the stipulations. I don’t know, but I don’t know all the laws of Queensbury. I’m not a lawyer, I’m just a resident in Queensbury, and I just don’t want to see my neighborhood destroyed, which it’s going to be if this goes through. As far as the people on Everts Avenue not being here, apparently they have their own little private stop sign now on Everts Avenue. So they have some kind of an inside edge in this Town, because it got up there real quickly. Now if they can get a stop sign put on an intersection real quick, I don’t think they need to be at this meeting. As a resident of Homer Avenue, and as a resident of Queensbury, I’m asking this Board to turn this thing down 100%. I have nothing against business in Queensbury, but it should go where it needs to go, not in the middle of a neighborhood. It needs to go in a business area. It’s very simple. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I just want to stand corrected, Mr. Ingallston. I misspoke. That the alternate plan that they showed us last month, they didn’t rotate the building. They just moved it down a little bit farther. Okay. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-It was rotated. MR. RINGER-And we rejected it. MR. PALING-They moved the loading docks 90 degrees. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it was. I apologize. That’s right. MR. INGALLSTON-Did you find out who is capable of being sued because of the tractor trailers and the diesel fuel? I asked who gets sued, does Queensbury get sued if somebody gets sick or does Nigro get sued? MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t answer that question. NEIGHBOR-I just have to say one thing. It seems kind of funny, Mike was at the kitchen table when Nigro first offered us the plan for our house, and he was all for it, but since he didn’t get his price, now all of a sudden he’s against it? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to stop you there. I don’t want to get into personal financial things. That’s not what this Board’s about. MRS. PARADISE-One thing that I haven’t heard addressed is the power usage. Because I’ve lived in the area where the power, the voltage became low because of the increasing use of power, and our motors on our furnaces went, the motor on our refrigerator, the t.v. went. I haven’t heard that problem addressed at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask the question. Anyone else? Okay. Two letters MRS. MOORE-Okay. This letter is dated May 15, 2000, and it’s from Beverly Kerr, and I’ll ask her if she’d like me to read that in to the record. You repeated a portion of that letter, and I’ll ask, would you like me to read the whole letter into the record? MRS. KERR-Yes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’s addressed to Mr. MacEwan, “As you are aware, a number of neighbors of Fort Amherst and Garrison Roads, as well as some of the homeowners on Homer Avenue are opposed to the Grand Union (Megasave) project. This “memo” is to let you know that there will be residents of these areas present at Thursday evening’s Planning Board meeting. Green and white ribbons have been distributed to those who are in opposition. These ribbons will be worn at the meeting. We ask that you advise the Board as to their meaning. Please be aware that most of us feel the project could find a more suitable, vacant property that would not in anyway compromise Megasave’s business and, in the bargain, we could preserve another valuable green space in the Town of Queensbury. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Beverly Kerr” This letter from Thomas Meath was received May 18, was written on February 11, 2000. “The proposed location of th a supermarket on the north side of Homer Avenue has confounded me since first proposed. What possible reasons could there be for a developer to select this site on the edge of a residential neighborhood and to request rezoning, and what possible reasons could there be for anyone to think this would be desirable and to approve it. As for the developer’s rationale, it must revolve around economics. There are many locations on Quaker Road which would be more suitable for a supermarket, but the prices are probably high, large volumes of fill would be required, and perhaps tenant occupied buildings would need to be removed. Why does the developer prefer the proposed site? Undoubtedly because it is less costly even though it may be marginally less desirable. As for the rationale of the area residents, it revolves around “quality of life”. There are many obvious reasons why the location of a supermarket on the proposed site would be detrimental to the well-being of area residents. To name only a few – more traffic congestion in the immediate area, nighttime visual pollution from lights, noise pollution from traffic, delivery and garbage trucks, air pollution from more traffic and congestion, and the ultimate requirement of more traffic lights on Bay Street, if only to permit traffic to exit and enter Garrison Road, Fort Amherst Road, and Webster Avenue. A traffic light at the supermarket entrance on Bay Street will be required, and traffic on Bay Street which now moves quite smoothly will be reduced to a crawl. All of the above reduces to a final question – “Why should area residents subsidize this location for another supermarket?” Thank you, Thomas E. Meath” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Last call, anybody want to speak? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been writing? I’ve been writing. Any questions? MR. LAPPER-I don’t have a lot of , we’re here to answer all of your questions, and whatever you direct us to answer from the neighbors. A lot of what we heard tonight, we’ve heard before many times, and I don’t have a lot of comments. I guess I’d like to just say that in terms of the level of review and scrutiny and the design changes that, the issues that we’ve looked at on this project, this is sort of a new day in Queensbury, in terms of this project, and I think that if this is the level of scrutiny that commercial projects are going to get in the future, which I expect, at this point, it’s going to be more expensive to develop projects in Queensbury, but I think our Town will be nicer for it, in terms of landscaping, building design, site design, etc., and I think that, at the end of the day, that when this project is built that people are going to drive by and say that this is nicer than Price Chopper, nicer than Hanneford, nicer than other boxes that have been built, and I do think that people are going to like this. I think that we and you have dealt with the issues that all of the other review agencies have signed off on it at this point, and we’re, frankly, pretty proud with this, even though we realize that there are neighbors that are uncomfortable with this, but I think that the Garrison/Fort Amherst neighborhood is a situation that, it just has to do with the location and people do use it as cut through streets, and they’re threatened by that, and I don’t know what the response is, but it’s nothing that development of Quaker, can’t do anything different. Quaker and Route 9 are the commercial corridors in Town, and that’s where development is happening and will happen, and through adaptive re-use and in-fill, certainly there will be, Queensbury, somebody said, I wrote it down, I think it was in a letter, that it’s a struggling community decades behind the times and certainly, from my perspective, and probably from yours, Queensbury is a community where people are building lovely residential homes, commercial developers and retailers, businesses want to move into the Town. It’s really a regional shopping center and that, obviously, it’s your job to make sure that these things happen as attractively as possible, but I think that Queensbury is a healthy Town, and one of the residents mentioned what was in the Chronicle article about the tax base and obviously, Queensbury has a healthy tax base, and that’s why we have low residential taxes, relatively. We’re just, frankly, proud of the project. Just a couple of comments, in terms of what John Strough said. Future access, you know, I think that the fellow on the corner that his property may some day be rezoned to commercial, across from the Bard facility, and certainly as a condition, it’s already in the Code, but future access to that, to Denny’s what have you, if something happens with the King Fuels, if it’s consolidated, of course that’s something that can be a condition, that, to have future 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) links, and Joanne asked about the Chazen, how we address the guidelines that haven’t been released yet, and of course that’s because, as part and parcel of the Chazen implementation or drafting of the guidelines. The Planning Staff and the Planning Board submitted our plans to them, so we had their comments, and as result of that our project has responded to these guidelines which are only proposed, of course, we expect they’ll be implemented or for the most part they will, but that’s the answer. That’s how this project was scrutinized at that level. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to go down a list of some of the questions that, and some that we’re going to probably reiterate, but they were questions that, nonetheless, people from the public asked. I think we’ve answered how many driveways, accesses there are on Bay Road. I think we answered that one. One of the questions someone asked is how many turning lanes, or how many lanes are now going to be on Bay Road? MR. PALUMBO-There will be, up at the intersection here, the same five lanes that there currently are, two heading in this direction, and then a left turn, a straight through, and a right turn lane. That is the same at the intersection. Up in this area, what we’ve done is Warren County, when they originally did some work on Bay Road, they left that area to the curbing wide enough, with that shoulder that’s presently there. They did that on purpose to accommodate a future fifth lane, and so what we have are two lanes, two lanes, and then in this point right here a center two way movement turning. So it can serve as a turn lane for not only our project, but also down here for Hanneford. Presently Hanneford uses the striped median as a salvage area, and the driveways along this side for people making lefts into those, they will be able to utilize that as well. So there will be, through that stretch, a total of five lanes, with these points here, where there is a tapering back to four lanes. MR. MAC EWAN-One neighbor asked about, and I hope I remember, I wrote this down correctly, about 10% of the traffic into the store was off Bay Road? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. That 10% that we were talking about is strictly the 10% that, it was 5% from here, 5% from here, 10% making the movement in here. There was another 35% that was coming from the east. So a total of 45% was, the distribution was shown coming in on Quaker, with the other 55% coming in this access. MR. MAC EWAN-And one resident asked about the possibility of re-doing the traffic study, which would be more seasonal with heavier traffic volumes that we’d normally get in June, July or August? MR. PALUMBO-One of the things that we did early on in the process, with all that has gone on probably got lost in the shuffle. This study was done, and was compared to the volumes and the distributions, all the volumes mostly is what we’re talking about in this case. The volumes that were projected, not just from our actual counts during those periods of time, but also the study that was done, and there was an intensive study done for the County by Vollmer Associates for the entire Quaker Road corridor, and similarly, Lowe’s had done a study when they had done their analysis, which had counts at a different time of year. I cannot say right now the specifics of that, but I do recall that, that was an issue that had been raised, and one of those studies, I do recall, was done during the seasonal period. The two studies were related to each other, and those counts were evaluated with each other, and found to not have a significant margin of difference. In fact, when the initial response that Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council had come back with was that, especially in the area of our project, the Bay Road, Quaker Road, our volumes being projected were seven to nine percent higher than the other studies. So the numbers that we were using were actually higher than the other traffic studies we’re predicting. The Vollmer study and our study were done, the counts were done at different times of the year, but they were done within the same calendar year, if I’m correct. I’m not positive of that, but there was a point in time when that issue had raised itself, and people had said November, why did you chose November? It was evaluated, and both Warren County, A/GFTC and Vollmer, who reviewed the traffic study, all felt that the numbers we were using were conservative in nature. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Ingallston asked, if this were to be approved, that mature trees be planted along the berms. MR. PALUMBO-I think the definition there of what may have been discussed before. What we committed to was that we were going to be planting larger than the usual required trees here to try to get an immediate impact of that berm. I think that what we had addressed at a point in time was that the standard evergreen situation, the Town normally asks for a minimum six foot high tree. I think we went eight to ten feet in that, but we have committed to planting trees of larger than sized, especially along the berm, larger than what is normally required by the Town. The semantics of mature trees, I think, you know, no, we are not putting a deciduous tree up there that you could go out here and find one of 20 feet high with a mass spread. That would be a misrepresentation. MR. MAC EWAN-Power usage. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. PALUMBO-The normal process for us, after a site plan approval, is that during the building design process, the building will have to be submitted, as you mentioned, a lot of the standard building codes. The building design is going to be applicable to those Codes and also applicable to Niagara Mohawk to receive the necessary power that they will have to have. There will be transformers, you know, that will be located on the site, in unobtrusive areas, most suited, and actually really dictated to us by Niagara Mohawk as far as where those go, but the main point of that is that the loading requirement Niagara Mohawk will require from Grand Union, the loading requirements of all of their equipment in the building, whether it’s coolers or air conditioning or any machinery that they will require, Niagara Mohawk will ask for actual specifications and actual load information, and they will have to provide Niagara Mohawk with a satisfactory design of the building, the system of the electrical circuitry that will accommodate that, and the last line of defense on that is Niagara Mohawk’s. They would not approve a project, or give the power unless they feel satisfied that the power they’re supplying is necessary for the building, and normally they don’t provide any more than that. They get very specific with the building on that. MR. MAC EWAN-And the last question is regarding, again, water levels on Homer Avenue, and not having the ability to do test pits into the encroachment area of some of the parcels you don’t have under ownership. What is the potential that you foresee with high water tables and how would that effect design? MR. PALUMBO-Greg may be able to answer this if I don’t answer it satisfactorily, but previously, with the fact that we had borings and test pits done at different points, we had a cluster up here. We had a cluster up here. The point of going to as close to the four corners of the building as we could was to verify that we covered a good range of the property. I don’t suspect that, you know, a test pit in this location would be significantly different than these here. I don’t suspect that test pits in this location would be significantly different than this one here, and what you start to have, in terms of a water table, is that it does go with the land around it. It does maintain, you know, somewhat, a level that has some consistency throughout, and that was the purpose of getting more spread out, not only doing it in the location of the buildings. I really don’t foresee anything that would dramatically find that these properties up here would be, and when I say significant, two feet or any more, higher that we’d even start that conversation of, can you put the footing within that water table area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Did you want to add something? MR. GIFFORD-The soils that I observed the day, on those four test pits, and what I’ve read in the reports and know of the area, are very consistent with rather flat water tables, that is that it isn’t higher, 200 feet away, than it is. It’s generally, as Frank says, it generally follows the contour of the land as well, the ground surface. It doesn’t, however, the other fellow who mentioned, or gal who mentioned that her sump pump runs all the time, that doesn’t surprise me. In looking at the ground level out there, and knowing that they have a basement there, and it being a sand soil that’s going to run water through it rather easily, it doesn’t surprise me at all that down under that elevation, or the groundwater level, that their sump is going to be running. We’re not putting a basement under this building. We don’t suspect to have a problem like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any final questions? Okay. We don’t need to do a SEQRA because it was done at the time of rezoning. So, I’ll entertain a motion, if someone wants to put something up. MR. RINGER-You’re looking for a motion either way? MR. MAC EWAN-Either way. MR. RINGER-This is one where we certainly had a lot of public comment, and much of it is of value. However, we do have property here that is zoned commercial, that meets the requirements of the Town. The developer has done a lot, changed his property around considerably. It’s difficult to come up with, since the property is zoned the way it is, I find it difficult to say no. So, therefore, I will make a motion to Approve Site Plan No. 62-99 Nigro Companies. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-99 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: As prepared by Staff, with the following conditions: That the northerly exit on Bay Road be signed for right hand turn only, and that it be made in such a manner that a right turn only is mandatory. That the hours of delivery for all trucks shall not occur between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. That the site plan should show a location for potential access to adjacent properties. The front of the building will be at 351.50, that’s the height of the building, it does not exceed that height, and that the rear of the building shall be at 344.50, and shall not exceed that level. That the lighting plan be according to Sheet SE1A, and that this will be high pressure sodium with Lexan lenses. The applicant coordinate with the Wastewater and Water Departments for installation of utilities prior to obtaining a building permit. That the plantings will be planted and maintained by a professional lawn care company, and 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) this includes a replacement of any original plantings that might die or be damaged. That a sprinkler system be installed and maintained by a professional company in that business on Bay Road. Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. RINGER-How am I going to word this. Mark, a little help on this. I want to put in there that the site plan should show space to align with adjacent property. MRS. RYBA-There’s already linkages required in the Ordinance under Section 179-66.1. You might ask that, in addition to that, that the applicant be required to build the roadway connection at a future time, as determined by the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s just a suggestion from Staff. As far as your intent goes, Staff is pointing out, I think correctly so, that the Zoning Ordinance already has provisions requiring, facilitating that, if you will. I think, in past practice, correct me if I’m wrong, Board members, but in past practice I think you’ve typically required, where I think you were going, Larry, something on the site plan showing the feasibility of the connection, so that the area is physically available. Staff is suggesting a step further, and that’s up to you. MR. RINGER-Okay. So what I hope I hear you saying is that the site plan should show a location for access to adjacent properties? MR. SCHACHNER-Potential access to adjacent properties. MR. RINGER-Okay. Potential access to adjacent properties. I can’t think of any other conditions. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just, on the height of the building, I just want to make sure that the motion carries the fact that the finished floor will stay 317 50, and that if it has to be moved in any direction, for example, I’d like to state specifically that if the finished floor has to be raised by two feet, the height of the building is going to be two feet lower. MR. SCHACHNER-Why are you picking on two feet? MR. VOLLARO-Because that’s an example. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So don’t, I would suggest you not use an example. I would suggest that if, what you’re stating, I believe, is that the finished floor elevation will not exceed 317.5 feet, correct? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. ABBOTT-No, what he’s saying is the top of the building should not exceed 351. MR. VOLLARO-351.5. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Right. You’re more concerned with the top. So use that as your proposed condition, and then it doesn’t matter where the other features fall. Even better. MR. VOLLARO-That the front of the building shall be at 351.50. That’s the height of the building. MR. SCHACHNER-Now, do you want to say it has to be at that height, or not exceed that height? MR. VOLLARO-It does not exceed that height. MR. SCHACHNER-That makes more sense. MR. VOLLARO-And that the rear of the building shall be at 344.50, and shall not exceed that level. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re proposing to add those to Mr. Ringer’s motion? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-That’s fine with me. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. PALING-I think there’s three or four we should add. First of all, out of the Staff notes, that the lighting plan be according to Sheet SE1A, and that this will be high pressure sodium with Lexan lenses. That the applicant coordinate with the Wastewater and Water Departments for installation of utilities prior to obtaining a building permit, and also, I don’t think it’s on the plan, but I think it should be, that the plantings will be planted and maintained by a professional lawn care company, and this includes the replacement of any original plantings that might die or be damaged, and next is that a sprinkler system be installed, and maintained by a professional company in that business on Bay Road. That’s all I’ve got. MR. RINGER-I’ll also accept them as part of my motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a second? MR. PALING-Second. MR. MAC EWAN-Call the vote. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Paling? MR. PALING-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbott? MR. ABBOTT-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mrs. LaBombard? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, and I’m going to state my reason for saying negative, Section 179-38 of the Zoning Code, Parts B, C, and D. I don’t feel comfortable with it. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-After having worked on this for so many months, and looking at all of the ramifications of this particular application, I’m going to have to vote no on this, and I’m going to have to vote no in accordance with 179-38, but I’d like to amplify that just a little bit. I’ve never believed that this building was the right size for this lot. That was one of the things that always concerned me was the size of the building. We had talked about, several times, reducing the size of the building and spinning it 90 degrees so that the loading docks were facing to the east. Now, what it says in 179-38, that the use would be in harmony with the general purpose. This is in order to approve any Type I or Type II Site Plan use, the Planning Board shall find that, the use would be in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this Chapter, specifically taking into account the location, the character and the size of the proposed use. I’ll just paraphrase here. Section C says that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use would not create public hazard of traffic, or traffic congestion. I’m just not convinced that traffic and traffic congestion will not be a by-product of this installation, and then it goes on to say that in doing so the Planning Board shall make a net overall evaluation of the project. It gives us a lot of latitude, this particular 179-38, and I and I guess Cathy would take that as a requirement for this no vote, or as a support for this no vote. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Ringer? MR. RINGER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Metivier? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-No. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier NOES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-So I’ll ask for another motion to entertain, if someone wants to put one up. MR. LAPPER-Could I make a statement at this point? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. The motion to approve was denied. So they have a choice. They can withdraw the application. We can put another motion up, with other conditions on it, and go from there. I see those as our two choices. Do you see those as the two choices? MR. SCHACHNER-There’s a third choice which would be somebody could make a motion to deny. MR. MAC EWAN-Or deny. So I’ll entertain another motion, if someone wants to put one up. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 62-99 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. SCHACHNER-You’re moving fairly quickly, here. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to have a reason for denial. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. As your Counsel, I’m going to strongly urge what Mr. MacEwan just said. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Because I have listened to this for a long time, and originally, I did vote for the re-zoning, because I thought it would be, it would alleviate the impacts on this land by having more land, just in case there were people on the Board that didn’t feel the way I did, and I wanted to at least, if this project was going to go through, have more land. So, at the beginning, I was one that voted for recommendation to the Town Board. Now, after hearing everything, and I do appreciate the fact that there’s been a lot of good minds put together to make this a plan that could be viable, I don’t believe it is viable for our Town, because of Section 179-38 of our Zoning Code, in the Parts B, C, and D. I don’t believe that this use is in harmony with the general purpose of what we’re looking for in our Town. I do not believe that the proposed use is going to not create a public hazard with the traffic congestion. There has been so many great comments from the public. As a matter of fact, I’m like, wow, I’m really part of this democratic process here. I cannot believe how the public has so articulately put their point across, and I have heard every single word that you’ve said, and then when the applicant comes back, I hear every word that they say, and it’s hard for me, because they’re very strong on what they’re doing, too, and I almost can put your concerns aside, but I haven’t, and I also believe in Part D of the Section that there has been an undue adverse impact, there could be an undue adverse impact, there could be, upon the natural, the scenic, the aesthetic, the ecological, the wildlife, the historical part of that Town, and you know how I felt about that land. That’s the reason why I am making a motion for a negative, a denial for this. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, could I make a statement? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Let us try to wade ourselves through this motion, please. To paraphrase it, that’s a long motion, can we paraphrase that and say that, because of the Sections that you cited in 179-38, specifically you talked about the safety and welfare in C and D, as your motion. Are you comfortable with that? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, we’re looking for a motion, not an encyclopedic recitation of the history of the project, and the various inputs we’ve had from the public and the applicant. I think that, if Mrs. LaBombard wants to excise from that lengthy statement just the portions in which you made specific reference to three provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, I think that would be a more appropriate way to phrase the motion, and I would encourage you to go through that exercise. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d be glad to, Mark. Okay. MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 62-99 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Because of Section 179-38 of our Queensbury Zoning Code, and in that Section of the Code, Paragraphs B, where the use would not be in harmony with the general purpose. Part C, that I have an undue concern about the public hazards from the traffic, and I do believe that this project would create a public hazard from traffic congestion, the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and the community at that part of Town, and also, Part D, I do believe the project would have an adverse impact upon the other natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological and so forth, open space resources of our Town. Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and that’s an appropriate motion. In terms of form, that’s an appropriate motion. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. VOLLARO-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling MR. LAPPER-With all due respect, I think what you just did is what would meet the definition of arbitrary and capricious, under the law, because the leeway that you have in Site Plan Review is limited by the fact that this is a use as of right, that your consulting engineers, which in this case were just many more levels of review than what is typically the case, in terms of Vollmer and Chazen and the County approval on highway, that for you to say that because the neighbors, who are laymen, have expressed concern, general concerns about traffic on the commercial corridor in the Town, for you to have done what you just did, you just, you can’t just say, after all this time and what’s happened, and all the changes, that we’ve exceeded the standards. We’ve exceeded the buffer. We’ve exceeded lighting. We’ve exceeded landscaping, and to just say, because you’re not comfortable because we’re adjacent to this residential neighborhood that is zoned industrial, I just don’t believe that that’s fair or that that’s legally correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you certainly have avenues to pursue if you feel aggrieved by this Board. We’ve worked very hard to try to make this application work. I can tell you that, personally, for me, I have asked repeatedly, as a member of this Board, to see an alternate building design, you’ve consistently refused it. MR. LAPPER-That’s not true, last time we were here, you voted, and said, because Joyce Thompson. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve cast our vote, and I told you a long time ago, Mr. Lapper, that my personal preference was to see a 40,000 square foot building turned 90 degrees, and I didn’t see it. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but the problem with that is that the Town has standards. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see any point in all of us sitting here and belaboring our decision. That’s the Board’s decision, and that’s the end of it. MR. LAPPER-So be it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The next item is, we’re just going to go back to Site Plan No. 33-2000, Type II, for Peter & Karen Bogert. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re just going to open up the public hearing on that. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2000 TYPE II PETER & KAREN BOGERT OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES SCHOONOVER ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA, LOCATION: 133 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE COVER AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 780 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. COVERED DOCKS IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 39-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/00 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-35 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION: 179- 16 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-And it is a pending item until ZBA variance approval. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Just before we move on, do we retain the information for Bogert and Carder? MRS. MOORE-You retain the information for Bogert. MR. MAC EWAN-Carder not? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Carder withdrew. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is he was denied. MR. VOLLARO-He withdrew. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MRS. MOORE-He did withdraw? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So Carder we can throw out. Now we’re doing Konover properties. SITE PLAN NO. 27-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA OWNER: SAME AGENT: RIST FROST ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE RT. 9, SOUTH OF RT. 149 AT FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FOOT WIDE ACCESS ROAD TO INTERCONNECT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-2000, SP 17-86 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: 4.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on April 27 was left open. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2000, Konover Property Trust Factory Stores of America, Meeting Date: May 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes construction of a 280 linear foot access road on the Konover Property Trust parcel. The access road will connect the existing Boats by George business to an area proposed for boat storage by Boats by George. A site enhancement in the Highway Commercial zone as described is an allowed use through site plan review. The applicant has also applied for an area variance for relief of the permeability requirements – AV 40-2000 (5/17/00). The proposed project affects 0.70 acres of the 4.82 acre parcel. The area will be re-graded and a new drainage area will be constructed to maintain stormwater on site utilizing a 50 year design storm. The construction of the access road will meet the Factory Stores of America obligation to provide access to Boats by George. Staff visited the site with the representatives from both site plans to review the stormwater runoff. The management plan provided for the project maintains stormwater on site. Staff recognizes the constraints of the site in regards to permeability, but would suggest some additional planting boxes be added to the parking areas. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Did we read the note to file in? MRS. MOORE-A site visit was made on May 5, 2000. In attendance was Laura Moore of Town of Queensbury, Dave Hatin, Town of Queensbury, Tom Center of Rist-Frost, representing Konover, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Boats by George, “Mr. Nace and Mr. Center clarified the stormwater drainage flow direction. The site visit confirmed the stormwater management of the Konover Property would be improved with construction enhancements proposed. The stormwater generated from the Northside of the parking area would be directed to a catchbasin and drained to the Northside of the proposed access road. Currently, the northside drainage does not appear to work as designed, the improvements will direct the stormwater to the catchbasin. The south drive area drainage would follow the existing drainage pattern running west to east. An additional stormwater control measure was proposed for the southeastern property line to deter washout on the Konover property. Mr. Hatin also confirmed the proposed stormwater management plan was done in conformance with NYSDOH. Stormwater directional drainage can be no closer than twenty feet to a septic system. The plans a site visit showed the drainage to be beyond the twenty foot requirement.” MR. MAC EWAN-And the most important document I think we got here tonight, the memo from Marilyn Van Dyke. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it’s quite interesting. MRS. MOORE-Okay. This was received in the Planning Office May 10, 2000. “I am writing in regard to the proposed construction of a 20 foot wide access road to interconnect with adjacent property. In earlier developmental planning little or no consideration has been given to the historical area at Routes 149 and 9. It was in this area that the Old Military Road was constructed and subsequent fortifications like Fort William were built during the French and Indian War period. It was here that large armies traversed and military skirmishes of war took place with the dead being “buried where they fell”. Later the Old Military Road was replaced by a Plank Road. The hamlet of French Mountain flourished during the last half of the nineteenth century, had its heyday, and fell into disuse. All of this culture has been obliterated or covered over by 20 century mall th development. Historical writings and soldiers’ journals document aspects of this history. However, 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) at no time has there ever been a way to study any of these events on the ground and to look at the possibility for archeological findings or artifacts to substantiate the writings from any of these periods of history. As plans for the modern access road are developed, I would like to recommend that an archeologist be on hand during the construction and that effort be made to allow the time to study the area before it is permanently covered over. For your thinking, I am enclosing a schematic drawing illustrating this area drawn by Gary Zaboly in 1991. Please keep in mind that the artist used his license to identify possible locations on the map which may or may not be accurate. (For instance, there is no proof as to the location of Fort William). Thank you for considering these points in the planning process.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. CENTER-My name is Tom Center. I represent Konover Property Trust, also known as Factory Stores of America. Again, just to reiterate, we’re here about the proposed 20 foot wide access road that’s by legal easement, due to Boats by George. This is coupled with Boats by George application, which is the next one in line. Again, the infiltration is all on site. Was reviewed by C.T. Male and approved with the changes and no comments accepted as designed right now. As Laura mentioned, we went out to the site with Dave Hatin and Tom Nace and we agreed to add some rip rap to correct a washout on the south side of the property, and I also want to just, the permeability issues and everything, the establishment of the new grass on the sloped areas will also help the visual aspect of this area. It’s very overgrown. The rock, the rip rap, this project will enhance this piece of property, visually. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, are you also representing Boats by George on this one? MR. CENTER-No, I’m not. Boats by George is represented by Miller Associates, but we did sit together with them, and it has been jointly worked out between the two engineering groups. We have shared our information and designed it together. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and I think what we’re going to do here, because these projects are, you know, simultaneously under review and they coincide with each other, when we do the SEQRA, we’re going to open up the public hearing. So we want to open up the public hearing and do a joint SEQRA for both of them. Anything else that you want to tell us? MR. CENTER-Are there any further comments? I think we covered everything the last time. We haven’t changed much except for the additional rip rap wash out area. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. RINGER-We’re going to address the letter on the historic thing when we get together? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ll open up the public hearing, then, and we’ll set that one off to the side for a second, and let’s come up, Mr. Miller, we’ll start yours. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. Just a question. Because of its proximity to the bike path, has Pat Beland of Warren County been asked for any input on this? I’m not sure of his correct title, Director of Parks. Anyway, the bike way is under his maintenance, etc, his Department. MR. VOLLARO-Can somebody trace out the bed of the bike path so we can see that? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right there on the map. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it there. Okay. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. I may have missed it, and if I did, I apologize, but has this been reviewed for emergency vehicle accessibility? I mean, if it has, I apologize, but I didn’t hear any of that. Are there any utilities, electricity, is that being brought in to the lower area to maintain boats? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll find out. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. STROUGH-Okay, just a couple of concerns, because the gasoline is going to be in the boats, and there’ll be emergency vehicles that need to get to that area, and I didn’t do, I’m not familiar with the site, but I just have those concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED SITE PLAN NO. 28-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED BOATS BY GEORGE OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES E. MILLER/NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: VACANT LOT BEHIND EXISTING BOAT SALES AND REPAIR FACILITY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO GRADE THE VACANT LOT BEHIND THE BOAT SALES AND REPAIR FACILITY, ADD CRUSHED SURFACE PAVEMENT FOR STORAGE OF BOATS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.1, 37.1, 37.2 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on April 27 was left open. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-2000, Boats By George, Meeting Date: May 18, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to gravel a 30,000 square foot area of a 1.5 acre site to store boats, parcel 36-1-34.1. The adjoining parcels 36-1-37.1 and 36-1-37.2 will utilize the proposed access drive from Site Plan 27-2000 to access parcel 36-1-34.1. The parcel is adjacent to the existing Boats by George business and is to be utilized by Boats by George. Commercial Boat storage, repair and sales is an allowed use in the Highway Commercial zone through site plan review. The applicant had been previously informed that any improvement or expansion on parcel 36-1-37.1 would require approval of the Town Planning Board. The utilization of the access drive would be considered any improvement/expansion. This site plan SP 28-2000 and SP 27-2000 address the review requirement, since the access drive location is provided on the plans. The site plan and information submitted meets the zoning requirements for the development. Stormwater generated by the project will be handled on site. The proposed site will be 54% permeable with plantings and regarding within the storage area. The site will also include a 10 foot high chain link fence surrounding the site and a gated entrance. The access to the site is coordinated with the neighboring property owner Factory Stores of America, Site Plan 27-2000. Boats by George has an agreement with Factory Stores of America to utilize the access drive from the existing business to the new proposed boat storage area. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for the use of the area as a boat storage area conditioned upon the construction of the access road as defined in the Site Plan 27-2000 “Konover Property Trust”.” MR. MAC EWAN-And C.T. Male’s letter of the 12 of May. th MRS. MOORE-Dated May 12, 2000, in reference to the Boats by George parking area, “We have been in contact with the engineer for the applicant and feel that the comments have been adequately addressed. The seasonal boat storage lot will be constructed with a combination of no. 1 and no. 2 stone, which will contain little or no fines. Also, it was conveyed to us that the applicant does not plan to maintain the lot during winter months, and, as a result, salt and loose stone will not tend to clog up the perimeter trench drain.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MILLER-I’m Jim Miller, Miller Associates, representing Boats by George. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us about your project. MR. MILLER-The first plan we’ve got here, you’ve got a reduced copy of this, shows the relationship of the properties. The Konover Factory Stores property comes all the way to the back here. This road, as it’s shown, is the one that’s been submitted, you’ve been reviewing. The Boats by George property actually, the total property involved is three parcels, the storage building and the sales and service building, and then this parcel, there’s a second parcel. There’s Route 149. The second parcel is boat storage. There’s a driveway access on 149 that comes in and basically loops around. So there’s two entrances onto 149. So you can see from this relationship that the alignment of that driveway ties in well with the existing boat storage area. The lot that we’re showing the improvements on is this triangular piece behind the Konover property and along the bicycle trail. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) That lot’s about one and a half acres. This is a blow up area of the storage area. It’s a one and a half acre site. The existing topo, there’s a ridge where it runs in the middle of the property. The proposal is to basically re-grade this portion of the site, cutting the top of the ridge down, and grading a fairly level area to be used for boat storage, and because of the access and the type of driveway, the storage that will be here will be winter storage. It’ll be storage of boats that are being brought in to be, new boats that are being prepared to be delivered to clients, customers, so it’s going to be more long term storage and a quicker turnover type of storage will happen on the other properties. The limits that were identified was the area that made sense, from a grading point of view, you know, by cutting, where if we go any further, we’d be creating too much of a fill condition. The driveway coming down, that Tom Center talked about, is going to be asphalt, and we extended an asphalt apron, at the request of C.T. Male, into the property. The rest of the area will be a crushed stone, compacted crush stone surface. The entire area will be fenced, with a six foot chain link fence with a double gate at the bottom of the driveway. All drainage from this area, drainage now basically, there’s a culvert that goes under the bicycle path. At this point it goes into a pond to the east. Everything to the east of this ridge goes down along the edge of the bicycle trail, down to some low areas, some wooded lower areas. So this ridge really kind of divides the watershed. What we’re doing is we’re going to grade that, basically sheet the water in the direction it goes now. An infiltration trench, gravel infiltration trench, will be established along the lower edge to collect any of the runoff coming from the storage area. The existing drainage that comes down from Konover comes down from a culvert, outlets over here, and drains down into a lower area, actually this lower area fills up before it overflows into the culvert. So there’s actually a little natural detention basin in this area. There was some question, some of the drainage from the property to the south that comes, you know, it’s heading easterly, and this ridge really divides it. So some of the water drains more northerly to this culvert, and some of it drains southerly, and it’s so irregular back there, there’s no definite patterns. It’s hard to determine that, but because some water from this area will flow in a northerly direction, we’re proposing a 12 inch culvert be placed under this driveway, so any drainage that flows in this direction will continue to flow that way. We’re not impeding any drainage in that direction by development of this driveway. One of the other concerns was with the bicycle way. This is a broad area that’s existing large woods. There will be some views. The bicycle trail is higher. So you’re looking down into this area where we’re proposing planting pine trees on the side, where there’ll be some views into this bicycle, or into this storage area to reduce the visual impact. It’s not lighted, and that’s pretty much the proposal. It’s basically just an extension of the business from 149 for additional storage. MR. ABBOTT-Any clients or potential clients coming down to that area to look? MR. MILLER-No. There’ll be no retail sales there at all. MR. VOLLARO-My only question is, looking at the percentage of slope there, getting a boat up there is going to be a lot of fun. You’re going to have to have a good tractor to pull. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s it, and they will use tractors and one of the questions that C.T. Male had was with the steepness of that driveway, when it gets to the top part and flattens out, there’s a curve, and Rist-Frost had submitted some curve information, and we had discussed that, and we based the curve design as the recommended boat launch slopes. So that’s why this area is going to be used for longer term storage, because it’s a little bit indirect route, and because of the steepness, and that’s why it won’t be used in the winter. The storage will be, the boats will be stored there in the winter, and probably not going to be moved in or out of there over the winter months. MR. VOLLARO-Where’s the storage area for boats going to be, down to the right of the road? Or is he going to store them on the road itself? MR. MILLER-No. The road’s not wide enough. So we’ll come down and they’ll enter in the middle. There’d be probably a row of boats would be stacked to the right, and then they would be stacked end to end, to the north side, so that at least a lane down the middle would remain for access getting into the storage area. MR. VOLLARO-So the top of that transition is about, what, 524 it looks like on this drawing? That’ll be his portion of the thing, but what’s the 524 roughly right at the top, it’s the last contour line there. MR. MILLER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Now, what, down where you’re going to store the boats you’re about, what, 402 do I see, is that 480? MR. MILLER-We’re at 488 right at the gate. MR. VOLLARO-488 at the gate. Okay. It seems to me that’s going to be pretty wet down in there. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MILLER-It’s not. As a matter of fact, when we first walked it, especially in this area where water collects, we had a concern that, there were some Dogwoods and things in there we had concerns of, some wetlands. We had Deb Roberts, from Roberts Environmental, go down and review it, and she said that there were some patches of wetland, but only out, and not on our property. They’re really out along the bicycle property. That’s only because the water ponds there before it overflows into the culvert. It’s very good gravel all through there, sand and gravel. So everything percs. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all. I don’t have any other questions at this point. MR. RINGER-This is winter storage? They’re going to store the boats down there for the winter? MR. MILLER-Yes. Winter storage and storage of merchandise, boats for sale, new boats that are being brought in and aren’t, are going to be delivered to clients. MR. RINGER-How many boats do you think they’ll be storing down there? MR. MILLER-It all depends on how big they are, fifty boats maximum. If he’s got a run on 30 footers, we won’t get 50 30 footers down there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This is unusual. This kind of thing doesn’t happen very often. I guess what we’ll do is now we’ll open up the public hearings, the joint public hearings, on both of them. Any comments, questions? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. Just a question. Because of its proximity to the bike path, has Pat Beland of Warren County been asked for any input on this? I’m not sure of his correct title, Director of Parks. Anyway, the bike way is under his maintenance, etc, his Department. MR. VOLLARO-Can somebody trace out the bed of the bike path so we can see that? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right there on the map. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it there. Okay. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. I may have missed it, and if I did, I apologize, but has this been reviewed for emergency vehicle accessibility? I mean, if it has, I apologize, but I didn’t hear any of that. Are there any utilities, electricity, is that being brought in to the lower area to maintain boats? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll find out. MR. STROUGH-Okay, just a couple of concerns, because the gasoline is going to be in the boats, and there’ll be emergency vehicles that need to get to that area, and I didn’t do, I’m not familiar with the site, but I just have those concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Has the County been involved in this? Was it referred to? MRS. MOORE-It was referred to Warren County. MR. MAC EWAN-It was? Okay. Just for Mrs. Monahan’s benefit, when we refer things to Warren County, I mean, is it just basically left up to their Planning Department to disperse it to what necessary Departments need to review it? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Gentlemen. Emergency access, did Chris Jones, Fire Marshal, look at this? MRS. MOORE-I did not refer this to Chris Jones. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the slope on this now? MR. CENTER-If I can comment on that, last night at the Zoning Board of Appeals, that question did come up, and the Chief of the Bay Ridge Fire Department, which I believe responds to this area, did look at the project and say that he could get, emergency vehicles could access that, and that was addressed last night. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that Chip Mellon? MR. CENTER-That was Chip Mellon, yes, sir. MR. RINGER-In the winter, if it’s not maintained in the winter? MR. MILLER-Well, that discussion about the maintenance with C.T. Male, they wanted to know if there was going to be like a parking lot completely plowed, and we explained that we’re not going to go in, you know, the snow that’s in and around the boats, that’s not all going to be cleared, but the driveway down to it and any open aisle would be cleared, but we weren’t going to be, their concern was we were going to be pushing a lot of the gravel around, but where the boats are stored, that won’t be plowed. So access will be maintained for emergency vehicles. MR. RINGER-So it will be open in the winter, and the gate at the end will be allowed to be open? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RINGER-And the Fire Department will be given a key? MR. MILLER-Yes, or there’d be a lock and a chain, and they could cut right through it. MR. RINGER-They’d probably prefer a key, but if they don’t, they will cut through it. We’d like to have a key. MR. MAC EWAN-Are there utilities and lighting? MR. MILLER-No. It’s my understanding that any cleaning and servicing, or anything where utilities are required, the boats would be taken up to the shops at the upper level where they’re equipped to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Gasoline storage. MR. MILLER-Well, some of the boats may have gasoline in them. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming they’re all going to be shrink wrapped and that sort of thing, sitting out there? MR. MILLER-Yes. Especially winter storage, long term storage they will. Shorter term storage, they may not be shrink wrapped. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’d have to be drained though. Boats have to be drained for the winter time, don’t they? MR. MILLER-Technically. GEORGE PENSEL MR. PENSEL-We recommend three quarters to a full tank of fuel, less fumes, less potential of exploding. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, could you identify yourself, please. MR. PENSEL-George Pensel, owner of Boats by George. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I’m kind of intrigued about this. MR. RINGER-Historical thing. I was going to bring that up. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of intrigued with this memo from Marilyn Van Dyke. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that her comment is well taken right here, that she’d like to have somebody, an archeologist on site while some of this excavation is going on. Now that might impede your building, but I think she has a good point there. MR. MAC EWAN-Comment from Staff? MRS. RYBA-Yes. This site isn’t listed on the State or National Register. It’s not even listed as an historic site per se because they’re not really sure where exactly anything is, on the GIS, but as the Town Historian, she has been commenting a little bit more, and what I would say is that there’s nothing that really requires this to happen, but a suggestion would be that, to ask the applicant if they would allow someone to go on site. I don’t even know if Miss Van Dyke has someone in mind who would do this, but ask that the pleasure of the applicant, if they would allow someone on site, and not impede the construction of this project. MR. MAC EWAN-I reflect back a few years, just for a little bit of her background, and the knowledge that she has of this area. When we did the, you were involved, I think, in the CVS Plaza, over on Bay and Quaker Road. There were rumor mills abounding that when that was originally built by Doyle’s, back in the early 60’s, that parts of the old Quaker Cemetery had been violated when they put in foundations, and there were people in the room who adamantly denied that, there were no records of it, and sure enough, when CVS went to open up their back hoe and dig, they found a coffin that had been cut right in half. So, I mean, she seems to be very knowledgeable, even when there’s areas that there’s not real firm data to support whether something’s there or not, and considering the significant historical importance that seems to lie within this region, I’m just wondering how appropriate it would be to have someone on there the first couple of days while they’re doing their grading. I mean, basically, what they’re doing is grading to put in a driveway, and a parking area. So it’s not like we’re putting in big foundations and such. MR. RINGER-The only excavation they’re going to be doing is the driveway itself. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. MILLER-The other thing, my first reaction to that, having been there, I mean, Laura’s been there. Most of this area has been filled and disturbed. The bicycle path is underneath 20, 30 foot of, or on top of 20, 30 foot of fill. The old railroad bed and the Boats by George site and the Konover sites, they’ve all been filled to be developed. So it’s like the site is almost entirely disturbed. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a big ravine. MR. MILLER-The access trail and everything, where that’s being built, that’s all on fill. That’s all on the existing fill. MR. CENTER-Except at the very top part where we’re cutting a little bit out, but that’s cutting through fill that was put in for that parking lot. So, I don’t think we’ll be ever getting down to the original substrate, where there would be any disturbance. MR. MILLER-We weren’t sure, it was Marilyn’s suggestion that she would be on site or, I mean, and we would certainly agree to that. MRS. RYBA-I don’t know, but that’s why I phrased it that if. MR. MAC EWAN-She’s recommending an archeologist, and Marilyn is not an archeologist, and the person that they ended up retaining for the CVS Plaza was, she’s from down in, down below Albany, Delmar area I think, Selkirk area, some place down in there. Well, I’ll poll the Board, how do you feel about that? MR. MILLER-Well, let me add one other thing. We talked about this a little bit, and we would agree to have an archeologist come in, and we spoke to an archeologist who we’ve worked with before on other projects in the area. MR. MAC EWAN-The same person I’m thinking of? MR. MILLER-Ed Curtain. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, okay. He did Hudson Point. MR. MILLER-That’s right, and so, you know, we talked about having him come in and do some initial investigation, and, if need be, be available when some of the grading was going on and we would be agreeable to do that, if that’s what you’re looking for. MR. PALING-That’s fine, as far as I’m concerned. I think that’s the way it should be. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s good. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you spoken to him, though, about the potential of this doing? MR. MILLER-Yes. As a matter of fact, he said that he would call Marilyn and talk to her about it before he did anything on it, because he’s worked with her before on his other projects. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems that we have a consensus up here. That’s doable. It’s a good effort on your part. Okay. I closed the public hearing. We need to do a SEQRA. It’s a joint SEQRA. Are they both long or short or what? MRS. MOORE-They’re both Short Forms. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re doing a joint SEQRA for both. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we have that on record that this is a combined. Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-2000 & 28-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST/FSA & BOATS BY GEORGE, 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 18 day of May, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a motion for Site Plan No. 27-2000. MRS. MOORE-Before you continue with that, I just want to ask Tom Center if the applicant that he represents would be acceptable to having an archeologist on site. MR. CENTER-As of this afternoon, we weren’t authorized to agree to that, but seeing where we are, I can take that back to the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s going to be made part of a motion, if we approve it. MR. CENTER-Can I confer with Mr. Miller for a second? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll be back after this word from our sponsor. MR. CENTER-I’m back. Yes, I’ll agree to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2000 KONOVER PROPERTY TRUST, FACTORY STORES OF AMERICA, Introduced by Alan Abbot who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 27-2000 Konover Property Trust, Factory Stores of America for construction of a 20 foot wide access road to interconnect with adjacent property owner, Tax Map No. 36-1-34.3/Cross Reference AV 40-2000, SP 28-2000, and; WHEREAS, the application received 3/29/00 consists of the following: 1. Project Narrative, Application, Stormwater Management Report dated 3/2000, Access Easement Agreement, maps C-1 & C-2 dated 3/29/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/27/00 Staff Notes 2. 4/12/00 Warren Co. PB resolution - Approved 3. 4/05/00 Meeting Notice 4. 4/20/00 Notice of Public Hearing 5. 4/21/00 C. Round from C.T. Male Assoc. – Eng. review 6. 4/21/00 T. Center from Planning Office – transmittal of eng. comments 7. 4/25/00 C. Round from T. Center – response to CT Male Assoc. comments 8. 4/26/00 T. Center from L. Moore – Re: permeable area 9. 5/4/00 C. Round from J. Edwards – Response to RFA comments of 4/25/00 10. 5/10/00 PB from M. VanDyke, Town Historian 11. 5/11/00 Revised Info from RFA – Transmittal, drawing of vertical curve of access road and revised map C-2 12. 5/5/00 Note To File re: direction of stormwater 13. 5/11/00 Rist Frost Assoc. in response to C.T. Male comments – revised drawing and sheet showing vertical curve at top of access road 14. 5/18/00 Staff Notes 15. 5/17/00 C.T. Male Associates – Final Engineering Sign off letter 16. 5/17/00 Fax to T. Center of C.T. Male engineering 17. 5/16/00 Fax to T. Center of Staff Notes 18. 5/15/00 Reference Info – re: required separation distances from wastewater system components 19. 5/11/00 Fax to T. Center, T. Nace of Town Historian comments 20. 5/17/00 ZBA resolution 21. 5/18/00 PB resolution for SP 28-2000 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 4/27/00 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, 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: 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) 1. Approved as per resolution prepared by Staff with the condition: a. That an archeologist review the site, before excavations start, and, if necessary, that the archeologist be involved during excavation, and b. A written report be given to Staff. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2000 by the following vote: MR. ABBOTT-With the condition that an archeologist is on hand to review the. MR. MAC EWAN-Say an archeologist on site during the excavation. MR. ABBOTT-Archeologist on site during excavation. MR. MAC EWAN-The excavation is only going to take you a day, a day and a half. MR. MILLER-Actually, we talked to the archeologist. What he suggested is that he would come up and do a preliminary, before we got all the heavy equipment and everything, he would come out and do a reconnaissance and do some initial investigation and determine the level of significance. Plus they typically will do some research, you know, the State Historic Archives to see what other have been found, and then he may make a determination as to, I guess based on that finding, as to what additional course of action would be required. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s get through this motion. Revise it. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Site Plan 28-2000 MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-2000 BOATS BY GEORGE, Introduced by Alan Abbott who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 28-2000, Boats By George, Inc. to grade the vacant lot behind the boat sales and repair facility, add crushed surface pavement for storage of boats, Tax Map No. 36-1-34.1, 37.1, 37.2/Cross Reference: SP 27-2000, AV 40-2000, and; WHEREAS, the application received 3/29/00 consists of the following: 1. Application, Stormwater Management Report dated 3/27/00, Drawing titled Boats By George – Overall Site Plan, Map SP-1 dated 3/29/00 WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 4/27/00 Staff Notes 2. 4/05/00 Meeting Notice 3. 4/20/00 Notice of Public Hearing 4. 4/12/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – Approved 5. 4/21/00 C. Round from C. T. Male Assoc. – Eng. review 6. 4/25/00 J. Miller from Planning Office – transmittal of eng. comments 7. 5/10/00 PB from M. VanDyke, Town Historian 8. 5/12/00 C. Round from C.T. Male Assoc. – Eng. review 9. 5/12/00 Revised info dated 5/12/00 from Nace Eng. in response to C.T. Male comments of 4/21/00 10. 5/16/00 Fax to J. Miller, T. Nace of Staff Notes 11. 5/18/00 Staff Notes 12. 5/4/00 Meeting Notice 13. 5/2/00 Fax to J. Miller 14. 5/17/00 ZBA resolution 15. 5/18/00 PB resolution for SP 27-2000 WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/27/00 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 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/00) 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 stipulation: a. That an archeological review the site before excavation is started and that a written report by forwarded to the Planning Staff, and b. That, if necessary, the archeologist be involved during the excavation. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything else on the agenda? I’ll make a motion to adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan,Chairman 42