Loading...
2000-03-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD ALAN ABBOTT ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT PALING ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH (ALTERNATE) MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-We have one item that’s been asked to table, so we’ll move to that one first. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE SCHOOL’S FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A 2,740 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE “MAIN CENTER” AND A 8,100 SQ. FT. TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE “SCHOOL” BUILDING. THE ADDITIONS WILL BE USED FOR A LUNCH ROOM, CONFERENCE CENTER, OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER SCHOOL NEEDS. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREAS AND SIDEWALKS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-93 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-3- 2, 82-2-6 LOT SIZE: 3.01 AC., 1.44 AC., 1.90 AC. SECTION: 179-20 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, you’re asking that to be tabled until the April meeting? MR. LAPPER-Yes. In preparation for tonight’s meeting, we met a week ago with a group of adjoining neighbors, and they came up with some suggestions that we thought would be better for the project and make them happy. So we’ve elected to go back to the drawing Board, to a certain extent, and we’ll be, we’ll re-submit and be back to you next month. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Recognize that the deadline date’s March 29. th MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could I have a motion to table, please. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the April meeting, with a deadline date of submissions by March 29. th Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2000 TYPE I THE MORSE FOUNDATION OWNER: KENNETH C. HOPPER/ROBERT SLACK AGENT: JON LAPPER/JIM MILLER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-PURPOSE ATHLETIC FIELDS INCLUDING BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, SOCCER AND TENNIS COURTS. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING FACILITIES FOR 168 VEHICLES, A FIELD HOUSE AND ACCESS ACCOMMODATIONS. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL FACILITIES IN THE SFR-1A ZONE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES TAX MAP NO. 115-1-1.31, 2.1, 32.1 LOT SIZE: 24.44 AC., 8.00 AC., 4.53 AC. SECTION: 179-20 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing back on February 15 was tabled. th MR. MAC EWAN-Any updated information we should be aware of? MRS. MOORE-I have many public comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would you just maybe summarize the reason why we tabled it last month, what we were looking for, additional information. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 7-2000, Morse Foundation, Meeting Date: March 21, 2000 “Staff Notes: The application was tabled at the February 15, 2000 Planning Board meeting for additional information. The Board requested information regarding traffic, drainage, and sidewalk maintenance. Several of the issues are clarified in correspondence from Nace Engineering dated March 1, 2000 and discussion below. The Board wanted the opportunity to review the Creighton Manning traffic comments on Veterans Park to determine any future conflicts. The Creighton Manning Engineering (CME) comments identified several issues to be clarified in the Veterans Park traffic impact analysis. The comments were not specific to Sherman Avenue and the impacts that would occur on this road in relation to the School Field use. Staff has requested the Chazen Companies align the western most access point with the Glens Falls School access point on Sherman Avenue. The following is based on information discussions with Nace Engineering, Rist Frost Associates, CME, AGFTC, and Chazen Companies. Traffic volumes estimates are reasonable given the land use. The peak period associated with the Glens Falls School will likely not coincide with the industrial park. The Town has requested the Chazen Companies further examine the impact of the industrial park on Sherman Avenue and Western Avenue. Road improvements to Sherman Avenue are not proposed by Veterans Park at this time. The Board had requested Staff to review the drainage system on Grant Avenue. Staff contacted the Highway Department and the Town Clerk and was unable to find documentation of this area. The applicant was requested to confirm the drainage system. The City of Glens Falls Water and Sewer Department indicated the system may have been installed by the original housing developer of the area. The City also indicated that a connection to the storm drainage system did not pose a problem. The applicant submitted a letter requesting a connection to the storm drainage system as suggested by the City. There appears to be no official documentation of this area except for the research performed by the applicant's engineer. The Board had also requested Staff to determine who would be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalks, if installed. The applicant was asked to review extending the sidewalks along Grant Avenue to connect to the pathway system of the recreation fields. Staff contacted Town Counsel and it was established that the maintenance of the sidewalks could be either party, the property owner (Glens Falls Schools) or the Town of Queensbury. The Planning Board can require the applicant to maintain sidewalks as a condition of approval, if the applicant is putting in new sidewalks for the project. The Town Board would still need to approve those sidewalks if they are located in the Town R-O-W. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan for the development of a recreational facility to include fields, parking, and other recreational amenities as submitted on the plans.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. We’re back to discuss, in detail, the issues that the Board left open last time. We think that we have thought this thing through to another level of detail, as you 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) requested, and I guess what Laura didn’t read, there’s what I consider a very important third party review letter from A/GFTC, which addresses and really puts to bed most of the pedestrian and traffic access issues, and I think that that should be read into the record at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Laura, will you read that letter in, please. MRS. MOORE-This is dated March 15, 2000, and it’s addressed to Chris Round, “1) Concur with suggestion to better align location of proposed driveway with proposed Veteran’s Field Industrial Park access. 2) Proposal to provide a pedestrian access route along Grant Ave. from High School should help to reduce travel impact to Sherman Ave. and offer a safe travel route for pedestrians and bicycles. On a side note, bike racks do not appear to be included as part of the project. They should be. 3) Site generated traffic projections should not have a significant impact to the surrounding road system. This finding is based on the following: a) Peak site traffic generation will most often occur at times other than the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. (Peak site traffic to occur primarily on weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.) b) Maximum site traffic generation levels will not be a daily event and is likely to be very seasonal in nature (limited to spring and fall during school year). Traffic generated on a typical day is likely to be light, with the highest volumes occurring only when multiple home games are scheduled at the same time. The school’s soccer-field hockey (fall sports) and baseball-softball-tennis (spring sports) home game schedules for the past year should be able to provide some indication of how often this might occur. Also, the site maps that your office provided did not indicate the inclusion of any bleachers or other formal spectator seating. This further suggests that regular large crowds are not expected. If bleachers are proposed, some additional review of the trip generation estimates might be required. c) Assuming that the primary direction of to/from the proposed Sherman Ave. entrance will be to the east toward Glens Falls, the intersection likely to experience the greatest traffic impact will be the four-way stop at Western/Sherman. No recent traffic counts for this intersection are available, however, recent conversations with Glens Falls DPW staff have indicated no ongoing concerns about congestion problems at that location. Since the athletic fields will usually generate its peak traffic at times offset from regular school hours, the expected traffic impact to the surrounding road system (and this intersection in particular) should not exceed the existing AM/PM peak volumes, or those generated during events at the 1,500 seat High School auditorium.” MR. LAPPER-I guess we’re here to answer any questions, at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-The drywell at the end of Grant Avenue. MR. NACE-That’s a catch basin. In fact, I walked the site today with Rick Missita, to look at all the drainage structures, and he was going to get a crew out, in the next couple of days, to clean out the storm lines, and that one catch basin in particular, but they are all connected together, and they all go in to the City system at Western. MR. MAC EWAN-They do? MR. NACE-They do. MR. MAC EWAN-Was Mr. Missita going to send a letter or memo to us? MR. NACE-At this point, we’re waiting on a formal authorization from the City of Glens Falls. I talked to Don Coalts, since it’s contributing to their system. I talked to Don Coalts this morning, and they have met and discussed the issue, and plan on making a formal resolution at their next meeting. MR. LAPPER-We would expect that any approval would be conditioned upon receiving that formal approval from the City, but they’ve indicated to us that that’s appropriate, and they’re going to give us that approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you, any questions? MR. PALING-Has the Rist-Frost letter been answered of March 14? th MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have anything in my packet regarding it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That was answered by the Staff comments. The first point they said is “The applicant did not address coordinating the westerly access road location with the Veteran’s Field Industrial Park access roadway to Lots 7 and 8.” And when the Staff looked at that, the Staff asked 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) Chazen Companies to relocate their road to match our road, but we had conceptually agreed that if our road had to be realigned, it would be, but they’re going to relocate theirs. That was in the notes that Laura read, and then, two, “The applicant’s predicted count of 120 vehicles per hour arriving makes sense but the vehicles exiting may exit in less time causing a greater impact on the exiting facilities. The applicant should address this impact on the existing facilities and the impact of the increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic that will also result from the proposed complex.” And I guess our position is that the A/GFTC letter addressed that in detail, in terms of the traffic and pedestrian/bicycle impact. They support our plan, and their comment that it’s less impact than the existing 1500 seat auditorium at the high school. MR. PALING-I guess the only other question I have has to do with who’ll be responsible for the walking area? Is that left open, who’s to be responsible for that, the extension of the sidewalks and so on? MR. LAPPER-What we’ve come up with as a proposal, and remember, this was not something that was part of our plan, but something that the Board asked us to look at at the last meeting, we’re talking about a potential walking area on the Grant Ave. extension, and as an alternative to putting in sidewalks that the neighbors felt would be an intrusion because they would just be very permanent, what Tom has come up with, and what he talked to Rick Missita about today instead would be extending the pavement an additional four feet, so it would be a paved shoulder or like a bikeway, in other areas of the Town, which would just have a stripe along the edge of the existing right-of-way. All of this would still be within the Town’s right-of-way. So while it would be taking four feet of grass, it would only be, it would be area that the Town already owns, and by doing it that way, no one would have to worry about maintaining it, because it would just be plowed by the Town truck, just like the road itself, and that may be a compromise that the Board would be comfortable with, in terms of providing a safe area for the students, and a reduced impact on the neighbors in not having to require anyone to shovel the snow. MR. PALING-That’s all I had for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I was up to the site this afternoon for a while, on Grant Avenue, and then I took a look from the School, coming down Grant Avenue to Western, and then down Western to Sherman. I just don’t see even having to impact on Grant Avenue at all. We could go out the front of the School and straight down Sherman. It’s probably, I did it by odometer and came up with a half mile to the proposed entrance to the Park, and you could cut that down probably even further by coming out the front of the School and going straight down Sherman Avenue. I just don’t see putting any traffic along Grant Avenue at all. I think that the way that neighborhood is set up now, it’s a serene neighborhood. It’s been there a long time. It’s matured, and I just have a problem. It looks very logical when you come out of the School to go straight into the Park, using Grant Avenue, but they’ve been using Sherman all along. The runners have been using Sherman all along. It’s something the School has been doing right along. I just don’t see why we have to disrupt the neighborhood with that kind of traffic, even though it’s just pedestrian and possibly bicycle traffic. That’s one of things that I saw when I was up there today. The other thing is, in some of the letters that we’ve gotten here, one from Craig Brown, we’re going to have to try and dismiss some of these letters, or not dismiss them, but deal with them under the fact that, this has to do with the water at this particular point, but Craig says, “Dear Mr. Chairman and Board Members: With regard to adequacy of the existing stormwater infrastructure in the area of this site, specifically, the existing catch basin near the southwest intersection of Grant and Ripley, I have contacted several parties in an attempt to clarify the disposition of the structure.” And then on Wednesday he contacted Mr. Missita, and the Town Clerk and Tom Nace, and “Neither the Highway Superintendent nor the Town Clerk was aware of any maps nor a reference of the structure other than acknowledging that it exists.” I mean, I don’t doubt, Tom, that you know what’s happening. Somehow or other we’ve got to deal with the fact there’s no documentation here, and we’ve got letters in the file that indicate that there isn’t any. Now, I don’t know how to deal with that, unless the latest information is that we’ve really confirmed, somehow or other, and we spoke on the phone this afternoon, and I understand what you’ve done, but I just want to make sure that there’s no misunderstanding later on, that, gee, you know, we’ve got a piece of documentation here that shows that’s not the case. I don’t know what the answer to that is. Well, I still have a problem with that. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. LAPPER-If we could respond to that, Bob. Tom is testifying on the record that he’s been out and inspected it. Don Coalts and the City have inspected it, although you don’t have documentation of that. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have a letter to that effect. MR. LAPPER-But this was, we don’t feel that’s necessary, only because this was constructed before the time when good records were kept as to what was being installed, and Tom has testified that it’s there, and our plan which has been submitted requires hooking up to that, and what we said earlier is that the approval should be contingent upon receiving approval from the City that we can hook into that line. Because the plan, not that that’s the only way to deal with drainage, but we think that that’s the preferable way to deal with drainage, and that’s why it’s been designed that way, and the Rist- Frost review of this plan took that into account as well. So their signoff included that. So if that was not available, we would think that we would have to come up with a different design, but we’re confident that it is available. The City Water and Sewer Board has already met to discuss it, and they’ve told us that this will be up for an approval at their next meeting. MR. VOLLARO-See the only thing I’m concerned about, in looking at SP-2, if you take a look at that drawing SP-2, which is the athletic complex itself, and you look, and I also talked this over with Tom today, but if you look at the elevations on the practice side of the field, we’ve got 84-6 and 84-6 on the hockey field. We come down to an elevation of 78, right in the back of Ripley Place, and then there’s an eight inch pipe, a solid pipe, an HGP pipe, 240 linear feet, at a 1.3% slope. I just want to make sure that, because we don’t actually know what that infrastructure contains, whether or not it can take the output of that eight inch pipe, and continue to do what it’s doing for Grant Avenue and for Ripley Place today. Most of the people that have called me at home have said that, while they don’t have absolutely dry basements, it’s a lot better than it used to be. Now I just want to make sure that we don’t disturb that and that small sewer piece of sewer, whatever it is, the pipe that goes into the stormwater system at Glens Falls, can carry what’s coming off that end of the field, because of that elevation, you know, we’re talking an elevation of 84 to 78. It’s a fair drop from the top there, going down toward Ripley Place, and I assume that that pipe is designed to carry that load. MR. NACE-Yes, it is. The way the system is going to work, the detention we’ve provided on the site will slow down and delay the peak inflow of stormwater into the system, until the stormwater that’s collected out in Ripley and Grant Avenue clears the system and goes on down into the City. Our water coming off the fields will come later than that, okay. I have looked at the capacity of the existing. The existing is all 12 inch pipe. I have looked at the capacity of it, and it’s more than sufficient. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 12 inch? MR. NACE-It is 12 inch, yes. We should, as far as wet basements go, help to reduce the groundwater because the pipe that we’re putting in back there, part of it’s perforated, and that will help to absorb some of the groundwater back in behind this, which is, I’m sure, the area that’s recharging toward Ripley and Grant Avenue. So I’m confident that we certainly won’t make the situation any worse, and in fact will improve it somewhat. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think all the residents can hope for is maintaining the status quo in that area, as far as the water is concerned. You don’t have that part of your Hydro CAD report, do you? That’s not included in this? MR. NACE-That is not. MR. VOLLARO-I looked for it and I didn’t see it, but you didn’t know enough to put it in at that time, I would guess, you didn’t have enough information. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess we should address Bob’s first comment about the sidewalk issue, or whether the school children should be on the Grant Avenue Extension or on Sherman, and I guess, simply, it’s the school district’s position that they should be walking in the area where there’s less traffic rather than more traffic, and so the school would want to direct kids to walk there, but we understand that the neighbors are concerned that there’s going to be some sort of a high impact, but this is just to remind you, this is not like an East Field situation where they’re going to have major games. These are practice fields, not to say that they’re not going to be used. Of course they’re going to be used, but it’s going to be intramurals. It’s going to be groups of kids, classes of kids, intramural groups coming after school. So we’re not talking about hundreds and hundreds of kids. We feel most comfortable that Grant Ave. Extension is the right place for them to walk, just because 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) Sherman is one of the few connector roads that goes over the Northway and unites the two sides of the Town. It’s somewhat of a high speed road that people just use to get over the Northway. That just doesn’t seem like the appropriate place to be directing kids to go. At the same time, Chris Round has informed me that the Town has a plan in place to improve the sidewalk or actually the bike area along Sherman to stripe that, to make that safer for people riding bikes, which would help in the event that people do decide to walk on Sherman, but we still think that the school’s role should be to direct the school kids to walk on the Grant Avenue Extension, and saying that, we’re not, I mean, it’s not going to be at night when people are home. It’s not going to be on weekends. It’s going to be after school in the late afternoon. So we just don’t see that as a big impact, and we just see it as, plain and simple, a safety issue. MR. VOLLARO-Getting back to Scott’s letter, his letter dated March 15, 2000, I got from that, and I just have some notes on there, that it didn’t seem that you were going to have very high speed traffic or high traffic impacts in that area because of the four way stops and the fact that, when I was up there today, I particularly looked to see, stayed up for about a half hour to look, and I was up there around 11:20, 11:15, just taking a look at the volume of traffic and the rate of speed, and it was relatively low. I didn’t see anybody really, because there’s a four way stop right there at, I guess it’s at Sherman and Western. They have to stop there going toward the Northway. So that slows them down a little. MR. LAPPER-I agree with you there. I think that once you get two or three hundred feet from the stop sign, people start to hit the gas pedal, if they’re just commuting, if you will, to get to the other side of the Northway, and I think that is faster, but in general, it just, there’s certainly more volume on Sherman than there is on Grant Avenue Extension, and to a certain extent, people will walk where the want to walk, which is something the Board pointed out last time. So I’m not suggesting that there won’t be kids on Sherman, but I think it’s the role of the school district to try and promote the safest route. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a balancing act for me, anyway, to preserve the condition of the neighborhood. The way it is now, it’s pretty tranquil and quiet and, you know, I just want to make sure that we don’t change the character of that small neighborhood too much. Because in the past, the kids have been, without Grant Avenue there, they’ve been using the surrounding streets. So they’re pretty used to doing that. MR. LAPPER-I don’t mean to appear insensitive to the character of the neighborhood. I understand that that’s important, but if you look at that, the right-of-way, which was reserved, which would be our access into the fields, that was always there as a road extension to connect to some future subdivision. So I think that, reasonably, the neighbors should have always expected that there would be some development on a 38 acre parcel, and that would have been really one of the main road extensions to go in, and this, as a walking path rather than a vehicle roadway, I think this is less intense than what could be there if this were developed into a housing development. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t realize. Was that always understood that that would be a throughway, or a thoroughfare, vehicular thoroughfare, if that was developed? MR. NACE-Obviously, I didn’t do the original subdivision in there, but, yes, there was, as you can see, there was a 50 foot, exactly 50 foot wide, which is the Town right-of-way coming in to the site that was left here, directly off Grant Avenue, was left with this property when everything else was divided out. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the last thing I have is that, in a telephone call with one of the neighbors, we talked about a fence. They asked about whether this entire athletic field would be fenced in any way, and there’s no fencing indicated in the legends on the drawings, and that’ll probably come up in open forum here, in the public. MR. LAPPER-We’ve proposed fences just around the tennis courts. That would be the only area, but we’re leaving a large vegetative buffer which we’ve expanded since the project was first proposed. So we think that that’ll be sufficient. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll let that be open for the public hearing. That’s all, Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-What are your plans for the right-of-way on Grant Avenue going in? Paved, left as dirt? MR. MILLER-What we’re going to do is put a series of bollards to reduce the width, so vehicles can’t get through there, just bicycles and pedestrians, and the intent was it would be a gravel/crushed 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) stone walkway, about eight foot wide. So it wasn’t going to be paved, since it’s not going to be plowed and it’s not going to be used in the winter. Also, (lost words) we kept the path away from the residents that are there, to maximize the amount of green space and so that, the brush would be cleared within that right-of-way, the brush that’s in there now. It would be graded, seeded, and we’ve proposed a cedar hedge along the adjoining residents on Ripley. MR. METIVIER-Have you thought about how you’re going to keep vehicles from parking on Grant Avenue and Ripley? MR. MILLER-Well, we talked about that. We could, what we said in the past is we think that it’s actually going to be more difficult to park there and walk to the facilities than it is to go to the parking lot. Since most of the activities are centered close to the field house, that the logical place for people to park is going to be in the parking lot, and you can’t control what everybody does. We could post some signs there at that entry, no parking, and it obviously, if people parked there, it would have to be policed, but that intersection’s out of the way. It’s not like it’s a main street, and since we’re entering off Sherman and that’s the main thoroughfare, our main signage, our main driveways are going to be there. We think that the way the site is laid out and designed that there’s going to be a rare occurrence anyone would want to park there and come in basically the back way. MR. METIVIER-And is the City School District comfortable with the proposed, instead of having sidewalks, just widening the street? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. METIVIER-They are comfortable with that? MR. LAPPER-We’ve discussed that with Tom MacGowan who’s here tonight, the Superintendent, and they’re comfortable with that. The School District is comfortable with that proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Has there been any discussion about possibly busing the students to and from the athletic complex? MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to talk to Tom about that. As a walking district, I would probably assume not, just because they. MR. STROUGH-They do have some buses. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but we’ll talk to Tom about that. MR. STROUGH-It might be, from a safety factor, I mean, they’re still crossing Western to get there. What would be the life expectancy, Tom, of that proposed drainage? MR. NACE-That should be good, more or less, forever, as much as any drainage, as long as any drainage system that’s been installed in the Town or City. MR. STROUGH-Will there be any maintenance to it, I mean, as far as cleaning out? MR. NACE-Well, like any drainage system, there’ll be some cleaning, but back in the system, as long as the ground cover’s maintained on the fields, there should be very little siltation getting into the system. So there’d probably be less maintenance than on a road, where the road’s salted during the winter. MR. STROUGH-Who’s responsibility would that be for maintenance of the drainage system? MR. NACE-All the way out to Grant Avenue, within the fields out to the end of Grant Avenue, would be the school district. Grant Avenue storm sewers, as they are now, would be the responsibility of the Town, and the City from Western Avenue on in, on down to the river. MR. STROUGH-So not the Town, but the City? MR. NACE-Well, the section, let me just clarify. Okay. Everything on the fields coming out to Grant Avenue where it connects would be the School District. From the existing catch basin on Grant Avenue through all of the existing storm sewers over to Western would be the Town, and the Town’s responsible, now, for the maintenance of those. They’re existing storm sewers, catch basins. The Town presently maintains them. Then the City system, on down Western and all the way to the Hudson River, would be the City’s responsibility. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. STROUGH-But that’s basically just the 12 inch pipe that you’d referred to before, right? MR. NACE-On Grant Avenue. When it gets out to the City system, the City is a larger sewer than that. I think it’s a 24, and eventually 30, 36. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it would be the City’s, within the athletic complex, responsibility? MR. NACE-Within the athletic complex would be the School District’s responsibility. MR. STROUGH-Tom, I was a little bit confused, because I looked on Plan SP-1, and I saw a baseball field, and it’s up near the Robert Slack property, and then I looked at Plan SP-2, and the baseball field disappeared. MR. MILLER-There’s the baseball field. MR. STROUGH-Not on mine. MR. MILLER-I don’t know if you got an earlier drawing or something, but that baseball field was always there. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, it shows a 90 degree corner in the southern end of the Slack property. MR. MILLER-I think what you got was an earlier copy, before the negotiations with Mr. Slack, and then the field was added. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the only other concern I had about the Slack property is the orientation of any structures, auxiliary structures, house, etc., because of the orientation of that baseball field. I was a little bit concerned about. MR. MILLER-The house sits way back on the property, up in this area. I think it’s 200 feet from where the field’s going to be. We had one plan that showed it. MR. NACE-Three hundred and forty-five feet. MR. MAC EWAN-What was that dimension you just gave, 345? MR. LAPPER-John, we actually re-located that field at the Slack’s request. We moved it a little farther from their house, after we did some survey work, but they’re donating their parcel for that purpose. So they’re comfortable with that location. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I did wander around the area where the practice field is located, which would be the, I believe the northeastern part of the field, complex that we’re talking about. Possibly that buffer zone could be expanded, because that is labeled only as a practice area, and so that the Rosalind and Carney, King, McDonough, Dare, Hussa and McGarr residences might have a bigger buffer area. MR. LAPPER-That was actually something that came up at the first meeting that we held. Before we came to the Planning Board, even conceptually, we held a meeting with the neighbors at the school district, at the middle school, and the buffer was changed, it was already increased from, what, I think 25 to? MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s 60 now. MR. LAPPER-Sixty, and the reason why it wasn’t extended more than that is there’s some concern that if you left it as sort of a camouflaged area, you might encourage kids to hang out there, just as sort of a secluded area. So this seemed like a compromise where it was enough of a buffer for the residents, but not too much to encourage someone to hang out, which we understand is already an existing problem with that big wooded area right now, that there are parties, not on this side but on the other side. So we did move it from 25 to 60 feet, and we think that that’s probably a fair compromise. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Did you talk with the residents about that? MR. LAPPER-They came to the meeting, and some of them expressed their concern that they didn’t want there to be too much woods, and some people said that it wasn’t enough. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the only other, this is small. I don’t know how picky we should get, but there’s a couple of lawned areas by the tennis courts, and I see concrete walkways are proposed on the parking islands, and the parking area, which is a good idea, and I just thought that maybe on 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) the lateral ends of those green areas near the, adjacent to the tennis courts, should also have a concrete sidewalk as well, because they’re right next to the parking area. My experience that, when my kids unload from the car, they trample right out and just to maintain. MR. MAC EWAN-There are sidewalks there, proposed. MR. STROUGH-Not on my plans. MR. MILLER-I think what John’s talking about it, I think he’s talking about the islands in this area, extending the sidewalks down the side for unloading. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I’m saying. If you look at the other parking areas, where they haven’t done that, the lawn is trampled, adjacent to the parking spots. MR. MILLER-Yes. I think the only reason we didn’t do that there, we certainly could do that. The only reason we didn’t do that there was that those spaces, most people are going to unload and then the walks to the front. So we’re always trying to maximize green space on our projects. So unless it’s really a necessary walkway, we don’t put it in, but if you felt it was necessary, we could certainly add that. MR. STROUGH-It’s just a suggestion. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Could we go back to that drywell for a minute? The drywell that you and Mr. Missita went and looked at today, at the end of Grant Avenue Extension, is that totally silted over, I mean, that you can’t even see it? MR. NACE-That’s correct. The one actually at Grant Avenue Extension, at the very end, if you’re facing in to the complex here, it’s a little depression in the snow, and all you see is a pile of snow there, but it’s there, believe me. I examined it. MR. MAC EWAN-And is that drywell filled right up with silt? MR. NACE-It’s a catch basin, and it is filled up within a foot of the frame with silt. Now, the next one down, if you go down to the next cross street on Grant, I don’t, offhand, remember what the name of it is, Seward, but if you go down to Seward, there’s a catch basin on the southwest corner of the intersection, that is connected to this basin with a pipe, and then it crosses to the north side, and goes to a catch basin on the northeast corner of the intersection, and goes on down the north side of Grant. MR. MAC EWAN-Is the one on Barber Avenue tied in as well, do you know? About halfway down Barber Avenue there’s one. MR. NACE-Barber, I think, is tied in a separate line into the City system, out at Western, okay. It’s not tied in to this line. MR. VOLLARO-On one of the lawns on Grant, on the north side of Grant, there seems to be a grate in one of the lawns right there, almost in the middle. Where does that connect? MR. NACE-Okay, that’s, well, let me draw you a picture. I’m not sure we have enough information on the drawing here that I can do it. Okay. The catch basin you were trying to find, that’s under snow right now, is right here, okay. This is the first cross street that T’s into Grant here, okay. There’s a catch basin on this corner that’s connected by pipe to this, okay. From there, it goes diagonally across to the one you were probably looking at in the lawn area, that’s over here, and there’s also an open culvert, and the pipe goes out of here and continues on to another catch basin before it gets to Western. There’s also a pipe coming in from up here that’s just an open ended culvert in the edge of the road up there. It’s not a catch basin. It’s just an open end of a pipe on the surface. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Anything else you wanted to add? Okay. We left the public hearing open. We’d welcome comments. We’d ask you, because obviously there’s a lot of people here that want to speak tonight, we’d ask you to keep the comments brief. We do have some correspondence, correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s read those in first, please. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-This is dated March 21, 2000, it’s addressed to Mr. MacEwan. I’m sorry, there was a series of them. They were written all at once. The same form letter. Okay. I’ll read this one, and I’ll indicate that there’s 41 letters, actually, there’s 42 letters with the same content, with 14 signatures from Queensbury and 28 signatures from Glens Falls. It says, “I am writing to you and the members of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to express my support of the application of the Glens Falls City School District for Site Plan approval of the proposed athletic fields. This application is now before your Board. As a taxpayer and/or resident of the City of Glens Falls or the Town of Queensbury, I wish to express my strong support for this project and I urge the Planning Board to approve this application without delay. The proposal for this project represents an unparalleled opportunity for the School District and the residents of both of the City and Town. The benefits and the opportunities to the students of the School District are immeasurable. The gift of this property to the School District will allow for the much needed expansion of the School District campus. This opportunity will very likely never be available to the District or the residents of the City of Glens Falls or the Town of Queensbury again in the future. The project represents a very passive development of over thirty-six (36) acres of land. I understand that six (6) all-purpose sport fields are proposed, eight (8) tennis courts and a field house with bathroom facilities. The property will be landscaped and buffer areas will be preserved. In contrast, this property could be developed into over thirty-five single family residential sites or some other type of development, which would dramatically change the present character of the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you to act favorably upon the Site Plan application. Thank you for considering the foregoing.” MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it for the correspondence, that covers them all? MRS. MOORE-No, not yet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I’ll change that one to 43. I’ll come back to that. I have another letter dated March 20, 2000. It says, “Dear Mr. MacEwan: I am writing to express my support for the proposed athletic field project which will be in front of the Planning Board on Tuesday night. We are so fortunate to have this opportunity to improve this 30 plus acre parcel of land for the benefit of so many children, parents, residents and fans of athletics. During my tenure on the Glens Falls City School Board of Education, I will certainly advocate for cooperation in making sure that the project is positive and carefully monitored to ensure the safety and welfare of our students, families and spectators. I believe that our children need athletics in their lives. The more opportunities we have available for them the better their chances of having a team experience. I think most people would agree that team work is one of the most important lessons that we learn and take with us as we grow. I thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Barbara G. Krogmann” This letter is dated March 8, 2000, “Dear Sirs: I am writing to support the acquisition of land between Griffing Place and Sherman Avenue by the Glens Falls City School to develop as athletic fields. There are certainly legitimate concerns about the impact of this plan, but the obvious benefits clearly outweigh them. I believe the City Schools are working successfully to minimize the problems that worry those of us who live adjacent to the property. We should also keep in mind that stopping the School project will probably not preserve the land as undeveloped woods. I cannot believe that a housing development or other development wouldn’t have a bigger and probably more detrimental impact to our property and quality of life. As a homeowner on Griffing Place who was attracted to my property because of the woods beyond my yard, I have followed this development plan carefully and with concern, am satisfied that there will be sufficient wooded buffer strips between the fields and people’s homes to maintain privacy. We will still have woods behind us, not houses, with pools or basketball courts. The loss of wildlife habitats saddens me, but any development would have that effect. At least the buffer will preserve some woods. I taught and still coach at the Glens Falls High School. Since the new Middle School was built, we have had nearly twice as many athletes using a smaller playing area. Both physical education classes and sports have felt the squeeze. This plan is a wonderful solution to our field space crisis. The fields will be close and the pedestrian access on Grant Avenue will be safe on quiet streets. There is no alternative property with these features. I hope the Queensbury Planning Board will endorse this project. I am not convinced that the Queensbury/Glens Falls area needs any new housing developments, but if we do, there are other places to put them. The children of the Glens Falls School District desperately need additional playing field and here is no other good site for them if this plan is rejected. Sincerely, William A. Parks” MR. SCHACHNER-We’re not hearing much about who’s signing these letters. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. MR. SCHACHNER-Going back to the form letter, that was signed by 41 or 42 or 43 individuals. I don’t think we need to read all those names, but we should indicate on the record that it’s the same 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) letter signed by 43 individuals, as I understand it. Since then, I think we’ve heard either two or three, and we haven’t heard anything about who signed them. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. I’ll go back to one that was dated March 20, and that’s from Barbara th Krogmann, and the one that I just read was William Parks. I’ll go to a letter dated March 1, 2000, and this is from Ruth Herlihy. It says, “Dear Board Members: In regard to the proposed Glens Falls School Athletic Field, I am writing you to express concern over the walkway and sidewalks you are planning for Grant Avenue Extension. My house and property at 138 Grant Avenue are just a few feet from your plans and I envision cars and people passing at almost my front door! Is a walkway really needed? And I join with our neighbors in the high water problem we have each spring. Please remember to consider this also in your decisions. Sincerely, Ruth V. Herlihy 138 Grant Avenue, Queensbury, NY 12804” I have a letter dated February 23, 2000, and this is from Patrick and Lorene McGarr, “Dear Board Members: I attended the Planning Board meeting on February 15 and th brought a number of significant concerns to the Board’s attention. Many of my neighbors also spoke, most notably about the drainage, traffic and safety concerns. I hope these concerns of ours will not be lost due to the pressure that the Glens Falls City School Board has because of their need to have an early approval of this project. We have lived at 5 Ripley Place for twenty-two years and we can tell you that in less than six weeks you will be able to see the water problem first hand. We would hope that the Board would not give approval without seeing just how serious this is and if this project were to go forward that a proper drainage system be installed and piped to the Glens Falls City Storm sewer system. This water, wherever it comes from, runs across the back of my lot or stays on the surface from March through as late as the first week of August. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, Patrick & Lorene McGarr” I have a letter dated February 15, 2000 which I don’t think I read into the record at the previous meeting. This is from Gwen Ingalls. This says, “Because of illness, we are unable to attend this evening’s meeting regarding the above matter. However, we would like to go on record as opposing the new sports field at this location. We strongly feel that the increased traffic, parking problems, littering, safety, security, noise, night lights, etc., is an invasion of our privacy and we are strongly in opposition. I strongly believe that our property values, the well-being of the property owners, and our quality of life will be affected. Look at LaRose Street, when events take place there, there is nothing but traffic, littering, noise and complaints. I should know, I work for the City, and I receive these complaints. I don’t want this to take place in my neighborhood. Some consideration should be given to us the taxpayers of this area. I realize that this is a generous gift to the City School District, however, it is short term for the participants. They will use the field for a finite time, maybe four years, and we will still be here. I feel that this needs much more discussion before you make a final decision. Look at the larger picture, maybe keep some of the wooded area intact to use as a buffer zone, additional parking off of Sherman Avenue. More thought is definitely needed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Gwen C. Ingalls, Mark Alphonse, & Mark, Jr.” And that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll take some public comment. I’d ask you to keep your comments brief, please. CHUCK THORNE MR. THORNE-Hi. My name is Chuck Thorne. I live at 130 Grant Avenue Extension. I got a petition up, just from the people on Grant Avenue, Seward Avenue, Ripley Place, and Barber Avenue, surrounding the proposed sports field for the City of Glens Falls. Briefly, “We the undersigned and residents of the area directly affected by the proposed sports fields, all in the Town of Queensbury, do hear by want to go on record as in opposition to the proposal of sidewalks along Grant Ave. Ext. and access from Grant Ave. Ext. to the sports fields. We feel that the pedestrian and vehicle traffic would adversely affect our quiet and peaceful neighborhood. If the speed limit on Sherman Ave. is reduced with only the one access to the fields, this will keep the traffic away from our residential area. There should also be fencing around the facilities to protect the adjacent properties.” I spent quite a bit of time, and everybody on Grant Avenue signed that they didn’t want anything to do with sidewalks, because these houses were built 50 years ago, and they’re kind of close to the road as it is, and kids have been walking up our street for many, many, many years. Nobody’s ever gotten hurt. There’s not a lot of traffic out there. Not too many people are against the project as a whole. They all think it’s a good project. They just were very afraid that people are going to be dropping their kids off going up Barber, across Ripley, down Grant, over Ames, over Seward. I’ve got 75 signatures. I had three people turn me down, two of them work for the School. The main concern is the water. We all had water. I watched the sewer line being put in, right across the street from my house. The last section of that sewer line is owned by the Kantrowitz boys. They put the first, in front of, they live in the last two houses on the right on Grant Avenue, and they put their own sewer line in, a 12 inch line, and the Town tapped onto their line, right at the intersection of Seward and Grant Avenue, and the drain they put in is a pipe with holes in it. It goes down Grant Avenue and it taps into Seward, I mean. Many of the neighbors saw it being put in, and I’ve talked with everybody that lives on all three or four of these streets, and the main concerns were the water and the sewer. Another concern is the fencing. There seems to be nothing anybody talking about any fencing. People on Seward Avenue are very close to the tennis courts, and they’re worried that 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) people are going to use the fields and come back and forth across their properties, run ATV’s or bikes or anything to get on the, you know. As far as security for the whole fields, most people feel that if there’s a fence around it, I mean, if there’s vandalism at night and the police come, those kids are gone. They’re going to go through the buffer zone and out through some neighborhood. We all know the vandalism that goes on in the fields. Another concern is, who’s going to schedule the off season events for Little League that are going to be using the field, for all the baseball leagues, softball leagues, you know, the different facilities? Are the toilets going to be open when there’s guys playing baseball, which is a lot of fun for a keg of beer or something? That’s all I have, just the concern of 75 people. I also have two letters, one from Hans Hansen and one from Bruce Lundgren, if I could have read into the meeting. Thank you. They dropped them off at my house. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? BOB HAVENS MR. HAVENS-My name is Bob Havens. I live at 21 Seward Street, Queensbury, NY. I live on the side where the athletic fields are going. I have nothing against them building this for the kids, but I do have against, I would like a fence on the back of my property. We’ll have no privacy whatsoever in our back yards. Another thing that I have a great deal of worry about, the drain, the runoff drain in front of my home that goes from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue is nothing but corrugated pipe, one foot with holes in it. At each intersection where they’ve got a grill for the water to get in, it’s nothing but a three foot piece of corrugated pipe, stuck in the ground, with a torch. They cut it out. They stuck the pipe in. Any water goes in, most of it goes right now, it never goes down the pipe. I know this for a fact, because last summer I saw a pool, a whole pool drained into my, the sewer thing by my house. I went to the next sewer, which is 50 feet from mine, not one bit of that water came down the pipe and into it. That’s when I found out the water’s doing nothing but going down through the ground. Now we’ve had a condition up at the house, you can go up and see my cellar, all the way around my wall is a white mark of salt. Now I know a lot of it came from Veterans Road because they’ve dumped snow up there, the City of Glens Falls, for years. Now, I know this because I’ve lived up there 45 years. I’ve built my home there and all. I am a contractor, I was a contractor, and I’ve seen this pipe and stuff put in, and it’s not sufficient to carry the water away. If they don’t put a solid sewer somewhere in there, we’re going to get deluged with water. I proved it one time, with a post hole digger, and I set my transit up, just to show the land was higher out there than Seward Street was, that the water is coming down from that way right into our cellars. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re on Seward? MR. HAVENS-And I’m on Seward. The back of my home is facing the field. We’ve put a lot of money into our homes, which means nothing now, but I mean, we have, down through the years, tried to make our homes look nice and somewhat private. Like I say, I have nothing against the kids. I love baseball. It’s my favorite sport. I wouldn’t want to stop that for anything, but I would like a little protection for myself, so I don’t get a cellar full of water. My furnace is rusted all the way around it. It’s a huge furnace, I have a nine room house, from water in the basement. At one time we had two pumps running, one at each end of the basement. It’s all we could do, pump it into the ground, outside, went no place but back in eventually. When they did put the sewer out in front, it did help, or the drain, it did help somewhat, but any vast amount of water goes no place. It sits right there. I thank you very much for listening to me. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-Craig, I do have these two letters. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SARAH HUSSA MRS. HUSSA-I’m Sarah Hussa. I live on Ripley Place. My house backs up to the property, and my husband couldn’t be with me. So we wrote this. Given our first choice, we would have the land behind our house remain undeveloped, of course, but we don’t own it, and it’s understandable that parties are interested in this property. We always knew it would be developed at one point. If the property is sold for houses, the two right-of-ways at the end of Barber and the one at Grant Avenue Extension might well be opened, and that would mean a big jump in year round traffic through our whole neighborhood. These two right-of-ways are part of the parcel. I know because we tried to buy one to build a house before we bought the house that we bought, and they said, no, we won’t sell it. We want it with the property. I am pleased, at least, that the proposal for the facilities does not include motor vehicle access through either of these two sections, and that only one of them would have foot traffic. From the draft of the plan, it also seems like the main competition fields lie on the western section of the tract, and that motor vehicle traffic would logically be drawn to the Sherman Avenue lot where players and spectators would be closer to the events. While it’s sad to see this 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) progress infringing on our quiet neighborhood, the Morse Foundation has made a generous offer which will greatly enhance the Glens Falls School District, and at the same time the Town of Queensbury, and, yes, I hope the water thing does get straightened out. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? ROBERT LE MAY MR. LE MAY-My name is Robert LeMay. I live at 14 Seward, and I could come across with the same water problems that they have, but my question is, besides the water, the storm drains and so forth, how about the sewage? Are they going to tie that into the Glens Falls sewer system? MR. MAC EWAN-No, not at this point. MR. LE MAY-So all that water’s going to go back in the ground. Right? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get that responded to for you, but, yes, their plans are to have septic systems. MR. LE MAY-All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? CRAIG PIKE MR. PIKE-Hello. My name is Craig Pike. I live on Barber Ave., and I just want to add one more voice to the opposition of the pedestrian access way. Two things I want to bring up. Has a traffic study been done on the current levels of traffic on Grant and Barber, which traffic is almost non- existent and expectant levels afterwards, and if the expected traffic level is low, as you gentlemen say, I don’t see why they couldn’t continue to use Sherman, as I believe somebody else has brought up, and if it’s high, as we expect it to be, again, the parking would be the concern, and I don’t know if you’ve seen, I’m not sure about the situation on Grant. On Barber we don’t have any curbs. Occasionally, when you do have parking, people do park there, visitors, they’re always on your lawn, and it’s pretty much up and down the entire block when that happens. It’s not very often, but, will this happen in the future? That’s my only concern, not my only concern, I should say. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PHILIP NORMANDIN MR. NORMANDIN-Good evening. My name is Philip Normandin, and I live on Sherman Avenue. So we’ve heard a lot tonight about a lot of our other streets, but whoever does the traffic studies on Sherman Avenue, I can’t understand where they come up with these traffic studies. I’ve lived there for 32 years. The traffic is tremendous on that street. The average speed limit, the posted speed limit is 35. I live directly across from Seward Street. So I’m less than a quarter of a mile from that four way stop. The average speed past my house is 45 or 50. Now I know. I’ve lived there for 32 years. I have seen that, the traffic increase 10 fold. I look at this project as a worthy project, but something’s going to have to be done about the speed limit, the safety of the pedestrians, and it’s going to have to not only be posted, but it’s going to have to be enforced. Now, I don’t see too many people being stopped on Sherman Avenue for speeding, but they are definitely going a lot faster than 35 miles an hour across by my house, day in and day out. I have a difficult time getting out of my driveway as it is. Almost any time of the day or night. That’s why I can’t understand the traffic studies, all right. Maybe we better spend more than a half an hour there. I spend 24 hours a day there, all right. Secondly, and I realize this is not part of this meeting, but the City of Glens Falls, right across from this complex, is now wanting to develop that land along Veterans Road as an industrial park. What is that going to do to our traffic patterns? Are we going to have more truck traffic on Sherman Avenue now? Are we going to be here two or three years down the road saying we’ve got so much traffic on Sherman Avenue now we’re going to have to widen it? I’ve got 25 or 30 feet of frontage from the road to my front door. I don’t think I want that. I want things developed, I mean, after all, but we are the people that live in the neighborhood. You talk about character of the neighborhood, that’s single family residences. Back around 1980, they wanted to build apartment complex, five units, in that same area of land, and we brought up traffic problems. We brought up environment. We brought up the drainage problem, which has been alleviated over the years, but I pump water out of my cellar, just like all my neighbors, every year, and we’ve got it stopped, but one of the reasons we’ve got it stopped was the character of our neighborhood. It’s single family homes. That’s what’s there. They’re not $500,000. They’re average working class homes, and I think that the people that live in that area should have a large part in the decision on what’s going to be developed in that area. I mean that for the field, and I mean it for that light industrial park that the City of Glens Falls, because when that comes up, I’m going to be back. Back 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) in the 80’s, we were zoned as UR-10. After we got that project stopped, we went and spent a lot of time, a lot of meetings, to get that back to SFR-10, and I don’t like to see that changed, and the people in that area want to leave it that way. I think that should, I really think that should mean something. I don’t want to come of sounding like I hate kids. I’ve got three of my own, and in athletics, but there’s an awful lot more involved here than just let’s move a road or let’s block something off. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I have a question. Are there copies available of that traffic study that was done? MR. MAC EWAN-There are copies in Planning. I don’t know if they’re available, but certainly if they weren’t available, you could always use a FOIL request and get them. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? AUDIENCE MEMBER #2-Just one quick comment. I’ve been here once. It’s been brought to my attention, and I forgot to mention it before, about, if there’s going to be an industrial park on Veterans Road, and they’re going to put storm sewer and sanitary sewer up there, I’m sure, why can’t they tie in across the street with this project? MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? You had a couple of more letters to read? MRS. MOORE-Yes. This one’s dated March 20, 2000, and it’s from Hans Hansen, Sr., “To Whom It May Concern: I am sorry I could not make it tonight, but due to previous commitments, I was not able to attend. I know that unless you live in the area around the project, to be against it will be like being against Mom or apple pie. I say this is a done deal, it is going to be there no matter what I think, and I will have to live with that. What I am asking the Planning Board, begging the Planning Board is to have it done properly. The last meeting we had, a gentleman from Rist-Frost (I believe it was, if not please forgive me) get up and lie to everyone by saying this project would not bring in any more water than there already is. Are we all damn fools? Each time you flush a toilet, six gallons of water will be put into the ground. Members of the Planning Board, please see that this project is done properly. This means the following would have to be done. 1. Sewer lines from toilets down Sherman Avenue to City sewer lines. 2. Do not use catch basins, instead have them run drain lines to storm sewer lines that are on Sherman Avenue. Sincerely, Hans A. Hansen, Sr.” I have a second letter. It’s not dated. It’s from Bruce Lundgren of 126 Grant Avenue, “Areas to be addressed before approval by the Town A. Storm water runoff. 1. When Veterans Rd. is developed, cleared of vegetation, graded and paved, that wet land area being a higher elevation will drain to the Sherman Ave. site and storm sewers. 2. The clearing of the heavily wooded area and swamp land for athletic fields will adversely effect the water table in the area and require ADDITIONAL runoff control. 3. The proposed restroom and septic system, utilizing a leach field, will add a whole NEW source of unwanted water to this area. It is the Town’s responsibility not to enter into projects that will adversely affect an established neighborhood. If these projects are to go forward, the Town and the City should collectively provide this area with increased storm water, sewer capacity on Sherman Ave. and Grant Ave. ext. AND a sanitary sewer on Sherman Ave. tied into the Glens Falls sewer system. B. Grant Ave. Ext. entrance to Fields. 1. This entrance will greatly increase vehicle and pedestrian traffic in a neighborhood of narrow streets, designed only for local traffic. 2. The streets are too narrow to accommodate parked cars for people using this entrance. 3. Sidewalks along Grant Ave. are unwanted, and impractical, as students prefer to walk on a quiet street, rather than on a sidewalk. The development of these Athletic Fields is a large project that will benefit not only the City schools but the Town as well, however, it should not be at the expense of those who live in the area. If the entrance is to be off Sherman Ave., then with proper engineering and planning, should be the ONLY entrance necessary. It should be the Town’s responsibility not to let this neighborhood of some 100 families be subjected to the possibility of ANY increase of the water table, resulting in flooded basements or the proposed increase in pedestrian and vehicle traffic, which will dramatically pollute this desirable area, and degrade the quality of the life of its residents. Bruce Lundgren 126 Grant Ave., Queensbury” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s it. Thank you. Anyone else, last time for comment here for the time being. Does anyone want to comment? Okay. I think for the time being I’ll leave the public hearing open. Can I get you gentlemen to come back up, please. Septic systems, proposed septic systems. MR. NACE-Okay. Septic system design is not based on a six gallon flush toilet. They’ve been illegal for many years. A typical toilet now is anywhere between 1.3 to 3 to 2, 2 and a quarter gallons flush. The septic system is designed for 900 gallons a day, maximum. Now that’s not each and ever day. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) That’s on a weekend, with events going on and a lot of people using the complex. Nine hundred gallons a day equates to very little water, compared to the area impacted, as far as groundwater goes. So I can, with full confidence, state that the septic systems will not, or septic system, will not add significantly at all to any existing groundwater problems. As far as that same issue, the rainfall that falls on there now and recharges groundwater from this site is not going to change. The site’s, the fact that part of it is paved, that runoff will concentrate, and that’s why we’re putting in stormwater facilities to control that water that gets concentrated into areas, but the total, if you look at it like a black box, the total amount of rainfall recharging groundwater now is going to be the same in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what I’m kind of concerned about, from my own point of view here, is that you say the septics aren’t going to add that much more to already existing groundwater problems, but yet you’ve got these fields designed in such a way as to get as much groundwater off the premises as possible. MR. NACE-No, no. The stormwater system is designed to collect and allow that water to slowly filter back into the ground in the ponding areas in between the fields, we’ve got catch basins in some locations and perforated pipe on the field, along between the fields. What does migrate down to the lower end of the site, which is behind Ripley, then will be picked up by a perforated infiltration pipe and two catch basins, and then piped into the existing system on Grant, and the existing system, while we’re discussing that, somebody referred to the storm system on Seward, being 30 inch corrugated metal pipe catch basins with perforated pipe in between, and that’s what the Town had been installing back in the 70’s for drywells and perforated pipe. That system is different than the one on Grant. The one on Grant is constructed with concrete catch basins. I don’t know for certain that the pipe, whether it’s perforated or not, but it’s a different system. It was constructed at a different time. They’re not tied together. MR. MAC EWAN-Little League. Is Little League going to be using these facilities? MR. LAPPER-It’s anticipated that that would be coordinated through the Town Recreation Department. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the City of Glens Falls Little League? MR. LAPPER-I think that they’re all set now. The School District will control who uses the fields. It’s likely that the Town, the City could ask for permission to use the fields in the summer, at times that the School District’s not going to use it and it’s going to be open to the residents. MR. MAC EWAN-Back in February, did you mention something about there was going to be like a coordinated scheduling effort between the Town’s Recreation Staff and the City School District? MR. LAPPER-We talked about that as a possibility, that the Town’s Recreation Department may want to have activities, may want to contribute to lighting, for example, on the tennis courts, at some point in the future, but that would just be something that would be worked out in the future. MR. MAC EWAN-So there are no definitive plans right now, there are no proposed plans for any kind of joint effort as far as recreation between the City School District and the Town of Queensbury? MR. LAPPER-Nothing formal. It’s something for discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Fencing around the tennis courts. MR. LAPPER-There will be fencing around the tennis courts. MR. VOLLARO-Fencing around the whole property, he talked about. MR. MAC EWAN-There was a question regarding speed limits on Sherman Avenue. I mean, that’s not something that this Board has control over or the applicants. That’s a Town Board thing, and more importantly that’s done by the State. A comment was brought up regarding, what’s the potential for tying in to the septic system with the proposed septic, sewer systems that are going to be proposed for the Veterans Industrial Park? MR. LAPPER-It’s just not necessary at this site. This is a 36, 38 acre site. You can see the location of the septic system is pretty central, and it’s just not, the amount of effluent from this small bathroom complex just doesn’t require this to be sewered, an on-site septic system can certainly handle it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all the questions, I think, that came out of the public comment. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think most people are in favor of the project. It seems to me, in summary, that there’s concern on the people that live on Ripley, Grant Avenue Extension, Barber, of their being a disruption of their quality of life by having too much of traffic, student traffic, although I admit it would be only occasional. I was just wondering if we might explore, once again, the use of Sherman Avenue as an access to this site, and again, I would like to explore the use of busing, using Sherman Avenue to this site. I would still like to provide access from Grant Avenue Extension, and I think even the neighbors would like to see an access, for their own benefit, for the use of the tennis courts, etc., but I would like to see that access site use limited, not favored. I’d favor the Sherman Avenue access, and again, it seems like we all want assurances, and Mr. Nace has given us the assurances, that the water will be drained from this area, and if Mr. Havens is right, that the drainage doesn’t link up, then I think we’ll have to link it up. I mean, we’ll have to make it work, and the only other question I had was water fountain locations. Well, it’s an athletic complex. MR. MILLER-There’ll be water coolers at the field house building. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know. I just thought that would be an improved situation if we had two or three access locations for water on the site, because it is pretty spread out. I mean, how many acres is this? MR. MILLER-That’s why the teams have the water boy, and they carry the cooler out with them. We’re looking at the possibility, obviously one of the other sides of developing something like this is the budget concerns. We’re looking at the possibility to extend some water access out, but right now it’s, we’re just showing it at the field house. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s something that can be added on later, but my big concerns are, I think this can be made into a win/win situation for everybody. Everybody wants the athletic complex, or just about everybody does. I favor the idea, and I think it’s a wonderful concept, but I’m just wondering if we can’t readjust, fine tune, tweak a few things to make everybody happy here. MR. LAPPER-I guess what you’re talking about is really how it’s used more than what the site plan is? MR. STROUGH-Well, the problem seems to be two-fold, an assurance on drainage, and I trust Tom, and I think that the Town will make it right. MR. LAPPER-And Rist-Frost has also signed off on the stormwater management report. MR. STROUGH-And the access to the spot by these students. I would like to see a little bit more of a stress on busing the students there and using the Sherman Avenue access. That would be less disruptive to that neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-Sherman Ave. will be the only vehicle access. So that is going to be the main access, parents dropping their kids off, people going to see the games, people using it off hours. It’s really the intramural, just the kids that are walking from the school, that’s really at off hours. Really after school would be the kids coming from the high school/middle school, and the school district still feels that it’s safer on Grant Avenue, but obviously people will walk where they want to walk. I think all that we’re really talking about is whether or not there should be a sidewalk. MR. STROUGH-Well, again, I feel like I’ve got to go back over there. Some of the people were saying that these houses, some of them are close, and I did go on Grant Avenue Extension, and I did picture a sidewalk there on my front lawn, and I didn’t like it. MR. NACE-That’s one of the reasons, in looking at it today, especially Rick Missita, we looked at it and said, okay, if we put a sidewalk, where would it be? What would it disrupt, and there’s a couple of shrubs and some trees, and maybe a couple of fence lines, that a sidewalk would get awfully close to, whereas if we do just a paved extension of the road, an extra four to five feet on the width of the road, and then stripe that as an access way, pedestrian access way, there’s plenty of room to do that without disrupting any of the landscaping or existing vegetation. MR. STROUGH-Well, it looks like the lawns pretty currently go right down to the edge of the road. MR. NACE-The lawns do, but there’s no, I say landscaping, I mean, shrubbery, trees, fences, permanent landscaping. That intrusion would minimize the intrusion into what people have been using as their lawn space. That’s still within the highway right-of-way. All that is owned by the Town, but what I’m saying is doing the pavement instead of the sidewalk would be less intrusive on residents. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. STROUGH-Okay, but have we fully investigated making the Sherman Avenue access a safer access for the students involved? Because that would just seem to be a win/win situation here. I think just about everybody would go home happy. MR. LAPPER-It’s a high speed road. We want to discourage kids from walking on that street. It just doesn’t seem prudent for the school district to be telling, to be instructing kids to be walking on Sherman Ave. MR. STROUGH-What I’m saying is can we make Sherman Ave. safer? MR. NACE-Well, the other thing, John, is if you look at the two places the kids would be crossing Western, okay. Again, that’s not just a speed issue, but the volume of traffic on Western Avenue, where they would be crossing. At the Sherman Avenue intersection, there’s more volume of traffic movement at the intersection, significantly more than there is up at Grant and Western. MR. STROUGH-I’ll agree with that, but I’m not comfortable with, if my kids are crossing Western Avenue, and they’re going to be, you know, strung out, so there’s going to be a limited supervision thing here, of accessing that field by foot. Like I say, I’d go back to the idea, I would feel more comfortable if my student were bussed to the athletic complex, and again, that would relieve the pressure from the Grant Avenue Extension access. MR. LAPPER-One difference between Queensbury and Glens Falls, I mentioned this before, is that Glens Falls is a walking district. So kids are not bussed in. MR. STROUGH-Well, how do they get to East Field? MR. LAPPER-They do bus the teams to East Field. What my partner Larry Paltrowitz is saying is that, who represents the School District, that they don’t bus. I mean, it’s the parents responsibility to take the kids in Glens Falls, and that’s just how it works. So this is no different than the other school complexes in the City. It’s just different than what we’re used to in Queensbury. MR. STROUGH-I’m satisfied with the drainage. I’m still not satisfied with our student access configuration. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s see if we can’t move it along a little bit here. Is there anything else that you wanted to add, John? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I just don’t think you’re ever going to come to an agreement with where to put the entrances. Somebody at Seward wants it on Sherman, somebody on Sherman wants it on Seward, and it just, there’s never going to be a happy medium. I think that the problem is becoming escalated because of the fact, I think everybody’s losing sight that you’re talking about a complex that isn’t going to really bring in that many people. It’s not Shea Stadium. It’s the school complex. I mean, I went to Glens Falls, grew up on Kensington, and we had tons of stuff going on from the high school, and the kids would walk over to Kensington for soccer, for baseball practice. There were never any problems. You’re talking about kids going to school, or going from school to a sport. They go at different times. Yes, they have to be there by a certain time but some kids go early. Some kids go late. As far as supervision, if the kids can’t cross the street themselves, then you have to wonder what they’re doing in high school, but the point is that you do have to break up, you can’t send everybody one way, send everybody another. Break it up, if the kids want to drive, they have to go through Sherman. If the kids want to walk, they have to go on through Grant. Do something for the people on Grant Avenue, and all those streets, to make sure that people don’t park there and walk through the signs, but then again you have to remember that these people also live on these streets. So if they park in front of their home, are they going to get a ticket? Are they going to get towed? So you have to make some concession there for the people. As far as the sidewalks on Grant, there’s just not enough room. You just can’t do it, and I don’t even know if you necessarily need to put anything there, because it is a quiet street. There’s not a lot of traffic. Hopefully the kids would be courteous enough to people driving down the street that they would get out of their way. You never know, though. I mean, you just don’t know, but just leave as little disruption to those people as you possibly can. The fact that somebody else could come in and develop that, I mean, maybe not in front of this Board, but another Board, with homes, that’s a serious problem. So they should be grateful that you’re going to get something like this, as opposed to 150 homes, because then you really have serious problems, and if somebody wanted to build a great big house back there and take both Barber and Grant Avenue, and rip roads in there for their driveway, they have every right to do that. So be happy that you have this, but as far as one or the other, you’re never going to 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) come to a conclusion. So just really, open them both up, make sure that the people on Grant and those areas there are as far removed from it as possible, but just consider them as well. MR. LAPPER-That’s why we designed it without vehicular access on those streets. MR. METIVIER-And you just have to, I guess, come to a conclusion, or somehow decide, how are you going to monitor that or police that? You can’t have a safety patrol saying you can’t park here, and you can’t have signs and have the people not be able to park in front of their own homes, but there’s got to be something that can be done there. MR. LAPPER-That may be more of a Town Board issue, after the facility is built and we see how it’s being used. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that I’m going to, I still side with John on this, on trying to design this so that we’ve got the main entrance on Sherman, as opposed to Grant, that drive through. I guess I would compromise on the fact that we’re not going to get sidewalks on there. That’s one thing. I think that’s pretty much off the table now. Striping it might be satisfactory, but I certainly would prefer to have no access from Grant at all, and develop the main entrance on Sherman, and do something with Sherman to improve the traffic flow or slow the traffic down, make it safer, and have the kids come out of the front entrance of the high school that borders right on Sherman Avenue. As far as stormwater is concerned, I’ll tell you, we’re going to put a lot of faith in you on this one, Tom, I’ll tell you that, because there’s nothing, there’s not enough documentation here, even for yourself. I’m sure you’ve got some engineering concerns buried back in here just a little bit about that whole thing. I mean, I would, if I didn’t have a good infrastructure plan in front of me, I’m guessing a little bit, even though you’ve been out there, and I know you’ve surveyed it pretty well. MR. NACE-Yes. I am fully confident that it will work. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve often thought that the amount of work we’re doing on this deal, approximately 38 acres, and almost the same size on Veterans Field for the industrial park, just being split, those two just being split by Sherman, it just seems to me that, from an engineering point of view, I’d be real happy to take a look at those together, if it were up to me. I understand we’re doing these as separate issues now, but when you’re developing that much property, that close together, and you’ve got water problems like you have on both of those, it just seems to me that I’d almost want to look at a new stormwater system in there. That’s how I, but maybe that’s not in the cards because we’re looking at these as separate developments. MR. NACE-Yes, and they really are separate. The way the Town put in the storm system, the ditch line and the storm system along Sherman, it really divided the sites. At one time, they were connected, but with the advent of that ditch line and storm sewer system on the south side of Sherman, the drainage basins have really been separated a bit. MR. LAPPER-This is also going to remain so green that we’re really not changing much except for making it flow better. It’s not like there’ll be buildings and making this impervious where you have to infiltrate a lot more land because you’ve got a lot more impervious surfaces. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m not going to be able to solve it. The whole stormwater thing is in your lap. There’s no question about it in my mind at this particular point, but as far as the access on Grant Avenue, I’m still with John in terms of trying to develop something along Sherman Avenue that becomes the main entrance to this whole complex, as opposed to having anybody go through Grant at all. I guess I’m going a step further than what John has gone. I’m saying I really don’t see Grant Avenue as an alternate access. I’d like to see everything go and be accommodated on Sherman, and that’s it for me, Mr. Chairman, I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I, personally, like the layout a lot. I think what’s happening here, you’re going to see your, the biggest use during September and October, during April and May, exams are in June, as far as the School District is goes. Softball, league softball ends relatively early in the summer. It doesn’t go right until the very end, and the people that play in that will access the site with their vehicles from the Sherman Avenue part. As far as students going, kids, in the heat of summer when it’s really hot in the summer time, you’re not going to see a ton of kids in there in July and August. They’re up at the lake. They’re at the pool. They’re doing other things. They’re not out there 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) sweating. I mean, you’re going to have minimum use during that time. I like the walkway from Grant, and I think that what we talked about before, as far as directing some, having some signs that direct the traffic to the main entrance off the Sherman Avenue Road, I think it’ll work, and do concur with Bob, as far as the water goes, and you’re stamping that, Tom. MR. NACE-That’s where the responsibility lies. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and hopefully the neighbors can sleep well tonight because the buck stops with you on that. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Alan? MR. ABBOTT-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-The main concern of the drainage I won’t get into, but your feet are held to the fire on that one. I agree with Cathy. I like the layout of this, and don’t think we should increase traffic onto Sherman Avenue, especially when we’re looking at an industrial park coming in there, and I’m not, the busing I hear is interesting, but I wonder, as a student, if you would even bother with the bus, that you would not want to wait for it or rush to get it, and you’d make your way over to the field, and I think the way that the traffic, the amount of walking traffic would be, the safety won’t be a concern. So I’d like to stick with the layout the way it is, and hope that the water thing is solved. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to add? I guess what I’m going to do is close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. Did you file a Short Form with this one or a Long Form? MR. VOLLARO-Long. It was Long, I believe. This is going to be an interesting SEQRA. MRS. MOORE-I have a Long Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do it to it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Impact on Land Will proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Can it be mitigated? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not alone up here, am I? MR. PALING-What change are you talking about? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s a wooded parcel right now. Some of it’s going to be cleared. They’re going to put in recreation fields and a house, parking facilities, tennis courts. MR. PALING-A very small impact. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Impact on Water Will proposed action effect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?” MR. VOLLARO-I’d have to say yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And small to moderate, large or can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. MAC EWAN-It can be mitigated by project change. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and we’ll say it’s a small to moderate impact? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think it’s small to moderate. I think it’s above that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Potential large, yes, you’re right. Okay. MR. PALING-Well, there is no impact if the engineering is correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re just answering the question. I’d like to be able to write Tom Nace in the answer, but I can’t. MR. PALING-Well, but you can’t say there’s a major impact for something that’s never going to be. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the impact is the development versus staying in its natural state. That’s way they’re trying to get you to say whether there’s an impact or not. MR. PALING-The project as designed won’t have that impact. That’s what’s going through my mind. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because there’s different specifications underneath it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the majority says that it’s a potentially large, but it can be mitigated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Any examples that apply to that? MR. MAC EWAN-Reconfiguration of the existing drainage flows. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. NACE-I don’t think we’re really changing drainage patterns. Okay. Drainage ends up going where it’s going now. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to let us work our way through this, please. MR. NACE-Sorry. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So it can be mitigated. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I think it can. Does the rest of the Board feel that way? MR. ROUND-When you complete, you have to, if you’re indicating a small to moderate impact, you do have to indicate which of those that you’re categorizing, or if it’s other, I heard you catch it on number three or four. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, I did. MR. ROUND-But I didn’t know if you caught it on one or two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I did not. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That was our concern, that on items one and two, or at least item one, potential impact on land, it sounded like you answered the generic question next to the number, but you didn’t pick any of the bullet items underneath. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I was, that’s right. MR. SCHACHNER-Or, if you don’t pick one of the bullet items, you can, at the bottom there should be something that says other impacts, and then there’s a blank, and you can fill that in, but before you characterize the potential impact as small to moderate or potentially large, you need to pick one of the bullet items or fill in what the impact is, not just answer the generic numbered question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, that’s what I, I caught it, Mark, on the third one, but as far as the first one, the impact on land, Mark, Craig did say that the wooded areas would be, the trees would be cut down. So I kind of went with that. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, so long as that’s what appears, you have to make sure that that appears down under other impacts, something like, sight disturbance through removal of trees, whatever the appropriate language is, but the point is, you can’t just breeze through by answering the question next to the number without picking some example or stating what the other impact is. The other thing, when you ask, can project be mitigated, I mean, can impact be mitigated through project change, and this is a minor point, but generally speaking, that’s a reference to something different, by project change, something different than what’s proposed by the applicant currently. If you’re talking about mitigation measures that are already part of the project as proposed, then you don’t really need to label those as project changes. You should evaluate the potential impact, in light of the proposed mitigation that’s already on the table. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s the case that we have here. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, so far. I’m not sure what will happen when you get to impact on transportation. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to start over? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you did fine with item three, because I think there Cathy said, what example are we going to use, but I think on the earlier ones, you didn’t do that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Let’s go back to item one, impact on land, will the action result in physical change to the project site? And we said yes, and I need an example. Now I can itemize the ten of these here, and you can pick what you want, but. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s almost clearing of the entire project to make, all of the vegetation, or most all of the vegetation on the entire project is to be removed. MR. MAC EWAN-Which would fall under “other impacts”. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You can say under “other impacts”, removal of site vegetation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we all in agreement with that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Move on to number two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The mitigation, though, is included in the proposed project. MR. SCHACHNER-What you need to do is characterize the potential impact that you’ve just identified, which is removal of vegetation, as small to moderate or potentially large. If you classify it as small to moderate, you don’t really need to go further. If you classify it as potentially large, you might want to look at whether that impact can be mitigated through some project change, project change meaning over and above what’s already on the table as part of the applicant’s proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I would label this potentially large, and it’s being mitigated through the project’s construction. Not above and beyond. We’re not looking for something above and beyond that. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, then are you saying that, even with the mitigation on the table, you’re still labeling it potentially large? What I’m hearing you say, without using these words, but I think what I’m hearing you say is that because the applicant’s proposal includes mitigation of that, that 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) maybe the ultimate impact is not potentially large. I don’t know. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know. That’s the way I feel, but I don’t know. MR. SCHACHNER-Keep in mind that there is some importance as to whether. MR. MAC EWAN-Am I getting consensus from the Board that it’s potentially large or small to moderate? MR. METIVIER-I think it’s small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate the majority has. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s potentially large, just so I can get my position in. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Large. You’re removing 30 acres of trees. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Small. MR. VOLLARO-Large. MRS. LA BOMBARD-By removing the trees, it’s a large impact. However, they’re still leaving a lot of green space and the overall effect was mitigated within the whole development of the site. MR. ABBOTT-Small to moderate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Small then. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll say small as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then that wins. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Number Two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That one we said no on, the dunes, will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site, that is cliff dunes, geological formations. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Water. Number Five, we already took care of Five. “Will proposed action effect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? And there’s a lot of examples here that, if you say yes, we might be able to define it. All right. Is it yes or no? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. The proposed action will require a discharge permit Does it require the use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed project action? Does it require water supply from wells? Does construction or operation cause any contamination of water supply system? Proposed action will adversely effect groundwater? Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity? Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons a day. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions? Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products? Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services? Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment? Or other impacts? MR. MAC EWAN-It would be under “other impacts”, right? MR. VOLLARO-I think it would be under groundwater. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think groundwater, the proposed action will adversely effect groundwater. I think that one has to be cited. MR. PALING-I thought that I heard Mark say that if you judge this on the basis of what the project will be, then to me the answer to this would be, no. If you judge it on the basis of what it is, obviously, and there’s no correct, there would be trouble, but we have engineering back up to say there will be no impact. So why isn’t the answer to that question no? MR. MAC EWAN-That makes sense when you put it that way. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does make sense when you put it that way. MR. ABBOTT-What’s question five? MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will proposed action effect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. ABBOTT-Quantity, we’re not increasing any, and quality, through the mitigation, the drainage is off into the catch basin. So I’d say no. MR. VOLLARO-I guess looking at it that way, it would probably be no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. Okay. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? MR. VOLLARO-Go back to Bob’s position, and all of these are going to wind up being no because they’re prior mitigated, almost. MR. PALING-I said, yes. MR. VOLLARO-You said yes, I know, but why? MR. PALING-They are altering drainage patterns a bit with the tennis court or the building or whatever, but it is small to moderate, and it can be mitigated. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s being mitigated. MR. PALING-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So if it’s being mitigated, why is the answer, you know, we’re getting right back to your logical, just reverse logic on the whole thing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Impact on aesthetic resources Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-Well, a lot of that depends on what happens. Aesthetically, I think Grant Avenue is affected, I do. I think there’s an aesthetic effect on that neighborhood when you put people through there. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate or potentially large? MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Can it be mitigated through the project design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Your answer to that was no, or was it yes? MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was yes, small to moderate, and it can be mitigated through project design. He said other impacts, which would be the aesthetics would be the people going through. Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. ROUND-I think you may want to reconsider that one. It’s a recreational field. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s impacted in the positive. MR. ROUND-Existing or potential, it says. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When we think of impact, we think of it in a negative connotation. MR. ROUND-That’s not necessarily always the case. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. So you could say yes. “Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” Yes, it’s going to enhance the quality. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, from where we sit, it’s hard to say no to that, that’s all we’re saying. Right. MR. MAC EWAN-From a positive aspect, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, so it will enhance the quality. “Impact on Transportation Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibration as a result of the proposed action?” MR. VOLLARO-Noise. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Noise. Well, the noise here is like blasting within 1500 feet of a hospital or school, odors that will occur routinely, operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for, will the proposed action remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen, or anything else? Removing the natural barriers. MR. STROUGH-It certainly would exceed what’s there now. I mean, there are going to be kids yelling and screaming and things like that. I mean, I don’t perceive it as being a terrible thing. I’m just answering the question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So small to moderate, but how are you going to mitigate it? MR. STROUGH-You can’t, and it’s not the worst kind of noise in the world either, but I just was answering the question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So, can we go on? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There’s no requirement that it be mitigated. It’s just part of the question, if it’s a potentially large impact. MRS. MOORE-So your answer to that is yes, and it’s small to moderate? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re answering yes, and you’ve identified what potential impact? Playground noise from something. MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate. MR. SCHACHNER-No, I’m not asking you how you’ve evaluated it. I’m asking what the impact is. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It was noise from a recreation facilities. MR. SCHACHNER-The question is, is there a noise impact, and you have to either pick one of the bullet items or fill something in under other impacts, and then you have to evaluate that impact as small to moderate or potentially large. MR. MAC EWAN-We defined it as. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve done the first and the third things, what’s the second part? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it was small to moderate. Secondly, it was due to noise from children, adults, participating over on the rec fields, and three, that it wasn’t significant enough. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So that’s under other impacts, I assume? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Public Health Will proposed action affect public health and safety?” MR. MAC EWAN-Will it impact on public health and safety? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, all the bullets here talk about hazardous waste storage facilities for natural gas or flammable liquids, excavation or disturbances for solid or hazardous wastes. We’re talking about safety of children walking along the road. MR. VOLLARO-Taking that into context, I would have to say no to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The answer is no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The ones that I’m reading here, how does this sound? MR. MAC EWAN-Read them off. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ll read them off. “The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%.” MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.” MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.” MR. VOLLARO-If you look at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, in this neighborhood, it doesn’t talk about an athletic field at all. What it talks about is the development of single family homes, if you take a look at what the Comprehensive Land Use Plan says in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-The impact of a recreational facility is far less than the impact of a subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-I agree with you 100%. I’m just taking a look at the question now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, taking it literally. MR. ROUND-I don’t think that, Comprehensive Plans typically aren’t site specific, Number One, Bob, and then addition of recreational facilities is not inconsistent with residential use. If I can offer a suggestion. I haven’t been, I apologize, I’d offer you suggested responses. If you’re talking about small to moderate impact, it might come in that pedestrian traffic will increase in the neighborhood, in this select neighborhood, and that will be a change that will effect the change in the character of a relatively isolated residential area. I think that’s what you’re looking at, but go ahead, Cathy, with your examples. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts” MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So what are the other impacts, if one isn’t? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-The other impact is that it would, in a minor fashion, I guess, change the character of a quiet neighborhood, and that’s a moderate impact to a rather tranquil neighborhood that exists now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you call that a small to moderate, large? MR. VOLLARO-I’d say small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-What do I hear up and down the Board? MR. PALING-Small to moderate. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Being, like Cathy said, it’s only four months. MRS. LA BOMBARD-During the school year for Phsy Ed classes. It’s not going to be that big. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate it is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s in other. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, as far as, can it be mitigated, do we have to answer that question? MR. PALING-Accept it. MR. SCHACHNER-You can answer that question, if you wish, but it’s not important that you do so, unless you’ve identified it as a potentially large impact. MR. VOLLARO-And we didn’t. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We did not. “Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, I think, sitting where we sit, I’m going to have to Counsel you that, I don’t know what you consider potential controversy, but it seems to me there have been a number of speakers. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, based on how we’ve addressed this, and answered these, based on what we’ve gotten out of the public comment period, or public hearing, and letters we’ve gotten, the concerns that the public has had, we think they can be mitigated through the project’s development. MR. SCHACHNER-First of all, I don’t agree with that. Second of all, it doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree whether they can be mitigated. This is relatively speaking a factual question. If you read the question again, it’s a factual question, which basically, is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to the potential environmental impacts of the project. I would submit that, relative to your typical amount of public participation and public controversy, you have a very open public deliberation process, which is something we’ve always strived for, and which I commend, and therefore, you’ve had the benefit of seeing that a number of members of the public have opinions about the potential environmental impact of the project that I would submit, as your Counsel, would seem to rise to the level of public controversy, relative to the typical amount of controversy or lack or controversy that you see on most of your projects. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I tend to agree with Mark on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Poll the Board. MR. PALING-Well, we can’t deny that there’s controversy, but there’s also opinion on both sides, and I don’t know the exact words to use, but I guess I would consider it small to moderate, if we’ve got to put it in those terms, and that the benefits to the project outweigh. MR. SCHACHNER-You all have the benefit of the form in front of you that we don’t have, but I believe, if you look closely at that question, unlike the preceding 19 questions, if memory serves me 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) correctly, this one does not require an evaluation of the potential significance. This is just a factual question. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-There seems to be a majority up here that says yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And make sure I’m right about the form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re absolutely right. It’s a yes or no answer. MR. PALING-Okay. I’d say yes. MR. VOLLARO-Then the answer is yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Okay. Well, then do we make a motion for a negative SEQRA Declaration? RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MORSE FOUNDATION, 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 21 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion? Whoever puts it up, cross the T’s and dot the I’s. You may want to add some things to it. You may want to take some things away. MR. VOLLARO-Okay let me take a crack at it, if I don’t get a second somebody else can do it, how’s that sound? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well we’ll just add to your. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a resolution to approve Site Plan 7-2000 for Morse Foundation in accordance with the resolution as its been submitted by staff, but I’d like to make a couple of comments on that or a couple of additions. The Warren County Planning Board resolution I’d like to have that, make sure everybody knows that that was by default. The Planning Board from Craig Brown where he says there’s no definitive information and Rick Missita followed up with the same comment, the fact that the engineer who supports the project, Mr. Nace, has really looked the project over and said that he can mitigate all of the stormwater problems. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you need to be very definitive about what you’re putting in your resolution. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got to tie it right down specifically. MR. VOLLARO-Okay relax my friend, unless somebody else wants to do this. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. LAPPER-Maybe you should refer to the Stormwater Management Report. MR. VOLLARO-The mitigation of the stormwater problem along Ripley Place, Grant Avenue, Barber Avenue will be mitigated by the installation. MR. MAC EWAN-May I offer a suggestion? MR. VOLLARO-Not unless you want to make the motion, it’ll be mitigated by the installation of an 8” solid HDPE pipe, 248 linear foot pipe at a 1.3% slope and that’s the proposal to mitigate the stormwater from Grant Avenue, Ripley Place and Barber Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I just have a question of Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Is what you’ve just proposed different than the stormwater management submitted by the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is because the stormwater management plan submitted by the applicant did not contain any reference to this particular drain, when he did the stormwater management he wasn’t aware of what was going, am I right or wrong? MR. NACE-No. When the stormwater management report was done it was done with the anticipation of tying into the drain at the end of Grant and that’s what we’re doing, okay. The stormwater management mitigates any potential impact from developing the site, okay, its not necessarily solving existing problems that may occur up on Barber Avenue presently. MR. VOLLARO-Well, when I read this and I had asked you this during our deliberations here whether or not the stormwater was addressed in here and I thought you said to me no it wasn’t because you weren’t fully aware of the situation at the time the stormwater management report was developed. I thought that’s what transpired between us about a half hour ago. MR. NACE-Then we miscommunicated somehow Bob. What I said is that, what I meant to say at least, was that at the time I did the stormwater report I didn’t know specifically how those sewers were installed, when they were installed. I hadn’t coordinated with Rick at the time to make sure I knew the sewer existed, I knew I went where it goes. I had traced it out myself at that time. I just hadn’t coordinated either with Rick Missita or with Don Coalts until after I wrote the report. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, I don’t think that the area that I have in the motion is too far from that, I think that you know more now about how to mitigate the situation on those, particularly those areas, Grant Avenue, Ripley Place and Barber Avenue and that wasn’t specifically stated in the stormwater management report. MR. NACE-I would just ask that you make it specific that we’re mitigating the impact from developing this site. MR. MAC EWAN-Could it not be said very simply that this amendment you’re putting on here is contingent upon an approval or an agreement from the City of Glens Falls Water and Sewer Board 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) to be able to tie into their systems from this drywell. If they can’t do that, it puts a road block up for the whole project. MR. NACE-Yes it does. MR. VOLLARO-What we really, that’s true, what I’m trying to get at is there’s now been discussed ways of mitigating the problem of right off of Grant Avenue and Ripley Place and where, that wasn’t evident when we got into these discussions. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, what we were lacking was an okay from the City of Glens Falls to tie in to that sewer. MR. VOLLARO-Well I submit that I don’t have that okay here. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why you’re putting in your resolution so that it says. MR. SCHACHNER-As a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-Right , as a condition of approval that they need to have that approval from the City, if they don’t get it they don’t move forward. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, a condition of approval then would be an agreement from the City of Glens Falls to allow the connection of the sewer system along, coming off Grant Avenue to be connected to the Glens Falls system. MR. MAC EWAN-Your drywell, your catch basin connected to the City of Glens Falls Sewer System. MR. VOLLARO-But really that the output of that 8” solid HDPE pipe eventually winds up connected to the Glens Falls stormwater system. All right, now, there still seems to be an open question concerning some of the Rist Frost comments on the coordination of the westerly access so is it, I’d like to make it a condition of this resolution that the westerly access road line up with lot 7 and 8 of Veterans Field but that will be done by the Veterans Field proposal or, that’s what you said you, is that an agreement with Veterans Field that that’s how that alignment will take place? MR. LAPPER-Maybe Laura can respond. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at Staff. MRS. MOORE-As a response we requested Chazen Group when they present the Veterans Park that they align their driveway with the Glens Falls City School project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay MRS. MOORE-So it’s still in the works. MR. MAC EWAN-So that doesn’t need to be in there. MR. VOLLARO-Then that doesn’t need to be in there, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-So that, what you just said about the westerly access lining up in not part, is not a condition of approval, is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-After Laura cleared that up. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine I’m just trying to keep track of the conditions, okay. MR. VOLLARO-The other condition of this approval is that there will be no sidewalks installed on Grant Avenue and in place of sidewalks there will be I think what we talked about is striping that road on the south side of Grant, I think that’s what was being discussed. MR. LAPPER-What we were talking about was actually. MR. MAC EWAN-A four feet easement. MR. LAPPER-That’s a needed easement that’s within there but adding four feet of pavement and striping it which was our compromise so as to avoid putting in sidewalks. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-There’s pavement there now, there’s a driving surface on that road, are you talking about adding additional pavement to that? MR. LAPPER-Pavement to that. Because the road that is there now is for driving. That’s something you’ll tell us if you want us to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-I want to poll the Board on that. How do you feel on that? MR. PALING-I think the paving is okay in lieu of sidewalks. MR. ABBOTT-I don’t think its necessary. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t either. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Leave it alone. MR. MAC EWAN-One up two down. MR. METIVIER-Don’t do it. MR. MAC EWAN-One up, three down. MR. STROUGH-Leave it alone. MR. MAC EWAN-Four, done. Omit it. MR. PALING-Just nothing. Leave it. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing. MR. SCHACHNER-But the no sidewalks is still a condition. MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t part of our proposal to add sidewalks. MR. SCHACHNER-Is the no sidewalks still a condition. MR. VOLLARO-No sidewalks is still a condition. MR. SCHACHNER-The second part of what you said is not. MR. VOLLARO-The second part is that the Grant Avenue shall be left as is, they’ll be no changes. MR. MAC EWAN-No pavement marking, no addition of a four foot pedestrian walkway or anything. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. LAPPER-We never had that in as part of our proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-It was brought up in discussion. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t think of anything else to put in this motion unless somebody else has something they want to add, if they do I’ll add it. MR. SCHACHNER-I have a question about it whenever you deem it appropriate, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s ask questions now before I put it up for a second. MR. SCHACHNER-My question is the first condition that Mr. Vollaro described, and I may be alone in not understanding this if I am you can just bypass me but I didn’t understand whether the specific quantitative data or criteria that you put in your motion is intended to take the place of the stormwater management plan that I understand the applicant to have submitted or to augment the stormwater management plan that the applicant submitted. MR. VOLLARO-My intent in the motion was to supplement the stormwater management report because I had thought at the time I was making the motion that all of the information that was put on the table tonight with respect to his discussions with Mr. Missita, his own observation of the stormwater and so on were not put into this stormwater management report because at the time he wrote this he wasn’t as knowledgeable as he is now. That was my thought. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. SCHACHNER-Okay that’s interesting to me but all I’m trying to find out for the purposes of a record in case we need to have a formal, we do need to have a formal record of your decision, all I’m trying to find out is on the issue of stormwater is your condition for the applicant, for part of this approval, part of your motion, only the criteria that you stated or is it also encompass the applicant’s stormwater management plan as submitted. MR. VOLLARO-It also incorporates the applicant’s stormwater management plan as submitted. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s all I was trying to clear up, okay. MR. STROUGH-I’d like a little more clarification. I wonder if Mr. Paling was right, and it (lost words). Who has to pay to make sure that the lines are re-done and do (lost word)? MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking two different streets. MR. STROUGH-All right, but. MR. MAC EWAN-The issue here is that their proposed project is going to tie in to the Glens Falls Sewer District, and we’re paying for that. MR. STROUGH-And isn’t one of the issues that possibly one of the drainage systems they are thinking of using might not be tied in, and if that is the case, who’s responsibility will it be? MR. MAC EWAN-They weren’t going to be tying in to that one, as far as I recall. They weren’t going to be tied into that. MR. NACE-No, not so. We’re going to be tying in to the one on Grant. MR. STROUGH-That’s the one I thought he referred to. MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. NACE-There’s only one section of pipe where there’s any doubt at all, and that’s the very end one, and it’s our responsibility to get to the City system, one way or another. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how I understand my motion, in that way. MRS. MOORE-Discussion of a fence came up, and my question is, we discussed fencing around the tennis courts. Did you want to discuss fencing around the entire project? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to ask about that. Is that like regular fence that goes around the tennis court to keep the balls in and to? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-High fence. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Right, so that’s not a boundary property fence around the tennis courts. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. PALING-Then there is no other fence. MR. VOLLARO-But I think the applicant, one of the applicant’s, I believe Mr. Thorne, in his discussions, mentioned a fence. I think Mr. Thorne here, around the whole complex. MR. MAC EWAN-Eighty percent of this complex has got a buffer around it, a vegetative buffer. I don’t think fences are a necessity. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it certainly is an expense putting up a fence like, a substantial fence is a very, very expensive operation. MR. MAC EWAN-The buffer’s doing that, I think. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-Their whole concern with the fence, I think, was infiltration from the athletic field through the buffer into their property by kids running around and stuff like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, kids going out there to party, and then when the police show up, they just scatter, and they could just go back in through the woods and go back into the other neighborhoods. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We had a second up on the table. MRS. MOORE-I have one more item. A request that the engineer provide some sort of as-built plans in regard to the connection for the stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s good and the resolution I’ll make, put that in the resolution itself that the engineering firm of Nace Engineering will provide a set of as-built drawings depicting the connection from Grant Avenue to the Glens Falls sewer tie in, its not sewer, its really stormwater. Okay. MR. STROUGH-I’m new to the process I don’t know when to jump in or when to not jump in. MR. VOLLARO-Jump in anytime on this one. MR. STROUGH-Well, the one thing that keeps bothering me is, you know, I thought maybe they could use buses as an alternate access. I guess they don’t use buses. They walk all the way to East Field. I’m starting to feel like a Queensbury wimp, but I would like to, and I don’t know if I can put it in the motion, to urge the Glens Falls School System to continue investigating and considering alternate student access possibilities. MR. MAC EWAN-A condition of approval is something that’s going to tie this thing down as an official record of granting approval to this application. If we put things in there that are not enforceable for this, for our town to go after there’s no point of putting it in the resolution and asking them to explore, we’ve already put it on the record we want them to explore other avenues of moving the students, athletes to the fields, to put it in a resolution wouldn’t be appropriate it for us to do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay, but its in the record and that’s as much as we’re going to get. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the record, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, John, I think that the Board of Education of Glens Falls and the people that are in administration there, they’re always going to keep a monitor on what’s going on over there, and making sure that it remains safe for the students. I mean, I’m not saying that, that that’s going to happen, but those are the reasons why you have Boards of Education, and people that are. MR. STROUGH-I hope you’re right. I hope the lines of communication stay open. That does concern me. I do like the project, but I do have that concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-I have nothing else. MR. SCHACHNER-The motion’s been seconded? MR. VOLLARO-We have a second. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been seconded by Mr. Abbott. Maria, call the vote, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2000 MORSE FOUNDATION, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Abbott: In accordance with the resolution as it’s been submitted by Staff. Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Abbott, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Great. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-One quick question regarding the Prospect School. Are you submitting new drawings? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 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 RIST FROST ASSOCIATES 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 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 62-99, Nigro Companies, Meeting Date: March 21, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant has received an approval for a change of zone from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial for that portion of the project site located along Homer Avenue, per resolution 86,2000. The Town Board resolution provided guidance to the Planning Board review of the project including but not limited to landscaping, aesthetics, lighting, noise, and delivery hours. The proposal has been forwarded to the Town Water Department, Wastewater, and the Fire Marshal for review and comment. The plans were also forwarded to the Chazen Companies for review and comment on lighting, landscaping, and building design. A copy of the Chazen comments has been forwarded to the applicant and is attached for your review. The proposed use meets the purpose of the Highway Commercial zone for the following reasons. The existing area is a commercial corridor with a mix of new and existing businesses. The uses include hardware sales, auto sales, and food sales. The parcel of land is primarily surrounded by commercial businesses and the use would be considered an infill of commercial property. The nature and intensity is similar to the existing supermarket stores in the area. The supporting plans provide design measures addressing traffic, aesthetics, and environmental concerns. The following table presents select site details/building size of comparative projects for your information. Store Nigro Aldi's K-Mart Hannaford Price Chopper Building Size 65,000 15,306 178,858 77,484 87,338 (square feet) Parcel Size 9.78 2.33 28.2 9.41 18.68 (acres) (8.60 minus (25.7 minus wetlands) wetlands Percent Green 46 28 37 32 64 Percent 54 72 63 68 37 Impermeable %building 17.35 18.49 14.56 18.9 10.63 coverage The traffic study prepared for the project proposes turning lane and cue lane improvements to the Bay Road and Quaker Road access points. The stormwater management plan/drainage facilities were reviewed as part of the petition for zone change by Rist Frost Associates. The stormwater plan includes detention basins, drywells, and catch basins. The proposal was determined to meet the Town's requirement for design and implementation. The Staff recommends that the applicant address the following questions and comments. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) 1. The plans should identify any proposed signs including location and size. This would include directional signage and store signs. 2. Provide confirmation that delivery vehicles will not be in conflict with each other on the delivery aisle. The proposed delivery aisle is 20 feet in width and appears to conflict with delivery vehicle movements. 3. The applicant should include the proposed road improvements from the Traffic Report on the site plans. 4. Consider designating some of the paved parking spaces to remain vegetative (unpaved) until additional spaces are needed. The area off of Bay Road northeast of the building with 65 spaces could be labeled as future parking. 5. Additional information about delivery trucks should be included, such as how often are deliveries made, what are the hours of deliveries, and will a delivery truck be on site at all times and where will it be located? 6. The applicant should submit a landscape plan that addresses the Town's comments and Chazen's comments. The Town Board had suggested one tree for every eight to twelve parking spaces. In addition, Staff would suggest a cutting plan be submitted to determine existing and proposed buffers. 7. Consider motion sensor lights for all or portions of the lighting on site to address consistency with neighborhood character. 8. Consider additional pedestrian improvements for Bay Road and the project site, such as striping and signage. The project site is near the Warren County Bike Trail System that is readily used by pedestrians ad bicyclists. 9. A bus lane/route should be installed for coordination with the Greater Glens Falls Transit System. A drop off/pick up area should be identified on the plans and possibly include a rain- shelter. 10. The plans should identify the two rows of parking to be deleted according to the Town Board resolution 86,2000. The building size requires 325 spaces and the plans demonstrate 328 spaces. 11. The Beautification Committee requested a formal species list the plantings on site. Recommendation: Staff would suggest the applicant address Staff and Board comments prior to obtaining site plan approval.” MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, there’s 11 items here that Staff has recognized that should be addressed. Okay, and we also have, Rist-Frost made a comment, and we have a three page memo from Chazen, right? And County Planning Board entered its default approval. MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No? They approved it. They reviewed it. They approved it. All right. They had a quorum. Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Frank Palumbo, and Steve Powers. First of all, we’re not here asking for an approval tonight. We’re here to start talking about the details of the project. We heard you loud and clear when we were before you in the fall for conceptual review before the Town Board vote. We think that we’ve made major, significant changes to the site plan and the building that we’d like to discuss with you tonight. That doesn’t mean that we don’t expect that you’re going to want to make further changes, and the letters from the Town’s consultants indicate some other things that we can do, but before I ask Frank to go through the changes, I just want you to understand that we listened very closely to your concerns, and I had told you that we would have a re-design of the building. That only happened in between the Town Board meeting and this meeting. We’ve taken into account comments from meetings with the Planning Staff, as well as what the Board has said, and we have a new architectural design that shows what we would consider an Adirondack type style building, with some stone work at the bottom, softened up the façade, eliminated the drivet, stucco façade, changed the roofline, added that Adirondack style to the roofline to try and soften it up, and we hope that that’s something that you can get behind. Our goal always has been to make this a project that the Planning Board can support, and that’s what we’re trying to do tonight. With that, I want to hand it over to Frank and ask him to go over the changes in the site plan. MR. PALUMBO-Many of the parts of the project are the same, but we have made some changes, based on comments that we had received. The one thing that was in the Staff Notes about one of the changes the Town Board had, we had made the condition of was that we had originally, instead of 13 spaces here, we went down as far as 15 spaces. So that was two more spaces per row, and it had this driveway that much closer to the wetlands, and, effectively, toward Quaker Road, so to get some greater green space there, we eliminated two rows of the parking along there, shifting that drive lane up, roughly shifting it up about 20 feet. What we’ve done at the same time is left a bank area here of 21 parking spaces that we have shown dashed in on this plan, and those would be spaces that under the Town’s discretion that we would leave as that it would meet our criteria or necessary criteria for the 325 spaces, but 21 of those spaces would not be built, if the Board concurred with that, but we would show that we have the ability to put those spaces in if they were needed in the 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) future. What that does is give us just that much more green space area in the front here, and gives us the ability to get some additional plantings in that area. They are outside of the parking area. So anything that gets planted would not have to be taken out if that parking did go in. Additionally, there was a lot of concern, in terms of the view in from Bay Road, and just to give a look at what we had last shown you, we had parking right up against the building. At the time we were trying to maintain as large of a distance here of the green space, but there were some good concerns, comments, talking about trying to soften the building a little bit more by getting some green space in closer to it, and what we did was we just shifted that green space allotment into three different sections. Instead of having it all right up here close to Bay Road, we divided this parking area, put in a large island here, and also were able to put an island up closer to the building. We increased our landscaping in this area, and also what I’m showing, basically what looked more like the green dots there, those are some of the existing trees that, before we had not been really showing which trees were being saved, and that came out in some comments, through the different processes we had been through with your Board and the Town Board, and also some of the comments, I’m not sure if it was the staff comments or Chazen’s comments, about showing some of those trees that were going to be maintained. Specifically in this area there’s a few very good, healthy trees that we can maintain in there. So it won’t just be a lawn area, wide open to the street. Similarly, there are some trees in these areas, that can be in the foreground from Bay Road, whereas we will still have a ring of what would be best described as sort of street trees along the parking areas and the driveway. So that, we think, is going to do, we can berm this, because now we’ve made that island a little bit wider, so we can actually do a smaller berm. Certainly not as high as this one, but berm that to try to block some of the cars that would be parked in here, and get some landscaping. We’ve planned a hedgerow along this edge of the parking, again, to try to soften the views in from Bay Road. Those trees that were up there, that was something that really came out to us when we were doing the photosimulation. We realized that there were three very nice, healthy maples that do a lot to give the character of what’s out there on Homer right now. They’re very nice trees, and we realize that we didn’t need to impact them at all. They’re actually sitting right on our side of the right-of-way line. We’re doing no grading in those particular areas. So we shouldn’t be impacting at all the root system of those trees, and if you’ve been out there, as I know many of you have gone out to see this site, and down Homer, you’ll see those trees. They really do stand out, and we’re glad that we’re going to be able to save those, and it’ll only give that much more to the landscaping that we’re proposing to add in there. With this change, there is an added benefit that we’ll be able to pull the grading in this area further back. We are still working out, entirely, our details of the landscaping and the grading, in lieu of some of the comments that we have just received. So we know we have to do some more with that. The Town Board had asked to get landscaping in the area of one tree per every eight to twelve parking spaces. They didn’t define it specifically, and they didn’t define it, and that’s probably something that we can discuss further. Right now, what we are showing on this plan, in total, in all the areas, are 130, either coniferous or deciduous trees. When we met with the Beautification Committee, we realized that as we put these trees on, and have a final landscape legend for those tree selections, that we will be doing that to the minimum standards of the Town, of the Beautification Committee, and those standards were that any of the major trees, and that’s what I’m speaking of when I say the 130 trees that we’re planting, all to be three and one half inch caliper, or the evergreen trees being four to six feet in height, and we’ve already committed that on this back berm area that we would go above that standard, of six to eight foot height, because we want to get as immediate impact as we can on that back berm. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me. How does that relate to this site drawing that I have here, these are the proposed sections, cc’s, aa’s, and the bb? I’m trying to relate what you’re talking about to some of these site drawings, for example, this is the proposed retail building as I see it. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And this is the second floor sitting at, well, he’s sitting it, his eye view, at 330, this individual here. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now, are those trees going to be high enough to get in the way of the line of sight now? MR. PALUMBO-What we did on those, and this is the way we presented it to the Town Board, that first off, we drew those cross sections and showed what they were like from the second floor. The second floor of this, the house that’s here, this house actually doesn’t have a second floor, but we took that as the worst impact area. MR. VOLLARO-This is the one I’m talking about. MR. PALUMBO-That one has a second floor to it. What we are showing, and so that’s cc there, we are showing that the fence is really going to be the immediate control. Those trees will eventually. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-This is the cc section here we’re talking about. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. Those trees right there should be drawn at the eight foot height. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-Okay, which it looks like they’re out about base 320, and up to about 328 there. MR. VOLLARO-So they don’t mitigate the sight problem. MR. PALUMBO-No, they don’t right off the bat. The fence is going to be the initial controlling factor on that, and what we pointed out to the Board was that, yes, you would see a greater proportion of the building. Basically your line of sight from that second floor shows you that much more of the side of the building, and we know that that’s the case over there. To do anything of a greater, immediate impact would really necessitate going with the higher fence. We aren’t going to really be able to do much. The landscaping that we’d be able to plant there really just, it needs time. It needs the time to grow in and fill in, because it’s not just going to be the height. It’s going to be the spread of those trees that are really going to, over time, provide the best buffering. So that was what we had tried to show with that case, just that, you know, from the lower floor, you could see the fence would show, block the views and you’d see the upper most part of the building, and that, yes, from the second floor, again, in the immediate year one, when this is built, that you would see a greater proportion of the building, but that the buffer and the fence are screening the pavement area, down below. So you’re seeing, in that cross section, a section of the building wall, but it’s really blocking the pavement of the parking area from view. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-What we have also shown on here are some of the roadway improvements that we talked about in the traffic impact study that was reviewed by Vollmer and was reviewed by A/GFTC, and the County, and the improvement here that we were, had discussed, and basically received technical approval of, was for a 120 foot long left hand turn lane into the site. We’ve shown on here, for purposes of driveways that we know are across the street, Hollywood Video, Hannaford, the Medical Care entrance, Medical Care exit, a storage entrance, Café Express parking, Café Express parking, Charo’s parking, Charo’s driveway, a residential driveway. Those are there. So that, you know, you’d have the ability to see our driveway in the context of those, and I know that that was a concern that had been brought up. MR. MAC EWAN-Not to interrupt you, but did you say that you got approval from the County already for that turning lane? MR. PALUMBO-What we got from the County was, we don’t have a formal technical approval. They have reviewed the traffic study, as did A/GFTC, and which had that in there. We had initially gone up and talked to the County about what we expected to have happen here, and they basically told us that they felt that this could be done, what they would be expecting us to do is the same thing that they had asked Lowe’s to do on the opposite side of the road, where this roadway was originally planned and built such that the curb line was positioned so that they could go to the widening through here. So what they’d be looking for us to do, and it was good planning on their part, so that nobody would have to go out and actually have major construction out on the roadway, all of this work can be done with re-striping. The actual, they have not reviewed, at this point, and it’s something that we have to get into the application process with them, whether or not that 120 feet should start right there, or whether this driveway should move 10 feet or 20 feet. They have not looked at it from that context yet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s one other thing on that road. The traffic in the CVS Pharmacy exit, which is just north of Hannaford’s existing, it’s called Hollywood Video, but that’s not included in the study. I don’t see that in your traffic study. MR. PALUMBO-No, it is not. MR. VOLLARO-So that has to be added to it? Is that? Because the traffic there has changed, being that that Pharmacy is now doing all of the prescription work. It’s gotten a lot more traffic, ingress/egress, out of that spot. MR. PALUMBO-We did not do specific counts, entering and exiting here, but basically the analysis has been done, in terms of the level of service here, and the level of service here at the Hannaford, and the mid-range analysis can be done between those. It doesn’t necessarily call out for the need to do specific counts at each and every driveway. The flow of this main line is what really predicates what the potential impact on that driveway, the traffic coming out of there. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t there a southbound turning lane on Bay Road, to go either straight north or west, a northbound, I’m sorry, a northbound turning, come down, isn’t there a northbound or a westbound turn in there? MR. PALUMBO-Right here? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and that presently goes to this point right here. MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. That’s what I’m somewhat concerned about, because that exit from the Hollywood Video is about at the end of that cue. MR. PALUMBO-Correct, it is, and we are extending that, that turn lane there, 60 feet, and that is something that was considered within the analysis that all the appropriate parties reviewed, whether or not the County, when we come in with an actual design detail of this, recommends anything differently, but basically, that driveway, the magnitude of the traffic, is not considered, at this point, something that would prohibit the work that we’re doing. MR. VOLLARO-Well, at the time you did that it probably wasn’t, but lately I’ve been watching that very carefully, that particular ingress/egress, because I go up there a lot, and it has definitely increased, in terms of the traffic coming in and out of that, what’s called the Hollywood Video entrance or exit. I’ve noticed it, and I think it’s got to be addressed, but that’s all I have. I don’t mean to jump in to your presentation. Go ahead. MR. PALUMBO-Well, I’m more than willing to take questions. At this point I’ve addressed the major topics that I would have been bringing up. MR. VOLLARO-See, because at certain times, that intersection of Bay Road and a Quaker becomes a D level LOS. MR. PALUMBO-I’m sorry, which? MR. VOLLARO-The intersection of Bay and Quaker. There are times when that’s at a D Level of Service, I believe. MR. PALUMBO-I know that the analysis showed that we were able to, with this mitigation, not degrade the Level of Service. MR. VOLLARO-Well, on Table One, Page Two, maybe I’m wrong, it says Route 254, at Bay Road intersection, at certain times, in the Year 2000, there would be a D Level of Service there. MR. PALUMBO-No, what this is is the existing counts here are D, and that is for, that’s the PM, and with the C being the Saturday. Okay. So the existing Level of Service is a D, on a Friday evening, PM peak. The background traffic added to that is a D. The combined of those two is a D, and with our improvements, it maintains as a D. MR. VOLLARO-It maintains. Okay. MR. PALUMBO-And similar with the Saturday C, C, C all the way across. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing that’s missing out of all of that analysis is the fact that there now is, I believe, a little more traffic coming out of the Hollywood Video section that could, I don’t know what level of D we’re at, are we teetering on D, or are we on the low side of D? It makes a big difference when you start to do the analysis. MR. PALUMBO-That D wouldn’t have, anything that would have been addressed there would have been the Level of Service of the intersection. The amount of traffic that was there when these counts were done, you know, the traffic that you’re saying is added, that you’ve seen and you think is higher, you know, some of that is controlled in the background growth. Some of that is expected to occur with the background growth. MR. VOLLARO-Is that your three percent per year factor that you’ve got in there? MR. PALUMBO-Whatever the background growth was that we had used in that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask a question here? What would it take to make that Level of Service a Level C? MR. PALUMBO-I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head, and I don’t believe that we’d have the ability to do that, and I don’t, under general practices, the County wouldn’t ask us to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it would seem like, if it’s already at a Level D, and the improvements that you’re going to make to that interchange will continue to make it a Level D, they can’t be improvements, and if it’s a Level D, and how bad of a Level D, like he’s saying, like Bob is saying, if it’s teetering to a Level F, how much longer before all of this impact of your traffic coming out of your project is going to teeter that over into a Level F? MR. PALUMBO-Every project, the way that the County, the way that the State, the way that the traffic is most normally done, is to evaluate the level of impact that is coming from this, first taking the existing, adding the background growth to it, taking the impact that is generated from the site, and, at a minimum, maintaining that. If you could have improvements that could bring it up a level of service, great. The likelihood of those is usually when you’re going from an unsignalized intersection to a signalized intersection. When you have an intersection that has been designed by the County, basically, to try to accommodate 20 years of growth, we’re not going to jump that up a level of service, and the background growth is supposed to be what adds in the potential for other development, and what isn’t accounted for in the background growth is what you site specifically analyze to add in to that. If, for instance, down where the industrial land, you know, it’s Kubricky and Duke Concrete, if someone were to come in, somewhere down the road, that land is actually parceled in and is accounted for in the normal background growth, but if somebody were to come in and do a large scale development, they would have to do their project and show how that would impact this intersection. All we can control is what we’re adding to the system at this time. The background growth is there constantly for the available land that. That’s only when you go above and beyond what would be the normal background that you should project it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-For Staff, could you supply the Board, please, because obviously we won’t move forward on this thing tonight with any approvals, but could you supply the Board with what the Level of Service was at the intersection of Quaker Road and Bay Road prior to the Lowe’s being built, and the Level of Service when all of the traffic mitigations were done by Lowe’s, .afterwards. I’m curious to know that. MR. ROUND-I could certainly do it before, and there’s going to be other components in that. So I don’t know whether you can say it’s all attributable to Lowe’s, but. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m talking specifically what Lowe’s did. Lowe’s was responsible for re-doing that quarter mile stretch of Bay Road, plus the synchronization of the signaling on Quaker, which really, I’m not really interested in that. I just want to know how much of a change, if any change was made, from those turning lanes they put in, the signalization at Glenwood. I want to know what kind of impact it had on the intersection, positive, negative, or did it remain the same. MR. PALUMBO-The information is available. We basically have, we have, as we got for the background information we used for doing the study, we got the Lowe’s study, and making general assumptions that their counts that were done evaluated accurately what the existing level was at that time, then they had their projections. Our counts that were done, at the point in time when Lowe’s was at full service, should give the indication of comparing what their projected was to what it is operating at right now. So, if we have a Level of Service D existing,, and their report said that it was going to function at a Level of Service C, then there’s obviously a discrepancy between what they planned and what actually ended up occurring, and some of that might also be attributed to some other factors. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. I mean, there’s other factors that have happened in that immediate vicinity of Quaker Road since the Lowe’s was done. MR. PALUMBO-Right. The information is available. We can summarize that. We also have the Vollmer study that was done. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff’s going to get that information for us on that particular one. Does that pretty much cover everything regarding the landscaping, and your traffic? Now tell us a little bit about the architectural changes you’ve made to the store. MR. PALING-Before you go there, I have one question. Would you go back to the striping, please. What are you going to do south of there? I missed it, or you didn’t say, but tell me what you’re going to do, in total, with striping. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. PALUMBO-It’s still a work in progress. We have to get in with the County and make sure that they see what our geometry’s are. We’ve worked this out to the taper lengths that we think are necessary, from the turn lanes starting at taper length, which is based on design values, design speeds, and the County may agree or not agree with us, and tell us to do an opposite way, but one of the things that they initially told us was they want us to pretty much continue this striping which, here’s the curb line, and here’s the edge of the white line right now. So there’s the shoulder that tapers down, and eventually, by the time it gets down here, where you’re at the full two lanes, you really have no shoulder. You have just enough between probably a two foot section, which is a standard roadway as well. Maintaining the five foot shoulder is not necessary. So what we’re expecting that they want us to do is continue that striping down further to this point, where the two lane section can start further back here. We do not have shown on here all that striping. That’s something we still need to work out with the County, as far as how far they want us to take that back. MR. PALING-The shoulder of the road that’s back near Homer , what’ll happen? You said that’s going to be a running lane or no? MR. PALUMBO-It would be. What they did is they put the curb in, far enough back so that they could have a two lane section of road with a two foot shoulder before the curb. That was their plan. They put that in so that they could plan for the future, and they fully expected that at some point, if that did call for it, when it called for it, that they could put in a two lane section, and reduce the shoulder at that point from a five foot to a two foot. The fact that they added in the sidewalk all along there, if you have a sidewalk, it’s generally acceptable to have that two foot shoulder. So they did that with long range planning, so that nobody would have to come in and actually dig up the curbing. MR. PALING-That becomes a two lane road now from Homer out. MR. PALUMBO-Where it actually begins will be a function of the design speed and stuff that we still need to work out with the County design wise. MR. PALING-All right, and that exit, that’ll be a right and left, in and out? MR. PALUMBO-This one here would be full access movement. MR. PALING-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Just to add something out of what Bob was saying, just to get everything out on the table, the Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation Council, Scott Sopczyk, had a comment in that particular area, where he says, the study calls for the 120 foot turn lane, but does not indicate what separation distance will be between the driveways. If it’s close enough, it could create a site problem for vehicles exiting Hannaford and turning left onto Bay, which already is a difficult movement during peak hours. I think he’s just, again, talking to that same section that you have in there, and I just wanted to bring that out, that I don’t know whether that Council’s question has ever been answered or thought about, but I thought I’d bring it in. MR. PALUMBO-Everything has been thought about, and this is really a draft, based on just the preliminary conversations with the County in the context of what we had recommended in the study. There are alternatives to this that, at this point in time, really, you know, we will go over all of those with the County and see how they want us to address this aspect. We have some flexibility here with the exact location of this driveway. MR. VOLLARO-You mean moving it north and south is what you’re saying? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Certainly we like it here, because it lines up with the front of the store. We’d prefer to have a straight shot in, rather than moving it forward and having a curved driveway in, but we do have some flexibility here, and that’ll be stuff that we can work out the specifics of. It’s all very much tied to some, you know, the very, very technical design side of it, and if they, the County I think, other than A/GFTC, if the County doesn’t like this situation, they’re going to ask us to do something different here, and we realize that, but they have, preliminarily at least, not signed off, I don’t want to use the wrong word here, but they have reviewed the traffic study, and have not said. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have any negative comments from them, that’s what you’re saying. MR. PALUMBO-Right, but they also need to get, sink their teeth into the actual design standards here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Briefly on the store. MR. PALUMBO-On the storefront? What we’ve done, I guess, I’ll put it up real quickly and then put it down because nobody liked it, but I wanted to do the comparison. MR. MAC EWAN-Somebody must have liked it, at one point. MR. PALUMBO-Well, somebody down in New Jersey liked it. That’s where it came from. This was the architecture of the new prototype for the Grand Union Megasave format. They are building these currently. MR. MAC EWAN-In New Jersey, right? MR. PALUMBO-In New Jersey. In places in New York. This is actually, one is going up in Albany, and that was the structure that they had envisioned for their prototype. We gave them the feedback that it was not being warmly received in the Town of Queensbury, and they also reference that there were other North Country stores, Burlington, Vermont, that they were running into much the same, you know, try to bring something that’s a little bit more cohesive with the northern environment, I guess, something that would fit in a little bit better. This is our first attempt on it. We’ve tried to do something to break down, you know, give a little bit more human scale to this. It’s the same canopy. There was a canopy underneath that other prototype, but it was all the massive structure. We’ve tried to break that down with a lower canopy, breaking down the line of the building, so that it’s not just one large mass, but to try to break that down some, and we’ve used some textures, some stone textures now along the bottom, with the columns and some exposed truss work there, and we were happy with the first attempt at it at least that it was something that was coming a little bit more down to the scale, and certainly more in character than what we had brought forward before. We’re glad to hear your comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Will the architectural design of the front of the building be carried all the way around the perimeter of the building? MR. PALUMBO-In general, yes. I would say that the canopy would most likely not be. One reason that I would like to over here is because we had just added this green space there. I’d rather have the green space, but we can do is the roofline, if you may remember, breaks down as it gets toward the back, and what we could probably do is in the design of this, with the mid-block lines there, work that into the context of the side elevation. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you supply us with elevations of all four sides? MR. PALUMBO-I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-So we’d know what the architectural scheme is going to look like? MR. VOLLARO-If you do that, you’d want to put the mechanicals on the roof as well. So that we see what that looks like, whatever mechanicals are going to go up there. MR. PALUMBO-That was one of the comments that came out of the Chazen letter, in terms of the guidelines that they’re coming forward with, and we can position those and try to give the depiction of where they, how they would fit in here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then you’re aware, then, you’ve got all these issues to address, that it’s not only coming from Staff. There’s 11 items that they’re looking for answers to, but the Chazen memo has three pages worth, referencing not only lighting, but landscaping and building design. MR. PALUMBO-We have those comments and we’ll address them. There’s probably only two that I actually wanted to address in any format. The first was on the lighting. We have done a plan, and we can add it in to the revised set that we’ll be submitting, that show, they asked us to go to the 20 foot height, that their guidelines were heading that way. I would ask that, you know, when we come back, we’ll show you a comparison between the 30 and the 20. It’s more poles. Right now we’re at a point of being 17 poles to 25 poles, with the 20 foot height. It’s just an open consideration for you, should we stick strictly with the standard, because each parking lot is going to be slightly different. It’s good that you have guidelines that say we’re heading toward the 20 foot high, but if we can do a lighting plan with the 30 foot high, that you can evaluate whether or not more poles or higher poles is the greater impact, we’ll have both, because we’ve already done the 30. We’ve already done the 20, but I just wanted to let you know, we’re not going to fight it one way or another, just for your consideration to look at that as a guideline, and how it best fits in here. We had already gone with the 20 foot high poles in the back, as you may remember, and just based on the different configurations of some of the parking lots, a lot of the parking lots, like Lowe’s, you have a much 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) longer parking area than you do here. Ours is much more horizontal with the building here, and the spacial dimensioning of that should lead itself to an open discussion on the 20 foot. We’re ready to go with either. MR. VOLLARO-On the 30 foot poles, what, just roughly, I’m not going to hold you to any numbers, but how much off site light splash do you get with 30 foot poles, or is it none? MR. PALUMBO-It really doesn’t differ between the 30 and the 20 because it’s all based on the placement of the pole and the height. MR. VOLLARO-A lot of it’s based on the configuration of the light fixture itself, whether it’s straight down, what spread that it has. MR. PALUMBO-Right. If I were to put a 30 foot high pole, and a 20 foot high, if I were to put a 30 foot high pole here, but I needed to put a 20 foot high pole here, I could end up having more splash with a 20 foot high, in order to get the light levels that I need. It’s all, that’s what I’m asking. That’s what I’m kind of suggesting is leave it open to the fact that you can evaluate each project and see where it’s better to go with the 30. If you lock yourself into the 20, you may end up with more poles than you want to see out there. MR. VOLLARO-The only way we can do that, or I can do that, is if you give me a lighting plan that shows how many lumens are on the ground. MR. PALUMBO-Which we have, and that’ll be, I think the 30 foot high pole, we had that included, it had two dashed lines around it, and one was a half a foot candle and one was a single foot candle. MR. VOLLARO-These are in the drawings? MR. PALUMBO-That one should be in the drawing with the 30 foot high pole, 30 foot high in most cases. As I said, the back of the site we did with the 20 foot high, and the other was, we’re going to detail out the landscaping, very specifically, based on the comments from the Beautification Committee and the comments in that letter. One of the things is that a comment regarding the landscaping. Again, similarly, using the guideline is a great thing, but on this berm back here, their suggestion was to go to one tree for every 200 square feet. Two hundred square feet is equal to what you have in their minimum sized island. They said an island of five feet by, which would be basically five feet by forty feet for the two parking areas. I think you’ve all seen the trees that grow in a parking lot in that amount of space. I don’t think it’s enough. I think that these trees should be spaced accordingly on this berm so that they’re going to have the greatest potential to grow. We can add more trees up there, and I guess that’s what I’m saying. I’ll show you the comparison between one tree for every 200 square feet and , but if you want a tree to get the maximum health, you know, you start crowding them together like that, you’re going to have root invasion. They’re going to be in greater competition, and what we don’t want is we don’t want that berm to be suffering in the future and having potential diseases effecting the trees because they’ve been spaced too close together. Two hundred square feet is basically going to be that every tree that we would plant under that kind of scenario would have to have a maximum of about a 16 foot spread. That’s going to take out a lot of your plant selections, and I think you would be better served to look at the plant type that would be used and plan for a tree that gets 25 foot spread, and give it the according room. MR. MAC EWAN-Show us a comparison. MR. PALUMBO-We will. MR. MAC EWAN-Do one like you suggested and one the way you want to do it. Okay. You’re going to show a comparison of berm plantings. Anything else that you wanted to add? MR. PALUMBO-No. I think most of the comments were ones that we felt comfortable that we can answer, and we’ll get them to you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? MR. ABBOTT-Truck traffic. How are the trucks going in and out of the property there? MR. PALUMBO-Our general consideration is first, and this is not 100%. We can’t say that we’re going to get every truck to accommodate this in the fashion that we want them to, but our primary thought is that we will get most of our traffic of the trucks off of Quaker, just because of its thoroughfare connection to the Northway. We’ve planned for the loading docks such that they would come in, be almost 100% isolated from parking areas. We do have some parking over here that we’re kind of protecting as staff parking, but that would be coming through, they’d be maneuvering into the site. There are two loading areas. So they’d come in and back in there, come 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) in, back in here, and then exiting the site, they can exit out through Bay Road to get them back to the light here. Because the light is going to be the best point, if they had come from the Northway, and that’s their point of return, we’d rather have them turning out, and so we’re trying to get them to make that maneuver, and we can do all our geometry. In fact, we’ve placed the curbs on here for those truck movements, and this also out here we can assure of that. That’s our goal of trying to get a pattern of that. Now, if a truck were to come in off of Bay, and they were to come back here, they’re going to realize they do have a problem. I would prefer not to solve their problem. I’d prefer to get them into the pattern of access to this building, in that fashion, because anything that we would have to do to try to accommodate a full movement, you’re basically, I think just for comparison’s sake, the Lowe’s. I know that Lowe’s standard is about 130 by 140 foot, because they want to be able to turn a truck around totally there. In this case, in this area, what we’re trying to do here, I just think that that’s too much pavement in the back here, too close to the other properties. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you proposing any signage there on the entrance on Bay Road that says no trucks? MR. PALUMBO-No, but what we can do in this area back here, for any cars that might be heading back there, we would plan on restricting this area so that we’re not getting a lot of car and truck intermingling in this. We don’t want people really moving around in the back of the store, and we don’t think we have a site plan that would really lead them to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Alan? Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if we can stay on this truck thing or not. I’m just concerned about trucks that may have to park there overnight, idling, with air conditioning running, for example. MR. PALUMBO-We committed, when we were at the Town Board, to put, right on the site plans, to put on there, any restrictions on the truck for delivery times, and any vehicles back there. MR. MAC EWAN-To what time, Frank? MR. PALUMBO-I think we had talked 11 o’clock. MR. MAC EWAN-To 11 o’clock. I’m willing to bet if you took that proposal back to the Grand Union, they would pull this application. MR. PALUMBO-We addressed it with them. MR. MAC EWAN-I can only tell you from my personal experience, with the Price Chopper, with the Hannafords around here, truck deliveries to those supermarkets come between 11 at night and 7 in the morning. That’s when their overnight stocking crews are working. If you’re going to tell Grand Union that they’re not going to be able to stock shelves between 11 and 7 at night, without any truck deliveries coming in here, I can tell you, that probably wouldn’t fly with them. More importantly, that would be a next to impossible thing for this Town to enforce. I cannot envision Craig Brown, our Code Compliance Officer, going up there and citing a truck driver at two o’clock in the morning and telling them to get out of there. MR. PALUMBO-One of the things that we do have built in to the design at least, we have, by having the dual loading areas, and the storage that’s inside the building at that point, the deliveries can be made. Whether or not they’re going directly to stock the shelves from the truck, we’ve brought that to the attention of Grand Union, the conversation is that there has to be the storage area, and they believe they’ve got that planned for, that if a truck is unloading, it sits in this back storage area until such time that they take it out and stock the shelves. I agree with you, because a lot of times we get out of meetings like this, that’s when I’m going to the store, and that’s when they’re loading the, stocking the shelves. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Grand Union willing to submit a letter to this Board saying that they would not allow deliveries to their store between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 in the morning? STEVE POWERS MR. POWERS-I can’t answer that, but I can certainly address that with Grand Union. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll put that on our list of things to ask. Anything else, Bob? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-I read your stormwater report. I just want to give you something. On your Page Seven, I picked a point, Point Analysis C, and I read through, looking at that, and just to bring you up to speed here, I think you have an error in there. Start on Page Seven of your stormwater report, and the drainage area E-2 is approximately 3.26 acres, I’m sorry, go to Page 11, I mislead you. Go to Page 11, where we talk about a three cubic feet per second at the Analysis Point C, peak discharge from the proposed site for the 50 year, 24 hour design, etc., and you’ve got three cubic feet per second, at Analysis Point C. Do you see that? It’s in the last paragraph on Page 11. Now, if you get down to Page 17, you talk about essentially the same Point C, but you’ve got a different quantity for cubic feet per second in there. Down to Page 17, go to your last paragraph, and you talk about the flow rate analysis of Point C is two cubic feet per second. So there’s a discrepancy there between those two pieces of data. Do you see where I’m talking, the existing stormwater peak flow rate at Analysis Point C is two cubic feet per second, on Page 11, it’s three cubic feet per second. MR. PALUMBO-I will check into that. I know we had a summary chart. MR. MAC EWAN-What were those two pages? MR. VOLLARO-Page 11 of the stormwater management report, Page 11 versus Page 17. They both talk to Analysis Point C, and that’s just to get your data straight. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, there’s a difference there. We’ll check into it, but I do see, I’m wondering whether or not it was the cfs, or whether or not they misspoke and put the 100 year. It changes from the 50 year to the 100 year. So something is different there, and we’ll check into it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good enough. Now, one thing I’ve got a question, I guess it’s a question for Staff that I want to, there was a letter from you, Chris, it was a letter from you to Scott dated March 1, 2000, where you say, please find correspondence prepared by the Sear Brown Group regarding Nigro Companies for review and comment for the March 21 meeting. Now the only st thing that we have that’s prepared by Sear Brown, that I know of, is a letter that they prepared dated February 23, 2000, and I don’t know what your letter to Scott is. MR. ROUND-I apologize. What we did is we transferred the response to, Sear Brown responded to A/GFTC, and Vollmer Associates, in a letter of correspondence, and I think that’s the February 23. rd MR. VOLLARO-That’s the February 23 letter, that’s correct. rd MR. ROUND-I guess Scott never received that from Sear Brown directly, and in conversations, I made sure he had a copy of it, and that’s what this transmittal was. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and he hasn’t gotten back to you? MR. ROUND-I’ve spoken with him. He’s indicated that it’s addressed most of the technical issues, that he concurred with Vollmer Associates, but he had never given me a written correspondence. He thought it was, I spoke to him today, and he thought I meant the (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s something that has to come in. I’ve got it. I just wanted to make sure of that. The whole traffic thing is just a little bit tenuous right now, in my mind anyway, because the Department of Transportation has got to get into that yet, you’re saying. MR. PALUMBO-DPW, yes. The State Department of Transportation is not involved, but the County DPW is. MR. VOLLARO-The County DPW, okay. Because there’s some things that Scott had brought up in his letter, Scott Sopczyk, about some errors in that, as far as left turns and right turns were concerned. Did you see that? That was earlier on. It’s still in the report that way. See I’m used to seeing reports like this come out with erader sheets. Do you know what I’m talking about when I talk about erader sheets? That a report, when you put an erader sheet into a report, it modifies the reports errors, and that’s something that comes out of my long, long past. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. I think the letter that responded to A/GFTC and Vollmer addressed that, yes, there were typos. We called something southbound when it was northbound and eastbound when it was westbound, and yes, we’ve addressed that. MR. VOLLARO-If that’s been taken care of, I’m happy with that. I just wanted to make sure that was addressed, because I didn’t see it in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-We’ve addressed my questions. One of them was the conclusion was to increase the cycle length at Quaker Road/Glenwood Avenue intersection to 120 seconds, and that’s the evening hour peak travel, and it’s already at a D level at the evening peak. That goes along with whether or not can be brought up in your Level of Service at all, because I think we’re, you know, from being in that intersection a lot, and having to make all of those turns in there, I see that as starting to get rather hairy in there. MR. PALUMBO-There are, Chris, I don’t know the status of all the improvements that came out of the corridor study, but there were going to be some improvements planned even before ours, that came out of the Vollmer Study, that were supposed to be brought in to address some of those Levels of Service. MR. VOLLARO-You’re not talking about Vollmer’s letter of December 20? This is something th other than that? MR. PALUMBO-No. They conducted those. MR. ROUND-I’m not sure what you’re referring to. MR. PALUMBO-The corridor analysis, the signal coordination analysis. MR. ROUND-The signal coordination was completed. MR. PALUMBO-It’s completed. MR. ROUND-And there weren’t any physical or geometry or lane improvements proposed as a part of that. The County is examining some signal upgrades that will allow for some changes in timings. I’m not sure if Quaker Road/Bay Road intersection is included in that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s it for you, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, anything new? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. First of all, I’m kind of scattered here, and then I’ll get focused. When was the water table level determined, what season? MR. PALUMBO-Off the top of my head, I can’t tell you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’d like to know. It makes a difference. Stream contamination. Now, none of the runoff is going to go into that stream. It’s all going to go into catch basins, right? MR. PALUMBO-The eventual discharge out of the detention basin does go into the stream after it’s been attenuated in the detention basin. Detention basin, catch basin. Catch basin first is just the physical structure that they’re collected with in the parking areas. You have the detention basin here and the detention basin here. Okay. Those are intended to basically collect the heavy stormwater. Eventually every detention basin has a release, all right. That release is through a pipe. There’s one here releasing out, and there’s one here releasing out, and any stormwater management system, that’s what is occurring. You are basically just holding the water back. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’s not getting. MR. PALUMBO-Eventually, it has to make its way to the same drainage system. MR. STROUGH-But I’m looking for treatment in between. Any contaminants that might be in the water, salt, any type of pavement contributions. MR. PALUMBO-That’s all accommodated with the first flush design of a detention system, which is all done in accordance with water quality certification issues with the DEC, that the stormwater basin is designed, so basically the first flush contains a low area in that basin, so that outflow is set slightly higher, about a foot higher, than the very bottom of the basin, so that you do have settlements down. MR. STROUGH-But salt’s soluble. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. PALUMBO-Everything that is, we’re not changing the degree of anything that’s going into this stream. MR. STROUGH-No, but you’re locating in a particularly sensitive site. I mean, so we have to address the concerns, because that is a tributary to the Halfway Brook area, and there is a lot of. MR. PALUMBO-I agree, and we know that we’re going to have to address these issues. The DEC will have to address whether or not our stormwater design meets the requirements for issuing a water quality certification. It’s the standard process. Just as if, Lowe’s was the same thing. I mean, the standards that we designed our stormwater management system to are, they’re the Town standards, and then anything that’s necessary above and beyond that. Lowe’s had a detention system that went into the Halfway Brook, as did many of the systems. MR. MAC EWAN-When will DEC review this? MR. PALUMBO-DEC is currently reviewing it. They’ve been. MR. MAC EWAN-When do you expect an answer from them? MR. PALUMBO-I can’t tell you that for sure. I know they’ve contacted us, because they received, we have submitted the wetland application to the Corps of Engineers. Through that process, it immediately gets kicked to DEC. All I know right now is that they are in the process of reviewing it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think . All I know right now is that they are in the process of reviewing it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think your position is that the wetlands will be used as a way of mitigating some oils and soluble soils. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, you could also plant willows. Willow trees are. MR. VOLLARO-They suck up water like crazy. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but they’re also a good, a plant that cleanses nitrogen trioxide and other contaminants, but, okay. Let me move on to traffic. A student was asking me the other day, we were talking about the service road around the Million Dollar Half Mile, and how did we ever get to this situation, and I said, well, first, there were all the stores that went in there, very successful, and there was another group of outlet stores, and they were very successful, and then there was another group of outlet stores and they were very successful. So we ended up with a mess. I mean, had we known everything, and I’m not pointing any fingers or blaming anybody, but we had an opportunity to plant things, and we could have probably avoided that if we had foreseen that, a lot of that traffic problem, and we can avoid a lot of potential problems on Quaker Road by not allowing you a full access on that Quaker Road. Lowe’s is right in, right out. O’Toole’s is a right in, right out. The new plaza there with the Hollywood Video is an in only. We’ve kept that area clean. No cross traffic. I expect the same thing with this project, a right in, right out only on Quaker. MR. PALUMBO-Everything that we will do is going to be, the entrance down here where we will have a left hand turn lane, will be done in accordance with DPW’s standards. One of the things that’s different between the Lowe’s is the generation of its traffic, where it’s coming from. The best way to get our eastbound, or westbound traffic from the east into this site for access management, and we can prove this, and we will with the DPW and get their concurrence on it, is to have them access fully here. The majority of traffic coming to Lowe’s, I’ll bet on it, that the traffic generation pattern was from this direction, and such that they’re making left hand turns in, and they are doing it. They’re making those left hand turns. MR. STROUGH-I don’t buy it. You’ve got to maintain the integrity of Quaker Road. We’ve got to look down the road. We can’t look at you as an isolated incident and say, well, you know, it appears that cross traffic will be okay for this case. Well then we should have allowed cross traffic for Lowe’s. We should have allowed cross traffic for O’Toole’s. We should have allowed cross traffic, then we’ve got a mess. MR. PALUMBO-O’Toole’s, also, is a separate case, because it’s so much closer to an intersection. MR. STROUGH-The only way that this is going to work as far as I can see is, in my mind, is a set up similar to what Lowe’s has got, a right in, right out only on Quaker Road, and you set up your 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) entrance so it will be across from the entrance to the Hollywood Video store, and put a light up there. Now that’s the only way I can. MR. MAC EWAN-John, it’s too close to the intersection. MR. STROUGH-Well, move the intersection. MR. LAPPER-What you’re not aware of is that DPW has asked, through Chris, that the developer of the Lowe’s make that a left in. They now have determined that that was a mistake, and that they should have allowed that to be a left turn in. MR. STROUGH-I disagree with that. I think it maintains the flow of Quaker Road very nicely through there, and it doesn’t interrupt it with cross traffic, and I think you’ve got to look 10 years down the road, Jon. MR. MAC EWAN-Are they going to change that? MR. LAPPER-It’s already approved. The permit’s there. They just sent a letter saying, could you look at it, and there hasn’t been a response, but that was just something that’s happened, but we look at it as it’s DPW’s road, and they’re going to tell us how they want these intersections to go. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve given you my opinion. MR. LAPPER-And the initial concept, what Frank didn’t get to was that if you didn’t have the left turn in, it would put more pressure on the main Quaker/Bay intersection. So the point of that left is to get people in without having to go through the intersection. MR. STROUGH-But I’ve got some common sense. You allow cross traffic that close to the Bay Road/Quaker Road intersection, and if you were to allow everybody to have the cross traffic, you’ve got a mess. Right in, right out. MR. MAC EWAN-You just made a comment that kind of got me thinking here. You said that the County went back to Lowe’s and said why didn’t you make this both ways turning in there, and you said that road over there, you’re going to do what the County dictates to you. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t the County dictate two ways in? MR. LAPPER-At first the County said no left on Lowe’s, when they looked at the plan, and then after it was in operation, they changed their mind. MR. MAC EWAN-For what reason? MR. LAPPER-Chris, do you remember what that was about? MR. ROUND-People were making the left. Even though there’s a. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re always going to find that, no matter what. Gee, look at the problems they had with McDonald’s up there, for a long time people going the wrong way through there. MR. ROUND-I can’t speak for the County, but people are making a left hand turn, and I think they probably feel that it’s safer if you facilitate the movement than if you cause a conflict at that. Whether that’s good planning or not, I don’t know. Quaker Road is wide enough, in most locations, so it facilitates turning lanes, and that’s, the problem you have with left turning movements is typically blocking a through movement or causing a potential head on collision if you don’t have frequent enough gaps in that through movement, but I think we’re all sensitive to access management on Quaker Road, and we’ve brought some issues to the Planning Board, and we’ve been successful some times and not successful in other occasions, but I think the traffic analysis, and Vollmer is aware of what our objectives are, as far as access management, and we can certainly delve into that deeper to make sure that issue is resolved. MR. MAC EWAN-In the interest of time here, when do you expect you’re going to get your responses back from the County DPW, and the review? MR. PALUMBO-Before the next meeting, that’s for sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’d like to hear what they have to say. What else have you got over there, John? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. STROUGH-Again, I said it at the Town Board meeting and I’ll say it again now, your traffic study of traffic coming off of Garrison doesn’t reflect, necessarily, the character of traffic at other hours. You address that in a peak hour of four to five PM, which is when people are returning home from work, and not necessarily going to any stores. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and I’ll cut you off right there, because Garrison Road traffic is not directly relevant to this site plan. MR. STROUGH-But they include it in their study and analysis of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but the Town Board’s already made a SEQRA determination on it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I have that concern, and the other concern that I have that I don’t know how you’re going to get over, you’re going to say there’s a minimum of impact of lighting. There’s a minimum of impact of odors, and smells, and visual, but there’s an impact. You mitigate it, but you don’t eliminate it, and I’m just concerned about the residents on the other side of Homer and how they’re negatively effected by this. I don’t want those people to lose money. I know somebody over there that’s trying to sell their house for $120,000. I wouldn’t want to buy it knowing I’m going to be looking at the butt end of this, and I lived in back of one of the stores. I lived in back of Price Chopper in Downtown Glens Falls, and I’ll tell you, it’s no pleasure. So I’ve got a problem with that, too. MR. LAPPER-I guess I would look to the Chazen. They addressed that, and they said that the thought that the berm did a nice job. MR. MAC EWAN-Chazen also had concerns regarding the lighting, too. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s one of the things we’re going to look into. MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re on this Chazen report, what’s the definition of articulating the roof? I looked through an old architectural engineering book of mine. It might be a little ancient for you guys, but it doesn’t mention articulation of anything there. What’s your definition of what he said about it? MR. ROUND-Articulation is providing detail to design, or, I mean, articulation is to bring definition to. MR. VOLLARO-Is this a visual impact thing? MR. ROUND-Yes, it is, and I think the example of articulation on this design versus the old design is the addition of those peaked canopies, and that Chazen didn’t see this, but I mean, Marilyn and I, just speaking briefly, would like to see additional articulation of the building, in regard to the design, to break up that, you have a single horizontal line. If you were to articulate that line, you would break that up, and move it around. MR. VOLLARO-Move it around, give it some motion. MR. ROUND-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-Some depth, okay. So long as we’re on the same page, I’m happy. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. PALING-Nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I will open up the public hearing. Keep in mind that we are obviously going to table this application tonight. So if you’d like to make some comments, you’re welcome to. If you’d like to hold off on them, we will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOYCE THOMPSON MRS. THOMPSON-My name is Joyce Thompson, and I’ve been here before, and I can’t deny that I’m discouraged, I was discouraged with the Town Board’s decision, because I don’t feel they represented the people of Queensbury and their feelings of not wanting a store or needing rezoning, 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) but anyway, I’m convinced probably that this store is coming. So maybe we can all work together to make it as attractive and as nice as possible. One concern I had was having the main entrance to this megastore on Quaker Road, and we’ve talked a lot about the in’s and outs of the trucks and the people and I just thought if most of the traffic could get in and out off of Quaker, that that would certainly help the Bay Road, the Bay/Quaker traffic, and maybe just have a type of a slit entrance on Bay, that’s similar to what Hannaford has now. I can’t tell, really, maybe from the diagram, whether that’s a main highway going in from Bay, or is it a slit entrance similar to Hannaford, and I was wondering, does the front of the store face Quaker, or does the front face Bay? MR. VOLLARO-It faces Quaker. MR. MAC EWAN-It faces Quaker. MRS. THOMPSON-It faces Quaker. It would be great if there was like a U-turn and the trucks would go in and come out on Quaker and didn’t have to deal with Bay. This just was one of my concerns. I just feel the main commercial area of the store should be on Quaker. Bay’s very congested, and as Robert pointed out, there’s tremendous traffic from the CVS drugstore now taking lots of other prescriptions, and if Eckerdt closes one of their stores, which they’re talking about in Glens Falls, they already have signs up, Welcome, Eckerdt. So I think, you know, you’re going to see more and more traffic there. Anyway, this arrangement of more traffic on Quaker might help Garrison Road, which I’m interested in, and Fort Amherst and Webster. I’m also concerned about the truck traffic. Would trucks mostly enter from Quaker? Would they go in on Quaker and then come out on Bay? MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-We haven’t got a clue. MR. MAC EWAN-And to sit here and tell you that that’s the route that any given truck would take. MRS. THOMPSON-I know. So if it comes out on Bay, I can just see it going down Bay and through Downtown Glens Falls and making its way to 18 or maybe to the Grand Union in South Glens Falls and, you know, it’s just sort of scary, the truck traffic and where it might go and what it might be doing and I know that it’s too late now for this, but I thought maybe the Planning Board could ask the Town Board to mandate that businesses share driveways. In other words, you have access control, or you have a curb cutting, like I thought maybe Denny’s and the megastore could share a driveway going in, but I guess it’s already been decided that Denny’s doesn’t want to share the driveway, but maybe in the future this would be something to be considered. MR. MAC EWAN-There is a provision in the Town Ordinances for shared access. It’s not mandatory, although it’s highly encouraged. We have had instances in the past where we’ve tried to establish such a connection, and it’s difficult, in some cases, to get businesses to cooperate with neighboring businesses. MRS. THOMPSON-I know, but it seems like the Town Board or somebody could mandate it. I mean could make a ruling, because to have all these little driveways is not attractive, and it would certainly be more efficient and more attractive and more everything. The landscaping looks great on the chart. I mean, I’m really impressed with the green space and the trees and so on, but, you know, you look across the street at Lowe’s, and you look at the landscaping, and you think, well, I didn’t see their charts. Maybe they had green and trees, too, but what happened? All the trees are three feet high and half of them are dead, and you just think, well, how could this happen if there was supposedly, you know, good landscaping? Who checks on it and who enforces the plan? Who’s responsible, and maybe on our street, our nice residential streets, we could get some no through traffic signs eventually. I don’t know, probably we’d have to address the Highway Department. Maybe this isn’t the right place, unless maybe somebody recommended that it might be a good idea. Is the store going to be open 24 hours a day? Is it a 24 hour store? Okay. Well, that’s about it. I just, you know, I guess if it’s coming, we should all work hard to make it as attractive and as nice as possible, and have it as less impact on the area. I like this design a lot better than the other one. So I guess that’s improvement, but I just would love to see, I mean, are they talking about possibly having another turning light on Bay? No? MR. MAC EWAN-No signals, turning lanes. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. So no signals, just a turning lane. MR. MAC EWAN-Just painted pavement. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. Well, that’s all I have to say, thank you. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. BEV KERR MRS. KERR-I’ll try to be brief. Bev Kerr, 47 Garrison Road, Queensbury. I cannot express in strong enough terms my disappointment in the Town Board’s unanimous decision to approve the rezoning of Homer Avenue on the north side to accommodate the Grand Union project. At least the Planning Board’s decision on this matter was split three to three. My sense of loss is shared by my neighbors. Our quality of life will be further eroded. Our frustration over our inability to effectively access our representation is great. We have little influence in resisting corporate power. We appreciate that Mr. MacEwan spoke at the Town Board meeting in February. He voiced his opposition to the project. However, the betrayal that the residents of Homer Avenue, who are not selling their homes, feel, plus those on Garrison Road, Fort Amherst, and Webster Avenue is significant. Your attention to the details of this application is essential. Your resolution must include protection of the adjacent wetlands, protective lush barriers of vegetation, traffic control, possibly Quaker only, and aesthetic approval for the proposed building. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. THOMPSON-Just one more thing. Those nice trees on Homer Avenue that you spoke about, nobody’s going to take a chance and cut them down by mistake. This happens. This happened behind Doyle’s. Hannaford was supposed to leave a whole bunch of trees back there, and all of a sudden somebody goes back there and chops them down. So anyway, sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. Anyone else? BEV PARADISE MRS. PARADISE-I’ve been here before, too. I’m Bev Paradise. I live on Homer Avenue, and the things that I didn’t hear Nigro address were regarding the traffic report. There’s no police reports on the accidents on the corner of Bay and Quaker and Bay and Meadowbrook, throughout last summer, and there were plenty of them. The road limit signs need to be closer to the corner, because the trucks get on our street before they see the signs, and my son does deliver to the stores between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., and he gets paid by the hour. So he can’t stay there all night, and also Betty Potter said that she presented the Board with a map of the wetlands between Quaker and Homer, and she said if it’s lost, she’s got another one, and here are the requirements and the rules for wetlands, but I’d like them back, and the other thing that I don’t understand is according to the Town Board rules for rezoning, the people are supposed to be notified within five days by mail, and nobody was notified by mail that we were rezoned to Light Industry, in 1982. MR. MAC EWAN-From what zone? MRS. PARADISE-From residential. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, would you care to comment? MRS. PARADISE-It only showed up on the entertainment page, with a legal notice written over the top of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if it was part of the Town wide rezoning that they had done several parcels back then. MRS. PARADISE-Yes, but according to their rules, the owners of properties involved are supposed to be notified by mail within five days before the hearing, and I spoke with five different people on the street, and none of them were notified. MR. VOLLARO-That was back in 1982? MRS. PARADISE-’82, and I don’t know if you have the restrictions for wetlands, but according to Betty’s map, where Nigro wants to build, most of it is classified as wetlands on the map that she submitted. MR. VOLLARO-But these are all Army Corps of Engineers wetlands, and they have different applications. MR. PALUMBO-They’ve been field delineated, sent in to the Corps, for their (lost words). 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MRS. PARADISE-And on that map, it’s a little bit incorrect because they’ve got their drain basins up near the Brook, and when that runs over, it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s going to run into the Brook, then from the Brook it’s going in to my basement because that’s where the hedge way is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. PARADISE-And if Nigro wants to buy my house, I’ve got no objection to them doing it, but otherwise that basin ought to be on the other side. Because we get enough water from the Brook now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could you just point to where you were referring to, please, about the basin, right there on the map, just show me, and where your house is. MRS. PARADISE-Here’s my house right here. This is my backyard, and here’s the Brook. MR. VOLLARO-Point to where the basin is on the chart there now, and where you want it moved. MRS. PARADISE-It’s right here, my house is here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. JOHN RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I will be very brief tonight. I’m here on behalf of Frank Nigro, not the proponent. Mr. Nigro owns two parcels on the south side of Quaker Road. One is now improved by the Denny’s. The other is this unimproved parcel between the proposed exit/entrance onto Quaker and the Minogue’s property. We did submit, I don’t know if it made it to your packets, it was midday, a brief commentary from Mark Gregory of Transportation Concepts, on the various traffic studies, and I’d just call your attention to Page Three on that, which specifically addresses the chief concern we have here. I mentioned briefly at the Town Board meeting that we had no objection to the proposal then, and certainly have none now. We do have a strong concern about the proposed location of the exit onto Quaker. We’ve had some intermittent negotiations, and hopefully we can reach a resolution with the people so that we can reach an accommodation on this piece, because we feel everyone, and it bears out in the comments tonight, would be better served if we could move this exit road over farther away from the various entrance/exits here at the retail centers, but also from the Quaker/Bay intersection itself. We’d also like an opportunity approach Minogue’s. Maybe we can work something in in combined, an access road there. By moving this exit road over another 75, 100 feet, something in that range, you would have less impact, less destruction of the wetlands. You’d get it away from utility lines, and most importantly move it away from this intersection that’s already overloaded. So that’s what we’d like the Board to consider, as an alternative. We’re going to be talking, I think, with the proponent, and I’d like to know when the next meeting is so we can have some discussions among ourselves before then. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t decided yet. We’ll let you know, though. MR. RICHARDS-Okay, but that’s where we’re coming from. I just wanted to let you know our concerns, and I think the comments are pretty self-explanatory. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? MIKE INGALLSTON MR. INGALLSTON-My name is Mike Ingallston. I live on the corner of Homer and Bay, 302 Bay Road. I have a copy of the 1982 ad that they placed in the paper. I would like to present it to the Planning Board, before I start my little list. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. INGALLSTON-Like I said, I live at 302 Bay Road. In front of my house is a Glens Falls Transit Bus Stop. Now, if Nigro is proposing to turn Bay Road into a three lane highway, starting at Homer, this three lane highway is going to start right where that bus stop exists now. At the last Town Board meeting, where they did the zoning change, Nigro mentioned that they are spending $10 million on this project. Unfortunately, I live on the corner of this proposed project. I don’t believe that anything is etched in stone yet. Now if they’re spending $10 million on this project, and they’ve been working on it for almost two years, I think they’re very capable of putting full grown trees in, so I don’t have to see this building. I also believe that like toward 787 or I-90, down outside 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) of Troy, they have very large fences on the main highway, to keep the noise and the rest of the pollution out from the neighborhoods on that road, which of course it’s a super highway. So I don’t know what the modifications could be in Queensbury, because in the first place, I don’t want this building in my back yard. Now I think we’ve already, the whole area has voiced that. Hopefully, the Planning Board will work for the consistency of representing the people and whatever which way that they determine to vote, but if it is possible, if this thing does slide through for whatever reason, I would like to know if they could put in full sized trees, I mean, it’s a small portion, I think, of the $10 million, and a higher fence. Because I don’t want to see any part of this building, if it does go in there. If they build this building there, and the water table on my property, on the corner of Homer and Bay changes, is Nigro going to be responsible for any damage, if the water table rises on my property? This is what I want to know. Do I have to sue Nigro or do I have to sue the Town of Queensbury, because of the changes in the water table because they’re going to pave so many acres. They mentioned running 20 foot lights in the back. Well, I don’t live on the back. I live on the corner that’s going to adjoin this property, and I don’t believe there’s been any mention made of 20 foot high lights on my area. If this thing does go in, I am asking strongly that I have the lighting reduced in my area, toward my property. They say that they’re going to try or they’re going to ask Grand Union about the deliveries. The Board asked about limiting that they couldn’t deliver from 11 until 7 a.m. My question is, living on that corner, if they can’t deliver at 11 o’clock at night, these people, a lot of people own their own rigs, and even though they drive for Grand Union, there’s a possibility that they are subcontracted, they’re independent drivers. I don’t know. I know that we have a lot of independent drivers come in at Finch. These people don’t get paid by the hour. They get paid mileage. They don’t want to sit around, and if they can’t unload between 11 and 7, which most of the deliveries are made, and you can check Price Chopper. You can check Shop N’ Save, or Hannaford, whatever you want to call it, there are rigs leaving there during the night, because they do unload, and I’m sure they just off load. It doesn’t go directly to the shelves. If they can’t unload during the night, they’re going to be sitting there running, and I’m going to smell those diesel fumes on my property. In the summer they’re going to run them to keep the AC going because they live in those tractors. I’ve said this before. You can go to any truck stop. You can ask any truck driver if he runs that in the summer for the AC, and if he runs it in the winter for the heat, because he does live in that tractor. So I would like to know who’s going to be responsible if these people are parked outside of my property on the corner of that property where the Grand Union might be going in. Who’s going to be responsible? Who do I have to sue if I have a continuous problem with diesel? Now I live on the corner of Homer and Bay. There are a lot of accidents right on the corner of Homer and Bay. I don’t know the exact number, but I do know there are quite a few accidents. Somebody might want to check, or get some verification through the Sheriff’s Department or the State Police Department to find out the exact number and what’s going to happen with the increase of traffic which has already changed from CVS, because of the prescriptions being moved out, which that doesn’t, apparently that doesn’t matter anyway because it’s not in the count of the traffic study, but if the Grand Union does go in there, I’m sure that the accident rate on the corner of Homer and Bay is going to go up, especially with a three lane highway beginning right there. Another possibility I want to ask. They show two loading docks on the back of that building. Now, on the east side of that building is Everts Avenue. There are no homes there. They’re all businesses. Why can’t those loading docks be put on the east side of that building, facing Everts, so that it doesn’t affect the residents across the street on Homer, and the people that still live on the north side of Homer. Because not just the people left on Homer are on the south side, as everybody on this Board and the Town Board has been saying, for four to five months. I live on the north side of Homer. You have three, four other houses on the north side of Homer that are staying there. Nigro didn’t buy the whole street. They didn’t buy anything yet. They have options on these properties. So I’m seriously asking if these loading docks can be moved away from my property opposite on the side wall, where the businesses are. MR. VOLLARO-You want them on the east wall of? MR. INGALLSTON-I want them on Everts Avenue side. That’s all businesses on that side, if this thing goes in. Why should the people on the other side of Homer, I mean, they’re taking out the center of the street. They rezoned, the Town Board rezoned the middle of that street, which, in my opinion is asinine, and now they’re going to put in two loading docks. Now because they received the zoning change, this now lets Nigro move that property 143 feet closer to Homer. So it puts those two loading docks closer to the other side of the residents on the other side of that road and myself. Like I said before, the CVS traffic wasn’t figured in, plus prescriptions that were transferred all down there on Bay Road, that wasn’t figured in, but apparently, you know, that’s not going to affect the traffic anyway. If there are people making left hand turns out of Lowe’s, I’m sure that it is not one made every five or ten minutes, onto Quaker. I would be willing to bet money. If anybody’s making a left hand turn, they are few and far between. When you leave Monroe’s, which is the old M Montgomery Ward plaza, that sign says no left hand turn onto Quaker. I would imagine they put that there because of a reason, because of the traffic flow and the amount of traffic that goes through that intersection on Quaker and Glen. Well, I think if you did a traffic count between Quaker and Glen and Quaker and Bay, it’s going to be almost close. Glen is still going to be higher, but it’s definitely going to be close, and as far as two ways, you have a full intersection coming out on Bay 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) and a full intersection coming out on Quaker, it’s unreal that close to that intersection, but. Now the other possibility that, because I gave you the copy of when that was advertised in the Post Star, the lady that lives down the street from me brought up the question that nobody was notified on the street, according to Queensbury’s rules. Now there’s a slight possibility that 18 years ago, this was slid through, because all these properties were residential. They weren’t light industrial. Because the lady down at the end of the street that owned that property wanted to build the two buildings. She wanted to put up two businesses. One of them was the game plan for the kids, and the other one was the day care. So there’s a good possibility that that slid through without a lot of people being involved because of some personal financial situations. I don’t know. All I know is it was all residential. Now it was brought up at the Town Board last month it’s against the law for a single family home to be on light industrial property. What is Queensbury going to do to all of our homes? Because I think the guy’s name was Martin, said, according to the Code, you cannot have a single family home on light industrial property. It’s against the law. Because it was all residential. That was a residential street. If you want to rezone residential into light industrial, you should do it on property that’s undeveloped. That’s common sense, so that in the future, just like the highway should be in the future, when you plan, hopefully you’re not going to put two lanes and a turn lane. You’re going to run five lanes some place. So, I’m just confused and frustrated because of the possibility that this thing is going in. It’s too big for the area. You’re eliminating wetlands. You’re destroying a neighborhood, but I guess it’s all okay because of big business coming to Queensbury. I don’t know, but are we supposed to forget about the residents of Queensbury that are already there? Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I have a letter dated March 9, 2000, from Freda Solomon, addressed to the Planning Board members “With continued commercial development in the Town of Queensbury homeowner’s urge you to protect their residential neighborhoods from the serious consequences of increased traffic. Garrison and Fort Amherst Roads and nearby City and Town streets have become “cut through” streets with continuous increases in traffic due to the development of the Quaker Road corridor. Most traffic exceeds the 30 MPH speed limit often traveling 20 to 30 MPH above the limit. Large trucks are also using these “cut through” streets. To help alleviate traffic on these streets the main entry/exit to the proposed Nigro development should be on Quaker Road and the secondary entry/exit “slip road” on Bay Road. The Quaker Road corridor is designed to handled increased traffic. The Hannaford Store has this traffic pattern and it works well. Please consider the future of our Queensbury neighborhood when you make your decision on the main entry/exit location for the Nigro project. Taxpayers also have the “right of quiet enjoyment” of their property, which is negated by speeding vehicles and heavy truck traffic. Thank you, Freda Solomon” And then I’ll ask Mr. Richards if he wants me to read in? No? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you gentlemen come back up. Obviously, we’re going to table this thing tonight. MR. LAPPER-What I would request is that you give us two weeks to make our next submission, because the 29 deadline is usually because of County Planning, and we don’t have to go to County th Planning. That would be a week and a day, or a week from tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-Can’t do that, and the reason I’m not willing to want to do that is because it’s not only a County issue. It’s making sure that the proper reviews are getting in, in time with the consultants who look at this, distribution to Staff, distribution to the Planning Board members, and to do anything beyond that 29 deadline is just cutting it too close for us to adequately make sure th that everything together for us to be on the April agenda. So you’re looking at either hitting the March 29 deadline or the April 26. thth MR. LAPPER-We’ll submit everything possible by the 29. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve got a list here that I’ve been keeping track of. MR. PALING-I just have one comment. The suggestion was made that you move that building at right angles, rotate it 90 degrees and put the loading dock on the east side, as opposed to the south side where it is now. That looks like a good possibility and that might mean modification to the entrance, but why don’t you consider it? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. PALUMBO-We had, at one point in time, considered that. What you’re going to be balancing there is that when the store is turned and facing Bay Road, the Bay Road access is going to be seen as the more dominant access. You’re going to be bringing in the Quaker Road access from the rear of the building. MR. PALING-Why? MR. PALUMBO-Because we’re limited. We have a couple of things besides just the location. When you turn this, we’re limited here. We can’t set it back anywhere here. The access that we have across the Niagara Mohawk property is strictly for access. We can’t place a building in there. So when we turn that, the building is going to be situated facing Bay Road. This entrance is going to be coming in from this point, and really coming in in the back. The other thing that occurs is that when you turn this building in this direction, we had done that at one point in time, and ended up with a greater impact on the wetlands up front, because just the distance here, to turning. We still have to have that buffer. We still have to have the distance from the buffer to the building, and when we turn that, we still end up down further than it currently is. We’ll show it, physically, so that you can see that, but once this building is turned, our impression is that that’s going to make this more of the primary entrance. MR. PALING-Okay. I’d lay that aside for the moment. Tell me, again, what the problem is with the access on the east side. It’s the NiMo right-of-way you’re saying? MR. PALUMBO-This land right in here is Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. MR. PALING-Yes, but you’re using it as a driveway now. MR. PALUMBO-Yes, which Nigro has worked out with Niagara Mohawk. MR. PALING-Couldn’t you do it to the rest of the land, as you go further south? MR. PALUMBO-As you go further south? MR. PALING-You turn in, your drive comes in, couldn’t you go straight? MR. PALUMBO-We have wetlands right here. MR. PALING-Wetlands. MR. PALUMBO-That’s what, this bend here is basically trying to, we have a small amount of wetland impact right here, and that’s the smallest amount we could get away with. We had to turn this in at that point. We’re trying to preserve wetland here, and wetland here. MR. PALING-It seems if you could work something like that out, it would solve an awful lot of problems. MR. LAPPER-Bob, another thing about the site, the way this was designed, and the photo rendering that Frank’s firm had done for the Planning Board shows it. When you look at the site from Quaker Road, which is the main visibility for motorists, for most of the residents that are driving by, even though albeit there are four or five homeowners across the street, but when you look at it now, the building is so far set back from Quaker, you’ve got the big wetland area which has mature trees. Even though that’s shown as a wetland on the site, which it is technically wetland, there are a lot of large trees in that area which won’t be touched, and to move the building down into the wetland is going to mean taking out that buffer, and that’s a really significant visual buffer, in terms of the character of Quaker Road. You’re not going to see much of the building right now, because when you look in the driveway, because you have trees, when you look in the driveway you’re not going to see it. When you look in behind the Denny’s you’re not going to see it, and it’s really only an area between the bagel shop and the Denny’s, when you look in the back, where you’re going to have visibility. It’s not very visible from Quaker Road, but if we turn the building that way, we’re going to be taking down a lot more trees in that area, and it would be more visible. So I think that you’re sort of balancing the impact, the visual impact on a few residents in the back versus what the whole thing’s going to look like from the main traveling public. MR. PALING-Okay. Jon, I have trouble with that, because Quaker Road is impacted pretty heavily right now, with commercial buildings, and just to bring that a little closer wouldn’t seem that much of a penalty, as against what you’re gaining, getting away from the Homer Avenue thing, and just because you have your sign on Quaker or on Bay, you can make it bigger or little, whatever you want, but just redesign the building, and if the sign is closer to Quaker, that’s the only penalty, I’m not comfortable with that. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. PALUMBO-It’s not the only consideration. The visibility is one. The impact on the wetlands. The configuration, the space in this area, when you start running your parking bays this way, we went through an exercise, when we were initially planning out this site, and to get the, by the time you turn this, you have to stay off of the property line with this, the loading docks push this building forward. So when you turn this, this building is moving, the face of it is moving up in this direction, all right. The amount of area that you have to do the parking that’s necessary is constricted because you also have the 75 foot Bay Road setback over here. We’ve done this. I can show a quick generation of something so you can see it physically. We’ll make it part of a design set. We’re not going to make it part of a design set that we would be submitting for the 29. That’s an alternative that really is not, th you know, we’ve already looked at it. We don’t believe it’s practical, for various reasons. It’s not just visual. It’s not just, you’re turning this now and those loading docks would be actually even closer to this woman over here who was speaking. MR. MAC EWAN-Frank, I remember early on when you first brought this plan in, toward the end of summer, early fall, this same discussion took place at that point, and I asked you, what’s the problem making is a 40,000 square foot store, and turning it, and the response I believe I heard was something to the effect that’s not the design standards that Grand Union’s looking for. They’re looking to have this bigger store, which brings me back to a comment that I’m hearing Board members making off and on, maybe this is too much development for this site. Maybe this site is indicative of having something smaller. MR. PALUMBO-We’ve got a site plan application ahead of you with a 65,000 square foot building. I don’t think that’s what Mr. Paling was making mention of. I think he had a good idea that we will look at and show what we see as the implications of that. I don’t think he’s saying that. MR. MAC EWAN-But the reason why I made that comment is because you’re telling Mr. Paling all these restrictions as to why you can’t do this because you’re infringing on your parking, it’s too close to this buffer area, the loading docks are too close. Maybe it’s just too big of a store for the parcel. MR. PALUMBO-I think the Staff’s information that was presented shows that it’s not inconsistent, and actually in a better predicament, from that standpoint, with other developments in the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-With all due respect to Staff, they’re not the ones passing the vote. MR. PALUMBO-No, we know that, and we know that, all along, your comment has been that you wanted something smaller. We’re here presenting a site plan application for a 65,000 square foot building. What we have in here is 54% impermeable, percent green 46%. We have a great amount of green space on this site. I think it’s being done very well. This is a project that’s coming in with many, many landscaping considerations, many, many environmental considerations, and I guess I’m just asking for that to be compared, and projects that have been done in the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-And I think this Board is giving it a thorough look. I’m just throwing out an observation. That’s all I’m doing. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask you a question. Is there a design criteria that says this has to be a box, a square box? MR. PALUMBO-This is a prototype design for Grand Union. MR. VOLLARO-Suppose we took and moved this 90 degrees to the left, and made an L-Shaped, stay with 65,000 square feet. If that’s a must, stay with that number, but make an L-Shaped building, just bring it down, shallower in this direction, have more, in other words, like an “L” that goes in there, keeping it at 65,000. You certainly won’t get a façade looking like that. You’ll get a little different look at it, and I don’t know, that’s why I asked you, is a square box mandatory? MR. PALUMBO-In this case, I guess I’d have to say that it is, for the operational aspects of what Grand Union is proposing to do. MR. VOLLARO-So the configuration of a box is frozen, essentially? STEVE POWERS MR. POWERS-Like most large stores, and obviously this is a large store, the inside, we really can’t touch as a developer. The outside we have flexibility. We went back to the company and said, what you are proposing is not going to work. So we can adjust the outside. We wanted to adjust the outside, but operationally, a store in Queensbury has to be similar inside to a store in Albany, just for merchandising, for shelving, their whole layout. That’s pretty much what flexibility we have is on the outside of the building. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. PALING-Is that a square? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it’s a rectangle. MR. PALUMBO-It’s a rectangle. The actual dimensions are 325 feet across by 200 feet deep, along those main walls. MR. PALING-It’s too bad you just couldn’t move the shipping dock over to where we’re talking about and just rearrange the inside of the store and don’t touch the box, the outside dimensions of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we ready to, I’ve got a list here of things they need to address. If anybody agrees or disagrees with them, jump in. If you want to add to the list, let me know when I get done here. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 62-99, NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To an April meeting, so that the applicant can address the following comments and concerns: They have to address the Staff comments of 3/21/00, the Chazen comments of 3/9/00, supply a supplemental landscaping plan that defines the quantity, size and species, supply elevations and architecture for all four sides of the building, so they have three more sides to do. Staff is going to supply the Planning Board with the intersection information regard the Lowe’s project, the changes to the intersection, the improvements they made, what it was prior to the Lowe’s improvements and what it is after the Lowe’s improvements. Clarification of the comparison of rear berm plantings, as illustrated on their drawing here. The applicant’s going to supply documentation from Grand Union regarding their support of not having deliveries between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.; clarification on Page 11 versus Page 17 of their stormwater report; clarification of the data that’s there; supply information and data supporting when the water table was determined and the depth and the season you did that in; Warren County DPW’s review and comments. Staff is to verify the procedures that were put in place for the 1982 re-zoning of Homer Avenue, regarding some of the comments that were made here at this meeting, whether proper notifications were ever done. Provide an alternative design of the building footprint rotated 90 degrees. Duly adopted this 21 day of March, 2000, by the following vote: st MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add? MR. STROUGH-How about DOT saying that it erred in allowing just a right in/right out? MR. MAC EWAN-John, we can’t tell DOT they erred. MR. STROUGH-Well, my point is, the statement was made that they made a mistake. They said they made a mistake. It’s one thing to say it. MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not relevant to this application. Whatever comments were made for the Lowe’s, that’s water under the bridge. MR. STROUGH-Well, how are we addressing the right in/right out? MR. MAC EWAN-Number Ten, the County DPW’s going to review it, and I want to hear their comments. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. PALING-I’d like to see the sign off on rotating that building 90 degrees. They said they couldn’t provide us with something to say that it was impractical. MR. VOLLARO-They showed it once, and they could probably bring that drawing back, but they had that rotated 90 degrees on one of their presentations in the past. Am I correct with that? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Number Twelve, provide an alternative design rotated 90 degrees, of the building footprint. MR. VOLLARO-How does Mr. Richards’ memo figure into this, or does it not in any way? MR. MAC EWAN-I think Mr. Richards said that they were going to be having discussions coming up. Okay. I’d leave it at that. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/21/00) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The deadline for submissions for this is going to be March the 29. th MR. LAPPER-We may not have the DPW comments done by then, but we’ll submit all (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-This is the problem we get into, Jon, when stuff starts coming in piecemeal. This is what we’re trying to get a handle on. MR. LAPPER-They’re a review agency. They’re not (lost words) like getting a letter from Chazen or Rist-Frost before the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. If it’s okay, I have drawn a couple of little things that you could give the applicant, or you could take a peek at, if you’d prefer. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as what? MRS. RYBA-For the architecture on the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we hold off on it until next month, seeing as how we’re just about ready to wrap this thing up? MRS. RYBA-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I need a second. MR. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second it. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Paling, Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen. Any other business? I’ll adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 56