Loading...
2002-08-27 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER CHRIS HUNSINGER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH TAPE RECORDER, PARTS OF THE FIRST HALF AND MUCH OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING WERE LOST. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 37-2002 TYPE II JAMES FINNECY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: PAUL CUSHING ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 82 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION OF 42 SQ. FT. TO THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-2002, SP 78-89, AV 87- 93, BP 96-045 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-31, 33 OR 35 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES FINNECY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-2002, James Finnecy, Meeting Date: August 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to build a 42 sq. ft. addition to an existing residence. Any expansion of a non- conforming use in a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) requires site plan review. The home at this location is non-conforming because it does not meet the required front yard setback for the WR-1A zone. This application will be heard by the ZBA on August 21, 2002 to address front yard setback relief for this proposed addition. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Any expansion of a non-conforming use in a CEA requires site plan review from the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? An expansion of this type should not further burden public services and facilities. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The site is currently developed. The proposed addition to an existing sunroom would be compatible with the existing home. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Not applicable to this application. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Not applicable to this application. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Not applicable to this application The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. Stormwater drainage should not be adversely impacted by this proposal. With the proposed addition, on site permeability remains within zoning ordinance requirements. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Not applicable to this application. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. It appears that some smaller plants will be removed in order to construct the new addition. Existing trees on site are not proposed to be removed. Overall, the new addition should not present any negative visual impacts on surrounding properties. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Not applicable to this project. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Not applicable to this project. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 63-2002; res. 8/21/2002 Area Variance for front yard setback relief Staff comments: Staff does not foresee any adverse impacts with this addition. This parcel was recently modified with the merging of two additional parcels into what is shown on the submitted site plan. As a result, the only setback that requires a variance is the front yard setback. As previously mentioned, front yard setback relief will be addressed by the ZBA. Site permeability and FAR requirements are within zoning ordinance requirements. SEQR Status: Type: II; no further environmental review required.” 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, Staff notes. Would you like to read them? MR. BROWN-Sure. There’s not a lot of Staff comment on this one. We don’t see really any adverse impact to the neighborhood or environment. Actually, if the Board were to adopt the Expedited Matters policy that we proposed, this would clearly qualify for that. There’s not a lot here as far as Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CUSHING-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. CUSHING-I am Paul Cushing, the architect, and this is James Finnecy, the owner of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. CUSHING-It’s a very simple situation. It’s a 1930’s building that was originally erected, adding to the front (lost words) setbacks (lost words). I think that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t really have much (lost words) for the applicant, but in reviewing this application, Craig, the Zoning Board of Appeals record of resolution, and I see a reference to this property being Waterfront Residential One Acre zoning, and in the Code book it’s 179-40-030. I can’t find it. It’s a table, then? MR. BROWN-It’s a table. What the number you referenced again? MR. STROUGH-179-40. MR. BROWN-No. There’s no 179-40. It’s 179-4-030. MR. STROUGH-That’s just a typo, then? MR. BROWN-It’s probably a typo. MR. STROUGH-That settles that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one question, and I’ll get to it quickly. On the drawing itself, I guess it’s 0204A1, underneath where it has a plan view of the house, lower left hand side of the drawing, there’s a note, next to the septic system. What does that say? I can’t read the first two words. It says system permit, but. Anybody up on the Board get to decipher those two words? MR. MAC EWAN-Existing sewage system permit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That’s what it says. Now, you say this is a 1930’s building. MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Any increase in the floor plan, you go to 179-5-110, Page 61, it says any increase in area of floor plan, and I guess I ought to read that, it says, “Any increase in floor plan of a principal structure served by sanitary sewer facilities of any kind that is located in a Waterfront Residential (WR) district and which requires a building permit shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 136 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury.” Now, what that Chapter says is a pre-existing system must conform to this Part 1 if it is used in connection with an existing structure located in the WR-3 or WR-1A zone in which the floor area of the structure is increased, and I would, you know, ask the Staff, I think what that says is because of this increase in floor area, the thing has to be brought up to Code. Am I reading that all correctly? MR. BROWN-Or provide confirmation that the system that’s there meets the current standards. MR. VOLLARO-Meets the current standards. That’s one of the things that. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. CUSHING-There was a sewage disposal system that was applied for and erected and approved by the Town’s Building Department for a three bedroom house. This is only a two bedroom house. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that the ’89 permit? MR. CUSHING-I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s probably fine. That’s all, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? Anything else to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a Type II. We need to do a SEQRA on it. You submitted a Short Form? MS. RADNER-It’s a Type II. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think so. Okay. Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-I’ll introduce a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2002 JAMES FINNECY, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 37-2002 Applicant: James Finnecy Type II Property Owner: Same Agent: Paul Cushing Zone: WR-1A Location: 82 Mason Road Applicant proposes addition of 42 sq. ft. to the west elevation of the existing residence. Expansion of a non- conforming use in a CEA requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. APA, CEA Cross Reference: AV 63-2002, SP 78-89, AV 87-93, BP 96-045 Warren Co. Planning: 8/14/02 Tax Map No. 226.12-1-31, 33 or 35 Lot size: 0.31 acres / Section: Art. 4 Public Hearing: August 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/29/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/23/02, and 8/27 Staff Notes 8/21 ZBA Resolution: Approved 8/20 Notice of Public Hearing 8/14 Warren Co. Planning: NCI 8/5 Meeting Notice 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 27, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff except we’ll knock out the Whereas SEQRA paragraph. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. CUSHING-Thank you. MR. FINNECY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 39-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN & DONNA D’ALONZO PROPERTY OWNER: EMMANUEL MAILLE ZONE: LI LOCATION: 80 EAGAN ROAD APPLICATION PROPOSES CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL FOR USE AS WINERY. 4.5 ACRES OF VINEYARD TO BE INCLUDED. RESIDENTIAL HOME WILL CONTINUE TO BE RENTAL UNTIL PROJECT IS DEVELOPED. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE USE IN A LI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-3/137.2-9.52 LOT SIZE: 6.03 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4 JOHN D’ALONZO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-2002, John & Donna D’Alonzo, Meeting Date: August 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of a residentially used property to a winery. The plan calls for using existing buildings for the operation of the winery and using the property behind the buildings for a vineyard. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The Zoning Administrator has issued a determination that the proposed use is an Agricultural Service Use, which is allowable in the LI zone with Site Plan approval by the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) It appears that public services and facilities would not be greatly impacted by the proposed use of this property as a winery. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Staff does not foresee any adverse traffic congestion on or near this site. However, it is likely that traffic will increase in this area beyond current levels. The proposed plans indicated 13 spaces for on site parking. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No adverse impacts of this type are anticipated with this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The site plan calls for using existing on site buildings. The plans do not show any additional lighting to be used at this location. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. On site traffic will circulate along an existing access drive. The submitted plans show the access drive to be used as a one-way only drive with traffic entering on the east side of the site, and exiting on the west. This arrangement is preferable in order to better manage parking on this narrower part of Eagan Rd. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The plans call for 13 on site parking spaces. The spaces are located in the front of the site within close proximity to the existing on site buildings. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No new pedestrian walkways are proposed. Pedestrians will use existing walking areas. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a letter from Jarrett-Martin Engineers, which discusses stormwater management, as well as some stormwater calculations. Comments from CT Male concerning stormwater should be addressed during review of this application. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. As indicated on the submitted application, water is supplied through a well, however there is a water line along Eagan Rd. Sewage disposal is through an on site septic system. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant proposes some additional plantings on site along Eagan Rd. The plans also call for a 50 ft. buffer from the residentially zoned property to the east. A buffer from the residentially zoned property on the south side of Eagan Rd. is not shown. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Emergency vehicles will access the site from Eagan Rd and will use the on site access drive. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) The overall site is relatively flat. Any potential erosion and flooding impacts should be discussed as part of the stormwater review for this site plan. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Research found no information concerning prior construction activity at this location. Staff comments: As previously mentioned, the Zoning Administrator has provided a determination that the proposed use is allowable in the Light Industrial (LI) zone. The applicant has provided information on stormwater in the form of a letter from Jarrett-Martin Engineers along with stormwater calculations. Comments on stormwater from CT Male should be addressed during site plan review. The applicant has submitted information showing landscaping at the front of the property. This information does not provide the required 50-foot buffer from the residentially zoned property to the south. The Zoning Ordinance requires a buffer of 50 ft. from surrounding residential zones, or that a waiver be granted by the Planning Board. A buffer has been provided from the residentially zoned property to the east. The overall impacts on traffic patterns along Eagan Rd., which narrows in front of this site, are difficult to predict. It is expected that traffic will increase along Eagan Rd. with a new commercial operation at this location. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; the applicant has submitted a short form.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. BROWN-I think the majority of the comments here are going to be addressed in the (lost words). There’s one inconsistency or error in the Staff comments portion of the notes for this evening. It talks about a buffer, requiring a 50 foot buffer from the residentially zoned parcel to the south. If that buffer is not provided, that relief for having that buffer would come from the Zoning Board, not the Planning Board. MR. VOLLARO-Is that something that’s got to go before the ZBA. MR. BROWN-We’ll see the direction the application goes. If the applicant’s plans don’t call for the buffer, then (lost words). The big issue, the setback (lost words) is the potential small for increased traffic (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. D’ALONZO-My name is John D’Alonzo. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed project? MR. D’ALONZO-This project is to put in a winery an vineyard on our six acre parcel. The buildings are all existing there, and basically (lost words) at some future point putting in (lost words). Everything’s pretty much as you see. There’s really no new construction being proposed at this time. As far as some of the comments, I guess, from Staff and C.T. Male, some of the guidance here in the letter from C.T. Male, I guess under general comments, and I’ll try to take them in reverse order here, Item Number Three, “The mapping presented does not clearly indicate what is “existing” versus what is proposed”, it’s basically because everything there is existing. (Lost words) Also on Item Two, it indicates a question regarding the 24 hour rainfall event. I’ve provided some information that indicated various rainfall quantities, and these were taken from the 100 year storm events. So the volume of rainfall (lost words) even though it says 3.5 inches, that was over a duration of time that would have equated to a 100 year storm event. To use the 24 hour rainfall event that he suggests, actually what happens is so little rainfall on a per hour basis that the site (lost words) there’s actually no runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have calculations from an engineering firm that did that for you? MR. D’ALONZO-No, I did the calculations myself. I basically took the information from, it’s Technical Release 55 (lost words) Hydrology for Small Watersheds. That’s actually something that’s used for much larger watersheds than we’re talking about here. This is around four acres of green area. This is something that’s used more for watersheds (lost words). The rainfall curve that I used was the one from Schedule D, Rainfall Intensity Curve, which shows you the rainfall intensities for different storm events, and I think that’s what (lost words) requires for areas this small to only look at 10 year storm events. The area is relatively flat, as mentioned in Item One. The USGS map is only in 10 foot increments, but the topography is so flat, in fact, that that soil there is so, lends itself to well drained areas that I don’t anticipate that being a huge issue. The way that our (lost words) looked at the property, as described it (lost words) from Jarrett Martin Engineers, what they had suggested was putting in little swales between each vineyard row. So instead of 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) acting as one large retention area, it (lost words) somewhat to a lot of small detention areas to be able to store all the water on the site without much difficulty. As a matter of fact, and again, I had made these calculations. So I had (lost words) the worst case, which was that 3.5 inch event over a duration of 35 minutes, to state how much rainfall had to be detained on the site, and the site is capable of retaining about 200 times more that. MR. VOLLARO-1838 is what you have, cubic feet. MR. D’ALONZO-Eighteen hundred and thirty-eight cubic feet, and the site is capable, and that’s an approximation of about 36,715 square feet? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s what you have here. MR. D’ALONZO-So, from a rational standpoint, it doesn’t seem that this site would have any, few problems at all with runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. D’ALONZO-As far as the traffic patterns go, I guess we’re not really sure what the traffic patterns will be in the future in this area. I guess I would propose that, should we be fortunate enough that traffic would be a problem, that we would probably do something maybe a little different (lost words) the amount of (lost words) certain hours for tours and that type of thing, and maybe even have to go to a separate location for actual sales. Typically, New York State (lost words) license, you can have up to four locations out by the actual (lost words) to sell the product. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you, give us an overview of how you plan on operating the business and maybe where you expect to, would hopefully be five or seven years down the road from here. MR. D’ALONZO-Well, I think if you go to the drawing here of the site, for the short term, the buildings you see are identified there is essentially a two car garage, and that would essentially be the winery area. MR. VOLLARO-Which attachment are you on, C-2, C-1? MR. D’ALONZO-Yes, C-2 or C-3, either one. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. D’ALONZO-The building there that’s identified as C as (lost word) two car garage now, that would be essentially converted to the winery area. Building B was previously used commercial enterprise, that would be a (lost word). Building A is a three bedroom log cabin. What we intend to do is rent Building A as a rental income, and utilize Building C and D as a winery production area. Eventually, that’s probably for a relatively small scale. Eventually, we hope to outgrow that and start to convert Building D, which is a barn currently, into a winery area, and probably at that point Building A would then move into a tasting room. So these other buildings like C and B would be used for maybe some barrel storage, case storage, bottling area, that type of thing. Building E I would imagine to be used for linear equipment storage. Realistically, I don’t see this area getting much bigger than maybe 2 or 3,000 cases, even though I think I put in this application 5,000 cases, but that’s if you took the barn area and filled it up with everything you could imagine. So I would expect there would be 2 to 3,000 case area. I don’t really know what kind of volume from a vehicle standpoint that would be there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. D’ALONZO-Not unless you have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure there’ll be a couple. Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Getting on to that, I’ll try to go in reverse as to what your comments were. I think that C.T. Male’s comments on your calculations, the calculation assumes that the vineyard is perfectly level. That was, I think, Mr. Houston’s concern here, which is really not practical, as he says. Additionally, he says “the calculation utilizes the one hour rainfall amount of 3.5 inches versus a 24-hour rainfall event which would be proper for this type of analysis.” At least that’s what he says. So I think the thing he has concern with was the assumption in the calculations that the level was perfectly, vineyard is perfectly flat. Now, my comments on that is the Jarrett Martin letter, really, who’s the engineer that you hired here to do this, offers absolutely no calculations whatsoever. It’s almost, you know, a commentary type thing, which is unusual for an engineering person to do, just plain commentary, not very much calculations to support anything. You supplied independent calculations, and that’s what’s being questioned in the letter of C.T. Male of August 22. So I think that letter, you know, C.T. Male is our consulting engineer here that supports this Board, and nd I would have to kind of go along with what he has to say on this particular thing, even though I see your calculations. I understand what you did. I looked through them myself. I have some, a little bit of 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) background to play with that kind of stuff. So that’s my first comment. Now, the next one is concerning the buffering. If I go to Attachment C-2, which we just left. You had the description of the winery and the tasting room and cabin and the barn and so on. That does show a 50 foot buffer, and I guess that would be on the north side, it looks like. Is it residential to the south of this, of the vineyard, do you know? MR. D’ALONZO-Yes. I believe on the other side of Eagan Road it is residential, and I think there’s probably enough there to create a buffer, especially when you include the roadway. Over there to the right, that’s also a small residential triangle right in that area. MR. VOLLARO-My fellow Board member supplied me with a very colorful map here of the whole area, and I see where he’s got you, you know, exactly where you’re set, and so I would like to see that a 50 foot buffer be installed on the south side of the property, or be maintained. You have a 20 foot buffer. MR. D’ALONZO-I think we actually didn’t even specify a buffer the way we did it. MR. VOLLARO-No. On Attachment C-2, you do, a 20 foot buffer, grass and indigenous trees, side and back property line. It’s right. MR. D’ALONZO-If you look at this one, the north is sort of up and to the left. So that would be sort of like the westerly part of the property. The easterly part of the property is that 50 foot buffer, and the southerly part would be where the road is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. BROWN-If I could, Mr. Vollaro, the area where the buffer is required is the area where the residential property zone abuts the Light Industrial. So (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s where he’s got it. Okay. All right. MR. BROWN-Fifty feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, he’s got 50 on here, yes, in that area of the site plan. Okay. Going to Attachment B, which is the zoning map, I notice, some of the commentary in here shows a 400 foot to the Hudson River, and I scaled that off at 363. Now maybe that’s the scale on the GIS map. The only reason I’m commenting on the distance, whether it’s 400 or 363 doesn’t make much difference. It’s a question of any runoff at all for pesticides or fertilization is a concern, if anything is heading toward the river. Now I think that Mr. Jarrett, in his comments, mentioned a split, what he thought was a split area here. MR. D’ALONZO-Right. (Lost words) actually probably the first third of the property, sort of in that area. If you look at the USGS map, it might give you a better idea. I mean, that first part of the property that’s one of the sloping areas, it sort of slopes toward the river (lost words), and here in the back where the vineyard area, it’s relatively flat. MR. VOLLARO-If you go to your Attachment B, which is your zoning map, which lays your property out pretty much like this does, which way does this property grade? You see, without any contour lines to go, I have no idea which way this flows, other than saying that it’s perfectly flat, and I don’t believe anything is perfectly flat, and I don’t know that 363 or even 400 feet isn’t enough to absorb that, even if there is any runoff, any stormwater runoff on this property, which really there shouldn’t be any, the way we, the zoning requires that any stormwater generated on property shall be retained on the property. MR. D’ALONZO-Well, in the first third of the property, there’s nothing changing there. That’s all buildings. MR. VOLLARO-Right. It’s going to be changing back in the vineyard area. MR. D’ALONZO-In the back of the vineyard area will be the bulk of the change, and again, that is relatively flat, and I think the concept that we had talked about was use of these small areas, these trenches essentially between the vineyard groups, and they could be devised such that they would be somewhat terraced, in a sense, because it is so relatively flat, you wouldn’t need very much of that to create, if you just want to think about it as little pools and steps. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s pretty much what Mr. Jarrett had to say in his. MR. D’ALONZO-Right, and I think that’s why he thought that it was sort of a non-issue because, not so much in terms of capability. MR. VOLLARO-Normally, when we get a site like this, we normally get a stormwater report that is backed up with some calculations, whether it be flat or not. At least it satisfies our engineer, C.T. Male, and it satisfies us that, you know, I mean, I’ve been to the site. We’ve parked there. We’ve looked at it, looked out in the back. It looks relatively flat to me, but in order for me to feel warm and fuzzy here, you know, I’d like 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) to have some calculation that says that all stormwater will be retained on the site, as opposed to just commentary from Jarrett Martin. That’s just something I would like to see. You talk, in your area, about expansion to 5,000 cases a year. I think you just mentioned it a little bit ago here, that, and one of the things you said was interesting, that an operation like yours would be able to have up to three or four, did you say three or four off site capability to display retail material or product? MR. D’ALONZO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And my only concern was, if and when you ever got to 5,000 cases, and I hope you do someday, but what would that do to the traffic in the area, and I think you’ve touched on that, and that’s an unknown right now. MR. D’ALONZO-That’s very much unknown. MR. VOLLARO-Because you’re just coming out of the ground with this thing. MR. D’ALONZO-Yes. So I really don’t have a good feel what it would do for the traffic in the area. I would have to say that I really doubt that it would get to that level, and my only comment would be that if that traffic would become a problem, it is a sort of dead ended area there, we would have to look at alternatives ways to try and alleviate that (lost words) by reducing the hours of operation on this site, and (lost word) some other site. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think one of your attachments showed the traffic flow, and I think that’s your Attachment C-3, is it, yes, C-4, showing the traffic load. Now that’s where the road kind of dead end’s at your property there, and you’d be bringing people around, and that looks like a pretty good internal flow plan to me, but you’re saying if things really got going, people would be coming in and people would be going out, and so you would be getting. MR. D’ALONZO-The volume of traffic on Eagan Road would start to get high. MR. VOLLARO-Would start to get fairly high, and then you’d have to move to an alternate scheme at that particular point, I would think, and that’s something that I think that we’d be, see, there’s no way to predict where you’re going with this. You’re in the same spot. I’m glad I’m sitting here, and not sitting there, in a sense. All right. The next thing was there is a Town water capability right by your property. Do you intend to, so we don’t have to worry about wells and contamination from things getting into your well from fertilizers, pesticides, whatever, were you planning to hook up to Town water at all? MR. D’ALONZO-I think there’s a well on the site. So I wasn’t really planning on it. I don’t think that being in these areas would require any irrigation or anything like that. So, I don’t anticipate that at this time. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s exactly what I was thinking about is irrigation for that vineyard, and you don’t think anything’s going to be required there. MR. D’ALONZO-No. Not really, they have pretty deep roots. So it’s mostly in the east (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I really don’t have any other questions, and I can, you know, get back later on and see what other things my fellow Board members come up with, but that was my take on this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. My concern was, Bob and I had talked about it before, was the stormwater runoff thing, and, you know, just how much of the fertilizers would get into the Hudson River. As far as the numerical data, but I also have a question as to how many years after planting the grapes can you plan on harvesting? MR. D’ALONZO-Usually it’s three or four years before you get the first harvest. I think with this plan that we’re talking about, the small retention areas between the rows, you really are holding all the stormwater on site. So there is no fertilizer or runoff. I think that that was a really good way of looking at it, and I think that’s why (lost words) made a lot of sense. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t want you to divulge all your secrets, but what kind of grapes are hearty up here besides the Concorde Grapes? MR. D’ALONZO-There are a few hybrids that will grow up to minus 40. There’s not any (lost word) vinifera that will probably make it in this area. So we’ll probably look into hybrids that will probably go around minus 20 to 20.5. We might even try a couple of, there are a couple of viniferas that will go to minus 10, but (lost words). 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are those white ones or red ones? MR. D’ALONZO-Usually white, usually Rieslings and Chardonnays. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you’re right, because I know that we’ve been growing grapes, and you don’t need a lot of water. I was amazed at how the grapes grow, especially this summer that was so dry. MR. D’ALONZO-They’re kind of deep rooted. So they wouldn’t (lost words) water. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the whole concept is kind of neat. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I had just a couple of things. The stormwater thing I think we probably need some agreement with Tom Jarrett and C.T. Male to get something for sure as to how that water’s going to run. On Page Four of your letter, you show Phase I Building A at 1430 square feet, and it’s apartment rental. Phase II you show the same building as 2,380 square feet. Where is the extra 900 square feet from? That would be Page Four of your letter with your application. See on Phase I there you show Building A approximately 1430 square feet. DONNA D’ALONZO MRS. D’ALONZO-If I might, I think it’s probably including the basement storage. MR. D’ALONZO-Building A? MR. RINGER-Yes, this is Page Four of your, at the very top you show Phase I and then Phase II underneath it, and you have different, and you may be right, it may be the basement, but I was just curious. MR. D’ALONZO-Yes. I believe that’s when you start to consider some of the basement area, that might be that area of storage. MR. RINGER-There was a difference in square footage. I was just wondering how the building got larger without adding on to it. MR. D’ALONZO-No. I think that was (lost words) any increases in size. So I’m assuming that’s utilization of the, no change in footprint, it looks like. MR. RINGER-It was kind of confusing, when you just see it written down there, two different sizes. The other thing, the only other thing I had is traffic, and we really can’t predict that, and I just don’t know, I have no idea, no concept what kind of traffic would be generated. So I guess you can’t answer that, but I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I also had questions on the stormwater runoff, but I think you’ve already addressed that to the extent that you can. One of the concerns that I first picked up on is the whole idea of allowing a non- industrial use in a Light Industrial zone, just sort of as policy. I, personally, don’t think it’s something that we should encourage, but in this particular site, we’re talking about traffic on Eagan Road. I mean, how are you going to put a tractor trailer on Eagan Road to go down to serve a Light Industrial site? So I think, with your particular property, it’s really a moot issue, but I also have similar concerns about traffic and, you know, what kind of trips would be generated. Conversely, going back to this being zoned light industry, there should be an expectation that the road could handle some kind of traffic. So I also don’t really feel that the burden should be on you to be able to show that the road can handle some of the traffic that might be expected, but, you know, I don’t know if there might be some neighbors or something that might have some concerns about some of these issues. So, I’m kind of waiting to hear, when the public comment period is opened. MR. D’ALONZO-Over the years (lost words) tractor trailers (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Could I get you to speak into the mic and identify yourself. JOE MAILLE MR. MAILLE-My name is Joe Maille, the property owner. (Lost words) traffic lights (lost words). MR. RINGER-They’ve been doing that for fill. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. HUNSINGER-To me, those are the only issues that really are outstanding. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-The only question I’ll have, in addition, on your Attachment C-3, you list vineyard chemical storage. What kind of chemicals are you talking about, and how will they be stored? MR. D’ALONZO-Mostly the type of chemicals that would be used for vineyards. There might be some herbicides. There might be some fertilizers. (lost words). MR. METIVIER-What type of building is Building C, no, F? MR. D’ALONZO-F. I believe it’s about 10 foot square. It’s a wood frame building. (lost words). MR. METIVIER-What type of floor does it have? MR. D’ALONZO-It has a wood floor, at this point. MR. METIVIER-So there would be some concern for spillage there? MR. D’ALONZO-I think there are some regulations involved with doing that. So they’d have to meet all of the requirements for that type of storage area. I know those types of chemicals would be in a separate storage area, and whether I do the spraying or have someone come in and do the spraying (lost words). MR. METIVIER-I believe on one application we had we, there’s storage containers that we’ve mandated, and I think we should probably look into that, depending on what type of chemicals you’re looking at. MR. D’ALONZO-I’m sure the floor can be made impervious, (lost words) concrete slab. MR. METIVIER-Okay, and again, do you think if you were to put the vines in, you’re looking at at least four years before you’d have any output? MR. D’ALONZO-That’s true, and probably take at least a year or two before we even decide what kind of vines to ultimately plant. I’ll probably put like a test vineyard in, maybe about five or ten vines of maybe ten different varieties, just to see which ones are going to make it, a couple of years of growth there, just to see how they do. MR. METIVIER-And in addition to the growth, how long will the wine sit prior to it being consumed? MR. D’ALONZO-I guess it depends on what kind of program we go with. Sometimes red wines, you put it in barrels and let it sit in barrels for 18 months. (lost words) some wines that are bottled and sold within two or three months. (Lost words) Chardonnays or something like that (lost words). MR. METIVIER-And the process, is there any significant smell from the fermentation? MR. D’ALONZO-I would say there would be. It would be akin to a bakery kind of smell, in the sense that there is yeast involved in the fermentation process. So it would be a little bit like you would get out of a bakery operation. MR. METIVIER-A good bakery or a bad bakery? I mean, you know, you just don’t to create any unpleasant odors for neighbors. That would be a concern that we should look at, especially in an area like this. I mean, there are residential homes in the area. MR. MAILLE-My name’s Joe Maille. There’s probably about nine or ten diesel trucks that start every morning down that road, if you’re talking about smoke and smell. You’ve got Town trucks down there getting sand all winter. MR. D’ALONZO-There’s probably a two week to four week period in the fall when most of the grape operations are going on, which is when you get a lot of the grapes (lost words) snow and that type of thing. MR. METIVIER-And as far as, in the process, with the yeast you have to clean those or skin them, I guess. What do you do with that waste? MR. D’ALONZO-Most of the leaves from the winemaking process or the humus from the grapes themselves, the vines and skins and what not, once they’re pressed, they’re usually put back in the vineyard for fertilizer. MR. METIVIER-Really? Okay. All right. That’s all I have. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Good evening. I looked at this, and I was even in the Town Office today talking to Chris Round about this, because I was on the zoning committee, and I said, you know, how did we do this? Because usually you won’t put a light industrial with the only access is through a residential area going through it, but then sometimes you’re just mapping out the Town, and mistakes happen, but then again, sometimes a parcel will get zoned Light Industrial because it has a history to it that precedes the residential. Now, Joe, you might, does this parcel have a, what kind of a history does it have to it? MR. MAILLE-We had a horse barn there (lost words) when I first bought it, Pro Craft in the back owned the property, with a construction company. Then there was Bill Threw Excavating, and the Adirondack (lost words) the guy had a cement business. MR. STROUGH-On your parcel. I know that, but are those other properties accessed by Eagan Road? MR. MAILLE-No, they’re all from Big Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-See, that’s what’s unique about your property. Yours is on the end of Eagan Road, and the only way of accessing it is through a residential area. Usually that’s not good planning, but, sometimes it may have a history to it that accounts for it. MR. MAILLE-I just lived there and had horses. It was zoned Light Industrial. MR. STROUGH-I know it’s Light Industrial all around you, and does Ethel Pitcher still own the property just east of you? MR. MAILLE-No. I don’t know who owns that house. MR. STROUGH-It looks like one parcel is landlocked, to the northeast of you. Just to the north of you there’s an industrial park. MR. MAILLE-They’ve been talking with Mr. Missita about doing blacktopping and (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Eagan Road? MR. MAILLE-Eagan Road. MR. STROUGH-And taking it through to where? MR. MAILLE-The light industrial park. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that would be beautiful. MR. MAILLE-I haven’t been back there in years. So I don’t know what he’s (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Well, Chris Round had mentioned that as a possibility, too. That would alleviate all my concerns, but one thing I appreciate your entrepreneurship. I think it’s a great, it sounds like a fun hobby. I kind of wondered, just speaking for myself, why you limited yourself to this, because you’re only going to be able to develop, what, five, seven acres, and if you are successful, and I hope you are, it would seem to me that you’d want to go to 20, 30, 40, maybe 100 acres, and so why this parcel, seeing as, if you are going to be successful, this parcel is so limiting? MR. D’ALONZO-It is a somewhat limiting parcel, but there are other alternatives in winemaking. There’s (lost word) for example, already pressed, ready to use, like that, but as far as this vineyard goes, it probably would not generate more than 1,000, so, 1,000 or 1200 caseloads. MR. STROUGH-But if you go beyond that, and we, as a Planning Board, have to consider the greatest impacts, worst case scenarios. So we have to consider the maximum impact, like I said, which would be entirely alleviated or mitigated if Eagan Road gets carried on to that industrial park and that would be accessed that way, and then you could probably pick up some of the parcels and continue on, all the more power to you, but, now Eagan Road, what is the carrying load capacity? I don’t know what the bed of the road is. I don’t know if they would allow you to bring tractor trailers on it. MR. D’ALONZO-They bring them in there. MR. STROUGH-Yes, they do. It might not be legal, though, and one of the residents who may not be happy with it may bring it to Town’s attention, and all of a sudden you’re not allowed to have any trucks going there. Just a possibility. I’d look into, see if that road surface is built to take heavy loads. Then again, maybe 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) there won’t be any heavy loads. We don’t seem to be getting a, you know, I have no idea of the winemaking process, but if we go to 5,000 cases a year, and obviously, if we do that, we’re going to have to import cases of grapes or will there be condensed juice? MR. D’ALONZO-It can be done in a variety of ways. MR. STROUGH-Let’s say it’s cases of grapes. Now that’s going to have to be delivered by a tractor trailer, if you’re going to process that and make it into wine, and it may not be a lot of tractor trailers, but I don’t know what the road limit is. So I just have a concern there, and if I was one of your neighbors, I might be concerned bout the spraying, too, because if it’s a windy day, it’ll carry. Anyhow, now you have to get other approvals, you said, from BAPH? MR. D’ALONZO-BATF. MR. STROUGH-BATF. MR. D’ALONZO-BATF is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. D’ALONZO-We’ll also need State approval or State license, for a (lost word) winery license. MR. STROUGH-And from the State ABC, and what’s ABC stand for? MR. D’ALONZO-Alcohol Beverage Control. MR. STROUGH-Alcohol Beverage Control. Okay. So there’s a possibility for an alternate access to the property, which might alleviate those problems. I’m just addressing all the potential problems. That’s my job. I have a note here about bringing water. Is there water on Eagan Road? Should we have an extra dry summer, you could bring water over there, I guess. Because that well may not, so that’s a doable, if you should need it. MR. MAILLE-There’s no water in the river, but there’s water on the roadway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. The pesticides, herbicides. Are there any odors that would be emanating from this wine manufacturing process? MR. D’ALONZO-As I said, there is, during the winemaking process, there’s yeast, so it would be sort of like a yeast kind of odor. There is actual crushing lathes and that type of thing, so it would be that grapy type odor, and also usually the plumace is usually let to sit for a little while, and decompose a little bit before you put it in there. It’s like having any kind of a decomposition area that you use fertilizer, compost, that type of thing, but normally those you turn over and aerate. So there’s very little amount. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and how about the crushing process. Is that a noisy process? MR. D’ALONZO-Not particularly. It certainly wouldn’t be any noisier than the truck or a (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, that can be annoying, the tailgate. Okay. All right, and the rest of these we’ve addressed in one way or another. Okay. Well, that’s it for me, Mr. Chairman, and, thank you, applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED BOGUE MR. BOGUE-I’m a resident of the Town of Queensbury for five years. My name is Ed Bogue. (Lost words). I have no question at all that these people I’m sure are going to (lost words) grape vines. (Lost words) so I don’t feel there’s any danger in that respect. Traffic, I can’t foresee much traffic myself. I’ve driven over, to answer your question, when Paul Naylor (lost words) trying to put that road in, Mr. Bill Threw was using a three headed (lost words) to go and cross that road (lost words) and I said to Paul (lost words). So I can’t question what a tractor trailer would do, and there’s tandem trailers coming in now, which kind of annoys me sometimes, the Town trucks, they’re dumping alongside my property, but I can (lost words). I think it’s unfair, but that’s not why we’re here tonight. I have no complaints about their taking over this property for a vineyard, and I wouldn’t care if they grew palm trees. I would request, if you could, put a spigot by the mailbox. I’d like a little wine now and then. I’ve tried to answer some of the questions that I heard for your benefit, since I’ve lived there so long. I’ve lived there all my life. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. STROUGH-Can I ask one question, Mr. Chairman, about where he lives? MR. BOGUE-Right across the street. His mailbox is right at my driveway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. BOGUE-I’m over the hill on the mud flats right now because there’s been (lost words). I realize there’s a drought, but (lost words) so I could get my pontoon boat out of that (lost words). There’s very little runoff (lost words) from above me, to the west, toward Carey Industrial Park, from that grade down, you see quite a bit of runoff. Now, Paul Naylor did do some work, I think up until this point, the Town has been very good about it. The road needs repair, that’s the trouble, and it’s just a dirt road from the end of my property to the end of his property. It’s just dirt. (Lost words). Mr. Constantino, I was here when he built his house, five or six years ago maybe. I think those people deserve the same as I hope for, that maybe something can be done with that road. I’m not asking him to do it, but maybe the Town’s supposed to keep up (lost word) for all our benefits, and that’s (lost words) hope that maybe something could be done to (lost words) for our benefit, because (lost words) some blacktop up to the grade, it would certainly help a great deal, but again, I’m trying to save you a (lost words). And that’s all I have to say. I welcome the people. (Lost words), protection because we don’t have near the vandalism we used to because there was no one living there. It was just boondocks. (Lost words), and I really appreciate it, and I’m happy to live in the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? RONALD & ELAINE NOLAN MRS. NOLAN-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MRS. NOLAN-We are Ronald and Elaine Nolan. We live two-thirds of the way up from Big Bay Road on Eagan Road. The road has a lot of traffic. There’s a lot of small children, young families (lost words), but we just moved into our place just a little over two years ago, a little retirement home, small home. Quiet residential, we thought. There is a lot more traffic now than what there was when we moved in originally. A lot of those kids, it’s a winding road (lost word). The tractor trailers just make it through there. It’s not (lost word) because of the bend in the road. There’s blind spots, even with cars (lost words) it’s residential (lost words) thought it’s residential zoning. MR. MAILLE-It is zoned Light Industrial. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to hold off on your comments, please. Go ahead, ma’am. The floor is yours. MRS. NOLAN-Did you want to say anything? MR. NOLAN-I think it wouldn’t be a big problem if you could create an exit from another area. The traffic coming off of Eagan Road come off of Carey Road or some other exit to the property, it would be helpful. MRS. NOLAN-(Lost words) they wouldn’t go all the way down Corinth Road to the Carey Road and to go back around again. (Lost words). MR. NOLAN-If the business develops, if you could find some other means of getting in and out of there. Is there a possibility of getting in and out of there off another area? Does your property join the? MR. MAC EWAN-Sir, I’d ask you to direct all your questions right up here. MR. NOLAN-Okay. Does the Joe’s property join the property off right next to the Pro Craft building is there, there’s a new industrial park going in there? MR. MAC EWAN-The end of that cul-de-sac that we did, Craig, where is that, that we did about two months ago? MR. NOLAN-They just put a new road in down through there, by the industrial park. If you direct the traffic through that way, it wouldn’t be affected to the people that are on Eagan Road. MRS. NOLAN-We have our grandchildren, skateboards, bicycles, other children, too, and I’m concerned. I know they’re not going to drink the wine or anything like that, but their safety in playing in the road, and it a narrow road. Bill Threw does have his heavy equipment there. I hear it every weekend. I hear it every morning. Frankly, there’s nothing I can do about that. He was there before I was. If I had my choice, I probably wouldn’t have bought that property the way it is now. I’d just like to see something different. If 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) they did have another access road through their lot, that’s fine. I just don’t think that it’s feasible to use Eagan Road. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. NOLAN-No, that’s it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? KEN & MELANIE REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-Good evening. Ken and Melanie Reynolds, 54 Eagan Road. We are two lots east of the vineyard. I definitely applaud the entrepreneurship. I am a small business owner. I’m 100% for it, but location wise, our big concern is the traffic, as was just noted, and the pesticides, the breeze. That breeze out there is 90% a western wind, and it will blow straight toward the residential area, and that is our major concern, and the traffic. Having a wine tasting facility there with kids, I mean, 80% of the houses on there, on Eagan Road, have kids, grandkids. Coming in the blind corners may be all right, but coming out from the tasting center I think it’s going to get a little tricky for them. That’s our major concern. Traffic wise, there’s enough out there already. We’ve got the heavy equipment. We’ve got, I mean, there are tons of camps down there. Just to have three or four more trucks a day would just be too much. I mean, it’s a small road. It started out as a dirt camp road. It’s now residential. It’s a narrow road, and it’s a tough (lost words). It definitely is, but our major concern are the pesticides. What is in those pesticides that’s going to be blowing towards us? All those winds are heading at the residential area, and I’d like to (lost words) what’s being used in these fields. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. REYNOLDS-I agree. Just as they mentioned before, there is heavy equipment on the road, but just because there’s some heavy equipment already doesn’t mean that the residents want more, and it is. It’s supposed to be a quiet residential area, and I just think it’s an odd location to put a business at the end of a dead end road. There’s only one way in, one way out, and that’s through people’s back yards. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. For the time being, I’ll leave the public hearing left open. Do you gentlemen want to come back up, please? Do you have any letters? Comments, discussion from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have just one question. Craig, could you update on the map, when you get done looking for correspondence, could you just put a spot on the map as to where the young couple who were just up here, Ken and Melanie? It’s about right there? That’s the property right there. Okay. I’ve got it. Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Joe, does Bill Threw have a stump dump over there? MR. MAILLE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Whereabouts is that? MR. MAILLE-He’s got a couple over there. I haven’t been over there in a while. I know the Town’s been dumping, too. I’m not sure, it’s where Jeff Threw lives himself, down this way towards Paul Fritsch. Right in between there. MR. RINGER-Put that on the pointer, will you, Craig, where he’s talking about. MR. STROUGH-They would have to go on Eagan Road to access that, though, wouldn’t they? MR. MAILLE-They do go on Eagan Road. MR. STROUGH-To access that property? MR. MAILLE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’ve heard two references to extending Eagan Road. Now I don’t know exactly how or where, but I know it was mentioned by Chris Round, and I know Joe had mentioned it, and you had talked, Mr. Missita had mentioned it. MR. VOLLARO-Where would that extension be? Looking at the map, I’m kind of lost. MR. STROUGH-Craig, do you know anything about it? 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. VOLLARO-Right along there? MR. BROWN-From here to here is where (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-Now those are all residential properties in the blue, in the purple. MR. BROWN-All Waterfront Residential zoning. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you going with this, John? It’s not relevant, really, to the application. MR. STROUGH-Well, it certainly would ease a lot of the residents’ concern if they do definitely have plans, and there might be a public right of way there, a road by use that’s just not paved. MR. RINGER-What does that have to do with the application right now? I mean, they might not put a road in for 20 years. Then we’ve got to do something within the next 60 days or whatever. MR. STROUGH-Well, if we could get Rick Missita’s opinion about when, maybe he’s going to plan on paving that next year. MR. D’ALONZO-He did mention paving the road next year. MR. STROUGH-See. If I could get verification of that, that eases everyone’s problems and, bingo, go ahead with that vineyard. MR. MAC EWAN-The references we’ve heard tonight were paving a portion of Eagan Road, not extending Eagan Road into Carey Park. MR. STROUGH-No. What I heard was extending Eagan Road, and that’s what Mr. Missita. MR. D’ALONZO-No, what I said was he was going to extend the blacktop all the way down to the other end (lost words). MRS. LA BOMBARD-There. MR. STROUGH-Not necessarily to the? MR. D’ALONZO-All the way over to where the industrial park is. MR. STROUGH-Well, Chris Round had mentioned that there had been a discussion of possible access to that area. MR. MAILLE-They did mention that a few years ago. MR. STROUGH-I’d be more comforted if that turns out to be the case, if there might be something serious done there, and I don’t know how his other lots get accessed right now, other than by dirt road. It just seems to make sense, but, I don’t know. Those are thinking out loud thoughts. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else? MR. METIVIER-I have a question. When applying pesticides, don’t you have to notify people within so many feet? I believe in Vermont you have to. Is New York the same? MR. D’ALONZO-I’d have to check in to the regulations on that. Actually, I’ve talked to people who do that, rather than try and do it myself. You’d need a special license to do that. MR. METIVIER-Right. So at the same time, I’m almost sure, I didn’t say positive, but I’m almost sure that you have to notify 24 hours within each application. So, you know, if that’s the case, I’m wondering if the neighbors would. MR. D’ALONZO-This is actually a small amount vineyard or I would assume it’s going to be more backpack type of thing, with a hand sprayer, pretty localized. If you go to large vineyards, where they use a lot of equipment to do that, it becomes more of a problem, but (lost words), it’s not going to be as (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Well, talking about that issue that Tony brought up, I mean, would you have a problem with conditioning that that you would give notification to say your first two neighbors anyway, on the day you might be spraying and choose a day when it’s not so windy? MR. D’ALONZO-I wouldn’t have any problems with that. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. MAC EWAN-I do believe there are agricultural guidelines when you use those you have to notify. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that would be good, too. MR. VOLLARO-I have a problem with conditioning something along those lines without being able to in some way enforce that. I just don’t see conditioning an application that way. MR. STROUGH-Well, the enforcement, I think, would be a complaint to the Town, and the neighbors would remember the condition. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we’re at that point yet here tonight. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just throwing out ideas. MR. METIVIER-But again, I’m almost sure that, with certain pesticide applications, notification has to be made prior to the date anyway, which I think we should probably look into, to see if, in New York, if that’s a requirement. MR. VOLLARO-If that’s a requirement, he would have to, he certainly would have to live up to that, and so there would be overriding controls there that we don’t even have to look into actually, so long as they’re in place, in the State. MR. METIVIER-But we have to look into, make sure that they are in place with the State. That’s what I’m saying. MS. RADNER-I don’t know. I would have to look it up. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues? MR. STROUGH-Well, when did you plan on starting this? Maybe next spring? MR. D’ALONZO-Probably a testing area next spring. That’s a small area. MR. METIVIER-Well, we have time. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I don’t see any rush to come to a conclusion with this tonight. Cathy and I have been kind of brainstorming and we’ve got a list of three things I’d like to get answers to. I’d like something more definitive from Tom Jarrett regarding stormwater, other than a letter, something that’s got some substance to it. This would be for the Highway Superintendent. Maybe we can ask his opinion as to what his plans are for extending Eagan Road into Carey Industrial Park. Is that something like on a two year plan? Five year plan? Ten year plan? And that would kind of give us a handle on what we think traffic impacts would be. MR. STROUGH-And is Eagan Road constructed to carry heavy equipment, heavy construction? MR. MAC EWAN-They’re using it now. The Town’s using it now. So, yes, it’s capable of handling it. MR. STROUGH-Well, if we got that in writing from Mr. Missita. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The only thing about, you have to understand this, though, extending the road, or that idea, that concept is great, as long as it goes in that direction, the traffic, but what happens if somebody decides, from Carey Industrial Park, to come out Eagan Road? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s a potential you have to deal with, but, I mean, these are questions that are being asked by the public. These are questions that are being asked by Board members. So it’s something we to need to get an answer to. MR. STROUGH-Well, my idea along. MR. MAC EWAN-Just get an idea. I mean, it’s not something that’s, you know, we just need to get a handle. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I agree with you, Craig. No, you’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-And the third thing I’m looking for is a list of pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers you would need to use to operate this facility and how they’re going to be stored. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and at what times of the year. Like we did a golf course, years back, or a couple of years back. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. STROUGH-There’s State requirements on those. Can we see the State? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just throwing these thoughts out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we were really, the golf course, we were surprised when we found out that they only were going to apply the fertilizers in a very, I think maybe twice at the beginning and the end of the season, or maybe there was one time in between, and the types of fertilizers that they were using were almost, you could say, as environmentally friendly as they make. So we got a lot of. MR. D’ALONZO-Generally it’s only four or five times a year. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but we’d like to have that all written down and documented. MR. RINGER-Craig, what’s on the other side of the property? How is that zoned? I think it’s D or 12. MR. BROWN-Again, this is all Light Industrial. MR. RINGER-Okay. Right next to the property. MR. BROWN-This is Suburban Residential. MR. RINGER-Okay. Now you’re going to the property. MR. BROWN-Waterfront Residential. That’s residential. MR. RINGER-Okay. Where you’ve got, I can’t read, that’s 12 or 10 next to the, in the white, coming up, right there. What’s that? MR. BROWN-These are buildings. MR. RINGER-That’s the property? I thought the lines were the property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no, no that’s buildings on adjacent property, Larry. MR. STROUGH-Here’s the property. All that gray is Light Industrial. MR. RINGER-The only part of the road that’s industrial is that little blue area there, that triangle, and then where the property is. MR. STROUGH-No, that’s not industrial. That’s Waterfront Residential One Acre. MR. BROWN-All this up in through here. All the gray is Light Industrial. MR. STROUGH-This is, all the gray, Larry, is Light Industrial. MR. RINGER-So the only piece that actually. MR. STROUGH-That blue piece is Waterfront Residential. MR. RINGER-Do we really want to put industrial on Eagan Road? MR. STROUGH-That’s what I went to Chris Round. Normally you wouldn’t do that. MR. RINGER-That’s what I’m saying. We can determine now, do we want to have. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t determine that. It’s an allowed use. We can’t arbitrarily say that they can’t do it. MR. RINGER-We can’t say because of that, but we can say because of traffic, neighborhood values, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-I honestly don’t think traffic’s going to be that big of an impact. I really don’t, but I want to get something from the Highway Superintendent that supports my thoughts on this. MR. RINGER-Well, he won’t know if traffic’s going to be an issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the concerns that people are having here is that an alternative egress/ingress to that potential winery, but the opposite side of that, let’s hypothetically suppose that, you know, a five year plan was to connect Carey Road with Eagan Road and make that loop through. So now are you going to see 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) tractor trailer traffic coming out of Carey Industrial Park coming out that way because they’ve got deliveries to do over some place else? MR. STROUGH-Signage residential area, local traffic only. MR. VOLLARO-Why would they do that then? If there was a road from Carey Road out, why would they connect those two and then put signage up and say that Carey Road can’t use it? It makes no sense. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, the sign would be at the end of his property. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that, but anybody. MR. STROUGH-He would, tell the truth, follow through Carey Road to access his property. That’s how he would instruct the traffic. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because they’re not using it now, Bob, and it would only be traffic that could flow north. MR. RINGER-I’m not convinced that we should allow a commercial use on the road there. I think traffic could be a problem. I think neighborhood values could be a problem. MR. VOLLARO-You know what, if that’s the case, then we’d have to find a way to eliminate Bill Threw from doing exactly that. We’ve got commercial operations there now. MR. RINGER-He’s dumping something. I don’t know if. MR. VOLLARO-Well, look, I’ve written something down here, just for myself. It says that we’re looking at a mixed use here. That’s what we’re really looking at, and it’s basically zoned properly, and I think these folks are in the right zone. MR. RINGER-I don’t think it’s zoned properly. MR. VOLLARO-That’s something else. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, Larry, those other two to the west of the parcel are zoned LI, the one that you had asked about, those little buildings, and they’re on Eagan Road also. It’s just that that’s the dirt road part of Eagan. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s see if this Eagan Road is going to get extended. MR. BOGUE-Can I address for just one moment, please, as far as commercial properties. MR. MAC EWAN-I need you to come back up to the microphone. MR. BOGUE-Bill Threw, right now, is working and operating a commercial business right on Eagan Road. He’s (lost word) topsoil and throwing it away. (Lost words) topsoil for the last 15 years. He’s using that. He has piles of (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-We saw that when we went up there. There is a commercial operation on that road. That’s what’s there now, and to say that we don’t want any commercial operation on Eagan Road, when it currently exists, doesn’t make any sense to this member of this Board. MR. BOGUE-I just wanted to clarify that. Even though his business is out on Big Bay Road, he works across the street. He has access to his own property. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Any other comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the things you mentioned, the calculations to support the stormwater runoff, I buy into that 100%. What’s the future plan for Eagan Road? We can ask Mr. Missita what that is, and a list of fertilizers and pesticides that would be used and to answer Tony’s problem, if we could get some information from the State as to what notification procedures, for neighbors, if there is such a thing. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe that comes from the Department of Agriculture. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. They call it Ag & Markets, I think, or something like that. MR. MAC EWAN-We can let the applicant supply that information for us. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. VOLLARO-I think that, I would be satisfied, myself, with getting those answers, but I have no problem with this being in this zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other things anybody would be looking for? Anything you wanted to add? MR. D’ALONZO-No. Just the further comment that it is zoned Light Industrial. It’s suitable for agricultural processing, which, essentially, is the winery area. That vineyard area is probably the one area that doesn’t quite fit perfectly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I make a comment regarding the wine tasting, that some of the residents on Eagan Road were a little concerned about? Maybe I misunderstood them, but I kind of got the feel that they thought that you were going to open up your place and have these big wine tasting galas and people would go in and drink the wine and eat the cheese and crackers then come back out Eagan Road with a little buzz on and then there’s children playing there, and it could be dangerous. I think we need to clarify that. MR. D’ALONZO-Well, I think we have to be very careful, because usually the wine tasting, there’s set limits as to how much you can give and how many tastings, and obviously you have to be 21, and you know, obviously, you don’t want a situation where a use like this could cause problems in the community. So, I think as a responsible person in the community, you don’t want your customers overindulging. I think, in this sense, it’s (lost words) wine tastings (lost words), but they’re very small. There’s maybe only four or five of these tastings of different varieties and types, and it’s over a period of time. It might be over a half an hour or forty-five minutes or whatever, and so usually that’s not a problem. It’s more of a problem in an area where there’s a wine trail, and there’s maybe 15 wineries in a row. In this case, that’s not going to happen. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I remember in California. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to say one thing. The letter that Craig Brown wrote, on July 23, I think makes rd a very good case for allowing this operation in this area, and I think Craig did a good job doing that. MR. RINGER-Well, he just says it’s an industrial zone and he allows this in an industrial zone, or he feels it’s an allowable use. MR. VOLLARO-Well, he was doing sort of a balancing act here in a way, as to the way I read this, in that he decided that this would be an allowable use, and in reading that, this lead me down the pipe to say that this is perfectly acceptable in this area. MR. RINGER-I don’t disagree with his interpretation of what’s allowable in an industrial zone. I do have some concerns, after hearing the public’s comments, about traffic and increasing industrial activity on Eagan Road, and that’s where I’m having some difficulty. When we started tonight, or when I went and looked at the property, to tell you the honest truth, I thought, this is a great place for this. I kind of like it, but as I listen more and more to the public comment, and looking at the residential area, I’m becoming less convinced that Eagan Road is a good place to put the commercial industrial stuff, but that’s what I’m having trouble with. MR. VOLLARO-But, you know, Larry, if we were coming out of the box on this, we were starting from a clean slate, I would agree with you, but with the current industrial application going on that road now, what do I do now? MR. RINGER-Well, that application being just a dump truck going in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I think what we’re doing here is we’re getting off on the right wing aspect of just categorizing this use as a Light Industrial use. When you think of a Light Industrial use, you’re thinking of tractor trailers on a daily basis, deliveries on a daily basis. You’re looking at a workforce that’s going in on a daily basis. You’re not going to have this with this kind of operation. MR. RINGER-And I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-So, I mean, even though this is falling under an industrial use, I really don’t see the usage itself as being an industrial use. I see it more as a commercial enterprise or farming enterprise than I do a commercial or an industrial activity. MR. RINGER-I see it as a small commercial operation. MR. MAC EWAN-So I think when we’re thinking of Light Industrial zones, I think we’ve got to think of the impacts that a Light Industrial zone brings, or a Light Industrial activity, as far as an expanded workforce, hours of operation, you know, three shifts, tractor trailers, deliveries going in, going out, machinery running, 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) and I don’t see that happening here, but with that said, someone put up a motion to table those things with those conditions. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2002 JOHN & DONNA D’ALONZO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For the following reasons: 1. We would like to obtain calculations to support the stormwater runoff from Mr. Tom Jarrett, the engineer that supports John & Donna D’Alonzo, and 2. We would like to have some input from the Highway Superintendent, Mr. Richard Missita on what is his future plans for Eagan Road, what does he see in a one year or five year or ten year timeframe, and 3. We’d like to have a list of the fertilizers and pesticides that would be applied, and make a determination, I guess, we’d like the applicant to do this, if he would, to find out from the State, to satisfy my fellow Board member, to find out whether there are periods of notification when you’re going to spray, and the applicant should be supplying that information for us, and 4. We’ll table this until our first regular meeting of October. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table this to our first regular meeting of October, because we’ve already missed the September deadline. The deadline for submissions for October’s meeting is the 15 of the month of th September. So you’d need to get all that information by close of business on September 15 to make sure th you’re going to be on the October agenda. Okay. Do we have a second on that motion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second it. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. We’ll see you in a couple of months. MR. D’ALONZO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 36-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED C.R. BARD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: RIST FROST ASSOCIATES/DAN BRUNO ZONE: LI LOCATION: 289 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES IN A ONE- STORY, 18 FT. HIGH, 9800 SQ. FT. BUILDING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 65-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-43 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ACRES SECTION: 179- 4-020, 179-9-020 TOM CENTER & RONALD GREEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-2002, C.R. Bard, Meeting Date: August 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct a 9800 sq. ft addition to an existing manufacturing building. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Manufacturing and Industrial activities are allowed in a Light Industrial Zone with Site Plan approval from the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) It is not expected that a proposal of this type will have place a further burden on public services and facilities. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Traffic and parking of vehicles should not be adversely impacted by this proposal. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? No adverse impacts of this type are anticipated with this proposal. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed building addition would be built near the south property line and connected to an existing building. No new lighting is proposed for this site. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular traffic and access should not be impacted by this additional construction. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. On site parking will remain as is and conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian traffic will continue to circulate on site as it currently does. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report. Comment on this report will be provided by CT Male. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This site is served by municipal water and sewer facilities. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The submitted plans call for no additional landscaping or buffering. It appears that any visual impacts this addition may have would be limited to the property immediately to the south. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. No additional fire hydrants or other additions of this type are planned for this site. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 65-2002; res 8/21/2002 setback relief for 9800 sq. ft. addition Staff comments: 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) The applicant has requested waivers from the following requirements: - landscaping plan - lighting plan - grading plan The applicant proposes to clear existing vegetation around the proposed addition as part of this site plan. Any visual impacts this clearing may have would most likely only impact the property to the south. If the Planning Board believes it necessary, additional landscaping along the south property line near the area to be cleared could help ease any potential visual impacts. A stormwater management report has been submitted and any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; the applicant has submitted a short form.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. BROWN-I’d just like to make note of the three waiver requests for this application. The applicant has requested waivers from the landscaping plan, the lighting plan, and the grading plan. However, I think they may have submitted some additional lighting information. (Lost words). The vegetation is proposed to be removed to the south of the property, Staff’s position was to be mitigated with the fact that that side of the building there’s no windows and (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. GREEN-Hi. My name is Ronald Green. I’m the Plant Engineer for C.R. Bard. MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Rist-Frost Associates, project engineer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. GREEN-What we’re looking to do is add approximately 10,000 square foot, 9800 square foot single story 18 foot high addition to an existing warehouse for a manufacturing use. Bard Corporation is a consolidation mode, just like every other large company. They’re trying to save money. They shut three plants down, and the equipment from one of those facilities will be coming to the Glens Falls area (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Great. Anything else to add? Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to just kind of listen for a while to what everybody else says. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-We got a signoff from Male, I don’t have anything on it at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything. Staff comments noted the waivers that were requested. I think any time that we can have an existing employer like this expand it’s a great thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have to agree. I certainly have no problems with the waivers that were requested, especially, I think Bard maintains a beautiful operation on Bay. It really does. I applaud them for that, and I have nothing further. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just a couple of simple ones. We were over there on site visits. It doesn’t appear you’re very close, but how close is the closest residence to this proposed building? MR. CENTER-It’s more than probably two football fields, I’d say. The Zoning Board restricted them to how much they can develop that piece of property. It’s their responsibility to maintain the50 foot buffer zone and also they can only use so much land (lost words) because of their clearing restrictions, the Zoning Board restricted that property (lost words). 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) MR. STROUGH-And the activities that will be going on inside this building, any noise or dust produced that would be external? MR. GREEN-I haven’t been (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Is it going to be like a machine shop where you’re going to be making parts and stuff? MR. GREEN-It’s going to be similar to a machine shop. (Lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So the building’s actually going to be used for production, not for maintenance to the Bard facilities then. Okay. Sorry about that, John. MR. STROUGH-That’s all right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 36-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: C.R. BARD, 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 27 day of August, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2002 C.R. BARD, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 36-2002 Applicant: C. R. Bard Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Rist Frost Associates / Dan Bruno Zone: LI Location: 289 Bay Road Applicant proposes expansion of manufacturing activities in a one-story, 18 ft. high, 9800 sq. ft. building. Cross Reference: AV 65-2002 Warren Co. Planning: 8/14/02 Tax Map No. 302.07-1-43 Lot size: 0.60 acres / Section: 179-4-020, 179-9-020 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) Public Hearing: August 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/26/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/23/02, and 8/27 Staff Notes 8/21 ZBA resolution: Approved 8/20 Notice of Public Hearing 8/14 Warren Co. Planning: Approved 8/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on August 27, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. First with a note that the waiver request be granted for C.R. Bard, as noted in the Rist-Frost Associates letter dated July 26, 2002 and with the following conditions: 1. The applicant may eliminate the proposed fence to the rear of the proposed building, and 2. The applicant will relocate two handicap parking spaces as close as practical, adjacent to the proposed building, and 3. The signoff will be added to the resolution from C.T. Male, dated 8/27/02. 4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 8/27/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: FOREST ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT: ABD ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS ZONE: HC-INT., LC-10A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTO DEALERSHIP; PLAN INCLUDES AN 8,482 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING LOT. AUTOMOTIVE SALES AND SERVICE IN AN HC ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 303.10-1-8/109-3-3 LOT SIZE: 56.30 ACRES/SECTION: 179-4-020 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-2002, Northeast American Realty, LLC, Meeting Date: August 27, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes the operation of an automobile dealership including the construction of an 8,482 sq. ft. building. The applicant also proposes on site parking, lighting and landscaping. The property is currently split zoned between the HC-Int and LC-10A zones. The construction will take place within the HC-Int zoned area of the site. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Automobile dealerships require site plan approval in the Highway Commercial Intensive zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? An expansion of this type should not further burden public services and facilities. Comments have been received by the Town’s wastewater department and should be addressed during the review of this application. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The applicant proposes two full access drives. In order to better manage traffic that will access this site, the proposed drives could be used as one way access drives (one for ingress, one for egress), or the plan could be revised to provide only one access drive. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this proposal. DEC and Federal wetlands are located on site. The site plan indicates appropriate buffers from the wetlands shown on the submitted site plan. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. Overall, the proposed building is located in an area that is compatible with the site and the wetland limitations. Comments on proposed lighting will be offered by staff prior to the Planning Board review of this application. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. In order to better manage access at this location the Planning Board could limit access at this location to one driveway as discussed in Section 179-19-010, sec. B2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed south driveway appears to be spaced closer than the required 330 feet from the exiting entrance drive for Top of the World auto body located directly to the south of this site on Quaker Rd (Sec 179-19-010 C c). Utilizing the proposed northerly drive only, would result in driveway spacing that would conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of spaces shown on the site plan meets Zoning requirements. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) The submitted site plan shows walkways to be provided to allow for pedestrian movement around the building. Pedestrians will access the building from parking spaces surrounding the building. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report. Comments concerning this report and overall site drainage are expected from CT Male. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Municipal water service is available for this site. The Town’s wastewater department has submitted comments concerning the time frame for the creation of a planned sanitary sewer district that will include this property. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan as part of the site plan. The plan does not call for street landscaping in the form of evergreen shrubbery (along the entire street frontage in parking areas) or shade trees as required by Sec. 179-8-040 B of the Zoning Ordinance. The planting requirements for the interior parking area are listed as one shade tree for every 15 parking spaces (Sec. 179-8-040 D). Additionally, the interior parking area must have 5% of its area landscaped (Sec 179-8-040 Fig. 23). The site plan shows several paved and painted parking islands, which could be constructed as grass islands with trees as part of conforming to Zoning requirements regarding landscaping. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Emergency access does not appear to be an issue with this site plan. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The proposed site plan does not indicate that any landscaping will be placed in areas prone to flooding or erosion. The applicant’s stormwater plan should ultimately protect the site and all landscaping from erosion or flooding. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Research of this property found no information on previous construction activity. Staff comments: As mentioned previously, the proposed south access drive off of Quaker Rd. is located too close to the access drive for Top of the World Autobody (Sec 179-19-010 C c). Requiring the more northerly drive to be the sole access for this site (Section 179-19-010, sec. B2) would better manage traffic on this site and would result in drive spacing from the property to the south that conforms to Zoning requirements. The site plan shows interconnection of the parking area with the driveway and parking area of the property to the south (Top of the World). This proposed connection provides an alternative to constructing an access drive at the south end of this property. The site plan calls for a stormwater detention area in the southeast area of the site plan. Just to the east of this area a drainage channel is located on site as shown on the Town’s most recent aerial photographs and the USGS topographic map for this area. The cutting and filling that will occur in order to create the detention basin in this area should be designed as to not negatively impact the drainage channel that runs through other properties in the area. All other comments concerning stormwater management will be provided by CT Male and should be addressed as part of the site plan review. Landscaping that is shown on the site plan should be updated to conform to zoning requirements. As previously mentioned, the plan does not provide for the solid evergreen shrubbery and shade trees required in Sec. 179-8-040 B of the Zoning Ordinance. Planting requirements for the interior parking area are listed as one shade tree for every 15 parking spaces (Sec. 179-8-040 D). Additionally, the interior parking area must have 5% of its area landscaped (Sec 179-8-040 Fig. 23). The site plan shows several paved and painted parking islands, which could be constructed as grass islands with trees as part of conforming to Zoning requirements regarding landscaping. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/02) More detailed comments on lighting will be provided as a separate memo from Planning Staff prior to the Site Plan review for this application. At the time of writing these notes, no information has been received about fixture heights, cut offs, and other specs for the proposed lighting. Two spotlights are shown at the front of the site. One labeled ground lighting the other as lighting for a flag. The light intensity, direction and purpose should be discussed in more detail. The site plan shows a debris pile that is located at the northern end of the site. What are the plans for removal of this debris? All comments from the Town’s wastewater department should be addressed during review of this application. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted; applicant has submitted a short form.” MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2002 NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY LLC (SATURN DEALERSHIP), Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To revise the drawings, site plan drawings, the landscaping, the lighting, the construction details to comply with the following: 1. 179-6-020 Lighting using Marilyn Ryba’s letter to the Planning Board as a guide, and 2. Landscaping, using 179-8-040, in particular Sections B, C, D. and F, and 3. Eliminate the southeastern curb cut, and 4. Revise construction details to comply with Mike Shaw’s letter, which is the Superintendent of Wastewater, Mike Shaw’s letter of August 13, and th 5. Come back to the Planning Board with options on building elevations with a more aesthetically pleasing design and color scheme, and 6. Respond to CT Male’s letter of August 22, and actually discuss that with C.T. Male, as nd opposed to just responding to it. I think some discussion with C.T. Male would be necessary, and 7. Respond to the Warren County letter of August 9 to T.L. Davis as ABD Engineers and th Surveyors, and 8. List on the drawing that the radii at the entrance should be between 30 and 35 feet, and it should be noted on the drawing and specify the depth of the HC-Intensive zone, and 9. Tabled until the second meeting in October. Duly adopted this 27th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 29