Loading...
2002-05-21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ANTHONY METIVIER MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: LI-3A LOCATION: 543 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES 24,867 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURING PLANT. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179- 26 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 25-92, AV 26-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TA X MAP NO. 55-2-19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.14 LOT SIZE: 12.971 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-67 A3 JON LAPPER, DICK JONES & RANDY BODKIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 19-2002, Angio Dynamics, Inc., Meeting Date: May 16, 2002 “Project Description: This application was tabled for engineering comments and revised plans. To date, there has been correspondence between the applicant and CT Male, however, no revised plans. Applicant proposes construction of a 24,867 sf addition to an existing medical device manufacturing plant. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use is an allowable use within the Light Industrial, LI-1A zoning district. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted an Area Variance for this project due to the proposed separation distance between the proposed structure and the existing building on the site. The required setback distance is 50 feet; the proposed structure offers a 28 ft. 2 in. setback. 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? The proposed construction, which nearly doubles the size of the facility, will, presumably, offer additional employment opportunities and an increase in the consumption of utilities. 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? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) The proposed development calls for a significant increase in the on site parking facilities. Recent site inspections reveal the current on site parking patterns appear to be exceeding the current capacity of the site. 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? The impacts created by the proposed project do not appear to be inordinate. The proposed mitigative measures appear adequate. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed layout and building placement appear to be the most suitable for the site. The proposed lighting layout depicts 20 ft. tall poles with 2 – 400 watt lights per pole. No specification sheets or formal lighting grid have been supplied with this application. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The proposed parking area layout appears to comply with the requirements. The access drive along the southern and western portions of the site appears to be a well-planned method to route onsite traffic. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. See previous comment. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The majority of the parking lot appears to be designed and utilized for employee parking. The frequency of public usage is unknown. Minimal, if any, pedestrian walkways are proposed with the plan. Consideration may be given to on site signage to direct the public as needed, if necessary. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. No CT Male comments have been returned as of this date (4/18) 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is serviced by municipal systems for both water and sewage disposal. 7. 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. Approximately one-tenth of an acre of wooded area will be removed as a part of this plan. The proposal calls for the addition of approximately 14-18 trees throughout the parking areas and some additional landscaping along the addition. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The proposed plan appears to offer adequate emergency access aisles. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. No CT Male comments have been returned as of this date ( 4/18) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 25-1992 resolved 5/21/92: Conversion to Angio Dynamics from Prof. Building Sys. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) Area Variance 26-2002 resolved 4/17/02: Building separation Staff comments: The proposed development would appear to improve the existing site conditions related to the parking of vehicles and the access aisles on the site. However, the plans do not accurately reflect the proposed lighting details for the site. Historically, a lighting plan, and lighting grid are supplied in order to better demonstrate the planned lighting patterns. Additionally, consideration may be given to supplemental landscaping along the eastern side of the existing and proposed parking areas. Is there a lighting plan/grid available or detailed specification sheets for the proposed fixtures and poles? Are there any FAA requirements for outdoor lighting in this area? How did the sign and landscaping get in the right of way? Have all four parcels been consolidated into one parcel? SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if you remember last time the application was tabled due to the response to engineering comments. I think it would probably be most beneficial if the applicant was to respond to how that process is going. Nothing new as far as Staff goes, just engineering comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dick Jones and Randy Bodkin, on behalf of Angio Dynamics. Last meeting this was tabled so that Dick could communicate with C.T. Male, and we only got their comments moments before the last meeting. He’s been communicating with the engineer, and we think that we’re all set, with the exception of one minor issue with just some grading on the rear of the property, in terms of stormwater and we think that that’s all set. Dick will explain it, and the Board can condition it on C.T. Male signing off on only one elevation. Let me hand the mic to Dick and ask him to just explain that last issue that we have on the stormwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. JONES-What I’ll do is I’ll just briefly show you the area on the revised site plan. At the request of C.T. Male, we had addressed their comments from their original April 22 letter, and in discussing the items with nd the engineer from C.T. Male on Monday, he basically wanted us to add some additional winged curbs to some of the pavement areas. So, in essence, our driveway around the back now is kind of to Town of Queensbury highway standard. In doing that, we’ve accomplished all of the items that he was hoping for, and we’ve been able to pick up the additional drainage, modify one of the drainage swales with a riprap lining, which is what he was looking for, basically divert our stormwater coming down to a new catch basin that he asked us to place in the approximate location of our culvert coming out of our detention area, to collect the stormwater coming down around the back side as well as reposition the elevation of the existing catch basin here on the major stormwater line on the back side. In so doing that, we’ve got an elevation right here along one strip between this catch basin and the existing catch basin where we have a bit of a flat area, and in discussing that with him this afternoon, what we’re looking to do is take basically Contour 338 and pull it forward, so that we basically get a high spot here in the center which will then enable us to get our pitch back to the catch basins in either direction. So basically it entails modification of one grade line, adding some spot elevations, and dropping the top of frame elevations on the two catch basins. That’s the sum total of what we have left right now in regard to any review comment, and we feel that we can address that through those types of changes with him. Basically all of the other modifications and things that we had discussed with C.T. Male have been added to the plan. As I said, we’ve added additional catch basins at their request. We’ve added the wing on the pavement. We’ve relocated the earthen berm that we have coming, or the earthen drainage swale that we have coming around. So we feel we’ve basically, in talking with him, addressed those items successfully. I’d be happy to answer any other questions that anyone may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I don’t know that I have anything else, as long as the Board feels comfortable with that, I’d certainly accept it, but I’m certainly in favor of the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-We’ll stay on your subject for a minute. I just had a question. On the north side of the lot where you have an invert of 338.19, that’s right here, okay, and then that traverses all the way down and winds up with an invert of 325.55. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. JONES-Yes, that’s an existing drainage line. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I got that. My question was, that’s pretty close to the property line, and what kind of data do you have, or have you presented, that that won’t continue to flow? What’s the rate of flow, outflow, on that pipe? Because that’s a pretty good drop from 338 down to 328. It’s 10 feet. So there’s some fairly good velocity coming through that pipe, and will it, you know, as it hits the end of that, will it spread and get to the property line? Because we’re supposed to contain all this stuff on the property, and is there any provision in your stormwater plan or any other place, I didn’t see it. Do you understand what I’m driving at? MR. JONES-Yes, and that, basically, C.T. Male didn’t have. MR. VOLLARO-Didn’t have a comment on it. MR. JONES-No, they did not. We had gone through with them basically a description of what that system entailed, and as I understand it, that system was put in a number of years ago, I’m not sure how many. MR. BODKIN-Yes, that drainage system is a 30 inch diameter culvert, manholes every 200 feet. It was put in almost eight years ago. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s an existing thing. MR. BODKIN-Yes, existing. MR. VOLLARO-See, when I look at a site plan like this, I wasn’t sure of that. MR. BODKIN-That actually dumps in to our own property as well, where it empties. It’s close to the airport, but it’s actually still in our area. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it’s on your property. I’m just wondering. There’s a catch basin area there, at the end of that culvert. MR. MAC EWAN-Listen to his coaching. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. He knows the questions. He knows the answers. It’s almost an open and shut case here. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. SP-2, go to SP-2, now, when I look at the current Ordinance that we have now on parking, I’ve categorized this as light industry. I think you would agree with that characterization. Under Light Manufacturing, the way to come up with the parking requirement, in the new zoning code, now, is that it’s one per two employees on the maximum working shift. So I see in SP-2 that you’ve laid out the parking to include 298 spaces, and I counted them and there’s 298. So you don’t have to worry about that. I’m just wondering how you arrived at 298, based on the new code. Because I couldn’t find any employee load anywhere in the data. So I couldn’t back that up. MR. JONES-I think this was submitted under the old code. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. JONES-And in thinking about the number of parking spaces, they currently have. MR. VOLLARO-I thought anything we reviewed now was supposed to be reviewed under the new code. MR. MAC EWAN-We started reviewing it last month, the old code. Anything that was going to be subjected to new reviews in the month of May was subject to the new code. I also remember them making comments last month regarding the reason why their parking was that way was because there was a shift overlap. MR. JONES-There’s actually, there’s an overlap of shifts between the day shift and the early evening shift, and what we’ve tried to do is provide enough spaces. A lot of the engineering staff is not on second shift. Is that correct? MR. BODKIN-No, but their work hours extend over normal second shift start up. MR. JONES-So we’ve got basic overlap of the production shift’s, production shift one and two, and in increasing the building with the proposed addition, we’re adding. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. BODKIN-Over the next five years we could add another two hundred positions, over first shift, second and third, etc. So, with this parking area provides parking for two shift capacity at any one time, to provide a safe egress in and out of the building. MR. VOLLARO-The 298 is based on gross leasable area? Is that what the 298 is based on? MR. BODKIN-Anticipated growth, employment. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to get the math behind how you got the 298, just to the old code. Go to the old code. How did we do that? MR. LAPPER-I guess, Bob, you’re looking at the way the Queensbury code works, it’s the minimum parking, and we are exceeding the minimum here, but that’s because that’s their anticipated need, and in a retail project they’re always very concerned to not have too much parking, but here we’re proposing more than what the minimum is required in the Town. In commercial we always look at the minimum as the maximum. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me try to understand this, now, so that I can get it in my head. What basis did you use, I’ll ask the question again. What basis did you use to arrive at the number? MR. LAPPER-To include the first shift and the second shift of manufacturing, plus the engineers, so there would be enough spaces for the actual number of cars. MR. VOLLARO-So that was on account of employment? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and anticipated employment growth. MR. JONES-And they actually did, this is a 10 year, five year study of the requirements that they would need both for first and second shift, plus engineering staff, plus administrative staff, plus visitors and that type of thing on site. MR. VOLLARO-So how much are you over the code, roughly, in percentages? Would you say, just roughly? MR. BODKIN-Well, if the Code is one parking spot for every two employees, then we’re quite a ways over. I mean, we’re not in an area where we’ve got mass transit. I mean, generally there’s not much carpooling. There’s only about 10 people in our company that carpool. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to determine how we came up with the parking spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re telling you. They base their parking spaces on what their current use is, based on a five year projection of what their growth is going to be. MR. VOLLARO-Craig, I’m trying to look to see how it gets back to either our old code or new code, the basis that they used to get back to that number. I mean, all of this is fine, and I understand what they’re saying, but I’m trying to get the basis of their math, how they arrived at 298, and now they’re telling us how they did it, but it still doesn’t relate back to either the old code or the new code. It doesn’t seem to. MR. LAPPER-My answer would be that we satisfy the code because we’ve provided at least that many spaces, but here we’re exceeding them based upon anticipated actual need. MR. JONES-We did a current site count, at the present time, and this was maybe a month and a half ago, and we had 154 vehicles on site, between engineering staff and manufacturing staff at this time. MR. LAPPER-That’s without the expansion. MR. JONES-And that’s without the expansion. MR. BODKIN-And there was 165 employees in the building. MR. VOLLARO-So this is all based on data that you know, actual load, people that you have on board and so on. MR. BODKIN-And then we did a potential growth going forward, the department, etc., and come up with a number, a head count. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I won’t go any further on that subject. I still don’t have a good feeling in my mind for how you got there, but so long as you got there on projections, that’s fine. I guess this letter from C.T. Male that we just got tonight says upon submittal and acceptable review of this information we’ll be in a position to issue a final sign off letter? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. JONES-Yes. That’s in reference to those grade elevations at that paved shoulder swale on the back side of the edge of the new driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I noticed that there was no site lighting plan submitted with this. MR. JONES-We had submitted that to C.T. Male, and they basically have reviewed and signed off on that as well. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a copy of that, Craig? MR. BROWN-I’ve seen it some place. I don’t know if it got to the Board members. It should have. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it in my packet. Did any other Board members see it in their packet? MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t see it. MR. STROUGH-No. MR. JONES-I have copies here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know that. I would just like to get the opportunity to review that, if I could. MR. BROWN-It wasn’t in with the original submission. It was an after the fact. MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male’s reviewed it and put their blessing on it? Do we have something in the files to that effect? MR. LAPPER-I think that was in their first letter, Craig. MR. JONES-It was in their first letter. It was comment number twelve in their first letter. MR. VOLLARO-So what I see from this is there’s no off site spillage at all. It’s all zeros. MR. JONES-Yes. We’re at zero, basically, at all of the property lines. MR. VOLLARO-There’s fairly low intensity all through, as far as foot candles are concerned. I don’t see any out of the ordinary in there. Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. C.T. Male is fine with it and they addressed the one concern. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I was a little confused during your earlier presentation. You said that C.T. Male asked that the loop road be winged. Now is that for drainage control? MR. JONES-Well, in their original comments they had asked us to move the grass swale approximately 10 feet of the edge of the new driveway. When I had spoke to their review person Monday, his concern at that point was, now that the swale is that far off the road in the winter time when we’re plowing, if we’re piling snow on the edge of the road, how do we control the runoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-So that’s when he wanted me to put the wing on the edge of the driveway, which we complied with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JONES-And in doing that, we’ve created a little bit of a low spot, basically a flat spot on the inside of that bottom loop, and we need to basically raise the proposed grade so that we can get it pitching into the direction of the existing and the new catch basin, drywell. MR. HUNSINGER-I had questions on the lighting plan, too, but if C.T. Male has signed off on it, it’s enough for me. One of the other discussions that we had last month was some additional plantings on the east side of the site. MR. JONES-Yes. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. HUNSINGER-And I honestly don’t remember how, what the conclusion was of that discussion. MR. JONES-I think that we were willing to basically provide some roadway trees around the perimeter of the outside of the parking lot area, and I think that’s what the question was, at that point. We’ve indicated on our planting plan, basically, roadway maples coming down along the, what would be the west side of Queensbury Avenue between our parking lot expansion and the roadway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that was the area in question. MR. JONES-Yes, and I think we were asked if we would continue that around toward the existing detention pond, and we certainly can do that. There’s no reason that we can’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, good project, and I think we’ve fine tuned it and we’ve made a better project. It’s looking good, and I’ve just got a couple of little things. They’re actually Staff notations. One was about addressing the non-employee public, such as the salesmen. Is there signage addressing them to the entryway? MR. JONES-Yes. One of the comments from C.T. Male was in reference to on-site signage, and their request was basically that we add some, they didn’t realize that there were not stop signs on the proposed driveways and the existing driveways going out onto the main thoroughfares. We’ve added that. In addition, we’ve added some site circulation signage in reference to truck deliveries, that type of thing, for the loop on the back side, and one of the comments was that we basically add some spaces with signage for visitors parking, and we’ve done that along the front area adjacent to the main entry into the manufacturing wing. So we’ve added, I believe, nine to ten spaces for visitors and that type of thing. MR. STROUGH-Very good, and the only other thing is Staff, too, was wondering if it might be to your advantage to combine the four parcels into one parcel. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That was a condition of the Zoning Board variance. So that will be taken care of immediately. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s all I have. Nice project. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you guys want to add? Okay. We’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-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this Short? MR. MAC EWAN-I believe they submitted a Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-It’s Short Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was the Short Form. MR. MAC EWAN-Short Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to ask a question on that before we start. I notice that the ZBA already did a SEQRA on this on 4/17/02, with no negative impacts, and do we do it twice? Or should we do it twice? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not doing it twice. You should do it separately and apart from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t a coordinated review because it wasn’t a Type I Action. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Cathy. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 19-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2002 ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by: Site Plan Review No. 19-2002 Applicant: Angio Dynamics, Inc. Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates Zone: LI-3A Location: 603 Queensbury Avenue Applicant proposes 24,867 sq. ft. addition to an existing medical device manufacturing plant. Pursuant to Section 179-26 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury all uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: SP 25-92, AV 26-2002 Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02 Tax Map No. 55-2-19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.14 Lot size: 12.971 acres Section: 179-26, 179-67 A3 Public Hearing: April 23, 2002, Tabled WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/17/02: 5/21 Staff Notes 5/16 CT Male comments 5/14 Notice of Public Hearing 5/1 Meeting Notice 4/23 Planning Board resolution - Tabled 4/23 Staff Notes 4/17 Copy of Facility Expansion Plan from ZBA file 4/17 ZBA resolution 4/16 Notice of Public Hearing 4/10 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact 4/4 Meeting Notice 4/1 Plans forwarded to R. Van Dusen, Mike Shaw for review and comment WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 23 and May 21, 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That it would include C.T. Male’s letter of May 21, 2002, and the Lighting Plan, Angio Dynamics expansion facility, that was looked at and approved by C.T. Male. The designer is CRJ and it’s 1 of 1. C.T. Male is to approve the Lighting Plan as submitted. That we get a letter from C.T. Male stating that the lighting has been addressed and is okay with them; and 2. 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 5/21/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2002, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-And the other one that I don’t see having been addressed in the resolution is the lighting plan for Angio Dynamics expansion facility. That was looked at and approved by C.T. Male. I don’t know how to identify this because there’s nothing on the plan. The designer is CRJ, and it’s one of one. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we just note that for the record, that C.T. Male is to approve the lighting plan as submitted. MR. BROWN-Yes, if I could, just for a second. I think the history is first C.T. Male identified that there was no lighting plan and suggested that a plan, along with minimum fixtures and foot candle levels be submitted. The applicant responded with that information and the most recent letter that was received today said we are 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) comfortable. They’ve met most of our conditions, and I don’t know if that’s a blanket approval, including the lighting plan. MR. MAC EWAN-We just want to make sure that that’s included in it. MR. BROWN-So do you want a specific approval from C.T. Male on the lighting plan? MR. MAC EWAN-I believe that the issue has already been addressed. We just want to confirm that with a letter from them saying that that’s fine with them. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine with us. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen, good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Congratulations. SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 TYPE: UNLISTED BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A PROVISIONS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,330 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING BUSINESS. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL WILL RESOLVE NON- COMPLIANCE ISSUES. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A GRAVELED PARKING AREA, GREEN AREA AND PLANTERS. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN CR ZONES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 24-1992, AV 29-1992, AV 29-1992, UV 14-1994, AV 15-1994, UV 18-1997, AV 19- 1997, AV 83-1999, AV 10-2002 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-2, 130-1-21 LOT SIZE: 1.70 ACRES, 0.49 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. It was tabled from April 23. rd STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-99, Ben Aronson/Double A Provisions, Meeting Date: May 21, 2002 “Project Description: This application was tabled for engineering comments and revised plans. To date, there has been correspondence between the applicant and CT Male, however, no revised plans. Applicant seeks approval for the 3,330 sq. ft. expansion to the existing building on the site as well as for site improvements to include parking and graveled areas, landscaping and access drive. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The existing use on the property, wholesale distribution, is not an allowable use in the CR-15 zoning district. The use has existed for several years and in 1997 was granted a Use Variance to expand the business. This expansion is the basis for this application. In March of 2002 an Area Variance was granted to allow the site to be developed in excess of the permeable requirements and within the required buffer 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? It is difficult to gauge the level of consistency with the ordinance, as this use is not listed as an allowable use in this zone. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) 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 proposed site layout adds several parking spaces on the Main Street side of the site as well as an access point onto Main Street. Staff recommends the removal of the existing parking spaces in Area I in favor of the proposed spaces near Area B on the plot plan. The maintenance of the spaces would present a conflict when the Main Street widening project is performed. 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? The proposed project does not appear to present any undue adverse impacts. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. Ideally, the proposal would have included additional lands, which would have alleviated the 2.1 foot setback to the rear property line. No lighting plans were submitted. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The use of the proposed parking area (Area B) would appear to be an improvement over the existing customer parking area currently being utilized on the site. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. See previous comment. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The proposed layout calls for the continued use of the parking along Main Street and the addition of parking spaces to the east. Pedestrians may find the existing parking convenient, however, the proposed parking area may prove to be a safer location, given the proximity to Main Street. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. To date there are no engineering comments. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is service by municipal water and on site septic. Municipal sewers are planned with the Main Street widening project. Consideration should be given to relocating the parking area to the current location of the septic system when the sewers are installed. 7. 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. While the plan is consistent with the variance resolution, consideration should be given to the long range plans for Main Street and the associated landscaping, lighting and sidewalks. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The proposed plan appears to present adequate emergency zones. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) To date there are no engineering comments Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV10-2002, resolved 3/20/02: Permeability requirements, and buffer zone requirements SP 49-99, tabled 5/16/99: 3330 sq. ft. expansion, improvements to graveled parking area, planters and green area. AV 83-1999 resolved 10/20/99: Setback relief, relief from permeability requirements, and relief from buffer zone requirements. AV 19-1997 resolved 7/30/97: Setback relief and buffer zone relief. SP 22-1997 resolved 7/30/97: Warehouse addition & site improvements UV 18-1997 resolved 7/16/97: Expansion of a non-conforming use (wholesale meat distribution). Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of a 3,300 square foot expansion to an existing building. The applicant received an area variance; use variance and a site plan approval in 1997 for the construction of the proposed addition. The applicant had an agreement with a property owner to the south and east to utilize the property for the expansion. The applicant was not able to obtain the property to the north that resulted in the applicant applying for and receiving area variances for permeability and buffer requirements in 1999 and 2002. The applicant was able to obtain the property to the east for use of the expansion and increased parking area. The plan submitted with the application appears to address the zoning board requirements of the area variance that included landscaping and fencing. The applicant states that the New York State Department of Health has stated that they could not maintain any landscaping around the building that might harbor or promote vermin or insects. There are several options available that could meet this requirement and, at the same time, offer additional landscaping around the building. At least along the Main St. side. Staff recommends: ?? Relocation of the spaces in Area I in favor of the proposed spaces shown in Area B. ?? Extension of the fencing or some form of closure of the curb cut to the center of Area I (this would allow one way traffic through the customer parking area) ?? Additional landscaping along Main Street ?? Planning for connection to future sidewalk ?? Planning for future sewer connection and relocation of parking SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor representing the applicant, and with me at the table is Tom Jarrett, the consulting engineer for the project. Basically, I think, at last month’s meeting we had the letter of C.T. Male that was approximately the date of the meeting, that we needed to address. We have addressed it. They have responded. MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male’s seen this? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they have. MR. JARRETT-They saw a letter from us addressing the issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Have they seen this drawing? MR. JARRETT-They have not seen the drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re going to table this until they have an opportunity to review it. I mean, this is frustrating that we get stuff handed to us the night of a meeting, and our consulting engineers haven’t even had an opportunity to look at this. MR. O'CONNOR-The drawing does not reflect anything of the nature of engineering. If I can explain why you have the drawing, it’s based on a conversation that I had with Craig today as to the change of the parking 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) plan, which I thought we had talked out way through last month, without the necessity of changing any plan, and that’s the reason that you have it. MR. MAC EWAN-What is Tom referencing, a conversation you had with C.T. Male regarding this drawing? MR. O'CONNOR-His comments are that he wrote a letter to C.T. Male, based upon their letter of May 15, th and he addressed each of their comments in his letter. They then responded, addressing his, I’m sorry, their, I think, comment letter, initial comment letter, was dated April 23, Craig? rd MR. BROWN-That sounds right. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We, then, responded to that by letter of May 8. They, then responded to our th response by letter of May 15, saying they were satisfied with the engineering concerns that they had raised in th their letter of April 23. You should have all three letters in your packet. rd MR. HUNSINGER-So this new handout is just to show the change in the parking that we had discussed last month? MR. O'CONNOR-It’s to show, basically, how we, I thought we had talked about relocating the fence so that it would be perpendicular to the west, east corner of the building where the three parking spots are, and to show how that fence is going to run across the front of the property, and then also show how we’re going to open up the fencing so that we can access the emergency drive for the exit of the property, and also we have notations thereon as to the signage that we will put on, no parking in front of the building. MR. STROUGH-I thought we were going to add that no parking in front of the loading dock so it wouldn’t interfere, so visitors wouldn’t interfere with the loading trucks, or unloading trucks, whatever the case may be. MR. JARRETT-John, if you look at Drawing C-2, I think it may help you. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’m with you. I see, well, I see three parking spots in front of the loading dock. MR. JARRETT-Well, the dashed, and then it says remove three parking spaces, right in front of the building. MR. STROUGH-I see the remove three parking spaces in front of the building, yes, and then I see three parking spaces in front of where it says concrete slab, loading dock. MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we discussed at the last meeting, John, that we were going to leave those there for the loading and unloading of trucks. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s right, and I thought there would be signage saying that no visitor parking truck loading and unloading. I thought that was kind of part of the agreement, so that we didn’t have visitors parking there, two concerns. One was the redevelopment of Main Street that’s forthcoming, and how that might interfere with that front parking the way it’s designed, and, two, the backing out into Main Street of cars that might park there. Those were two of our concerns. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a pre-existing loading facility and I’m not sure how we define customer parking, but if they come with a van or come with a car, and they typically park there and bring the stuff out on that loading dock and offload it into that car at that place, it was not our intention to change our manner of operation or business. MR. STROUGH-Well, it was mentioned last meeting, if my memory serves me, that it was admitted that cars do often park in the way of trucks that need to load and unload, and I can certainly need visitors who might need to load and unload, and so it should be a loading and unloading zone, but not a general parking area. That’s the way I understood it. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not my intention to try and preserve it as a general loading area. I don’t know that necessarily signage that would accomplish that, other than our internal policing of trying to get people who were not loading goods, but somebody stopping to, I’m not sure why, and I don’t know necessarily, Mr. Strough, why they stop there, whether to pay their bill or pick up something that they can hand carry without a cart or, you know, without something that brings it out to their car, we will encourage them to park in the new area. The new area doesn’t actually enter into the building, even though there’s an entrance there. They’ve still got to come around the front of the building where that little sidewalk is, and go into the front extension of that building. MR. LAPPER-How about a sign that says no parking except loading and unloading? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have a problem with that. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MAC EWAN-John, just for what it’s worth, and my observations in driving up and down that road as often as I do, that the people who have come there like in cars to pick up cases of meat and stuff like that have typically used one of those first two parking spots right by the front door, and by removing those, you’re going to remove that possibility, and if they’re there to pick up something, they’ll move over into the spots in front of the loading docks which I really have never seen cars over there. MR. STROUGH-Well, it also addresses the concern, two concerns, of just not allowing parking there because there is going to be a Main Street renovation, and, two, we do have a concern about cars backing into Main Street, especially during the busy hours. So to avoid that, in our last discussion, we more or less tried to limit the kind of things that would be parked there, and I thought we had agreed that visitor parking would be to the east side of the building, but I may stand alone. We’ll see how the Board feels. That’s just one issue that I had, but I didn’t mean to take away your direction, Mr. Chairman. So if you want to. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got the floor. Run with it. MR. STROUGH-Lighting plans. Are there any? MR. O'CONNOR-There are no lighting changes proposed as opposed to what is there presently. MR. STROUGH-What’s there, obviously, has been sufficient for the operation? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’m not necessarily aware of external lighting. I think there’s some lighting in the back, on the back side toward Second Street, where on the front I don’t think there’s any lighting at all. MR. STROUGH-I’m just wondering about maybe getting that eastern parking area some lighting out there for winter evening hours. It gets dark at four o’clock. I don’t know if they have any lighting over that parking lot area for pedestrians. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s street lighting along there. MR. STROUGH-That might be sufficient. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there’s actually street lighting along there. I’ve been by there at night and never noticed it. It’s a dark, dark area. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Staff just makes a notation wondering if you’re giving consideration to the future landscaping plan when Main Street comes through, and I guess we’ll have to deal with that at a future time. I don’t see that as something we can deal with right now. Of course that’s just my perspective. MR. MAC EWAN-Why not? MR. STROUGH-Well, I guess, given the parking and given the truck loading, and the fact that I don’t know exactly where Main Street’s going to hit along there, I don’t know how to address it. I mean, if we had an overlay and I knew where Main Street was going to go then I could say, well, applicant can’t we do this, but I don’t know where Main Street’s going to go. So I don’t feel comfortable asking the applicant to do something with an unknown. MR. MAC EWAN-How would it be different here than what it was for Cumberland Farms? MR. STROUGH-That was brought up last time, too. At Cumberland Farms we were provided with an overlay. We had something to work with. I don’t know if this part of Main Street’s firm in it’s engineering as maybe that part of Main Street was. I just don’t know why we don’t have an overlay on this, but without an overlay, I can’t work with it and I can’t except the applicant to work with any kind of landscaping plan, at least from my point of view. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments to that, Craig? MR. BROWN-Well, not so much of a difference from last time. The thought is, you know, Main Street will be developed. We did hold Cumberland Farms to a pretty high standard. This is a unique situation. You have an existing building. It’s not a new proposal. It’s not a new Cumberland Farms. So it’s harder to work those Main Street elements into it. I wouldn’t turn a blind eye to it, but it’s hard to do soup to nuts on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we know on that portion of Main Street where the new road is going to lay? MR. BROWN-I have no idea. No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s it for me. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The only issue I had was the one that John just brought up regarding the additional landscaping on Main Street, but that was the extent of the discussion last month. It’s kind of impossible to ask for a landscaping plan. MR. O'CONNOR-When we were before the Zoning Board of Appeals, addressing the zoning variance and zoning condition, at that time we volunteered to put in, I think, quite a bit of landscaping other than what was required. We are landscaping along the easterly line of the property. We’re increasing the landscaping that is in the island that is at the northwest corner of the property, all which was unrelated, in essence, to the variance. We don’t know what the taking will be for the widening or the reconstruction of the Main Street at this point. We’ve inquired. Nobody seems to have that. MR. HUNSINGER-Because that was one of the issues we had talked about last month is, you know, you’re going to do the landscaping on the island and you may end up losing it, you know, who knows. MR. VOLLARO-Say, Chris, we just had a little staff discussion here for a minute on your question. I notice in the ZBA resolution of 20 May, of the 20 day of March, they do make a comment on that, but they say we th would also make the motion contingent on the applicant completing entirely the plantings depicted above, I guess, by June 30, 2002. That’s like a month away. So how could they complete the planting not knowing the interface between the new road, what the taking is and, it seems to me a conflict. MR. O'CONNOR-The planting as shown, is what they’re doing. We had submitted a landscape plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I can see that. MR. O'CONNOR-And stipulated that we would complete what was shown on that plan by June 30, 2002, that included landscaping along the easterly boundary. We may lose a couple of pieces of that landscaping if they take an eight, ten foot strip. We are going to do landscaping in the island, and we may lose part of that also, if they take a strip there. Nobody seems to know what the extent of the widening will be and whether it will be a widening for a shoulder only or a widening for a landscaped area only or actually sidewalk or what they’re going to do. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to put it in, and come what may, whatever happens, the road takings and so on, you might be subject to having some of that. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s a new day. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That was exactly the point, Bob. MR. O'CONNOR-And this thing, and we’re going to close this file. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll know the day the bulldozers roll. MR. HUNSINGER-I had no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to agree with John, and what Mike said, as far as the sign along the front that would just say no parking except for loading and unloading and have a sign, a little sign put there on the building. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay. I have no problem with that. I’m willing to stipulate to that. The language of the sign will be no parking except loading or unloading. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got no parking, loading and unloading only. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. I want to start off with, what Staff commented on in their Staff notes at the very beginning. It says, based on Staff’s opening comments. These are just my notes now. Do we have revised plans, and are these the revised plans that we’re talking about? Right up front on Staff notes it says this application was tabled for engineering comments and revised plans. To date, there has been correspondence between the applicant and C.T. Male, however, no revised plans. Now, maybe I ought to be asking my Staff that question. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that C.T. Male signed off based upon written correspondence to them, not new plans, and I think that had to do with the nature of their questions and also the nature of their responses. The plan that is submitted was something that we developed today, after I spoke with Craig. I thought we had verbally set up what we were going to do for the parking area. I did not intend to set up new plans. This would be a new plan, I think, to show parking, or the modification of Parking I, which eliminates the three spots, shows the extension of the fencing. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask Staff that question. Is that, you were not expecting new plans? MR. BROWN-Well, I guess I would just go back to the tabling motion from April 23, tabled until the first rd meeting in May. The reason for tabling to address C.T. Male comments and also to reconfigure Parking Area I, as shown on the plan to eliminate customer parking. If you’re going to reconfigure the plans, I mean, it’s only logical to expect new plans, and I think these reflect three spaces to be removed, an extension of the fence, which is I think the direction the Board was headed last time. I just had a question, if I could. This is the first time I’ve seen the plan. Just so I understand. It says remove first two sections of fence for egress. Is that from the new parking area to the fire lane? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BROWN-Is there going to be a connector a gravel connector there or is there going to be just traffic over the grass or? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. JARRETT-It actually essentially is a gravel connector now. When we put the new drywell in, we’ll connect it. I can show that. MR. BROWN-So it won’t be grass in there? MR. JARRETT-There’s really very little grass now. MR. BROWN-Okay. I just want to make sure, when I go out to look, we find what we’re supposed to find. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I’ll go on. I’m going to go to C.T. Male’s letter of May 15, 2002, Number Three. It says no new information was presented. The drainage design is dependent upon observation made by the applicant’s consultant. So, really we don’t have, I haven’t seen any stormwater plan or any engineering plan that shows exactly how this is going. I realize this is a flat piece, but there’s, for example, there’s no supporting engineering data, nor is it on the print, that shows the location of the two drywells or any engineering to support the separation distances. It just isn’t on there, and yet they’re part of your stormwater management plan, and they’re not on the print, and I can’t get the two of those together. I think in your conclusions, starting on Page Four of the stormwater management plan, it talks about recommended stormwater controls include two new drywells located near Main Street. One would be located on the gravel parking area, and one would be located at the intersection of the gravel fire access lane and Main Street. Now that kind of puts it in some sort of jeopardy, based on what we were just talking about on expanding Main Street, and one thing I wouldn’t want to see is us put drywells in that spot and then have them busted up because Main Street’s going to get redone. MR. JARRETT-A couple of issues of clarity. We submitted the stormwater plan in March and it was reviewed last month. C.T. Male commented on the plan and suggested a number of items, including moving one of the drywells, which we have done in the plan. MR. VOLLARO-They talk about separation distances. MR. JARRETT-Correct, yes. You’ll note we discussed last month at this meeting, the Planning Board meeting, that we recommended on our plan t hat the drywell not be installed until the Main Street plan is firmed up or completed, and we discussed that last month, and I guess there was some confusion as to how best to approach that. I believe the other issues you’ve raised we addressed in correspondence, and C.T. Male has signed off on, unless I’m misunderstanding you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only thing, the last letter I see from C.T. Male, the last one I looked at, is dated May 15, 2002. Now is there a later memo than that? That is the latest C.T. Male letter. Now, in number three, you know, the words, if you read the rate, it says the draining design is dependent upon observations 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) made by the applicant’s consultant. I read those words as saying there isn’t enough engineering data to support that, and, you know, I don’t think there is either, and I have a problem with that. MR. JARRETT-Well, we stated at last month’s meeting that this is an existing site. It’s already been developed. We observe drainage conditions on the site, rather than predict them, based on contours, and we’ve reflected that in our report. The drawings that you have before you tonight show those drainage patters, to clarify for the Board. MR. VOLLARO-These are the new drawings you just gave us tonight. MR. JARRETT-Yes. They show, on Drawing C-1, it shows the speculated pre-development condition, and the actual post-development conditions that we observed. MR. MAC EWAN-Will you stamp these drawings? MR. JARRETT-I certainly will, yes. I stamped the report, well, I’ll stamp these drawings individually. MR. MAC EWAN-And the report as well has already been done. Just a question for counsel. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, let’s go down the road here about four years and figure that the Main Street corridor has been revamped, a drywell has been put in. Now we have drywell failure. If we don’t have a stormwater management report, or a bonafide plan to support that engineering on that, what recourse do we have as a Town to remedy a situation if it’s a bad situation? MR. SCHACHNER-As far as, as regards to the applicant, you likely would not have any recourse. If you approve the plan as proposed, based on the information presented, and you’re comfortable with C.T. Male’s review of it, and in your hypothetical exercise I didn’t hear anything that the applicant did to alter any of the existing site conditions, then you wouldn’t have recourse against the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What I see here, though, right now, is that the applicant, in terms of those two putting in, as part of his stormwater management plan, he introduces two drywells, as a solution, and those two drywells are being put up close to Main Street, it looks like to me. MR. JARRETT-One is. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got to look at the new drawing, though, where he’s relocated them. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. One is. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me, but doesn’t the note, am I misunderstanding, or doesn’t the note say stormwater drywells to be installed following confirmation of Main Street development plan? MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine, but that means that if Main Street takes a year and a half, there is no stormwater plan on this site. MR. SCHACHNER-If you approve that applicant’s request. Correct, but on the other hand, I’m not suggesting how you should go here. You know that’s your decision, but on the other hand, that would seem to at least accommodate the situation you’re describing of what if they put the drywells in and then Main Street takes them out? Which is basically what I understand to be one of your concerns. Right? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The compromise would be that we install the one, and leave the other out until we get confirmation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. See these are all questions that, I’m not a stormwater management expert, by a long range, and if we take 50% of the solution away, then we may not have a stormwater management plan that suffices for the property. MR. O'CONNOR-The water shed you’re talking about here is in a pre-existing lot who’s drainage has not been altered at all by the construction that’s been put in place. If anything, the only thing that has occurred is 3700 square feet of maybe additional parking, maybe not additional parking, and I’d say maybe not because if you take the fire lane as not being not permeable, you haven’t increased even the non-permeable area on this. We went through all that with the Zoning Board of Appeals. You’re talking about that area that’s right in the front part of the lot, which I think, obviously, with the building being on two sides of it or two ends of it, the only thing that is, the watershed that is there is that little piece. I don’t even know if the roof goes that way or it doesn’t. Part of the roof also adds to that I would say, but, I mean, you’re not talking about a great deal of drainage. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. MR. STROUGH-Another advantage, though, to the applicant’s request to put these in after the confirmation of Main Street development plan would be, I’m thinking of the possibility that we’re going to eliminate that septic area and maybe have future parking back there. That’s a possibility, and in order to connect, I’m not sure where the piping’s going to go to connect to the new sewer line. I certainly wouldn’t want one of those drywells being in the way for that connection. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, John, but what I’m saying is, what you’re saying and what I’m saying is that if we don’t find a place to put adequate, if these two drywells are the solution to the drainage problem on this site as proposed in the stormwater management plan, and we don’t put them in, then we don’t have a stormwater management plan for this site. In other words, if we’re going to wait for Main Street, we don’t have a stormwater management plan. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Maybe I can ask the Chairman or Staff. Can we give a partial approval and say that the applicant has to come back once we have the Main Street plan confirmed for a final landscaping and stormwater review? MR. BROWN-I wouldn’t recommend that. I think it may be easy, and the applicant’s engineer maybe can confirm. Maybe the drywell closest to Main Street, is it possible to relocate it, do some minor regarding and take a best guess? If it’s 20 feet from Main Street it’s not going to be affected? MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask you a question, and I don’t ask it facetiously. Would it make you more comfortable if we replanted that parking lot? MR. VOLLARO-You mean where it says stone parking, that lot? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I mean, the applicant here thinks he’s gone as far as he can go and my authority for this evening is that if you don’t want to approve this, then just consider that the parking lot is not going to be built. MR. VOLLARO-So you would, essentially, propose to grass that for higher permeability. Is that the idea? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Just out of frustration. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-This has been going on for three years, folks. I mean, he’s tried, in good faith, to present as much evidence as he can present, or as much information as he can present. Now I’m not trying to, I’m a newcomer, and I’ve said this before, to the application, to the status of the application. You’re talking about 3700 square feet here that may or may not be new non-permeable activity on this site. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not as simple as that, Mike. I mean, it’s not like it’s 3700 square feet out in the middle of a field. I mean, we have the impact of a new road going to be built through here. We have the impact of heavy traffic. It is a very tight site to begin with. I mean, it’s an older site. Over the years it’s been added on and revised as the years have gone by, and there have been some issues of previously approved site plans on this site that haven’t been brought into compliance. So it’s not all that easy. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t disagree with you, okay. I do agree with you, but I think the item that’s before you, in essence, for site plan review, different from the 1997 or 1999 application, is that parking area. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I don’t really have an issue with not putting in that drywell closest to Main Street. I mean, to me it just would make sense at this point not to put one in because you don’t know what the end result’s going to be on the corridor. MR. O'CONNOR-I would stipulate that we have an obligation to put a second drywell in that of that size, once we are able to determine the location or the effect of the boundary of the taking for the widening of the Main Street. MR. VOLLARO-Well, so long as the engineer thinks that that one well will suffice and would take the load, then we would go along with 50% of it. MR. O'CONNOR-Obviously, one well doesn’t, or we wouldn’t tell you we’re going to put in two. We know we need two. I mean, I’m not going to beg the question and say, I’ll put in one and it will satisfy the issue. I don’t think we’ve designed two. MR. VOLLARO-No. Your stormwater design is basically two wells. No question about that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. JARRETT-That’s right. One well won’t handle it. I will say this. based on my observations, the greatest offsite impact, in other words water flowing into the Main Street curb line, most of it was coming out of the fire lane. So the drywell there, if that’s installed, will probably do the most to prevent offsite impacts. MR. MAC EWAN-And the plus, as well, is the redesign of the road is going to help, too, with drainage in the road. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think that was one question I had from the very beginning. Shouldn’t we wait and see what they’re going to put in for the drainage of the road? Because they’re going to take in the watershed not only of our site. They’re going to take in Second Street and they’re going to take in, further to the west and to the east, I don’t think to the east, but to the west on Main Street. There’s a lot of property here that contributes to that watershed, and it’s all going to have to be captured by the State plan when they widen. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, could we condition approval that says, and specify it clearly, that the drywell in the fire lane be installed upon approval of this site plan, and the second drywell to be installed upon confirmation of the new right of way for Main Street, or the final plans as approved for Main Street? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I understood the applicant to be willing to so stipulate, and if the applicant is willing to so stipulate, then I guess my only suggestion would be that there’d be some timeframe attached to it so that such a condition would be clear that it says within X amount of time after final alignment, final reconfiguration, or however you want to put it, of Main Street, whatever’s appropriate, but that there be a certain amount of time so that we don’t have an enforcement issue as to, well, how much time do they have to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I understand that, but what’s the vehicle the Town would use to be notified as to when the final road configuration would be adopted or the final set of plans adopted. How would we know? MR. BROWN-Maybe when the road gets painted. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t get any drawings or anything from DOT relevant to this? MR. SCHACHNER-Not officially. MR. BROWN-Not officially. MR. O'CONNOR-We would take the burden of notifying the Town when we receive the actual mapping that effects this property, and we would install that drywell, weather permitting, within six months of receiving that mapping, and I think that would give you as much, probably we’d have the drywell in before they actually did the road construction. MR. SCHACHNER-As a practical matter, I suspect Mr. O’Connor is correct, but I’m going to suggest some other wording because then, in theory, if they never get the mapping, they never have the obligation. So I guess I would be, I suspect that that is how it would play out and that that would work. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically they’d give us maps, they serve us with maps and say this is how we’re going to affect your property. MR. SCHACHNER-They are supposed to do that. That’s correct. My concern is that, the way he’s proposing it, if DOT doesn’t fulfill its obligation to give them these maps, then their obligation never kicks in. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I asked, what kind of notification does the Town get? What kind of role do we play? MR. SCHACHNER-But again, I’m not aware of any official notification. Mr. Jarrett, were you disagreeing with me on that or were you agreeing with me on that, or neither? MR. JARRETT-Not disagreeing on that point, but the Town will certainly officially get plans for that corridor. MR. STROUGH-How about if we word it, publicly available? MR. O'CONNOR-I think the Town will get notice because the sewer line is going to go up there, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-That seems likely. I just don’t know if we get official notification or not. MR. O'CONNOR-They’re a partner in that whole corridor development. That’s part of the sewer line extension. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. SCHACHNER-That seems very likely. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we word it in such a way, upon verification by the Town that the design has been approved? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that would be better. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s easy enough. What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure that because of a couple of things that the ZBA put in their motion for approval, one of them was to move the stockade fence on the property owned by James and Judith Fish. That means that that stockade fence goes, as I see it, coincident with the property line? Is that what they were driving at in their motion, do you know? MR. O'CONNOR-It will, I don’t have that map in front of me. It will to the corner of the back loading docks. It was spelled out in the motion by the Town. If you look at the map, there’s a seven foot five concrete pad, and the stipulation was that the existing stockade fence would be relocated to the property line to a point from Second Street to the corner of that pad. It will then be discontinued until you get to the 19.6 boundary, and then it will be put along that boundary, and then it will be put along the 86.01 boundary. That’s my recollection. MR. VOLLARO-So, essentially, that almost is coincident with the property line itself, on that description. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Except it is not required directly behind the building. MR. VOLLARO-I see that. Okay. I just want to catch some of the words from that ZBA approval. I don’t know whether we want to mention the ZBA approval or not, in our motion or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I believe it probably already is in the prepared. I believe it probably already is referenced in the prepared. I’ll double check for you. Continue asking questions. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see a waiver. Did you folks request a waiver on the lighting plan? Has that been requested? And we should be, if you do request it, we should be able to approve a waiver. MR. O'CONNOR-We so request it, and we’ll submit one to you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not been raised before. MR. MAC EWAN-See, it’s right here, AV 10. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s in there. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board, Staff? Applicant? MR. O'CONNOR-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-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-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) RESOLUTION NO. 49-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A PROVISIONS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Do you guys have a motion drafted down there? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve got a couple of conditions, and I think Bob had one more, but I didn’t catch it, but let me read what I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-No parking space delineation striping will be made in Area I. A sign will be added disallowing parking other than that for loading and unloading purposes. The sign will read no parking. Loading and unloading only, and the sign will be affixed to the building in a place that will properly address the situation. That’s condition one. Condition Two, upon verification from the Town that a confirmation of the final Main Street development plan is publicly available, the applicant will install the drywell closest to Main Street as noted on Plan C-2. MR. MAC EWAN-Within six months. MR. STROUGH-Within six months. MR. MAC EWAN-Of notice by Town. How’s that? MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll start off the condition within six months, upon notification. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-You had mentioned having these drawings stamped. Do we need to put that as a condition? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’ve got three things to be stamped, these two drawings plus the stormwater management plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I think that already was. Wasn’t it? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Just reaffirming it. MR. JARRETT-My copy is not. I thought it was. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at Drawings C-1, C-2, dated February 2002, and your stormwater report dated March 2002. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, you may want to have the final project plans be a revision to the original plan submitted, the Rourke survey map. That’s a scaled drawing. These are not to scale, and for the final project plan it should be accurate drawings that show all the comments and all the conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. MR. BROWN-That was the original submission, was the survey map. MR. SCHACHNER-Does so noted mean that’s a condition of John’s motion? MR. MAC EWAN-John’s going to put it in there. He hasn’t fully gone through yet. We’re kind of discussing it. MR. STROUGH-All right. What I have now is, since there’s no dating on it, final drawings. MR. O'CONNOR-The identification of Drawings C-1 and C-2 are dated February 2002, revised 5/21/02. You may want the revision date. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, yes. Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Well, aren’t they going to be revised again? MR. MAC EWAN-They are revised, right there. MR. VOLLARO-Lower right hand corner, John. Very small. MR. JARRETT-Just above the title block. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I can’t read it. What’s it say? MR. SCHACHNER-Revised 5/21/02, 8:45 a.m. MR. JARRETT-Just to clarify in my mind, we originally issued these drawings in this format with our report, and I can do one of two things. I can issue a new report with these drawings attached, all of them stamped, the report and the two drawings, at this scale, or I can leave the report as is and print these full scale and stamp them full scale, full size. MR. VOLLARO-To the same scale as you’ve got this one. This is one to twenty. MR. BROWN-Full scale with all the comments and conditions. MR. JARRETT-Full scale, full size. MR. HUNSINGER-With all the comments and conditions on one plot. MR. JARRETT-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t get that last part. What I have now is final drawings dated February 2002, revised May 21, 2002, and stormwater plan dated March 2002 will be stamped by Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC, and was there something about the drawings being full size, full scale? MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we could take out is that last verbiage there, that last condition. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. BROWN-I think that whole last condition. If we’re going to get a new set of plans, we don’t have to worry about stamping these. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Including, how do you want to phrase, it, though, so that we get it all tied together? MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant will file a final plan. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, what Chris said before, which was the applicant, something to the effect, I’m not putting words in his mouth, but Chris said something to the effect of the applicant will file a final project design plan, full scale, stamped by the engineer, that will reflect all the conditions of approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you remember that? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. O'CONNOR-We so stipulate. There’s a form letter that Craig sends out whether you make this part of your motion or not that says submit 15 copies of the drawings, including show all conditions of approval. I’ve always thought that was a little bit of overkill. He does it with every application, whether you put it in your resolution or don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t know you were doing that. MR. BROWN-I just didn’t want to use these as the final drawings, because they’re. MR. MAC EWAN-So then we can’t basically say form letter by Craig? MR. BROWN-It’s good to have on the record. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree with Staff. We’ve come this far. Why not let Mr. Hunsinger help Mr. Strough frame the condition. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m only kidding. Let’s go. MR. STROUGH-Well, the only thing I got out of what Mark said is the final plans to be submitted will show all conditions and agreements. What should I add to that? MR. MAC EWAN-All conditions and approvals. MR. STROUGH-And approvals. MR. SCHACHNER-All conditions of approval, stamped by licensed professional engineer, full scale. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and stamped by Jarrett-Martin Engineers. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’ve got it, John. MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A PROVISIONS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 49-99 Applicant: Ben Aronson / Double A Provisions Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Michael J. O’Connor Zone: CR-15 Location: 64 Main Street Applicant proposes a 3,330 sq. ft. expansion to an existing business. Site Plan Review and approval will resolve non-compliance issues. Site improvements include a graveled parking area, green area and planters. Planning Board review and approval is required for the proposed improvements in CR zones. Cross Reference: AV 24-1992, AV 29-2992, UV 14-1994, AV 15- 1994, UV 18-1997, AV 19-1997, AV 83-1999, AV 10-2002 Tax Map No. 134-6-2, 130-1-21 Lot size: 1.70 acres, 0.49 acres 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) Section: 179-24 Public Hearing: April 23, 2002 WHEREAS, new information was received on 3/27/02; the file includes all previously received materials, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/17/02: 5/21 Staff Notes 5/16 CT Male comments 5/8 Jarrett-Martin response to CT Male comments 5/1 Meeting Notice 4/23 Planning Board resolution - Tabled 4/23 Staff Notes 4/16 Notice of Public Hearing 4/4 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 23 and May 21, 2002; and rd 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. No Parking Space delineation striping will be made in Area I. The sign will be added disallowing parking other than that for loading and unloading purposes. The sign will read “No Parking Loading and Unloading Only”. The sign will be affixed to the building in a place that will properly address this situation, and 2. Within six (6) months of verification from the Town that a confirmation of a final Main Street development is publicly available, the applicant will install the drywell closest to Main Street, as noted on Plan C-2, and 3. The final full scale plans to be submitted will show all conditions and approvals and be stamped by Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC, and 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 5/21/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: a. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 32-98 TYPE II MODIFICATION OMALL FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: WILLIAM TROMBLEY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 295 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING SITE PLAN – CHANGE IN USE. LAST USED AS FURNITURE STORE (J. ALLEN FURNITURE); NEW USE TO BE HEALTH FOCUS OF N.Y. WITH OFFICES, STOCK AREAS, RETAIL SALES AREAS AND ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. RETAIL BUSINESSES IN HC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: P3-93, AV 40-1998 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.25 LOT SIZE: 43,350 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-22 BILL TROMBLEY & AL BOYCHUK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And no public hearing on the modification. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-98, Modification, Omall Family Ltd. Partnership, Meeting Date: May 21, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to an existing site plan. Proposed new use would be Health Focus of NY, with offices, stock areas, retail sales and site improvements. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Retail businesses, such as the proposed use, are allowable site plan review uses in the Highway Commercial 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? The proposed use will require the extension of the Town of Queensbury sewer district in this area. The property is not currently within the established sewer district. 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 proposed site modifications appear to be an improvement to the existing conditions. Currently, the site is accessed by an uncontrolled open curb cut across the front of the site. The proposed, controlled access drive would be an improvement. 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? The necessary extension of the sewer district appears to be the only significant impact to supporting public facilities. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) With the exception of the removal of a loading dock, no exterior changes to the building are proposed. The existing freestanding sign is to be removed and no new freestanding sign is shown on the project plan. No lighting details have been submitted with this application. No waiver requested. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The proposed off street parking layout and on site traffic patterns appear to be an improvement to the existing conditions. The proposed one-in, one-out access point is preferred over the open uncontrolled access to and from Dix Avenue currently on the site. 3. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The project plan depicts a sidewalk/handicap ramp along the Dix Avenue side of the building. 4. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed stormwater management plan appears to direct the stormwater, through sheet flow, to the grass and landscaped areas on the site. The plans call for an excavated area to the north of the new parking area. No details regarding this “basin” have been provided. Staff suggests more detailed information be submitted prior to approval. 5. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is serviced by the municipal water system. Apparently, the applicant seeks permission to be included in the existing Dix Ave sewer district. This process has not been completed. started? 6. 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. Minimal landscaping is proposed along Dix Ave. Grass areas are proposed for the remainder of the permeable spaces. 7. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The site appears to adequately provide emergency access areas. 8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. No grading plan, existing or proposed, was included with this application. Notes on the project plan appear to indicate that all impermeable areas will be positively drained to avoid ponding. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan 32-98 resolved 7/15/98: 4000 sq. ft. addition to furniture store. Staff comments: The proposed site layout appears to be an improvement to the access management of the site. Any approvals, if considered, should include conditions relative to the property gaining approval to be within the sewer district. The site lighting and landscaping proposals, as submitted, appear to be minimal. Staff may have erroneously informed the applicant with regards to the parking space size requirements. To date, no responses to the CT Male comments have been received. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. BROWN-The proposed site plan appears to be an improvement to the, initially, the access management on the site. Right now there’s just a wide open curb cut there. What the applicant’s plan depicts is a formalized one in, one out access drive and much smaller size, is preferable. Any approvals, however, should 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) consider and include conditions relative to the property gaining approval to be within the Tech Park sewer district over there. There’s a map plan and report process that I believe the applicant has already undertaken. I have a draft right here in front of me. The site lighting, landscaping proposal as they were submitted anyways appear to be minimal, not a lot of information with those plans. Originally, we may have had some conflict on what the parking size requirements were. I think the applicant’s addressed that one sufficiently with C.T. Male, and until today, I think, or very recently, we hadn’t had any comments back from C.T. Male. I think the applicant’s spoke with C.T. Male at length. There’s literally a laundry list of comments from C.T. Male I think the applicant could probably address. I don’t know if they’ve addressed all of them or revised any plans for tonight, but it appears that there’s a solution to all the comments from C.T. Male. I don’t know if they’re done yet, but, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. TROMBLEY-Good evening. MR. BOYCHUK-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. BOYCHUK-Al Boychuk. MR. TROMBLEY-Bill Trombley. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. Do you want to start with the C.T. Male letter? Do you have the one that was received today, May 21? Do you want to respond to their comments? There’s several of them on st there, 12 of them. MR. BOYCHUK-Number One, the parking issue was complied with, with the Town’s new regulation. The existing paved grass area, that was discussed. We are adding, in the front, two berms and a green area of approximately 3,000 square feet, eliminating the open driveway of 100 foot down to a 24 in and out. We’re proposing, in the rear, to add additional parking for the parking spaces needed, requested by the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you, on Number Seven? MR. BOYCHUK-No, Number Three. MR. MAC EWAN-Number Three still? Okay. How many parking spots are you adding in the rear? MR. BOYCHUK-Well, all total, there will be 40. All total there is 40 right now, but when we address Number Seven, there’ll be 39. The Town Code requires 37 for the usage of this property, and that’s on the map, the plot plan, in the upper left hand corner, where that figure was obtained from. The calculation was, for retail space, five spaces per thousand. We’d be required to have nine, for office space, one space per three hundred square feet. We would be required to have 15. For stockroom area, 4400 square feet, one space per thousand. We would need five, and then there’s eight company vehicles that would be left on premise, for a total of 37 required spaces. On the drawing there is 40, including two handicapped, the front of the building, where there’ll be a new ramp going along the front of the building to accommodate handicap people. It’s a total of 40 spaces if we address Number Seven on C.T. Male, that’s taking the one parking space out that is in the northwest corner, he felt that it would be a little difficult maneuvering in there. In talking with C.T. Male, they agreed that that parking space, without it, we could come across and green that a little better and have our swale area leading to the retention area for stormwater in the rear. MR. VOLLARO-Did C.T. Male, I don’t see them addressing the nine foot wide space. Are all your spaces based on eight and a half feet now? MR. BOYCHUK-That’s according to the new code adopted by the Town of Queensbury, as of May 1. st That was the information that was given to us by the Building Department or Zoning Department. Correct, Craig? MR. BROWN-Yes, that was the information that we gave them. That’s what I talked about in the beginning. The eight and a half foot wide spot is an allowable use if you get a parking lot with a lot of parking spaces, you’re allowed to have a reduction for smaller cars. Typical spaces, the parking space is nine by eighteen. I gave you some misinformation there. I read the eight and a half from the Code, but it relates to larger parking lots. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the new Code. MR. BROWN-The new Code. MR. MAC EWAN-This was submitted last month, so it was the old Code. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. BROWN-It was submitted under the new Code. MR. MAC EWAN-This was? Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So, based on that, this drawing should show nine feet. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-Correct, and I think that C.T. Male says that the spaces were okay. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but we don’t have the updated drawings. MR. BROWN-Right. I think that’s what we’re going to get to here is that the drawing needs to be revised before you guys can act on it, but that’s to be determined. MR. VOLLARO-Which one of C.T. Male’s comments addresses that? MR. HUNSINGER-Number One. MR. STROUGH-Number One. MR. HUNSINGER-Parking space width in compliance as submitted. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says in compliance as submitted. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, they looked at a different plan than we did. MR. VOLLARO-They got a different plan. MR. STROUGH-They got the updated one. MR. VOLLARO-I see. So we’re not looking at the right plans. MR. STROUGH-No. MR. TROMBLEY-Don’t you have eight and a half on yours? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I have eight and a half on mine. MR. BOYCHUK-That is the plan. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s not the Code. Nine is the Code. MR. BOYCHUK-That isn’t what we were told. MR. STROUGH-Nine is the Code. MR. BROWN-Nine is the Code. I told you I gave, I just said, there was misinformation. Eight and a half is for parking lots that have. MR. VOLLARO-In excess of 45, I think it says. MR. BROWN-That was an error on my part. It should have been nine. The only change to the parking space is it went from nine by twenty to nine by 18. MR. STROUGH-Well, first thing, though, do they need this much parking? I mean, the operation is Health Focus. MR. TROMBLEY-They asked for 30 parking spaces, John, but the Town Code, according to the requirements, would bring it up to 37. MR. STROUGH-We can reduce that if there’s no need for it, but, anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t mean to jump in. MR. TROMBLEY-And obviously if we reduced down from the 40 that’s there, or the 39 when we take that one off the corner, if we reduce down, that will allow us to make them nine feet wide without any problem. I mean, we’re only picking up six inches to each parking space. So that would help in that respect as well. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Everything we’re reviewing in May came under the new Code, right? MR. STROUGH-April 1, or May 1. stst MR. BROWN-Well, the new Code was adopted April 1. st MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it comes into effect May 1. st MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got there, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Am I up? MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. Did we get through all your comments? Okay. Why don’t we finish it up. MR. BOYCHUK-According to the drawing, again, I revert back to the plot plan. What is new pavement in this plot plan drawing is everything coming off Dix Avenue, where you see the 24 in and out. Going up the west side of the building and around the back. That is all new paving area. That is all to be sloped away from the building, to provide proper runoff. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to take that loading dock out? MR. BOYCHUK-Yes, we are. Number Three, that paving would be done in accordance to what commercial parking lots are consistent of. I’m not real sure on the figures. I think it’s six inches of like Item Four as a gravel base, and then a stone base on top of that, and then three inches of macadam, but I believe that that would come from a paving contractor. That would give us those numbers. Number Four, we discussed the intended drainage patterns and the location of the retention basin. The retention basin is to be in the rear, which the property basically adjoins Nemer/Dodge/Chrysler. This property does adjoin theirs, and it would be in the rear would be the retention basin. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on these comments that C.T. Male made in this letter of today, have you started revising your drawing to submit to them for their review? MR. TROMBLEY-No, we didn’t. We were not notified of any of C.T. Male’s comments in reference to any of our drawings until like May 17. This being May 21, and with the weekend, we really didn’t have a thst chance. I called C.T. Male and set up an appoint to meet with Jim Houston to go over these issues, knowing that we had to come before site plan. These people are in here under a hardship situation, due to the fact that they were removed out of the plaza, as most of you know, and, consequently, we didn’t want to lose this meeting tonight. So I called for that meeting with C.T. Male to see if we could address these and maybe if we can’t get a 100% approval, that we could get approval upon certain contingencies that we follow through on any questions that you may have or anything. MR. MAC EWAN-On that note, we would be reluctant to do that, to give a partial approval to say like move in and come into compliance with 60 days or 90 days or whatever. I mean, it just seems that there’s an awful lot of items on this that they have brought to attention that need to be addressed, and primarily most of those are relative to the drawing itself, and site plan drawing, and I think that, to be at a comfort level, we would want to see that drawing revised and submitted to C.T. Male to get their stamp on it and their approval on it, so to speak, and we could pick this thing up here. They’re anxious to move in, are they, is that the situation? MR. BOYCHUK-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-How long will it take you to get your drawing up to, responded to these comments? MR. TROMBLEY-Bill Montgomery’s is out of town for the month. He left maybe, I’m going to say two weeks ago. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s Attorney Montgomery? MR. TROMBLEY-No. This is the architect that did the landscaping drawing for us, and he would have to be the one to revise his own drawings because these are stamped drawings. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s gone for a month? MR. TROMBLEY-Well, we might be at two weeks now, because he’s been gone a couple of weeks. MR. MAC EWAN-I really don’t see us forging ahead on this thing tonight. I just see too many uncertainties that need to be addressed to the satisfaction of C.T. Male. I mean, certainly, the Board is willing to do a special meeting for you, considering the circumstances that these proposed tenants want to get into the building, but I’m unwilling to move this ahead without giving C.T. Male, the ability to review a revised drawing with the conversations you’ve had with them and the issues they’ve outlined in this. What I think I 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) would be willing to do is we’ll table this application so that you can revise the drawings, and get a hold of Mr. Montgomery as quickly as you can get the drawings submitted to C.T. Male, I mean, I’m at a comfort level that I’d be willing to hold a special meeting for them next month, but considering you’re talking right now about a three week window here, it would bring us close to our first meeting in June anyway, but if it’s something you could turn around in the next week or ten days, you know, get a hold of Craig, and we’d be willing to put together a special meeting for you to help you guys out and get this tenant in the building. MR. TROMBLEY-It would all be contingent on the timeframe, it would be contingent on Bill Montgomery, when he got back. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously, and also the review factor that C.T. Male has, but I just don’t see, you know, for your benefit and our benefit tonight, to spend a whole heck of a lot of time on this when we’re looking at 12 significant issues that need to be addressed and incorporated into the site plan. What’s the absolute latest that your tenants need to be in that building? I mean, they’re at the Northway Plaza now, is that where they are? MR. BOYCHUK-They were evicted. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re out of there already. MR. BOYCHUK-They are out of there. They’re utilizing the storage area in the building. They’re in two different locations in Queensbury. They had to split up their offices. The mass of their people really is up in the Hiland, up at Hiland Golf Course, those offices, off to the left of the clubhouse. They’re renting in there on a per month, whatever they can, but it makes their operation a little hard because all their equipment is obviously down at this building. They had to get out of there to put somewhere. MR. MAC EWAN-We understand that. I hope you understand our position as well, that, you know, there’s too many engineering comments on here that I think that if we were to try to forge ahead and do a conditional approval, there’s so many items here that it would be difficult to put in such a language that we could cover it in a resolution, without having a drawing to correspond and relate to to all these comments. It would be easier, and more beneficial for everybody in the long run, including yourselves, to have the drawing reflect these comments that they’re looking for to be revised. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, can I ask a question. Is there a door in the back of the building or access for the people that park in the back to go to the front? MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, there is, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the customers and the workers can enter the building through the back? MR. BOYCHUK-Customers mostly in the front. MR. TROMBLEY-Customers would be in the front. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because it just looked like it was such a long span there that, and I didn’t see any walkways to go around to the front, and I didn’t see a door in the back. MR. BOYCHUK-There is a door in the back, and that would be, the pavement comes right level with that doorway, as it slopes away. So that’s total handicap accessibility there for the employees as well in back. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Trombley, did you end up having an opportunity to sit down with Jim Houston with C.T. Male? MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, we did, for about an hour and a half, and we did discuss a lot of these issues. MR. MAC EWAN-And this basically, this letter to us is a summary of your meeting with him the other day? MR. BOYCHUK-Correct. MR. TROMBLEY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, that’s what I’d like to do is table this application and give you an opportunity to revise your site plan drawing accordingly to meet the concerns we have in this. In the mean time, get a hold of Mr. Montgomery and see if he can’t expedite your end of it a little bit better, and if you get this stuff all put together in a reasonable amount of time, give Craig a call and tell him you’ve got the submission to make sure that C.T. Male has them, and we can try to help you out if it’s going to save you a week or two on top of having to wait for a regular meeting. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. TROMBLEY-Al just gave Craig a copy of the, and not to take up a lot of your time, but a copy of the sewer line that will be done going out, you know, to hook into the sewer system, and Tom Nace did that, and maybe if he got involved in the stormwater, with his services, his engineering services, that that could help expedite it as well. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t speak for Mr. Nace, but I’m willing to bet that he could probably address every one of these concerns satisfactorily on the drawing. MR. TROMBLEY-That’s what I thought. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d save yourself a lot of time in having to wait another couple of weeks for Mr. Montgomery. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, it’s great that something is going in there. MR. BOYCHUK-It’s been vacant for about two years. MR. MAC EWAN-I honestly think we can get there. It’s just a matter of just getting all our ducks lined up here. That’s all. I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. Is there something you want to add? MR. BROWN-Well, since you mentioned public hearing, there was one advertised. I don’t think it’s necessary for a modification. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. BROWN-But if you want to do that, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s true. Point taken. I don’t need to bother with the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it was advertised for a public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Was it noticed as one? MR. BROWN-It appears to be that it was, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, we’ll put it up and open it. We’ll open it up and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-My comment was going to be a question. In an effort to expedite this for the applicant, are there any other generic questions about the site? We like it, we’d like less parking? Rather than just C.T. Male comments, how about any Board comments that the applicant could address. MR. STROUGH-I, personally, I’ll go with less parking. I don’t know if this kind of an operation needs close to 50 parking spaces. Of course they’re going to be less once you make them a nine foot width, but certainly, and the applicant says they need at least 30. That seems reasonable, and if he’s going to need some of that space for stormwater drainage and/or enhanced landscaping, I certainly would be willing to give up the Code’s number of parking spaces for this operation, speaking for myself. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I tend to agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-I would, too. MR. BROWN-No, you couldn’t give up the number of spaces. That’s a Zoning Board variance. If they could show all the spaces on the site, you could require that they not develop them, but you can’t give them relief from the parking. MR. STROUGH-I think Town Code. MR. SCHACHNER-No, if it’s a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, then you can’t waive it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand what we’re talking about? If you feel like you don’t need to actually pave all the parking spaces, demonstrate it and leave it, you know, 10 or 12 of them or whatever as green space. It save you some money in the long run. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I don’t want my earlier comment to be misconstrued. I’m not saying you have to leave the public hearing open. If you want to close it, I don’t care. If it was advertised for a public hearing, I think you should open the public hearing. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. My policy is if we table something, we leave it open. Any other comments from Board members? MR. METIVIER-How many spaces were approved for this, or are required for this, I guess is what, the 37? MR. TROMBLEY-Thirty-seven is required by the Town. MR. METIVIER-I actually, just doing quick math, took the exact same space, square footage and increased it to nine and you’re exactly thirty parking spaces. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With six more inches on each parking spot you’ve lost 10? MR. METIVIER-Your 12 went to 9. Your 9 went to 8 and your 6 went to 5. So you’re at exactly 30. MR. TROMBLEY-Couldn’t be, because you’re talking about losing one fourth of your parking spaces for the sake of six inches. When you look at eight and a half feet going across, you’ve got a lot of six inches there. You’ve got more than four. If it was 24 inches wide and you lost 6, you’d lose one fourth of that 24, four times would be your 24 inches. You’re talking eight and a half feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get some guidance on that? MR. BROWN-I think for every one eight and a half foot wide spot, you’d take, you can make 17 compliant. I mean, there’s 17 half inches in eight and a half. MR. TROMBLEY-That’s right. MR. BROWN-So I think you’re in the right ballpark. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to reduce it by two in that corner anyway. MR. TROMBLEY-If we could took off two, we could have 34, is what he’s saying. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s what I was going to comment on as well MR. METIVIER-I just did it quick, and that’s what I came up with. I’ll go back and do it again. MR. VOLLARO-On recommendation of C.T. Male, because of the turning problem, you’re going to take one or two of those areas at the northwest corner of this? MR. TROMBLEY-One. MR. VOLLARO-Just the one. MR. TROMBLEY-They requested one. MR. VOLLARO-They requested one. So out of that one, you could probably, you would probably be able to get sufficient amount of nine foot spaces to do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. VOLLARO-The only comment I have is on the septic system, and getting back to Mike Shaw’s memorandum on that, apparently we’re going to need a sewer district extension here, and I don’t want to get into all of that stuff, but they won’t be able to hook into that, get their septic system off the line until such time as they could hook to the sewer. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. TROMBLEY-Bob, that line, that sewer line would have to be installed before the back parking lot could be addressed or even the retention area. MR. VOLLARO-You can put the line in, like a stub. The line would be in like a stub. Now you’ve got a sewer stub out there, but I’m saying until such time as you can hook actually into the municipal sewer, you’re going to have to operate under septic. MR. TROMBLEY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And if you do that, where it says abandon the existing septic system, you won’t be able to use any of that for stormwater management until that’s gone. You don’t want to put water over your drain field, is what I’m really saying. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. TROMBLEY-Yes, and on your drawing, that was not a correct location of that septic system that’s there now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is not right. MR. TROMBLEY-Are you looking at? MR. VOLLARO-I’m at the northwest corner of your property out back. MR. TROMBLEY-Right down here is where the septic system is. See where the line comes out? The septic tank is actually here. So it’s going to be under the parking lot. It’s not there. This was the retention area. MR. VOLLARO-When I saw that, I said if there’s going to be a retention area, you can’t do it over a septic field. MR. TROMBLEY-Correct. I understand, but the septic tank is right here, because the line does come out right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. TROMBLEY-Right out of the building right here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The new drawing that Craig is asking you to do will reflect that, then? MR. TROMBLEY-Will have this down here, yes, it will. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only comment I had, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. METIVIER-Yes, I forgot to add a number. I’m all set. Sorry about that. I really did mess it up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So are we going to vote on tabling this? MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please, to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-98, MODIFICATION, OMALL FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Pending further review and comments by C.T. Male Engineers and submission of a new drawing. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-If you can work with this out with either Mr. Nace, Mr. Montgomery, whatever route you take, we can help you out with a special meeting. Give us a holler. MR. TROMBLEY-Very good. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 35-97 TYPE II MODIFICATION RICHARD MEYER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: 1512 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE CURRENT GREENHOUSE OPERATION AND TO INCLUDE SALE TO GENERAL PUBLIC. NURSERY IN A RR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS WELL AS ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 28-2-3 LOT SIZE: 76.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICK MEYER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that advertised, the public hearing? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-For a modification. MR. BROWN-Yes, it was. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-97, Modification, Richard Meyer, Meeting Date: May 21, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to an approved site plan. Applicant requests modification to allow retail operation at the existing commercial nursery. Previous approval was conditioned upon no retail sales for the property. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The current Rural Residential (RR-3A) zoning district lists nursery as an allowable use. While the previous approval contemplated this as a commercial greenhouse, the approval was specific to prohibit retail sales. 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? It does not appear as though the planned modification will present a significant increase to the burden on supporting public services. 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 anticipated increase in traffic may add to the number of potential conflicts both off from and onto Bay Road. 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? The proposed modification does not appear to present any significant impact to these matters. Consideration may be given to confirmation of the emergency accessibility of the site. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The project plans to not call for any additional buildings or lighting on the site. There appears to be an existing freestanding sign on Bay Road. ?permit? Lighting plan waiver requested. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The access drive to the greenhouse area is a long, very narrow earthen drive. Consideration may be given to the anticipated two-way traffic on this drive. 3. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. While there are no defined pedestrian areas, there appear to be adequate provisions made for pedestrians. 4. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) No changes to the site are planned. Stormwater Management Plan waiver requested. Engineering comments from Jarrett-Martin have been included with the application. 5. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is serviced by on site water and sewage facilities. Per discussion with David Hatin, Director – Building & Codes, this increase in intensity, wholesale to retail does not automatically require the applicant to provide public restrooms. If there were specific interior retail areas where the public could gather, this condition may change. Employee facilities are all that are required at this time. 6. 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. Given the remote location of the use and proposed modification thereto, the existing landscaping appears more than adequate. 7. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The long, very narrow drive should be considered as a marginal emergency access lane. While an emergency vehicle might be able to travel this drive when necessary, improvements to the drive may be considered. 8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Jarrett-Martin comments have been presented regarding this matter. The applicant has requested a waiver from the stormwater management plan requirement. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Site Plan Review 35-97 resolved 9/23/97: Greenhouses, wholesaling, no retail Staff comments: The existing greenhouse area is located a considerable distance from all adjoining residential uses. Therefore, a minimal impact on surrounding properties is anticipated with regard to the greenhouse area. Staff concern is for the safe and adequate traffic conditions for the public, whom, with this modification, will be invited to the site on a daily basis. Primarily, can the access road adequately handle the two-way traffic and is the access point at Bay Road acceptable? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MEYER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. MEYER-Rick Meyer. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett, agent. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. MEYER-Well, what we’re trying to do is be able to sell retail on site, the annuals and the perennials we’re growing in the greenhouse. MR. MAC EWAN-Why the change? MR. MEYER-People have been asking if they can buy, the public asked us if they could buy it at the house, at the greenhouse. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you currently selling retail there now? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MEYER-We have people come in wanting to buy, and we have. We haven’t advertised. We’re still selling primarily wholesale, but. MR. MAC EWAN-The drawing that you submitted here, the map, there’s notes on here, Van Dusen and Steves, 12/9/83. MR. MEYER-The survey was done back then. That’s when we bought the property. MR. MAC EWAN-It was prepared by them. Anything else you wanted to add? Well, I guess I’ll start the ball rolling. When we made our site visit, our biggest concern was the length of the driveway and the narrowness of it. We found it difficult for two cars to pass each other on that drive. There were how many stream crossings did you count? MR. HUNSINGER-At least two. MR. MAC EWAN-We estimate that that drive is about 1300 feet long, pretty fair estimate? MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you propose you’re going to have vehicle access to that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s not even a quarter of a mile. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s almost three-eighths of a mile. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was longer. What happened was they were leaving and I was coming in and there was absolutely no room for us to. MR. MEYER-Well, there’s several places to, obviously there’s the main driveway going in. There’s several places where there’s pull offs where you can pass, but we’re going to basically monitor it and see what needs to be done. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Some signage or something in there, too. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s doable. Anyway, we’ll start with you, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that was one of my concerns, and I guess another concern is, it’s just this year that you’ve been selling to the public, or did it go on last year and then you just realized you better? MR. MEYER-We’ve been getting more and more requests for. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Requests. So you had to. So that would mean, if you do go retail, then you’ll obviously advertise, and we’re going to get a lot of traffic on that road probably. I really have a concern about that road. I mean, I think once you get in there, the facility is, there’s enough room for people to park. There’s a lot of room for people to get around, but getting to it is kind of precarious, but I’m just saying like right now the people that go in there know the road. They’re familiar with it. They’re repeat customers. Now I’m just wondering if you have people that are new, they’re going to go a little bit faster, more in a speed that’s not very prudent, and, you know, there could be a little head-on in there. I don’t know. That’s just my concern, and I guess, and my other concern is the fact that, you know, you have been selling retail in there, but at least you’ve come to us and you realize that you have to get a modification for that, which is fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The driveway was my biggest concern as well. I mean, certainly the site itself is large enough so it’s not going to change the character of the neighborhood or anything else. I mean, it’s totally surrounded by woods. You can’t see it from the road. You have such a huge buffer around the whole site. I really don’t see any particular issues there, but the driveway is really the big issue, and you add in to the length of the driveway, the stream crossings that are associated with it, opportunities for the drive to get washed out or anything like that. It said in the Staff notes that the previous approval was conditioned upon no retail sales for the property. Basically, you’re coming to us now just because customers are asking or people are asking you if you can? MR. MEYER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-What kind of products do you sell there? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MEYER-Annuals, perennials, flowers, vegetables. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fertilizers? MR. MEYER-No. Anything we grow, we grow on the property. MR. STROUGH-So you’re just selling the plants themselves? MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And the containers that you grew them in? MR. MEYER-Right. Correct. MR. STROUGH-Would you be willing to make access improvements to your road? Like in make it wider so that two cars could get by? MR. MEYER-The entire length would be. MR. STROUGH-Well, it depends. I mean, I don’t know how successful you’re going to be. If you’re going to be very successful, that singular driveway’s not sufficient. MR. MEYER-Well, we’re just toying with this now. I mean, we’re trying to get, obviously if it’s needed, it will be done. If it’s necessary, it will be done. MR. STROUGH-Pulling out of your driveway, what is the approximate sight distance, the first time you can see an approaching car? MR. MEYER-I would guess at probably 700 feet to the south, and probably 1200 to the north, coming up from Pickle Hill Road. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MEYER-And that’s an estimate. That’s just, that’s me guessing. MR. STROUGH-Yes. All right. Well, the other thing, too, is if you were successful and did drum up a lot of business, the Staff wondered if you had public restrooms available? MR. MEYER-No, I don’t. At this point, no, I don’t. My house is there. MR. STROUGH-And a lighting plan, too. Would you be open year round for sales? MR. MEYER-No. It’s primarily this time of year, say May through, we sell mums in the Fall. We’ll have mums in the fall. So, October, perhaps, poinsettias, which is Christmas time, but there’s no night time. There’s no lighting there so no night time. MR. STROUGH-Well, poinsettias during Christmas time, people would be there in December, and it gets dark at four o’clock. MR. MEYER-At four o’clock? Well, we have no lighting out there. So nothing, we have no lighting in the greenhouse either. MR. STROUGH-So your hours of being open would be very limited? MR. MEYER-Right. MR. STROUGH-Okay. It’s a tough one. The good old days you wouldn’t be here. You’d just open up a business and establish yourself, but, you know, things have changed, and standards have come around for public safety’s sake, and I think it’s going to be tough to meet the standards to open to retail, but it depends on how much you’re willing to do. I’m done for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Tony? MR. METIVIER-You know, I don’t know where to start with this. I was, believe it or not, not even on the Planning Board back in 1997, and I sat in one of those chairs for another application and remember you up here proposing to open up the greenhouse, and my wife has a really big mouth. Talks to a lot of people. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on the record. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. She knows it, and she was talking to somebody one day who said, you know, you have to go to those greenhouses on Bay Road. They’re amazing. So, we did, and I think that’s probably why you’re doing so well in the retail business right now because we frequent the place, and I’ve never had a problem, God’s honest truth, with traffic. At one time there was a car coming out as we were going in. We worked it out amongst the two of us, where we pulled over, they went by. There was absolutely no problem at all. I think what’s happening is that because of word of mouth more than anything, you are becoming more successful in the retail, and I don’t know what your future plans are, but I think this is a great place, and as far as lighting plans, you know, let’s step back for a second and realize exactly what’s going on here. He’s selling annuals and perennials. You can’t buy them much before April. They’re gone by June. He’s a wholesale distributor as well, sells to places in the area. So, as far as, you know, lighting plans for the winter time and December, you know, don’t even bring it up. It’s not going to happen. Let’s be real here about what we’re talking about, a two month operation at the most, because, again, they grow their own things. MR. MAC EWAN-Through his own admission he’s talking the possibility in December. MR. METIVIER-For what, though? MR. MAC EWAN-Poinsettias. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Christmas Trees, poinsettias. MR. STROUGH-But then again, Tony, is it fair, I mean, we put Garden Time through this and that, and make them do this and that, and they’ve got to do this and that, and then another retailer in the same industry. MR. METIVIER-Yes, because Garden Time is on the Quaker corridor. Yes, it’s very fair to look at these two absolutely different applications. This guy is up on Bay Road. A lot of people don’t go up Bay Road. They don’t know it’s there. Who knows if he’s going to advertise or not. Maybe, maybe not, but he’s not on the Quaker corridor, and it should be considered an absolutely different application. It really should, and if he finds that he’s getting more successful and has to widen the road, at that point, perhaps he should. If people go in there and say, I don’t like the place because I can’t get in or out or I have trouble with the parking lot, fine, don’t go back, but you can’t treat this as you would Garden Time. You can’t treat it as you would Quaker Farms. This is a totally different operation all together. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that anyone’s suggesting that we treat it as we would Garden Time. MR. METIVIER-Well, John just said that. John just said we put Garden Time through all this. MR. MAC EWAN-We have to use this Ordinance. This Zoning Ordinance defines how we review any and all site plans, and if you look under the Ordinance, Page 114, specifically Section D where we’re dealing with traffic, we’re dealing with a road that’s about 1300 feet long there. To me, in my mind, that’s an issue, and when we did our site visits, there was two other vehicles that tried to pass us when we were coming out of there, plus you have a couple of stream crossings. So I don’t know what DEC role will play in that or Army Corps of Engineers even if they fell into that. I don’t know. MR. METIVIER-I just would hate to see us ruin a good thing. That’s all. I would hate to see us, and I’ll put that on the record. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you already have, but it’s bothersome to me that you’re paraphrasing on that note that we’re ruining a good thing. MR. METIVIER-No, and I don’t mean it like that, but I think, you know, here’s somebody who has made a successful business for himself. He’s done very well. It’s a nice place to go, and, you know, why don’t we just shut him down. I mean, is that what’s going to happen here? MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re out in left field here on this one, having that position. I mean, it doesn’t matter whether it’s this gentleman or it’s Home Depot or it’s a mom and pop grocery store. Everyone who walks through that door, files an application to be reviewed by this Board has to go by the same set of rules. We use the same set of criteria no matter what the application is, and we can’t deviate from that. It’s not fair to the other people who have been in front of us or the ones who are, in the future, going to come to us, and it’s not fair to the applicant that’s sitting in front of us right now. I mean, that’s what our obligation is here on this Board, is to review all site plans in accordance with the Town Ordinance. MR. STROUGH-And in a sympathetic way, I can agree with you, Tony, and if it was casual and it was the occasional retailer that popped in or out once in a while, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I don’t think I can treat it that way by Code. I think I have to look at maximum impact, and it’s going to be tough to meet those kind of thresholds. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Did you make a site visit, Craig, out there? MR. BROWN-Yes, I did. MR. MAC EWAN-Give me your impression of the couple of stream crossings. Seasonal streams that you don’t think DEC or Army Corps would have jurisdiction on, or what’s the deal? MR. BROWN-I mean, that’s not a call for me. I don’t know how they’re classified. They’re existing, and how long they’ve been there is probably a best guess, I’m not even sure if Mr. Meyer knows how long they’ve been there. The stream crossings were, I mean, I didn’t even realize they were there, to be honest with you. They were uneventful. They didn’t stick out to be an issue. It doesn’t appear that there had been any problems, any washouts, any overflows of the road. It just seemed to be functioning adequately. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess where I’m going with it, if the applicant was inclined to, and I think the big issue with all of us up here is that road, the width of the road, the difficulty it is for two vehicles to pass one another, and with all due respect, if we were to approve this thing, you can pretty much rest assured his business will increase, you know, I don’t know if significantly is the right word to use, but it’ll increase. MR. BROWN-Hopefully. MR. MAC EWAN-He’ll have more traffic on that. So if we were inclined to go along the lines of allowing a modification, with respects to the condition of approval of widening and re-grading the road to make it passable for two vehicles, now how does that stream scenario fit in. That’s where I was going with it. MR. BROWN-Yes. I thought so. I think you could probably configure any turnouts, and I don’t want to design the site for the applicant, but I think you could probably configure any turnouts so they don’t interfere with the stream, and I’m not sure if a complete widening would be necessary. I’d kind of agree with where Tony was going with this one. You’re not going to get the 500 cars a day in and out of there that you’re going to get at a different location. Maybe 50. Maybe 100. I don’t know. I think you could probably take this plan that’s here or a modified version of it, call for a turnout any place where you can see a distance, and if you can’t see, go to that point and then put in other one for a section of any portion of the road where you can see, and just make sure there’s one every 300 feet or one every however many feet is necessary, and just a turnout, maybe not a complete widening of the road, but a place for a car to pull off so another could pass. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, along John’s line of thinking, too, I’m also thinking, you know, let’s suppose his business really takes off, and, you know, he’s running from late February now with anticipation of maybe getting geared up for Mother’s Day and stuff like that or Easter, you know, and taking it right straight through to selling Christmas Trees in December. So now we just increased that operation, you know, extended it on either end of the scale by another couple of months. MR. BROWN-This may be a question for counsel is part of your approval may include a limited timeframe, and if they want to expand on that timeframe then they could come back and at that point say now we’re a year round operation. Now it might be a good idea to widen the road and bring it up to at least a minimum two lane standard. MR. MAC EWAN-On that note I see that a difficult thing for you guys to enforce. I see that as being a real, I see it being problematic if we put a condition of approval that says you can only be open from, you know, April 1 to October 31 or whatever the case. With all due respect, he’s trying to convert this from a st wholesale to a retail, and he should be able to have the right to operate it on a retail business for whatever duration he wants, and if he wants to go year round, fine, that’s great for him, but how are we going to get over this hurdle which I think is the main cause of concern with everyone on the Board is regarding the road. MR. BROWN-Maybe we should see if the applicant would want to offer anything for it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but he’s liable on it, anything that happens on that. MR. MAC EWAN-But, you know, he may be liable, but I’m looking at the Ordinance and what our responsibility is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I understand that, but I’m just saying, so he may have some ideas of his own. I’m thinking couldn’t you put some kind of signage for how fast you should go, miles per hour, and then have some turn off areas every, if you say the driveway is 1300 feet, then maybe every 200 feet have a turn off area where, if you saw an approaching car. Like, when I pulled in and Craig was coming towards me with the Town van I saw him in the distance, you know, so I could, you know, I really played chicken with him. MR. BROWN-There are several turnout areas on the road as it exists right now. I’m sure you could find two or three places on there where you just can’t pass two cars. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you amenable to doing something like that? What’s your thought process? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MEYER-Certainly. That’s the way I’ve been thinking is that, you know, even if it needed additional turnouts. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of improvements were you going to make to the road? Were you going to do anything with it, like gravel it or re-grade it or whatever? MR. MEYER-Gravel the turnouts. MR. MAC EWAN-But as far as the main portion of the road itself you’re going to leave it as is? MR. MEYER-As is. I basically add gravel to it every year. Not considerable amount, but level it off. Grade it off. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think there’s got to be something for a driver that says this is no, that reminds him or warns him when he’s entering the driveway, this is one lane, drive at no more than so many miles per hour. I mean, because somebody’s not even going to be thinking. They’re just going to go bombing right through. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the appropriate thing to do is to ask you to amend your plan, to show where you’re proposing these turnouts. Okay. I would think that we would be looking at a minimum of two or three turnouts where traffic can get off. I would take it a step farther. I’d rather have a surveyed, scaled plan, so we know exactly where those turnouts are going to be. You’ll have a good idea of the length of the road. What you’ve submitted in your application isn’t doable. It doesn’t have enough detail on it, and I’d prefer to have, ask on behalf of the Board for a surveyed map. MR. MEYER-To survey the road and the turnouts. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if you have, that property has been previously surveyed, that road would probably be on the survey map I would think, right? MR. MEYER-I believe you have the survey map, right? MR. BROWN-Do I have the survey map? The dirt road is shown to a point, yes. It says approximate location. So whether it was taken from an air photo or compass and tape, it says approximate location. It may be complete accurate, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Who did the drawings, Van Dusen and Steves? MR. MEYER-Correct. MR. BROWN-Van Dusen and Steves, 1983. MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be appropriate to have a surveyed drawing with the correct delineation of the road on it and your proposed two or three turnouts. MR. BROWN-I think there are probably that many there now. Maybe two or three additional? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, at least let us see where they are. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just make a comment on this. Nobody, I’ve been waiting for somebody to make a comment on the use of an emergency vehicle. There’s another problem besides just passenger cars going back and forth there. What about, there’s a home here, and I suspect that that’s your residence. MR. MEYER-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Based on driving the van through there, I don’t think you could get an emergency vehicle through there, like a fire truck for example. I don’t know. It looked pretty narrow to me to do that. There’s some high turns in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Who covers that? Is that Bay Ridge or North Queensbury? MR. MEYER-Bay Ridge. MR. BROWN-Those drivers are pretty good. MR. VOLLARO-They go right through the brush. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. BROWN-If they need to go through, they’re going to go through. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we make a request of someone from Bay Ridge to site visit that and give us a written confirmation whether they’d have issues with emergency vehicles accessing that site in case of emergency? MR. MEYER-Sure. MR. BROWN-It appeared sufficient when I was there, but we could certainly get something from the Fire Chief, sure. MR. STROUGH-The site has electricity, doesn’t it? MR. MEYER-Yes, it does. MR. STROUGH-So it wouldn’t be a major problem to light up the areas where pedestrians are accessing the site? I’m surprised that your liability insurance man is going to be around, too, you know. MR. MEYER-Pedestrians or, you mean going into the greenhouse? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Where they access you to say I want to buy this plant or that plant. MR. HUNSINGER-He doesn’t have lights in the greenhouses, though. MR. STROUGH-But I’m saying he has electricity up there, but if he’s going to be selling, Staff had a concern over lighting the public areas. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-And he has the capability, if you have electricity there. MR. MEYER-We can put a light there. MR. STROUGH-That’s not a big deal. MR. MEYER-Obviously, nobody comes after dark. MR. STROUGH-But also your liability insurance. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they’ve got their list of suggestions, too. MR. MEYER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And I think the potential for lighting in the public access area probably would be one of them. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Just one. I think Staff had a comment on here talking about the freestanding sign on Bay Road, whether that was a permitted sign or not. Did you ever find that out, Craig, whether that’s a permitted sign out there? It’s in your Staff notes. You have a couple of question marks, one in front and one in back of “permit”, the second page, Staff notes, the top. MR. BROWN-Yes. I couldn’t find a permit for the sign there. That’s not to say that there’s not one. There’s four or five different places to check, but in my quick search I didn’t find one. Maybe the applicant has knowledge and has the permit number and we can just put that one to bed. I don’t know. MR. MEYER-At the time of the site plan review, they said I could have a directional sign there, as long as it’s under two by two, a two foot by two foot, square foot. So that’s what that is. There’s no permit for it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If you get approval to go retail with this modification, would you put up different, larger signs or whatever? Is that what your intentions are? MR. MEYER-Normally, yes, I would love to, but I know the setbacks from the road, and it’s such a wooded area that I’m not sure what kind of sign you would put up to make it visible from the road, basically. So I haven’t pursued that yet, but, if you understand, as wooded as it is, you know, is the setback, I believe, 40 foot? MR. BROWN-It’s 15 from the property line. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MEYER-15 from the property, 40 from the middle of the street, at any rate, you know, right in the woods is where we are. So as much as I would love one, but that’s, I believe, a different step, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members? Can we table this thing, Rick, and give you an opportunity to revise and submit a new plan? Would someone introduce a motion for this, please. We also want to get verification from Bay Ridge. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO 35-97, MODIFICATION, RICHARD MEYER, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: So a new map can be submitted showing turn outs, and also that the Bay Ridge Fire Department give an opinion or recommendation, and make sure that the map is surveyed, and to scale, showing, obviously, the road and everything, all the dwellings, your dwelling and the proximity to the greenhouse with the road. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MEYER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Craig, Bay Ridge. We were going to have someone on behalf of the Town make that contact? MR. BROWN-I can do that. Typically that comes from the applicant, but we can do that. That’s not a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather have it come from the Town. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. I can do that. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED R. JEFFREY KISIEL, DDS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: SCHODER RIVERS ASSOCIATES ZONE: PO LOCATION: 3 BAYWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,444 SQ. FT. DENTAL OFFICE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN A PO ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 12- 1988, SB 1-1989, SP 36-90, 81-90, 1-88, 33-95, SV 86-1992, VAR. 871, 927 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-43/60.-7-11.14 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 CARL SCHODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY KISIEL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-2002, R. Jeffrey Kisiel, DDS, Meeting Date: May 21, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,444 sf dental office and associated site work. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? A dental office is considered a professional office and as such is an allowable use in the Professional Office 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? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) The proposed use appears to be completely consistent with the intent of the ordinance and does not appear to present any undue adverse impact to the burden on supporting public services. 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 proposed plan appears to offer adequate facilities and does not appear to present a detriment to the neighborhood or town. 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? This project does not appear to create any undue adverse impacts relative to these matters. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed layout appears to be the most logical for the site and the existing conditions. The one light proposed on the building appears to adequately cover the parking area. However, pole mounted lighting, in the parking area may be more effective and attractive. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The location of the access point appears adequate, however, consideration may be given to locating the drive as far as possible from the “bend” in the road, if conditions allow. The proposed parking spaces are slightly in excess of the requirements. 3. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Sidewalks and handicap ramps are proposed to address pedestrian needs. 4. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed stormwater infiltration measures, beneath the pavement, are an acceptable design particularly when combined with the overflow structures and basin. However, based on the CT Male comments, there appear to be concerns relative to high ground water. 5. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The proposed development will be serviced by municipal water service and onsite sewage disposal. The sewage disposal area is apparently located “upland” to afford more separation from groundwater or other soils constraints. 6. 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 proposed landscaping, coupled with the maintenance of existing trees, appears to adequately address the landscaping needs for the site. 7. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The site appears to be adequately serviced with emergency lanes and there is an existing hydrant in front of the proposed building 8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) The proposed grading plan and stormwater management plan appear to adequately address the potential for such conditions. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: The proposed development appears to be consistent with the guidelines for the Bay Road Corridor. The project is consistent with the existing development in the Baywood Subdivision. To date, no responses to the CT Male comments have been received. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SCHODER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. SCHODER-My name is Carl Schoder. I’m with Schoder Rivers Associates, representing the applicant. I have with me Dr. Jeffrey Kisiel who is the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. SCHODER-All right. We have submitted a site plan for review for a new 2,444 square foot dental facility to be located on Baywood Drive. It’s to be constructed in the existing professional offices development which currently has several medical office buildings, including dentists and other doctors. The use of the site seems consistent with the zone. The site plan was submitted. If you’d like I can go through the salient features of that, or if the Board has opportunity, we can forego that. MR. MAC EWAN-This is your moment in the sun. MR. SCHODER-My moment in the sun. MR. MAC EWAN-You know what would be an even better idea, if Staff took a digital camera and took pictures of these drawings and threw them up on the screen. Isn’t that a great idea? MR. BROWN-It’s a fantastic idea. MR. SCHODER-I would love that. MR. MAC EWAN-Next month. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just one more thing for you to do. MR. BROWN-Put it on the list. MR. SCHODER-Okay. The project is located, as noted before, in a zone that is a Professional Office zone. This was in a subdivision that was done in 19, I’m not sure, 88, I believe, but at any rate, at the time, the subdivision plans were set up in an MR-5 zone, with the intent that the usage would be professional office development. Again, as I noted, I think that the project is pretty consistent with what the intent of this area is. We are on the northern side of the center island of Baywood Drive. The main entrance to Baywood Drive would be down in this location. So basically what we are doing is taking up the effectively northern half of that, which is Lot Number 11 on that site plan. The project is constructed in such a way that the dental offices are roughly in the center of the site, with a septic system located to the west, where more optimum soils were existing than what was originally thought, I think, in the subdivision plan. We went out and did test pits and tried to establish groundwater levels and the like. We did find definitely better soils at this corner of the lot, and opted to locate the septic system there. Again, the building in the center, parking located to the east of it, with an access road that is at about the third point along this roadway, okay, an access driveway. Stormwater management was one of the biggest concerns that we had on this project. There is a relatively high groundwater condition, as noted down in here. Now interestingly there was a test pit that was done somewhere in this vicinity, originally, with the original subdivision plan, and it tended to show a somewhat lower groundwater table that what we were discovering when we went out and actually dug test 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) pits for this project design. Based on that, we had opted to build the site up somewhat in the location of the parking lot, to bring in fill, and to perch the parking lot up where we would be sloping up at about a four and a half percent grade from the roadway to the lot, and while doing this utilize this fill material that’s going to be placed in here, which is a granular fill material, as part of the stormwater management disposal system, which would be an infiltration system, under the parking lot itself. Overflow from that to a detention basin adjacent to it. C.T. Male had reviewed the project. One of the prime concerns that they had had was the groundwater conditions on the site. We had agreed to make a couple of changes, from what you have on the subdivision plan currently, I’m sorry, on the site plan currently, one of which is to work in the detention basin by placing a approximately six inch thick layer of crushed stone on some geo-textile fabric on the bottom of the basin to further enhance some infiltration. The basin is indeed above groundwater. We were able to verify that with C.T. Male after our discussions. Secondly there were some minor changes to the piping from the catch basins, from the catch basin to the infiltration beds underneath the pavement, and also from the overflow from this catch basin to the detention basin itself. The next plan would indicate landscaping that we’re proposing for the site. Again, the area by the septic system would be basically an open lawn area, with a landscape area created at the corner. As we head over to the driveway entrance, we would have a landscape area which will be incorporated with the project sign, with the new monument sign, that would define this section. We have a landscape area that would be screening the parking area along this corner of the parking lot. Similarly a screening along this area with low shrubs, in accordance with the current zoning, the new zoning regs, and also an additional landscaping area directly in front of the building. There are a couple of them to enhance the attractiveness of that. We’re also proposing putting a new Norway Maple in this corner. This is currently kind of a big open area where some trees come out to a point. We would put that Maple back up in this area, just to enhance it, make it a bit more attractive. We would like to maintain the vegetation that is along this section of the site, and also back in this corner, although this vegetation’s quite low, but there are some rather nice pines, tall pines that we’re going to be keeping in this area, disturbing them only to the effect that we need to in order to be able to build the detention basin for stormwater management. That pretty much, in a nutshell, is the landscaping. The last item I’d like to mention is as far as site lighting. We tried to comply with the current Zoning Ordinance. There was a discussion with C.T. Male on that, on one of their questions. They had proposed putting in light poles. We went into the Ordinance, and in accordance with Figure Seven for professional office development, there was a specific note in there that said don’t use light poles, use building mounted wall packs. So we did that. Now, our wall packs are also consistent with the folks that are over here, here, and I believe also over here, in that there are no light poles in this section of this development. However, if you go around the other side, there are some. There are some black poles with round light units on top, but again, we tried staying with the spirit of what the current Zoning Ordinance is requesting, and that’s where we got to that. MR. MAC EWAN-What was C.T. Male’s response to that when you pointed out to them that’s what was in the new Ordinance? MR. SCHODER-Again I wrote, are you in receipt of my response to them? Basically, they were somewhat surprised that it was in there. I guess all I’m saying in my response was exactly what I just told you. It was agreed that site lighting design would not be modified at this time, was my telephone conversation with Jim Edwards, and they came back with a confirming letter, I believe, today, which the Board should have a copy of, that said that we had addressed their concerns. So I guess by default they said, okay, and again, it is a pre- existing condition also on other properties right around us. It’s not like we’re inventing the wheel here with doing this. As a matter of fact, when I first drove through this before, I had identified what the requirement was going to be under the new Zoning Ordinance, heck, before I realized it was under the new Zoning Ordinance at that point, I looked around for site lighting and I saw that we had half of it going on one way, half of it going on the other, kind of came to the conclusion it probably would be a good idea to go with a wall pack for this, because it’s a fairly contained site, contained parking area, should work quite nicely. It’s not something that’s sprawling out that I have to get around corners or long distances with. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SCHODER-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I had anything. Once we received the response from C.T. Male this evening, basically signing off on the project, that took care of any issues that I had. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-I just wonder if this Town Code of full lighting, I’ve got to make myself more familiar with it, it’s a new Code. Now do they distinguish, Craig, between, you know, your sidewalk lantern type poles, versus what we’re talking about the 20 foot Cobra lit commercial parking lot poles? And when they say no pole lighting in professional office, are they negating the little lantern like sidewalk lighting? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. That’s more of a decorative lighting than it is really utility lighting. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. STROUGH-So you can have pole lighting, but just not the big commercial parking lot lighting. That’s the intent. So you could have pole lighting along your sidewalk. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. STROUGH-Okay, should you need it. All right. So, with that said, okay, your septic infiltration area, how far are the beds above your seasonally high groundwater? MR. SCHODER-My septic infiltration? I believe it’s three feet. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was just one of my concerns. I was thinking it was less, about a foot. MR. SCHODER-No. MR. STROUGH-Because the minimal would be two feet. MR. SCHODER-My septic infiltration. We’re not talking stormwater. MR. STROUGH-Septic. MR. SCHODER-My septic infiltration, unless I’m misspeaking. MR. VOLLARO-You have 30 inches on the drawing for your test pit. MR. SCHODER-I believe that’s what it is, actually. MR. VOLLARO-Mottling and groundwater at 30 inches. MR. SCHODER-Because this is a very tight design as regards to that. Our groundwater, where are you reading, please? MR. VOLLARO-I’m at your test pit and percolation test log on C-1. MR. SCHODER-On C-1. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re down into looking at the, you’ve got TP, you’ve got a test pit in there, and you’ve got TP-2 and TP-1. MR. SCHODER-Those are two perc tests, that’s correct, Test Pit One. MR. VOLLARO-Then you’ve got a Test Pit One, and that looks like you have mottling and groundwater at 30 inches. MR. SCHODER-That is correct. Now this is a shallow trench system, which bears some explanation. This is not a conventional in-ground system. It is also not a fill system. It’s a shallow trench system by DOH standards. We are bringing fill in. However, we are founding the base of the trenches in the existing soil. What we’re trying to maintain, and the 36 I was thinking about before was exactly off that perc test data. What we’re trying to maintain here is we’re trying to maintain the two foot separation which is a mandatory separation by DOH from the bottom of that trench. At the same time, we’re not locating the trench fully in the back fill, locating the trench, founding the trench, in the existing native soils, okay. So we’re maintaining, to answer your question, a 24 inch separation by way of bringing in enough fill to be able to bring that bottom of trench up to gain that (lost word). MR. STROUGH-All right. So basically, in your judgment, and I guess in C.T. Male’s, your system as designed should work. MR. SCHODER-That is correct. MR. STROUGH-When did you, what was the date of these test pits? MR. SCHODER-The test pits were done very recently. MR. STROUGH-April 15, and, okay, well, we had kind of a mixed season. th MR. SCHODER-Well, I might add that it rained like heck that weekend, just before it. In my judgment, that was pretty high groundwater. MR. STROUGH-Yes. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. SCHODER-What I witnessed in the holes was groundwater levels that were coincident with whatever mottling evidence there was on the size of the holes. I think we really did hit seasonal high groundwater the day that I was out there. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Anything else closer, I don’t know, you would have considered a mounded system or an Elgin mounded system? MR. SCHODER-I could have considered an Elgin mounted system for a reduction in area, but I didn’t feel it necessary, and I’d rather actually distribute it over this existing soil. The soil is not bad. It’s above the groundwater. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SCHODER-It’s a pretty good soil, as far as cleansing the waste. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Just one question for Staff. The setback distances don’t meet the new Code, but are they grandfathered in because of a previous agreement? Do I understand that right? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s it. I mean, it’s a good area for it. It’s a perfect area, and I think that’s going to be Dr. Reisman in back of you, isn’t it? DR. KISIEL-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, good luck to you, and thank you. DR. KISIEL-Thank you. MR. SCHODER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. It looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Just a suggestion. Where you’re bringing your wastewater out of the office, it looks like it’s in that corner? MR. SCHODER-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-You might want to consider putting a stub out to Baywood Drive on that, in case that sewer comes through on Bay Road, so you’ll have a way to connect to it if it does come through. Now, there’s a lot of, it’s problematic that that’s going to happen, but if I were doing this, I would, and I knew that that might happen, I’d put a stub out there, so when it came by, you could tie in to it. MR. SCHODER-Well, might I offer this. When it comes by, it’s likely going to be a force main, is that correct? That we’ll have to come at it with a grinder pump anyway? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There wouldn’t be a gravity system, no. MR. SCHODER-Exactly. MR. VOLLARO-It would be force main, yes. MR. SCHODER-In which case we’d be pulling the septic tank out anyway and replacing it with a grinder pump to be able to pump the sewage up into there. So one way or another, we’re going to wind up doing some serious digging at that location. C.T. Male had made a comment that they would have liked to see a grinder pump in lieu of this. My comment back to Jim Edwards, and he agreed with me, was that my concern is shock loading to the septic system, to the septic tank, specifically, in kicking a grinder pump in there, and that rather what the applicant would want to offer up is obviously when the municipal sewer main comes through, that we would dig out whatever needs to be dug out, abandon the remainder in place, and simply put that grinder pump in connected right to that pump that’s coming out of the sewer main. So the septic tank, I guess, will go away, is what I’m saying, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it would. MR. SCHODER-And we’ll tap right in here. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. VOLLARO-I think C.T. Male even mentioned that upstream a bit, somebody did. MR. SCHODER-I didn’t catch that. I caught the grinder pump point that Jim and I talked about. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it may not have been mentioned, but it was just something that I looked at and said, you know, it might be a good idea to do that, but I can understand why you don’t want to put a grinder pump in there and you’re using an effluent pump instead. Other than that, I couldn’t see anything. It looks like a really, I walk that area a lot, because I live right near there. It’s a really good spot for this. As far as the lighting is concerned, the pack lighting kind of fits with the Jeffrey Foss’s lighting, and everybody else’s lighting in that area, Dr. Bannon’s lighting and so on. So I don’t know that you’d really want to put anything, the only lights you have is up around that back corner where those poles are, and that’s, I don’t know how they got there, but I think pack lighting for this is probably the right thing to do, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman, on this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think the plans look nice. Could you tell us a little bit about your architectural design and the front elevation I see doesn’t have the door go in. In other words, the clients or the patients won’t be going through the front. DR. KISIEL-The parking lot is on one side. So we felt it would be a fit. When people drive in, their first impression of the building is not really from the road. It’s really as they’re coming around that corner, and then they see the building to where the door is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m trying to just picture when we drove in, and it’s right opposite Dr. Bannon’s office, right? Like his parking lot is. MR. SCHODER-In the corner, right? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I mean, it’s to the east, and yours is just to the west. MR. SCHODER-Well, let me kind of walk through how that entrance is defined. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure, and the colors. MR. SCHODER-The colors I’m going to have to defer to Dr. Kisiel. DR. KISIEL-Which I will defer to my wife, but it’s going to be in probably a taupe, with white trim, dark shutters, I mean dark shingles. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Show me where Dr. Bannon’s office is right there. MR. SCHODER-I think that’s Dr. Bannon’s office right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then that lot is. MR. SCHODER-Quite a ways away from that, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but I mean, where’s the front of that lot? MR. SCHODER-Dr. Bannon’s office? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, your lot. MR. SCHODER-Our lot? Our lot’s frontage, well, we’re really on three sides. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. MR. SCHODER-Our lot’s main frontage, I would say would be here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. SCHODER-The main entrance to the building, however, does not front on Baywood Drive. The main entrance of the building fronts on the parking lot, okay. There’s a sign that would direct people in. Well, unfortunately it’s on the landscaping plan, but it’s right here, okay. As you enter the parking lot, what defines the entrance is a canopy, or an enclosure here, a stairway that comes up, and the handicapped parking and a striped area in the middle which you’re using both to keep cars away from the direct entrance, the walk up entrance into here, and also obviously for access for handicap. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s really the side elevation? MR. SCHODER-So really when you look at it, this would be the side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Fine. MR. SCHODER-You have to pardon me, I did not do these drawings for the building, okay. So I’m kind of a little challenged in trying to supply that, but as far as trying to make it work with the site, I knew that this was the front entrance to the building. Now one thing we also have here that defines it quite well will be a set of stairs, a set of steps directly in front of it, and also the handicap ramp that comes around the sides. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the nice Palladian windows will really be the first things that you see as you drive into the site? DR. KISIEL-Right. MR. SCHODER-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you gentlemen wanted to add? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have one more question. Is it going there going to be siding? DR. KISIEL-Vinyl siding. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Vinyl siding. Now aren’t the other buildings in there like cedar or spruce? DR. KISIEL-Dr. Reisman’s is vinyl siding. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there’s no covenants in there as to what you have to put for the siding? DR. KISIEL-No, and as far as I knew, they were waiving a lot of the covenants. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, vinyl siding, now, has come a long ways in the past 10, 15 years. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 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-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. It’s right here. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO.21-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: R. JEFFREY KISIEL, DDS, 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: 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2002 R. JEFFREY KISIEL, DDS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 21-2002 Applicant: R. Jeffrey Kisiel, DDS Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Schoder Rivers Associates Zone: PO Location: 3 Baywood Drive Applicant proposes construction of a 2,444 sq. ft. Dental Office and associated site work. Professional Office in a PO zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: SB 12-1988, SB 1-1989, SP 36-90, 81-90, 1-88, 33-95, SV 86-1992, Var. 871, 927 Warren Co. Planning: 5/8/02 Tax Map No. 296.11-1-43 / 60.-7-11.14 Lot size: 0.90 acres Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: May 21, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/17/02: 5/21 Staff Notes 5/21 CT Male 5/17 Schoder River Associates 5/16 CT Male comments 5/14 Notice of Public Hearing 5/8 Warren Co. Planning 5/1 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 21, 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 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) 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 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the third Whereas contain information that lists the May 21, 2002 letter from C.T. Male, and that it also lists the letter of May 17 from Schoder River Associates, and th Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck. MR. SCHODER-Thank you very much for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 24-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 290 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR USE AS OFFICE SPACE. OFFICE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 115-1989, SP 71-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.08-2-17, 18 LOT SIZE: 2.56 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-2002, Kubricky Construction Corp., Meeting Date: May 21, 2002 “Project Description: Applicant proposes conversion of an existing residence to office space. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? An office use is an allowable project within the Light Industrial, LI-1A zoning district. 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? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) The proposed use, which consists of approximately 1500 sq. ft. of office space, should not create a significant increase to the burden on supporting public services. 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 proposed off street parking, which will allow vehicles on the site to turn around before re-entering Bay Road, appears to be an improvement to the site. 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? The proposed project does not appear to present any undue adverse impacts relative to these matters. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The project plans do not call for any exterior alterations or enlargements to the building. The onsite lighting appears to be limited to porch lights and the light on the rear of the building. No details regarding these lights have been offered. No waiver request has been submitted. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The proposed use, based on the current requirement of 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of leaseable floor area would require this site to offer 5 spaces. The applicant’s plan appears to be utilizing the “old” requirement of 1 per 150 sf. The applicant has requested a waiver to pave only 2 of the required spaces. 3. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The handicap loading zone and ramp appear to adequately address the pedestrian needs for the site. 4. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed stone filled infiltration trench along the southern edge of the drive appears to sufficiently address the stormwater needs for the site. 5. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The site is serviced by municipal water and sewage disposal facilities. 6. 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. No landscaping plan has been submitted with the project plans. The applicant has requested a waiver from the landscaping plan requirement. 7. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The 10 foot wide access drive should be considered marginal with respect to need for a fire lane, however, the building appears to be easily accessible for emergency purposes. 8. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) The stormwater management plan submitted with the application states that the natural soils for this site are well-drained sands. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Use Variance 115-89 resolved 10/18/89: Conversion of residence to professional office Site Plan Review 71-89 resolved 11/21/89: Conversion of residence to professional office Staff comments: The proposed plan, with the parking area in the rear, appears to be the most appealing plan for this type of development. Consideration may be given to additional landscaping along Bay Street, in order to somewhat maintain the residential “look” of the property. The application appears to involve two tax parcels. Consolidation of the parcels is necessary if the application offers both for consideration. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Kubricky Construction. Craig, I just gave you a letter, and I apologize, I put that in the fax machine and faxed it over this afternoon, and when I went down to look before I left work it hadn’t gone through for some reason, but do you want me to read that into the record? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. NACE-Okay. It says, “Dear Craig: In response to Staff comments, I would like to respond to the questions of site lighting and the issue of their being two tax parcels for this property. The plans stated that site lighting will be provided by existing porch lights, plus one building mounted light located at the rear of the building, and directed toward the new parking area. The porch lights are ceiling mounted fixtures with standard incandescent bulbs. The building mounted light will be a 50 watt spot light focused on the parking lot. All lights would be manually switched and will only be on when required for employee use. Because of the typical residential character of the lighting, I would like to request a waiver from the requirement of providing a lighting illumination plan. Although the tax maps show two separate parcels belonging to Kubricky and Sons, both parcels were conveyed and recorded under a single deed, copy attached. Therefore, I have treated this as a single property for site plan purposes.” MR. MAC EWAN-Would you care to respond? MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think so. I think it’s, is the plan to consolidate them into one tax parcel? MR. NACE-I don’t know who actually does that. They’re recorded in the County Clerk’s Office under one deed. MR. BROWN-I’m sure if you bring this to their attention, that they’re under one deed and you want to consolidate it, it’s a two second process. MR. NACE-Sure, we can initiate that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. BROWN-Yes, unless there’s a presentation here. MR. MAC EWAN-Give us an overview, Tom? MR. NACE-Okay. Very briefly, it’s an existing building. It was used for residential purposes in the past. It was constructed as a house, quite old. Kubricky Construction has used it, over the years, as a temporary residence for out of town managers when they come into town. They’ve stopped that use, and what they want to do now is to renovate it as an office space, which their one employee who takes care of all their computer systems can utilize for repairing and setting up computers. So it’ll, in essence, be a large office space for him to be able to work, one employee, and the site plan is simply to comply with Town requirements that it’s a change in use from residential to office. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems simply enough. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, it’s a nice little house. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-It sounds great. I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I took a look at the existing house and I came up with 840 square feet. Does that sound about right to you? MR. NACE-It’s been a while since I did the drawing. What’s on the drawing? MR. VOLLARO-There isn’t any. So I had to use the by and by to get. MR. NACE-For parking? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I came up with 840 square feet on that building itself. MR. BROWN-840 is listed in the Site Development Data sheet. If you do both stories, it’s 60 and 80, and I think, is the plan here to do both floors for office space? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see two floors up there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There are two floors. MR. BROWN-In some place I read both stories. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s the cutest little house. MR. NACE-Yes, that’s 840. MR. VOLLARO-840 about right? MR. NACE-For square footage, one floor, yes. MR. VOLLARO-One floor. We’re talking two floors. So we’re talking 1680? MR. NACE-That’s the, the footprint is 840. The actual interior space is different, and somewhere in this file. MR. BROWN-It’s listed as 1453 on the first page of the application. MR. NACE-Okay, then that is it, 1453. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you get five spaces out of that. Is that right? MR. NACE-Under the new Code. Under the old Code I had done it as 10 spaces, and I didn’t change it when it was resubmitted under the new Zoning Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-So really we’re talking five spaces here, based on that? MR. NACE-We’re talking five spaces. We’ve requested a waiver to allow several of the spaces to be left as green. So what I’ll be glad to do is just take off, reduce the total number of spaces shown as future, so that we have a total of five. MR. VOLLARO-And six, seven, eight, nine, and ten will be left as green in a sense? MR. NACE-Six, seven, eight, nine, and ten would just be taken completely off the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t think I had anything else on here, other than the parking situation. I don’t have any other notes on this one at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just think it’s the cutest little house, and it’s going to look so nice. MR. NACE-It’s in dire need of renovation. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. What are you going to put on for the outside, for the? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. NACE-I believe they’re going to paint it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Paint it, yes. I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-There was a note in Staff comments about no waiver requested for a lighting plan. MR. NACE-That’s why the letter that I just submitted to Craig, right in the record requested a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No, I had no questions or comments. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just the one thing. I was just looking for a notation on the plans noting the grading, the slope of the grade to the drainage area and the parking lot. MR. NACE-It shows on the detail. Stone infiltration trench detail, pavement pitch to trench. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but what’s the pitch? I mean, what’s the minimum, Tom? It has to be at least one half percent? MR. NACE-To drain it ought to be three quarters of a percent, one percent is really the minimum practical. MR. STROUGH-Would you make a notation on the plans at the minimum? MR. NACE-We’ll change that to a minimum of one percent pitch, sure. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Those two trees out in front, those are Hemlock trees? MR. NACE-Cedars, I believe. MR. STROUGH-Cedars? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Old cedars. MR. STROUGH-Yes, real old cedars. Are they planning on keeping those there? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good. MR. NACE-No change is proposed to the landscaping around the building. MR. STROUGH-Because I don’t, with those two cedars there, and with the sidewalk there, and it’s pretty close to the street, I don’t know where we’d get any landscaping in. MR. NACE-I looked at it yesterday to try to figure out where, what we could put where. MR. STROUGH-And with those two trees there, it looks residential anyway. MR. NACE-Yes, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing I would suggest, or just toss it out there for what it’s worth, to the left, to the right of the sidewalk, if you could do some sort of little annual perennial type planting there, I think that would be, it would add some color. MR. STROUGH-You mean a flower bed to the south side of the porch. MR. MAC EWAN-If you look at the photo up there, to the right of the sidewalk. MR. NACE-Underneath the Maple tree. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about on the south side of the building. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. NACE-It wouldn’t get much sun, but we could put something in. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why we have these great photos so we can get a shady type plant as depicted in the photograph taken, what time was that photograph taken? MR. BROWN-I can check. MR. NACE-Probably a couple of hours apart from the one I took here. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s high noon. MR. NACE-Open shade. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-Nothing from me, Craig. I think you’re going to have to clarify your flower bed. I don’t know if you. MR. MAC EWAN-I just threw it out for what it’s worth. I wasn’t trying to. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s two waivers requested, one for. MR. STROUGH-Well, actually that comes under Item G in the site plan review, and see he did put in a request for a waiver for the lighting plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, John? Anything else, Tom? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do we need to do a SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21 day of May, 2002, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2002 KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan Review No. 24-2002 Applicant: Kubricky Construction Corp. Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: LI-1A Location: 290 Bay Road Applicant proposes to convert existing residence for use as office space. Office in a Light Industrial zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: UV 115-1989, SP 71-89 Warren Co. Planning: 5/8/02 Tax Map No. 302.08-2-17, 18/ 107-1-25, 27 Lot size: 2.56 acres Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: May 21, 2002 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/17/02: 5/21 Staff Notes 5/14 Notice of Public Hearing 5/8 Warren Co. Planning 5/1 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 21, 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 57 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Waiver granted for the Landscaping Plans, Lighting Plan, Topography and Hard Surface Paving, for Item G, as requested by the applicant, and 2. A notation will be added to the detail that the pitch will be a minimum of one percent (1%) grade, and 3. The applicant will consolidate the two parcels, and 4. The applicant will, on the final site plan, remove parking spaces 6 through 10, and 5. 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 5/21/02 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Off the record, we drummed you up some business tonight. Did you get it? MR. NACE-What? MR. MAC EWAN-Al Boychuk. MR. NACE-I already did the, I did the sewer. MR. MAC EWAN-No, they need to have their site plan revised. MR. NACE-I told him I couldn’t do it in the next two weeks. I’m overwhelmed. MR. STROUGH-From all observations I make, Tom, you did an excellent job with the stormwater runoff in the Morse Athletic fields. The kids were even commenting on how much it rains and it stays dry, and everything else, and I knew that was quite a challenge. MR. NACE-I sweated a little bit a year ago when it flooded. I sweated a lot. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not done here. We’ll be back Thursday night. What are we going to do to resolve the problems we have in getting these turnarounds with engineering comments, responses back and forth. I’m frustrated that stuff is ending up on the table the night of a meeting. MR. STROUGH-One month delay on all applications. MR. VOLLARO-Well, either that or the Staff puts a spooning function into that so they can handle it. I think there’s a load on Staff as well. I mean, I come over and drop in once and a while and Craig has got paper in there standing a foot high on his desk all around the place. So it’s almost impossible. I don’t even know, like, for Thursday’s night review, I’m not going to be able to do as thorough a review as I usually do on that. I’m not going to have the time this time. Other things are taking on more importance. MR. STROUGH-Well, we were depending on you, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to un-depend. So I think there’s too much of a load here. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. STROUGH-Tony will have to take up the slack. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems where we’re heading here is that, I hate to see it, but it looks like three meetings a month is going to become a norm here in the not too distant future, and that is partly because we did limit the number of items on the agenda, which is rightly so, but I don’t think it’s fair to us or fair to the applicant to start having stuff thrown on our table here the night of a meeting. It’s counterproductive. It certainly elevates the frustration level for everybody involved. MR. BROWN-I think what may be beneficial is if an application is tabled for response to the engineering comments or to modify a plan, you give them a deadline. Get it back in by this date or we’ll have to push you off to another month, and if we have that deadline that’s been established by the Board, we need your comments back by the 23. If it’s not in, we just, and the applicants, from what I’ve seen, know that if rd they’re not in by that date, they’re not in the 24 saying, please, please. They’re saying I didn’t make the 24, thth it just gives me more time. The engineers and surveyors aren’t going to argue with you, because they’re going to welcome the time to complete the application. They’re just as busy as we are. It’s going to be the applicants, if there’s anybody that’s going to complain it would be them, and hopefully they wouldn’t because they’re still waiting for an approval. MR. MAC EWAN-If we give an applicant a deadline, what guarantee is that if we give them a deadline that that’s going to be okay for C.T. Male to return stuff to us? I mean, is everything that C.T. Male threw at us tonight based on the fact that they only got information here in the last few days from applicants? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-It sure looked like it. MR. BROWN-They did an admirable job turning things around as fast as they did. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that, and I know they’re caught in a quandary, too. MR. HUNSINGER-’d said earlier, I’d hate to be Jim on the day before a Planning Board meeting, or the day of even. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s do that for the next few meetings, and see how that pans out. MR. HUNSINGER-Have a specific deadline? MR. MAC EWAN-We tell them that you need to respond to these comments by such and such a date, and Craig will have a feel for how much time we need to have C.T. Male turn stuff around, so that we don’t have stuff ending up on our laps the night of a meeting. I know it’s frustrating. MR. BROWN-This month was peculiar. The meetings were a week earlier in the month because of the way the first was on a Wednesday, or Tuesday, you start counting until you get to the third one. You’re in the beginning of the third week and it doesn’t sound like a lot. It’s only a week, but it makes a big difference in turnaround time. MR. MAC EWAN-Giving us a week is precious time. It really is. MR. VOLLARO-Craig, what do you see as the load coming downstream? What’s it look like for the future? You hear people coming in, wanting to talk to you. MR. BROWN-There’s no delay, I mean, there’s no slow down. We meet with people every day, several people a day. You’ve got three or four big ones that are coming still. You’ve got the Mall and Home Depot, Green Mountain. They’re big things that are going to be, have already been two meetings, some of them, and some of them are going to be a couple of more. Maybe, with the expedited matters, you talk about boathouses or expansion of nonconforming structures, those may be things that we can do administratively, too, and say, look, unless there’s any comment at the public hearing which you’re required, not required, but you choose to hold, unless there’s any comment there, if it meets all the requirement, you can just give it, for lack of a better term, a rubber stamp and say it’s approved, for boathouses, I’m sure that you would agree that 99% of them that you see are just, you wait to see if the public shows up to complain about it, and then as long as it meets the height and size and square footage, you guys are all set with it, and I think that may take some of the applications away, and there’s a list of things that we’ve proposed to do administratively, but. MR. MAC EWAN-How far away are you from drafting something? MR. BROWN-Well, I think there’s something there. If you saw tonight’s agenda, it was listed on there as one of the things to talk about. It was just, you know, we made a decision that, three meetings this month. That may not be the place to put this, maybe a slow meeting, maybe if you have a third meeting next month, put it on the slowest meeting. (lost words) rezoning policy, when to consider rezoning requests. Rather than do it 59 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) at the whim of the applicant, let’s do it quarterly, so we’ve got time to review them and consider how it fits in the Town, and then have the Town Board and the Planning Board hear them all at once. MR. MAC EWAN-I like that idea. MR. BROWN-And that’s one of the proposals that we have. There’s other things. There’s noise provisions, policies and procedures. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, as far as the applications and packets and stuff like that, Rick Meyer’s application tonight for his greenhouse, I thought that that drawing was less than desirable and more importantly didn’t even meet the criteria to be put on the agenda. MR. BROWN-Well, we had that very conversation. As you can imagine, we get the, I won’t call it pressure, but we get the applicants that come in and say, you know, you’re going to make me do a survey to do this? I’m not building any buildings. I’m not expanding my site. You’re going to make me spend $1,000 to do a survey? If they have a drawing that represents what they want, it’s tough to tell where the conversation’s going to go when they get here, and if it’s going to require. If you want us to require a survey map from everybody MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that the checklist for making an application for site plan says that. It says that it has to be a scaled drawing with the North arrow, showing all the items that are on that parcel, and it didn’t do that. It doesn’t say that he has to go out and get a surveyed drawing. MR. BROWN-Most of the time you can’t get a lot of those things on there unless there’s a survey. That’s a good example, the Meyer application. Is there a requirement and a way to review an application? Sure, there’s certainly some discretion as to how much weight you put on each application. You don’t review one the same as you review the other. So are the submission requirements going to be the same for one as they are for the other? I think there’s some flexibility you can exercise. MR. MAC EWAN-They do vary. MR. BROWN-They do vary. MR. MAC EWAN-An intense commercial operation, obviously, we’re going to be looking for a whole bunch of things, and I think what kicked this thing in, obviously, was the length of that road, the driveway that’s servicing this. MR. BROWN-That was the concern we had in our first meeting. My site visit, I discussed the same thing with him. He knew that’s what it was. He, apparently, didn’t bring something in to offer. He just wanted to see what direction you guys were going to go in, and he seemed like he was okay with that. That’s why we have the meetings, right, to figure out the goods and the bads. Like I said, hopefully those expedited matters things will take some of the things off your plate for you, and maybe give you, afford you more time to do the reviews that you want to do on the bigger projects or the ones you need to do on the bigger projects. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that our workload is certainly hindered us in giving us a thorough review. In any applications that have come across, we give everything a thorough review. MR. STROUGH-It’s pushing it to the limit, though, 18 applications. MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s pushing who to the limit? I mean, we’re not pushing each other to the limit. Staff’s not pushing us to the limit. MR. STROUGH-No, I mean, reviewing 18 applications in one month is pretty trying. With some of them being pretty big applications. MR. MAC EWAN-My response would be, that’s the pitfalls of living in Queensbury. MR. BROWN-The Planning Board’s, as you know, we’ve been short staffed without Laura, and it’s not an excuse. It’s a fact. Applications come in and we’ll look at them and say, you know what, this is good. This isn’t good enough. Some of them this is great. Some of them this is good enough, and that’s what we have to do sometimes, because we can’t do the review just like sometimes you can’t do the review on something if you get it the night of a meeting. You have to go on what’s there and make a reasonable decision, say, this is, it’s okay for this application, and that’s why you get applications in varying stages of detail. Cumberland Farms application is not going to be the same as mom and pop’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) MR. BROWN-But, the plan is, with the new person coming on, I don’t know if anybody here has heard about this, but George Hilton, who used to be here before Laura was here, he’s due back the beginning of June. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where’s he been? MR. BROWN-Down State, Westchester County Connecticut doing a lot of GIS work. So the plan is to be able to have somebody on Staff to do a more thorough review of the projects than just me, between all the other couple of things that I need to do during the day. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got ZBA and us. MR. BROWN-So the plan is to have a more focused, detailed review of the projects, and maybe identify some more of these things earlier on, and being removed could be easier for me to say, look, you’re off. This is the next step. Here’s your letter. Get me these things next month and we’ll consider you complete and be back on. It’s tough to do on a day to day basis when you see the application. You know what the application’s about because you just sat down with an hour for the applicant So you assume that’s going to come back. When it comes back it’s different, and some of them have been through (lost words). MR. STROUGH-He’ll be on board in June? MR. BROWN-June 3. rd MR. MAC EWAN-Any other issues? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I felt a little, on the Double A Provisions one, where they came in with those drawings, you know, those stormwater drawings without C.T. Male looking at them. I was a little uncomfortable with that, because we were putting ourselves kind of in the design role, I thought. MR. BROWN-Don’t let Mike push you around. He’s here asking for permission. You can give it to him if you want. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. MR. BROWN-Not that he did tonight, but he’ll do just what you ask him to do. MR. VOLLARO-Approving that drawing without it being looked at by C.T. Male, I think we started to make design considerations, and we did. We said, all right, let’s just do the one drywell on the path and leave the one up on the road out. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s such a mess I almost didn’t know where to begin. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but see C.T. Male might have been able to shed a little more light on that for us, if we let that drawing go in for review. MR. MAC EWAN-And along that line of thinking, Bob, just as a footnote, this is the second application in a row I’ve seen Jarrett supply his “stormwater management report” by a visual inspection of the site, without supply documentation to support that. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that’s because we let it go last month. MR. MAC EWAN-We just did it the other day with Seelye’s. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’m saying, I’m sorry, last week, not last month. MR. BROWN-It’s certainly within your power to tell them that, you know, we don’t know what the Main Street plan is. Go get an overlay, put it on your plan, show us how it’s going to affect your plan and come back with it. You could have done that to. I think it’s best that the project is done rather than delayed. MR. MAC EWAN-It’ll come back. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It will when the new road gets put in. MR. BROWN-Anytime you have information, Bob, and you want more, send them back. MR. MAC EWAN-It’ll come back. That project comes back every two years. It’s like the Swallows of Capistrano. They keep coming back. Anything else? On motion meeting was adjourned. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/02) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 62