Loading...
2004-10-26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 26, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM HOUSTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-One announcement tonight, before we begin, just for people’s understanding, is Site Plan 58-2004, for Narseen Khurshid, which is the proposed restaurant, 6700 square foot restaurant, that was slated to be heard for tonight, the applicant has withdrawn that application. I guess they’re going to go back to their engineering and resubmit an application at a later date. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 SEQR TYPE: MODIFICATION DAVID MENTER AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1130 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE LAYOUT FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 49,760 +/- SQ. FT. HOTEL. SPECIFICALLY THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RELOCATION OF THE HOTEL AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST AND TO RAISE THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AND BUILDING BY 5 FEET. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 300 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1- 9 LOT SIZE: 6.0 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to modify a previous approval by raising the elevation of the finished floor of a proposed hotel and shifting it slightly to the north and east, and I guess our comment, main comment, is what are the visual impacts of this proposed modification. Beyond that, I think there are some C.T. Male comments, and with that, that’s all I really have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Dennis MacElroy and Dave Menter. Very simply, when Dave started to get into the building diagrams, it was determined that to 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) move the hotel over slightly and raise it five feet, he’d be able to eliminate 30% of the cut operation, which is 15,000 cubic yards of materials, which is a lot of unnecessary truck traffic, and with a really minor impact on the site, because the main visual impact is Round Pond Road, and that’s still blocked by the hill that’s there, that acts as a berm. The hotel is set back far from Route 9. So this is just a benefit to the project, and less disturbance to the area, and less truck traffic, and that’s why it was worth asking Dennis to change the plans, and coming back to talk to you about it. The 300 square feet is just really just to change some suites around. Really minor addition. Let me ask Dennis to go through the details. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Jon. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. First to orient you. Route 9, in this location, the site is about a six acre site, which borders on Route 9 and Round Pond Road. Our previous approval had the hotel site at an elevation of 122, and the applicant now would propose to raise that finished floor to 127. In addition, there is a slight addition of floor space, in an area back here, and an area here of 300 square feet. The footprint of the building has been shifted. Basically we’ve picked up that approved plan, shifted it ten feet to the north, and fifteen feet east, and that’s in an effort to gain a little more driveway area to carry that elevation change. Again, a five foot elevation difference, and what that will result in is, as Jon indicated, less cut, and in fact, because there’s less cut, there’ll be a little less impact on this area which was to be left undisturbed with that growth of trees that exists there now, because we’re up a little higher. The slope and the cut that would be necessary actually will cause slightly less disturbance in that area. I think that we have some C.T. Male comments that I’ve responded to, and that’s in the file. I don’t know if you want to review each one of those. There are only a couple of them, but related to just some typos, as you will, on the plan, as far as elevations. Those were corrected. An agreement that the stormwater would not be affected for the little bit of change, and, let me refer back to the letter, spot elevations have been corrected, an adjustment to grading. There was a comment about the grading in this area. We’ve adjusted that, and comment about the slope coming in and out of the site. Any questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, are you satisfied? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. We did look through the most recent submission, and all of our comments are addressed. The only outstanding issue is the steepness of the entrance drives. They’re at 12%, in order to get up to the higher elevation of the motel, and it’s at 12% is what the grade is that’s shown on the plan that’s here before you, and, outside of that one comment, which is my comment number five, everything else has been addressed on the most recent plan that we’ve gotten from Dennis. There is, just to fully explain this, steepness of drives, going out towards Route 9, there is an area of lesser slope before you get to Route 9, which may serve, give some safety measure to that access out to Route 9. The access drive going down to Round Pond Road stays steep right down to the road, or very close proximity to Round Pond Road, and that’s, my only concern about that is in wintertime conditions and I don’t know how the Board feels about that, and there’s nothing that I would guess that says, speaks specifically to this in the Code. There is reference to marginal access and local street grades being a maximum of 10% in the Code, and this would exceed that, being at 12%. I did note that the one driveway exit going out to Round Pond Road faces south, and that’s a plus, as far as icing and winter conditions. That was not the case that we had at the connector road most recently between Ray Supply and Wal-Mart. That would be very hidden from any kind of sunshine and be concerned about icing on that road and that grade was reduced back down below 10%, but that was the only outstanding item on this whole review. MR. MAC ELROY-If I could just add to that, there is a queuing area of about 35 feet of a 3 to 4% slope, which is standard, whether your subsequent slope is 10% or 8% or whatever, but that landing area, so to speak, is at 3 and a half percent on the plan, and it does extend in from the edge of the right of way some 35 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Is that at the interface of Round Pond, is that what you’re talking about? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct, yes. Whereas here we have more like 100 feet, here we have about 35 feet. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-No, that should cover the comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question. The only question I had was really related to the Staff comment. Would there be any detectable difference between what was proposed originally and what you’re proposing now, in terms of, you know, line of sights from Round Pond Road and Route 9? MR. MAC ELROY-Detectable? The building, in fact, is five feet higher. It starts at a point five feet higher, but remember that this background area is higher than that, as it exists. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, that’s why I asked the question. In the revision, there’s no way to judge where the tree canopy ends and where the new roofline would end, you know, in relation to any line of sight from either Round Pond or Route 9. MR. MAC ELROY-The sectional view gives some indication of that, that the existing trees that are there and will remain in the 30 to 40 to 50 foot height will still be at an elevation that buffers and provides a back drop to the building, whether it’s at 122 or 127. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to ask Chris, I thought SE-1 gave us pretty much a good look at that view shed, Chris. I was trying to figure out what your. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just wanted to have him confirm it for the record, as much as anything. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 DAVID MENTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Modification – relocation of the hotel and all improvements approximately 30 feet to the northeast and to raise the development site and building by five (5) feet; also proposes a 330 sq. ft. addition to the building. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 10/26/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of October 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 35-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM & CATHLEEN EHLERT AGENT: PYRAMID NETWORK SERVICES ZONE: LI LOCATION: 106 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER, AS WELL AS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL ANTENNA. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-2-7 LOT SIZE: 3.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-130, F TIMOTHY FITZPATRICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-I think with this one we have everything we were looking for. A comment from the FAA indicating they’re comfortable with the increase in height, and in fact we do have in our file a September 17 letter from C.T. Male, saying that the revisions address the comments th made in a previous letter. At that point, I think everything, from our end, is set, and that’s all I have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. FITZPATRICK-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, your name is? MR. FITZPATRICK-Timothy Fitzpatrick. MR. MAC EWAN-And as I remember, all we were looking for, basically, was the FAA signoff on this thing, I do believe, right? MR. FITZPATRICK-FAA signoff and review by C.T. Male, which have both been accomplished. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-All right. In the letter from the FAA, they say that the marking and lightings are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular, and it gives a case number, I guess, or a file number, whatever. Do you plan on putting a light on top of it? MR. FITZPATRICK-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems pretty simple and straightforward. I’ll open it up to questions. We need to do a SEQRA on this. Does Staff have any comments? MR. HILTON-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 MR. HUNSINGER-Is this the Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-I do believe it is. MR. VOLLARO-They gave us an Appendix B to the Long Form for a Visual EAF Addendum. I mean, do we want to use that or just move to Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s our preference. We can use Short if we want. If you want to go ahead with Short, that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Short’s good for me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 35-2004, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, 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 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) 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 26 day of October, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2004 OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Expansion of an existing cellular communications tower as well as adding an additional antenna WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/27/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with no additional comments. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. FITZPATRICK-Thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. FITZPATRICK-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD & KIM BENDER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: CARDINALE LANE, OFF PEGGY ANN RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 5.72-ACRE PROPERTY INTO 5 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.58 ACRES TO 1.29 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 6-2002 TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-62 LOT SIZE: 5.72 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KIM BENDER, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Since this item was before the Board last in December, the application, the subdivision plat’s been revised to show the location of two areas of blue lupine, and I guess the question is, has the applicant submitted these findings to New York State DEC, and are there any comments from New York State DEC, as far as the, just simply leaving these areas alone and providing no cut zones. We don’t have any comment in the file, but simply a question. The plat’s been revised to show no cut areas to the south, and as far as protecting those lupine areas, I think the only other comment I have is that a C.T. Male signoff is what we’re looking for, and with that, that’s all I have at this time. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering and Kim Bender, the owner. To answer Staff comments. The first answer is yes, that we did supply the revised plan showing the lupine area delineation and the mitigation, the no cut zone to DEC. That was provided by Deb Roberts to DEC, to Kathy O’Brien on October 4. I think a copy of that went to the th Chairman, or at least to his files, directly from Deb Roberts. If you don’t have a copy, let me know, and I’ll certainly provide you one tomorrow, and, other than that, we have addressed C.T. Male’s comments from the previous planning revision back last December. I would note two things on our response. One was that we located the septic, existing septic area for Lot Number Two, the existing house, incorrectly. We put it in the back of the house. Since we’ve been provided with maps that show that it is, in fact, in front of the house. It doesn’t affect any of the drainage or any of the, since this is on public water, it doesn’t affect any other issues. It is the required distance from all the proposed lot lines. It’s more than 10 feet from any of the lot lines, but it’s actually inside the circle of the existing driveway. The second issue is that one of C.T. Male’s comments was we have two driveway, existing driveway entrances now. Would we be keeping those or if we would be eliminating one, which one would we be eliminating. I had responded that we would eliminate one of them, the southernmost one. The applicant has advised that she would like to keep that, if at all possible, and what we propose is that once the road is established, if she can get a driveway at a reasonable grade to meet the Town Codes, then she would maintain two driveways. I don’t think there’s anything in your Code that 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) prevents two driveways, and she’d like to keep the circular, existing circular drive that she has. Other than that, I have no other issues, but I’ll answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, where are we on a signoff? MR. HOUSTON-I haven’t had a chance to review the plans thoroughly. I’ve just had a chance, since I’ve been here tonight, looking through there, and most everything that I see addresses comments that I had. I’d like to go through it a little more thoroughly before I issue a signoff letter, and are you going to submit another plan that shows that septic system? MR. NACE-We would submit, on the final plan for plat signature, we would change the location of that septic. MR. HOUSTON-That’s the only outstanding thing that I heard, that is not up to par, you know, on the plan that we have here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and, Staff, you have something in there relative to the lupine? MR. HILTON-Well, I think we’d need a copy of that letter. I don’t think we have a copy of the correspondence to DEC. MR. NACE-Actually, I can get another copy, I’ll give you mine. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. NACE-And note that the date on the cover sheet is incorrect. The date on the second sheet is correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple and straightforward. I’ll just open it up for questions. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. On the no cut zone in the south end of Lot Number Three, there’s a large lupine protection area there. How will this be protected from the bordering lots to the west and the south? In other words, that whole area looks like it’s almost a no cut zone, just to leave it alone. Will the neighbors that border that to the south and the west be notified, understand they’ve got to stay off that? There is a sign on the print that says, you’ve got a small sign on the print that talks about that. MR. NACE-Correct. That’s the same thing we did with Schermerhorn. MR. VOLLARO-There should be some signage for the neighbors as well, I would think, so that they understand what that is. MR. NACE-Sure. Originally I didn’t because the actual mapped lupine areas are far enough away from the property line that it didn’t appear to be an issue, but we certainly can put a sign up. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, it’s an empty lot. Kids will start running around on it. If it’s supposed to be protected, I guess we’ve got to. MR. NACE-We could put a sign both on the southern property line and on the eastern property line, or southern and western. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Related questions. Would the owner of proposed lot three, would they be responsible for maintaining the lupine habitat? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. NACE-They’re responsible, with deed restrictions, for not destroying it, okay. As far as maintaining it, I mean, it’s kind of an odd, it’s just a very small area, and it’s only along a trail. It’s just an opening along a trail where the lupine get enough sunlight and non-competition from larger plants to survive. It’s not really a prime lupine area such as we saw with some of the stuff out on Sherman Avenue. MR. SANFORD-Tom, the only reason I think that the question is relevant is my limited understanding of this is that if you actually leave it alone, and you have tree vegetation, you destroy the habitat. So it’s almost like you have to keep it in a manmade, almost, environment for it to remain a habitat for the Karner blue. That’s why NiMo lines are typically ideal. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if this Board is suggesting that any landowner would have to do anything proactive, other than to keep off it, but I think that’s basically probably what you’re getting at, isn’t it, Chris, to some degree? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, and we don’t really, I mean, we don’t have an updated letter from DEC indicating what they suggest. I mean, if there was something from them saying, well, here’s what we recommend that you do to maintain that habitat, then I probably wouldn’t have asked the question. MR. VOLLARO-There is a thing called the Karner blue lupine protection plan that they could impose, and, you’re right, they have not. That’s a complete plan, I believe, Marilyn. MRS. RYBA-That’s not complete yet. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not complete yet. I see. MR. NACE-I think the way we’ve approached this in the past, with these little small areas that are not really conducive, because of the vegetation around them, to actual habitation by the butterflies, is to simply keep the homeowner from dumping yard waste on it and keep the homeowner from cutting everything around it. MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with that, for one. I mean, as one Board member, given the relatively small area we’re talking about. I think the fact that it’s identified and posted would be satisfactory, to me, a way on that. MR. NACE-Like I said, we’re certainly willing to put up a couple of more signs to warn adjacent property owners. MR. VOLLARO-It’s very kind of you, but I’m not sure how it’s going to work, but that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it would be ideal if the owner, if the purchaser of that lot would take an interest in it and educate themselves. MR. NACE-We can certainly encourage. I don’t know how you can legislate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t know if you can. MR. MAC EWAN-We can only wish. We can’t legislate. Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The document that you gave to Staff, is that the result of the spring survey? MR. NACE-That’s the result of a lupine survey, not a butterfly survey. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. VOLLARO-The lupine survey. I didn’t know what document, because I had a note here. MR. NACE-That was the results of her, it was Deb Roberts conveying her delineation, this map that shows the delineation, and the proposed mitigation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One last thing, and I don’t think it’s really germane, as a matter of fact. Your last letter on this was in 11/14/03, and I was wondering whether you were going to upgrade that letter for the file? MR. NACE-Well, again, there must be something about this project that leads to wrong dates. The date on that should have been September 14, 2004. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-But I pulled out an old letter as a template and forgot to change the date. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Works for me. I guess the only other thing is the Highway Department had some information on this subdivision that they wanted us to include in, this comes out in Mr. Missita’s, on Cardinale Lane. One, he wanted the existing blacktop roadway driveways to be removed, and propose new and old built to Town specs. This is Department of Highway. MR. NACE-How old is that? MR. VOLLARO-This was received September 29, 2004, in the Town of Queensbury Planning Office. MR. NACE-I do not have a copy of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s a whole list of things that Missita wants to have looked at here. I’m getting some blank stares from Staff on this one. MRS. RYBA-We’re looking. MR. NACE-I’ll certainly be glad to meet with Rick and take care of his concerns. MR. VOLLARO-I want to see if we’ve even got that, if I’m the only one that’s got that on the record, then I’ll give myself either a D or an A. MR. SANFORD-I don’t have it. MR. NACE-Are you sure it’s the right project? MR. VOLLARO-It says, “Dear Craig”, it goes to Craig MacEwan, Cardinale Lane subdivision, September 29, 2004, from Rick Missita, with three requirements. I’ll read them off, existing blacktop road/driveway must be removed and propose new and old built to Town specs. In a letter from Tom Nace Item Five states open drain must be maintained. I would rather have drainage easements between Lots Four and Five to stop any problems with homeowners in the future. That way no landscaping can be placed in our way maintaining the drainage runoff, and where Peggy Ann Road meets the new proposed Town road, (lost word) need to be cut down to stop any problems or damage. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you not get a copy of that? MR. NACE-No, I did not, but it sounds like certainly we can comply with what he’s asked. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’ll give myself an A. George, if you come up with it. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-We all have it. We should have all had it. MR. SANFORD-I don’t have it. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to read your mail. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? None? Anything to add? 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 MR. MAC EWAN-A SEQRA is in order, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. They filed a Long Form. MR. NACE-Subdivision, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 19-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD & KIM BENDER, 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 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) 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 26 day of October, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2003 RICHARD & KIM BENDER, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Five (5) lot residential subdivision WHEREAS, the application was received in Sept. 04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch plan), and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/16/03 and 10/26/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 19-2003 RICHARD & KIM BENDER, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Five (5) lot residential subdivision WHEREAS, the application was received in Sept. 04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment (n/a at sketch plan), and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/16/03 and 10/26/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff subject to the following conditions 1. C.T. Male sign-off, and 2. Satisfaction of the Town of Queensbury Highway Department outstanding items stated in their 9/28/04 letter, and 3. As well as the addition of two additional signs delineating lupine and/or Karner Blue potential environment, and 4. Resubmission of the plans showing septic system out front rather than out back on Lot No. 2. Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there someone here representing Econo Lodge, Site Plan No. 12-2004? MR. SANFORD-Before we get to that, though, on another issue, Mr. Chairman, I think that James Newbury is also off at this time, and I don’t know, you didn’t announce that to the public. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not on my agenda. I’ve got an updated agenda. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-The new and improved version. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 SEQR TYPE II MODIFICATION AFTAB BHATTI AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: ECONOLODGE, 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO STORMWATER, GRADING, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOTEL ON THE PROPERTY. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-03, AV 19-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.12 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SAM BHATTI, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. There really aren’t any, are there? MR. HILTON-Well, really quickly, well, I know that the application was tabled so that they could address C.T. Male comments. At this point, I’m not sure, I don’t believe we have a signoff, or anything like that, but I will, I guess, turn it over to Jim for his summary. MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I’m understanding of the events that took place to be on the agenda tonight. The applicant was required to submit revised drawings that better delineated what the activities were that changed from the original approvals on the drawings. Correct? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Two, he was to have those drawings to the Town office building no later than noon on last Friday. Is that also correct? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And, three, he was also to sit down with Staff and the Town’s consultant, the engineer, to discuss those plans some time last Friday afternoon. Is that also correct? MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And you also received additional information late today. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, 10:30 this morning. MR. MAC EWAN-Where did we go wrong? For the record, your name is, please? MR. BROWN-First of all, I didn’t get notified. Excuse me. My name is Peter Brown. Okay. I’m representing Sam Bhatti, the owner of Econo Lodge, and I will tell you that I didn’t understand what you people interpreted the resolution as, and I had called C.T. Male on Thursday morning. I called them Wednesday morning, called them Thursday and I called them on Friday, and I did get together and meet with them Friday. Okay. He wanted me to change some information on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Who did you meet with at C.T. Male? MR. BROWN-Jim Edwards. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. HOUSTON-That probably was up in our Glens Falls office, not in the Latham office. I wasn’t aware of that meeting. MR. BROWN-I talked to him down in Latham on Thursday, I believe, Wednesday I didn’t talk to him. I don’t know where he was then. I called him the first thing Wednesday morning, like at nine o’clock Wednesday morning, okay. I received, incidentally, the mail was sent out October 20, and I received it on Friday. th MR. MAC EWAN-Received what Friday? MR. BROWN-The notification of what you guys wanted in the resolution. Okay, and there was nothing in the resolution anywhere, basically what I have, I have a memorandum from George Hilton, and to get back into the thing, basically, we had already agreed that I was going to meet with C.T. Male so that I’d go over these things with them directly, and we wouldn’t get into all the other incidental items. It would just be talking about the drainage and stuff like that. C.T. Male had given a previous, basically a write off, okay, of some sort regarding the stormwater revisions, and that was in a memo to you on, it was received here October 4, excuse me, th October 14 by the Town of Queensbury Planning Office, and it basically says as built, th infiltration system is more than adequate to contain and treat the stormwater runoff from the site. Okay. We’d already sent this information to C.T. Male back in August, okay. They weren’t allowed to talk to us directly, it got caught up in the system, and that’s when I received that thing back finally on October, well, whenever I received the fax, on the 15. I did receive a th fax from the Town of Queensbury on that one. When it came to notification of this meeting, I received no fax at all. It came in the mail. MR. MAC EWAN-Were you not here at that meeting last week? MR. BROWN-I certainly was. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you not understand that what they asked of you was to make sure the drawings were received here at the Town offices no later than noon on Friday? MR. BROWN-I was not aware of that because I was told that, when I was here was, and this is my interpretation of it, that I had to meet with C.T. Male first. I met with C.T. Male on Friday. I had to go out and get a surveyor to provide a survey that just got in here tonight, or late this afternoon, okay, and you just don’t do this overnight. Okay. They were surveying Sunday, is that correct, Sam? They were surveying Sunday to get this thing done. I was working all weekend. I was putting together the documents and everything else today. Yesterday I’ve worked solid on this thing, ever since I met with Jim on Friday. Okay. I didn’t do this intentionally. I didn’t do this purposely to tick people off like that. I have been working my butt off. MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s suggesting that you did. MR. BROWN-I know. You’re suggesting like I neglected it. I didn’t neglect it. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not what I suggested. It’s not what I even asked. I just asked you if you understood what Staff and what the Planning Board had requested when they tabled your application, what they wanted you to do to ensure that we’d all be able to review your application tonight. As it is right now, they haven’t had an opportunity to review the information you submitted late this afternoon for the meeting tonight. MR. BROWN-Do you realize how much information was put together for your over the weekend? Do you realize it? MR. MAC EWAN-It wasn’t supposed to be done over the weekend. It was supposed to be in our office by last Friday. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. BROWN-I met with the guys Friday, and Friday night they had all the floor plans that were changed. They didn’t have the survey until tonight. Okay. I don’t mean to argue with you, but I’m just sitting here saying that I did everything humanly possible to help you people out, okay. I even offered, Friday night, to take the plans to each one of you Board members at your residence. Okay. It wasn’t in the procedure. So therefore I said, all right. I won’t agitate anybody by taking them to their homes. That’s fine. Okay. I don’t know when you did get them, okay, but they were here Friday night, but I had offered to do that. I also made the offer to, anyone of you people that wanted to call me on the weekend, Friday night, I didn’t care when it was, I was going to be there all weekend long, anybody that wanted to go and review the site in person with me, and I’d take them right through the whole tour. They were invited. I don’t know if anybody was told that, but I was open in arms to take anybody out and show them anything. You’re welcome to come in the office and go through documents. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, as it stands right now, I mean, with the information that you submitted late Friday to the Town office building, and the additional information that you submitted today, I mean, our Town Consulting Engineer has not had an opportunity to review the new information you’ve added. More importantly, we, as a Planning Board, haven’t seen the information that you provided late this afternoon. So we don’t even know what you’ve submitted. MR. BROWN-Okay. We’re going down and down and down. Okay. What I’m sitting here saying is you asked me originally did I attempt to? Yes, I did. Did C.T. Male approve this before? If you take that letter, the as built infiltration system is more than adequate to contain and treat the stormwater runoff from the site. Does that answer the question that was delivered to you on October 14? Maybe not to you, but it was certainly delivered in letter form. To me, th that’s approval. MR. MAC EWAN-No, the approval comes from this seven member Board. That’s where the approval comes from. MR. BROWN-You asked if C.T. Male had approved it. I beg to differ with you. MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’m not going to sit here and exchange barbs with you. I asked you what you were required to do, one more time, so it’s absolutely clear. What you were required to do, when this Board tabled the application last week, was to provide an updated drawing that clearly reflected all the as built changes on that application since it was previously approved by the Planning Board. You were to have that drawing to the Town offices last Friday by noon. MR. BROWN-No. MR. MAC EWAN-In doing so, you were supposed to also sit down with our Consulting Engineer, and Staff, that Friday afternoon to go over those drawings to be sure that’s not only what Staff was looking for, but it was what the Consulting Engineer was looking for and would be what this Board is looking for. While we appreciate your efforts, it came up short, and that’s not this Board’s fault. We’re trying to help you out. MR. BROWN-Mr. MacEwan, I beg to differ with you. First of all, I was never told that I had to meet with the Staff. I was told that I had to meet with C.T. Male. I made every effort to meet with C.T. Male, in a timely manner. I made every effort to clear those plans up and to redraw them and make whatever notes were necessary. They approved them. I made every effort to get 15 copies out of printing places to get them here to you on time, in a timely manner. I did everything I could to get a survey that showed everything, as far as location goes. I’m sorry that you have been told something different than I understand. MR. METIVIER-Can I interject? The minutes were just released to us from last week’s meeting. The motion to table this was based on, that we have a comprehensive set of drawings that reflect the modifications accurately, and that those drawings, as well as any outstanding 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) concerns be submitted to C.T. Male review and signing off prior to our meeting on 10/26, and we receive a letter from the Fire Marshal indicating that they approve of the site plan. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I asked Rich, who introduced the motion, and I’ve asked a couple of other Board members and said was it entered into the discussions of what you asked him to do. MR. METIVIER-It was entered into the discussions, if you flip the page, that he was to meet with C.T. Male, let me see here, C.T. Male has to get a signoff, and that there was discussion that they meet with C.T. Male by Friday, and so C.T. Male could review the plans by then, and give a signoff by tonight. His response to that was, we’re swamped, but we can take a look and make an attempt. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BROWN-That wasn’t my, that was C.T. Male that was swamped. That was Jim Edwards. MR. METIVIER-Excuse me. It was Jim Edwards, you’re correct. MR. MAC EWAN-But you have not had a chance to review the additional information that came today. We don’t have a signoff from Jim. MR. HOUSTON-I have not, personally, but Jim Edwards, I talked with him today, and he did receive some plans this morning, that’s my understanding. MR. BROWN-That was the survey. MR. HOUSTON-It was to address some of the missing information that was on the plans from Friday. That was my understanding in my discussion with Jim. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HOUSTON-So, and Jim, in looking through that plan, had noted a couple of minor corrections that he thinks should be made, and he wasn’t in a position to write a signoff on that set of plans so far, but it’s very close to where he thinks it should be. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with the drawings, as our Consultant, to be the record for this application of what’s been changed? MR. HOUSTON-I can’t speak to that. Jim Edwards has looked at the plans. I have not seen the plans. So I can’t comment on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, just as important as that is that the members of this Board, at least the one that sits in this seat, has to try to understand these drawings as well, and I looked at the second set, and I spent time on the second set, and I really can’t see, I still can’t make a correlation between the original drawings, and I won’t mention the fact there was a different engineering firm, the original drawings and these. I can’t see where the differences are, and I’ve looked, and I see a note from Wastewater Department that says exactly the same thing. I think Mr. Shaw from Wastewater, which is our sewer department, says that he doesn’t know what’s being changed. MR. METIVIER-But again, what we asked for is a set of plans that didn’t delineate the changes, but instead was something that we could look at and accept and have the Chairman signoff on. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. If we get a set of plans here, Tony, and I can’t understand what they say, then I’m going to abstain. I can tell you that now, without. MR. METIVIER-But I’m just saying that we didn’t want a set of revised plans to show the differences. We want a set of revised plans that we could look at and accept. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but what’s being revised, then? MR. METIVIER-Well, there was a lot being revised, but the plan was an as is drawing, as opposed to a to be built drawing. That’s what we had asked for is an as is. MR. SANFORD-An as built. MR. METIVIER-Excuse me, as built. MR. SANFORD-And that’s what it was. MR. BROWN-And that’s what it is. MR. METIVIER-That’s actually what we talked about last Tuesday is to get a set of as built drawings. MR. BROWN-And that’s why I went over with Jim to make sure we had a clear understanding of what an as built was, and he wanted, he clearly wanted a survey of it, and I got that stuff together, and I’m sorry that I didn’t have, you know, I couldn’t work a miracle. I really apologize for that. MR. METIVIER-What we really wanted to do, the comment we made is that we could accept the drawings as is because we couldn’t have you sign off on them, or the Chairman signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t signoff on site plans. MR. METIVIER-No, I’m saying, but you sign the drawings that accept it? MR. MAC EWAN-No, not for site plan, only for subdivision plats. MR. METIVIER-All right. Anyway. We were so confused with the other drawings we had requested that he do an as built, and that C.T. Male could review those drawings and sign off on them, and it’s apparent that’s what they’re working to do. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Tony, the last set of drawings we got were an as built, or they purported to be an as built, and the new set that we got is an as built, but I’m trying to find out what the differences are between what we originally approved on this Board and what’s being built out there now, and I haven’t gotten a clear picture of that, and until I do, I’d have to vote no on this. I can tell you that without blinking an eyelash. I’ve got to know what the differences are. Otherwise I can’t vote. MR. SANFORD-Well, can’t voting is different than voting no. I mean, you need to be a little more specific. MR. VOLLARO-Go all the way and vote no, then. MR. SANFORD-All right. I just want to know where you stand. MR. VOLLARO-Because I’ve got to understand the difference between what we approved and what’s there. MR. SANFORD-Okay. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. METIVIER-But, Bob, why are you concentrating on what we approved and what’s there now? We know what’s there now. If you go and walk the site. MR. VOLLARO-Because there’s a difference, Tony. MR. METIVIER-I realize, but if C.T. Male is looking at the new set of drawings, and they sign off on those, which they’re working at, what difference does it make what we approved? You know it’s there. MR. SANFORD-It’s a modification, and I think that the point of departure is obviously what we approved and where it is now. I think Mr. Vollaro’s point is very well taken. I mean, I know that doesn’t seem too difficult for me to appreciate. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, can I say a few words? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. BROWN-You weren’t here last week, but we came in, and it was brought up, the same question, almost identical to this, early on. I didn’t want to get into reviewing the plans of what was approved, but I went through and showed everybody, I believe everybody is here tonight that was here last week, with the exception of one or two. Anyway, to make a long story short, basically I showed why we had to make changes on the approved plans, and I started out just with looking at the exits, and we went around the exits and one exit, this probably doesn’t reflect in the minutes of the meeting, but one exit I believe there was a seven foot drop on it. As you walked out the door, you stepped off the threshold and you went down seven feet. That was one of the approvals. That was a part of the approved plans. I tried to avoid noting that. Okay. Then I went to the front door, and you went out the front door, and you had a wheelchair, you could ride over an eight inch high curve, okay, and if you went out the other exit, where the handicapped chairs are, or where there handicap rooms are, okay, you’d step down somewhere between two and three feet, and you’d have a two and a half foot wide sidewalk as your exit door, and then you go off the curb to make up the difference. Okay. Now I don’t want to get into all those things again, but I went through these approved things that we had to change. That was just the start of it. Okay, and I just don’t think it’s necessary to go back through those things all over again. What we have done is we’ve shown you as builts. Okay. The engineer has been on the site with us several times. I’ve invited you people to come out, okay. I know you didn’t get the message so I guess I didn’t invite you, but I’m inviting you, but we can’t wait any longer. We are a half million dollars out in bills that we have to pay. We cannot get it from the bank until we get approval of the site plan, or a temporary CO. They won’t give us a temporary CO because we had to modify the plans. We’re heading down a dangerous road, and I’m asking you to take and please try to understand and just please try to be reasonable, because that’s the first question we’re going to all be asked at some point. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are we on the Fire Marshal’s determination on your canopy? MR. BROWN-It’s on the plan that was delivered to you Saturday. There’s a note on the back that says it has to be 13 and a half feet. He already has approved it, okay. He didn’t give me a written approval. I don’t know if he gave you a written approval, but if you look at those set of plans, there’s a drawing four that has the Code written right on it twice. Okay. Somebody was saying they saw it had to be 13 and a half feet. That’s fine. Okay, except it doesn’t exist where you, that doesn’t apply where you have a 20 foot way to get into the end of the property, a road to get onto the property. I tried to explain that, but apparently, did you understand that? MR. VOLLARO-The fact is we do have a letter here from the Fire Marshal. MR. BROWN-I didn’t receive that. MR. VOLLARO-That says exactly what you said. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. BROWN-That’s wonderful. MR. VOLLARO-George, you have that letter from the Fire Marshal there? I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. MR. MAC EWAN-Your hand drawn note on the proposed carport, your proposed clear height says, if I’m reading this correctly, 12 to 0 inches minimum. Is that what it says? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What is 12 to 0 inches? MR. BROWN-It’s 12 foot 0 inches. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Because it doesn’t show that on there. That’s why I’m asking the question, and the minimum it has to be, according to Town Fire Code, is 12’6”. MR. BROWN-No, that is not so. MR. MAC EWAN-Thirteen six, I’m sorry thirteen six. MR. BROWN-Then read the next article underneath it. It says if you have a way to get into the property with 20 foot of clearance, right, you can do it. That’s the way it is at every drive-in bank, and whatever else. MR. VOLLARO-We have a memo in file, Mr. Chairman, from the Fire Marshal. MR. MAC EWAN-And what does he say? MR. VOLLARO-It says exactly that. He says if there’s 20 foot clearance, you don’t need 13’6”. MR. BROWN-So in other words, he agreed with what the Code says? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. BROWN-The Town of Queensbury has adopted the State Building Code. That is the current State Building Code right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So what’s the Board’s pleasure? What do you want to do? MR. BROWN-May I make a suggestion? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m asking the Board. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things I’m concerned about is that last week, in the minutes, Mr. Bhatti said that his prior engineering firm had made some errors. The errors were also reviewed by C.T. Male, and that there is some liability. He mentioned, a mistake happened with one firm, and who can I sue, and went on with a couple of other things. One of the things that I’m concerned about is if we move forward without having approved drawings by our engineer and the differences between the as built, what was approved originally, and the as built drawings we have right here, I’m just concerned about where we go from here. The way I read the minutes and the way I took some of the comments, that were made last week, there’s a liability concern I have going forward with, you know, voting on these plans to accept them, and so that’s one of the concerns I have. MS. RADNER-If I can ring in. You are not certifying the engineering of this plan by approving the site plan review process, and you do not become the guarantor of his engineering work by 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) approving or by disapproving this plan, nor did you guarantee that because C.T. Male reviewed the plan and you had their concerns addressed, that the original plan was a fail proof plan that would work. What you need to do is look at the plans that they’ve now submitted and decide whether or not those plans are sufficient for you to go through the site plan review criteria and make a determination whether or not you’re going to approve this plan. Quite often with modifications, the starting point is the originally approved plan because it is simpler for an applicant to explain what’s changed from prior approvals, because you start from, you know, we’ve already received approvals for X, Y, and Z. Let’s just focus on X, that’s what we’ve changed. If the plans don’t allow you to do that, if you can’t compare them because they’re at a different engineering standard, whatever the reason, if you don’t feel you can do that, then you need to review the entire site plan to assure yourself that it’s a site plan that works, consistent with our Town Code. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what I thought. MR. HUNSINGER-I think for me, between the discussion last week and I think the photos that the applicant provided us last week, I think conceptually, I have a really good understanding of what had changed from what was previously approved to what was done. Really the only outstanding question that I have is primarily an engineering one, and that is, does the new stormwater management plan work, and that’s something that, you know, would require C.T. Male signoff, that we don’t currently have right now. I knew when we tabled this last week to this week that it was going to be very difficult to accomplish everything that, you know, and it’s no one’s fault. It’s just the way it worked out, but I guess from my perspective, I would feel okay moving forward, just with a standard stipulation that we get final signoff from C.T. Male. As Tony said, what’s there, it’s pretty easy to go to the site and look at the pictures and you can see what’s there. We’ve certainly approved projects before where we didn’t have a final signoff until, you know, after the fact, and it sounds like we’re pretty close, but, you know, Jim, you don’t know because you weren’t part of the meeting, or haven’t reviewed the plans yet. MR. HOUSTON-In my discussions with Jim Edwards today, he did not bring up the stormwater as being an outstanding issue. He did mention that the radius of the curb entrance coming in off of Aviation Road was something that had to be adjusted a little bit more, he felt, in order to meet the requirements. Now that’s just the nature of the type of thing that he was looking at. I don’t know if it was the radius of that entrance. That’s what he seemed to be leading to, to me, but those were the nature of his concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I mean, certainly something like a curb cut is site plan review item, but if it’s the difference between, you know, a slight adjustment in a turning radius. MR. HOUSTON-I don’t think it’s anything that would preclude an entrance from coming in off of Aviation Road or something to that magnitude. It’s just a minor adjustment in the radius. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s my feeling, for what it’s worth. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Somebody move it, then. MS. RADNER-The public hearing’s still open. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t. It’s a modification. It’s not required. MS. RADNER-You opened a public hearing last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had a public hearing last week. MR. MAC EWAN-Why did we do that? MR. HUNSINGER-It was warned, that was why. It was noticed that there would be a public hearing scheduled. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just one comment. The modifications appear to propose, or there have been changes made within, off site, within I believe it’s the State’s right of way, and I guess I just want to be clear that this Board wouldn’t be approving modifications within a State right of way, and somehow perhaps conditioning the application on receiving a DOT signoff. MR. MAC EWAN-DOT signoff. I’m of the persuasion I’d rather wait and see what C.T. Male has got to say on this thing, so they can take a look at the whole drawings and make sure that they’re happy with them, that they’re comfortable with them, and that they’re understandable and that they’re something that’s going to reflect, for the records, years to come, what’s there, what was done. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a sane position, Mr. Chairman. Let’s do a poll. Tony, how do you feel? MR. METIVIER-I’d approve it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m with you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-The modifications they made are pretty simple and straightforward, but the problem is the plans don’t reflect what’s happened there. MR. MAC EWAN-And the plans are what’s subsequently the records of the project, that we refer to as a Town, you know, a year, two years, ten years from now. MR. SANFORD-I’ll wait on it. I’m just a little bit concerned or disappointed at the adversarial exchange that seems to go back and forth during this particular application. This particular Board isn’t a party to any of the difficulties that may have taken place. We’re trying to do our job in an appropriate manner, and I think the tone has been unpleasant, to say the least. My initial reaction last week was to try to be accommodating, and that’s why I passed the resolution. It wasn’t the most pleasant discussion last week and it’s not that pleasant this week. Having said that, I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Chairman on this one. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s be precise on what we need. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to take five? MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take a five minute recess and be absolutely precise on what we need and what we’re requiring. All right. Okay, folks, I’ll call our meeting back to order, please. Have you guys got something drafted up here? MR. SANFORD-Yes. What have you got? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. VOLLARO-All right. We have some changes, and what we’re going to do is we’re going to table this application and table it until the 23 meeting, until the 23 of November, and I’ll go rdrd into that in a minute, but we’re going to ask the applicant to list changes from the originally approved drawings to what’s on the as built drawing, a list, this is basically an exhibit. Just list them, one, two, three, four, five, what the changes are. Two, prepare a new drawing showing those changes, after all your modifications, so that we can refer to that drawing and refer to the exhibit, we can take a look at that, okay. C.T. Male needs to signoff on all new submissions. If the newly modified drawing has any changes in lighting from the approved lighting plan, give us a new lighting plan. If it does not have any changes, we’ll accept the original lighting plan, if you’re going to move a few poles around, or something like that. Basically that’s what we’d be looking for, and this, again, would be tabled to the 23 meeting of November, and all rd information to the Planning Staff by Friday November 12, give C.T. Male sufficient time to th review. MR. MAC EWAN-Move it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004, AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: And the tabling motion will do the following: 1. Request the applicant to list all changes from the original approved drawings to the as-built drawings, and that’s just an exhibit and list, and 2. Prepare a drawing showing those changes after all those modifications, and 3. Applicant will seek C.T. Male sign-off on all new submissions, and 4. If new modification requires any changes to previously approved lighting plan, give us a new plan; if it follows the old lighting plan we’ll accept that, and 5. This application is tabled to the 23 of November meeting, and rd 6. All the above information will be submitted to the Planning Staff by Friday, November 12, close of business. th Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: MS. RADNER-I think you misspoke a little, Bob, when you said that C.T. Male will approve the new submissions. It’s subject to their approval. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m sorry, C.T. Male will signoff on those new submissions. MS. RADNER-No, they must seek C.T. Male signoff. C.T. Male isn’t required to signoff. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So noted. That was from Counsel, for the record. MR. MAC EWAN-And your submissions are by 11/12, close of business, which would be 4:30. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. BROWN-Thank you very much, gentlemen. We’re sorry we upset you, but we are trying to do our best. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Hopefully, we’ll get there. Certainly I wasn’t upset. I don’t think any of us were. We want to help you out, but we’re also looking out for the Town’s best interests as well. SITE PLAN NO. 56-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PROPERTY OWNER: BRB GROUP AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP ZONE: PO LOCATION: SW CORNER OF BAY RD. & BLIND ROCK RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 174 UNIT MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON A 34 +/- ACRE PROPERTY. MULTIFAMILY USES IN THE P O ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 13-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-27 LOT SIZE: 6.71 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 BRUCE SCHNITZ, DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 56-2004, Queensbury Partners, Meeting Date: October 26, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 56-2004 APPLICANT: Queensbury Partners is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct 174 multi-family dwelling units along with associated parking, lighting and landscaping on 34+/- acres of property. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Bay Rd. and Blind Rock Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a long form EAF. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board previously approved a 12-lot subdivision (SB 13-99) on August 15, 2000 for this site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct 174 multi-family units on 34 +/- acres located at the southwest corner of Bay Rd. and Blind Rock Rd. The site plan shows 17 multi-family buildings with 10 units per building. The site plan also shows a clubhouse, with an additional 4 units, with an outdoor swimming pool shown behind the clubhouse. The applicant has also submitted plans showing proposed landscaping, lighting, stormwater and access improvements. STAFF COMMENTS: Bay Rd. Design Guidelines This property is located at the southwest corner of Bay Rd. and Blind Rock Rd., within the Bay Rd. Design Area. The Bay Rd. design guidelines and objectives for this corridor are listed in § 179-7-040 of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Some general guidelines for this corridor include locating parking at the rear of structures, providing a landscaped strip with street trees along Bay Rd. as well as constructing sidewalks along the street. Conformance with the Master Plan The subject property is located in neighborhood four according to the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) Strategy S8.2 of the Master Plan talks about a developing the area around this site as a Town Center. Consideration should be given to providing pedestrian links (sidewalks) to Town Hall as well as the offices and services located adjacent to this site. As previously mentioned, sidewalks are cited as design objectives for the Bay Rd. Design Area. Additionally, moving some buildings away from the Bay Rd. / Blind Rock Rd. corner and including additional plantings, combined with the site’s proximity to Town Hall could help create more of a Town Center. Water and Wastewater This property is located within a municipal water district. The water department has submitted a letter discussing the current capacity of the water system and any requirements for connecting to the municipal system This property is not within a municipal sanitary sewer district. The applicant has indicated that a sewer district extension is necessary to service this project. Has the applicant presented a district extension proposal to the wastewater department or the Town Board? Will any private wastewater systems be used at this location prior to the proposed municipal sewer district extension? If so, have any test pits or perc tests been dug to determine soil conditions in the area of any septic fields? Stormwater The applicant has submitted a stormwater report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. A SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) are required for this project. The applicant should provide copies of these requirements as part of this site plan submission. Have any test pits been dug in the areas of the proposed stormwater basins in order to determine the separation between groundwater and the bottom of the proposed basins? Wetlands As the Zoning Administrator has previously determined, this project does not require a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit. The site plan shows the location of recently delineated wetlands. As required by the Town of Queensbury’s wetland policy, has the applicant received jurisdictional determinations or other correspondence from NYSDEC and ACOE concerning the proposed project? Traffic The application materials include a traffic analysis for the proposed development. The analysis indicates that the proposed use of this property will result in 113 total peak hour vehicle trips. What is the cumulative impact of adding these trips to the surrounding street system? Does the applicant have any figures for current or future traffic volumes on the surrounding street system (Bay Rd. and Blind Rock/Haviland Rd.)? Does the applicant plan on dedicating the internal road as a public street, or private drive? Pedestrian Access As previously indicated, the Bay Rd. design guidelines point to the construction of sidewalks along this corridor as a streetscape element. Consideration should be given to constructing sidewalks along Bay Rd., which could provide pedestrian access to ACC, as well as constructing sidewalks connecting this site to other services within this area. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) Pedestrian access should be provided from the proposed dwellings to the clubhouse/pool area proposed in the interior of this site. Landscaping The landscaping plan submitted with this application does not appear to show street trees species listed in the Town code along the Bay Rd. street frontages. As previously stated, the Bay Rd. design guidelines cite landscaping and street trees along Bay Rd. as a streetscape element. Lighting As a general comment, the lighting plan submitted with the application appears difficult to read. It is difficult to determine the values shown on the lighting grid. The lighting plan does not show lighting values beyond the parking and drive areas, and the plan does not provide a break down of lighting averages by ‘service area’ (parking lot, driveways, building exteriors, etc.) Cut sheets for all light fixtures should be submitted. General Comments It appears that the site plan materials do not include a density calculation, taking into account waterbodies, streams, wetlands, rock outcrops, or steep slopes as required by the Town code. It appears that some sidewalks fall within the required 75 ft. Bay Rd. setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the 75 ft. setback along Bay Rd. be left as open space.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-I guess, in the interest of time, rather than going through each and every comment, I will simply that we have submitted Staff comments. We have Staff comments for this item. As you go down your checklist, should we get to the checklist, to the items in my notes that are in your checklist, I think we can certainly address them and speak of them, but at that point I think I’m going to reserve any comment, at this point I think I’m going to reserve any comment, and just turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman, to begin the other discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Good evening. MR. SCHNITZ-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. SCHNITZ-My name is Bruce Schnitz. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. MacElroy, where do we begin? MR. SCHNITZ-If I may, just a brief opening remark. I am a partner in Albany Partners. Albany Partners is one of two members of Queensbury Partners, the applicant. We are owned 50/50 by myself, and a gentleman by the name of Neil Schwingruber. Our third partner is Mr. Danny Galusha of Galusha and Sons, LLC. We have entered into a contract to purchase the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road, from a partnership, BRB Partnership, which is managed and represented by Mr. Michael O’Connor. In light of discussions in the past, I want to, at this point, explain to the Board that the ownership of this property is still in the hands of BRB, and that our contract to purchase is contingent upon us being successful and having something approved that economically makes sense for us to develop. To the extent we can do that, and we consummate the contract, Mr. O’Connor and his group will retain no interest in the land after the purchase of that contract. In light of his experience with the parcel and his understanding of procedures and policies of this community, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) we did ask him to represent us as Counsel through the approval process, but shortly into the application process, he grew concerned and we grew concerned that there was potential for conflicts that were pointed out to us. Michael asked that he could step down. We accepted that, and we now have an attorney of record, whose name is Michael Tewey, who is with Snyder, Kylie, Tewey, Corbett and Cox. Mr. Tewey unfortunately has a Planning Board meeting at another location on another piece of property that Mr. Schwingruber and I are developing. He sends his apologies, and asked that I stand in his stead. If this application proceeds into future meetings, it will be he that will represent us and sit at this table, rather than myself. I have brought with me tonight Dennis MacElroy of EDP, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, together with Peter Faith who is with Edwards and Kelcey, as our traffic engineer consulting with us on this project. I would like to say that there has been, to my knowledge, some concerns and discussions already about what we’re proposing. You don’t know me and I don’t know you and this is our first chance at bat with you, and what we’d like to do is go through a demonstration and/or a discussion of what it is we’re proposing. We are keenly interested in your comments, your concerns, as well as those who will speak at the public. We will take copious notes. We will do our very best to respond, to the extent that we can this evening, but most of that which we are going to respond to probably is going to have to be at a future date, as we will probably have to go and consult and come back to have a response to those concerns. Our approach, in doing this development, is not to be contentious. Our approach is hopefully to enter into a dialogue with this Board and come to a conclusion at some point that is good for you and good for us, makes economic sense as well as it makes sense for the community. That’s our approach. That’s what we’ve done in other communities here in the Capital District, and we hope that that approach suits us and suits you, at the Town of Queensbury, and that we can get through this process with some good debate and some good discussions as to the pros and cons of what we’re proposing. With that, I’m going to give it to Dennis. Thank you for your time. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Bruce. I am Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. I’ll go over to the presentation plans that we have, just to give you an overview of the project. First of all, the site. At the southwest corner of Bay Road. Bay Road. Blind Rock Road. It’s a 34.05 acre parcel, in PO zoning. What is proposed is a multi-family housing use, which happens to be a permitted use within the zone, subject to site plan review. Within the 34 acres are Army Corps of Engineers wetlands, which total approximately 10 and a half acres. It’s indicated by that green shading. A little timeline. We began discussions with the Town of Queensbury Planning Staff in June related to density. A submittal was made of a concept plan with a computation of density, allowable density in that zone for the residential, or the multi-family housing use. Through some back and forth and recalculations, on June 24, Craig Brown issued th a concurrence with my letter of June 14, all of these items should be in your file, which th indicated that the allowable density for multi-family housing in this zone was 192 units. What is proposed is a residential, multi-family housing configuration using the same orientation and the same road that was approved as part of the prior subdivision process. If you recall, or you’re aware, I think in 2000, there was a prior project, a subdivision into 12 lots of the same acreage which provided access off what was to be a public road, ingress and egress on Bay Road, ingress and egress on Blind Rock Road. We have used that same road configuration. It will be a private road. Getting back to the density calculations, we’ve deducted area of wetlands. We’ve deducted 25% slopes. We’ve deducted what is a small area of a permanent easement that the County has for slope rights, all following the methodology of the Town of Queensbury in determining that density. So we, as a result, there are 17, 10 unit buildings, and a clubhouse building, which contains an additional four units. Total number of units, 174. Again, I discussed the access, their curb cuts. Again, the same curb cuts that have been approved by the County, have been approved as part of the previous design. In terms of the utilities, stormwater management is completed. That’s indicated not only in the stormwater management report that’s part of your package but also on plan sheet three, two or three, two, the Grading and Drainage Plan, which is a series of retention basins, and the design is not dependent upon infiltration. So that’s a more conservative approach, nice sandy soils in that area, good for infiltration of stormwater, but again, the design and the basis of the design is not dependent upon infiltration in that case. We’re confident that the stormwater management as proposed is in compliance with the Town standards. Associated with every building is parking 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) and lighting. The parking is in compliance with the Town standards, 174 units, 261 parking spaces are as per Code at the 1.5 spaces per unit. There actually is 264 spaces on that plan. Site lighting, which you’ll see on Sheet Six of the submittal, is working toward compliance with the specific mathematic foot candle ratings that you look for. That is a process of tweaking design, in terms of the height of fixtures, location of fixtures. So, to the point that you see there, we’ve got a break down of what the foot candle ratings are for parking areas, for drives, for roadways, and we’re getting to that point, and we’re confident that we’ll get to that specific 2.5 foot candles, or the Uniformity Ratio that you seek. Water. We’re within an existing water district. There is existing water mains on Blind Rock and on Bay Road. We show a connection on the Blind Rock side which would continue through. There’s a comment from the Water Department which suggests that a continuation to connect to the Bay Road side. We certainly will comply with that as well. Sewers. This currently is not within a sewer district. It would require the extension of the existing Bay Road Sewer District. We’ve had discussions with the Town Board. I’ve written the Town Board requesting an appearance. I haven’t heard back definitively as far as what date they would like to have our presentation made, but that is in the works. We were intent on beginning that two months, but because of the zoning issue, it still was up in the air and needed to be resolved. We held off on that, but certainly that’s the intent of the applicant to proceed with being the lead player in extending that sewer district some 4,000 feet up to this site. Other design issues and considerations are the highway, the Travel Corridor Overlay District, which exists on Bay Road, and also the design, the Bay Road Design Corridor as well, and those, we believe we’ve kept in mind, and complied with. One point I’ll just jump out of this, this four parking spaces, that’ll be eliminated. That got in there by error, my fault, but that’ll be eliminated. That’s the only thing that, in terms of what exists within that 75 foot area, that appears to be in conflict with the Open Space requirement that area is guided by. There have been comments submitted from a variety of entities, Warren County Planning Board. Be aware that we’ve been before Warren County Planning Board on August 11 and th received an approval. We’ve gotten comments back from Warren County DPW. We’ve received comments from Town of Queensbury Water. We’ve received (lost words), and this is for emergency use only, and there’ll be a barrier with a knox box device, which was a recommendation of the Fire Marshal as well. I’m sure there’s many questions. I’ve covered the basics of the layout of the property . I don’t know if you wanted me to get into specific comments from Staff or C.T. Male. MR. SCHNITZ-I’m sorry. If we have the time, and you’ve got a copy of the building elevations, that the Board could see, so that we could at least give them a little bit better idea of the quality of the product that we’re trying to build. As Dennis is putting those up, these units will be 100% interior access garages for each unit, with a driveway parking spot in tandem to those parking garages with additional satellite parking. Each unit will have nine foot ceilings in the first floor plate, cathedral ceilings on the second floor. We will have washers and dryers in every unit. Our clubhouse facility will contain a full fitness center, a business center, and offices, for the purposes of leasing to the community, as well as for the purposes of community meetings, should that be so desirable. This particular plan, the architect is Humphries and Associates. They’ve built a lot of what they call the big house style development throughout the south. My partner and I, in a previous life, have spent a great deal of time with this product and with these people and have a pretty good sense of the quality of what they design, and how the product comes out, and I think that, given some time to look at these and understand what this product is, I think you will find that this product is a very superior type of multifamily unit that is not normally seen throughout the Capital District, and is a step up of the other 600 or so units that we have constructed and leased, both in Delmar and in Renssalaer. We’ve found that everything that we do is a function, obviously, of cost, versus income, and what we have found is the product that we have built to date has been very well received and very successful and so for this next few projects, we have upgraded our designs to something that’s going to cost a little bit more to build, but because the response has been positive, and because the income has been there, we felt that we could probably step it up and go to the next level for our next several projects. MR. MAC ELROY-One thing I would add to the comment is just the traffic is something that we recognized as a comment that had been brought up at some of the Town Board meetings related 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) to the rezoning. While there was a distinction between the zoning amendment issue, this project somehow kept getting linked in with it, understandably, but we recognize the traffic was something that was commented on and a concern. Again, Peter Faith, from Edwards and Kelcey, had prepared a traffic analysis of sorts for our Long Form EAF that we submitted as part of the application. That was an effort to supplement the basic information provided. Peter certainly can address that issue and comments on that, if you so desire. PETER FAITH MR. FAITH-I’ll just briefly review the traffic analysis. My name is Peter Faith. Dennis introduced me. You probably have seen in the package a letter that I signed dated July 13 of th this year, and that was our initial review of the potential traffic impacts of this site. If you read through that information, see that we did compare that to a previous project. Dennis identified that we’re using the same road alignment and layout that was included in a previous office complex that was proposed for this site. What we did was to compare the Trip Generation Potential of that previous project to this project and see which one would generate more or less, and what we were able to conclude is that the current proposal of 174 apartment units would generate between 25 to 30% less traffic in the peak hours than the previous proposal, which I understand was for a potential of 64,000 square feet of office space, and those statistics are straight from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation statistics that are compiled. We also verified the sight distance at the proposed driveway locations to make sure that they met current standards, and they do, as I indicated in that letter, and the third thing that we looked at, or more recently, it’s not included in the letter, is we compared it to certain thresholds as to when a full traffic impact study would be required, and I know there’s some information regarding the comments that are provided by Staff, I believe, and that refers to a threshold of 100, the correct terminology is peak direction trips, is the threshold of when a full traffic impact study is required by some jurisdictions, and the one that’s cited in the Staff comments is the Institute of Transportation Engineers. There’s actually an article, I think, that might have been provided to you. The distinction between the Staff comments and the article, if you read the actual terminology of the article, it says 100 peak direction trips in the peak hour, not total trips in the peak hour, and using that peak direction threshold, this project falls below that. Obviously, there are other reasons why traffic impact studies are required by communities, but comparing our trip generation potential to a threshold we clearly fall below that. So that was the extent of the traffic analysis that we completed to date, just comparing it to the previous project, verifying the sight distance, and that threshold is intended to identify projects that would likely not have a traffic impact, if you fall below the threshold. Intuitively, if you did a traffic impact study for a project that falls below a threshold, the conclusion would be that there would be no traffic impacts. That’s what our threshold has established. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. SCHNITZ-It’s yours. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s ours. MR. SCHNITZ-Yes, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where do we begin? I have a lot of things highlighted here. I’ll speak on behalf of the Board, because I am of the position I think the Board is going to support me on what I’m about to say. I think they feel the same way. Given the fact what you’re proposing here with this apartment complex, in going through both our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and going through our design guidelines for the Bay Road corridor, we’re kind of getting at a loss as to how this fits in to the theme of what the Bay Road corridor is trying to shoot for. Let me cite a number of articles here that we have Town documents that where we’re coming from in basing this viewpoint on. The first one I’m going to refer to is Chapter 179 Zoning, it’s actually 179-7-040, and it’s the Bay Road Corridor Design Standard Guidelines, and the very first paragraph states in there, it says this district applies to professional office district abutting Bay Road. (Lost words) parking is accommodated off street and curb cuts are minimized with 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) the encouragement of shared driveways to lessen congestion and promote Bay Road as a desirable place to do business, and Paragraph D it says the primary objective of the Bay Road Corridor is to create a professional office identity mix with some high density multifamily residential uses, and refer to some other documents here. There is a chart that’s included in there, the design guidelines, which tells you in there, a buffer distance that you need to have between a professional office location, which is adjacent to the corridor itself, to residential uses which would be behind the corridor and set back by 1,000 feet, and if you look in the (lost words) or where a collection of offices has already occurred, and set a neighborhood character, such a zone would be useful. For instance, much of the Bay Road is currently zoned multifamily residential, which allows quite a variety of uses, including office buildings. The area has developed as offices and it has septic limitations that are not favorable to multifamily development. Such a zone will provide a good local business environment and act as a transition to the residential areas to the north and west of the corridor. Section Three under Town Wide Inventory, they talk about potential expansion of sewer districts that have been considered for, and the first bulleted item is the Bay Road corridor, due to poor soil conditions for development, and under Recommendations on the same page, on the opposite paragraph, it says, under WWR1: Revisit the sewer issue with regard to the Bay Road corridor. Until this issue is resolved, no new high density uses should be allowed in the Bay Road corridor. If you go under Section Four, under Neighborhoods of our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the issue is, under Land Use and Zoning, one element that has been recognized as missing from Queensbury is a Town Center. The Town has a lot of residential and commercial development, but lacks a sense of identity that the Town Center would provide. Social and cultural opportunities are important to creating a feeling of place, along with the office and the commercial activity. Under Recommendations, under Land Use Zoning, R8.1, developing the area north of Quaker Road along Bay Road is a Town Center, a mixture of commercial office, cultural and educational uses should be created. Residential use could be included if sewer service is to be assured. If you go under Section Four, Neighborhoods again, and continue with the issues under Sewers, it says, residential products along Bay Road have either been built or approved by the Planning Board with the understanding that a sewer line along Bay Road would be forthcoming. The sewer line has not materialized and soil conditions in the corridor are not suitable for multifamily septic systems. Under Recommendations for sewers, under R8.2, revisit the sewer issue with regard to the Bay Road corridor and the possibility to continue the system to serve Glen Lake residents. Until this issue is resolved, no high density residential uses should be allowed in the Bay Road corridor. Did I miss anything? Anything anybody wanted to add? I guess that’s our position. Which makes it difficult for us to embrace this project, I guess, at this point. I guess a suggestion that I would ask of you is to maybe take into consideration to revamp your project, putting professional office along the corridor, and setting back what you can for multifamily usage in the back portion of the parcel, and also find out somehow, some way as to what’s going to be done as far as the sewer extension. Considering the, from my position, I’m speaking as an individual now, considering the close proximity to the wetlands and the high level of density that you’re going to have there, and the fact that you just got through telling us that every apartment complex is going to have a washer hookup in there, which is something unusual that you don’t get in a lot of apartment complexes, I’d have real concerns for those wetlands and the ability that any septic system could adequately do its job in that kind of an area. MR. MAC ELROY-Can I clarify something on that? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-This project is proposed only with the understanding that the sewer district would be extended to serve it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s on facet of it, but I think that the Board’s position is that it still doesn’t meet the criteria of the Bay Road Corridor Design Guidelines, which specifically, as I just cited from, not only the 179-7-040, but more specifically, the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is the bible we use, it clearly indicates that the theme that they’re looking for is offices up 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) the corridor. Any residential use is to be setback 1,000 feet off those office lines, off the Corridor lines, and that’s been happening since the new Ordinances have been adopted. MR. MAC ELROY-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan speaks to the 1,000 foot? MR. MAC EWAN-No, the 1,000 foot is in our Design Corridor Guidelines. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, just so that the applicant understands, that’s right out of our 179 Zoning Code. MR. MAC ELROY-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-It’s large enough to see where the one in the Zoning Code you can’t read. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, difficult to read, right. MR. VOLLARO-And it’s very, very, very explicit. It shows the building envelope here for the office space set 1,000 feet back, the 75 foot overlay zone, and it says 100 foot buffer to the residential area in the rear. A picture is worth 1,000 words. That’s right out of our Code. MR. SCHNITZ-I’m not sure that I want to get into a, at this point, a discussion about interpretation of language. Suffice to say we think what we’ve proposed, based upon our interpretation, conforms to current zoning, but, all of that aside, I think those are semantics, and I think we could sit here a long time tonight and debate semantics within the Code. We feel, our position, is that the language prohibits commercial office buildings outside of that 1,000 foot envelope, that all commercial, or professional office buildings would be constructed within the 1,000 foot, but does not prohibit. Now that’s just a difference of opinion. It’s a different interpretation, and honestly, I think what I’d rather try and spend our time this evening doing, as well as in future meetings, is trying to ascertain whether or not there is some form of a compromise. We do fully intend, we would never propose, nor would we be involved in a community of apartments that would deal with septic or on-site sewer treatment. That’s not what we do. We’ve never done it. I have inherited projects like that in my past, and they’re a nightmare. So we fully intend to bring, if at our own expense, we will bring that sewer down that corridor, and we will provide sewer down Bay Road, that 4,000 feet, that is our intention. That is a prerequisite of our proposal, and we think not only does it make this project more successful. I think it adds an amenity to everybody along that corridor. Number Two, if we could come back with some form of a plan that would incorporate a mix, that’s what we would desire to do. We will spend more time reading your proposals and your documents and your plans and your bible, and I personally will read them, and we’ll see if we can’t come back and give you a better feel or a better understanding of what we might be able to propose that would be more suitable to this Board. What I’d like to try and do is make sure that before we go to t that length of expense, because it is a very expensive proposition to go back and do a redesign, that we understand, as best we can this evening, a finite list of all your concerns. So that we can address them all at one time, because what we don’t want to do is we don’t want to spend a substantial amount of your time and ours, as well as a lot of our money, come back and have yet another list of concerns on top of that. Obviously, if changes or proposals we make that you’ve not seen create concerns that have not been raised, that’s reasonable, but to the extent we can address as many of your concerns as we can at our next appearance, that’s what I propose to do, and again, as I said at the top of the evening, our objective is to create a dialogue. We try and understand what it is you want and we want you to understand what we’re trying to do as well. MR. SANFORD-Right. Just a comment on that. I appreciate where you’re coming from. I think it is perhaps inappropriate for this Board to establish the kind of dialogue that you’re talking about, simply because we’re dealing with a specific application that’s in front of us, and the context of the dialogue, the way you’re explaining it right now, would suggest almost like you’re asking this Board to tell you what is acceptable. It’s very hypothetical, and perhaps an exercise that is inappropriate for this Board to engage in. What we have to deal with is this 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) application, and I think the Chairman spoke for the full seven people on this Board, when he basically stated that, or perhaps I’m speaking a little bit of paraphrasing, but basically we could go through the whole exercise, and there are a ton of issues here, traffic, safety, water, etc., and even if they are addressed in a satisfactory manner, we’re coming back to the core issue, which is it’s out of character with the corridor of Bay Road, what you’re proposing, and I think what we’re trying to suggest here is it may very well be in your best interest, in terms of resource conservation, to seriously reconsider this project, rather than to go in that direction, because even if we satisfy the laundry list of outstanding items that are problematic, we can’t, we come back to the main one, which is it’s not in keeping with the Bay Road Corridor, and so in the interest of cooperation, I think you perhaps should consider that as a bit of sound advice. MR. SCHNITZ-Would you concur that there might be some potential conflict between the conceptual design parameters and that which is stated in the Zoning Ordinance? In other words, we feel that what we’ve proposed fits within the way the property is zoned, and that we meet those criteria, but at the same time, if I’m understanding the Board correctly, despite that, you feel that perhaps it does not fit within these other guidelines which are developmental and conceptual, as opposed to more specific. Is that? MR. MAC EWAN-You have your position that you feel that it meets the Corridor Design Guideline standards. We, as a Board, don’t see that. I think where we’re all kind of, where you’re trying to hover your position around is that one little sentence that happened to be in that chart, that happens to be in 179 that says offices shall be located within that 1,000 feet. You take that out of context, though, you have to look at the bigger picture. You have to look at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is the document that drives the development in this Town. The Zoning Ordinance supports that document, but the document is the governing tool that we use basically for making our decision making up here, and of all those aspects I cited to you out of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, this does not fit the Corridor Design Guidelines, and then you put that on top of the Sections that I read out of 179-7-040, supports that, even in 179-7-040, it speaks in the Zoning Ordinances of carrying on that residential office theme as the center of Town in the Bay Road Corridor, and this application doesn’t hit the mark. If you were to come back with an application that had offices on the frontage of Bay Road with some multifamily toward the back portion of the property, I think you’d probably get a lot better reception from this Board. MR. SCHNITZ-Other than not meeting the standards, as you’ve described them, if we could understand any and all other concerns. I know it’s fairly conceptual, it’s hard to say, and I’m not asking for you to design our project in saying what is acceptable, what else, other than not meeting this theme, do you find not acceptable in the current application? MS. RADNER-I would urge you to just poll your Board and give each of them an opportunity to sort of highlight their major areas of concern. Then the applicant will have some direction. You’ve already given quite an extensive list of criteria, which will give you some, he had indicated he would need to go back to his engineers. He’s got a list to start with, and you can poll your members for additional thoughts. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. All right. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-Well, it’s simple with me. Professional Office the first thousand feet. If you look, or drive, up Bay Road towards this site, you’ll see what we’ve done in the last few years. I think we’ve done a great job, and all the new buildings that have gone up of Professional Office, we’re creating a theme. We’re following that theme. Whether or not we interpreted our Code wrong with that word “shall”, doesn’t matter. We’ve done a great job, and we’re going to continue going up. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I’m going to say anything that hasn’t already been said. To reiterate the Chairman, I think that if, you know, the section east of your access road, if those units were Professional Office, I’ve, on a number of occasions, challenged developers to produce a mixed use development where there would be residential built in with Professional 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) Office or other types of offices. I mean, I think this would be a great site to do something like that. Certainly residential in the rear, but you know really the intent has been Professional Office on the frontage of Bay Road. I think your design is excellent, otherwise. I really like the way that the front of the buildings front Bay Road, and I think you have really tried to meet your interpretation of what we were looking for, but we really weren’t looking for residential use right up on, right up against Bay Road, and I think there’s a great need for a project like this, I would add. I would agree with you. MRS. STEFFAN-I think probably the only thing I could add is certainly this would be an allowed use, but not an ideal use. I thought that it was too dense, and some of the things that may help you is that we also have an Open Space Vision Plan for the Town of Queensbury which we look at as another criteria for evaluating projects. So it might be in your best interest to get a copy of that and read it. In the area we were also talking a great deal about conservation based land use, and so conservation subdivisions, and so you might look into that as something, as some criteria to evaluate your new design, whatever it may be, because it’s a real hot button for people in our community. This particular parcel of land is a very important piece. It’s a high traffic area. It’s actually a beloved piece of land. So you’re dealing, not just with the commercial aspects of it, but you’re dealing with it from an emotional point of view, and I think a lot of folks that are in the audience feel that way. So that’s just passing on my perspectives on that. Those are the only things I can really add. MR. SEGULJIC-I would say everything has been pretty much stated. I, too, would like to see commercial along Bay Road with residential in the back. The other thing I’d like to see, and I was disappointed I didn’t see it in this plan, was there’s no walkways, no bike trails, no bus stops. If you do have residential there in the back, those are the types of things I’d be looking for. Taking advantage of the wetlands in some way. It just seems to be buildings in the middle of a plot of land. There’s no interconnectivity, no creativity. The buildings look great, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll just start off with the fact that, and I will agree with several people, that maybe there is a chance for mix here, but I would like to see that mix meet this guideline, where we have our professional offices up front, and in here, in the 1,000 foot envelope, they talk for additional future development. Now, there may be a compromise in order to put some buildings of that type, multifamily use, in the back of professional office buildings. That’s why I say, you know, we could go through the word semantic thing all night, drawings speak volumes, to me. It’s what’s put on paper that really, really shows. It happens to be Figure Seven, by the way, of the Zoning Code. Now, on the septic issue, I’d like to ask Mr. MacElroy the question. Concerning the pump station that currently operates the existing sewer line on Bay Road. Have you checked into the capacity of that station and checked into the flow rates and also the safety factors applied to flows, to see whether or not that pump can definitely handle it? MR. MAC ELROY-I’ve had discussions with Mike Shaw regarding any future limitations that might exist down stream, at a, what I would say, a total build out of the projection that C.T. Male had done in their authorized study of the Corridor. There is some question that perhaps the impellors would have to be upgraded in that area, at the pump station, and there was another area downstream, an existing crossing near the Cronin Road, that might be a source of future limitation at the point of build out. MR. MAC EWAN-For Staff, what do we have for Town documents that the Planning Board can get a hold of? I’m under the impression that when the Rec Commission was looking at the potential of purchasing the Valente property, that the got away from that property for a couple of reasons, the depth of ground water, I think, soil conditions were a big issue, but there also wasn’t enough capacity, as that sewer system is now, to handle the Rec Center that was going to be proposed. So is there something that we can get from you guys or from water and sewer about what capacities are on that thing, on that line now, and what maximum development could be handled on Bay Road without upsizing the system? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MRS. RYBA-There are actually a couple of different studies, and the capacities are different for each one. So there is some question, but those are available, and we can certainly ask Mike Shaw to comment formally. MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn, I had a conversation with Mike today, and one of the variables that you can apply to this is the safety factors they use against flows. I guess, Jim, you understand what I’m talking about there, and depending on what safety factors you use, you can use the margin around. Right now, certain safety factors, based on the build out analysis that you did, C.T. Male did, if you use these currently accepted safety factors, the performance of the pump becomes marginal. That’s what I got from Mike today, but dropping safety factor multiples down, you can move the pump capacity around some. It gets to be a little bit of a crap shoot, as Mike might say. MR. HOUSTON-Just to clarify that, I think it’s a peaking factor, and that’s really what’s tied in to this safety factor in this, it’s a published rate, or a peaking factor based on the population. So there’s standards. There’s a peaking factor that’s applied to this, and that goes into the safety factor issue, and it’s all in the fact that if you had so many gallons per day, it doesn’t get spread out over the full 24 hours. It peaks at certain times of the day, and that’s when it’s most critical impact is on the system. That’s where the peaking factor comes into play. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t want to get into peaking factors, because I just want to get my point across, but I understand what you’re saying. I guess that’s where I really stand. I sort of stand on the drawing more than I stand on the words. I’ve read all the words. I’ve been through the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. I do know, and I have to agree with what Mrs. Steffan has to say, that we’re beginning to come up to conservation type trusts and conservation subdivisions in the remaining developable land in Queensbury. Something we’re getting into now. There’s a Committee, I won’t even say what it’s name is, because I don’t agree with it, but there is a Committee looking into this. I am one on the committee. The Chairman is another on the Committee, and Mrs. Steffan is another, and I believe we also have Chris Hunsinger as another member of that Committee, and that group is merged in with the Zoning Board of Appeals as well, being on that Committee. So we’ve got a full Committee looking in to how we do this. Just as an aside, I’ve been looking into other plans of other communities, and I’ve looked in to Whalen, Massachusetts, and I was absolutely astounded to find out that the Town of Whalen, Massachusetts requires, when a subdivider comes in, in anything from five acres up, to set aside up to 40% of that in a Conservation Area, and that Conservation Area is to be determined prior to building the houses. I thought that was a little onerous, but, you know, that’s their rules, and they’re approaching the same thing we are here in Queensbury. We have a limited amount of developable land left to go, and we want to use it as wisely and as conservatively as we can, and that’s what this is really all about. I think that’s what Gretchen is saying, and it’s what I’m saying, and that’s why I’m going to lean on the drawing to say, you know, bringing office spaces in essentially drops the utilization of the land now. So, you know, it’s a nine to five turnkey thing. Most of the time. Putting something like you’re showing in the rear of that, I think the renditions are really very, very nice. MR. SCHNITZ-Thank you. MS. RADNER-Just one point of clarification. Mr. Vollaro used the phrase that it’s merged with the ZBA, this Committee, which is the P-O-R-C Committee. There’s representatives from the ZBA and it has representatives from the Planning Board, but it doesn’t supercede any of the other committees. It’s a separate operating Committee that doesn’t have, it doesn’t supplant either of the Planning or the Zoning Boards. MR. SCHNITZ-And is there an outline or a mission statement for this Committee that we would have an opportunity to look at? MRS. RYBA-Yes, there is, and I know that the minutes are on our website, and I believe it would be outlined in there. If not, I can certainly get a copy of that for you. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. SCHNITZ-If you can get something to Dennis. He’s going to coordinate this whole thing for us. That would be very helpful. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. At the risk of sort of repeating what a lot of my fellow Board members have already stated, I’ll go through the list of concerns that I have. Some actually not mentioned. I’m last in line here. A, I’m very concerned about the economic impact that 174 apartment unit might have to the school system, and also, B, to Town infrastructure. C, traffic concerns and safety concerns associated with the population that would be residing in that plot, should it be developed as proposed. D., and this has been emphasized heavily, the neighborhood character issues and the aesthetics of the Bay Road corridor. D., I don’t know, the zoning issue is a debate issue to some degree, and I understand that the positions, but that is not to be confused, I just want you to be clear on that, with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I’m speaking of a vision for the Bay Road corridor. They’re basically separate items. Although I think you’ve picked up that we feel strongly that the zoning should have the PO in front, but if, for some reason, that was deemed to not be the case, we would certainly still have every bit of our concerns about the corridor issue and the character and the aesthetics. I’m going to stop mentioning letters, because I forgot where I am, but another issue of significant concerns to me is the wetland issue, drainage and etc., and I would be interested, if you are interested in moving forward with this, I would certainly like to see the previously approved site plan that called for primarily professional office, if I understand it correctly, because I understand there was a different, or slightly different or majorly different, I don’t even know, wetland delineation in the previously approved package. Density issues have been mentioned. They’re a concern of mine as well. Sewage capacity is also very important, and kind of intangible, but very important, I think is the parody issue regarding the history of the Bay Road Corridor and how so many different builders have put projects in there and adhered to the guidelines, and I’m very concerned that this particular project, which is exclusively a residential project, it would be unfair, in my eyes, to permit something along these lines when all the other contractors, perhaps, could have maximized their economic interests if they’d pursued that kind of an approach, but instead adhered to the PO in the front, and so I think that in the interest of consistency and fairness, that we have to consider that as well. So, basically, those are the summations of, I think, the issues that this whole Board has some degree of concern for, and maybe it’s not directly related to a polling question, but in the past, we have a file, an application file, I believe, when we have something along these lines, and I have a couple of documents that I would like to hand over to George to officially be placed into the file, and I will quickly identify them, and then give them to him after the meeting. One is a series of two letters written by Queensbury Union Free School District under the signature of Brian Howard, the Superintendent, dated September 8, addressed to Mr. Daniel Stec, the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury, as well as a memorandum addressed to a number of different parties, including the Planning Board of Queensbury, which elaborates their response to the build out study that was done, and I would like that to be part of this application file. In addition, I’m in receipt of a report to the Town by Councilman John Strough. I have a copy here that I also would like to introduce, in as much as his report to the Town talks in terms of the need to maintain the integrity of the Professional Office zoning and I think it’s very applicable in this case. So I would like to give you those copies, George, so that you could formally incorporate them into the file. Thank you. MR. SCHNITZ-I’m sorry, I just missed one item, and it was the memorandum. I got the letter from the School, but the second one was a memorandum from whom? MR. SANFORD-Also the Mr. Brian Howard, the Superintendent of the School. What I received was a cover letter, apparently, to Mr. Stec, and then attached to it was this memorandum. MR. SCHNITZ-As an exhibit. Okay. Thanks. MR. SANFORD-Yes. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-The only additional comment I’ll make is I’ll follow up on Mr. Sanford’s comments relative to the wetland delineation. Copeland Environmental did your wetland delineation for this application. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m also aware that Deb Roberts did one as well. MR. MAC ELROY-Did one for the original project. MR. MAC EWAN-I would like copies available for the Planning Board. I think it’s relative, because from what I understand, there’s some differences in the way the delineations came out, Copeland versus Deb Roberts’ delineation. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, versus Army Corps. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have her copies submitted with your next submittal so that the Board can take a look at it. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-And see what the differences are and come to some conclusion. MR. MAC ELROY-Again, understand, though, that that delineation of the original project wasn’t required to proceed at that point to Army Corps delineation with a J.D. letter. We’ve continued with that process, had the delineation done by the consultant, and forwarded that information. It’s in the process of being verified by, or formalized by Army Corps. They’ve come to a delineation of an area, but. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s not a problem, we would like to get a copy of Deb Roberts’ report. So that we can have a review of it. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-So where do we go from here? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I just have one additional comment real quick, and I missed it on my last turn around. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan also makes a very interesting point when it comes to traffic, and the plan suggests, obviously, it’s not a law. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is basically a guideline, but it suggests that cumulative effects be considered whenever you introduce another project to a main arterial, as opposed to just saying, this is how much I put on the road. It’s got to be a cumulative effect. Let’s take a look at the entire road, and then what do I put on it and how does that affect the Level of Service of that road. I just wanted to put that across. It’s something that I’ve been asking for in a lot of Planning Board meetings is cumulative effect analysis. That’s it, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHNITZ-We appreciate your time and your comments, and all your good thought that you’ve put into this. Rest assured we’ve put a lot of good thought into it as well, and we will continue. We’d like to come back and revisit our plan with you, after we’ve addressed these concerns, in a manner that is suitable both to our partners and what we believe will be suitable to you and come back and see you again, and we can do that relatively quickly. This is not something that, for us, takes a lot of time. We move very, very quickly, if the Board is willing to accept us back at their next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, our next meetings, right now, are scheduled for November, which is, what, the 26, what are the dates, George? th 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. HILTON-The 16 and the 23. thrd MR. MAC EWAN-The 16 and the 23, which means that you would have had to had your thrd submissions in by October the 15 to get on that on the agenda. So we’re now looking at th November 15, we’re looking at the November 15 deadline to get on our December agendas. thth MR. SCHNITZ-And my consultants are all now sweating bullets as a result of that, but we could try for that. You said November 15, you would see us in December? th MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, make your submissions by November 15 deadline. That’s to th get on our agenda for December. MR. SCHNITZ-And rather than try to commit that to the Board this evening, I’ve got to huddle with the professionals who have to do all the work. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. I mean, if you feel you can get the work and you can get it submitted, you can submit it by the 15 and we can get on. My concern that I have here tonight th is that we do have a public hearing scheduled, and for the benefit of the public, you know, I don’t want to have an hour, an hour and a half’s worth of comments tonight, relative to this application, if you have a mindset that you’re going to go back and revise that. I’d rather table this thing, leave the public hearing open, and give the public an opportunity to comment on the plan we’re all going to be discussing. MR. SCHNITZ-And I understand that, and I have heard, at the Planning Board/Zoning meeting, a lot of the concerns the public, and I think that what the Board has expressed, for the most part, is 90%, if not 99%, of what I’ve heard before. I want an opportunity to hear it from you. This is exactly what I expected. I expected some kind of an interchange of concerns and giving us time to come back and address those concerns. Honestly it’s not worth my time, your time, or the money to get into some large contest of wills over something like this. We understand what you want. We’ll see if we can make sense of it, if we can still make money and meet what you want, and we can meet what we want, then there might be a deal here. If not, then we shake hands and go away friends. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Then what I’ll do is open up the public hearing and I’ll leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll table this application to our, well, we can table it to the November agenda. We don’t have to have a specific date for the meeting. MR. VOLLARO-December. MR. MAC EWAN-Or December, I’m sorry. Well, actually we should. If we’re leaving the public hearing open, we should actually specify a date. So give me a date in our first meeting in December. I do want a tabling motion. So, Chris, will you actually do a tabling motion for this thing. You can be generic. I mean, it doesn’t have to be specific. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m getting you a date right now, as to what we’re going to do. MR. HILTON-Okay. December 21 or the 28. stth MR. MAC EWAN-The 21. The 21, the first meeting in December. stst MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2004 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) To our December 21 meeting, pending of resubmission of revised design plans. The st submission shall be November 15. th Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, thank you. MR. SCHNITZ-Thank you for your time. MR. MAC ELROY-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-It was a rare occasion. It was a nice exchange of ideas. MR. SCHNITZ-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Seriously, thank you. MR. SCHNITZ-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 61-2004 SEQR TYPE: SEE SGEIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK PROPERTY OWNER: HWP DEVELOPMENT, LLC AGENT: LEMERY GREISLER, LLC ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1213 & 1227 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 20’ WIDE BY 111’ LONG PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS ROUTE 9 AND A 20’ X 120’ BRIDGE ACROSS MEADOW RUN CREEK. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN FOR THE PARKING AREAS, ACCESS ROADWAYS AND ASSOCIATED STORMWATER DEVICES. CROSS REFERENCES: MANY TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5, 295.8- 1-4 LOT SIZE: 6.76 AC., 3.90 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 JOHN LEMERY & JOHN COLLINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MRS. RYBA-Tonight The Great Escape is here to present their pedestrian bridge site plan, as well as some modifications. Pete Romano is here from the Chazen Companies who is the engineer who had reviewed the plans, and in your packet you did receive information about some of the off site highway improvements, a couple of questions from the Department of Transportation that we thought actually were coincident with this application, and that’s all we have. There was an artist rendering of the bridge attached, and there are a few other questions, but I’m sure you’ll go through them in your review. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board, my name is John Lemery, Lemery Greisler. We are counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park. John Collins, Vice President and General Manager is here with me. Russ Pittenger from the LA Group also, our consultants with respect to stormwater management. We were provided with the Staff notes. Our stormwater management consultants who’ve worked with The Great Escape for years in connection with the stormwater management plans for the parking lots on the west side, worked with the engineers for the Town, and it’s my understanding that the responses to the comments that were made by Pete Romano were provided to Mr. Romano, and that he’s 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) satisfied, now, with the changes which have been made to conform to the issues that he raised, with our original plan. So I believe that the items that are mentioned in the notes to the Staff and the Staff notes have been resolved. So I think that that’s flat at this time. We can have Russ Pittenger, if it makes sense, go through the changes which were made with you. We can talk a little bit about what’s going on with DOT. DOT, what’s happened with DOT is that, as soon as we provided DOT with the plans, which we did, they came back and suggested a series of recommendations to the Glen Lake, Route 9 intersection. We met with Mrs. Ryba and provided her with a set of the plans as revised by DOT. We have not agreed with DOT. We have not reached any consensus with DOT, with respect to whether or not what DOT has suggested is acceptable to The Great Escape. For example, the turning lane that DOT has suggested we put on Route 9 coming out of Glen Lake, we’ve not agreed to that. We’ve not agreed to the median, nor have we agreed to the extension of the right hand turning lane, nor have we agreed to the issue of the tripping device in the 87 ramp to trigger the light there. What DOT has done has added another $300,000 worth of costs to this project, which were obviously not budgeted for that certainly the turning lane, which this Board has been aware of, for years, has been budgeted, as part of the hotel project, and so that the principal entrance to the hotel and ultimately the Theme Park is at the Route 9/Glen Lake intersection, but DOT, if you’ve seen the plans, has added another lane there, turning in to the ring road, and in effect what’s going on is that DOT is basically taking the position, well, you want the bridge. We really didn’t think that there was a need for a light at Glen Lake Road, but since the Town has wanted a light, and the Planning Board and you all said you would provide a light, since we’re going to get a light, why don’t we do all these things that we think would make this a better intersection. So our comment to them was, well, that’s terrific. Who pays for it? And I fully understand, I’ve been in this business a long time, that the developer has a responsibility to provide for the infrastructure necessary to get into the site, be it a shopping mall or be it the hotel or be it the Theme Park, and that is not to say we won’t reach a consensus with DOT with regard to these items. I just wanted to be forthright with you and tell you that we have not reached any consensus. We have not had a meeting with them about this. This is new to us. As a matter of fact, they gave this information to our traffic consultants, Creighton Manning. So that’s where we are with that. We have filed the application. We want to move forward with everything, but this has not been resolved and we don’t know where they are with regard to whether this is a wish list or it becomes sort of conditioned precedent to our ability to get a permit to put up the bridge. So that’s where we are. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what I’ll do is I’ll just open it up for general questions, instead of following our guidelines. Pete, is there anything you wanted to add? Are you all satisfied with everything? I’ll just open it up for general questions, if anybody’s got any. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, a couple of them. Do you want me to go through mine, so I won’t have to go back? I don’t have many. I don’t have a real long laundry list. Just some clarifications, in my mind. I guess, based on your comments, Mr. Lemery, do you have a preliminary design approval for the bridge now? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, you do. Because there was some mixed signals in that. For example, in the project narrative, I think Page Three of Nine, it goes on to say, so as to complete a preliminary bridge design and submit it to DOT for preliminary approval, and this may have been because time has jumped over us. MR. LEMERY-Yes, we’ve submitted that, Mr. Vollaro, to DOT. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you have got, indeed, a design approval, a preliminary? MR. LEMERY-Preliminary approval, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Preliminary approval. Okay. That’s really what I wanted to make sure of. I’m wondering, when we talked about the signal warrant for Round Pond, and I know this is not 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) your project, but I’m looking at a birds eye view, whether anybody’s taken into consideration the expansion of the hotel on that corner, the Waikita Motel, Round Pond Road, is what I’m talking about. The warrant has been turned down for Round Pond, as I understand the reading. MR. LEMERY-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I’m just wondering, in the turn down, was the data on the Waikita Motel ever injected into anybody’s thinking or not? I don’t know. MR. LEMERY-We don’t know. We didn’t have that data. That’s not something we were privy to. So I have no idea whether Waikita Motel, or whether you, as a Planning Board, in their planning process, whether you asked them to submit that data. That I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would just think that somebody like Creighton Manning, who I think did the study for the Waikita Motel as well, would begin to, in their mind, begin to integrate that with the Round Pond signal warrant. I’m just wondering if that’s something that, in the overall planning function, has been missed. Not by you. I’m not talking about, I’m talking about, does DOT get the big picture for that? And I know it resolves itself in who pays for that, and I understand that, but do they understand that Round Pond, when they denied the warrant, was that denial based on, or did they know about the Motel property? MR. LEMERY-We don’t know the answer to that. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t know that. Okay. I guess I’m going to refer to Marilyn Ryba’s memo of 10/22. I couldn’t really find, Marilyn, in the drawings, when you talked about the row of parking, to remove that row of parking and develop a swale there, were you talking about the parking at green south parking lot? I couldn’t correlate your comments with anything on the drawings I looked at. That’s right at the Meadow Run there. I guess it’s right in line with the bridge. PETE ROMANO MR. ROMANO-It’s parking adjacent to the Meadow Run. MR. VOLLARO-Parking adjacent, okay, and it’s those parking spaces that you were referring to. Okay. I couldn’t find them, you know, and I guess, again, they’re talking, I think this, again, Marilyn’s letter. The proof of coverage under the existing SPDES Permit for the proposed changes, she had made a comment in that, in her letter. MRS. RYBA-And these are the same things, I believe, that are in the Chazen comments, and we had emphasized those as a way of highlighting some of the things that were important to Staff. MR. VOLLARO-One thing. I saw the rendition of the pedestrian bridge. I like the rendition of the bridge. Can’t use those lights. They kind of light up the night sky. We’re not in a dark night mode, but those lights are all, have to be, really ought to be downcast lighting. Right now, they’re acorn type, and they’re free to float upward, and we’ve been looking very heavily at keeping our lighting down as much as possible. So I would make that comment. They look pretty, but they also. MR. LEMERY-How do you like the sign? MRS. STEFFAN-I laughed when I saw that. MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t gotten to the sign yet. I thought that we had a Welcome to Queensbury. MR. LEMERY-That was a request of your Town Board. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. VOLLARO-We already have a sign up on Exit 19. MR. LEMERY-We won’t light it, though, unless. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t plan on lighting that sign up, do you? MR. LEMERY-We haven’t discussed it with the Town Board. I don’t know. They wanted the sign. They were hopeful that there would be a sign there. So Mr. Collins and the Park Management said okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We already have a Welcome to Queensbury sign at Exit 19. I would trade that sign off. There are two members of the Town Board that are here. I would trade that sign off to clean up Exit 19 from the derelict buildings that people pull into when they come into Queensbury, not a subject for this conversation. MR. COLLINS-In reference to the lighting fixtures themselves, we can change that. MR. VOLLARO-Try to get some downcast lighting on that, so that it illuminates the walkways, at least. MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry, I wasn’t here. Approximately how far from the entrance of Queensbury is the Welcome to Queensbury sign? MR. VOLLARO-There’s already a sign at Exit 19. MR. SANFORD-I’m talking on Route 9, you go about another mile or so up north when you enter into Queensbury. Is that correct? MR. LEMERY-We didn’t prepare a chart with the circles that would tell us how far we are from the entrance to the Town. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I know we’re suffering from identity here. Identity problems in the Town of Queensbury, but it seems to me you should have an entrance sign in close proximity to the entrance, rather than a mile or so away, but, okay. MR. COLLINS-Well, it’s a generic Welcome. It’s not an identifier of the borders, to clarify that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting off target here. Have you got anything else to add? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just, I wanted to talk about the thing in the Chazen letter of 10/20, their Paragraph 1C. We get a little more information the pre-treatment of stormwater prior to entering the infiltration practice, and maybe Mr. Pittenger could just discuss that. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t forget you have Pete Romano here from Chazen as well. You can ask him questions. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Usually I identify Stuart with that seat. I’m sorry. RUSS PITTENGER MR. PITTENGER-There, basically, are, just very quickly, there are four components to the plans that you have before you. The first one is the pedestrian bridge, which we’re all aware of. We have been discussing. The second component is that in, we’ve provided the DOT materials to you as information so that you’d know the progress that we’re making. The one impact that it does have on our site is that one of the recommendations that we are taking from the DOT plan is that, at the north end of the ring road, as it meets Glen Lake intersection, they asked us to provide two lanes in and two lanes out of our ring road, whereas before we had only one lane 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) out and two lanes in. So that does affect the grading and the drainage there that we’ve accommodated in our plan. The third item that we had was in doing the borings for the pedestrian bridge, in the area along Meadowbrook wetland here, we discovered that the subsurface material is such that it won’t support the weight of that fill. Originally in our plan, in our approved plan, what we had hoped to do was to spoil the material from the hotel construction by, immediately adjacent to the wetland, coming up with a berm and filling some eight to ten feet for these higher parking lots. That did a couple of things for us. One, it allowed us to dispose of the material. Two, it gave us the depth so that we could actually treat the stormwater better than it’s currently being treated by our detention basins here, these large detention basins which we’ve had some discussions with Pete about and the Board, and we finally all got on the same page. In doing those borings for the bridge, and finding out that we could not load this area next to the wetland. Fred Dente, our subsurface structural engineer and soil scientist told us that we could only fill up within 60 feet of that wetland. So what we did was we pulled the slope back from the wetland 130 feet so we’d get a double lane of parking along the wetland, and then slope up to the higher area. Now what that allows us to do is it reduces the area that’s going into our large wetland basins, which actually grew in size, but reduced in the amount of area that’s flowing into that. So it allows to improve our treatment and actually take the runoff from the hotel roof water into these areas also, but what, the question I’m getting to that Bob mentioned is that in maintaining these existing low areas for parking, we had originally designed it so that the water would just stay in the parking lot, and Pete Romano’s comment was that that was less than desirable. So in the discussions that we’ve had since we received the letter on Monday was to redesign these so that we are creating, and we can contain the water quality volume for the stormwater management. So the water from the other parking lots that are raised is the same, and receives the same treatment. The advantage to this plan is that since we can’t build those lots higher anyway, we are intercepting the water and putting them into these ponds. So in the event of a 100 year storm, which is six inches of water in 24 hours, the water will fill this basin and it will come actually out 15 feet into that part of the parking lot. So, in the cases where we have a 100 year storm event, we will lose approximately 20 parking spaces in each of those four lots, during a time when it’s unlikely we’re going to have full capacity at The Great Escape anyway. So, there’s an advantage over our approved plan, there’s an advantage over the existing conditions in that we’re treating water that’s currently sheet draining into that parking lot. There’s an advantage in that we’re restricting the amount of water that’s allowed to go into that, and we’re treating the upper water, and the advantage over our approved plan is that we don’t have to be concerned about activity adjacent to the wetland where we were doing a fill slope. Now our fill slope is 130 feet away. So they’re, and basically we’re stuck with the idea that we can’t really dispose of material there along the wetland. MR. HUNSINGER-While you’re up there at the boards, there were some tradeoffs between where the fill is going, and you talked about where it’s not going. Can you, for the benefit of the audience, can you show where this fill will be going now instead? MR. PITTENGER-Number Four. Number Four is that we added, the new part to this project is the pink lot, which, on, it’s the area immediately north of, it’s north of Martha’s. There’s an existing row of pine trees there that originally, in our approved plans, and in our SEQRA documents, they were going to be removed and this was going to be one large parking lot. We’ve revised the plans to maintain that row of existing pines and build this portion of this lot to dispose of additional fill. That’s the fourth part of the plan, which is all, except for the DOT, is a result of what we learned from doing more detailed stuff on the bridge. So, Bob, I don’t know if I answered your question about the stormwater treatment. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’re doing there, and that also addresses the subject of ponding, as well, I believe. I think you must have put something in your report about the ponding situation. MR. ROMANO-I just made a suggestion that they might not want to have those parking areas ponded, just simple, you would lose parking spots, and then, two, there looked like there was a better way to possibly treat the water prior to infiltrating into the ground, and it looks like the 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) LA Group definitely has made it a much improved plan over what it was. I think it definitely meets the intent of the Phase II regs. I’m satisfied with what they did. This revision that they just submitted, and like I said, I think it meets the intent more than what it did. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have one more, I think. Paragraph Six, I guess, of the Chazen letter, I believe it’s Paragraph Six of the Chazen. Yes, it is. It’s Item Number Six of the Chazen letter, and I’ll read it, because it’s something that we have talked about here in our prior meetings in April. The subject site plans do not present a means to prohibit or discourage pedestrians from walking across New York State Route 9 at grade level from the east to the western parking lot. The applicant should address how pedestrians from the east will be encouraged to utilize the proposed pedestrian bridge, and those of you that have got Number Six in front of you can complete that, examples of such things may include ornamental fencing and landscaping and so on. I think that’s something we have to come to grips with, because I think really Mr. Sanford probably brought that issue up more than I did in April, but I think it’s an issue we have to look at and try to understand. That, to me, is a safety issue of people having a great day at The Great Escape and then just dashing across the road to get back to the hotel or get over to get a snack at the Coach House or something like that. We’ve got to try to find a method to get them to use the bridge to go back. That’s the objective of the bridge and I think we’re going to design something to. MR. COLLINS-Well, the bridge is designed to be right in front of them. That’s the purpose of the design. There is an existing guardrail that runs between the two stoplights, that runs from the southern, current southern entrance, to the current northern entrance of that parking lot. So when it says guardrails, there is one there now, State owned guardrail that’s on the outside of the sidewalk, you know, but to our property side. So that is there. The existing entrance to the disabled parking area will remain. So you can’t block that off. The bridge will be, the ramp will be before that entrance anyway. So there really isn’t a purpose to walk past the bridge to get to an opening. Once you get north of that, it’s a short stretch of parking, and then you’re into the other gentleman’s property. We are fenced off from his property around his property. So that, you know, for all intents and purposes, there is a barrier there the entire length, and then obviously the Park proper is fenced off, but with the entrances to the disabled parking lot remaining, you can’t block that off. That’s going to remain open. The ease of access to the bridge is going to be your single biggest reason to use it. There’s no purpose to cross the road, because there’s a fence on the other side. So that visual barrier, in itself, should be sufficient. We also have to try to get as much of a first impression that we want to welcome people to the Park. That’s our main reason for not wanting a fence. You do have to fence in your Park for perimeter purposes, but when you start to fence in your front entrance, you know how tight it is there as it is. That first impression of, you know, we’re going to block everything off. We’re already fencing them out of getting across the street. They’re going to be within a fenced in parking area. Once they’re exiting, we think the barricades there are sufficient enough to address that issue. MR. ROMANO-Just to add something, too. It is difficult to speculate where pedestrians will go. So you can’t really say they have to block off every entrance because there’s no way that Great Escape can speculate people will not try to walk out the drive lanes or things like that. So as long as they seem like they’ve addressed it, and there is a barrier, some type of barrier there. That should be enough. MR. SANFORD-Well, signage would help. I mean, hopefully you’ll have signs where it’s appropriate saying please use the pedestrian bridge to cross. I mean, that’s just commonsense that you would inform the people how they’re supposed to. MR. COLLINS-Yes. Traffic flow signage is obviously part of our package, as far as pedestrian traffic flow, and vehicular traffic flow, once they’re on the ring road. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all my comments, Mr. Chairman. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? Anything to add? Staff? I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute or two. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOUG AUER MR. AUER-Hi. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I wasn’t planning to stay tonight, but someone suggested that I do stick around. I’m glad I did. I have not looked at really the details of this bridge. I think it’s a great idea. My wife and I eat, very frequently, up at the Red Coach, and just Saturday night we were there, and they have night hours, as you know, at The Great Escape. Well, we came this close to hitting somebody that went across the road, you know, it was a green light for us. We did not see these people. It was a family. They had a couple of young kids, and I don’t know what these folks were thinking of, but I had to slam the breaks on, and the woman, I rolled the woman down and I said, my God, I couldn’t see you. She said, well, we could see you. So, whatever you guys do, be aware that, at night, your vision, ability to see somebody, is diminished by orders of magnitude from what we see there in the day, and, you know, this was a very sobering experience, and I’d hate like hell to read in the paper that, you know, somebody got hit by a car because they were too lazy to take the bridge. I mean, that’s, you know, a stupid reason to get hit by a car. If you could do something. I could think of a half a dozen things you could do without making the Park an unfriendly place to get to. I understand a fence, maybe some constantino wire might work, but, no, seriously, I think if you put a curb up, you know, maybe a foot, two or something, whatever, you know, to separate the pedestrians, you know, that would be down low enough, but something, I mean, traffic folks do this sort of thing all the time. That’s just my thought, and, you know, I think, save yourself some grief and think about some way to manage pedestrian traffic. Because people are lazy. They will try to take the shortest path. I mean, the circuitous route that you go to get up to grade, up to the elevation of the bridge to go across and then back down, that would be great for skateboarders I’m sure, but, you know, there will be people that will try to find the shortcut. So, that’s my only comment. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive. President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. I just have some questions and comments. Number One, I believe that, in the minutes of this project, and it’s a change to an ongoing project, that it would have been agreed to by all parties that the affected communities would be notified and receive all materials in a timely manner to review changes in the project, and when Chris Round was here, he made sure that we got to see those. I have not seen any of this material. So I really have more questions than anything about this. I have a question, I guess maybe Mr. Romano can answer, and that is if the revised stormwater plan, if you could give an opinion whether it is the same or better or not as good as the one of the previous plan. MR. ROMANO-It would be of the same. MR. DERBY-Okay. MR. ROMANO-Which was, met the intent of the Phase II regs. MR. DERBY-Okay. So you see no perceived problem with moving the berm back? Because the lake community really liked the idea of having the berm go up and really kind of protect that inlet stream, which is one of our main inlet water sources into Glen Lake. Okay. Second point, I’m really kind of all over the place. I apologize. It seems to me, I understand it’s a problem of economics, but it seems to me that the DOT’s suggestion, and again, I have not had time to really review this, of putting the two lanes off and making a better intersection at Glen Lake 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) Road and Route 9 would be better for the community, and maybe DOT has a good, a vision for that. As you’ll recall, this was one of the major issues that we brought to this Board, the traffic problems coming out of Glen Lake Road. We really pushed hard to get a light there, and I’m not sure, from listening to Mr. Lemery, what the actual position is. It seemed very vague to me, and I don’t know if this is something that’s tied in with this, but I think it should be very clear, before we move on with the project, what their intersection is going to be, with that. Lights on the bridge. We talked about night glow coming out of the kind of opaque covering for the water park inside and Great Escape agreed to put those lights down so there wouldn’t be any kind of night glow in the skies, so it wouldn’t have negative visual impact at the lake, and we would expect the same thing with the bridge, so we don’t see this kind of night glow coming out, and I was a little confused at the end. It seems like the west side of Route 9, where the parking lot is going to be fenced, completely fenced, so there’s no access. We would be concerned about the pedestrian traffic going across, the questions that have been asked up there about people moving across, again, for the flow of traffic, and I guess I would need to see where those open areas are going to be, so people could get across, and if it’s all fenced on the west side, where would they go, if they were coming out, pedestrian traffic? So I’m asking if you could give us a little time to look at this information, and maybe table this until the next meeting so I could have better opinions about what I’m talking about. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? ROGER BOOR MR. BOOR-Roger Boor. I’m going to be somewhat brief. I think probably everybody sitting at this table received a memo some time ago about it being inappropriate for a, let’s say, a Town Board member to talk to you about an application or a Zoning Board member, and I can understand where that’s coming from, but I think it really doesn’t serve us well, and I’m going to try and make that point tonight, because I enjoy coming to these meetings. I enjoy seeing the thought process of each and every one of you. I like seeing how the decisions are arrived at. I think it’s important for all of us to understand how we interact, what’s going on within the Town, how we can help each other, and I think, at a previous application tonight, I was pleased to see that this Board understood what a vision is, what continuity is, and I think, going with that, I think it’s important, and here’s why I think we need to communicate, because the Town Board has authorized, and Marilyn will be able to give the information on this, acorn lighting for the Million Dollar Mile. There’s going to be 51 ornamental lights that will be placed along that corridor, and within that thinking, we have also been proposing that as lighting is continued down the Route 9 corridor, all the way to Glens Falls, we would like to stay consistent with this decorative acorn lighting, and so when I believe Mr. Vollaro brought up the issue of lighting, I don’t know if anybody on this Board would have known that this is what the Town Board is doing, and you might not, and I think one of our concerns was, you know, what kind of ambient light are we giving off, and we are taking the reflective, you can get decorative acorn lighting, but it can also be reflected down. So I’d like to think that, certainly that we don’t tell you what to do, but I think it might be something that you might consider, the applicant might consider, so that we can have this continuity and that it doesn’t look like we weren’t thinking what the vision was for that corridor. So I would like to think that we do communicate together, and we don’t tell everybody what to do, but we understand where everybody is going, and I think it’s in the same direction. It’s for the betterment of this community. So, I would hope that you would at least talk to Marilyn. She has the numbers. They’re 12 feet high. Whether that’s appropriate on the bridge or not, I don’t know, but at least you should be aware of what we’re doing north of The Great Escape, relative to street lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? DON SIPP MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. Regarding this fence on the west side, does this, there is no fence, then, that would prevent people from going across to the little ice cream stand that’s 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) across the road from the main entrance, or the restaurant that’s next to that, or to Martha’s, is there? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there’s any fence in there that I know of. MR. MAC EWAN-No, there’s not. MR. LEMERY-We don’t own the property. So we can hardly put a fence up. MR. SIPP-So there would still be people crossing that road where there’ll be no light. All right. Secondly, the Glen Lake Road. I assume there’s a turning lane. Has this been approved by DOT, a right turn, dedicated right turn lane to go into the Park? MR. MAC EWAN-A dedicated right turn lane going into the Park? MR. SIPP-On Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-Onto the ring road? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SIPP-They have approved that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. SIPP-And I heard some mention about a light that they didn’t think they needed on Glen Lake Road and Route 9? MR. VOLLARO-That was Round Pond Road. They rejected the warrants on Round Pond Road. They couldn’t get enough warrants to agree to the light on Round Pond, but the Glen Lake light, I think, is pretty secure. MR. SIPP-All right. Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Mrs. Bramley? JOANN BRAMLEY MRS. BRAMLEY-Joann Bramley. I am concerned about the comments that Mr. Lemery made about DOT, and I did think I understood him correctly when he said they are not clear as to whether this is a wish list or these things are conditional upon approval, and I’m not sure of the role of the Planning Board and DOT, in respect to these recommendations about the turn lane and the median and the tripping device and all that. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the short answer is that DOT had been involved in the review of this expansion since Day A, and they put their stamp of approval on it for the ring road and for the improvements they were doing along the Route 9 corridor, inclusive of, under immense pressure from the Town and the applicant, to get the light at Glen Lake Road. After all those approvals were given, it was then the DOT had come back on The Great Escape and said, in reviewing this, we now think that you need to have additional turn lanes coming out of Glen Lake Road, which is beyond the scope of this Board’s review. So, where it goes now, between The Great Escape and DOT, that’s between those two parties to work out. MRS. BRAMLEY-Okay. Thank you. KAREN ANGLESON 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MRS. ANGLESON-Karen Angleson, 1 Greenwood Lane. I hate to belabor a subject, but since it’s been brought up, I had the same concerns that Mrs. Bramley did about the Route 9 and Glen Lake Road, and I think Mr. Lemery said he wanted to make the Board aware that they had not agreed with DOT on the additional suggestions from DOT. My concern would be if they get to be arguments about what needs to be done, etc., will we lose the supposedly approved light, and will that, that would be something that we really need to keep on top of. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t think that, the case of the traffic light is resolved, and it’s approved, and it’s going to be part of this expansion project. I guess one could look at it kind of cynical and say, I think that DOT, at this point, is trying to go for everything, and say that, gee, by the way, after we put our stamp of approval on it, we’d actually like to have a little bit more. That’s the way I’m perceiving things at this point, and at this point, it’s up to the applicant and DOT to work out that issue. MRS. ANGLESON-Okay. Well, just as long as we don’t lose what we got in the beginning. MR. MAC EWAN-No. We will get the light. Anyone else? All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. COLLINS-Mr. Chairman, you summarized that meeting very well, considering you weren’t there. MR. MAC EWAN-It was a hunch. MR. COLLINS-But very good hunch. I guess let’s kind of clarify what we said. If it’s, we’re in negotiations with DOT. They would like to see the right turn lane as a way of not having that light trip as often when cars come up from Glen Lake Road. Their concern is that that traffic then takes priority because it’s, you know, not a heavy use. So as soon as it comes up it’s going to get precedence over the Route 9 traffic. They would like to see a right turn lane, so they can make a continuous right turn, and thus avoid that light tripping. Now our traffic people aren’t here. I believe that’s why they want it. We’re still in negotiations with whether or not that’s needed or not. Our traffic engineers don’t believe it is. They would like to see it so that it avoids that potential that Glen Lake Road right turn people take precedence. Now if you turn left, then you have to get the light changed, so, you know, our numbers really didn’t justify the need for that. So, we’re just in discussions with them. So as John said, we haven’t come to any agreement. That’s what they would like to see. We have countered saying we don’t believe it’s necessary. We’ve agreed to the second right turn lane, actually as you’re going north, turning into the property. So there’s now four lanes going in where there used to be three. So we’ve made that, you know, concession, and then the other one, as far as the trip on getting off Exit 20, that seems to be minor. That shouldn’t be an issue, but it is that right turn lane that you do require utilities to be relocated and the pavement to be poured and, you know, get right away, and I think that’s County land, if I’m not mistaken. So there’s more to it than just agreeing to do it. So rest assured, the light’s going there. The intersection will be a four way intersection. How it’s configured is what’s in discussion. MR. LEMERY-And since this is public infrastructure, we may ask the Town of Queensbury to bear some of that expense. We have a $43 million project going in there, which is going to generate very large sales tax increases and a gigantic bed tax. So we may ask the Town Board, at some point in the very near future, to bear some of the expense, undertake some of the expense, for the public infrastructure, at the Route 9/Glen Lake intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask the County to pitch in, as well. MR. LEMERY-Well, the County came to us and asked us if we would contribute some of the Samoset offices and cabins to the County for, I guess it was for Tourism, a Tourism facility, and 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) I think the Park is willing to look at that. So it’s an economic issue, really. We have no place in the budget, and the construction contract is done, for this extra $300,000 or plus. So I’m glad the Town Board members are here, because maybe we’ll go talk to them. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? Staff? MRS. RYBA-Just a couple of things. In reference to the, I’ve heard discussions about a fence on the east side, but there may be alternatives such as shrubs, landscaping. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a fence, but some ideas for trying to deter people and still have it look even better, and deter people from crossing the road, but not from the visual aspects of The Great Escape. So that’s one item. The second is, I did speak with Mark Kennedy at the New York State Department of Transportation, and he’s of the feeling that there are some situations that would actually benefit The Great Escape by some of the suggestions that they have, and so that’s still their discussion, but his main concerns, and I put these in the notes, were just wanted to get some planning feedback from the Planning Board and I’ve listed those items, and one was, you know, treatment of the center median, painting the lines or having imprinted asphalt, consolidation of the two driveways, which I said was an accepted access management practice, and I’m not really sure why they asked for the Town comment on that. Then on the visual simulation of the bridge, and then the last one had to do with that at grade crossing, but in terms of the other requirements, that certainly is something that New York State DOT and The Great Escape have to work out, but as Mr. MacEwan correctly noted, you’re not going to lose the light. MR. MAC EWAN-Thoughts? Anybody? MR. SANFORD-Where do you see this going tonight, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see any reason why we can’t move it. MR. SANFORD-Let’s move it. MR. METIVIER-What do you do about the light issue? MR. MAC EWAN-Put a condition in. MR. METIVIER-Let’s do it. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t see tabling it for one individual to review some documents that they could have had an opportunity to do. MR. VOLLARO-With the information we’ve gotten on the change of Glen Lake Road and Route 9, with respect to the DOT requirement, we’re probably going to be taking that off the table, since it’s not something that we directly have any impact on. It’s a negotiation between those two parties. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So, I’m just making sure, in my own mind, when we approve this, it’s not, we’re approving it with the idea that what we got in this package, which was significant, from Creighton Manning, and so on, on the whole interchange, that in our minds when we approve it, this is all like it didn’t happen. I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. There’s a lot of information that we got that looked to me, when I read it, I said, well, this is a fait accompli, but it’s not, obviously. MR. LEMERY-Well, we’ll ultimately get there with DOT. I just wanted you to understand where it was with respect to the meeting and what they asked to be done and where we are. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, maybe the appropriate way for us to go is just kind of like put some sort of a disclaimer as part of a condition, that we’re not rendering an approval or agreement or disapproval, or anything regarding the negotiations between DOT and the Park relative to additional turning lanes on Glen Lake Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we had talked about that a lot at prior meetings, how we can’t supercede DOT and we can’t condition the applicant, force him to do something that DOT won’t allow them to do. MR. COLLINS-There was, it was for information. In our last meeting, there was comments made that you wanted to be updated on meetings with DOT. So that’s what we did. We did want to be upfront with you and say we do have a, you know, a disagreement on whether a right turn lane is needed. That’s not to say it’s insurmountable. That light will go there. They agree. We agree. The question is the final configuration of basically what Glen Lake will look like, Glen Lake Road. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we could certainly use the Chairman’s position of a disclaimer, because when I get this kind of information at home, I don’t have the benefit of your knowledge, to the fact that you haven’t accepted the DOT position yet. So I gobbled this up like this was going to happen. MR. LEMERY-Well, we met with Marilyn, and we gave her copies to disseminate and say here’s where we are and here’s what’s going on with it, and I just wanted the Planning Staff to be aware of what was happening, and that we’re still talking to them, and that we’ll get it worked out. MRS. RYBA-And I’d like to comment, too, that I tried to be as clear as possible that it was submitted as a way to help you better understand the project narrative, and wasn’t subject to comment, other than the four specific items that New York State DOT asked, the Town actually asked the Supervisor to comment on, but the Supervisor felt it was more appropriate for the Planning Board to take a look at. MR. VOLLARO-Those were the A through C suggestions? MRS. RYBA-Those were in my notes, and there were four items. It didn’t list them A, B, C, or 1, 2, 3. MR. HUNSINGER-How about, going back to the ornamental lighting on the proposed pedestrian bridge. I mean, was the intent all along that there would be, you know, cutoffs or downcasts? Those would be downcast fixtures? MR. COLLINS-What Councilman Boor says is, I mean, if we want to match the lighting, that’s no problem. We can do that. It was, you know, at the present time, it wasn’t to mean, that was the fixture that was chosen. It was just to represent that obviously you need to light the walkway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Do we need to include anything to that affect in the motion? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s something that I think we need to give some direction on as to what we’re looking. I mean, the resolution’s going to be the record. MR. VOLLARO-Are we discussing lighting now? MR. MAC EWAN-So we have something to be clarified to put in the motion. MR. VOLLARO-Well, as Mr. Boor said, there are lights that look like that that do have downcast capability. I don’t know what they are yet. I haven’t seen cut sheets on those, but the Town must have cut sheets. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You mean the acorn type? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. RYBA-I only have that one set of plans that was provided to a Town Board workshop from C.T. Male. The Planning Staff was not involved in looking at that lighting, whenever it was discussed way back for the Route 9 Factory Outlets. So all I have is the same ones. I don’t have cut sheets. I don’t have any specifications on that. MR. SANFORD-Just put in it’ll be consistent with any lighting configuration. MRS. RYBA-The simplest way to probably put it is that the lighting, proposed lighting for the pedestrian bridge must be downcast, ornamental lighting like they have, and not to exceed the Town lighting standards. MR. LEMERY-DOT isn’t going to let us put bright lights up on that bridge anyway. It would confuse drivers. So it’s got to be down lit, and it’s got to be lighted towards the center of the bridge. So that’s fine. We understand that, and we’ll deal with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you working up something, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just have two conditions so far. The first one that the final road alignment intersection configuration is subject to final negotiations between The Great Escape and New York State DOT, and that lighting should be consistent with the Route 9 corridor plans, and not exceed Town standards. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds doable. MR. LEMERY-We can’t agree that they should be consistent with Route 9 corridor. We haven’t seen anything. We don’t know anything about what they’ve got in mind, and we don’t know whether that would look appropriate in front of the theme park. So I don’t think we can agree to that. That’s not part of this, the subject of this hearing, but we agree that the lighting on the bridge itself, you know, will be downcast and will be directed toward the bridge and not look like Lowe’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Home Depot it is, at this point. Not Lowe’s. MR. LEMERY-Which one is it, the Home Depot now? MR. MAC EWAN-Home Depot. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The reason for the Uniformity Ratio is exactly the thing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s why we said it won’t exceed Town standards. That implies the Uniformity Ratio. MR. VOLLARO-Uniformity Ratio. MR. LEMERY-We’re glad to talk to the Town and try to make that all work. We just haven’t seen anything. MR. HUNSINGER-No, point well taken. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just bringing up the fact that the Uniformity Ratio has a real reason, and when you get to a thing like bridge lighting, then you’ve really got the differential to talk about. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? I’m ready to move it. MR. SANFORD-I’d say go with it. MRS. RYBA-May I interrupt for just a second? One of the other things, and I think there was a comment here, too, about having final plans, because all we have are just some hand drawings. So, anyhow, I just wanted to add that. MR. HUNSINGER-Final plans shall be submitted to the Town. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2004 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Pedestrian Bridges WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 10/26/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. That the final public road alignment and intersection configuration is subject to final negotiations between The Great Escape and New York State Department of Transportation, and 2. That any proposed lighting of the pedestrian bridge would be downcast fixtures and not exceed the Town Lighting standards, and 3. That final plans shall be submitted to the Town for the record. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck with DOT. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 ARLEN ASSOCIATES/G.R.J.H., INC. PROPERTY OWNER: KING FUEL CO. ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: INTERSECTION QUAKER ROAD & DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING KIOSK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,930 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AS WELL AS SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ASSOCIATED GASOLINE ISLANDS. CONVENIENCE STORES AND GASOLINE STATIONS IN AN HC ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/13/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 GENE BILODEAU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-As I’ve indicated, the applicant proposes to construct a new almost 3,000 square foot convenience store and reopen the former King Fuels site on the corner of Dix and Quaker. The plan shows, in terms of access management and traffic, some redesign of the access drives are proposed, and as I’ve noted, consideration should be given to redesigning the exit only drive on Quaker as a right out only. The proximity of this drive to the Quaker/Dix intersection leads us to make this comment, and I guess forcing traffic more, by creating a sharper angle and forcing traffic to go right would potentially prevent anybody from trying to go left out of there, and would be a better design, we feel, for the site. A simple question. Does the applicant propose to use the existing underground tanks or install new ones. The applicant proposes to plant additional street trees, which match, which appear to match, the surrounding landscape theme in this area. Just a question, does the applicant propose to remove any existing vegetation. There are some shrubs and things like that along the street frontage which could be used as some low level parking lot screening. I guess the question is, do they propose to remove any of that. Wall mounted, new wall mounted freestanding and bollard lights are proposed. The canopy lights on the gas island canopy may not be flush with the underside of the gas island canopy, and I guess that’s the question, are they, in fact, flush. The wall packs shown on the proposed plan are not cut off downcast, as required by the Town Code, and furthermore consideration should be given to replacing the bollard lights with some freestanding downcast fixtures. This would require fewer fixtures and would replace these non cut off fixtures with lights that conform to Town requirements. Again, we’ve included the standard condition that lights be cut off, downcast, and Staff will inspect these fixtures for compliance prior to installation. With that, we have some C.T. Male comments, and at this point that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, why don’t you go through your comments first, before we open up the floor here. MR. HOUSTON-All right. We had a comment letter dated October 20, and in response to that, th we’ve had a transmittal from the applicant consisting of a revised design report, and also a design plan, and the revisions on these plans and on the report address our comments, entirely. So we have no outstanding issues. We received this submittal not long ago. So I haven’t prepared a signoff letter, but our technical comments have been addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. BILODEAU-Good evening. Mr. Bilodeau from Arlen Associates, representing G.R.J.H. on this project on Quaker and Dix Avenue. I could address the items that Mr. Hilton read off one by one. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Go right ahead. MR. BILODEAU-The first one, we had already done some changes to those particular access/egress roads on Quaker and Dix, evidently. So that there would be only a right turn in or a left turn out. Evidently, it didn’t quite meet their approval, so we’ll redesign it to do that. We’ll make the angle sharper, so that there can be no turn, improper turns, in or out of those particular two roads. So, that issue will be addressed in a subsequent drawing. The second question was, does the applicant propose to use existing underground storage tanks or install new ones. New one, we will remove the old ones. They will be new tanks, and it shows on the plan where that new tank will be located. Third one, the applicant proposes to plant additional street trees, yes, and other plantings, yes. The proposed landscaping appears to meet the requirements of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Does the applicant propose to remove any existing vegetation on this site? Not exactly. There might be one or two bushes that become inappropriate when we do the final design. We might find that, certainly we’re going to trim them, but it might be appropriate to move them a little, one way or the other, based on the subsequent design, which will include the red maples that we, 15 or 16 that I think we’ve added to the site, but essentially we won’t remove them. We’ll use them to the best, what we consider the best of their use. The next question, the applicant proposes to install new freestanding, wall mounted bollard and canopy lights as part of this plan. Well, that’s not really a question. The first one is, it appears that the canopy lights may not be full cut off fixtures, and it is not clear if the fixtures will be flush with the underside of the gas island canopy. We’ve shown on the drawing, these are typical flush mounted lights, but they’re built in to the canopy so that the lens is flush with the ceiling of the, the underside ceiling of the canopy, and the lighting arrangement and the lighting analysis is done on that basis. The next one is the wall packs are not cut off. Again, I had proposed something that I thought would meet the requirements. Evidently it did not meet their requirements, and we will have to go back again on that and come back until we finally do approach a solution to that. The one question, the last one’s the one I have a problem with. I’ll read it. Consideration should be given to replacing the bollard lights surrounding the parking area with freestanding downcast cut off fixtures. That is okay. It would be difficult on that side that borders McDonalds, because these lights, no matter how much you cut them off, they’re going to spill over, and the bollard lights that we have along the side of the drive that borders McDonalds are bollard lights that do not spill over onto the property, the McDonalds property. The bollard lights to the, I guess it would be the east side, or the side which, I’m not sure which direction we’re talking about, but the one where the sanitary system is going to be, whatever side that is going to be, we can put raised lights there. In fact, we had some at one time. I prefer the bollards, but they make a nice rooting, and a lot of them do. They go directly across to the McDonalds, and it provides a nice, well lit low intensity pathway. We’ll put in the suggested lights. No problem, and with that, assuming that we do these items that I said we were going to do, in subsequent drawings, we seem to have covered these issues. I don’t know if Mr. Hilton agrees. It’s simply a matter of getting together on that. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like we’re heading in the right direction. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Bilodeau, I had a question. It was my understanding that on this site there was some kind of underground spill or something, the gas tanks leaked. Is there a history to this site? MR. BILODEAU-I don’t know, but when we dig up the old tanks, we’ll know, and if there are, if there is a spill, it’ll have to be mitigated. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, because I remember the property was up for auction and there was some discussion in the community about, that there had been some kind of spill, and there was underground contamination. So, when I saw the plan come up, I wondered if you knew the history of that. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. BILODEAU-No, I don’t, and I do know that we’re going to dig up all of the existing pavement, going to repave the whole thing, and even some of the concrete will come up where the tanks are, and so if there’s any contamination there, we’re going to find it, and it’ll have to be mitigated. I mean, the project will just have to stop right there. The DEC will make sure of that. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s go down our review criteria sheet on this one. Okay. Design standards. Has anybody got any questions or comments relative to conformance with the Comp Plan, design corridor, building design and layout, signage? MR. VOLLARO-I have one on building design. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-On Page Three of Three, there’s a very nice rendition of the building, but we don’t have any idea what color it’s going to be or how it’s going to look. Is there any way to give us some feeling for what the façade might be on the gas canopy, if there would be one, or whether there would be the name on the, company on the pumps only. In other words, give us a little feel, particularly for the color design of that new building. MR. BILODEAU-The color will be the same as it is now, the color, it’s a dark brown. The finish, I guess we’re getting in to that same problem here, whether it will be clapboards or vertical siding or. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got a rendition in 3-3 that doesn’t look bad to me. MR. BILODEAU-But it doesn’t specify any siding on it. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s a drawing, basically, and it’s a rendition of, there’s no specific information. On the bottom it’s pretty much blank. So, it would be nice to get some sort of a color rendition there. MR. BILODEAU-I can do that. MR. VOLLARO-And to try to know what the façade’s going to look like on the dispensers. A lot of times companies like to flash their names on that façade, or sometimes they just put it on the pump. MR. BILODEAU-Could I come up with, like we did the last time, we came up with five. I’d like to cut the renderings down to one, if I could. If I could make it a brown, and sort of match the canopy design as it is now, the color and the general configuration of the canopy. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that I have that particular site in my mind to say yes. Do you fellows know about that site? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m trying to think of what color roof. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s natural. I think it’s brown. It’s kind of all earth tones. MR. BILODEAU-We could change the color of the, we’re probably going to put new roofing on the canopy anyway. It’s probably 20 years old, and probably, we can make it any color you want. I can put together a few colors and come up with some kind of a, I wouldn’t know myself, without sitting down and doing the actual drafting on it, the coloring to what would be appropriate. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, usually we look for earth tones. So, you know, browns, tans. MR. BILODEAU-Well, we’ll keep it in that general, maybe a couple of, for the next meeting, we may have a couple of renderings. MR. HUNSINGER-I was surprised last week, or maybe two meetings ago, I had made a comment about a dark green roof. Usually, you know, that’s something that people prefer, and no one supported me on it. MR. BILODEAU-Yes, well, I had one in there. Well, I like dark green. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a different part of Town. You never know what you’ll get. MR. BILODEAU-We’ll try to match, pretty much, what we’ve got there. I have a whole bunch of photographs so I can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other questions on building design and layout? Site development criteria, site conditions, soils, geology, hydrology, vehicle access, traffic patterns. We’ve pretty much covered that. MR. SEGULJIC-One question on traffic. On the site, on the eastern side, your Parking Space 14 I believe it’s labeled, is there going to be enough room for traffic to flow through there? MR. BILODEAU-Is that around the back of the building? MR. SEGULJIC-Around the back of the building. It looks like those spots, 13, 14, and 15, are pretty close to the corner of the building. MR. BILODEAU-I can rearrange that. I’ll do that. MR. HILTON-If I could just offer a comment on that. I was just going to bring that to your attention, because it came to my attention, but we have two different plans here, one from September 14, one from the 28, and the 14 version appears to meet the intent of the Code, ththth but you’re correct. The plan dated September 28, those parking spaces do not have the th required separation between the building and the parking spaces. MR. BILODEAU-Is that, the one that does meet, is that the last one I sent in, or is that the one prior to the one that I sent? MR. HILTON-The prior, the original, the one prior did meet. MR. BILODEAU-I have some copies here of the final one, if you want to give to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-We’re operating of a set of March 21 prints, George. st MR. HILTON-Yes. I think they’re both dated March 21. st MR. HUNSINGER-But then above the name Arlen Associates, it says Revision 1, 9/27/04. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that. MR. BILODEAU-And there’s another revision. I have some drawings here that do have the final revision, the ones I sent to Mr. Houston, I have them here. MR. VOLLARO-I’m still looking at the original, March 21, 2004. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s what I was. I didn’t get those. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. BILODEAU-Well, the basic change of this drawing was related to the questions that Mr. Houston addressed. It shows a change in the name. The lettering on a sign. It shows an area of paving, and defines it clearly. That’s about all it does, and I guess it did change the location of the parking lots there. MR. MAC EWAN-There it is. MR. BILODEAU-This is the one I sent to Jim. They’ve been moved. This is the final. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s keep things moving along here. Are we all satisfied on parking, vehicle access, traffic patterns? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to ask a question. C.T. Male had some very good suggestions, I thought, in their traffic area, regarding traffic in their letter, and I just put those on the drawing the way you had them in words, and I’m wondering why the applicant agreed to, with C.T. Male, are you agreeing to take on the traffic that they’ve suggested, the no left turn signs, and this is not an exit sign and so on? MR. BILODEAU-I changed the wording on the sign, too, at Jim’s request. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, this most recent plan that I have is. MR. VOLLARO-What’s yours dated? MR. HOUSTON-Revision Two is dated 10/21/04. MR. BILODEAU-That’s this drawing here. I can give them to you if you want. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, it’s the old story, folks. If I could always be sitting with the latest set of drawings. Why am I always looking at two months, I doesn’t do me any good now. MR. HOUSTON-No, that’s true. MR. VOLLARO-You should have brought it to my house at 10 o’clock this morning. MR. BILODEAU-Do you want mine? They’re here for your. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you give them all to Staff, because I think we’re going to have some resubmittals here anyway. So, we’ll let them have them. All right. Now are we squared away on parking, ingress, egress? Can we keep moving here? Has anybody got any questions on stormwater, sewage design? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. VOLLARO-I guess a lot of my questions are going to be directed to our consultant engineer. I notice that they have a flow rate of 400 gallons per minute is what they picked, and a stated perc of 21 to 30 minutes. That’s in some of their, in their writing. MR. HOUSTON-There shouldn’t be 400 gallons per minute. You mean 400 gallons per day? MR. VOLLARO-Per day. I’ll get to where they got that information from. MR. BILODEAU-We’re talking about sanitary disposal. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at their design report, Jim, that’s dated August 23, 2004, and in there they talk about volume requirements of 400 gallons per day. That’s under sanitary system. Do you see that? MR. HOUSTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And then they talk about a percolation rate of 21 to 30. MR. HOUSTON-Okay, yes, I see that. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got that. Okay. Now, if I’m reading things right, 333 feet of lateral is required to accommodate that kind of perc, 21 to 30. When I go into my 136 requirements, which is my sewage requirements of the Town, I pick up, for that kind of flow of 400 gallons per day, 21 to 30 minutes, gives me a 330 foot of lateral, and when I checked their laterals out, based on the drawing itself, I get about 160 foot of lateral up there. So I’m just questioning whether or not there’s sufficient amount of lateral in the drain field. MR. HOUSTON-Yes, this revised plan. It goes back to this issue again. Revised 2-10-21 shows 360 feet of lateral, 60 foot lateral. MR. VOLLARO-There you go, good enough. I’m looking at the wrong information here. MR. MAC EWAN-You know what I think we might want to do here. Let’s look at the issues we want him to address, because we’re going to be tabling this thing. MR. VOLLARO-I know, but the issue, Mr. Chairman, is the time one puts on going over these drawings when they’re not the correct drawings. That’s my time. I’m a little, very disturbed over that. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. The point I’m trying to make here is why continue going over asking questions about a drawing that you didn’t have the opportunity to review? MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-When we know we’re going to table this thing because we’re going to be looking for some revisions to be made to this thing. MR. VOLLARO-I had no idea that the modified drawing touched on the septic design. MR. MAC EWAN-Nor did I. Nor did anybody else sitting up here. That’s the point I’m trying to make, save everybody a little aggravation here. That’s what I’m trying to do. MR. HILTON-I just simply want to say that Planning Staff, we didn’t have the October 21 plan st as well, and even if we received a copy today, it’s my understanding that you guys don’t want them handed out the night of the meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. I mean, the whole purpose of this Board is to be able to review applications with the correct data that supports the application, and we’re sitting here looking at stuff that’s a couple of months old, and it’s not helping anybody. It delays the process. All right. Laundry list of stuff that Chris has been working on, what we need to table this thing for. What have you got so far? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I only have three things. Architectural renderings with color sheets. Updated plans as revised and submitted to C.T. Male. Do you want me to put the date in, or. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would like that. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they’re going to be revised again, on top of that. They’re going to be revised again, on top of what they’ve got now. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, apparently the revised plans have a revised parking, right? MR. BILODEAU-Well, we’re going to have to re-revise them. MR. HOUSTON-The most recent revision addresses all our prior comments, but does not address that traffic flow and parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Revised lighting plan that replaces the bollard lights with freestanding downcast fixtures. MR. MAC EWAN-Along the McDonalds property line, I think is where we were focusing that. Right? George? Yes. MR. BILODEAU-Bollards or downcast? That was my question. MR. MAC EWAN-We were going with downcasts, right? MR. BILODEAU-I’ve got a problem with spill over. That’s right up close to McDonalds. MR. MAC EWAN-I think because it’s a very commercial area where we are, I mean, speaking for one, there’s also, you know, what do you want to call it, an egress between that lot and the McDonalds lot. Not just for pedestrian, for vehicle access. I don’t think that spillage is going to be that big of an issue for me, from one lot to another lot. I think it’s going to be minimal. MR. BILODEAU-Not only that, the McDonalds lot is well lit. So the spillage will disappear. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it probably comes the other way, too. MR. BILODEAU-It does. So that’s okay. We’ll do it that way. MR. HILTON-And one thing to consider is certainly the wattage could be adjusted to minimize the spill over and there are house shields and things like that that could keep the light on site. MR. HUNSINGER-So I’m going to say that cut sheets could be provided. MR. SANFORD-Is that it, or is there anything else? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I had so far. That’s all that’s been mentioned. MR. MAC EWAN-How about, would it be the northern exit going to be a right hand turn only, and it’s to be reconfigured so that the radius will not allow ingress. Right? MR. BILODEAU-That’s on Quaker Road. Right? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. BILODEAU-That’s also on Dix Avenue, which is the opposite case. MR. SEGULJIC-One of my questions is, do we need that ingress on Quaker Road, or egress actually? MR. BILODEAU-Well, it was originally, it’s there now, and we redesigned it. We didn’t eliminate it. That’s essentially what it is. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MR. HUNSINGER-No, I think the traffic flow works pretty good. I think it’s a huge improvement over what’s there now. That’s just my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Staff, are you looking for anything? MR. HILTON-I guess I’m not sure if you addressed the wall packs. I mean, I know the applicant did, but I’m not sure in your motion if you’re just specifying what you’re looking for, as far as the light fixture. MR. VOLLARO-We want fully downcast wall packs, I think, and their wall pack series doesn’t show that. MR. BILODEAU-I’ll have to go to a different company, because Stine Co doesn’t produce that light. I’ll have to get some other. MR. VOLLARO-I just had a comment on the SEL Series canopy light, this particular one. You said it would be flush with the canopy. They’re showing it at the mounting level at 10 and five- eighths of an inch. MR. BILODEAU-That same light, though, would be recessed up into the canopy itself, so that the lens would be flush with the ceiling. There’s a drawing, sketch on the drawing showing how that’s done. MR. VOLLARO-Using this SEL Series? MR. BILODEAU-Yes. It’s just built right up inside. I haven’t found anybody that produces an exterior yard light that meets your requirements. It’s the only way I could do it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Bilodeau, you might want to check with our Planning Staff. They might be able to give you some recommendations on those lighting fixtures. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Nothing else we need to tack on? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave the public hearing open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 ARLEN ASSOCIATES / G.R.J.H., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger, who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: For the property on the corner of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road – 1. Pending the submission of architectural renderings with color sheets, and 2. Updated plans as revised and submitted, and 3. A revised lighting plan with downcast wall packs, and with the bollard lights along the McDonald’s property line and perpendicular to it replaced with freestanding downcast fixtures, cut sheets shall be provided for all the proposed new lighting fixtures, and 4. Revised parking plan, and 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) 5. A plan to revise the northern exit to be a right hand turn only with radius for no ingress. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: MR. BILODEAU-I think you meant to include the lights along the road that it’s perpendicular to McDonalds, too, the one where the, I’m not sure which direction it is, but there’s two areas where the lights, where I have bollards. One is parallel to McDonalds and the other is perpendicular to it. Both those would be downcast lights. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So noted. MR. MAC EWAN-Your number five on the northern Quaker Road exit and egress, how did you word that again? MR. HUNSINGER-That it would be reconfigured to discourage ingress. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we change that and say revise the exit to be a right hand turn only with radius for no ingress? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How’s that? MR. HUNSINGER-That sounds a little more clear. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Mr. Bilodeau. MR. BILODEAU-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re going to get done in one more meeting with it. RECOMMENDATION: PZ 5-2004 TOWN SPONSORED REZONING – UNDERGROUND UTILITIES THE TOWN BOARD IS SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH WILL COVER THE MAIN STREET, ROUTE 9, QUAKER ROAD AND AVIATION ROAD CORRIDORS. MRS. RYBA-The history is that this is something that was already, there was a public hearing held by the Town Board. For whatever reason, it did not get to the Planning Board or the County before the public hearing. So what we’re doing now is going back to the Planning Board and to the County. There will be another public hearing, and the Town Board will take all of those, any comments received by the County and the Queensbury Planning Board, and they will reaffirm and ratify this Amendment to Chapter 179, which is really an overlay district, making sure that there are underground utilities put in place and certain gateways to the Town. We did provide you with a map, and we did provide you with the language in that Local Law. (Footnote: The last part of the tape, in parts, had lost words, due to machine problems!) MR. SANFORD-They’ve already approved it, and in your words they’re going to reaffirm it. Well, it’s like if you hang a man and then you realize you never gave him a trial. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/26/04) MRS. RYBA-(Lost words), but this is how it was explained to me. MS. RADNER-That’s their intent, and of course, if you recommended that they revisit the issue or do something different, I’m sure that they would take that into consideration. You should also consider that they’re going to be taking Lead Agency Status for SEQRA purposes, and if you see any environmental issues, you might want to comment on those as well. MR. SANFORD-Is this for discussion? MS. RADNER-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-The only issue I have, I mean, on this, is I think, you know, underground utilities are desirable. However, I just hope the Town Board has done their due diligence in terms of understanding the economics of it and when (lost words) in terms of the roles of NiMo, the roles of the applicant, and the roles of the Town, visa vie any (lost words). MOTION TO THE TOWN BOARD FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IN SUPPORT OF THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LAW, PZ 5-2004, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it officially on that. I don’t know if everybody’s received this. It’s a workshop that’s going to be held up in the Town of Bolton, the Town Hall offices. It’s a workshop put on by the APA, understanding APA jurisdiction and wetland determinations. You’ve got to register by the 4. Let Staff know, and then actually the meeting is the following th week on the 9. Right? Is it like Tuesday the 9, I think it is. thth MR. SANFORD-I’ve got it at home. MR. VOLLARO-There’s also a SEQRA lecture. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something else. So, anyone who’s interested in going, let Marilyn or George know. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s by the 4. th MR. MAC EWAN-Let them know by the end of this week. MR. SANFORD-Yes, and Craig, Bob mentioned it. Maybe you know. I don’t know. I called up the Washington County person, but I got her voice mail, and she never got back to me, but my question was, on the SEQRA (lost words). On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 61