Loading...
1994-06-21 '-- - r-" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BO~ MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUN E 2 1 S T, 1 994 INDEX Site Plan No. 13-93 North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co. 1. Subdivision No. 5-1994 Joseph & Maria Leuci 2. FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 35-92 Howard Carr 5. Subdivision No. 7-1994 Daniel R. Barber 17. SKETCH PLAN Site Plan No. 22-94 Columbia Development Group 19. Subdivision No. 4-1994 Guido Passarelli 37. FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 15-94 Oral Health Care Associates 50. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ \.., ~/ ,-,J QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21ST, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-BILL MACNAMARA, REPRESENTING RIST-FROST OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-93 TYPE I MODIFICATION OF EXISTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL. NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ED CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Maybe you could just put up a map and explain briefly what you're going to do. MR . CARR - I had hop e d to h a v e a n as b u i I t p I an, but Co u 1 t e r & McCormack couldn't get it done by tonight. I do have the placement of the building mapped out. MR. BREWER-Okay. Could I just ask you to identify yourself for the record? MR. CARR-Ed Carr, North Queensbury Fire Company. As we were doing the site work last fall, we found out there was an exist power pole that ended up in the middle of the driveway. Aside from the power pole, we also had the Clost word) New York Telephone, or Nynex's pole schedules. So it would be rather expensive to move, and what we did, we shifted this section over ten feet, moved the building over five feet, took a five foot strip out of the parking lot here, five foot strip out of the parking lot, here. So this line stayed the same, and we then angled this, so we could angle the parking in here. So we weren't hurt by removing that five foot in the parking area, and we changed the paving, just so snowplowing could go straight across, because as it was, during construction, we found out that the traffic was cutting over these corners and they were going to be a constant mess. Aside from that, the only other changes, I believe there's a schedule with your packets, that Dick Mead had recommended chang i ng some 0 f the p I an t i ng schedul e to species that might do a little bit better. This area in here, around in back, change that to crown vetch instead of lawn. We didn't really want to have to mow any more than what we had to. This stays lawn out in front, and just the shrubs, he just made them scheduled similar to the schedule that was on the original site plan, just change the species. MR. HARLICKER-Are the numbers of plantings the same? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any questions from anybody on the Board? - 1 - ~-- ~ ,-'" --- ',,- MR. RUEL-Does this have to be reviewed by the Beautification Corruni t tee? MR. BREWER-I would say not. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR . BREWER-They don't even r eall y have to be rev i ewed by us, don't think. I think fire companies and whatever are exempt. MR. CARR-This was under the jurisdiction of the APA, and the APA relinquished jurisdiction, based on your site plan review. So, consequently, we wanted to make sure that we had your site plan review. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Do we have new plans, with these modifications? MR. BREWER-I'm sure they're filed. MR. RUEL Scott, do you have them? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They'll submit revised plans showing revisions. MR. CARR-The as built plans, this is all that he was able to get done by today. MR. BREWER-Okay. You can just give that to Scott. anybody care to make a motion. Okay. Does MR. PALING-You're not going to have a public hearing for this? MR . B R EWE R - The r e i s n 't a pub 1 i c he a r i n g, but i f the r e 's any bod y here from the public that would like to comn1ent, we'll let them. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 13--93 NORTH OUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs,. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH & MARIA LEUCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: WEST S IDE OF WEST MT. RD. REQUEST I S FOR A 2 LOT SUBDI V I S ION. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 123-1-10, 11.2 LOT SIZE: +/- 9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1994 Final Stage, Joseph & Maria Leuci, Meeting Date: June 21st, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 10.2 acre parcel into two lots of 9.19 acres and 1.01 acres. The property is zoned SR-IA and is located on West Mountain Road. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant has complied with the Board's condition that the plat be revised so the shed on the existing lot complies with the setback requirements. The revised plat shows the existing lot at .78 acres, lot one at 1.01 acres and lot two at 9.08 acres." - 2 - ~ \ ,/ -....../J MR. HARLICKER-They still comply. They're just slightly different than the size of the lots. MR. BREWER-It does comply? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Isn't it one acre zoning? MR. HARLICKER-Well, one's an existing lot. MR. BREWER--All right. Any comment, Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-No comment. MR. BREWER-Any questions from anybody? MR. PALING-Yes, I have a question. This has probably been asked before, but one of the two lots is the nine acre lot, right? MR. STEVES-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-But they don't have an access, as such, on the print. MR. STEVES-Yes, all three will be using the common driveway that's shown on the plan. MR. PALING-All three will use the common driveway? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. PALING-But then we're supposed to have 40 feet per lot. MR. BREWER-Well, they have, of road frontage, they do. They have 200 and, what is it? MR. STEVES-That's why we have that tail coming down, dog legged into the road, so each of them have 40 feet of frontage, minimum, on West Mount Road. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. How do you get 40? There's three lots. MR. STEVES-If you follow Lot One, easterly, (lost word) you will find 40 feet frontage on West Mountain Road. MR. PALING-Right. MR. STEVES-Okay. If you come southerly of that, the lot, existing lot, you have 40 feet frontage on West Mountain Road. MR. PALING-Right. MR. STEVES-Then you have 300, 400 feet left over for Lot Three. MR. BREWER-For Lot Two. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. BREWER-You have 400 feet on Lot Two. You've got 40 on Lot One and 40 on Lot Three. MR. RUEL-More than enough. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-That 80 foot is used as one driveway, is that not correct, Leon? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. -- 3 - ~ ~ -' ------ MR. BREWER-So, actually, the Lot One and Three have 80 foot of access. MR. PALING-Well, you're saying that you re designating two that have 40 foot each, and then you're saying one lot has feet, or whatever it is, access. lots 400 MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Frontage, not access. MR. PALING-Is that an arterial road, West Mountain? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. It seems a strange way to put it. It must be right, because everyone says it, but I don't, it seems a strange way to explain it. Why doesn't the third one have a 40 foot opening, with a driveway? MR. BREWER-Because the frontage on the road is 400 feet. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. All three lots are going to use that driveway. MR. OBERMAYER-They , just indicating the road frontage. re MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then when these lots are re-sold, how do you designate who owns? You're going to pass on access of the driveway to all of the three owners, then? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. PALING~Okay. MR. BREWER-Anything else? MR. OBERMAYER-What's going to happen to the remainder of the nine acres? MR. STEVES-It's all going to remain as one lot. MR. OBERMAYER-One lot. Okay. That's not going to be developed or anything? MR. STEVES-No. We said no more buildings within the Adirondack Park portion of the lot. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Is that what this, that's what the APA Blue Line is for, ,right? MR. STEVES-Yes. So we don't develop anything more in the Park part of the lot. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Line? How many acres are on this side of the APA MR. STEVES-I would say about four. MR. OBERMAYER-Four acres, okay, which is currently zoned for what? MR. STEVES-One. MR. OBERMAYER-So, potentially, you could develop that, then. MR. STEVES-Potentially, but I don't think we will. He has the area, but I don't think he has the desire or the land ability to divide into more than maybe two tops. I can't say. At this stage, we're only proposing what you see in front of you. - 4 - "--- ~ J -....,/. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. STEVES-That's all for the future. , we re proposing, but I can't shut the door MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. No. curious for the future. I'm just asking a question. I'm just MR. STEVES-I hear you. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1994 JOSEPH & MARIA LEUCI, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For a two lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 TYPE I HOWARD CARR OWNER: ILENE FLAUM ZONE: PC-IA LOCATION: QUEENSBURY PLAZA MODIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ADD A FREE STANDING RESTAURANT, ADDITIONAL PARKING WHICH WILL RESULT IN A NET DECREASE OF 9,325 SQ. FT. OF GLA AND REVIEW OF A COMPREHENSIVE FACADE PLAN FOR THE PLAZA. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/9/94 6/6/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 LOT SIZE: 13.67 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HOWARD CARR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-92 Modification, Howard Carr, Meeting Date: June 21st, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to modify a previously approved site. The modification includes the reduction of approved retail space and the construction of a restaurant. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the following corrunents regarding the modified site plan: 1. Parking: Total number of parking spaces required is 702 and 704 are proposed. Handicapped spaces should be included near the proposed building. 2. Pedestrian access: Access from the east parking lot is not shown. 3. Landscaping: If the landscaping shown on the modified plan is correct, it does not correspond with what was previously approved. Staff would like to see an increase in interior landscaping particularly on the proposed seeded islands and along the main access drives and hedges around the perimeter to screen the parking area along Glen Street and the south property line. Additional evergreens along Quaker Road and placing the proposed deciduous trees in front would provide year round screening as well as shade and decoration. 4. Traffic circulation: Circulation around Red Lobster should be clarified. It appears that right turns into the access on the west side of the building will be difficult as will left turns out. The turn in front of the proposed building should also be better defined. Four way stop bars should be placed at the intersection of the Bank Street access and the interior access roads. 5. Placement of the trash container in the midst of the parking lot is less than desirable. If it is to be kept out in the parking lot, it should be landscaped. 6. Wastewater: Mike Shaw's corrunents have to be addressed. 7. Soi I contamination: DEC's corrunents on the analysis of soil samples has not been received. 8. Facade Plan: The - 5 - ~ -' -- "--' facade plan as proposed is unacceptable. The plan should be carried out throughout the entire plaza. All stores should be made to comply with the plan. Exemptions should not be allowed for REX Television, Staples or any other future tenants. The purpose of the plan is to provide for some flow and continuity of colors and pattern within the plaza. Exemptions to the plan only creates a hodgepodge look to the plaza. Staff believes that the facade plan is a step in the right direction but to have a truly effective facade plan a coordinated sign plan should also be implemented." MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got engineering comments? MR. MACNAMARA-A number of the conments that we had were previously mentioned, actually, in the Town's review that Scott's just summarized. Other comments had to do with the access point that's shown, the northwest corner of the plaza, and, again, I was comparing this site plan to a previously approved site plan. The previously approved site plan indicated that that access point was to be blocked, or had already been blocked, and I do notice, coming over here, that it is blocked, and that was one of the conments, that it wasn't on the site plan. There wasn't any detail if there is to be a curb box for the water service shut off for Red Lobster. It's a nice thing to have, certainly if you have a problem over there. Landscaping note that Scott talked about earlier. There was confusion whether these trees and plantings were in addition to the previously approved plantings, or if this was just in lieu of, and it appeared that if it were in lieu of, it wasn't quite equal to what was previously proposed. The note about the handicapped spots by the proposed building. I'm curious about the sizing of the stormwater grease trap and insulation details. I didn't see any on the site plans. That's the grease trap that's behind the proposed building. I didn't see a grease trap for the Red Lobster sanitary connection, and being that it's a restaurant. MR. LAPPER-We'll provide you with that. MR. MACNAMARA-A clean out for the Red Lobster sanitary service. Another note on the dumpster, as far as the height of the block wall, and more details, and lastly was recommending some type of a schedule for cleaning and maintenance of the catch basin sumps and the grease trap for the stormwater system, and the reason I mention that is I don't know the whole detail of the whole site plan and all the surrounding area, but I do believe that that run off runs, I believe it's a straight shot into Hovey Pond, I believe, and that being the case, I certainly think it warrants some care to the grease trap and the stormwater catch basins. That's it. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have Warren County, approval, "With the condition that the NYS Department of Transportation review the traffic plan." And that's it. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. I guess I'd like to start off with just a couple of prel iminary comments. We're not here asking for approval tonight. We just want to discuss the site plan, get the Board's input, and we'll make provisional changes. We'll provide the engineering details that you've requested, and we'll be back in July. I guess if I could say that, in terms of the development of the Plaza, we're real pleased to have Red Lobster interested in locating on the site, the site which used to be the Sears Auto Center. We consider this type of development in-fill, because it's taking part of the Town which has already been developed, but now what was there was removed. Sears was obviously relocated up to the Mall. It's been vacant for a long time, and we see this an opportunity to not only finish this site, but ,to provide a nice landscaped building which would block the view of the back of the lumber store, the back of some of the other uses along Glen Street, and just generally, visually, make Glen Street look a lot nicer. When we were here last time, for the modification which allowed the Olive Garden to go in, part of what the Board was looking for, and what we've done north of the access road, is to bring the green - 6 - ~. ",--. J .........,I space to the front, to bring it to Glen Street, which is similar to what the Board just approved across Glen Street, for John Nigro's project, where we're going to be moving green space along Glen Street as well, and what we've tried to do in front of Red Lobster is to do the same thing, to provide a nice, wide area, where ther e '11 be green space, lands caped, and ex tens ion 1 andscapi ng around the restaurant i tsel f. We haven't prov ided that. We're waiting to get the specifications of the landscaping around Red Lobster, from General Mills, we should have in a few days, and we'll have that for this Board for the next meeting. One of the comments, in terms of changing the landscaping along Glen Street, in front of Red Lobster, we did change that around a little bit, because when we were in here last time to have this approved, it was for the large, 56,000 square foot L-shaped building. Now that we've sited the Red Lobster there, it changes the view a little bit, and we've moving a lot of landscaping in front of Red Lobster, in front of the building itself, actually, on all sides, and landscaping around where the dumpster's going to be. We'll have that in detail for you, for next month. MR. BREWER-Okay. As far as the Staff comments, do you want to comment on any of them? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We could go through it, one at a time, if Scott wants to go th~ough it. We really didn't, in terms of landscaping, we will provide more in the islands. We've already put some trees in the islands. We'll provide some more. MR. BREWER -Okay. As far as pedes tr i an acces s acros s the eas t parking lot, you'll take care of that. Landscaping. Traffic circulation. You're going to clarify the circulation around Red Lobster. MR. LAPPER-We, actually, there's something we wanted to show you. MR. OBERMAYER-Is the proposed building part of this project? I notice how you have it all shaded. It seems like you're throwing it in with the Red Lobster. Is that what you're doing? MR. LAPPER-What we did last time, you weren't on the Board when we got this approved, which allowed the Olive Garden. This was formerly a 56,000 square foot L-Shaped building which came all the way down to here. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We now, in order to provide for the Red Lobster, we've cut back, and we've reduced the standard square footage from the previously approved site plan. That's how we cut it, so we could provide parking near the Red Lobster. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. square footage. did notice that. You did cut back the MRS. LABOMBARD-What's this? MR. LAPPER-This is additional retail space which has not been leased yet, but that would be, it's existing as an approval, but not built. So that would be phased in after we get the Red Lobster up. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, but you still need our approval for this, though, because it is a modification. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Well, it's one modification. MR. OBERMAYER-Because I have questions on this building, itself. MR. LAPPER-Sure. just less of it. What's there is what was already there. There's Tim, in answer to your question about the access, -.- 7 - "---' ~ -- "--' we haven't yet incorporated this into the plan. I'll show everybody. This is something that we talked about wi th County Planning, that they wanted to see this. What this does is that this provides, it'll reduce the possibility of stacking, if people are going to be entering the Red Lobster from Glen Street. It'll provide a stacking lane, which also addresses one of Scott's comments, about the design of this intersection, so that people going into the rest of the plaza can bypass them on the left, and they'll be stacking. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but the thing is, if you look at it, if you're coming around that left side of Red Lobster, you come in, and you go out, how are they going to, so they're going to have to circulate and go back out this way? MR. LAPPER~Yes. You can't turn in here. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. to go that way. So you're going to come out and you're going MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-What about coming in? Are you going to be allowed to turn in, or are you going to have to go all the way around? MR. LAPPER-I think we were talking about restricting that, so that there's no right turn in there. MR. HARLICKER-No right turns in, no left turns out? MR. LAPPER-Exactly. No right turn in, no left turn out. We'11 incorporate that on the final plan. So what Scott was asking for, there's no left turn out here, and that's why we've done the geometry, with the island in the middle over here, and with the angle, so that nobody'11, it'll be marked with a sign, but also there'll be no physical way to get there, and there'll be no right turn in. So this is just coming out. MR. BREWER-If you come in here, and you've got to go up here and go out? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. BREWER-You come in here and you want to park, and come back out and go up between here and come out? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that'll work. MR. BREWER--Yes. It'll work. MR. LAPPER-The reason that you have, there are just some competing design issues here, and in order to eliminate the number of curb cuts, and to control traffic, we've got the one entranceway here, which makes a lot of sense, in terms of access to the State right of-way. It does create design issues here, and that's why we've made it so that people who want to get to Red Lobster can get out quickly, but that nobody can come in here and get involved with people that are stacking, and this far back it should be fine, because this provides a significant stacking. One of the modifications, actually, when we were here last time, this was closed, and one of the modifications now is to open this up to allow people to just, to get over to the Olive Garden and to get back, for better flow. MR. BREWER-Okay. Traffic circulation will be taken care of. about the trash container? Where is that located on here, here in the parking lot? What back MR. LAPPER-That's going to be concrete block. That'll be finished. - 8 - .\..-- "-v J '-'" MR. BREWER-Similar to Olive Garden? MR. LAPPER-And landscaped. MR. BREWER--Do we have any comments from Mike Shaw? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. A few of them. MR. BREWER-Well, we'11 get right to them in a minute. contamination, you've got a DEC letter coming? Soil MR. LAPPER-Let me explain that issue, and I guess, when Howard was just getting involved, somebody. MR. OBERMAYER-Why would we need a letter from DEC, as far as indemnification? It's the people that are putting the building on the property that need to be indemnified. Why does the Town of Queensbury need to be indemnified, as far as contamination to the site goes? Maybe you could answer that, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't the faintest idea. Who's proposing that the Town be indemnified? I'm not aware of the issue. MR. OBERMAYER-Why are we asking for a letter, as far contamination of the site goes? Why are we interested in as the that? MR. LAPPER-Let me give a little bit of history to this. There was a minor spill, a long time ago, when it was Sears Tire Center. There was some petroleum products in the soil. This was determined in '89. It was filed with DEC. There have been monitoring wells put in every year, and DEC, there were 10 wells to begin with. DEC, two years ago, said all you need is, instead of, they were quarterly and 10 wells. Two years ago they said, you're under any threshold that would mandate any kind of remediation, so we'll go to just the two wells that have the highest concentrations, but we're still less than anything that would require remediation, and to go, instead of quarterly testing, to bi-annually, and that's where we are now. We're now, and of those two wells that they've required that we keep there, neither of them are in the footprint oft h e b u i I din g, so i f we had to, we co u I d jus t k e e p them in the parking lot with covers on them, so you could drive over them. No there's no issue there, but we've requested that DEC allow us to just take it out and just forget about it. At this point, we expect that they will, but what had happened was, they blamed them on the County, when he was out looking around. He was aware of the issue. He saw the well. So he just asked for the file. We supplied him, and I think I had sent a copy to Jim, also, with the who 1 e file, all the cor respondence with DEC over the year s, and when County saw that, they dropped that as an issue. They said, it's a State issue, and they're comfortable, and they didn't want to condition it. So we just provided the information, but we don't see that as being any problem to site development. MR. BREWER-So, in other words, if there's a sealed site there, they don't want you to take it up and pull it out of there, I guess, is what the concern might be. MR. OBERMAYER-It must have been brought up just as a concern, but I don't see why it would be a concern for us. That's all I'm saying, is that we don't really need a letter from DEC, 1 don't need one anyway. MR. LAPPER-The County didn't require anything else. MR. BREWER-Okay. on the Board. I guess that brings us to questions from anybody MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. As far as drainage goes, on the parking lot, I notice that you have some arrows on the, I guess it's the northwest side, pointing, as far as drainage goes, and you have a high point - 9 -- '-- ,-,,' --/ '---' going in both directions. Where's that water going to drain to, because you really don't have any catch basins to capture any water there. In fact, you have a curb cut right along there, right there. You have drainage going in both directions, but you really don't have any catch basins. So you're going to have a pool of water here and a pool of water here. MR. LAPPER-I think that the contours are that they're going to be sheet flow, because that's a high point. MR. OBERMAYER-Where's the water, if you have a curb right here, though, you're going to have pools of water here, and pools of water here. That's my comment. MR. LAPPER-I guess, we'll, since John Goralski couldn't make it tonight, we'll address that next time, and we'll either add a catch basin if it's necessary, or explain to you why it's not, but we'll address that. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. That's all right. a little more defined. I'd just like the drainage MR. LAFFER-Okay. MR. OBE~~AYER-As far as lighting, because the restaurant will be open after hours, I can't remember, as I drive past Olive Garden, is there exterior lighting on the building, because this will be a parking lot that will be separate from the existing? MR. CARR-There's existing lighting in the lot there, now. Subject to the final landscape plan, it may have to be relocated, and the Olive Garden itself will be individually illuminated, excuse me, the Red Lobs t e r, i n d i v i d u a 11 y w ill be i 11 urn i n ate d , i n a s i mil a r manner to Olive Garden. MR. OBERMAYER-And that'll be shown on the site plan, the final site plan, also. MR. CARR-I don't know if that would show. That would probably be on the building plans. They typically light off the building. I mean, I could get that for you. MR. BREWER-Will you have some kind of an idea what that building is going to look like for us? MR. CARR-I've seen three different sets of drawings on it. ] know which, this is a new prototype for them, a new building. seen three different facades now. I don't know which one I'm to get. Now, we can, we'll request it of then1, certainly. don't I've going MR. BREWER-Yes. I would like to. MR. OBERMAYER-It would be nice to see what the building's going to look like, before we give the approval. MR. BREWER-Yes. In other words, it's not going to be the same as Blockbuster, that type of a, I mean, it's just nice to ask, because people are going to, if something ever did happen like that, they're going to say, the Planning Board approved. MR. CARR-I'll tell you the three buildings I've seen. There is a building that is very similar in its design to the Olive Garden, all right. It's really colored a little bit differently and has a little bit different architecture, and it's more rounded, it's architectural features are more rounded, as opposed to being square, like the Olive Garden is. So that's one. Another one is a wood building that has a (lost word) copper style roof on it, which is much more New Englandy, and then the third one is kind of, I call it Florida Modern, for lack of a better term. - 10 - .",- "-" ; .-.-/ -..-I MR. BREWER-That's what the Blockbuster is, Florida Modern. MR. CARR-No. MR. BREWER-I think that was one of the terms they used. MR. CARR-Really? Believe me, the Blockbuster building doesn't come out to Florida Modern at all. I'd say, it uses a clay tile roof, and that type of thing. I guess probably it picks up a little bit of a Spanish motif, to some extent, with arches in it and that kind of thing. MR. RUEL-I think one of the most important things, regardless of the architecture of the building itself, is the compatibility with the surrounding buildings in the plaza. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-I think that that's a prime importance. I mean, you're concentrating on the building itself, but I'm thinking in terms of the complete picture. Compatibility with the rest of the buildings in that plaza. MR. BREWER-Good point. So, possibly we could get some drawings as to what it might look like. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. RUEL-And if you could take a photo of the existing buildings, so we can make the comparison. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is there any reason why one would be chosen over the other two? MR. CARR-Cost, as always. They come in, they are extensive in their marketing campaign, and they will not put a building into a market, okay, that is going to be something that is offensive. So, they're going to be concerned about that and very sensitive to it. I can tell you, i f you got 0 C a 1 i for n i a , an 0 I i veGa r den i n California does not look at all like the Olive Garden here. It's very different. I mean, you know, well, they're going to want it to meld well with the Olive Garden, but they're not going to want it to be confused with the Olive Garden. MR. BREWER-They want it to be independent. MR. CARR-Right. It's got to be different. MR. RUEL-We 11 , think you can do both. MR. CARR-Sure, and I agree with you. MR. OBERMAYER-Does Howard Carr Group own the property that you're discharging the stormwater to, over in this area, over to the south of the proposed parking lot, the ground parking lot? MR. LAPPER-The land immediately to the south is the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. What that does is that follows the natural contour of the land, which is where the water drained before there was ever a plaza, and ever a power right-of-way. In fact, the water drains from the Northway Plaza, across the intersection, from the new Kentucky Fried Chicken. That's just the natural grade of the land. MR. OBERMAYER-But Niagara Mohawk is aware that you're discharging stormwater into their right-of-way there? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we actually, in order to address stormwater issues, when we were before the Board last time, for the last modification, we added grease traps to the catch basins to address that issue of (lost word) coming off the cars, etc., but that is a - 11 - --- ----/ ..../ ~ natural drainage area, and in fact, if that's just vegetated, that's not developed, the water can be absorbed into there. MR. OBERMAYER-As far as the proposed building, the new proposed building, is there going to be any loading docks on this building? MR. LAPPER-We don't have a tenant yet. So we don't know if that would be one bui lding, or one use, two uses, three uses. We haven't designed it. So, I mean, yes, the answer is there would be one or more loading docks that would have to be added, and if we need more room for that, then we'd have to reduce the size of the building a little bit. MR. OBERMAYER--Also, you'll have a water supply going building? I don't see that indicated on the drawing. building, you show a grease trap and sanitary leaving the but you really don't indicate any water coming into it. into the Into this building, MR. CARR-There'll be water. MR. OBERMAYER-I figured there would be. why you left it off. I was just curious as to MR. BREWER-Anything else? Okay. Any idea when you might start? I reme~ber conversation, the last time you were here, about this parking to the south was going to be just, remain gravel, and then, as you progressed, you were going to possibly, wasn't there a spot on there you were going to leave vacant? MR. LAPPER-Let me explain that. Right now, that's all asphalt. That was part of the old parking lot for the Sears. You mean the Bank Street lot? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-What this Board asked us to do, the last time, was to remove that, to make it permeable. There's a provision in the Ordinance that says that as long as you have the land for parking, it can be permeable green space for now, provided that if there comes a time in the future when it needs to be done, the Planning Board can tell us to put in as parking, and that's how it was approved last time. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPPER-The Board would rather see it as green, and that's what, and that's not something we've done yet, because that's part of the development that's on the other side, for the future development. MR. BREWER-Yes, but that'll happen when this other proposed building happens? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's all I've got. Roger? Bob? MR. PALING-Just back to the facade comments a minute. The Staff comments talk about the unacceptability of the facade plan, which is part of what we have tonight to talk about. Do you want to address that? MR. BREWER-I thought we'd talk about that as a separate issue. MR. PALING-Okay. it. It's under 35-92. That's why I'm asking about MR. BREWER-Okay. As long as we've got all the questions done with that, why don't we, there is a public hearing. If there's anybody here from the public that would like to ask any questions about what's been presented, we'll let them say what they want to say -- 12 -- \..... . ~ -.J .....J now, and then we'll get into the facade. Is there anyone here that would like to speak? Okay. I guess we'll go right to the facade. MR. LAPPER-Okay. If could address that. In Queensbury, of course, there's no architectural review in site plan review, and we're dealing with an existing plaza that was done, it started as an A & P and was expanded. What we're trying to do, we're in the process of doing, is lease it up and modernize it. We've provided that facade plan in order to make Jim Martin happy, to show him what we were planning to do, but that's nothing that is required. We feel that we're doing that just to help Jim, and give him an idea of what that's supposed to look like, or what we're hoping it'll look like, but I think that Jim's issue there is in terms of colors, and what the colors of various buildings might be, and I guess there's just a couple of different theories on what shopping centers should look like. Everyone knows what Northway Plaza looks like. I think Howard Carr can better address that than me. MR. CARR-Par t of what thi nk that the Board needs to have an understanding of is that a shopping center is like, today, it's a market place, and that market place is an amalgamation of different pieces of this puzzle that go together to make a particular shopping center site appealing, and attractive, both to the merchants and to the customer base, and that's all part of what we try to create. That's why we try to bring a broad rang~ of goods and services to the site, now. The problem that we have is that each and every retailer wants to have the most unique facade and building that they can possibly think of, and that's why they pay these designers hundreds of thousands of dollars to dream up logos, etc. Part of that goes into making the shopping center, though, attractive to other tenants. We have what we consider to be destination retailers. A destination retailer in the Center, currently, would be a REX tv, because you don't just drive by and say, I'm going to buy a 35 inch color tv today. It's not something that people buy on an impulse basis. So that, what happens is that, with this destination, that retailer does an extensive amount of advertising and all of a sudden he draws people. Now the smaller tenants then feed off of the traffic that he draws to that Center. Typically, the way it was done years ago was, there was a supermarket and drug store, and then everybody pretty much fed off of those two uses. Today, it's a little bit different, that there are different mixes and different types of tenancies. We are unable, on this site, to have a Shop N' Save or Price Chopper, as much as we'd like one, because they generate trips, people trips, that come to the site. So, what happens is now is that the tenants themselves come up, with plans to draw attention to themselves, because we're dealing with a road that's pretty heavily travelled, and what the retailer's trying to do is to try and tell the world out there that I'm here. It's really no different than what has happened, if I drove you by a building that happens to sit down on Western Avenue in Albany, at the entrance to the Northway, if I drove you by it, there is no sign on that building whatsoever, but there's a small one out in the front that has just two gold arches, and we all know what that is, and that's part of what they're trying to create. So that the facade plan, while we try to make it as visually pleasing as possible, all right, still needs to be unique unto its own individual retailer, because that's what they need to grab attention to their store, and they're fighting for the dollar that's out there. Just as each food tenant fights for that dollar, the Staple Store will fight for that dollar. The ABC Retail Store will fight for the clothing dollar. So those are all parts of what goes into that, and so if you have that understanding, you'll have the understanding of why many times, okay, that certain tenants, if you were to look at a brand new design, one of the big items that are being used now are called bell towers, and if you go down the Northway, you'll see one that's on the Crossings that's being built right now where the Builder's Square went in. They build a big bell tower, and they put a clock on it. It sits right in front of Grand Union. Why? To draw attention to it. They couldn't get a bigger sign. They did it -- 13- -- -..-/ -.......' ......... with architecture. That's pretty much where it's going. To put bell towers and those types of architectural features on this Center, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't sit right on the site, because we're dealing with a road that's elevated above it, and so it's only going to defeat the purpose for which the bell tower is intended. Generally, we're never going to change a retailer's attitude toward its corporate logo. We can't get Radio Shack to do anything but a red sign. They'll never do anything but a red sign. If they carr't have a red sign, they just don't locate there. MR. BREWER-Can they all be uniform in size? MR. CARR-Well, that's very difficult, because you have different size tenancies, and the tenant has a 30.000 square store certainly doesn't want to say that I'm going to have the size sign as the guy in the 1.000 square foot store does. all foot same MR. BREWER-All right. Maybe I should re-phrase that. See how you have your facade her e, it's all, it comes down her e and then it goes way up, and then way across, then it drops down again, then it goes back up, then it goes back up. MR . CARR - Par t 0 f t hat rei ate s t 0 s t e p s building is built in steps. It's got a that's where part of this is coming from. than this, and then it's stepping down. in the building. This step footing to it. So This building is higher MR. BREWER-But you could put a fake front across the front of it? MR. CARR-Yes. We could make, this could be built up very easily, but I don't think that that's something that the Board's going to want to see. MR. BREWER-No. I'm just exploring, I mean, the other plaza, like you said, is all uniform, and isn't there a provision for signs out front? MR. CARR-I don't know what you mean. MR. BREWER-I'm talking about Northway Plaza. I mean, all the signs are all uniform, aren't they, no matter who's in there, and that Plaza's full, pretty much. MR. CARR - CV S , t hat's the i r n a t ion a I log 0 . same as anybody else's in there. Their sign is not the MR. STARK-Honingsbaums just put a new sign in. MR. CARR-Honingsbaums just put a scripted sign log 0 . T hat's the pro b 1 em, i s t his log 0 i s sue. spend millions of dollars a year creating this They want some identification. in. That's their These companies corporate logo. MR. RUEL-Well, don't think you can eliminate the logo. MR. CARR-Never. MR. RUEL-But you made a statement before, and I think that if all tenants would highlight their buildings, then none would stand out. I mean, you're talking about each one will be highlighting his particular store. If they all do it, then nobody is standing out. I mean, the same thing exists with signs, you know. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-You get signs, and people would tell you, they like garish red and orange, they say, hey, that really stands out, but now if they're all red and orange, none stand out. Do you follow me? So, if you have a more subdued element to the whole thing, and some compatibility, then all of them will stand out. - 14 - \........ .,- .,-1 --' MR. LAPPER-We're going to make this a little bit more compatible and subdued, and the facade plan provides for, just like it is around, the other side of REX, where Bruegger's Bagel is planning to go. This is what the Center's going to look like, and now we've got different architecture, but we, ultimately, will tie it all in. MR. RUEL-Yes, but, now, you have red up here, what color red? It's right on top, red against white, very contrasting, candy apple red, fire engine red. I mean, what kind of red are we talking about? MR. HARLICKER-It's been explained to us, a nice bright fire engine red. MR. CARR-It's pretty bright. MR. LAPPER-There's a whole other issue here, though, that you've got to look at the Northway Plaza by comparison, that you've got something which, just from a distance, it's very attractive, because you see the green and the whi te, but you can't see the signs from the road, and there've been, really, terrible vacancy rates in there, and even now, that al though it's subdued and aesthetically very nice. MR. RUEL-Lighting would help an awful lot. I mean, even in the day time, you have bright lights on the buildings, and even at night. So lighting would help a lot, and that whole plaza is not, the lighting is very poor. MR. CARR-I know what you're getting to, and I happen to, basically, agree with your concept. Probably the greatest building that I've ever seen illuminated is the Magic Castle at Disneyland, because when I built illY office building down in Albany, I wanted to find a way to light the building like they lit that building. I went to Disney World with my kids and sent my kids on their own, and I went and met with the engineers to find out how they do it. There's a problem though. You can't do long buildings like that, because what happens then is we're going to make the whole site glow, and then nothing is going to stand out. It's a difficult thing to do, to illuminate buildings. It's probably one of the toughest things that we run into because we try to ground light them. We can't ground light it because the parking field's in front of it. So what we're then going to be forced to do is to light it off the poles that are in the front, all right. We're going to end up with this great big long strip of light, all right. You're not going to be able to read the signs. The tenants are going to turn to us and say, we don't want that situation. Typically, the retailer goes in, and what we have invoked here is what we call individual lighted letter, where each letter is individually lighted. MR. RUEL-Yes, plastic, lighted, no neon. MR. CARR-Well, there's some different ways to do that. No, there is some neon, as a matter of fact, right in the middle of REX. In the middle of each letter of R-E-X, there's a red band, or that middle line is a red band. MR. RUEL-It's a metal letter, channel? MR. CARR-That letter is, this letter happens to be done completely different. In the center, where you see that line running through the arc, that's red, but that letter is set off the building, and then the illuminated behind it. MR. RUEL--Yes. MR. CARR-That just happens to be how they do it. Bruegger's has got a completely different sign, and I can even show you, we've got a drawing of that with us. MR. RUEL-We don't have an architectural review board, and I don't - /s-- '", '--- ---' --/ know what the Ordinances are as far as the signs are concerned, and I don't think there's anything on lighting, but from the Planning Board's standpoint we're just trying to make a request to give us something that really looks elegant. MR. BREWER-To unify it. MR. LAPPER-We think unified is one of the things we're doing. MR. RUEL-We don't want anything that's garish. We want something that's elegant, and we want a lot of landscaping. MR. BREWER-And it should be. that's all blacktopping? I mean, why should we look at a Town MR. RUEL-Because the whole area is wooded. So why have a concrete jungle here. MR. LAPPER-A lot of that was from the 60's, development, 50's, 60's, rip it all out, and put blacktop in. Now we're in-filling and we're fixing it up, and that's part of what this project is about. MR. BREWER-I guess what, 99 percent of this whole thing is white, in the background, until you get here. MR. LAPPER-But that might change, because we could have another tenant that comes in over here and some vacant space that wants to be another color. We're not saying that it has to be white. I mean, as compared to the green and white across the street, it's sort of more of a marketplace that. MR. BREWER-But there's not even now, in your building it's not even uniform, because the whole building, 85 percent of the whole building is the same color, and then the new tenant that's moving In, the back of the building's a different color now. MR. LAPPER-Well, that's a separate issue. MR. CARR-That's something I just found today. on the plans. That was not on the drawings. I've al ready call ed We'll address that. MR. BREWER-~o, I mean, so that's not uniform, to me. MR. CARR-No. MR. BREWER-Uniform is all the same. MR. CARR-Right. MR. BREWER-And what you have there is, everybody's trying to get their own identity, and just, it's unappealing. MR. LAPPER-Well, we're talking about uniform in architecture here, and whether or not it's uniform in color is something that we're not, we don't think that. terms terms of of MR. BREWER-I don't think we have a right to tell you what color you can make it. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the architecture will be changed, as things are leased out. MR. RUEL- I want to ask you about stacks and so forth on the roofs. front? the air conditioning and the Will they be visible from the MR. CARR-They should not be. MR. RUEL-Because I think it's really ugly when you can see that. - 16 - ,-. ì.....- .J ,'..-/ .... You'll probably see them from the back, from Quaker Road, right? MR. CARR-Quaker Road, because the other problem is, remember, the road is rising. So you're going to get up to a point where you're right on the same eye level as the roof line. MR. RUEL-Yes. As long as it's covered in the front. MR. CARR-It's all covered in the front. MR. RUEL-Okay. That's good. MR. BREWER-So when you come back, you will have a, can we get this somewhat condensed? MR. CARR-We can shoot it down to any scale you want. That's on a computer. MR. BREWER-Well, something even like this. Okay. it. I guess that's MR. LAPPER-Okay. We'll be back next month. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we need to table? We need to table, otherwise they have to advertise it. MR. RUEL-What kind of date are we looking at? MR. BREWER-Probably the first meeting in July. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-92 HOWARD CARR, Roger Ruel who moved for its adopt ion, seconded LaBombard: Introduced by by Cather i ne Until 19 July 1994. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1994 SKETCH PLAN DANIEL R. BARBER OWNER: BARBARA L. BARBER ZONE: SFR-IA LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY RD., NORTH SIDE TEE HILL RD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE +/- 14 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.55 LOT SIZE: +/- 14.32 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1994 Sketch Plan, Daniel Barber, Meeting Date: June 21, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a 10 lot subdivision of +14 acres. Eight of the lots will be accessed from a cuI de sac and 2 lots will front on Tee Hill Road. The lot sizes will range from 1 acre to 3 acres. The lots wi 11 have on si te septic systems and wells. PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1. Existing gravel road should be upgraded to town standards. 2. The slopes on the property will restrict location of houses and septic systems on lots 8, 9, and 10. 3. Access for lot 1 should be off of the cui de sac. 4. A landscaped island in the cuI de sac would serve as a focal point for the subdivision and would also screen the residences from each other. 5. The houses will be looking down on the residences of Sherwood Acres; however, - 17 - '-- , -- ~/ . '--- it is important that every effort be made to retain the existing vegetation which will provide a screened buffer between properties." MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor. As to Staff cOlT1men t s, we have no probl em with Number One. We've al ready tal ked to Paul Naylor. We understand that we will have to make a road to Town specifications. As to Number Two, we've looked at the individual lots, and we understand that we probably will be placing the houses on lots eight, nine, and ten, towards the front of the lot, or towards the new road that will be constructed as part of this development. There are good areas on each of those lots where we can easily place a house without a great deal of problem. As to Item Number Three, we have no problem with the suggestion. We will put that in our restrictive covenants, that says that the driveway will be paced off of the cui de sac road. MR. BREWER-Is there a name for that road now? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think we have a name for the road yet. We will. MR. BREWER-I think there ~. DANIEL BARBER MR. BARBER-It's Maid Marion. Way. MR. BREWER-Remember we drove up in there? sign. I thought there was a MR. O'CONNOR-It's the continuation of Sherwood Acres, which is the other side of the (lost word), and we're going to call this Locksley Knolls, when we name the subdivision. As to Point Four, the cui de sac, we have no problem with having a landscaped island, if that is something that Paul Naylor would approve. As to the houses that would be looking down on the existing houses in Sherwood Acres, those lots are only three, I think, of the ten that we propose. The lots that are part of Sherwood Acres are really very heavily treed, also. That are all fully developed. Those lots, when they were developed, the houses were placed on the front section of their lots. So between what we're going to have in the back of our yards, and what they have in the back of their yards, we really don't think we're going to be obtrusive to those lots. That's basically it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Board? Ar ether e any ques t ions f rom anybody on the MR. OBERMAYER-What (lost word) requiring a setback off the road, for a house? MR. STARK-From the road, 50 feet. MR. BREWER-Yes. It's different in different zones. This is in. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the required setback for this area off of their road? MR. O'CONNOR-I think 40 feet should be. Setback, front is 30 feet. He's got it up here. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So you do have enough room, then, probably, because this really drops off. MR. STARK-You're talking, h~re, 100 feet, to here. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. - 18 - "'- '-....- ---J" / MR. O'CONNOR-If you look on there, I'm not sure on your map, there's a setback line set up already, and we're talking about, on this lot here, you could build a house in here. Here you could do it here. Right in here, you could do it there, before you get into the drop offs. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you plan on filling in any of this? MR. BARBER-No, we don't. We're going to change the (lost word). We'll move some of the fill from the top of the knoll, where the houses would be situated, and then it would drop down, in that context, but not being pushed on, no. I built this first subdivision, here, all those homes, since 1970. We own these apartments here, and all these apartments that are over in here, also, on this side of this land. MR. RUEL-I don't understand this access to Lot One to be off of the cui de sac. MR. BREWER-Because this road is existing, okay, right to here. What they're saying is. MR. RUEL-Don't make it there. Make it over here. MR. BREWER-Anything else? I have no questions. quite a nice plan. thought it was MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 22-94 TYPE I COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP OWNER: TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONE: LI-IA LOCATION: CAREY RD. OFF CORINTH RD. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MANUFACTURING FACILITY FOR NATIVE TEXT I LES . BU I LD I NG TO BE A PRE - ENG I NEERED SINGLE STORY BE I NG 116,400 SQ. FT. IN SIZE. SEQRA: 6/21/94 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/6/94 TAX MAP NO. 146-1-6 LOT SIZE: +/- 34 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 RICHARD ROSEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-94, Columbia Development Group, Meeting Date: June 21, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 116,000 square foot textile manufacturing facility on a 34.08 acre parcel. The site will be serviced by municipal water and on site septic system. A 77 space parking area is also proposed. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the project for compliance with Sections 179-38A, 179-38B, 179-38C and the relevant factors outlined in 179-39 and as the following comments: 1. The applicant indicates that the number of vehicle trips generated during peak hour will be 130. 2. There is a spring and small stream as well as a substantial ravine on the property. The actual building and parking area are far enough away so that they will not impact it. However, it restricts access to the rear of the property so that future development of the r ema i n de r 0 f the pro per t y will bel i m i t e d . The pro j e c t was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; Site design and layout is adequate. Outdoor lighting includes security lights on the sides of the building, 2 pole lights for the parking area and 2 pole lights for the access drive to the loading docks. The proposed sign will have to be a minimum of 15 feet from the property line. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access is adequate. Access is via a 24 foot wide drive from a proposed Town road. It is staff's understanding that the Town will construct the road from Carey Road to the property line and the applicant will continue through their property. 3. The location, - 19 - "- .~ ---./ "- arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Parking is adequate. There are 77 parking spaces proposed. The lo~ding area is separated from the employee parking area but the number of loading docks is not given. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage is being reviewed by Rist Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The sewage disposal facility is being reviewed by Rist-Frost and the facility will be serviced by municipal water. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping is adequate. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access and fire hydrants are being reviewed by the West Glens Falls Fire Company. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Proper erosion control measures need to be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized." MR. BREWER-Okay. Rist-Frost? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, we have a couple of different sets of comments, here, based on some varying submittals that we've received, and the latest submittal we actually received last night, late last night, which aren't included in these comments. We weren't able to review those today. We did review an earlier set of comments that we received earlier yesterday, but not the latest set that we got. MR. BREWER-So you haven't reviewed all, what haven't you reviewed? MR. MACNAMARA- I 'II go through the points, but I'll try not to re-- read the points that they have already addressed, in the interest of time, unless the Board chooses to hear all the comments. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACNAMARA-At this point, the comments that remain are essentially in the areas of two areas, drainage plan and layout and sewage disposal. The drainage plan, there's basically some confusion about how they're going to be grading the southwest corner of the building. One of the grade lines is missing, and another one ends, and it's just not clear how they're going to run the water on that corner. The piping is typically shown adequate for 50 year storms, and they use a 25 year storm to show piping adequacy. Catch basin inverts weren't shown on the drawings, and that's pretty standard as far as figuring out depths of cover and slopes and things of that nature. I also had a question about the, the y , r e pro p 0 sin gar e ten t ion bas i n for the s tor mw ate r, and the invert of the pipe that discharges into the stormwater basin is actually, could be considerably lower than the possible level in the basin, and I asked how that's going to impact the upstream pipe flows of the stormwater, and lastly, the stormwater basin volume that they refer to in their stormwater management report is considerably higher than the number that I can crank out of the scale drawing, and I may be mis-scaling it, but I did it a couple of times, and I can't get the volumes to work out, and the bigger issue is the sewage disposal. The first submittal, there was a number of comments on the sewage disposal right from the flows used should have had a SPDES Permit application, and then getting the flow issue, you seemed to be very generous with your flows. I'm not sure what you're planning for flows into this sewage disposal system, but you really are oversizing it, which, obviously, is not to your advantage, and if you want to make it that big, then that's your choice, and there were a number of other sanitary questions, - 20 - \,,- ~ --....I ~.,-I .. pump stations. The type of system that they're proposing, if anybody's familiar with that corner of Queensbury, and I'm becoming quickly familiar with the corner of Queensbury, the sands are very, very rapid, as far as the percolation rates, and they went straight to a raised fill system, and it wasn't really clear that they had, to be honest with you, done the homework that would guide them into picking that system. That's not known as the most reliable type of a disposal system. We basically asked, why did you choose that system, and can you look to maybe use a slightly different type. There just wasn't a lot of information on the sewage disposal, and it was a fairly decent sized mound system, raised fill. So that's wher e we stand r i gh t now, and I under stand tha t ther e was some considerable data that I didn't get a chance to go through today, was dropped off last night. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-That's it. Is that it? MR. BREWER-Okay. Everything else has been addressed, on your list that you have here? MR. MACNAMARA-The first set of comments, dated June 9th, the majority of the miscellaneous comments were addressed. A lot of the drainage comments were addressed, but there's been nothing, other than what was submitted last night, which we haven't looked at, that would go toward the sewage disposal questions, whatsoever. MR. BREWER-So, potentially, if we went through the other items, and went through a public hearing, if you had a week to review the items, could we possibly get an approval or disapproval next week? MR. MACNAMARA-I could comment in a week. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to address any of the comments that have been made? MR. ROSEN-My name is Richard Rosen, and I'm with Columbia Development Group. We are the applicants. Just a couple of questions. Last night, we did submit a substantial amount of i n for ma t ion, 1 as t m i nut e . I t too k usa w h i let 0 get 0 n sit e , to actually do some of the percolation tests, due to the heavy woody conditions, which I'm sure you're aware of when you had your site visit. One thing that I would like to point out is, we did revise our stormwater management report, which was submitted, to reflect the 50 year storm and the piping size adequately. The catch basin inverts are shown on the new drawings which have been submitted, and just one point of clarification that I would like to make, we just submitted our application for our SPDES Permit, and we understand that the Town of Queensbury has its own rules and regulations as far as sewage disposal systems, but at this point, I think we're going to get our lead, and correct me if I'm wrong, from DEC. I mean, DEC is the one that the applicant (lost word) the SPDES Permit, and during our process of obtaining this permit, DEC is going to make their recommendations and comments on this. MR. BREWER-Is that necessarily so? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, the way that I've always been directed to work for the Board is to take Queensbury's standards and apply them to whatever site plan has been submitted, and certainly if the DEC is going to issue a SPDES Permit, then we'd certainly look to the DEC to see if the permit will be issued. At the same time, unless directed otherwise, I'll continue to take Queensbury's standards, put them on the site plan, and let you choose to do what you want with them. We'll comment as to what's out there, and certainly a SPDES Permit is paramount, but your own Code, I believe, wants to be addressed at the same time. MR. BREWER-I guess what the question would be is, if we have - 21 - '- '-' --'" ',/ standards, and they apply for the SPDES Permit, ENCON says, okay, that's okay to do that system, then, therefore, they're not meeting our standards, are they able to do it? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, it's not to say that your standards are actually more demanding than their standards are. MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. OBERMAYER-See, I would think, in order to get a SPDES Permit, their standards are going to be a lot more stringent than the Town of Queensbury's. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, to be honest wi th you, a lot of things are dependent upon who reviews the site and which set of codes they use. I mean, the DEC's regulations can be different from the DOH's regulations, which can be different from yours, and what ~ seen, yours are a combination of both. MR. ROSEN-But like has been pointed out, I don't think we're in a situation where we're trying to cut any corners. MR. BREWER-No. I guess what I'm saying is, is there something stopping you from going to the ENCON Standards? MR. ROSEN-No. MR. MACNAMARA-No, nothing. In trying to cut corners, either. trying to help you out. If advantage. fact, no one ever said The comment l made was it's too big, it's not you wer e actually to your MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, if Dave Hatin goes out there and inspects it and says, well that's not done to our standards, does that pr€vent him from doing it another way, I guess, is what I'm saying, before he goes ahead and does it the other way. MR. OBERMAYER-He's going to need a SPDES Permit to operate anyway. I mean, that's required by DEC. There's no way he's going to be able to run, have a manufacturing plant without having a SPDES Permit by DEC. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but you're walking away from the question that I'm asking. MR. MACNAMARA-It's important to note that the manufacturing plant has nothing to do with the SPDES Permit. It's for sanitary discharge, which is one of our comments, and I'm not sure how they're going to handle the rest of their industrial wastewater, if they have any, but the comment 1 made was that it needs to be only sanitary waste that goes to this system, and that comment I made simply so it goes into the record, and then they understand it. It's a pretty big bui Iding, and I'm not sure what goes on in the building, but this system is for sanitary wastewater. MR. ROSEN-Yes, basically what we have is you have three shifts of approximately 30 employees at a time. There is no wastewater as a result of any manufacturing that goes on, but there will be showers there. There will be showers provided for all the employees, as well as a locker room, so people are encouraged to shower after they leave work, and those numbers were taken into consideration when we figured out our gallons per day of sewage that we're going to generate, and different engineers are maybe a little more conservative, or over conservative. I would definitely review this with my engineer to make sure that I put in the right system, but we're going to get feedback from DEC, and we can copy with Rist- Fros t with our SPDES Permi t, and we will copy them with any comments and changes that DEC requires us to make on the system, or if we come up with any changes, if we go back and see that it's oversized, obviously, we don't want to put in something that's - 22 - ,--. ~. ~' ~ .) oversized. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to go down through Scott's notes, and then we'll go through the engineering notes, and you can address each one that's not been addressed? I guess starting with Number Two on Staff Notes. MR. ROSEN-Okay. Scott, do you want me to go through all these? MR. HARLICKER-Well, just, I guess my first concern is. MR. BREWER-The spring and small stream, as well as a substantial ravine on the property. The actually building in the parking area, that restricts, is there not going to be any more building? MR. ROSEN-Yes. We don't plan anything right now. MR. BREWER-Potentially, is there plans for a warehouse there, at some time? MR. ROSEN-No. At this time, we don't have anything planned for that area, and if we did, we'd have to come back, obviously, and go through the application process again, but right now, as far as that stream is concerned, we feel it's far away from the area where we're developing. It should have no significance whatsoever. MR. OBERMAYER-What's going to manufactured here? MR. ROSEN-Synthetic fabric, bring in bulk material and weaving machines. They put of a technical. They roll dyed, and they sell them Activewear, Sportswear. and basically what they do is they they weave it here. They have large together, actually, blankets, for lack them up and they send them out to be to people such as Hanes, a lot of MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. solvents? So they won't be doing any dying, using any MR. ROSEN-No, absolutely not. MR. OBERMAYER-They get it in rolls and then they slit it, or what do they do? MR. ROSEN-They get it in rolls, well, they get it in spools of thread, and then you get a but, it looks like a big tree, and you put the spools on the tree, and each strand comes from a spool, and it comes to this machine, where it feeds into, and there's a bunch of little fingers, like knitting needles, that go back and forth at so many revolutions per minute, and you put it with the fabric, actually, and weave it together. MR. RUEL-A State of the Art loom. MR. ROSEN-Yes, absolutely. MR. OBERMAYER-Will there be any processed water used inside the facility? MR. ROSEN-No. MR. OBERMAYER-There'll be no water cooled airconditioning? MR. ROSEN-Well, water will be involved in the airconditioning, but that will be a closed system. MR. OBERMAYER-So you'll have chilled water, a chilled water system? MR. ROSEN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-And then a chiller will use cooling tower water to - 23 - '- ~> ,,/ ',---- cool those chillers? MR. ROSEN-Cooling tower water, right. MR.OBERMAYER-Okay. So where, then, is that cooling tower load down going to go? Is that going to go into a sanitary system or? MR. ROSEN-The condensation? MR. OBERMAYER-No. Generally when you have a cool ing tower, you have make up water, Number One, and then you treat the towers, so you will have chemicals, and you blow down the tower so that you don't get algae build up. MR. RUEL-There's no excess water in the cooling tower. MR. OBERMAYER-No. You're always adding water to a cooling tower, because that's how a cooling tower works. It evaporates, okay, and you treat your towers. MR. RUEL-Yes. You're adding water. You're not taking water away. MR. OBERMAYER-I realize that, but you have to treat the tower, or you'll get algae build up in the tower, and you have a blow down. You blow down your tower periodically, as you add the chemicals to it. MR. ROSEN-I'd like to check on that and get back to you. I'm pretty sure, if there would be any drainage water, it would go into the sewage disposal system, but I'll get you an answer on that. MR.OBERMAYER-Okay. Good. I was just curious, that's all, to find out on the cooling tower blow down, specifically. MR. RUEL-You have pole lights in the parking area. will be on all night, I guess? These lights MR. BREWER-Presumably, yes, because there's three shifts. MR. ROSEN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-And then your air compressors, you'll have air, also, probably, compressed air>? MR. ROSEN-Compressed air, yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, will that, the discharge of that, will that go, also, to this sanitary, or will you have an oil/water separator? MR. ROSEN-As far as water lines and stuff like that? MR. OBERMAYER -Condensa t ion. Whenever you have, 1 i ke in an air compressor, normally you'd have cooling tower water, again, to keep the air compressor cool, and that also goes to drain, and normally you have condensation, which has oil in it. MR. BREWER-How big a compressor are we talking, 25 horse or something, Bill? MR. OBERMAYER-Still has oil in it. compressor has oil in it. The condensation from an air MR. BREWER-I know, but the condensation that's gathered in an air compressor is usually gathered in a filter. MR.OBERMAYER-No. You always have a, your compressor, your condensation from your air compressor goes to drain, and normally, that would go through either an oil/water separator. MR. BREWER-We have a compressor in our store that doesn't go to - 24- ~- ',----" J ~ drain. It's just, it's trapped in a filter, and you drain the filter. MR. RUEL-All small compressors just have the filter, and the water goes into the filter. MR. OBERMAYER-Does your filter have a drain on it? MR. BREWER-Sure it does. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure it does. Where does the drain go? MR. BREWER-The residue is trapped in the filter, in an element, and the water, all that you have left is water. MR. OBERMAYER-Where does the water go? MR. BREWER-The water nothing in the water, line. just goes into a drain. I mean, there's because the filter traps whatever's in the MR. OBERMAYER-Do me a favor, will you? compressor it is, and tell me whether oil/water separator, and going to drain. Look, see it's going what size through an MR. ROSEN-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-This is a little bit different size than a NAPA Store. MR. BREWER-I know, but they have them in Story town, 25, 50 horse compressor. Lumber yards have them. I've sold them. MR. ROSEN-When we did our calculations, when we went through and. MR. BREWER-I mean, lets not let him re-engineer the whole project. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm not. I'm just curious to see whether the oil is going to a drain or whether there's an oil/water separator. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROSEN-I can find that out for you, and the one thing, when we did design the sewage system, and we were figuring out our gallons per day, our engineer did contact our HBAC Contractor and asked him, and it's insignificant, the amount of water generated. It does generate water. So you are correct, and I will find out what kind of filter. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have any kind of a letter, or conversation with the fire company about hydrants? MR. ROSEN-It's in review. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It was sent to the fire company. We haven't heard back from them yet, but I showed it to Kip Grant. He was the one that suggested that we send it to the fire company for comments, but he had a concern about accessing the back part of this building, because of the distance from the fire hydrant. One of his suggestions would be to move the fire hydrant farther down on the, I guess it would be the east side, east side of the building, so they could access the back side. Now is this access road going to be plowed during the winter? MR. ROSEN-Yes, it will be maintained. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, but, no, we haven't heard back from them yet. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we make note that we get an answer from them? - 25 - '-- ' T__~ ,/ -....-~ MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And you will use proper erosion control measures during construction? MR. ROSEN-Well, that's a note that was added on to the drawing, which was just last night, again, submitted. MR. BREWER-Okay, and that will be put in place pretty quick? MR. ROSEN-Absolutely. MR. HARLICKER-How many loading docks are you going to have on there? MR. ROSEN-Yes. That wasn't shown on there. We'll have two receiving and two that will be used to load up and ship material out. So there will be a total of four. MR. HARLICKER-So you're going to have trucks coming and going 24 hours a day? MR. ROSEN-Yes, but the traffic volume, as trailer, is going to be minimal. I mean, deliveries a day, it will be a lot. far if as the tractor they have four MR. HARLICKER-Okay. There was also, we received a comment from neighboring property owner, I guess this isn't really his responsibility, but there was a concern about extending this road that maybe the Board should look into, through back to the other properties and tie it into Eagan Road. There was a letter in the file, we'll get to when the public comment comes, but there was another access and tying this into Eagan Road, for emergency access to those properties on Eagan Road. MR. BREWER-For emergency access? MR. HARLICKER-Well, yes. Right now there's just one way in back there, and some of the residents are concerned about. MR. BREWER-Do we have some sort of a map as to the location of the roads, where we could see how far it is to get Eagan Road, or whatever? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. could look it up. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other comments? MR. RUEL-The Town construction of the road, is that documented? ~ MR. ROSEN-There is an agreement in place that the Town will build that road. At the present time, Van Dusen & Steves is working up the specifications and the bid documents for the road, and we've been told that the road hopefully will be constructed late August, early September it will be complete. MR. RUEL-You have no letter to that effect, though? MR. ROSEN-I'm sure we do. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD~-I have a question concerning something I read, and I just can't remember where I read it. I don't even know if this is relevant, but I'm just curious, as to when the plant is in operation, how many truckloads of waste will be carried to the burn plant in Hudson Falls? Did I read that somewhere? I know I did. MR. ROSEN-Yes. ques t ion abou t That was in the Long Form EAF. I think there's a that, and that answer is in there. Basically, - 26 - "-- '-../ ",J .--..,1 you're talking about cardboard, miscellaneous scraps. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm talking about, first of all, what is the waste, and it sounded like there was a large amount that would be going over there. MR. OBERMAYER-Cardboard's recyclable anyway. MR. ROSEN-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-You wouldn't bring that to the waste plant. MR. ROSEN-I mean, there will be no hazardous waste generated. There will be no, I can't think of what their garbage, besides cardboard, you have miscellaneous scraps of thread material. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, when you're talking about synthetic fabrics, you're also talking about, well, I know that the chemicals used to make synthetic fabrics won't be made on this site, but the synthetic fabric itself, it's not a biodegradable type of thing, like cotton is, and when it is burned, are there synthetic fabrics that give off any kind of toxic fumes, things like that? MR. ROSEN-I'm sure there's studies out there that explain the ramifications of burning such a material. It hasn't been a major concern of ours. I'm not saying that it isn't something that should be looked into. They've operated this facility in Dallas, Pennsylvania for the last 15 to 20 years, and there was no mention or concern of obtaining a permit to get rid of their (lost word). MR. BREWER-Does the plant on Warren Street have similar products that they use, or will be? MR. ROSEN-The plant on Warren Street is a different operation. MR. BREWER-It . ") 1 S ; MR. ROSEN-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-I just thought if they had similar products, you could find out what they did with it. MR. ROSEN-No. Thes e same produc tsar e brought over to ther e. There is some minor knitting that does go on over at Warren Street, but it's more intricate and delicate equipment, just specialized custom weavings over there, which doesn't represent the majority of the work that they do. MRS. LABOMBARD-Could you just tell me how many tons of waste will be going over there a day, and how many, and when the trucks will be carrying all of this? Like, do they carry it at night? MR. BREWER-Well, they've got to do it between the hours when the plant is open. MRS. LABOMBARD-So the plant is not open continually? words, it shuts down every evening, right? In other MR. BREWER-No, the plant's open three shifts. MRS. LABOMBARD-Three shifts. So that's all night long, too. MR. ROSEN-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words, really, then they could truck the waste during the night time. MR. BREWER-I mean, if they're going to take the waste to the burn plan, the burn plant's only open for so many hours during the day. - 27 - --- "" ~ .-..-/ '---- MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right. MR. ROSEN-Yes. I'm sure they'll come up with a schedule and work closely with the burn plant, and deliveries, I don't know if you could call it deliveries, drop offs will be made. MR. OBERMAYER-Will the plant be generating any hazardous waste or storing hazardous waste for 30 days or? MR. ROSEN-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-And just how many tons of that waste is, forgot that figure. just MR. HARLICKER-The figure they have in their EAF is ten tons per month. MRS. LABOMBARD-Ten tons per month? That's not too bad. MR. HARLICKER-Solid waste. MR. BREWER-A third of a ton a day. That's 650 pounds a day. Okay. Anything else? MR. RUEL-Your term, pre--engineering, that's an elegant word for, what, pre-fab? MR. ROSEN-Yes. It's basically, when you cut it down to the bare bone, it's your typical metal building. Form structural components, steel looping, steel siding. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. MACNAMARA-Rich, you mentioned you're going to plow this road in the winter time. MR. ROSEN-Yes. MR. MACNAMARA-Does that mean you're going from, you've got topsoil and grass on that going to plow grass? to change the detai 1 right now. Are you MR. ROSEN-No. I believe it's supposed to be gravel. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Well, you might want to fix the detail on it. It says twelve inches of gravel, and then it shows six inch topsoil with seed on top of that. My concern is the two catch basins there. They're in elevations that are pretty important, since those two catch basins are taking all the flow from the roof, which is, I think it's like two and a half acres of runoff. So it's pretty important for those catch basins to maintain their integrity. MR. ROSEN-Absolutely, or we'll have major flooding in the winter time. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, spring, whatever. What I'm saying is that if the ground is soft and you plow it and you whack the rims, then they aren't going to take the water they're supposed to take. So, I'd pay attention to that detail, and if you're going to plow it, I'd show probably a better detail on it. MR. BREWER-Is that going to be a Town road into there, or is that going to be, the road that the Town is building? MR. ROSEN-Basically, the right-of-way that the Town has obtained is this line right here, and this line right here, and it stops right here, at this point, which presently is the property of the Town of Queensbury. As you can see, we've shown this. Van Dusen and Steves has done the calculations to do this, to make sure we comply .- 28 - .. '-- ~. ~ "'-'" to a Town road. We show this right-of-way going through here, which will be deeded to the Town, for the construction of this road. To be honest with you, where they plan to go from here, and their plans on when, I really don't have an idea. MR. BREWER-I guess what my question is if that road that you're pointing to, where it goes up to the 90, is the Town going to own that road, or is Native Textiles going to own that road? MR. ROSEN-Well, to start off with, the road will only be constructed to here, and paved, and the Town will own the road. Now this property, the Town will own this road, this property, but there won't be a road constructed. MR. BREWER-Right, but to your building, or your parking lot, back to Carey Road, the Town's going to own that? MR. ROSEN-Right. MR. BREWER-Therefore, the Town will have to maintain it. MR. ROSEN-Well, I don't know if I'm following you right, because right here is where our property lines will be. MR. BREWER-Right, and the road is going. MR. ROSEN-From here out, yes, that will be a Town maintained road. MR. BREWER-Exactly. So the Town will plow that, repair it, if it ever has to happen. You're just going to be responsible for plowing the parking lot, and around the building. MR. ROSEN-Correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-The rest of that loop, from where your entrance is, to the parking lot, to the end of that parking lot, is not going to be completed. That's going to be done at a later date? MR. ROSEN-That's the understanding that I have. Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Depending on what the Town wants to do with the piece of property in the back. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. ROSEN-Right. I mean, I think this is pretty much, taking into consideration what they have planned for back here and some kind of master plan on, if anything ever goes on back here and over in this area, on a Town road, provide access. MR. BREWER-Would continue, but is there room there to pile snow? MR. ROSEN-As far as, where, now? MR. BREWER-Right where you're, right where the road's going to end. What are they going to do with the snow, just stop right there? MR. ROSEN-When this road is built, it will be to here, and this area will be open. MR. BREWER-So they'll just push it through. MR. ROSEN-So, there, again, tha t road, 0 r time frame. they'll push the snow there, and once they go from we're getting back in a situation where, if they pave they'll construct that road, we really don't know the - 29 - ,"---, -,,- '--- --/ MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from anybody on the Board? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road, Queensbury. Question for Scott. When was this land zoned Light Industry? MR. HARLICKER-When was it? I'm not sure when it was, the date that it was zoned. MR. TUCKER-I assume that it's a foregone conclusion that this is going to move along. Ownership of this property changed hands last night, and this company's been in there clearing it for about three weeks. So, I've got a few comments, and if they're not what you're supposed to hear, turn me off, but I'd like to make them, if I could. My personal opinion, this piece of land is another one that, through the Master Plan, was mis--zoned, like Charlie Wood's property was on Aviation Road, where the Red Lobster wanted to go. Okay. This should have never been light industry. This piece of land, basically, is the same type of land, same situation, as the Hudson Point land, where Niagara Mohawk wants to build their project. Can I ask the engineer a question? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. TUCKER-You were talking about sanitation, and you said something about DEC would have jurisdiction over it? MR. MACNAMARA-I think that's what Rich had indicated. MR. TUCKER-Yes. I just wonder, do commercial properties come under DEC's jurisdiction? Because I know subdivisions and individual lots are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health. MR. MACNAMARA-There's a number of different criteria that will force the DEC to get into it. One of the most common is the flow volume, the quantity of the discharges, and, typically, if the discharge is 1,000 gallons a day, or greater, then whether the DEC likes it or not, they're supposed to get into it and issue a SPDES Permit. They may try and entice the applicant to use water saving devices to get below 1,000 gallons, so that they don't need to issue a SPDES Permit, but that's one of the criteria that will force the DEC to look at a SPDES Permit application. MR. TUCKER-I ßee, but the State Department of Health would still have their jurisdiction over the sanitation? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, the DOH has their own rules and regulations on individual, they call the "household systems", is the title of the Code that I'm familiar with, but, again, it certainly gets down to a jurisdictional issue, like Rich had indicated earlier, that if one agency wants to say that they've got it, then they certainly have it. Are there concerns wi th the DOH rules that you think aren't being met by the DEC's rules? MR. TUCKER-No. was just wondering where the jurisdiction changed. I feel more comfortable with the New York State Department of Health, because they're more level headed than DEC. Somebody catches a cold and they change their minds. MRS. LABOMBARD-Pliney, could I interrupt you for a second? Your original question on when it was zoned Light Industrial? Well, I can't give you that direct, the exact date, but I know that the Carey family that, I'm pretty sure they own Northern Distributing? MR. TUCKER-Yes. - 30 - ',,----- \....., ..-/ -........I MRS. LABOMBARD-I can remember when that road was cut in, years and years ago, and right away, myself, my husband said, wow, look at this. This Industrial Park is coming in. What another nice way for somebody to make some money, you know, and so that land has, that road has been cut in there for years, and finally, now, a business is going in there, and probably, it'll bring other businesses with it, and wasn't that the original plan of the family that built that road, and the Town Board that approved it, years and years ago? MR. TUCKER-Can give you a little history? MRS. LABOMBARD-Sure, I'd like to hear it. MR. TUCKER-The 34 acres is part of a parcel that was purchased when Jerry Solomon was Supervisor here in the Town of Queensbury, along with an additional, roughly, 30 or 32 acres, below this property, toward the river, to move the City landfill from Luzerne Road up to the Corinth Road. A bunch of us went into the old office building over here, and it was a done deal, and we were told that you can't fight City Hall, but we decided we would anyway, and Nelson Rockefeller was Governor of the State, and he had his Hudson River Commission, and we contacted them. We won the battle, anyway, and that's why the land is sitting there. This piece of land, the Town purchased, and it did not have any right-of-way, whatsoever, period. There's an old railroad bed that passes between Merritt Road and this property, and that railroad bed is a right-of-way owned by International Paper Company, forever, and for the Town to access that, to get to their property, they had to have clear title to it, and they couldn't get clear title to it. So when Carey decided to put in his Industrial Park up there, the Town, through the planning system, got him to agree to allow for a right-of-way to this property, and this is the right-of-way that the Town's going to build the road on, to access this property at this time. Now, my personal feelings on this thing here, economically, this is a poor deal for the taxpayers of the Town of Queensbury, and I'd like to run some figures by you to prove my point. They purchased 34 acres here for $90,000, Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. I believe they're selling it to this gentleman's organization for $150,000, stretched over a 20 year period, payment over a 20 year period. Carey Manufacturing had 20 acres of land optioned to Niagara Mohawk for $2,000,000, in their development, right next door to this piece of property. What shot that down was, the politicians in Glens Falls were in trouble with that piece on Dix Avenue, and they made a deal. Directly across from this property, seven acres of commercial property was sold in February 1992 for the sum of $280,000. Torrington has got seven and three quarter acres almost directly across from where this property is going to be located. The selling price for that piece of property is $700,000. There is another piece of property within half a mile, seven tenths of an acre, and they had a firm offer, last October, of $700,000. So as you can see, if we go back to the piece that was sold in February 1992, the seven acres for $280,000, if this piece of property right here was sold for that same price, which would be cheaper than it should be sold for, this piece of property right here would be worth $1,300,000, at that price. MR. BREWER-Not to interrupt you, but isn't this property, when it's all said and done, going to generate $3,000,000 a year in jobs, in dollars and cents, for the Town? MR. TUCKER-Let me point something out to you. This original project, here, was going into the Warren/Washington County Industrial Park. It was set to go. So the jobs weren't going to leave the area, whatsoever, and I don't, not being privy to what took place, I just don't realize why this kind of a deal was put together, really. I don't. MR. BREWER-I don't know, either, what happened or why it happened, but it happened, so I think it's something we have to live with. -- 31 -- ,--, --.r' "--- .-' MR. TUCKER-And if I'm out of line, tell me so, but I've been chewing on this thing, here, for a month and a half. I've got to tell somebody about it. MR. RUEL-Change the Master Plan. MR. TUCKER-How many acres are involved, what we're actually looking at right there now. MR. ROSEN-Basically, as far as what's going to be developed? MR. TUCKER-Yes. MR. ROSEN-About 14. MR. TUCKER-About 14 acres? MR. ROSEN-Yes. MR. TUCKER-About 14 acres. I understand if you want to do anything more, that you have to come back for site plan review on anything else? MR. BREWER-Exactly. Yes. MR. ROSEN-Yes. There's a lot of paperwork involved. MR. BREWER-Yes, they do. If they want to put up anymore buildings, they'll have to come back for site plan review. The remainder of the land, the facility and the parking and the septic, or whatever, it takes up a certain amount, and I think he said it was 14 acres. The rest of it would be a perimeter. MR. TUCKER-The 14 acres would be on the east side. I see here on the thing, you people are going to do the SEQRA tonight? MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know about tonight. I would like to see my own opinion, all the engineering concerns addressed before we do any SEQRA. That would be illY opinion. MR. TUCKER-Okay. just see it was on the sheet here tonight. MR. BREWER-Well, potentially, if everything was done, then we would do it. If the blow down was done, and all that, then we would. MR. TUCKER-Well, thank you for your time. MR. BREWER-You're welcome. So, it There's no question about that, when think that we'll do that tonight. wi 11 we do be back here the SEQRA. again. don't MR. TUCKER-Can I come again? MR. BREWER-Sure. Ladies? BARBARA MELVILLE MRS. MELVILLE-I'm Barbara Melville, and I have a small house on Stevens Road. I'm here because I'm curious about where this all is. A while ago, little orange flags started appearing in the woods behind my house, which I've enjoyed for almost 20 years, and they're very beautiful woodlands. It seems sort of stupid to talk about a woodlands when there is this kind of money being spent. I do feel that particular strip along the river is green space we talk about a lot. The thinking, the Home of Natural Beauty we have on our Town letterhead, and I'm just curious about how much of that green space, if any, will be taken up by this particular building. If this building takes up 14 acres, what about the rest of the 34 acres that the Group has purchased, and where is it? I mean, I can see the building, but, as a land owner, I'm sitting here wondering - 32 - .,---, \.......- -./ --../ if my woods are going to be chewed up, and I'm just curious as to where it's going to go. Is there some kind of map that shows where this place is going to go? MR. BREWER-There's a location map. MR. HARLICKER-It's on the front page of a, this development, there's, a ravine that bisects the property, and this is all on the east side of the ravine. Nothing is being proposed on the part that faces your property. MR. OBERMAYER-Here's where it is right here. Here's the site right here, and there's a river. I'm not sure where, here you are right here, Stevens Road, and there's Steven's Street, and here's the site right here. MRS. MELVILLE-My property is right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Here's the actual plan, and we walked it. This is all going to remain woods. MR. BREWER-So what they call, steven's Gully, is between your house and where that is. It's all wooded behind it. So, when you come in Carey, here, you've got that steep gully that goes right behind this, and your over, where's, your house is over here. You're protected, because their property line ends right at the gully. It's intersected by the gully. MRS. MELVILLE-All right. Then why were they surveying back here. MR. BREWER-Excuse me. The prevention of them any development, behind in here, they can't because of the ravine. MRS. MELVILLE-They could fill it. MR. BREWER-I don't think it'll ever happen. back here. They'd have to come MR. OBERMAYER-Are site plans available, if they wanted a print of it? Could they get it from the Town? MR. BREWER-I imagine they can come in to the Planning Office. MR.OBERMAYER-Yes. If you want to get a copy of the prints, I'm sure Scott can get you one. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We can make prints up. MR. BREWER-Okay. CHRISTINE SEARS MRS. SEARS-Christine Sears, and our land also borders on the back of this property line, and my concerns were basically the same as Barbara's, and I also have the added concern as to what's going to happen, as far as the traffic, and what's already rapidly becoming a congested area of Corinth Road, as development seems to be moving right down that road, and, again, my biggest concern was for the buffer zone and the fact that if you own that road, is that still going to be openly, I mean, it's going to end up being posted, or is that still going to be able to be used by the residents in the area? MR. ROSEN-It's a Town road. I don't have the right to close it. MR. BREWER-I think they're talking about the property. MRS. SEARS-I mean the land, I'm sorry, the land. If you own the land, in other words, where your land borders mine, okay, all those woods that are going to be left, are they still going to be usable? -- 33 - " --.. -" '---" ---' MR. BREWER-I own two and a half acres behind my house, and the kids still use that. MRS. SEARS-Yes. I mean, they don't intend to fence the whole area? MR. ROSEN-No, we're not going to fence the area in. MRS. SEARS-Because it is exquisite woods back there. I mean, it's just beautiful. MR. BREWER-You can put a fence up, and if there's a brook or something back there, the kids are going to get to it anyway. MRS. SEARS-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-But remember, the intended use of that area is for Light Industrial, and that's the way it li zoned, and that's really going to be the future of that area, just realistically. MRS. SEARS-All right, and I'd also like to ask you, I'm under the understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that the Town is granted 10 tax free years to this Company? MR. BREWER-That has nothing to do with us. officials. That's the elected MRS. SEARS-Thank you. MR. BREWER-You're welcome. Questions? Is there any other cormnents? MR. OBERMAYER-I have another question. Air emissions. Are you going to have any air emissions, any exhaust points, from any of the processes? MR. ROSEN-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So, there'll be no stacks or anything? MR. ROSEN-No smoke stacks, or anything like that. MR. OBERMAYER-No air emissions. MR. ROSEN-No exhaust pipes or anything like that. MRS. MELVILLE-I just wanted to add that he did mention this entire area is zoned Light Industrial, and I just want to say, this is not a good use for this land. This is along side a river. It's a beautiful woodland. It's a natural park that's used by a lot of citizens in Queensbury, and all I can think of is Hudson Falls failing to act on a piece of land along the Hudson River, that's highly scenic, and is now being used for a burn plant. I think, and it's not the time or place, but I would like to say, this is beautiful land. Maybe 50 years from now, citizens of Queensbury will say, what were they thinking of, if we don't at least hold it in abeyance, to maybe keep green and use it in a different way, and keep factories in Light Industrial in other particular sites in Queensbury. On Luzerne Road, there is land available and zoned for Light Industrial. MR. BREWER-Thank you. cormnent? Is ther'e anyone else who would like to MR. RUEL-Just for the record, I somewhat agree with Mr. Tucker and his statements. However, the application meets the zoning and the Master Plan requirements. It improves the employment picture. It brings in tax revenue. It may help to invite new companies and help to develop the area, and to surmnarize, I'd like to say that the Queensbury Town Fathers should constantly review the Master Plan, so that improperly zoned areas can be changed, so that we - 34 - ."--,, ""-" -./ ,,-/ don't come up to a situation like this, where an applicant now has a piece of land, and he's allowed to develop it, and we find out that it should have been zoned something else, but I think it's the responsibility of the Town Fathers to update and to review the Master Plan. It's just dormant, and there are areas in there that are completely improperly zoned, and something should be done about it. That's all I have to say. MR. HARLICKER-Well, to address that, the Town is undergoing a revision to the Master Plan, starting this summer. MR. RUEL-Yes. I've been hearing that for two years. MR. BREWER-It's happening now. MR. OBERMAYER-And do the people in the Town have a say in how that Master Plan is generated. MR. HARLICKER-There is going to be an intensive effort to get feedback from c i t i zens of the Town. Ther e' 11 be ne i ghborhood committees set up, public hearings held in 14 neighborhoods, set up throughout the Town. There's going to be an intensive effort to get public input into the process. MR. RUEL-And how do we participate in that? MR. BREWER-Sign on the dotted line, Roger. Volunteer. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It's going to be very time consuming. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Rosen, I think, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but I would feel comfortable if we tabled this until all engineering comments are considered and met. Is that a big problem? MR. HARLICKER-Could we maybe go through, informally, Part II of the EAF, so if you do have any concerns, they have time to address those, because the two kind of go together? MR. BREWER-Sure. Well, yes, I understand, but if you don't have the engineering done, how can you thoroughly go through, or even remotely go through the EAF? Because the engineering pertains to. MR. HARLICKER-There are a number of items in the EAF that aren't engineering related, also. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. OBERMAYER-But you should have all your comments back to us right away, right? MR. ROSEN-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-So, we can have you in next week. MR. ROSEN-The only thing that I might ask to be entertained is an actual SEQRA Resolution, so that questions and revisions that have been brought out are actually, I feel, more site plan oriented, to site plan approval, then actually SEQRA. I really don't see how. MR. OBERMAYER-Sanitary and stormwater? MR. BREWER-How can sanitary be unrelated to SEQRA? MR. ROSEN-Now sanitary is the SPDES Permit, again. MR. BREWER-It still has an effect on the land, and I think that's part of the SEQRA, and 1 don't feel comfortable doing it until the engineer has signed off and says that everything is done. - 35 - ~ '-.' -..."< --. MR. RUEL-And drainage flow is part of it. MR. BREWER-Runoff. I mean, that all has something to do with the SEQRA, and I, personally, I won't vote on a SEQRA Resolution, if we go through it tonight without the engineering done. You can do it if you want, if they want to go through it, but I'll vote no. I'll tell you that up front. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. It's just a waste of time. MR. ROSEN-And your reasons for not voting on the SEQRA are, can I have a list of them? MR. BREWER-I just told you them, because if the engineering is not done, and satisfied by our engineer, if he got the comments, or the concerns last night, late, he hasn't reviewed them. MR. ROSEN-Right. MR. BREWER-So, to this Board, reviewed them. therefore, if he has concerns or comments, to give he won't give them to us today because he hasn't He'll give them to us next week, he said. MR. ROSEN-I still don't understand why, you have SEQRA and then you have site plan approval, correct? MR. BREWER-Right, but if we do the SEQRA, it's done. If we do the SEQRA tonight, and neg dec it, he comes up with an issue. MR. ROSEN-I still don't have site ~ approval, though. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but what's the difference? You don't have one without the other. MR. ROSEN-Normally, sometimes you can get a SEQRA Resolution without site plan approval. MR. BREWER-Right. Tonight, I'm not going to do it. MR. STARK-Can you answer engineering concerns by next week? MR. ROSEN-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then it will be a week from tonight we do the SEQRA. MR. OBERMAYER-Can we do the SEQRA, and the site plan? MR. BREWER-Sufe, next week. MR. ROSEN-Normally, typically, I get a SEQRA Resolution and then we continue with our final site plan. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but you still haven't answered the engineering questions, though, right? There's still a lot of engineering issues that are open? MR. BREWER-Exactly, that pertain to the SEQRA, and I don't want to entertain doing a SEQRA Resolution until everything has been answered. I think that's only fair. MR. STARK-You have to wait a week anyway. So answer the concerns by next Tuesday. We'll put you on first, and you're all set, then. MR. ROSEN-Sure, yes, I understand. I just thought, typically, you get a SEQRA Resolution, then you continue. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, typically, you do, but normally the engineering questions ha~e been addressed. - 36 - "- ~.......- -.../ ,...../ MR. MACNAMARA-Rich, out of curiosity, did you get any commitment out of the DEC on when they'd act on your application? MR. ROSEN-I mean, that could be up to a 40 day process. MR. BREWER-So we shouldn't bother you. MR. MACNAMARA-I was just curious if they were going to look at it right away or what. MR. BREWER-I mean, if you're going to wait 40 days for the SPDES Permit, is a week going to bother you if we wait to do the SEQRA next week, when we have all of our answers. MR. ROSEN-Well, I mean, you can issue site plan approval, right, and the I can go for my building permit and do everything, but the sewage system, and then hopefully when I get that permit. MR. BREWER-I feel very uncomfortable doing it without all engineering answers. MR. ROSEN-Okay. MR. STARK-We'll just table it until next week, then. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're Number One, next week. MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-94 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until 28 June 1994. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE I GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-IA, RR-3A, WR-3A LOCATION: RT. 9 & ROUND POND RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. PLANS ARE TO SELL ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF REMAINDER. SEQRA REVIEW: 5/26/94 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1 LOT SIZE: 69 ACRE SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1994 Final Stage, Guido Passarelli, Meeting Date: June 21, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking final subdivision approval for a 3 lot subdivision. The subdivision will result in 2 lots zoned highway commercial. One lot will be 1.48 acres and is the proposed site for a dentist office. The second commercial lot, located at the corner of Round Pond Road, will be 5.83 acres. The remaining lot will be approximately 53 acres and is zoned rural residential and waterfront residential. There are currently no development proposals before the Town for the 5.8 acre lot or the remaining 53 acres. PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1. The 1.48 acre parcel is undergoing review as a separate project, that project being Oral Health Care Associates. 2. A single curb cut to service both parcels would be - 37 - "- --/ ~ --./ the most effective means of providing access to the two properties. This would also comply with the Town's goals of controlling the number of curb cuts on Route 9 and applying access management. 3. The engineering concerns relating to grading, erosion control and drainage are being reviewed by Rist Frost. 4. The applicant should provide a bond to cover the cost of landscaping." MR. HARLICKER-And I don't think you've had a chance to look at it yet, but on a revised plat that they dropped off yesterday, they show the single access to the two parcels. MR. OBERMAYER-Why does the Staff recommend that there's a single access? MR. HARLICKER-We're just trying to cut down on the number of curb cuts and access management along Route 9. If the property can be serviced by one curb cut, that's. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but all the other structures, that the road is just about fully developed, and they have multiple curb cuts. Why are we singling out this one development? MR. HARLICKER-If they come back in, as we did with Taco Bell, that's what we're going to try to do, is cut down on the number of curb cuts, as these properties are re-developed. MR. BREWER-I think because it's undeveloped and there's a chance to do it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Why should we continue a bad situation? MR. OBERMAYER-Why is it a bad situation to have two curb cuts? MR. HARLICKER-You get people turning in and out of two different spots, you get more people stopping along the way. They're stopping at different places along the road. It's just much more efficient, from an access management and traffic flow perspective, if they all turn into one spot. I mean, you don't have people coming out of the road at two different places, cutting across the traffic. You're only coming out in one place. MR. BREWER-Less chance of an accident. MR. HARLICKER-Less chances for accidents. Less need for people to stop and slow up to let these people out. MR. BREWER-Should we create more places for more accidents to happen? Or create less of a chance for an accident to happen? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know, in having, I agree with what you're saying, is that we don't want to create any accidents. However, I don't neces sar i I y agr ee, becaus e of the d i stance between the accesses that we're looking at, that we would create an accident situation. We're not looking at an access point of 20 feet and 20 feet. We're looking at an access point, possibly, in one location, and then 400 feet another access point. So there's a little bit of differential, compared to one right next to each other. MR. BREWER-It still creates the scenario of two access points on the same road, no matter how you look at it. If you have one, you have less of a chance of cars coming out of only one place, rather than two places. MR. NACE-May I jump in here for a minute, then? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace, with Haanen Engineering, representing Guido Passarelli. We created the plan with one access point, with mixed emotions. Okay. We hear everybody's concern - 38 - ~-- .~ ' ,. --t "...; that they want to go to single access, where possible, along Route 9, and, in some cases, I think that's good. We've worked on this for a while, with different plans of development for the northern parcel, before we were able to prove to ourselves that we could at least find some configuration where the access to the two could separate fairly early, before bringing cars into a parking lot or commercial establishment here, and having to take them back out of the parking lot, up to Oral Health, which is, in our opinion, totall y unacceptab Ie. The s cenar i 0 we came up with does permi t single access, but I think there's a trade off, and I can argue both sides of the street on this one, okay, and I probably will end up arguing both sides of the street. The negatives that I see, and when you're talking about traffic accidents and safety, single access has some pluses, where people can identify how to get into the facility or to the location you're talking about, a shopping mall, obviously single access, coming down on the curb cuts where people know exactly where they're going. In this instance, I do have some concern, in that, first of all, the two locations served by this access are going to be separated, and people coming down the hill, the first thing they're going to see is the building for Oral Health, because it sits up higher, and it's closer to them as they come down the hill. They're going to be scratching their head and say, okay. There's where I want to go, and how do I get there. That's when you tend to create some hesitancy in driving, and a possible hazard, okay. None of these things are things that I can put absolute values on and say, this is a three on the scale, and that's a five, and that's a ten. You just can't do that, but I think it will, people trying to figure out how to get where they're going, does create some confusion which can lead to accidents, and in that instance, I think this single access has some problems, okay. The other concern I have with this being a single access is that, aesthetically, when you're coming down the hill here, this doesn't show it, because this is just a landscaping plan, but if you look on the grading plan, in order to get this road back up to Oral Health, which is sits up on the upper plateau here, we've had to sort of grade the peninsula in here to get it back up. So you're going to come down the hill. You're going to be seeing this peninsula sticking up in the air, and the site in behind that peninsula sitting down in a hole, and that's going to look at little odd, from an aesthetic standpoint. MR. BREWER-All right. Ultimately, when the site is done, though, it's going to be a lot different, when development occurs on that northern site. I mean, nothing is forever. You're not going to leave it like that forever, I presume. MR. NACE-Well, the grades that we have established, on our grading plan for the subdivision, have tried to establish what's going to be fairly close to final grade, no matter what you do in here, so that you're not going to have to come in, when this comes in for a site plan, you're not going to have to do substantial grading in here. Okay. If you look at the grading plan, we've leveled the sod fairly flat. We've created a berm up here, toward this property line, where we've terraced down from the upper level down to this lower level. MR. BREWER-Do we new plans of that today? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Can I get a copy of it, of the new one? MR. HARLICKER-We've only got one copy. MR. NACE-I brought some copies. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. You gave us pros and cons on access. Do you have any pros and cons on exiting the property? MR. NACE-On exiting? - 39 - '~ -- '--'" ""--' MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-Exiting probably doesn't make any difference, one way or another, whether you're going out of a single access or a double access. From a safety standpoint, where the multiple accesses have a safety hazard is where they're fairly close, where a car coming out here is watching traffic on the road, and maybe doesn't see a car that's sitting 100 feet away, that's pulling out at the same time he's pulling out, okay. That's your primary concern there. Where we have about 300 feet between these access points. That's enough time to allow a car pulling out of here, at the same time that a car pulls out of here, to clear each other, without creating a hazard. MR. RUEL-Is there a wide shoulder on that road or not? MR. NACE-Yes, there is. It's, what we've shown here is pretty much curb to curb travel lane. MR. RUEL-Is it paved? MR. NACE-Yes, it's all paved, curb to curb. MR. RUEL-Are the shoulders paved? MR. NACE-It's curbed. MR. BREWER-In front of there I don't think it's curbed. MR. NACE-No, it's not curbed right here. line is fairly close. It's very narrow. foot wide paved shoulder. It's paved, but the white It's like a one or two MR. RUEL-If it's not paved, then a car can't be on that portion of the shoulder. He would have to exit directly into the road. Right? MR. NACE-That is correct. It is a fairly wide road. There is ex t r a room i nth e r oa d . It' s not jus tap air 0 f 1 2 f 00 t I an e s . I think the total pavement width is up in the middle thirties. MR. RUEL-Now there's a rise in the road, just before you get to the property, right? MR. NACE-There's a rise. This rises and levels off a little bit up in front of Sutton's, and goes back on up. MR. RUEL-Yes. So the peak is somewhere around that motel. MR. NACE-The peak is somewhere around here. Right. MR. RUEL-All right. So you come over the peak, and immediately you would see an entrance, almost immediately. MR. NACE-The peak is not that, it's not a sharp peak. It's a very, very gentle, and we've looked at. You have to really go up the road a ways before a car can actually hide in the sag that's there. MR. RUEL-Okay. I was thinking from a safety standpoint. MR. NACE-No, that's, if it was too close, if site distance here was inadequate, we wouldn't not get a driveway permit from DOT. MR. RUEL- I though t so. So your r econID1enda t ion is? MR. NACE-I think, in my standpoint, that the aesthetics pushes me a little bit toward the two entrances. Safety, I don't think you're gaining anything by the single entrance. Safety, I think anything you gain by the single entrance is probably washed away by the fact that people have a hard time identifying where they're - 40 - .'-.-- '--- .-/ "-'" going. MR. RUEL-Do we have any input from? MR. BREWER-But if they're going to a dentist office, Tom, isn't it true that, they go to the dentist once, they're going to know how to get there. MR. NACE-The next time they will, but the first time they won't. MR. BREWER-That's true with anywhere. I mean, if you put the access down here, they don't know how to get there until they get there when they get there. MR. NACE-Well, but they see, typically, you see a sign, it's not like, when you drive in to Boston, you see the Prudential Center, and you start heading there, and in two blocks, your street's gone in a different direction, and you're no longer heading there. The idea is when you see where you want to go, you are looking immediately for the most direct way of getting there. MR. OBERMAYER-Tom, did you seek any input from DOT on this? MR. NACE-We have not gone down to, we've tried to get input from Warrensburg. They have declined everything to Albany, and we didn't get this plan developed until, quite frankly, on the drawing, yesterday, yesterday morning. So we haven't, we wanted to have both plans to set in front of DOT, and say, here, here are our alternatives, and we prefer this one because. MR. RUEL-So you have no answer from DOT? MR. NACE-I don't have a definitive answer, no. MR. BREWER-Okay. George, you had something? MR. STARK-Yes. The fact that it's a dentist office, you're going to have 30, 40 cars a day, max, going into the place, okay. So it's not going to be that much of a problem pulling in to there, okay. If you look up the street, at Agway, they have three curb cuts, and 100 feet of road frontage. If you look at Sutton's, they have five curb cuts and about 200 feet. I don't see a lot of accidents up there. MR. BREWER-But like Scott said, though, because you have a bad situation, should you add to a bad situation? MR. STARK-Well, don't agree that it's a bad situation. MR. BREWER-Agway's coming in for a site plan, too. Maybe we can convince them that they should only have two curb cuts. You have to look at the big picture, George. MR. STARK-Okay. Lets look at the pic tur e. Look at Agway, and they've got a tremendous amount of traffic volume. People go in, buy something, and come right out again, okay. They're not there. They probably have, what, just off the top of my head, three, four hundred cars a day going in and out. Here, you've got thirty, forty cars a day, max. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you don't know, the unknown is, what's going to be in the big parcel, George. MR. STARK-Okay. It doesn't matter what's in the big parcel. MR. BREWER-Sure it does. If you have a volume of 1,000 cars a day in and out of the Qlg parcel, then it creates a problem for the small parcel. So if they're both using the same entrance/exit. MR. OBERMAYER-Why does it create a problem for the small parcel, - 41 - ~.. -- '~ .-/ though? MR. BREWER-See, because if you've got 30 people coming out of here, like Tom said, you've got one guy watching the road to see how the traffic's coming. He's got somebody pulling out of another driveway. Then you've got a road right down the street, another. MR. NACE-My point is that you've got, in this instance, you have enough separation for that to safely happen. DOT says that if you' ve got 1 00 to 1 50 fee t, you' ve got en 0 ugh room sot hat the drivers can recognize, by the time they're pulling out, recognize that something else was happening adjacent. MR. BREWER-If a car's going 50 miles an hour, Tom, or 50 plus, how long does it take to get 50 feet, or 500 feet? MR. STARK-Sixty miles an hour is 88 feet per second. MR. NACE-Right. MR. STARK-That's going 60. Going 50 is about 70 feet, say, okay. MR. BREWER-Yes, but they go 55, 60 down there. GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-It's a 20 mile zone. MR. BREWER-They still go 50, 55. Peggy Ann Road's 40, too, but I go down there 55. I mean, you can't help it. You get going down straight roads. MR. NACE-Tim, that's really not the issue with adjacent entrances, okay. The issue with the adjacent entrances, your issue pertains to people that are on the road, up to speed already, versus people coming out, okay, or interfering with the people trying to pull out. The same number of cars are going to be pulling out, regardless of whether it's one entrance or two entrances. Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-The issue, the reality between separating the entrances, safety issue, is can people have one entrance clear, somebody pulling out of the other entrance at the same time, or somebody pulling into the other entrance at the same time. Do they have enough reaction time to recognize what's happening and react to it? And DOT regularly says, that if you've got 100 to 150 feet, that they feel that that's sufficient reaction time for cars that are (lost word). MR. STARK-Okay. Now, the second point is, to go in past your 75 foot buffer, go up that, what he called the peninsula road, you've got to go up at least 15, 18 feet on that peninsula road to go from the lower parcel to the upper parcel, okay. That isn't going to look that good, I don't think. I think, aesthetically, just have those two entrances. The one goes into the one parcel up here. You've got your graded land, 30 foot, according to the plan, going down, which is almost final grade, on that second parcel of property further north. That's my point. We could debate this all night. Why don't we just poll the Board, and if we want one entrance, fine. If we want two, fine, but just poll them right now. MR. BREWER-Well, wait a minute. Lets get everything out before we do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-How wide is that entrance again? MR. NACE-This entrance here? - 42 - '- "-----' -I "-w/ MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. NACE-We've made what they call the throat of it here 30 feet, so that you have enough room for one lane coming in, and two lanes coming out. One for a stacking lane, for people that want to turn left, and that, we recognize that in a high volume period, that maybe backed up a couple of cars, and another for people turning right to go past, because that won't have such a long wait. Another point to make here, Guido just pointed out, is that in the recognition of where they're going and how to get there, with this landscaping buffer, we have, when this grows up more densely, this road, will be partially obliterated from view by the landscaping plan. When that happens, the recogni tion of how to get where I want to go becomes even harder, because they can't see, obviously, there's a road there. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, in all fairness, on that point, I think that's a great point, if it was a McDonalds or if were a Radio Shack, or something where somebody wanted, a snap decision to stop in there. I think most of the traffic going into this dental facility are going to know where they're going, after their first visit. MR. NACE-After they've made their first visit. MR. BREWER-After they go there one time, so whether the entrance is in front of the building or down the road 400 feet, the first time, they're going to know how to get there. That's illY point. MR. OBERMAYER-Tom, do you have a drawing that shows the two entrances? So we can compare? Also, do you know where the curb cuts are across the street, by any chance, just so that we, or is the whole thing open? MR. STARK-Just about. MR. NACE-There are quite a few openings. We looked at trying to line up with some of the existing openings, and there's so many of them, it doesn't really. I think there's, there's a telephone pole there. There's one here. There's one up by this catch basin up here. MR. BREWER-Where do they go, though, Tom? MR. NACE-They're all into the Zoological Park. MRS. LABOMBARD-I like what you've done with the trees, though. MR. OBERMAYER-Let me tell you something, the landscaping plan is really nice. MR. BREWER-Super. MR. OBERMAYER-If we can just decide on this entrance, we'd be all set. MR. BREWER-We're going to decide tonight, Jim. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tom, do you, I still haven't read you yet, as far as strongly feeling about. MR. NACE-I prefer this plan, quite frankly. Okay. I worked the other one out to prove to myself and to show the Board what it would look like, okay, to prove to myself that it could be done, but aesthetically, aesthetically, I much prefer this plan, okay. This is the entrance, here, for Oral Health, and we haven't, all we've shown is the location, the entrance down here. We didn't show what it would look like. MRS. LABOMBARD-And everything in between will be all those nice bushes and trees. -- 43 - '- -- ....-' ~ MR. NACE-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the frontage there, Tom, like, 1,000 foot, 950 feet? MR. NACE-About 750 feet. Seven hundred and fifty feet is the total frontage. MR. BREWER-Roger, have you got any questions? MR. RUEL-Yes. We have had a long discussion about curb cuts. Is this fictional? Is this documented somewhere? Are there facts and figures to indicate the pluses and minuses, as far as the number of curb cuts? Does anyone know? MR. BREWER-We have a Transportation Council. letter from We have Staff. Glens Falls Urban Area We have our comments. MR. RUEL-Yes, these are letters, but I mean. MR. BREWER-Yes, they're letters. agencies. They're input from other MR. RUEL-No, no. What I'm looking for is documentation, scientific, technical documentation, similar to a traffic study, anything. If anyone makes these recommendations, it must be based on something. MR. STARK-They're based on safety. safety. I think he bases everything on MR. OBERMAYER-I was going to say. They're probably based on people's opinion, that are setting these regulations, okay, as far as thes e let t er s ar e concer ned, as far as DOT is concerned. There's probably certain requirements as far as how often you can put a curb cut. MR. STARK-No. They're basing it on just trying to cut down the total number of curb cuts. MR. BREWER-Trying to cut down potential access to a major highway, to prevent accidents. MR. RUEL-Therefore, there must be some documentation indicating an excessive number of curb cuts increases the number of accidents. Do we have a copy of this study? MR. BREWER-I'm sure we probably do. We don't have it here tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tom, have a question, this land, see, the doctor's office business. You're not going to go and You're just going to go to a, to get other par t of the proper ty, i s that, saying that it's going to be maybe more stores? Guido. The other part of is a very subtle type of go shopping, so to speak. your teeth fixed, but the could we be justified in of a corrunercial thing, like MR. PASSARELLI-It's 95 percent, it'll be a bowling alley. MRS. LABOMBARD-The bowling alley. That's right. I forgot about that. Then I think that there's justification for the two entranceways, because you're talking about two entirely different businesses. MR. BREWER-Think of this, Cathy. Just let me give you a for instance. Down here on Bay Street, where all the medical offices are, there's a medical office right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. go there twice a week for physical therapy. - 44 -- ~ \....-.- .,J ~ MR. BREWER-Dr. Sherrick's office is way back here. All right. There's a medical office here. Should they have a curb cut going into their office, and a curb cut going into this office, and a curb cut. MRS. LABOMBARD-But they're behind the ones in the front. MR. BREWER-No. Right on Bay. There's an There's another medical doctor right here. here. Should they all have a curb cut separate businesses, when, in fact, they services businesses back here, services business, this business, and this business. eye doctor right here. There's another doctor just because they're have one curb cut, this business, this MR. OBERMAYER-They're all doctors though, right? MR. NACE-Plus it's a flat piece of land. one curb cut. It's easy to access from MRS. LABOMBARD-I know where you're coming from, but that's a little road in there. MR. BREWER-Sure Cathy, all have it is, but these one access, one. thr ee bus i nes s es right here, MR. OBERMAYER-Well, maybe we should just survey the Board on how everybody feels. MRS. LABOMBARD-Lets put it this way. This one, here, uses this one, because these two could use the same one. MR. BREWER-That's right. So this guy here uses this one to prevent a curb cut on Bay. MR. HARLICKER-I'd just like to point out something that's in the Zoning Code, too, under Section 179-66.1, in the review of Commercial and Industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board shall determine if it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, and they show it is feasible, a 20 foot connection way must be provided. MR. BREWER-So it is documented. MR. HARLICKER-If the connection way shall linkages. adjacent property is undeveloped, be identified on the site plan for then a future MR. BREWER-The same thing we made K-Mart do with Livingston's Furniture, rather than have another curb cut. MR. NACE-Did you take the curb cut away from (lost word)? MR. BREWER-It's already existing, Tom. These aren't existing, is what I'm trying to stress. These aren't existing. That was already there. MR. NACE-My closing comment is, though, that we're looking at different situations, with the grading, the grade differential between these two places, the use difference. In fact, there's something else, if you want to talk about safety. Even if these two accesses were very close, the peak use hours of a bowling alley are far different than the traffic peaks for a professional office. That's why in !TIY. mind I'd say that I think any safety advantages are sort of washed out. It's really hard to say to you, definitively, that one of these options is better than the other, from a safety issue. So then I'm looking at, what's aesthetically better looking, and I think, because the grading of the site, in!TIY. mind, the two accesses would be aesthetically more pleasing. - 45 -- ~~ - -....../' ...........- MRS. LABOMBARD-Will there be a sign down there on Route 9? MR. NACE-For? MRS. LABOMBARD-For the dentist's office? MR. NACE-You mean if we go with the single access? There'll be a sign for the dentist's office, one way or another. MRS. LABOMBARD-One way or the other, but if you go with the double, it would be for, it would be at that access, that would be farther south. MR. NACE-It would have to be, yes. MR. STARK-Poll the Board. MR. BREWER-All right. Bob? MR. PALING-Well, this is going to be a very close call, and I'm inclined to go with the letter I've read and referred to from the Glens Falls Transportation people, and others that have talked about this, and I'm inclined to nod in the direction of safety and go for a single curb cut on this. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can ask Mark a question? MR. BREWER-Sure. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mark, are we in any way obligated to heed the recommendations of a professional study like that? In other words, they base their opinions on statistics and things that they've gathered over the years, over these kinds of situations. MR. SCHACHNER-Cathy, if you're asking, are you legally bound by that recommendation, the answer is no. If you're asking, should you take it into consideration, I think you should take it into consideration, as you should all the other input from anybody else. There's some apples and oranges here, in that, even if we, this Board, decides to allow whichever configuration, that does not alleviate the applicant of the obligation of getting the appropriate approvals from DOT and whoever else has jurisdiction. Does that answer your question? MRS. LABOMBARD-Thanks. MR. OBERMAYER-So, if we were to, lets say, approve, two curb cuts, we could make it contingent on approval by DOT. MR. BREWER-Well, I think what you're doing there, then they're going to take our recommendation as saying, yes, we allow two curb cuts if you guys say it's okay. MR. RUEL-Yes, you can't do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, sir. MR. BREWER-I mean, that's pretty much what you're saying. MR. NACE-They've got that letter from the Transportation Council, and my discussions with Herb Stevens indicate that they will look at that seriously. MR. BREWER-I guess, basically, what I'm saying, and I'll ask Guido, is the road going to come to an end if you have to have one access? Is the project going to stop? MR. PASSARELLI-My only problem would be, when people come out of his office, the slope is going to be so deep, you talk about accidents. There'll be more accidents with people trying to stop, - 46 -- ,-. ~ ~ ~ to make a left turn to go into Route 9, then anything else, because if this was a flat piece of property, one access would be be aut i f u I . Be c au s e 0 f the s lop e , it' s go i n g t 0 ma k e i t v e r y dangerous for those people to come out of that place. MR. BREWER-It's going to be plowed in the winter, isn't it? What's the slope? MR. RUEL-Twelve feet. MR. BREWER-Twelve feet rise, and how far? MR. PAL ING-Bu t the s lope has go t to be the road I eve I anyway, whether they come directly out of the dentist's office onto Route 9, or go down and out. It's going to be the same slope, I mean, the same distance down. MR. BREWER-I think the slope going YQ to the dentist's is going to be worse than that slope there. MR. PASSARELLI-I'd like to keep this up. He wants the view. He loves the view. He wants to keep his building nice. MR. PALING-Yes, that won't change. MR. PASSARELLI-To make this building down, there would be a big slope from (lost word) to the other. MR. BREWER-Don't you think, Guido, when you come in and you take a right to go up, is the slope going to be, going up to the dentist's, worse than it is coming up this road? MR. PASSARELLI-No. MR. BREWER-It's not? It's not higher on top, where the dentist's office is going to be than it is where the road is? How far is it, then? MR. OBERMAYER-I guess you have to decide on whether it's a safety issue or aesthetics. I don't see it as a safety issue. MR. BREWER-Well, I see it as a safety issue. I don't think it's going to fly with two accesses, though, is what I'm saying to you. MR. RUEL-Tim, it's about eight feet from here to here. MR. PASSARELLI-Which would be like 250 feet. MR. RUEL-And how many feet from here to here? MR. PASSARELLI-That's more like 17, 1 8 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-That's quite a difference. MR. RUEL-That's the difference. There's about a 18 foot rise, and an 8 foot rise here. MR. BREWER-So that rise couldn't be changed? MR. OBERMAYER-Not really. MR. BREWER-Over what distance? That's 18 feet over. MR. NACE-Between the access points on Route 9, there's 12 foot of difference, on Route 9. MR. BREWER-Twelve foot, over how far of a distance. MR. NACE-Just on Route 9. - 47 - '- '-" ,--,,' '-, MR. BREWER-How far of a distance? MR. NACE-About 300 feet. MR. BREWER-All right. So you've got 12 feet on 300 feet, a 12 foot rise on 300 feet. How far do you go up, when you go up 8 feet to the building, how far is that? MR. NACE-About 400, a little over 400 feet. MR. BREWER-So you , ve got the distance going up both then. same ways MR. OBERMAYER-But one has a much greater slope, double the slope. MR. BREWER-No, twelve versus eight. That's not double. MR. RUEL-He said it was more than 12. MR. BREWER-Thirty percent more. MR. PALING-Yes, but at less distance, though. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, if you guys want to make a motion, make it a t one entrance, then go ahead and do so, and we'll see wha t happens, or two, whatever the choice. MR. STARK-Well, is there any more questions about any other aspects? MR. OBERMAYER-We don't want to see the project stop because of one or two accesses. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Tim, are there any other questions? I mean, this is the only sticking point really. MR. BREWER-No. I think we have engineering comments. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. The only two comments remaining on the actual subdivision aspect of the development, one is minor, it has to do with, the Code requires that the property boundaries at the angles and the corner points have monuments so that you can find where the property is, monumentation, just simply a note on the drawing that there's going to be monuments, and then the other one was the much bigger issue that says, part of our own subdivision review, our engineering review says that all the other agency approvals have to be in hand before we'll give our final subdivision approval, and, obviously, the one that we're speaking of is the DOT's curb cut approval. So we just said that since the DOT must approve the access or accesses, to Route 9, conditional approval is all that we would say could be granted. MR. BREWER-Okay. If somebody wants to do it, go ahead. MR. PALING-Well, we ve got to cover, at least, Item Number Four, in the Staff Comments, I think. MR. BREWER-What's that? MR. PALING-The bond for landscaping. MR. RUEL-The bond to cover the cost of landscaping. MR. BREWER-Is that an issue with everybody? MR. NACE-Didn't we discuss this at the last meeting, and I think, you guys hold the ultimate club, in that your resolution before, I think, included something to the effect that the CO itself will be held until landscaping is done. - 48 - ~ :/ ,,-. \.............- MR. RUEL-I think that's documented. MR. BREWER--I think, to me, that's adequate. I think that was pretty well put, that no CO would be given unless all the plantings were in place. MR. HARLICKER-One thing you might take into consideration is the time of year that the plantings are being put in, and the size of them. They make the plantings. The building goes up. Then they die off. MR. BREWER-But there's a bit of extra protection. guarantee for two years that they will live. We made him MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. STARK-Do you want a motion? MR. BREWER-It's up to you. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1994 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: For a three lot subdivision, with two curb cuts. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel NOES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-I' 11 offer a motion with one curb cut, if we could rescind the previous motion and make a motion to approve with one curb cut. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we need five? MR. NACE-Wait a minute. five? Did they disapprove? Why does it need MR. BREWER-I thought we talked about, no Warren County has nothing to do with, they have nothing to do with the subdivision. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-Okay, then it's approved. Okay. Lets move on. That's provided that DOT okays it. MR. HARLICKER-They didn't condition it on DOT's approval. You just gave it a blanket approval. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. You didn't say that in the motion. That is not in the motion. MR. STARK-I said no stipulations. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-It goes regardless of what DOT says, right? MR. BREWER-Yes, but DOT has to give curb cuts, don't they, on a State,.. hi¡¡hway? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-So, it's a given. They have to get DOT approval. If they don't get DOT approval for two curb cuts. m 49- '-- '_/ ~ '- MR. STARK-Then the project is dead in the water. They'll get the approval. Are you ready to move on? MR. BREWER-Yes, I guess. SITE PLAN NO. 15-94 TYPE: UNLISTED ORAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9 & ROUND POND RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,000 SQ. FT. DENTAL FACILITY WITH PARKING AND UTILITIES. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/9/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/11/94 TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1 LOT SIZE: +/- 1.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-It's 3,944 square feet. MR. STARK-I stand corrected. It's 3,944 square feet. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-94, Oral Health Care Associates, Meeting Date: June 21, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot dental office including a 30 space parking lot on a 1.4 acre parcel of land zoned highway commercial. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the project for compliance with Sections 179-38A, 179-38B, 179-38C and the relevant factors outlined in 179-39 and has the following comments: 1. The access to this project should be combined with the access to the vacant adjacent parcel. A single access to both parcels would be the most effective means of providing access to the properties while at the same time complying with the Town's goals of controlling curb cuts on Route 9, internalizing traffic flow and applying access management. Access to the property is subject to DOT approval òf the curb cut location. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed building will be placed on the top of a hill; therefore, its design and appearance are important. The size of the structure is well underneath the maximum 12,000 square feet allowed. Lighting includes 7 light posts to illuminate the parking and sidewalks and 4 wall mounted lights at the entrances. The light post will be from 8 to 12 feet high and match the architecture of the building. No signage is shown on the plan. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access should be modified to show the access drive connected to a single access that serves both this building and the future development on the adjacent parcel. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking is adequate; 30 spaces are proposed, including 2 handicapped, where 25 are required. No loading area is shown on the plan. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic access and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage is being reviewed by Rist Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Sewage disposal is being reviewed by Rist-Frost and the project will be serviced by municipal water. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Lands cap i ng around the bu i I ding is adequa te ; however, no landscaping is shown in the area along Route 9. Consideration - 50 - ~ .~ ...J _J should be given to extending the 75 foot landscaped buffer, currently proposed for the adjacent property, across the frontage of this parcel. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Fire hydrants are located on the adjacent property to the south and near the intersection of Round Pond and Route 9. The applicant indicated that the building will be sprinklered and emergency access appears to be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. No areas of the site appear to be subject to ponding and flooding. Erosion control measures will have to be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized and the adequacy will be reviewed by Rist-Frost." MR. HARLICKER-We've got something in here from Warren County. "Based on the past problems with the clear cutting and lack of stormwater management plan", the site plan was disapproved. MR. BREWER-And we have engineering? MR. MACNAMARA-The engineering comments are of June 2nd, and they were based on the previous site plan submittal, which showed the two accesses. Additional information was just submitted last night, regarding the new site plan, with one access, but now I'm actually confused, when I go to review that, should I be reviewing that, with the one access? MR. NACE-No. We've got to, obviously, readdress the grading around the septic system with the two access. MR. BREWER-No, no, because if this gets denied because of the accesses, you may end up doing it the other way. MR. MACNAMARA-My point is that, well, Number One, as far as the stormwater review, there was none, because there was no stormwater information submitted until last night. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Just a note on that. submitted to the Board on Department, on the submittal from the Planning Department The stormwater information that was the submi t tal, or to the Planning date, for some reason, it didn't get to the engineer. It was submitted. MR. BREWER-So, in all fairness, it was submitted on your part? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. I didn't mean to indicate that he didn't submit it. MR. BREWER-Why was it held back? MR. HARLICKER-I wasn't aware that it was. -. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, it was in the comments of June 2nd. I t said that there was no stormwater. The appendices were left out. So, anyway, a bigger issue is, again, falls on the septic system, and once again, the other issue comes into the SPDES Permit issue, as to who has jurisdiction. Regardless of that, I'm working on the fact that Jim Martin said, review the septic systems as if it was, compared to the Town Standards, which I did, which refers to DOH, and in some cases DEC. So all the sewage disposal notes are based on a combination of Queensbury Standards, DEC's standards, DOH standards, but to cut to the quick, they basically tried to fit a system in, in this application, that wasn't quite right, as far as depths of cover, slope of original grade, things of that nature, which I think they'll basically agree that, now that, the one access helped them out from their septic system point of view, which is why I asked, initially, do I need to review anything with -. 51 - --- -.-' .-'" '-- one access, because it sounds like you're going with two, but anyway, if they stay with one, there were considerable issues with the sewage disposal, septic system, as was submitted. MR. BREWER-As it stands right now, they're independent with their own access. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Then if you'd care to, we can go over all the notes. At the time, there wasn't any sizing information submitted, which I believe you just submitted yesterday? MR. NACE-Yes, we did. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay, which, that goes to the whole heart of how you design the septic system, is flow. MR. BREWER-Okay. So I 'm confus ed a lit t1 e bi t. with two entrances, or one entrance? You reviewed it MR. MACN~~ARA-Two entrances. MR. BREWER --Two. then. Okay. So then we're safe to say that we can go ahead, MR. MACNAMARA-Okay, but anyhow, at the time, there wasn't any flow information submitted regarding gallonage. So I was not to know if there was a SPDES Permi t to be required or not. I assumed it was - greater than 1,000 gallons. I suggested that they look at a SPDES Permi t. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-We have, in fact, we submitted SPDES about a month and a half ago, and they have completed, or deemed it complete. They just have not issued the permit, and, again, we're probably remiss. We should have submitted the complete SPDES application to the Town, but because of who reviews what, we assumed that, since DEC had control of it. " MR. MACNAMARA-Now, in all fairness, there's certainly some issues that the DEC really couldn't care less about, the Town does, such as things to property lines, and things that are specific to the Queensbury Code. Again, it may not be the actual mound, or it may not bet h e act u a I I e a c h fie I d ,or i t ma y not bet h e act u a I distribution box, per se, but there's certainly things that are in Queensbury Code that, certainly, it's worth looking at. It's up to you if don't choose to look at it or not, but, anyway, you had them in there for some reason. The notes went to the distribution box being closer than 10 feet from the property line. Part of the dosing tank was located under a paved area. A bigger issue was the fact that the perc tests that were taken didn't actual fall at the same elevation, as to where the effluent would be applied to the soil. It's pretty key to the whole perc test issue, as far as kriowing that the perc test is representative of the soil to receive the waste, and because of the grading issues that were associated, it was very deep, to put it bluntly. There was some drop from the inlet to the outlet of the septic tank. This is, essentially, very boiler-plate stuff, sanitary. Cover for gravity lines. I suggested four feet. I think they had three. Not knowing who was rev i ew i ng the sys tem, I us ed DOH's manual, as far as how long absorption bed laterals need to be. Seventy-five feet is what DOH talks about. I believe the DEC talks about a thousand. MR. NACE-DEC allows 100. The Code systems, they allow about 100. MR. MACNAMARA - I distribution box if they go to one of that. mean, 100. Then there's the issue of the cover, but again, these are all going to go away access, because they system was changed, or a lot - 52 - ~ ~ J -J MR. BREWER-When you say one access, you're talking about, specifically, for the dentist? MR. MACNAMARA-No. When I said one access, I mean, one access for the development site. MR. BREWER-They're going with two, as we speak, right now. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. That's my point. MR. BREWER-All right. I understand what you re saying. MR. MACNAMARA-And the information that was just submitted last night I'm not even going to look at tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-I think, it is going to get confusing. Probably what we need to do, if we can, is get from the Board a consensus, if we can clear up the engineering concerns, okay, given separate accesses for the two parcels, if we can still clear up engineering concerns, will the Board or will the Board not approve site plan. I think that's the bottom line issue, is it not? MR. BREWER-Pretty much, it is. MR. NACE-So maybe we ought to set the engineering concerns aside, at this point, as soon as we can, address them adequately, if we have separate accesses, and find out what other concerns are on the table. MR. STARK-Tim, you don't have any questions about the septic or anything, do you? MR. BREWER-I have no questions about the septic or the planning. MR. OBERMAYER-I have a question about the sep'tic. I don't see anywhere, Tom, where you indicated what size pipe, pipe line, sanitary line, is going into the septic tank, or leaving it. MR. NACE-It's four inch. It shows on the profiles that we have. MR. MACNAMARA-That's on the new submission, by the way. That was one of the first comments, that they didn't show any pipes. MR. OBERMAYER-It was? drawings. Okay. Okay. It wasn't shown on the or iginal MR. MACNAMARA-Right. MR. BREWER-I guess I would ask a question of Mark. I mean, if this comes to vote right now, I presume nothing can happen to the subdivision approval. If we vote and this is denied, then this particular project is denied, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, again, there's some apples and oranges, in that, by the "this" that's coming to vote, I assume you're referring to specifically the site plan application for the dentist's office, correct? MR. BREWER-I guess I'm a little confused, because he has an approved subdivision, as we speak. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-With two access points. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Now do we have to look at this as an approved - 53 - '- -- --,' -' subdivision with its own access, or can we still look at the picture of the whole parcel and say that we want one access? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don't think you can, that, to me, sounds like it's re-visiting the subdivision issue. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you have to look at this application on its merits. Now one of the aspects that you're allowed to consider in reviewing an application is access. If you feel that for some reason this application for this project on this location doesn't meet your standards or criteria for access, you can deny this particular application for this project. That would not undo the subdivision approval. They would still have an approved subdivision with two accesses, and they would have submitted a particular application for one specific portion of the subdivision land that would have been denied. MR. BREWER-I guess where my confusion comes in is, Warren County looked at this as one parcel. We're looking at it as two, right now. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Warren County, County doesn't have j ur isdict ion County looked at this as site plan I believe. I'm not sure, but I think Warren over subdivision, and Warren approval for the dental office, MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And Warren County, as I understand it, recommended denial. MR. BREWER-They recommended denial, based on. MR. NACE-Based on the fact that the site was graded. MR. SCHACHNER-Clear cutting and something else, as I recall. MR. BREWER-Not access. MR. NACE-Not access. MR. RUEL-No, not access. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess, then, I don't have a choice. have no problem with the project, then. It stands on merit, seeing how it's approved with the sole access. I mean, I its own MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to have living medical waste generated from this facility? MR. NACE-Any medical waste that is going to be generated, the doctors, the dentists, all fall under the transport and storage regulations, that say they have to take care of it. They've got to package it in a certain way. They've got to have (lost word). MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So that'll Occupancy. For them to operate, They already have it? Well, different location. be part of the Certificate of they'll have to their retro fit. it's operating, but this is a MR. NACE-If they store any on site, yes. They would have to have the retro storage. MR. BREWER-Anything else, Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. BREWER-George, any questions? - 54 - ~ \....¿ J '---"'" MR. STARK--No. MR. BREWER-Cathy, any questions? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. NACE-We do have building plans, if anybody's interested. MR. BREWER-Yes, I would. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, sure. MR. HARLICKER-What about the landscaping on the rest of the site? The only landscaping they show is around the building, on the plans 1 have. MR. NACE-There are two landscaping plans, Scott, that show, they're separate plans, I believe, for up front, and then one for around the building. It's part of the old submission. Okay. Looking from the road, okay, the elevation that will be facing the road. There's a little courtyard (lost word) courtyard on the north side of it. I think you start to see that in here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now how many dentists does he have in there? MR. PASSARELLI-He's going to have nine chairs. MR. OBERMAYER-Nine chairs. MR. STARK-How many are there now? MR. NACE-There's seven. MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be a sharp looking place. MRS. LABOMBARD-uHow many square feet is this? MR. PASSARELLI-Four thousand square feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions? We've got to do a SEQRA on this. It's unlisted. Short Form, right? MR. HARLICKER-Public hearing also. MR. BREWER-Yes. to talk about project? I'll open the public hearing. th is? Wou I d anybody car e to Does anybody want speak about this PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We've got to do a Short Form. MR. HARLICKER-They submitted a Long Form with the application. MR. BREWER-We don't have to do a Long Form, do we? It's unlisted. MR. HARLICKER-It's not required. MR. BREWER-Well, we'll do a Short Form then. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-94, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: - 55 -- '- "---' ---/ ,..,./ ,....,-" WHEREAS, ther e application for: is presently before the Planning ORAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Now we can offer a motion to approve or disapprove. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-94 ORAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Contingent upon the applicant answering and meeting all engineering requirements. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1994, by the following vote: MR. NACE-In all fairness, yoU may want to make that contingent upon engineering. MR. BREWER-Engineering comments. MR. STARK-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan - 56 -- ~ .~ J '-'" MR. BREWER-Is there anything else? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There was a letter from Richard Baker, National Realty, about the two stop lights. You should have a copy of it also. It's to Richard Baker, National Realty and Development Corp. MR. BREWER-Do you want to read that, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "Dear Mr. Baker: I am writing this letter in response to your request for the Town Planning Board's impression of a two signal configuration along N.Y.S. Route 9. The two signal configuration would be coordinated and provide signalization of the nor ther n en tr ance to the Ames Plaza (i n f ron t 0 f the Queen Di ner ) as well as the proposed aligned intersection of Sweet Road and Weeks Road. The Board discussed this matter at our meeting of June 21st and conceptually agrees with the approach. Formal approval of such a design will require a resolution from the Planning Board as this constitutes a change to the approved site plan. We understand the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently reviewing this proposal and will be rendering a decision shortly. A written acceptance from DOT will be required prior to the Board's formal decision on this issue. Furthermore, as indicated by Jim Martin, it is assumed the cost of the second signal will be borne by the developer. I look forward to discussing this matter further as a modification to the approved site plan. Sincerely, Timothy Brewer Chairman Planning Board" With copies to Mark Kennedy and the DOT. MR. BREWER-I guess what the question .is, if you want me to sign that? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That's it. MR. BREWER-Do we have a consensus from the Board? Lets discuss it first. Why don't you tell us what it's all about, the two lights at the Wal-Mart? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Is that what the consideration is? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Did you write that letter? MR. BREWER-Yes, I did. be two lights? Is that the Staff's opinion, there should MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel about it? MR. PALING-I'd like to ask a question about the alignment of Sweet and Weeks Road. Was that passed by this Board as a site plan approval? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. PALING-It wasn't. MR. HARLICKER-At the time this came through the process. MR. PAL lNG-We 11, then how do we fit into approv i ng, r ecormnend ing a traffic light then? Are we putting the cart before the horse? MR. BREWER-No. There was a great deal of conversation about that, whether the light should go there, or whether it should go down where it is. Then, after the fact, I think the Town came up with the idea, or the Planning Staff came up with the idea that those roads should be aligned, like we discussed a year and a half ago, -- 57 - ... "'--' ~ . ,-'/ at the Planning Board meeting, finally sunk into them. So they said, well, we should realign this road. So that's where the idea for the second light came in. MR. HARLICKER-It had sunk in. They just needed an outside source to confirm what we had been saying all along. This was part of a recommendation that's in this Route 9/254 study that was completed. MR. PALING-Yes. There was one the other night. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-The letter indicates that we approve the realigning of the road, at least I'm reading that into it. It doesn't say it directly, but indirectly, and I didn't realize we'd done that. I'm not sure, I like the idea of the lights, if you've got the right place to put them, the double lights, but I'm not sure I go along with the realignment of the road. So I don't know. I've got a dilemma, as to whether I should vote, you know, would go along with this or not. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess if you realign the road, it alleviates the problem of people getting in and out of that little, narrow road from Robert Gardens. I guess they expressed concern that they have a terrible time getting in and out of there. So a light would help them, but if you realigned it and you put a light there, then it's going to. MR. PALING-But it does, there's other neighbors that also object to it, though, that's going to bring traffic on the other side of Route 9, along Country Club Road. They're saying it's going to make that a thruway in there, which they're objecting to. MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean, going down, connecting Country Club with Route 9, going down Sweet Road? MR. HARLICKER-Mrs. Valente. MRS. LABOMBARD-Liz: I don't think it. MR. BREWER-Well, you know, it's going to create, it probably is going to create some more traffic down there, but, I mean, you've got a contractor, a developer that's bitching about development. So, I mean, they want to build houses allover Town, but they want to bitch because cars are going by where they live. MRS. LABOMBARD-Their house is for sale. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference, no matter, where they live. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just saying, they're not going to be living there. MR. BREWER-I mean, they're building the houses that people are going to be living in, when they're driving these cars to the places, and they're complaining about it. MR. RUEL-I have a question about the lights. Will these lights also be unsynchronized, like everything else in Queensbury? MR. STARK-They would be synchronized, think. MR. PALING-They're a pair. They will be sychronized. MR. RUEL-How do you know? MR. PALING-Because that's what they said at the meeting the other night. - 58 - '\...., "I. '-/ ) '--'" MR. BREWER-If the State owns them, the State will synchronize them, I'm sure, but these lights on Quaker Road you're talking about, the Town owns. MR. PALING-But you buy them as a pair. lights. You don't buy separate MR. RUEL--You know that new on Aviation Road, the other the traffic tie up there? light. light they put across the bridge there side of the bridge? Have you ever seen It's not synchronized with the other MR. BREWER-So, how do you feel about it, Bob? MR . PAL I N G - Why i s the P I ann i n g Boa r d v 0 ti n g 0 nth e two Ii g h t configuration? MR. STARK-It's a recommendation, that's all. MR. PALING-Yes, but why is it in our jurisdiction to say anything? MR. BREWER-Because the first light is part of an approved site plan for Wal-Mart. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but you know, quite honestly, it's confusing to me, and I was just asking Scott, and he's not sure of the background of this, but it's confusing to me why the Board is being asked to sign a letter that says that the Board conceptually agrees with this approach, but then says that the Board's formal decision won't be made until there's a DOT action. It seems to me that there's a site plan that's been approved, and that this would constitute a change to that approved site plan, and if the applicant wants to make a request of the Planning Board for modification of that site plan, that seems appropriate to me. MY concern is just from the narrow procedural standpoint. I'm not sure who is asking the Board to write a letter that says something about conceptually agreeing with something for a modified site plan. What if you sign this letter, send this letter and then the applicant comes back and you decide, upon full review, that you want to deny the modification? I'm concerned that you've written a letter that says you conceptually agree with something, but then when you see it on the Board, and you see it in full detail, you don't like it. So I guess I'm confused as to the background here. I don't know who's asking, or why this request is being made, to sign this type of letter. MR. RUEL-Wha t do you r econm1end? MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I don't have somebody answers that question for me, a recommendation, unless of who's asking why. MR. HARLICKER--In the first sense it sounds like Mr. Baker requested a letter from the Town Planning Board regarding. MR. OBERMAYER-Who is Mr. Baker? MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Baker, as I understand it, is a principal in National Realty and Development Corp., which is the developer of the Wal-Mart. MR. HARLICKER-They own the property. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, if illY. name's going to go on that letter, as the Chairman of this Board, I don't ever recall him asking me to do that. If he did, I never got the letter. Somebody else got the let ter. MR. OBERMAYER-Who generated the letter, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Jim did. -. 59 - ; , .... .,/ ~ ,-,:' ""-' MR. BREWER-That's the first I saw it, right now. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess my answer to Roger's, Roger asked what do I r ecorrunend, and I guess my r ecorrunenda t ion is an easy one. I gues s I recorrunend that you do nothing, because you don't know the origin of the request. You don't have a written request in front of you. Nobody but Jim really knows where this came from. MR. BREWER-I guess, maybe we should possibly write a little note back to him, asking him to come in and present it to us, and then maybe we'll. MR. SCHACHNER-I think first we should find out what the origin is, and it sounds like the only person that knows that is Jim Martin, and he happens not to be here tonight. I think we need to know that before we know what our next move is. MR. OBERMAYER-Lets do it when he gets back, then. MR. BREWER-He told me he'd be here the 28th, that night. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't like the idea of stating that the Planning Board conceptually agrees, as Mark says. I don't even really know what I'm agreeing to. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. I didn't write the letter. The Town Board, they did pass a resolution. We've got Mark for the rest of the year. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 60-