Loading...
1994-07-28 SP QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 28TH. 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 28-94 Discussion Item Leonardo Lombardo 1 . Site Plan No. 26-94 H. Robert Tyrer 15. Subdivision No. 7-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE Daniel R. Barber 20. Subdivision No. 10-86 FINAL STAGE Stonehurst. Section I I 21 . 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. - QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JULY 28TH. 1994 7:"0 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK. SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROBERT PALING JAMES OBERMAYER MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 8th. 1994: NONE March 31st. 1994: NONE Apr i I 6th. 1994: NONE Apr i I 19th. 1994: NONE May 17th. 1994: NONE May 24th. 1994: NONE June 7th. 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES. Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: DUly adopted this 28th day of July. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 TYPE: UNLISTED LEONARDO LOMBARDO OWNER: LEONARDO LOMBARDO & CALLIOPY LOMBARDO ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NORTH ON RT. 9 - WEST SIDE OF RT. 9 AT LAKE GEORGE TOWN LINE. FOR ADDITION & ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RETAIL STORE. ALSO. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FOR FUTURE RETAIL STORES. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 7/11/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 7/13/94 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10. 11. 13 LOT SIZE: 3.851 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 RON RUCINSKI. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 28-94 Discussion Item. Leonardo Lombardo. Meeting Date: July 28. 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appl ¡cant is proposing to construct a 5.520 sq. ft. addition - 1 - to an existing retail building. PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1. Parking requirements have to be clarified. 2. Parking is to be located within the road right of way. There is enough area on the site so that this is not necessary. 3. Lot I ine setbacks have to be shown. 4. Outdoor I ighting has to be shown. 5. Construction detai Is are needed. 6. One of the signs is shown as being in a parking space. 7. Landscaping plan is missing. 8. Stormwater management plan is missing. 9. Access management should be discussed. There are currently 4 curb cuts for this one lot. 10. A 75 foot setback from the ROW is required." MR. BREWER-AI I right, where is that infringed upon, Scott, the 75 foot? MR. HARLICKER-The new construction there. the front property line. It's only 50 feet from MR. BREWER-Okay, and, Bi II, we have notes from you? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. We have some of the comments Scott just mentioned. Essentially, they were just asked to put a note about erosion and sediment control on the plan. We had a number of questions about some grade I ines, and I had a quick conversation with Ron this morning. He's going to, I understood this was a fin a I s u bm i t t a I, but, a p par e n t I Y , it' s jus t for d i s c u s s ion. So he's going to be putting a bunch more stuff on the final, grade I ine, for one. There was a sloping issue for the southerly edge. I had a question about the drainage easement, as far as changing some of the drainage structures. He's not the patterns. He's just cutting a culvert, essentially, but it's in an easement, and I asked for some stormwater management calculations as wet I. Regarding the sewage disposal, I had a question about the seasonal high ground water, and he cleared that up. He's going to clear up some of the perc test numbers, as far as whether it's a six or seven minute perc or not. I wasn't clear from the, he's going to help me out and clear that up on the drawing. Low flow fixtures, there was a D box gravel base. He's going to fix that. Some more detai Is, crushed stone around the seepage pits. Separation of groundwater, he changed the drywel I size to meet that. Some m i sce I I aneous notes. There was a quest i on about how many of these are existing curb cuts versus new, and I didn't real ize they were all existing. He's going to throw a note in there to that effect. There was no loading zone shown. I had a question about the parking totals. Typically, my first guess would have been to use different uses, parking for each use, figure it out, but he interpreted it as shopping mall, and by definition, he's included that it's actually going to be considered a shopping mal I approach in the definition. He used that instead of calculations for that. Handicapped parking space aisles, type of thing, and stone parking. That was it. We discussed most of these today. MR. BREWER-There is somebody here for the appl icant? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. I'm project. Do you want me remember them? Ron Ruc i nsk i . I'm the arch i tect for to walk through those as wel I as I can MR. BREWER-Do you have a copy of Mr. MacNamara's comments. MR. BREWER-Maybe you'd I ike a copy of Scott's notes, too, through them, also. and go MR. RUCINSKI-We'l I take them in the order of Scott's comments, or perhaps we shouldn't take them in that order. Lets address Item Number Two, first. The Site Plan, as it is shown along Route 9, is, essentially, a Site Plan that was approved by this Board in 1990. The parking in the right-of-way, with the exception of this I ittle bit right here, has been there since the State taking for the I ighting of Route 9, back whenever that was. It's an odd - 2 - situation. in that the State took a ~ taking. here. for. don't know why. I think. I had one guy from DOT tell me. back in '90. that when they took that taking. they were going to realign Route 9. and then they never re-aligned it. but they still had the taking and have kept it. They're taking went right up to the front of the restaurant. and nearly to the front of the retai I b u i I din g t hat ex i s t son the sit e . I nth e a p pro val i n 1 9·90 . t his parking lot was created. and the lot that we're now proposing in this area. with the exception of these spaces right here. is virtually the same as the lot that was approved in '90. and I bel ieve there's a I ight I ine on your drawing. a broken I ine. that indicates the gravel. It indicates where the parking is now. and I just gave to Bi I I MacNamara a copy of the drawings that were approved in '90. showing how that lot was approved. Now we' I I t a k e t hem i n order. and I ' I I go back to Number One . We calculated the parking requirements based on a shopping mall/shopping center. and I didn't realize the Ordinance had been revised. I calculated on the basis for 5.5 spaces per thousand square feet. for the Qross area. rather than the net area of the total complex. If we calculated it on a per use basis. it would change these numbers. It would increase the number that I've I isted as 70. now to something around 140. and it would change the number I've I isted as 118. to something in the neighborhood of 170. which seems almost si Ily for a development of this type. and they'd be delighted to have those kind of customers there. but I can't imagine. MR. BREWER-But is that a requirement. can we waive that? they have to do that. or MR. HARLICKER-I guess it depends on how you want to consider this. I was looking what we've got for a definition of Shopping Center. Shopping Mall/Plaza. bui Iding or bui Idings located on one lot containing numerous businesses. services. or restaurants and accessory uses related to those businesses. It looks I ike this could be considered as such. It's kind of a vague definition. numerous businesses and/or restaurants. He wi I I have numerous businesses and a restaurant on here. MR. BREWER-So we should consider that standard for parking? MR. HARLICKER-I think you probably could. what the Code says. Five per thousand is MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. plus he's using five and a half per thousand. which throws a couple of extra in. and I think the new one might say five. even. so he's a little heavy. if you took that definition. MR. BREWER-So he's heavy on the parking as it stands right now? MR. MACNAMARA-If you took that definition. yes. MR. BREWER-So that's really not an issue then. right? MR. RUCINSKI-Not by ~ calculations. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the required parking space number? MR. BREWER-Five per thousand. MR. HARLICKER-Five per thousand. MR. RUCINSKI-Five per thousand is what the Ordinance says now. The previous Ordinance. the '88 Ordinance. said 5.5. MR. BREWER-And he's figured it at 5.5. MR. RUCINSKI-And I figured it at 5.5. Ordinance had changed. didn't real ize the - 3 - MR. BREWER-So, actually, he's got more than enough. MR. OBERMAYER-So that way you won't mind adding a I ittle more green space in the front of the bu i I ding to rep I ace those park i ng spots? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, we're talking about the number of parking places that we're showing here. The comment about adding lot I ine setbacks, that's no problem. We can do that. Outdoor I ighting we would show on the final plans. Construction detai Is we would show on the final plans. One of the signs is shown as being in a parking space, that's correct. There is a sign that's right here. It now exists in the parking. We've actually, in this scheme, pulled the parking back, something in the neighborhood of eight feet, from the existing curb line. So we would be adding green space. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that permissible to put parking and/or a sign in the State right-of-way? MR. RUC I NSK I-They ex i st. They ex i st. They've been there, I've been associated with Mr. Lombardo since '89, and they were there long before then, and I did talk to DOT about it. MR. BREWER-Is it permissible for us to allow that? MR. HARLICKER-Well, yes, I mean. just because it's there. It's an awkward situation, at best. like that, and now's the chance for the Board to get everything so it is on one lot. There appears to be room on this property, so al I the parking spaces could be located on that property, and not in the DOT right-of- way. MR. BREWER-Is it legally acceptable for us to al low him to park in the State right-of-way? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is, it's done all the time, but it's done at the applicant's sole risk. Being that it's a State right-of-way, anything that's in there could have to come out, per State requirements. I guess ~ answer by saying, it's not something that we should encourage. I think I agree with Scott's standpoint, that if there are easy way's to avoid that, because there's extra room on the site. that can be avoided, but we're not prohibited from approving something that shows it in there. The fact that tt approve it does not mean the app I i cant has the unilateral right to continue it. The State º-ª1l. require it's remova I. MR. STARK-Hold off any more on that. unti I I get a chance, when he gets done, because I have a I ittle, new scenario for the front, okay, and I think it might solve that problem. MR. BREWER-AI I right. MR. RUCINSKI-The landscaping plan f i na I. Stormwater management p I an final. The curb cuts are as exists, State when they re-bu i It Route 9, approved by this Board In 1990. would be provided with the would be provided with the as they were created by the and they are as they were MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, does that tie into your scenario, George? MR. OBERMAYER-The curb cuts? MR. STARK-No. I wasn't thinking of the curb cuts. looking at parking. was just MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-In the scheme of things, when the retai I is added, - 4 - at this end, we would close one curb cut. MR. BREWER-So wouldn't? if we made that a condition of this site plan, you MR. RUCINSKI-For this second phase of problem to us, though. We don't need it. trucks. We wouldn't need it then. retail, that's not a We need it now, for MR. BREWER-How wide are the openings, with the curb cuts that you have? MR. RUCINSKI-I think they're about 4Ø feet, from memory. MR. BREWER-And how big is that one that you are offering. that you would close? MR. RUCINSKI-Forty feet. MR. BREWER-So what's the problem with a truck going in another 4Ø foot entry. versus going in that 4Ø foot opening? MR. RUCINSKI-With the location of the miniature golf. the way it is, and there's a sewage disposal system behind it. there's no place that a truck can make a loop around, except using this curb cut and this curb cut. When we take out the miniature golf. then a truck could make this loop, and we could do away with that. MR. BREWER-Yes, but that mayor may not happen. Is that true? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-So. if we have you here now, we ask you to close a curb cut now. then that. for sure. wi I I happen. The future bui Iding, guess what I'm saying is, that mayor may not ever happen. So it could be left out there forever, and we, the purpose would be to close a curb cut. and it may not ever h~ppen. Do you understand what ~ saying? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. I hear you loud and clear. The problem is that we can't meet the requirement for a truck loading space if we don't have that curb cut now. We can agree to t.ake it out when we put this addition on. That's no problem. but trying to take it out now, we've got to be ableto bring a truck around the bui Iding this way. MR. BREWER-So what if we e Ii m i nate another curb cut then. a different one? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, don't want to berate this, but we went through this in great detai I with the Board in '9Ø, because they were saying the same thing for even a smaller complex. The problem is that anybody trying to use this parking lot really has to use this curb cut. This is also the delivery entrance to the restaurant. This curb cut is really the only reasonable access to the parking behind the restaurant. and I 'vecovered these two curb cuts. We're not trying to be difficult. It's just that. as si Ily as it seems. the site just doesn't work. at the moment. without the four curb cuts. Now. if you want to drop the requirement for the loading docks, which I wi I I be talking about in a moment. then we could close this curb cut. MR. MACEWAN-Where's the septic system that you say the miniature golf course, that's a problem? is close to MR. RUCINSKI-It's right here. right behind the miniature golf course. Even if the septic system weren't there, a large truck, sti I I, would have a very difficult time making that turn. MR. MACEWAN-Then the septic system's not shown on this plat. - 5 - then? MR. RUCINSKI-No. It's in this white area. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. drawi ngs. So that That would need to be we know where it is. shown on any future MR. RUCINSKI-Well. it.L.ê.. shown on the file drawings from 199Ø. I can at t a c h tho set 0 t his s u bm i t t a I . It' s s i I I y tor e - d raw drawings that are already in your file. MR. MACNAMARA-That's one of the things we talked about tOday. is him just putting notations on. to indicate some things are. that aren't here. MR. BREWER-We I I. why couldn't he close that one? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. the drawing. You should show the existing facilities on MR. BREWER-So why couldn't you close the furthest. the most southern access? MR. RUCINSKI-Del ivery trucks to the rear of this bui Iding have to be able to come in either this entrance or this entrance. and go around the bui Iding and exit the other one. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe this would be the time to re-plot that out. so that you have better flow through that parking area. for not only deliveries. but for traffic. and cutting down on the number of curb cuts coming out of Route 9. MR. RUCINSKI-We can't do that. because of the miniature golf. MR. BREWER-Why can't you do it? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I don't understand that. either. MR. RUCINSKI-There just. physically. isn't space. MR. BREWER-You mean to tel I me that a truck couldn't come in this. this curb cut here. okay. go in here. go around. come back out. and go out? Is that what you're saying? MR. RUCINSKI-He can't make that turn and that turn. There he'd have to come this way. and he's going to go right that septic. just. across MR. BREWER-So what's the purpose of this driveway. then? MR. RUCINSKI-There is no driveway there. here. The driveway's here. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. MR. MACEWAN-But if you propose to put this addition here for the future retai I area. MR. RUCINSKI-At that point. the miniature golf goes out. and now we've got room to bring a truck through here. MR. BREWER-What you're saying is. then. he has to come in here. go around t his bu i I ding. and back out. and he cou I dn' t come back out. then? MR. RUCINSKI-He can come back out here. MR. BREWER-Yes. but why can't he come back out here? MR. RUCINSKI-And eliminate the southern one? - 6 - MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Why are we trying to el iminate it right now? Why aren't we waiting just 'til they have the future retail. and then we can work it out? MR. BREWER-I'm just asking. MR. MACEWAN-There's no guarantee that there wi I I be a future retail. The opportunity is now to correct it up there. I mean. that's a real traffic bottleneck all the way up through there. I went up there today to take a look at that site. and I sat there in traffic for twenty-five minutes. MR. OBERMAYER-I've never been stopped Lobster. in traffic up by Leo's MR. STARK-Two separate businesses. MR. HARLICKER-It's a shopping center. It's one business. MR. BREWER-One business. It's a shopping center. MR. STARK-Okay. and he's got two curb cuts for that. MR. OBERMAYER-Have you ever been stopped in traffic in front of Leo's Lobster? MR. MACEWAN- was up there today at noon time. there. As a matter of fact. traffic was wel bound. way beyond Leo's Lobster to the north. It was stopped stopped south MR. BREWER-And necessari Iy being stopped is not. MR. OBERMAYER-Stopped. then it's easier to access a road. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think so. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure it is. Why isn't it. then? MR. MACEWAN-Because it was al I bottlenecked up there. There was no gaps. If anybody was going northbound on Route 9 today. MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I don't see what the difference is between four and three. as entering traffic. if it's bottlenecked. MR. BREWER-Because if you've got you've got people entering and here. That's the difference. last month about the four. about a business here. here. and here. exiting here. here. here. and Remember the discussion we had the closeness of the curb cuts? MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I understand that. MR. BREWER-That's what we're talking about here. the closeness of the curb cuts. and if one was el iminated. it el iminates some of that pressure on that road. I mean. because if people are in the restaurant. and people are in the retai I store. necessari Iy. they're not going to go in and come out at the same time. It's going to be this way. back and forth. So. if you el iminate one curb cut. it takes ~ pressure off. He sti I I has three curb cuts. MR. STARK-Well. you don't want to el iminate the south curb cut. because then you've sti I I got the ones that are close. MR. BREWER-Whatever. whether it be the north or the south. MR. STARK-It has to be the north or the south? MR. BREWER-No. He's saying that it has to be the north or the - 7 - --'-,..~--_.._._--- south. MR. STARK-No. He said bu i I dings are bu i It. it could be this one here. after the MR. BREWER-Yes. but he also said that it may never happen. MRS. LABOMBARD-If he comes in here. why does he have to go out here7 Why can't he just come in here and come out here7 MR. STARK-Then you're driving in front of the store. through the traffic. MR. RUCINSKI-We could probably do this one. and. I mean. close this I ike that. but when we put this wing to open this one and close that one. what you're asking. is close one and let him come around on. we' I I be back asking you MR. MACEWAN-I guess the question can't this plan be re-designed throughout the parking area7 1. would for a have for you is why better traffic flow MR. RUCINSKI-We're stuck with a bui Iding here. Well. maybe stuck isn't the right word. but we have a bui Iding here. We have a building here. We have the miniature golf here. We have a sewage disposal system here. We have a sewage disposal system here. We have a well here that suppl ies the entire site. We really have a straight jacket. MR. PALING-What about this spot here7 Couldn't you make that part of your re-design7 This looks I ike just lawn. MR. RUCINSKI-Wel I. there's some huge. huge pine trees there. wouldn't even want to talk about taking those down. MRS. LABOMBARD-Why can't you keep the southern one open rid of this one. then. if that's going to be future7 truck come in there and come around like that7 and get Can the MR. BREWER-I don't see why he couldn't. MRS. LABOMBARD-That way you wouldn't have to alter them. MR. OBERMAYER-Wel I. maybe before your next meeting. since this is a prel iminary meeting. so we can move things along. you could work on a better traffic flow. that would eliminate one of these curb cuts. MR. BREWER-If he el iminated that now. the truck come sti II come in here and go around this way. MR. OBERMAYER-Our recommendation is to el iminate a curb cut. So why don't you take it and work out a scenario and come back and present it to us. so we don't sit around here discussing it al I night. on everybody else's different. MR. RUCINSKI-Wel I. that's why we're here is to find out what your problems are. MRS. LABOMBARD-We I I. we're really concerned about the safety of the citizens of the State and the people that are tourists that are going back and forth. MR. RUCINSKI-We can't compare this to the outlet center. In the first place. there's a three lane road here. There's a three lane road. the sight I ines are good. and there are not a lot of competing businesses. and there certainly won't be for the foreseeable future. because most of the surrounding land is developed. in businesses that aren't high traffic volume generators. - 8 - MR. MACEWAN-Potentially, the parcel across the road from you, the old Cue, pool place, could certainly be converted, somehow, into reta ¡I. MR. BREWER-That's further. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, that's quite a ways down the hi II. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's farther down. yards. You're talking another 100 y MR. MACEWAN-It's not that far down the road, though. MR. STARK-It's probably a good quarter mi Ie to the entrance of the pool hall. MR. RUCINSKI-It's well down the hi II. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's that far down the hi II? MR. STARK-I'd say it's more than that, Cathy. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets move on. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. What about putting the parking to the rear there, the stuff that's in the DOT right-of-way, the nine spaces there? Could that be located to the back there, where you've got future parking indicated? MR. RUCINSKI-You're talking about this parking over here? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-We can look at that. We can look at that. The problem is, anything we want to put in the back we'd have to fi II. The back of the site is low. From, the shaded I ine right in here, is about the extent of the level ground, and after that, we'd have to fi I I. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, if I look at your contours, that really doesn't show it dropping off that much. MR. BREWER-We drove right out in the back of there, and it wasn't that. MRS. LABOMBARD-We were right on the back, level, to me. and it was pretty MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, this is 60S here. That appears to be pretty we I I. This is 60S right here. MR. RUCINSKI-That's proposed. It's low right in here. See, I've re-Iocated the stream, or the ditch, but we'll look at that. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you' I look at the parking re-Iocate. MR. OBERMAYER-So you'll el iminate that, you'll propose to eliminate, next meeting possibly, eliminate all this parking in the front? Did we get to that? MR. RUCINSKI-Wel I, we, for a retai I front. I'm talking about this parking down here. Now business, we've got to have a few cars out MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets go on to the next comment, and when we get done, George has a. MR. RUCINSKI-It's the only way we can tel I people we're open. The last comment on this sheet was the 75 foot setback. Now I was under the impression, and went through my file, in talking - 9 - with Bill this morning. and I can't find where J got it from. whether I got it from a meeting with Jim Martin. last year. or whether I got it from a meeting with Lee York a couple of years ago. but somewhere I had an interpretation that that 75 foot setback would not apply to this site. because of the width of the right-of-way. and where the existing location of the existing bui Idings. MR. BREWER-Mark. did you understand that? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. RUCINSKI-My fi Ie doesn't tel I me where I got that from. MR. SCHACHNER-But. mean. I'm not sure if I have to. I mean. ultimately. it's a Zoning Officer determination as to whether a plan meets a setback requirement or requires a variance. I mean. I don't know if the Staff's made that determination. but that's a Zoning Officer call. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I mean. a 75 foot setback is required along Route 9. from the front property line. There's no indication. in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. which is what this falls under. as to any exceptions because of exceptionally wide right-of-ways. MR. RUCINSKI-Like I say. I don't know where it came from. I know I had a meeting with Jim on this site. roughly a year ago. and then I had a meeting with Lee York. two or three years ago. I don't know who told me that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. we can make that as a note. We can make a note of that. so that that issue is straightened out before you come back. the setback issue. 75 foot. Okay. Do you want to go on to Bi I I's comments? MR. RUCINSKI-Wel I. we go to MacNamara's letter. MR. MACNAMARA-Ron. which ever one's you and I morning. unless the Board wants to hear each them. you don't have to read everyone of the on. unless you choose to. talked about this and everyone of one's we've agreed MR. RUCINSKI- M i sce I I aneous I think that drawings. was going to skip them al I and get right to the Notes. because those were al I technical things that Bi II and can resolve. when we do the final MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-And we get the curb cuts. We've about the loading zone. covered the landscaping something. we'll show proper width space. We to the Miscellaneous Notes. we've covered talked about the setback. We've talked We've covered the uti I ities. and we've and the parking. The access aisles are that on the drawings. We've shown the just didn't show stripi.ng or anything. MR. BREWER-When did we talk about landscaping? MR. RUCINSKI-In that. we'll provide a fin a I s u bm i s s ion. landscaping plan with the MR. BREWER-A I I right. also? Now. this'l I have to go to Beautification MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-And the loading zone. I didn't understand we had settled that. That's still a requirement? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It' I I have to be shown on whatever f i na I p I at - 1Ø - he submits for next month. MR. RUCINSKI-What we'll be using is this rear parking area, for a drop zone for trucks. They'll probably never use it, but it'll be there for them, most of the trucks in this kind of a store, it's United Parcel style del ivery, small trucks with just an arm load of packages. MR. OBERMAYER-Then you shouldn't really have any problem, then, eliminating that curb cut, if they're just small trucks, right? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, that's what I said. If we loading zone, it's a different issue, with Because I'm trying to make space back here for get in and get out, I have to deal with the don't need space for that large truck back frankly, don't think we'l I ever see, we .could cut. can el iminate the the curb cuts. a large truck to curb cuts. If I there, which I, el iminate a curb MR. HARLICKER-See, the problem with that, though, is the large load i ng zone, as you ca I lit, is a requ i rement of the Zon i ng Code. MR. RUCINSKI-I understand. MR. HARLICKER-So you don't have the flexibility there. MR. RUCINSKI-We wi II provide detai Is on the blacktop and the stone pavement, well, the stone. The blacktop exists. We're not planning on putting any additional blacktopping. MR. BREWER-No blacktop there. MR. RUCINSKI-And we wi II, I don't know what happened to the signed copy of the EAF. I suspect that one of the Board members got it. There was a signed copy, and the rest are blank, but 1'1 I furnish another one. When I made the submission of the twelve copies, whatever it was, one of them was signed and the rest weren't. MR. BREWER-Okay. George, you want to go through your? MR. STARK-Yes, well, I've got a couple of items. The first one, how do you mark the lanes, parking lot, on a crushed stone? MR. RUCINSKI-You really don't. MR. STARK-So you don't propose on doing that? MR. RUCINSKI- mean, I've seen people spray paint them, but it doesn't last. MR. STARK-Okay. Second one is, in discussions with Jim, the twelve parking spots in the front. We could possibly lose them. They would be inside the lot size, then, and you could put them still back in front of the store, these twelve right in front. MR. BREWER-Twelve in front of where, George, the restaurant? MR. STARK-Wel I, do you see where the sign is? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-EI iminate that whole area. MR. STARK-Okay, that whole parking right there. where the south entrance is? Okay. You see MR. BREWER-Yes. - 11 - MR. STARK-The two entrances immediately to the south of that curb cut. MR. BREWER-The two parking spaces there, you mean? MR. STARK-Yes. There's the two right there, and then on the perpendicular parking, next to the lawn, the first two closest to Route 9 right there, you know, because you're pul I ing in from Route 9, and if you don't need the parking, ~ put the parking in front of the store, myself, not along Route 9, and that way there, you're inside the lot line. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, the way it's used now, they park in front of the stores, and they use the aisle, the aisle is towards Route 9, and it forces traffic to go around the sign, because the sign sits right in the middle. So what I was doing was putting the parking in I ine with the sign. and putting the aisle next to the bui Iding. It doesn't, either way, it doesn't change the amount of surface. What we ~ do is that there's an area that is now stone. that's about eight feet wide or maybe even ten feet wide, that we don't need to have in stone. So we could convert that to landscape area, which would give you some green space between the curb I ine and the actual stone pavement, whether cars are parked there or not. MR. BREWER-Where that sign is, then? sign there. You could sti II leave your MR. STARK-Just make it al I green area. MR. BREWER-Make it green where that parking is shown there. MR. OBERMAYER-Why couldn't you move all the parking in the front to the sides and to the rear of the bui Iding, and just el iminate the parking in the front? MR. RUCINSKI-It's pretty hard to tell a retai ler he can't have any parking in the front of his bui Iding. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, but these spaces right here, I ike on the side as you enter, they're going to be very difficult, as you're turning in, to make that radius turn, though, and pull in. I bet you these two end ones won't even be used, when you think about it. MR. STARK-You're not going to have end ones, because there's no marking. You're just going to go in and park wherever. MR. OBERMAYER-That's true. You wouldn't even have end ones. MR. BREWER-So what you're saying is that, parking where the sign is indicated on that, in front of the retail. If you made that green area, and el iminated the stone. MR. RUCINSKI-What I'm saying is that we have an area along here. that. it's stone now, that we don't need, so that we could make that green, and then we could bring the landscaping up around the stone where we obviously can't park. I mean, up around the sign. where we can't park anyway. MR. BREWER-How big of an area, though? I mean, how wide of an area would you be wi II ing to make that green? Make it three feet. MR. STARK-Around the sign. twenty feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Around the sign. MR. STARK-Or. no, that's ten feet, one car length. - 12 - MR. BREWER-Yes. but then he's going to be making. like. a "T". right? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. Just I ike I've marked it here in red. MR. BREWER-How wide is that part you just ran? MR. RUCINSKI-This? This is going to be about ten feet wide and it's probably about one hundred feet long. and then at the sign itself would probably be something in the neighborhood of fifteen by twenty. I mean. it would make a substantial visual impact. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Mark. does he need to get some sort of approval from DOT to be within that right-of-way? MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I'm going is. if I understand correctly. already in the State right-of-way. to give the same answer. which that there's a bunch of stuff First of a I I. is that true? MR. MACEWAN-That's true. It's preexisting. MR. SCHACHNER-That's what thought. Well. when you say preexisting. it mayor may not have preexisted the State right- of-way. but it preexists our review at this time. As a practical matter. I'm familiar with many. many situations in which different types of parking and other things I ike that exist in State rights-of-way. I mean. technically. if I were representing an appl icant going and doing that. I would get some sort of State permission to go and do it. only because if you don't. then it's subject to their. as I said earlier. their making you yank it out. but I guess my general advice here is that we don't really have to get too involved in that. other than subject to what I sa ide a r lie r. w h i chi t h ink S cot tag r ee d wit h. w h i chi s. i f the r e are easy ways to avoid it. or limit it. or minimize it. that's goo d. and it' s tot a I I Y at the a p p I i can t 's r i s k . T h at's t he m 0 s t important part of what 1. have to say. is it's totally at the app I i cant's risk. We're not endor's i ng it. even if we approve a plan that shQws that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else. George? MR. STARK-No. nothing. MR.OBERMAYER-I'd just like to say Leo's Lobster looks a hell of a lot better than it did in five years. and it's come a long way. and I'm looking forward to seeing the way it looks in another year or so. MR. RUCINSKI-Wel I. we want to do the same thing down at this end. is make it look better. MR. PALING-I'm a little confused on this. because I'm not sure that we're clearly communicating with each other. I hope so. One of the things that bothers me is you defended the lack of. you defended taking out curb cuts because of the big trucks you'd bring in. but then you just told us later that there are no big trucks that come in. There's nothing bigger than a UPS truck. MR. RUCINSKI-That's exactly what I said. The Ordinance requires a load i ng dock. or a load i ng space. not a load i ng dock. but a loading space. The only place we can put it is back here. So to put it back there. we've got to be able to bring a big truck. in. around. and out. If you can say to me. we'll be satisfied to have you drop del iveries out front. just I ike happens now. then I don't have to worry about getting a big truck back there. I can give up a curb cut. MR. BREWER-I think understand what he's saying now. They have - 13 - - --.~-.'-~-.--'--,,------_.- to provide for it. It doesn't necessari Iy mean that a truck's going to go in there. MR. RUCINSKI-That's exactly right. MR. PALING-If it means eliminating a curb cut, maybe ~ can back off. MR. HARLICKER-That's in the Zoning Code. You can't do that. MR. BREWER-We can't do that. MR. OBERMAYER-Just because you're going to have a loading space, that doesn't mean that that's necessari Iy going to change the size of your trucks entering the place. I mean, your business is going to dictate that. I mean, just because you have a loading space for a big truck, doesn't mean that you have to have a forty foot van pull in, right? MR. BREWER-No. He has to provide the area for that truck to be able to go in there, whether they're going to use it or not. MR. RUCINSKI-That's right. That's what the Ordinance says. MR. BREWER-So he has to have the radius to come in and out of there. MR. SCHACHNER-Or get a variance. MR. OBERMAYER-Or get a variance. MR. RUCINSKI-I mean, I can't even demonstrate a hardship for a variance for a loading space. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from Board? From the appl icant? There isn't a publ ic anybody's here to speak on this issue, we'll be to I isten to their comments. Okay. anybody on the hearing, but if more than happy MR. RUCINSKI-Okay. Thank you for your comments. MR. BREWER-So I guess maybe we should make clear to you what we want coming back, when you come back. AI I of the Rist-Frost comments. The curb cut issue, re-Iocate the parking, come up with a landscape plan, and this 75 foot setback issue. Is there anything else that I missed? MR. STARK-He' I I be on the first meeting in when? MR. BREWER-September. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. We're looking at the September meetings. MR. MACEWAN-A new plat should be updated. MR. OBERMAYER-And you' I I show the existing faci I ities. MR. BREWER-Yes. Wel I, think that's indicated in Bi II's notes. MR. RUCINSKI-That's in the Rist-Frost letter. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Good. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUCINSKI-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. STARK-I have a comment for Staff, that this application - 14 - should have never been accepted. MR. BREWER-Yes. We I I, I ets make it to Staff. MR. STARK-Before we move on. Scott, t his app I i cat i on was very incomplete. I think, and Staff still accepted it. M~. HARLICKER-Yes. they did. MR. STARK-Why? MR. HARLICKER-I can't speak to that, because I wasn't here when it was accepted. MR. STARK-You didn't accept it? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. STARK-I mean, this appl ication was a hodge podge, I think, and it should have never gotten this far. MR. HARLICKER-It might have been that it was put discussion item. in as a MR. BREWER-No. It was on our agenda. MR. STARK-On a discussion item, fine. MR. BREWER-It was clearly on our agenda for approval. ask Jim that next week. So we'll MR. STARK-That's all I had. MR. BREWER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO.. 26-94 TYPE: UNLISTED H. Ro.BERT TYRER o.WNER: SAME AS ABo.VE Zo.NE: HC-1A Lo.CATION: 60 GLENWo.o.D AVENUE REQUEST IS Fo.R ADDITlo.N o.F A 3.Ø72 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND ASSo.CIATED PARKING Lo.T TO. EXISTING ANTIQUE MALL. CRo.SS REFERENCE: SP 52-93 BEAUTIFICATlo.N Co.MM. - 7/11/94 WARREN Co.. PLANNING - 7/13/94 TAX MAP NO.. 62-1-1.2 Lo.T SIZE: +1- 3 ACRES SECTlo.N 179-23 TOM NACE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 26-94, H. Robert Tyrer Galleries, Meeting Date: July 28, 1994 "PRo.JECT DESCRIPTlo.N: The appl ¡cant is proposing to construct a 3,Ø72 sq. ft. bui Iding as part of expanding the existing antique mall. The application also includes 18 additional parking spaces. PRo.JECT ANALYSIS: I accordance wit h Sect ion 179-38 A., t he pro j ect is in comp I i ance with the other requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting publ ic services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C., the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways. The plans indicate that this facility wi I I have five access po i nts on G I enwood Avenue. Staff be I i eves that this is an excessive number and the possibi I ity of reducing the number should be considered. This is a heavily traveled county highway that serves as a connector between Bay and Quaker roads. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. Project generated impacts on the Halfway Brook and its floodplain are a concern because of the plans to direct stormwater drainage - 15 - to a detention basin located within the brook's floodplain. An alternative method of stormwater management should be examined that does not affect the brook or its floodplain. The project was compared to the fo I low i ng standards found inSect ion 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibi I ity of bui Idings. lighting and signs; The location of the proposed building is far enough back from Glenwood Avenue that its impact is minimal. Lighting .should be directed so that it does not impact adj acent propert i es and no new signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; As stated above. traffic access should be reviewed and attempts made to improve and control site access and reduce its impact on Glenwood Avenue. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; There is a sufficient number of parking spaces. The placement of most of the park i ng for the fac i I i ty on the south side of Glenwood Avenue is an undesirable arrangement. An alternative parking layout would be to provide parking in the rear of the lot and uti I ize the gravel parking area as overflow parking. The use of the south parking lot as a farmer's market may conflict with its primary use as a parking lot. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overal I pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access on the mall side of Glenwood Avenue is adequate. However. people parked on the other side of Glenwood wi I I have to cross a busy local arterial road to get to the faci I ity. This creates a hazard for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Concerns raised by Rist-Frost wi I I have to be addressed. Consideration should be given to redesigning the drainage and stormwater management plan so that it does not impact Halfway Brook or its floodplain. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facil ities; Concerns raised by Rist-Frost and the Town Wastewater Department wi I I have to be addressed. 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; Plantings between the south parking area and Halfway Brook would benefit the brook and provide visual rei ief from the large parking area. Wi Ilows along the brook along with a hedge and deciduous trees around the perimeter of the parking area would enhance the brook and the parking area as well as better delineate the parking lot and provide shade for the farmers market. Plants along the east property I ine would soften the impact of the bui Iding on the nearby bike path. The addition of I i lac bushes to the proposed pine trees would enhance the property and provide additional screening between the faci I ¡ty and the bike path. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access is adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways. and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. This issue has been referred to in previous comments. RECOMMENDATION: The above issues have to be addressed prior to any action taken on this project." MR. HARLICKER-It was reviewed by Warren County. and approved. MR. BREWER-Did this go to Beautification? MR. HARLICKER-It should have. MR. NACE-It did go to Beautification. It comments. which were glad to accommodate. copy of the approval. was approved with two Staff should have a - 16 - - - MR. BREWER-Okay. B i I I. have we got any notes from you? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. Our notes are a combination of notes that were made back in October of '93. by Rist-Frost. and those were addressed in this submittal. as well as. he had a change of his stormwater management plan. basically. if you remember. It used to be a. almost a retention basin of sorts. which was actually in the floodplain and. obviously. not wanting to go through the whole issue of a floodplain permit and that procedure. he picked it up and put an infiltration trench. basically. along the back property I ine. and. in fact. he asked me to go out and look at Lt. which I did. Granted. he's got it sized just about as close as you can get to meet the minimum. but it is. within the accuracy of the design. going to meet the minimum. So the stormwater issue is aside. The only other comments we had was. as far as access to the parking lot across the street. we suggested that the parking lot access be I ined up directly across from the proposed access to his new mal I. and that was the same comment that was made a year ago as we II. and I be I i eve the Warren County DPW would probably agree that it would be good to get the parallel. or directly opposite. instead of yet another cu curb cut on that gravel thing. as well as getting Warren County to approve. I bel ieve they have to approve a crossing sidewalk on one 0 f the i. r h i g h way s . T hat's it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom. do you want to address? MR. NACE-Okay. For the record. my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. representing Robert Tyrer. I guess 1'1 I start with engineering comments. We do agree with Bi I I that the accesses across G I enwood Avenue shou I d line up. so that it pr.esel'1ts less of a safety hazard. and what we wi II be doing is taking the existing fence I in. on the southeast side of Glenwood and re- locating that entrance so it wi I I be exactly opposite the new entrance. Beautification had two comments. One was that they wanted to see something to help enhance the area southeast of Glenwood. and they agreed that probably the best way to do that would be some cluster planting of roses or some type of short vines right along the fence I ine. and we wi I I do that. What they wanted is right at the corners of the fence. where the <entrance to that parking, is. something to help define it. plus beautify it a little bit. BOB TYRER MR. TYRER-I talked with Mary Lee on that. Bob Tyrer. the owner of the property. and that area where we have the sp lit ra i I fence. gets a lot of salt from the plowing in the winter time. and it's very difficult to plant on that side. I've done it on the opposite side. because where the structure or the Manor is. because it sets back more. but th i s area. and I even ment i oned that to Mary Lee. that area is going to be a little difficult for planting unless we just continue doing it every summer. on annuals. instead of putting any kind of perennial type thing in there. because the salt from the plowin~ is just going to wipe that out. So we're going to do everything we can just to keep that thing with some type of planting. but it's probably going to have to be an annual thing. of the sand and the salt. MR. MACEWAN-Did the Beautification Committee approve an annual planting. instead of what their suggestion was? MR. TYRER-Yes. She even mentioned to me that if we can't get anything growing there. fine. but we're going to do our best. Right now. I have sorrels with Impatiens. which help. gives a nice look to it. I'd I ike to be able to do something there. but it's that close to the road that it's going to be a little difficult. We're going to do everything we can to rectify that. and to make it look decent. - 17 - MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-The other concern that Beautification had was that they wanted. there's a planting. cluster planting at the entrance here and one here. They wanted the. there's a large deciduous tree and then some evergreen planting around it. They wanted a little more variety around the deciduous tree. and we wi I I accommodate that. Okay. Engineering comments. there was one other comment about a detai I that I wi II make a correct. The pipe size shown on one detai I is wrong. I wi II correct that. Staff comments. with access. I bel ieve that with re-al igning these entrances. we wi I I address some of the safety concerns. This is an existing parking area. We wi II work with Warren County to try to get a crosswalk across. so that there's access between the two areas with a I ittle more safety. The site really doesn't lend itself to putting al I of the parking on one side. along with the bui Idings. MR. HARL I CKER-What about e I i m i nat i ng. and just have one access into that one across the street? MR. NACE-That would make circulation in there very difficult. MR. MACEWAN-If you did one way circulation through it. circular pattern? in a MR. TYRER-We were told by Warren County that we had to have two entrances. an entrance and an exit. We had to have with. that's what I conformed with. MR. MACEWAN-Two separate? exit? A separate entrance and a separate MR. TYRER-One entrance and one exit. So we did that. but now we're just going to move them up to the other Site Plan. MR. STARK-Craig. about that. and one entrance and now. So you're both. and you're the last time he came in. there was a question we agreed to let him keep the two. but to mark to mark one exit. and they are signed that way only pull ing into one. You're not pull ing into only exiting the one. MR. NACE-Yes. Let me point out. by the way. just for clarification. I presume all of you real ize. that the reason we're here. this was before the Board a year ago. or nine months ago. I guess. It was approved. There were some engineering concerns at the time. There was a time period by which those engineering concerns. on the stormwater. had to be addressed. That time period was missed. so. really. we're back here. hopefully. with just addressing the stormwater and asking for a re-approval of what was approved a year ago. So. the only major changes I've made to the plans that you see in front of you. from what you had previously approved. is the change in stormwater. and get it up out of the floodplain and away from a detention basin and into some infiltration facilities. and to take care of some sanitary sewer comments. MR. BREWER-And a new map wi I I be submitted? MR. NACE-A new map? What do you mean? MR. BREWER-Well. think last year when you were asked for a new map showing the changes with the whatnot. and this is sti II a 1990 map. in here. we parking and MR. NACE-Okay. approval. That was not in the minutes or conditions of the MR. BREWER-Well. I don't think it was condition. asked for it. I think we just - 18 - MR. NACE-I wasn't here then. MR. BREWER-I know. This was revised 6/29/94. I stand corrected. MR. OBERMAYER-When drove by fill. in the southeast corner fi II ing in that ravine there? there. I of the noticed some parking lot. pi I es of Are you MR. TYRER-No. MR. OBERMAYER-I was just curious. because you have about 40 yards of fill there. MR. TYRER-What I put there was a couple of yards of topsoi I which I use all the time. I didn't want to put it. I felt the most convenient place was that area. so I didn't want to just stick it anywhere around the Manor. because I use that constantly. In fact. it's almost used down now. So that was just topsoi I for my own use. for replanting and putting shrubs and stuff in. That's the reason that was there. no other reason. and it wasn't fi I I. It's good. clean topsoi I that I had purchased. So I put it there because I was going to be using it on both sides of the street. and I felt that was a convenient place to put it. MR. MACEWAN-That's a correct one. going up and down the street. I've seen the wheel barrel MR. NACE-Okay. So. I guess. according to Staff comments. I'm a I ittle miffed where they're coming from with regard to stormwater. because we have analyzed the stormwater. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. NACE-It appears that these are just a regurgitation of comments from nine months ago. MR. HARLICKER-A lot of them were. yes. MR. NACE-Without realization that times have changed. MR. BREWER-So. really. the only thing you've got to do is a Ii gnment of the curb cut. and you' I I show that on the f i na I. MR. NACE-A Ii gn the curb cut. and show that on the f i na I. and make the change in the sewer detai I ~ plus on the landscaping plan. we wi II make the changes called for by Beautification. MR. MACEWAN-How was it left with the crosswalk issue? MR. BREWER-The crosswalk. arrangement with that. You were going to try to make some MR. NACE-Okay. We wi II get a letter. requesting a striped crosswalk. yes. to Warren County. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there any other questions or comments from anybody on the Board? I'll open the publ ic hearing. Is there anyone here to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-94. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for - 19 - its adoption. seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before H. ROBERT TYRER. and the Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Qual ity 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 unl isted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the app I i cant. 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 Compi lation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi I I have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and f i I e as may be necessary a statement of non-s i gn i f i cance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 28th day of July. 1994. by the fOllowing vote: A YES: Mr. Obermayer. Mr s. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Pa ling. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Would anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE Introduced by George by James Obermayer: SITE PLAN NO. 26-94 Stark who moved for its H. ROBERT TYRER. adoption. seconded With the fol lowing stipulations: That on the final drawing. Haanen Engineering wi II real ign the two entrances to the parking areas. a change in the sewer plan also on the final plan. That they submit a letter regarding the crosswalk issue. and plantings per Beautification Committee. Duly adopted this 28th day of July. 1994. by the following vote: A YES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Pa ling. Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. DANIEL R. BARBER 7-1994 OWNER: PRELIMINARY STAGE BARBARA L. BARBER TYPE: ZONE: UNLISTED SFR-1A - 2Ø - LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY RD., NORTH SIDE TEE HILL ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE +1- 14 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.55 LOT SIZE: +1- 14.32 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MR. STARK-With Barber, what's he want to do, table? MR. BREWER-Yes. Daniel Barber's requested to table, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Are we to hang on to all the information for him? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Why don't we do a quick motion for that right now. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE R. BARBER, Introduced by Craig adoption, seconded by George Stark: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1994 DANIEL MacEwan who moved for its Until some time in August, at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 28th day of July, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Pal ing, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Just as an aside, why did he want to table? Did he give you reasons? MR. HARLICKER-He didn't have the information. There was a lot of information he needed. MR. STARK-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-86 FINAL STAGE STONEHURST, SECTION II OWNER: MAINE ENTERPRISES. INC. ZONE: SR-1A SUBDIVISION OF A +/- 42 ACRE PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS. (RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 10-18-88). TAX MAP NO. 54-7-999 LOT SIZE: 42 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-86 FINAL STAGE, Stonehurst, Section II, Meeting Date: July 28, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1. The appl icant has provided for future connection to adjacent properties as requested. 2. The engineering comments of Rist- Frost have to be addressed." MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Our engineering comments, essentially, were centering around separation distances for the numerous we I Is and septic systems, some of which were fi I I systems, some of which were conventional. After a couple of go arounds, we got it so they're al I separated just, as the Code requires. There was a question about one of the drainage pipes. There was a question about the pipe discharging in the right-of-way, that mayor may not ever need to be ut ¡Ii zed. The f low of the water down that right-of-way is set up now so that it certainly is approvable. Our comments are addressed. - 21 - MR. BREWER-And I know you don't want to say anything. right. Mr. Steves. only that you would request a waiver. the reverse curves as shown on the map. Okay. Has anybody got any questions or comments? MR. STARK-I have a comment. the better developments in out and so on. It's a real I'd I ike to say that this is one of the area. I think. the way it's laid neat development up there. MR. OBERMAYER-It is. MRS. LABOMBARD-It looked very nice. MR. PALING-Are we all set with this request of the waiver regarding tangents? MR. BREWER-No. we haven't given them that yet. MR. PALING-We haven't done that yet. tota I I Y understand that. I th i nk I do. because I'm not sure I MR. OBERMAYER-Leon. could you show us. on the map. what you're requesting? MR. STEVES-That's not a problem. requirement. when you have a curve. length of 150 feet. and I think it's you bring it back to be reversed. So The request from the Code you end it with a tangent been reduced to 50. before you can't have an S curve. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. see. Okay. MR. STEVES-However. the entry into this is consistent I ike that. MR. OBERMAYER-You could have an elongate S. really. of 150 feet. MR. STEVES-That's right. MR. MACNAMARA-That's to meet current. or. actually. the '82 Subdivision Regs. which is certainly greater than today's Subdivision Regs. which is only 50 feet. I think what you've got to take into consideration is that fact that it's a cul-de-sac at the end. It's not as if it's a through way where there's going to be people taking that like a race course. MR. STEVES-A request. In your consideration for approval. (lost word) conditional final approval. What that means is you're giving me a six month period. instead of a two month period. MR. MACEWAN-And the reason for it? MR. STEVES-I do not set Brian Fear's clock. Brian Fear is the Department of Health. is going to be reviewing this. I bel ieve we have everything in order. and that it's approvable. He. more or less. has said that. when he granted the variance for the (lost word) 49 lots. I don'~ want to put words in Brian Fear's mouth. and I don't want to go in to him and find. 30 days from now. that I have to come back to the Board and ask for an extension of time. MR. MACEWAN-Is everybody in agreement with that? MR. OBERMAYER-Can you just say that one more time? MR. STEVES-Okay. I have to go from here to the Department of Health to get their approval. If I get final approval tonight. I have sixty days in which to fi Ie this map in the County Clerk's Office. Brian Fear mayor may not have that ready for me in 30 days. If I don't have it for the next submittal date for September. I have to ask this Board for an extension of time. next month. so I can get on to the September meeting and say. can - 22 - ..,/' I get an extension of time, and all I'm tl~ying to do is cover my basis. If you grant approval, or if you grant conditional approval, it's the difference between two months and six months. MR. MACEWAN-What do you need to get on the September meeting forI MR. BREWER-To ask for an extension. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-It's the same thing that was done for Southern Exposure. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-We just grant an extension of six months to fi Ie. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I think that's fine. MR. MACEWAN-Reasonable. MR. STEVES-Your Code permits it, grant a conditional approval, a six month time frame. Is that right, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. BREWER-So can we grant the waiver in the same motion, or should we do that separate? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't matter. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1Ø-86 STONEHURST. SECTION I I, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: And grant a waiver regarding reverse curves, and also a conditional six month final approval of fi I ing for DOH purposes, for f i I ing of plat. Duly adopted this 28th day of July, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Pa ling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. SCHACHNER-We talked about a SEQRA Workshop, not next Tuesday, but the following Tuesday. I actually wrote a letter to Jim, but he's not here. in which I suggested sending toy 0 ua I I , I did this before I remembered we had a meeting tonight, sending to you all some materials that I had prepared elsewhere, in advance of that, and if it's okay, I'll just give them to you? MR. BREWER-Sure. MRS. LABOfv1BARD-And th is' I I be at 7 o· clock on the ninth? MR. PALING-The ninth, yes. MR. BREWER-Tuesday night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, - 23 - Timothy Brewer, Chairman