Loading...
1996-04-16 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APR ILl 6, 1 996 INDEX Site Plan No. 5-96 Tax Map No. 45-3-24 Kevin Kane 1. Site Plan No. 12-96 Tax Map No. 33-1-3.3, 3.1 & 3.2 Kevin Quinn 2. Subdivision No. 4-1996 SKETCH PLAN Edward Lowell, et. al. Tax Map No. 54-2-7 '4. Subdivision No. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 12-3-27 Colgate Phillips Estate! Leigh Beeman 6. Site Plan No. 9-96 Tax Map No. 98-5-3.1 Toys "R" Us 1 0 . 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 Zoning Board of Appeals) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING APR ILl 6 , 1 996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT GEORGE STARK, ACTING CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING ROGER RUEL CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 20, 1996: NONE February 27, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 20. 1996 AND FEBRUARY 27. 1996 AS WRITTEN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-96 TYPE II KEVIN KANE OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR- lA, C.E.A. LOCATION: 7 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 636 SQ. FT. VERTICAL EXPANSION OF RESIDENCE. PER SECTION 179-79, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUB.JECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 18-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 45-3-24 LOT SIZE: .25 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 KEVIN KANE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 5-96, Kevin Kane, Meeting Date: April 16, 1996 "The applicant is proposing a 636 square foot expansion of an existing residence. This expansion will be in the form of a second floor addition on the existing home. The new height of the building will be 35 feet. As a part of this site plan the Planning Board may consider some type of tree planting in front of the home. This planting which would be on the lake shore side of the residence would soften the view of the structure from the lake." MR. GORALSKI-We've also attached the motion from the Zoning Board - 1 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) of App'eal's and Warren County' Planning BO,ard said "No County Impact". ' MR. STARK-Okay. What about the p,Lantings? MR. KANE-I already have five or six very substantial trees in front of the house, and the addition won't 'go 'abo~e them. So, I could add more trees, if that were necessary, but I have a picture of the house. MR. ~TARK-Did you go down in front of the house, Tim? Neither did we. MR. KAN1~'-I think they were concèrned, on the other one, with me eliminatinglt~e trees, as oppos~d to adding ~ore. k ' MR. BREWER-Idòn't see a problem with that. MR. STA~K-1 don't see a proble~. . ' oj MRS. LABOMBARD-That looks pretty. MR. STAR~-it does. Okay. Any q~estlo~~ for the applicant? , " MR., BREWER-The only thing, what does Staff mean, how many trees do you want planted, and where? MR. GORALSKI-ActUally, that comment was 'made without the advantage of being able to get down toward the lake or onto the lake, for tha t mat tet" to see what the impact was, the thought bei ng that if this building is going to be signiftoantly hig~er, that it looks like a tower, that maybe something should be done to mitigate that, but if the picture shows that's not' the case, then I would just disregard that. MR. STARK-Okay. We'll open the public hearing. Does anybody wish to speak for or against this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-We'll go right into a SEQRA Short Form. MR. GORALSKI-It's Type II. You don't need any SEQRA at all. MR. STARK-Okay. A mo,ion is in order then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-'-96 KEVIN KANE, Introduced by Timothy Biewer who moved f6r its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For 636 square foot vertical expansion of a residence. Duly adopteð this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer" Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr . Stark ; NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 12-96 tYPE II RECOMMENDATION KEVIN QUINN OWNER: NORTHEAST REALTY ZONE: HC-IA LOCATION: RT. 9, FORMERLY SOUTHWEST TRADERS PROPOSAL IS FOR A TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET TO - 2 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) ALLOW VENDORS AT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREA ON UPPER ROUTE 9 AT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN. THE PROPOSED MARKET I S FOR SALE OF MERCHANDISE ASSOCIATED WITH AMERICADE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 25- 95 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 33-13~3, 3.1, 3.2 LOT SIZE: 1.43 ACRES SECTION: 160, 179-23 NAOMI PALEETO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-96, Kevin Quinn, Meeting Date: April 16, 1996 "T~e applicant is proposing a market for the sale of merchandise associated with the Americade festival. Staff has reviewed Site Plan 12-96 and has the follow~ng comments. The applicant is proposing to locate 14 parking spaces in the center of an area which will be used by vendors. This could create vehicle/pedestrian conflicts in this area. Based on past staff recolTvnendations regarding parking for this event, the appl icant could remove these parking spaces and still maintain adequate parking on site. Staff would recommend that these parking spaces be removed in order to prevent interaction between vehicles and patrons of this event. Currently there are three existing curb cuts 1 oca ted on the nor th enq of the site. I n the pas t, it has been recommended that the cènter curb be closed for this event. Due to the fact that the Town of Lake George does not allow any temporary restroom facilities, any temporary restroom facilities associated with this event must be located on the portion of the site that is located within the Town of Queensbury." MR. GORALSKI -Actually, the Town of Queensbury does not allow temporary restroom faci I i ties ei ther, but I bel ieve there are restroom facilities in some of the stores. The motion from last year is 'attached here. It's the same thing. The only thing l. would add is that, as the Enforcement Officer last year, I was up there several times during the event, and we had no problems to speak of. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MS. PALEETO-Naomi Paleeto. MR. STARK-Okay. parking spaces. You've got a copy of John's notes about the Any comment? MS. PALEETO-Well, to be honest with you, last year,we weren't really able to use the parking spots. The parking spots, last year, were not used, just due to the fact that there were a great amount of people in this area. There is quite a bit of parking in the back, which we did not use last year, and I also requested we can keep the middle curb open, just for the fact that we do have a flag man there, from morning until night, so people can see pulling in and out. There won't be, any accidents. There's not going to be any head ons. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. BREWER-What if we a,sked you to close the most southern entrance on it? MS. PALEETO-The most southern entrance is blocked. MR. BREWER-So that's not a problem if we say that there's only two entrances and exits, rather than three? MS. PALEETO-Actually, there will be three. You ,see the round circle that, that's the TeePee, right there in front, that entrance there we have a flag. - 3 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR.BREWER-1;ha,t's the one I'm thinkiI;l& about cJosing" rather than th~'~e~~e~:one, in other .~ords, so th~re's onl~ two'entrancei, and exits, Iq.thèr thaQ three.. I thJnk that was the point that was made', as far às closing the cent'er lane. .' ' MS. PALEETO-I believe if we kept the most southerly end open, though, it would be a Ipt easier for peQple to park, and leave a space in the front of the building. MR. STARK-Okay. Anything else, Tim? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEW.AN-You said" last year, that you didn't utilize the parking ~~acès right along Route 9, last year, ~ecausethere were so man.y' 'people? MS. PALEETO-No. The 14 spaces you asked me to eliminate inside of the veDdi~g,area. MR¡., :~CEWAN-Okay. Thank you. . J, M~. BREW,E~¡-So therè'snot 4- ,problem eliminating them? MS~ 'PALEtTO-No. MR. MACEWAN-Did you have any problems, last year, with the restroom facilities? MS. PALEETO-No. The only thing is everyþody keeps on asking about Queensbury. The only public restroom'on the ,property is in the last building on the left on your map, and that is in the Town of Lake George. MR. GORALSKI-Our Ordinance prohibits portable toilets, but, as I said, as far as l know, I didn't receive any complaints last year or any problems regarding that issue. MR. STARK-Okay. 1;hat being the case, I'll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak for or' against"this recommendation? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Tim, do you want to make a recommendation? MOTION TO RECOMMEND APP~OVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 12-96 KEVIN OUINN, Introduced 'by Timo'thy Brewer who moved for its ' adoption, seconded by George,Stark: Proposa,l for a Trpnsient Merchant market to allow v,endors in existing commercia.! area on Route 9, at the northern boundary of the Town. Toe only condition being that they eliminate the 14 parkin~ spaces in the c~nter ~endor area~ Duly adopt~d this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Sta.rk NOES: NONE ABSENT; Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel SUBDIV'I SION NO'. 4-1996 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED - 4 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) RECOMMENDATION EDWARD LOWELL, ET. AL. OWNERS: EDWARD L. LOWELL, JR., JAMES B. LOWELL, JOANN MORTON, PHYLLIS COOPER & DANIEL J. LOWELL, SR. ZONE: SR-IA LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL INTO FIVE (5) RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 8.212 AC., 8.212 AC., 8.212 AC., 8.634 AC., & 76.275 AC. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BILL ROURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1996 SKETCH PLAN STAGE, Edward Lowell & Others, Meeting Date: April 16, 1996 "The applicant is proposing a five lot subdivision located on Chestnu~ Ridge Road. The current zonin~ of the property is SR-IA. The proposed lots range in area from approximately 8 acres to a lot ~f over 76 acres. The proposed areas of these lots conform with the Zonihg Ordinance and the Comprehens i ve Plan for the Town of Queensbury. The applicant has shown existing grading on the front portion of the five lots. Any future preliminary plat should also include the percent of slope for the back portions of these lots. This information will help determine where future homes cari be built on the s e lot s . The pre I i m i nary pia t s h 0 u Id a 1 so. i n c 1 u d e alOOf 0 0 t buffer around the DEC wetland at thê back of the prop~rties ori' the west side of Chestnut Ridge Road. As a part of any prelimina~y or final plat approval for this subdivision the two structures to the north of the proposed Lot 4 should be removed as noted." MR. STARK-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please? MR. ROURKE-My name is Bill Rourke. in South Glens Falls. I own the Rourke (lost words) MR. STARK-Okay. BILL LOWELL MR. LOWELL-Bill Lowell. MR. STARK-Okay. You got a copy of John's notes for this, did you not? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you care to address them? MR. ROURKE-Yes. Here's the four lots that are going to be, there's an existing two story home here, and it's a split up of family owned property, and the family members are eventually going to be (lost words), not right away, though. T~ey'r~ go,ing to confine the building to within 200 feet of the road. Back, from 200 feet back it's about 20 to 25 percent sloped. There is wetlands here, and there's a 100 foot, we show the wetlands and the 100 year flood plain, and this is the 100 foot buffer zone or line. Jane Lowell, the mother, has a 76 acre parcel. This is 100 scale. This is the 76 acre parcel right here. It goes down to County Line Road. She has no intention of, right now, she's not going to be building on it, developing it. It's just a remaining parcel. So one thing that we're requesting is that, on the 76 acre parcel, Lot Number Five, is to not receive any approvals on the five acre lot, but to receive Sketch Plan approval on the four, three lots on the west side of the road, and there is an existing house on it now. MR. BREWER-I don't follow what you need. I don't underst~nd. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think, if I could clarify, that 76 acre lot has to be included in the subdivision, but I think what Mr.. Rourke - 5 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) is asking is that, they ,don't have, at Preliminary, they would request a w&ive~ from doing topography on that 76 a~res and any other type of inform at ion. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROURKE-They have no p.lans, at" thl s time, for thi s 76 acre parcel. MR. BREWER-That's the only thing I didn't understand. MR. MACEWAN-Can you show me where your 100 foot buffer is from the wetlands? MR. ROURKE-This yellow line right here. This is the wetlands, and this yellow line right here is the 100 foot buffer.' So it's about 500 feet from any buildlng. It's rocky,loamy soil.. It's probably about five :to ten minute soil. So we don't have any problem with percolation. MR. STARK-Okay. John, do you have any othér further q\,1estions? , I· . MR. GORALSKI-No. I don't believe so. there are going to be some waivers that they're go'ing to be asking for, Preliminary, and we'll work wi th them On their appl ication to make sure everything is submitted p~opèrly. MR. STARK-When did you plan on coming in for Prel iminary? Next month? MR. ROURKE-Yes. MR. STÅRK-Ok~y. You do need a motiqn .for the Sketch? . . t' MR. SC~ACHNE~-It~~ mpst appropriate. It's kind of vaguely phrased in the Subdivision ~eg~lations, but it's most appropriate to do a motion, if possible. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1996 EDWARD LOWELL. ET. ~., Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its ado~tion, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Pa Ii ng ,Mr. Rue 1 OLD BUS'INESS: SUBDIVI'SION NO. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED COLGATE PHILLIPS, ESTATE/LEIèH BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-IA, C.E.A." APA ,LOCATION: HILLMAN RD.jCLEVERDALE, RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO .SUBDIVIDE A 12..68 ACRe LOT INTO 3 LOTS OF 8.27 AC., 2.08 .AC., & 2.11 AC. TAX MAP NO. 12.-3-2.7 LOT SIZE: 12.68 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN CAFFRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE, Colgate PhilLips Estate/Leigh Beeman, Meeting pate: April 16, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 12.68 acre lot into 3 residential lots on Cleverdale Rd. The only issue with this - 6 - '''-" (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) application appears to be stormwater runoff and drainage on these 3 lots. Staff would offer a stipulation requiring a grading plan to be submitted with theapplicåtion for ~ building permit for new structures within this subdivision. All corrnnents provided by Rist Frost should be addressed by the applicant prior to any approval of this subdivision." MR. GORALSKI-Bill Levandowski, from Rist-Frost, is here. You might want to just go over any concerns he has. BILL LEVANDOWSKI MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Our letter, addressed to James Martin, Town of Queensbury, reference Colgate Estates, Beeman Subdivision, Preliminary Stage, Subdivision No. 8-1995 "Dear Mr. Martin: We have performed .~ review of the above pla~ received April 10, 1996 and have the following engineering comments. Previous corrments concerning stormwater control have been ~ddressed in the Stormwater Management Report received April 10, 1996. The conceptual design for stormwater retention is acceptable. The report indicates that there will be no major change in pre and post development drainage which would significantly affect downstream properties. No construction details supporting the stormwater management concepts including clearing limitations, lot grading, roof and driveway drainage collectiqn and conveyance to driveway/storage areas, permeab i I i ty of the side slopes 0 f the d r i veway /s torage areas, erosion control measure, etc. are shown on the pnms. Appropriate notes regarding temporary ponding should be included oncthe p¡ans. The detail sheet for the proposed sewage system conforms to Section 136-10 for fill systems required for the inadequate depth of soil due to seasonally high groundwater. Separations, slopes and various design parameters are properly noted. Percolation tests and test pit notes are included. Details are suff~cient for preliminary stage. We believe a short form EAF Is required with the submittal. Please call if you have any questi9ns.Very truly yours, Rist-Frost Associates, P.C. William J.j Levaridowski, P.E." MR. STARK-Okay. John, I thought we said there was a Long Form because of the C.E.A.? MR. GORALSKI-Well, typically, when we have a subdivision we use a Long Form, and I spoke to the applicant's represent:àtive today about giving us a revised EAF because of the change to a three lot subdivision, and maybe they could address that. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. CAFFRY-I'm John Caffry. I'm the attorney for the applicant, Leigh Beeman, who's here with me, and Tom Jarrett, who's our engineer on this. Yes. Somebody from the Planning staff called yesterday and asked for a revised EAF on this, becaQse th~ project has been changed, al though the change is to cr ea te'" 1 ess impac t ra~her than more. We did do a revised,EAF,and I brought copies of that. ,They also asked for addi tiona.l copies ,of the' $~\yage, or septic system design that we submitted last y~ar. , It's the'ì;ame plan. It hasn't changed, and we've go1; additional'copies for the Board members. So we do have the full EAF. I t~rnk þecause of the chahge in the SEQRA Regulations, this is no longer a. Type I action. So it doesn't require a full EAF anymore, but there's no harm in giving you more information than less. So we did a full EAF. I can give that to the Board members now, if you'd like that. MR. STARK-Sure. Mark, is that okay if we go to the Long instead of the Short? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Caffry's correct. I think that's very appropriate. I think Mr. - 7 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR. BREWER-The only question I've got, George, is right here, when we tabled this, we ~sked for models, and ~he models that you have are sufficient? MR. LEVANDQWSKI-YouLmean the mathematical calculations? ~ ~. \ ¡ ¡ MR. BREWER-Yes, the models, runoff. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. resolution. That's specifically stated in your previous MR. BREWER-"A model for all four lots, separation distances stormwater management and septics." That's what we specifically asked for. 'Is that information you have sufficient ,to that point? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Was that one of QYL comments? MR. BREWER-That was our request when we tabled this, back in September. MR. STARK-A model of all f,our lots, separation distance and stormwat~r m~nagement and septics. TOM JARRETT MR. JARRETT-If I could jump in and help you. The report that we revised and subm~tted in March does inclu<ie designs for the two new lots and those four new lots, in addition to the remainder, have now been r~.vised downward to two new lo,ts, plus the I'emainder, and our r epor t i nc 1 udes spec¡,f i c des ign15 foX each of thos e lots. I believe that's what the intent of those corrments. MR. BREW,ßRß-Righ to .I clon' t douQt that. I'm not an eng i n~er . I just wanted to make sure that what we asked for we got, and our eogineer looked at it as sufficient, that's all. -',' -i MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I would concur. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. John, are you satisfied with Rist-Frost's reports, all these concerns have been met and so on? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, I believe so. I think the outstanding issues really are the specific grading. They gave, toe term Tim uses "models" of the grading. In order to ensure that when somebody comes in for a building pernlit, that they actually conform to the grading plans, what we request is that, with the building permit application, a g~ading and stormwater plan be p~ovided, and that we would recommend that YO\l put a condi t ion on it that that be reviewed by the Staff and,by Rist-Frosi at the time of the building per m its u bm i s s ion, and t hat i f we h a v e a pro b 1 em wit hit, the y would then have to come back to the Planning Board to modify their approval. MR. BREWER-Grading and stormwater plan. MR. GORALSK I -Ri g-h t . LEVANDOWSKI-That's d· I, j MR. correct. , MR. STARK-Okay. Well, the public hearing ,was tabled. anyone wish to speak:for or against this project? So does PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT - 8 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Okay. We'll go into the Long FormSEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-You might want to just take a minute to go through, maybe, John, can you maybe highlight what changes have been made on Part I of that EAF. MR. CAFFRY-Since we were here last, the major site modification that's been made, aside from coming up with additional details on the stormwater plan, is that the subdivision has been reduced from two new lots, or from four new lots to two new lots, and the main thing that lead us to that was we had a potential buyer come along, and we do actually have a buyer under contract for orie of the lots, but he wadtedt~o lots. He didn't want one acre. He wanted two acres. So we said, as long as we're doing that, we ought to consolidate some of the lots and so' we went to a two lot subdivision. That also made it easier to come up with a stormwater plan that would meet the Town's requirements. So, the major changes are really just in the description of the prOject, in reducing the number of lots, and it also means less land is being cleared, and all of that. So those are the only real changes to the Environmental Assessment Form. The background data, in terms of the soils and all that, remains the same. MR. STARK-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-1995, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Plannin~. Board COLGATE PHILLIPS ESTATE/LEIGH BEEMAN,' and 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 b~ 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:hon-sigrt\lficanèe or a negative declaration that may be required by law. - 9 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) Duly adopted t,his 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr: Brewt:r, Mr. MacEw&n, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. paling, Mr. Ruel MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995 COLGATE PHI+LIPS E~TAJE/LEIGH BEEMAN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adpption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: One condi tion, grading and stormwater plan be submi tted to the Planning Office before building permit is issued for each lot. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Mr. Caffry, when did you plan on coming in for Final? ,MR. CAFFRY~Hopefully, next month. MR. STARK-It has to be next, month, John? MR. GORALSKI-It doesn"t have to be. ,M~. STARK-Noþbecause a lot of times we ,do the Preliminary one week and the: Pinal the next week. MR. GORAL$,KI-We dQn't have a Final submission. MR. STARK-Fin~. We'IJ see you next month. MR. CAFFRY~Thank you. NEW BUS I NESS: SITE PLAN NO. 9-96 TYPE: UNLI$T~D TOYS R US OWNER: ALBANY PUBLIC MARKETS - C/O NIGRO COMPANIES LOCATION: 708-714 UPPER GLEN ST., FORMER GRAND UNION BUILDING THE VACANT GRAND UNION SUPERMARKET BLDG. ,WILL BE RENOVATED AND, R~OPENAS A TOYS nRn US STORE. THE FOLLOWING EXTERIOR CHANGES ARE PROPOSED: A NEW ENTRY VESTIBULE (540 SQ. FT.) &: ENTRY WALKWAY, A 20' EXTENSION OF A PLANTING MEDIAN &: A NEW SIGN, FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING ON RT. 9. BEAUTI~ICATION COMM.: 4/8/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: '4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 98-5-3.1 LOT SIZE: 3.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-27.1 STEVE PPWERS & STEPHANIE DECARLO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-96, Toys ~'~" Us, Meeting Date: April 16, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to move into the vacant Grand Union building on Route 9. As a part of this site plan, the applicant proposes to construct a new 540 square foot vestibule t,p the front of the building.· Staff has reviewed this site plan and has the following comments. An ingress/egress divider for the southerly drive aisle is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant must provide the divider or seek relief of, this requir,ement from the ZBA. Currently, the parking lot in front of the store ha_parking stalls which are no~ set back from the property 1 ine on Route 9. Staff would reconmend that the - 10 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) parking stalls that are currently shown as being on the property line be móved away fiom this line. The drive aisle behind these parking spaces could be reduced to a width of 24 feet. This would provide for approximately 8 feet of space between the property line and the new parking spaces. This area could be incorporated into the landscaping plan as green space between the parking lot and Route 9 right of way. The configuration of the curb cut at the north end of the property is subject to review and approval by the NYS Department of Transportation." MR. GORALSKI-Warren County approved with the condition that the signage conforms with the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. Beautification Committee has reviewed the site plan, a motion to accept the plan as submitted. They acceþted it as submitted, I guess, and we have a letter from New York State DOT. Would you like me to read that? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-"We have reviewed the plan submitted with your note recei ved here on Apr ill, 1996 and the plan submi tted wi th Ms. Stephanie DeCarlo's April 2, 1996 letter. Our comments are as follows: 1) We have no objection to t~e remov~l of the asphalt pavement between the sidewalk and parking lot within the highway right-of-way. Replacement óf the pavement with grasS and street trees in a manner similar to the area north of the right in right out drive is acceptable. 2) Installation of an end island on the north end of the double row of parking as shown on the attached sketch is required. 3) The circulation aisle closest to Route 9 as designed is a dead end and in peak times will result in drivers backing out into the northern entrance. An outlet as shówn on the attached sketch is required. Reducing the parking stalls from 10 feet to 9 feet will accomplish this with no reduction in the ndmber of spaces provided. 4) The northerly drive at the traffic signal is acceptable as is. Installation of an island separating entering and exiting traffic will require that the' drive be widened 4 to 6 feet and would need to be done in a manner that lines up the lanes with the drive on the east side. Our experience recently has been that at times these islands create more problems than they solve with vehicles running up and over the island. Our practice f~ to design major signalized retail entrances as an artificial highway and use of a raised island is not consistent with' oUr tfesign practice. 5) We see no need to close the right out portion of the \northerly drive. This al16ws Albank traffic to exit the site without circulating through'\:he' Tóys "R"Us lot. If you havè any questions on 'th)s, please contact Mark Kennedy at 474-6377. Very truly youts, William E. Logan'''Regforí~1 Tràffi6 Engin,eer"" MR. STARK-Okay. Would you ideritify yourselves, please.) MS. DIKARLO-Stephanie DeCarlo, from Lehman Architects. I represent Toys "R" Us. MR. POWERS-My name is Steve Powers, representing the property owner. with N i grò' Company, ,,1 MR. STARK-Okay. You have a copy of our Staff Notes from John, and also a letter from the DOT? MRS. DECARLO~Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you care to address those two comments, or the two letters? MRS. DECARLO-Okay. First of all, I don't know'if you have any questions. Currently, the site plan and the landsca~ing plan are not the same. That's the landscaping plan that was presented to - 11 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) the Beautification Committee. This is the plan submitted to the Beautification Committee. This line is a little 'off.. It's not really grass. As far as the DOT's concerned, originally, Mr. Martin asked ,us to address, the DOT concerning the right in right out" ~nd see if. it needed the geometry changed, and Mark Kennedy said no~ ! Mark Kennedy then went on and made some, suggestions regarding the site, and some percolation cOrIllI)ents. We added the islands, as per the planning and as per the DOT. We added also a few more addi1;ipnal islands, and plan;tings, as per the Beautification Committee. We feel that, first of all, the parking is existing, and we'd prefer not to re-stripe and do anything. We:'re already going in. We're planting as per the Ordinance. We are upg,rading this old ,abandoned Grand Uni.on building. It's going to be,. an all brand new"bright shiny Toys "R" Us. We're investing almost a million dollars into this, ,if 'not more, and as far as the circulation is concerned, it seems to work. We added some islands. Mark Kennedy seemed to be a little concerned about this dead end. Jim Martin, when we met, really didn't have a problem with it. It happened to be a 32 foot aisle and, therefore, people could make a turn around without any problem. That's why we're here, as far as your comments. We'd prefer not to change it. We will insist it's not a problem. If you do make us change this, we request that we leave the 32 foot wide aisle space the way it is because when we do that, we only have 22 feet, and the new aisle that~s created, and that's, I think 24 is what's required, and I just feel, I personally feel, and so does Toys "R" Us, that it ,gives a little bit wider access for cars to make the turn and circulate in this area. MR. MACEWAN-Not to interrupt you, but if they had to go that route, and ended up w~th a 22 foot wide aisle, wouldn't they have to come in and get a v4riance? MR. GORALSKI-Np, actually" 24 feet is what the Planning, Board has kind of decided they would prefer, but the Ordinance says 20 ~eet. MR. MACEWAN-What's the problem DOT has with that island? I don't understand. MR. GORAL-SKI-Which island? MR. MACEWAN-The one she's referring to. MRS. DECARLO-First of all, it was shorter, originally. MR. GORALSKI-Right. They want to elongate them so you can't get out right there. MRS. DECARLO-Because, originally, the DOT had a problem with the add~tional cars pulli~g in with the traffic light, at the signalized intersection, and cutting off cars pulling into the site. So they asked us to close it, which we did, and then it created another situatiqn, which is a dead end at the end of the parking lot. MR. BREWER-How big of a space is that between those? MRS. DECARLO-Currently, the tail end of each space? MR. BREWER-No. The space that they suggested you close, how wide of a space is that? MRS. DECARLO-It was an actual drive through, so maybe it was 24 feet. I don't know that dimension. We only closed it so that cars would not be able to pull into the intiersection and block incoming traffic to the additional site, and start the cuing effect onto Route 9. So we closed this up, as they requested, and thus - 12 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) creating another little situation. If you have any questions. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I don't have anything additional. There is one thing. I know this comes up a lot, and it's probably something we have to address, but right now, the Zoning Ordinanée says that there has to be a physical separation between ingress and egress. MR. STARK-The State doesn't care for that, does it? MR. GORALSK I ....Righ t. The S ta te doesn~ t car e for that, bu t they still have to provide that, they would have to then provide that on the, out of the right-of-way, on their property, at this point, unless they wanted to go to the Zoning Board and get a v~riance. There's nothing we can do about that. It s~ys it in the variance. It says it in the Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Even if it's preexisting? MRS. DECARLO-It's an existing parking lot. MR. BREWER-What are they modifying, I mean, other than putting plantings and stuff in? MR. MACEWAN-A modification's a modification. degree of what the modification is. It doesn't give a MR. BREWER-Well, actually, they're putting islands everything else in the parking lot. in and MRS. DECARLO-Excuse· me. We came before the Board as a change in use. Okay. By doing that, they asked us if we would comply to the Beautification of the City, and by doing that, we added the planting, a.nd then it started to snowball, because the City also wanted to know about the right in right out. So we created a plan for the State, and we took it to the DOT, and also the DOT made all these other conments. Right now it's an abandoned, unused building, and we've tried to comply as best possible, but we're here for a change in use, and we're doing the best to be a very good neighbor and fit into the rest of the surroundings in the area. MR. GORALSKI-Well, two things. First of all, when you come in for a site plan review, regardless of what causes you to require a site plan review, you're open to all of the items that are reviewed in a site plan review. Okay. Now, as far as whether or not, because this is a pre-existing situation, whether or not they're required to. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make a difference. I'm just thinking of across the street, Red Lobster, the same thing. They did it. MR. SCHACHNER-That wasn't a pre-existing building, tho~gh. MR. MACEWAN-That was a separate lot. MR. BREWER-Well, a pre-existing lot, though, Mark, the same thing we're talking about. MR. MACEWAN-No, because that was a separate entity from the Plaza. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but they did not, there is no physical separation between the ingress and egress. MR. BREWER-On Red Lobster there isn't? - 13 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR. GORALSKI-There is on the Red Lobster building, but not on the entrance to the Plaza. MR. STARK-There's no island there, you know, like raised. MR. BREWER-Well, after you get in there is. MR. SCHACHNER-To get into the Plaza in the f irst plac~,: ~orrect, but to first get into the Plaza, I don't believe there is. MR. GORALSKI-Steve, maybe you can answer this. Do you know if this Grand Union building ever had a site plan review? I don't know how long you folks have owned it, but. MR. POWERS-We don't own it. It's owned by Albany Public Markets, Wise Markets out of Pennsylvania. , The building was built, I beli~ve, in the early 70's, and then it was expanded in the late 70's. MR. GORALSKI-I' think, really,at this point, it would be your discretion. .' MR. STARK-Mark, what do you think? Do they need a island or not? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that the fact that it's a pre,-existing building, lets look at it this way. The analogy, John and I have jus t been wh i sper ing back and for th, aþou t th is. An analogy we could make is, lets s~y this was, you know, applicants frequently come before us seeki~g minor modifi~ations of previously approved site plans. If it waß ,a previously approved site plan, and we're not sure if it was or not, because we don'tknow.what the vintage of itis, but lets just say it wast then'we.'d be saying that's pre- existing. We would not, typically, assuming it was a minor modification, we would not typically force compliance with the new provision regarding physical separation. That's my opinion. I don't think the Board would typically insist on that if it was a minor modification. It seems to me that this is a building and an access, ingress/egress situation that's been there for a long time. So I think our view is if the Board feel that you don't want to require that, we don't see the need to require that. Obviously, if you think it's appropriate, you certainly can require it. MR. STARK-Tim, you think it's needed or not? MR. BREWER-We didn't actually do that with Empire Video. So don't have a problem with not doing that, but I would like to see that space closed off where the island is coming up through. I don't think that's a bad idea. I don't have a problem not making them put up a (lost words). MR. STARK-They are going to close that, one off. MR. BREWER-Didn't you say that you wanted to leave that open? MRS. DECARLO-Currently, it is open, and we ,did want to leave it open, bu t bas ed on DOT's cOrmlen t s, and ac tuall y Jim Mar tin 0 r George felt that it should be closed. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry, I misunderstood you.' I thought you wanted to leave it open. MR. POWERS-No, it is proposed to be closed. MR. STARK-No, Tim. That's crazy. You'v~ been there. pulling out there. It's tough MRS. DECARLO-We just need a little bit for stormwater drainage to - 14 - (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals) go in the right direction. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-It's not enough room for a car though? MR. POWERS-No. It's three 'feet. MR. BREWER-That's why, because on your drawing, it shows it closed or whatever, but on this one here, there's a separation. I didn't know how big that was. MRS. DECARLO-I'm sorry. I thought you meant 24 feet originally. MR. BREWER-No, no. I don't have a problem not having that there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just glad that you have that barrier up there. That can be so dangerous coming out of there. This has nothing to do with you, but at this point, I would just like to say that the entrance on the north side is so tight when you're going south and you have to pull in. We did thebther day, and I shopped at that grocery store for two decades, and I was fine until that little median was put in there, and that berm was extended. It's just so tight in there, but I guess nobody's gotten into an accident. So we have to leave it there, and you're right, it's DOT, but I just wanted tò put it on record how I felt. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I don't have a problem with leaving as it is, existing. I was just thinking about some recent site plans that we've approved, some that are on the drawing board now, where we're looking to have these things put in, and what kind of potential problems, down that· road, is that going to get from future applicants who say, well, gee, we didn't allow it here, but you're making us go through it. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you mean the physical separations, the islands? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I'm talKing about the median. MR. STARK-Perry Noun Associates down here, for one. Wè made him pu tin. MR. GORALSKI-Those are all new projects. MR. STARK-Yes, I know. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I think that because this is existing, we don't have to worry about. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That would be the distinction. We do not have the authority, on a new project, we do not have the authority, this Board, to waive that anyway, because it's a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, not the Subdivision or site plan regulations. So that is something that a new applicant, for a new project not with a pre-existing ingress/egress situation would have to comply with or get relief from theZBA. MR. BREWER-Just one other question about maybe a couple of more trees in this long section out in front. There's four trees in there. Maybe a couple of more. MR. STARK-That's a pretty long area there. MRS. DECARLO-Well, when we met with the site plan committee and with Jim Martin, we were talking about since we wanted, originally, a larger sign, okay, and it was brought to our attention that Queensbury doesn't ever grant variances in signs. So Jim Martin - 15 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) compromised at the meeting, saying that we could put two on either ~ide, so;that there would be abetter view of the sign. That's why iit was arranged that way, and the Beautification Conmittee accepted it. MR. BREWER-I just think it's a long distance, that two more trees wouldn't hurt, just to separate, I mean, how long is that? Do you have a scale? MR. STARK-It's got to be 100 feet at least. MR. POWERS-There's a bar scale on the bottom, an inch, equals thirty feet. MR. GORALSKI-One inch equals thirty feet. MR. GORALSKI-You've got 14 spaces there that are 10 foot spaces. MRS. DECARLO-They're nine foot. MR. GORALSKI-They're nine feet now. MRS. DECARLO-In that location. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't want to make a big deal of it, but thought it would be a nice idea. just MR. STARK-Yes. You're talking 120 feet, you know, 125 feet. You only have two trees befor,e, two trees afterward, the sign. MRS. DECARLO-We have no trees on the site currently. We put in 13 on the plan. MR. STARK-It's going to be all grassed. MRS. DECARLO-All grassed, and it's going to be heavily planted on the rear edge of the entrances, with shrubs, annuals~ bulbs, and it's supposed to be heavy planting on either side MR. BREWER-Then you'd rather not put two more trees in, then, is what you're saying? MRS. DECARLO-I don't know, it was accepted by Jim Martin and the Beautification. MR. BREWER-I don't want to debate it all night. I just thought it was a nice idea. MR. STARK-There's no plantingson the ~nds right now, and they are planting it. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to see a couple of more as well. MR. BREWER-I agree your building is nice. I don't have a problem with it. I just think that it would make it look nicer. MR. MACEWAN-We did it with your project over there, with Taco Bell and the Bank and Blockbuster Video, so, I mean, here's another spot, and this is what Jim Martin wan,ts us to do. ~. STARK-Well, you're talking a consensus of about 125 feet, with four trees. That's 30 feet apart. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, I think it's a-ctually more than that. I think it's a little more than, 130 feet. If you put one more tree - 16 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) on either side, at 60 feet. You still have 70 feet in the middle. MR. BREWER-There's plenty of room there. People know the building. They're going to know it's there. They're going to go see it. MR. STARK-If you make a motion, include that then, okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing now. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED MOORE MR. MOORE-I'm Ed Moore, representing the Queensbury Businessman's Association, and I just had a couple of questions. How wide is this? It says eight feet. How wide is that green area between the road and the parking lot? MRS. DECARLO-Whatever the right-of-way is. MR. MOORE-Eight feet? MR. STARK-It's going to be. MR. MOORE-Here, it says eight feet. MR. STARK-It's going to be more, though. MR. GORALSKI-From the sidewalk to the parking lot, is that what you're looking for? MR. MOORE-From the sidewalk to the parking lot. How wide is that green area? MR. GORALSKI-Fifteen feet. MR. MOORE-Because it says on here, eight feet, because eight feet is nothing, but it shows here, it appears to be mor~ like 20 feet. MR. STARK-They're increasing it from what's there now. MR. BREWER-I wrote eight feet on one of the plans I had here. MR. GORALSKI-It looks like it ranges anywhere from 10 to 15 feet, 10 to, actually, 12 or 13 feet. MRS. DECARLO-Where does it say eight feet? MR. BREWER-I thought I saw it on here. MR. MOORE-"This would provide approximately eight feet of space between the property lihe and the new parking sp~ces." MRS. DECARLO-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-That's if they moved it. MRS. DECARLO-That's if we moved this entire line onto the property line, and narrowed the aisle way. MR. GORALSKI-It would be eight feet in addition to what's ShOWh on that plan. MR. MOORE-To what's shown there already. - 17 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MRS. DECARLO-Okay, and we were discussing that if we pushed all these spaces to nine feet, at twenty-four, anybody trying to turn in, or even come in that way, it's going to be very narrow, from 22 feet to, 24, feet, making a turn. MR. MOORE-My spaces fal 1 building to .required? next question would be, then, wi thin the parameters of the allow more or less, are they how does the parking square feet of the in line with what's MR. GORALS~I-It meets the requirements, the parking r:equirements. MR. MOORE-It meets the parkillg requirements? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. DECARLO-If we shrink th.ese spaces, we re not reducing or takLngany spaces away. We're going from ten feet to nine feet. MR. MOORE-That's what you're proposing and that's what you're going to do? MRS. DECARLO-That's what (lost words) by DOT., MR. BREWER-That's what's in the Ordinance. MR. MOORE-Right. Because I'm in accordance, and I think the QBA's in accordance with what the Planning Board is trying to move toward beautifying that area, and you've done such a nice job with the Taco Be 1 1 and the Blockbuster, I th Lnk we should continue to do that, and I'm sure the QBA would go along with that and have great emphasis- on that" continuing to 'P\Jsh that green ,an~a, with the maximum allowance of green area. That would be my comments, and I would hope that the Board would. MR. BREWER-I think that's exactly why we were pushing for more tre.es'. MR. MOORE-Right, but if there was even more available, I would say do more, for my point of view. I mean, if there's an island there or something you could. MR. BREWER-There is. They've added islands. MR. MOORE-I see that, but anyhow, that is going to be 24 feet at least? MR. GORALSKI-The green area is going to be about 15 feet, from the sidewalk to the parking. MRS. DECARLO-Curb line. MR,. BREWER-So actually you'll have 20 feet, because of the curb and th~ side walk and then their green space. MR. MOORE-Well, I just wanted to let you knowhow people feel, and I think more trees would make it better, like you said. They're going to know where the Toys "R" Us is. Every kid in Town is going to know where the Toys "R" Us is. MR. STARK-Thank you. Does anyone else wish to comment, for or against this project? MR,. GORALSKI - I have a 1 et ter. MR. STARK-You have a letter. Okay. - 18 - (Óueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR. GORALSKI-"Dear Mr. Martin: On behalf of the ownership of Queensbury Plaza, Ilene Flaum and Flaum Management Cornpany,ðnd on behalf of the Howard Group I wish to submit this letter to you to be read into the record at the Town of Queensbury Planning Board Meet i ng on Tuesday, Apr i 1 16, 1996 rela t i ng to the above noted project. It is our'opinion, as owners of adjoining and competing property directly acro~s the street from the subject property, that we are fully in favor of the developmentànd re-utilization of the former Grand Union bu il ding for a Toys "R" Us faci 1 i ty. We we lcome the re-development of this vacant property into one which we know will be a substantial commerce generator for the Queensbury area. In addition, we wish to convey our willingness and support to locate this premier retailer in Queensbury, New York. The location of a Toys "R" Us store in this market reconfirms our commitrhent that the Queensbury/Glens Falls area is extremely viable in terms of the retail marketplace, and one which will continue tb flourish and grow into the future. In the event we can be of any assistance to ei ther yourselves or the developers of the project we would appreciate your call ing upon us. Sincerely, THE HOWARD GROUP MANAGEMENT CO., INC. Howard Carr, President" MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Okay. We need a Short Form. MR. MOORE-I just wanted to say, do you ever talk about what type of trees to put in there? MR. STARK-Tim will get into that when the motion is made. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 9-96, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before TOYS "R" US, 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 Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal a&ency 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 regulationg of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Ënvironmental 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 - 19 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) 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 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES.: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Tim, would you like to make the motion and include in there the extra trees and what type of trees. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE: PLAN NO. 9-96 TOYS"R" US, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adopt ion, seconded by George Stark: One condition, that the addition of two trees be added in the new lawn to the front of the parking lot, two locusts, two and a half inch caliper. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Do we need in there also that that median is going to be closed off? MR. GORALSKI - It '.s shown on the plan as being closed off. So they would have to. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. POWERS-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-When do you anticipate to open? MRS. DECARLO-Toys "R" Us likes Thanksgiving, like that weekend. So they'll be open before then. to be open the last weekend of That's th€ latest they'll open. MR. STARK-Good luck. John, it seems to be the DOT's position that they don't really care about having islands, you know, and I've gotten this a couple of times, but yet our Ordinance says there has to be an island, and they're a pain for plowing. MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. STARK-How do we address that? I mean, I know we have to have an island. MR. BREWER-The Town Board has to change it. MR. GORALSKI -Well, the Town Board has to change, the Zoning Ordinance. MR. STARK-How do we gOd about doing that? even do it? I mean, if we want to MR. GORALSKI-Well, I would recommend that the Planning Board send a letter to the Town Board stating that, you know, you feel that - 20 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) this is inappropr iate and that you'd like it changed in the Ordinance. MR. STARK-How do yoU feel about that? MR. GORALSKI-The way it's being implemented now is dangerous and worthless. If you were actually going to build an actual curve wi th a planter or something in the middle of it, then maybe it would have some purpose, but just simply putting a concrete bump there serves no purpose at all. MR. STARK-Maybe we should wait until the full Board meets and then we could possibly hash out, maybe draft a letter then to send to the Town Board, and maybe they could change the Ordinance then. MR. SCHACHNER-And'I think if you do that, reference a DOT posi,t1on, because I think that's a compelling thing, and it puts the Board in an awkward position if we have to enforce a provision of the Town Zoning Ordinance in the face of the State ageÚcy that govérns traffic saying don't do this. I mean, the letter today really says that they don't favor it. MR. STARK-Okay. MRS. DECARLO-I have a question. I'm a little unclear about the resolution regarding, the median was settled. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MRS. DECARLO-How about the additional pushing of spaces? MR. GORALSKI-No. Everything is exactly the same as the plan that you submitted. MRS. DECARLO-The landscaping plan. MR. GORALSKI-Right, the entire plan. MRS. DECARLO-Well, the site plan currently is not as the landscaping plan, because time did not allow C.T. Male, the Civil Engineers, to update the current submitted sit~ plan. MR. BREWER-Then lets accept the landscaping plan. MR. GORALSKI - I 'm received April 9, confused, then. I have something 1996. That's the landscaping plan. that was MRS. DECARLO-This is the site plan. MR. GORALSKI-I'm glad you came back. MR. POWERS-This is existing, with the exception of this island. MRS. DECARLO-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I would modify the resolution. I can suggest some language. Okay. What happened was, the original plan that was submitted did not show some of the islands that DOT, in discussions with Staff, had come up with. So what I would reconunénd is that the motion be re-worded to state that, site plan as depicted in landscaping pl~n, L-l, as dated February 27, 1996, and revised on April 8, 1996, be the plan that the approval is based on. MR. STARK-You mean rescind the other motion and make a new motion? MR. SCHACHNER-Or move to modify the previous motion, either one is fine. - 21 - (Queens bury Zoning Board of Appeals) MOTION TO AMEND APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN NO. 9-96 TOYS "R" US, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To reflect 1 that the plan put in fro!)! of us tonight was the landscaping plan, identified as L-l, drawn on 2/27/96, revised on 4/8/96. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-And that's the plan that's the basis of your motion for your approval. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, it is. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-What about the letter that we got back fronl Jim? Did everybody read that? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. STARK-Concerning McDonough? MR. GORALSKI-Ermiger's, the go kart track. MR. BREWER-Ermiger's. I still don't quite understand his interpretation of that, or my interpretation of his letter. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have McDonough's letter. MR. STARK-I have McDonough's letter. MR. BREWER-You didn't get Jim's letter? MR. STARK-No. MR. MACEWAN-,It came mailed separately last week some time. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I read it. haven't read this yet. I wish I had: read this. MR. BREWER-Just in my opinion, I didn't bring the letter with me tonight, but I have trouble understanding it, because he talks about structure in one zone versus another zone, and I think a structure should apply in any zone, no matter what zone it is. MR. SCHACHNER-I, haven't seen the letter, but the definition of structure is whatever it is, regardless of zone. I agree with that. MR. BREWER-Right. Well, I think the way he worded it, and help me if 1'm wrong, Craig, the way he interprets structure as applies in HC-l zones, applies to buildings, right? MR. MACEWAN-Something with a roof., MR. BREWER-Something with a roof. indicate that. Well a structure doesn't MR. GORALSKI-No, a building, the definition of a building requires a roof. The definition of a structure doesn't. - 22 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR. BREWER-Right. The way Jim wrote that letter to us. MR. STARK-Then this is not a structure, is that what you're saying? MR. BREWER-No. I'm saying it is a structure. the word "building" applies in the HC-l zone. racetrack isn't a structure. Jim's saying that So he's saying the MR. STARK-You're saying it is a structure. MR. BREWER-I'm saying it is a structure, because it is, according to the definition of a structure~ MRS. DECARLO-We're back again. MR. POWERS-I have one other question. In the DOT letter, it references, on the side of that revised island which we had extended down toward Route 9, an in and out lane would be needed, in the place of those three parking spaces. Are we going based on the DOT letter, or are we going based on the site plan? MR. BREWER-On the site plan. MR. STARK-That's a closed off. MRS. DECARLO-Yes, but there was an aisle way created by reducing the 10 foot spaces to 9 foot spaces, and creating an aisle along that extended curb. MR. STARK-Right. MRS. DECARLO-Are we going with that? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. BREWER-No. We're going with what we said tonight, right? MRS. DECARLO-We've said a lot tonight. We just want it clarified. MR. STARK-We didn't get into this island, or this runway there, like, alongside the planter. MR. BREWER-No. We don't want an aisle between the planter and the. MR. POWERS-That's my question. MR. BREWER-I don't think we would want an aisle between, how wide 6f an aisle? MR. GORALSK I - I n other words, so you don't end up with' a dead end there. MR. STARK-You know how you would cut out left there. You don't want to go that way, you would take right, go up and then pullout into your exit lane. You should have an aisle there. MRS. DECARLO-That's what I assumed, but it wasn't included. Mark Kennedy told us a lot in: that letter. MR. STARK-This is out, okay. You're going to come in here, park here, rather than turn around and go back out thi sway, here there's going to be, so you can't come out here anymore, so you walk this way and then take a left out, and come out, or you can come in this way, and go, and park here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't understand why there's a discrepancy. - 23 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR. MACEWAN-The problem is that the two plans should have been done together at the same time, as one plan. When they did this plan, it wasn't revised in time with the landscaping plan to reflect the changes that they made in it. That's my understanding of what she said. MR. STARK-We going west. really need right now? want an aisle there, a drive aisle going east, one I mean, that makes sense to have that there. You an aisle there to drive in. Okay. How does it stand MR. GORALSKI-Based on the plan that there's no aisle there. MR. BREWER-Why don't we rescind our two previous motions. MR. GORALSKI-And make a whole new motion. MR. BREWER-And make one motion. MR. STARK-Fine. Make the motion to rescind.. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS TWO MOTIONS ON SITE PLAN NO. 9-96 TOYS "R" US, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for, its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we want to create an aisle here? MR. STARK-Yes, 1. do. I don't know how YOU feel. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-96 TOYS "R" US, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: With two conditions, one being that the two trees are added to the front area where the newly seeded lawn is going to be, trees to be two and a hal f cali per locus t tr ees, aOQ al so ref er ence DOT's letter, that the parking spaces be reduced one foot in order to create an aisle between the parking spaces and the island at the south end of the parking lot. That the site plan approval is otherwise based on the landscaping plan, L-l, dated 2/27/96, revised 4/8/96. Duly adopted this 16th day of April, L996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-I think, George, what we should do is bring Jim's letter in next week and discuss it when everybody's here and everybody has it in front of them. - 24 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) MR. STARK-What about Ermiger, or Levack, did he indicate to you that he's coming back in or what? MR. GORALSKI-Tom Nace indicated to me that they are doing some additional research and ~hat they will be resubmitting. That's the last I heard from him, probably two weeks ago. MR. STARK-What happened to the window of opportunity for' the construction of the track? MR. GORALSKI-I have no idea. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Someth-ing 1 might mention to you is that we just received additional information on the Mooring Post. The Zoning Board is going to pass a motion tomorrow to distribute to all involved agencies. So you'll be getting some additional information that was requested by the Zoning Board on that. MR. BREWER-Just hypothetical, if we wanted to appeal Jim's decision on the structure, do we still have time to do that? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You have 60 days. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sure that letter's not 60 days old yet. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that we re going to. MR. STARK-That's interesting. structure? I mean, why is a structure not a MR. BREWER-Well, it's funny. Maybe if Jim were here and explained his version of it, maybe I would understand it. Maybe it's just I don't understand it. MR. MACEWAN-Can we get him here next week? MR. STARK-I would like to know. MR. GORALSKI-I can ask him. MR. MACEWAN-Tell him we'd like an àudierice with him next 'Tuesday night. MR. GORALSKI-I will let him know. MR. STARK-That's concrete. That doesn't make any difference. The other one is macadam. This is concrete. It's more permanent. MR. BREWER-Yes, but if you look into the definition, George, if it facilitates the use of the land, then it's a structure. MR. SCHACHNER-No. Well, there's more to it than that. MR. GORALSKI-The other point, and like I said, I haven't read Jim's letter, is that it can be a structure. A structure does not have to meet the setback. A building has to meet the setback. That was Jim's basic position. MR. BREWER-"Any object constructed, installed or permanently placed on land to facilitate land use and development or subdivision of land". MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe he's saying that that track is not a - 25 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals) structure. What he's saying is that track is not a building, and the setback applies to buildings. MR. SCHACHNER-As opposed to structures, and I haven't seen his letter either, but the definition of, you've accurately recited the definition of structure, but if setback applies to building as opposed to structure, the way building is defined is "Any structure which is permanently affixed to the land, is covered by a roof supported by columns or walls and is intended for shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or chattels." So, if in fact, a setback requirement, I'm speaking without having the benefit of Jim's letter, but if in fact the setback requirement applies to buildings as opposed to structures, then I think it's pretty easy to reach the conclusion that the proposed track is not a building, and therefore not subject to the setback. MR. BREWER-Well, I think the confusion, Mark, comes in where he says that these setbacks apply to buildings in HC-l zones. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, we don't have the letter. MR. BREWER-No. I understand. I'm just taking it off the top of my head. MR. SCHACHNER-You're correct that it would not be a zone specific thing. MR. BREWER-I think that's where my confusion is. MR. MACEWAN-The way Mark and John have jus t put th is, now understand where he's coming from. MR. BREWER-Right, I do, too. MR. MACEWAN-The analogy that he's using is that, although the berm and this concrete slab that the track is made up of is a structure, it does not have to require the setback. MR. SCHACHNER-Unless it's a building. MR. MACEWAN-Unless it's a building. MR. BREWER-See, I think what he's saying is one applies in one zone and not the other zone, and that's where have a problem. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. If he's saying that, I would agree with you, but I don't know. MR. SCHACHNER-We're operating in a vacuum without his letter, but I doubt that he's doing a zone specific thing. It may be worded awkwardly, or who knows what, but I doubt that he is intended it as a zone specific thing. MR. BREWER-I'll look at the letter tomorrow, and I'll call Jim. MR. GORALSKI-Give him a call. MR. BREWER-And if that's the case, then I would like him here, but if that's not the case, then. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Give him a call. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, George Stark, Acting Chairman - 26 -