Loading...
1996-05-21 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 16-96 Tax Map No. 40-1-5.2 Terry M. Thomas 1. Site Plan No. 17-96 Tax Map No. 60-7-11.2, 11.7 Dr. Roger Brassel, M.D. 3. Subdivision No. 3-1996 FINAL STAGE Berkshire-Queensbury L.L.C Tax Map No. 130-3-18 6 . Site Plan No. 8-96 Tax Map No. 130-3-18 Berkshire Acquisition 8 . Subdivision No. 21-1989 FINAL STAGE MODIFICATION Cross Roads Park Tax Map No. 48-3-34 32. Subdivision No. 8-1995 FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 12-3-27 Colgate Phillips Estate/ Leigh Beeman 39. DISCUSSION ITEM Morgan Vittengl 42. 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 5/21/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK DAVID WEST CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL LEVANDOWSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 19, 1996: NONE March 26, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES DATED 3/19/96 AND 3/26/96, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-96 TYPE II TERRY M. THOMAS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: RT. 9, TURN ONTO GLEN LK. ROAD, TAKE RIGHT AT ASH DRIVE TO 35 CANTERBURY DRIVE (PRIVATE RD.) PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD A 8' X 30' DOCK. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 4,356 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 TERRY THOMAS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-96, Terry Thomas, Meeting Date: May 21, 1996 "'rhe applicant is seeking Site Plan approval for a 8 foot by 30 foot dock to be located on his property on Glen Lake. The proposed dock conforms to all Ordinance requirements. No negative impacts are foreseen and Planning Staff would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 16-96 as submitted. II With one condition. We would ask that the applicant seek a building permit, as required, and that would be our only condition of this site plan. MR. PALING-All right. I have to ask the question why you didn't bother to go through the process before it was built. MR. THOMAS-Well, it was an unusual circumstance where, because of the rainy weather, the guy that I had contracted to do the dock, - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) with all the rain up in Lake George, the water level is so high, he couldn't do the dock he was supposed to do. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. Would you identify yourself please? MR. THOMAS-My name's Terry M. Thomas. So he had a lapse of about a week before he could do his other job, and he called up and said I can do it now. . I mean, it's really the only time I could do it, because now I'm in Albany, and I stay down there during the week, my job, and so I wouldn't be around. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, I'm sure you would have been a very disappointed man if were, for some reason tonight, this is rejected and you had to take the dock down. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I would. MR. PALING-Yes. I would think so. MR. RUEL-It's built? MR. PALING-It's pretty much. Yes, it is. Sitting right out there with all that fresh lumber showing. So you can't hide it. MR. RUEL-Just one comment here. I'm sure you're aware of it, but using treated lumber, the non leaching type? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BREWER-Who's built it? MR. THOMAS-The last name is Callahan, Sean Callahan. MR. PALING-Does anyone else on the Board have any questions? MR. BREWER-I don't have any problem, but I'd just like to reiterate that, a year ago, or two years ago, we talked about docks and small little projects like this not having to come here. Is anything happening with that? Did he have to go to Warren County, too? MR. HILTON-Yes, and I have a resolution here which I'd also like to read into the record, but first of all, let me answer your question. I understand that there was some type of, we were looking to make these easy projects so they didn't have to come before the Board, or maybe if they came before the Board, they could receive maybe a blanket approval, or some kind of easier step. I understand that that, we're still trying to work with that. As a matter of fact, last week Jim discussed it with me for the first time. So I think it's pretty much handed over to me, and I'm going to pursue it. MR. BREWER-You'll have it done next Tuesday? MR. HILTON-Well, I don't know about that soon, but we're going to pursue it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Did you say you wanted to read something into the record? MR. HILTON-Yes, I do. At the May 8th meeting of the Warren County Planning Board this application was heard and No County Impact was the recommendation from the County, and it's signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. If there are no other questions or comments. We can go right to the public hearing. The public - 2 - '-..,.' - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) hearing on this matter is open. Does anyone care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. So we don't need a SEQRA. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-96 TERRY M.THOMAS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To build an eight by thirty foot dock, with the condition that he has to obtain a building permit prior to May 31st. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Is there a time limit for when he has to get his building permit? MR. HILTON-It's kind of hard, in a situation like this, to say, you know, give him a time frame. MR. BREWER-Give him a week to obtain it. MR. HILTON-Unless you want to maybe put a two week time limit, maybe, on it. MR. THOMAS-I'll be back from Albany Friday. MR. PALING-Why don't you amend to put a date of a couple of weeks. Okay? MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir. MR. RUEL-With the condition that a building permit be obtained within two weeks. MR. BREWER-How about the end of the month. MRS. LABOMBARD-May 31st is Friday. MR. RUEL-All right. That a building permit be obtained prior to May 31st. MR. PALING-That's okay with you? MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-All right. So May 31st is the day then. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West MR. PALING-Please apply before building next time. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 17-96 TYPE II DR. ROGER BRASSEL, M.D. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 535 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION OF A 44'0 X 20'0 WAITING ROOM TO EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. ALL USES IN MR-5 ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) 5/6/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-11.2, 11.7 LOT SIZE: 1.102 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 DR. ROGER BRASSEL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-96, Dr. Roger Brassel, Meeting Date: May 21, 1996 "The applicant is seeking site plan approval to construct a new 880 square foot addition to an existing office building. This addition is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff would look for some form of storm water retention to be shown on any plans submitted for a building permit. Staff would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 17-96." MR. HILTON-Now we also have Warren County, who on the 8th of May met and reviewed this item, and their recommendation was No County Impact. Signed C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to do the Beautification, too? MR. HILTON-Yes. The Beautification Committee, on May 6, 1996, met and reviewed this item, and they voted for approval. A motion was made by Mr. Lorenz, seconded by Mrs. Reese, and it was approved on that date. MR. PALING-Now when you say approved, there are changes that that letter requests be made. MR. HILTON-I'm not sure if this isn't a blanket, like a form letter now, that they're using for all applications, but I will go ahead and read the rest of it into the record. MR. PALING-Yes. Is that last paragraph boilerplate? Is that all, are they doing that every time? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-But it doesn't mean anything. MR. RUEL-I think what the Beautification Committee is saying is that they approve the plans. MR. HILTON-Yes. All the other language beneath that, I think, is, you're going to find it in all other Beautification Committee resolutions or recommendations. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, not just the last paragraph. Items Number One and Two, "go on record that it does not approve nonconforming signs, plastic or artificial trees", that's in every single Beautification Committee recommendation. MR. PALING-All right. Well, we can ask the applicant, in a minute, if they're familiar with the letter. MR. HILTON-Seeing as the rest is going to be in every letter, no further comment from the Beautification Committee, and I have no further comments. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. DR. BRASSEL-I'm Dr. Roger Brassel, the owner of the property. MICHAEL EDDY MR. EDDY-And I'm Michael Eddy, Eddy Enterprises, the contractor. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Are you familiar with the Staff comments, that they talked about the storm water runoff? - 4 - -.",¿' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. EDDY-Yes. which we would drain, because space. They wanted a storm drain around the foundation, show on the formal print, as to being a foundation that's only on a crawl space, a four foot crawl MR. PALING-Okay. So you will show that on final plans, as they're requesting it, and how about the Beautification Committee? Are you familiar with their letter? Is that okay with you, screening, planting hiding the dumpsters and all that? MR. BREWER-It doesn't affect that anyway. MR. RUEL-It's on here. MR. EDDY-There's a fence that covers that area from the existing, no change in that area. MR. PALING-Okay. Comments? MR. RUEL-Where was the waiting room before? DR. BRASSEL-This will be in addition to the present waiting room which will be on your plans there is on the south side of the building, on the western end. MR. BREWER-It's actually right where it says existing offices, right to the back there. MR. PALING-Yes, here is the waiting room. MR. RUEL-Now. MR. PALING-The present one, yes. MR. RUEL-And this is the addition? MR. PALING-No. The addition is. MR. RUEL-Right here? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. EDDY-This is the existing waiting room here. This is (lost words) which are existing buildings here, and this is the proposed. MR. RUEL-Okay, thank you. MR. EDDY-This existing elevation, showing how we'll clean it up, and drawing all the rough lines, instead of breaking up. This is the ridge line, which is an addition in here. MR. PALING-How about the affect on parking spaces? What do you end up with there? DR. BRASSEL-We don't change that at all. MR. EDDY-We're not adding any office space. changing a waiting room. All we're doing is MR. PALING-But that takes a couple of spaces? MR. EDDY-No. MR. BREWER-No, it doesn't take any. MR. EDDY-The addition is a paved area on this print that was not a paved or a parking area in existence. MR. PALING-Okay. There is a public hearing on the matter for this - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) evening, which we will open now, and ask if anyone would like to talk about this subject. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. MR. BREWER-I just wanted to mention. I know there's handicapped parking there, but it's not noted on the plan. Yes, it is, way over here. I'm sorry. I'm thinking over here where the Town and Country is, and where you're putting the addition, because that's kind of broken apart, that parking lot. There is parking there. It's just not noted on the plan. I've been to your office. So I know that there is. MR. EDDY-There's handicapped ramps and handicapped parking. MR. PALING-There's a new ramp that goes with the addition. Yes. DR. BRASSEL-We've got the best ramps in town. You can wheel anything you want on there. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. I guess we can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-96 DR. ROGER BRASSEL, M.D., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To construct an addition of a 44' by 20' waiting room for existing office building, with the condition that a stormwater retention plan be shown on the plans prior to obtaining a building permit. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1996 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BERKSHIRE- QUEENS BURY L.L.C. OWNER: KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA BARON ZONE: CR- 15 LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF MAIN ST., & WESTERN AVE. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.01 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS OF 1.01 ACRES AND 1.00 ACRES. CROSS REF.: AV 23-1996, SP 8-96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-The public hearing is still open, I'm pretty sure, on this one, isn't it? MR. RUEL-It was April 23rd. MR. PALING-I don't think we would have closed it off. MR. SCHACHNER-It's already been approved for Preliminary and not it's on for Final. I doubt that the public hearing's still open. If the public hearing were still open, you wouldn't have been able to approve it for Preliminary. So I don't think that's the case. - 6 - ..- ',,-, -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-You think it's closed. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe, on Preliminary, I believe so. MRS. LABOMBARD-So the public hearing was on April 23, 1996. MR. RUEL-This is just subdivision, right? MR. PALING-This is Final subdivision, right. All right. Then there will not be a public hearing on this tonight. Okay. George, how about your comments. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1996 FINAL STAGE, Berkshire- Queensbury L.L.C., Meeting Date: May 21, 1996 "The applicant is seeking final stage approval of a two lot commercial subdivision located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Western Avenue. Preliminary approval for this subdivision was granted by the Planning Board on April 23, 1996. The Preliminary phase of this subdivision was approved without a sketch plan approval. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting that the sketch plan requirement be waived by the Planning Board. The motion to approve the Preliminary phase of this subdivision has to be amended to include language waiving the sketch plan requirement if the Final phase is to be considered at this time. Staff does not have a problem doing this and would also recommend approval of this Final phase subdivision No. 3-1996." MR. PALING-Now does anybody have any problem with what George is saying about the Preliminary modifying the motion to include that? MR. RUEL-That's okay. MR. PALING-Why don't we clear that first, I think. We should rescind the motion, I would assume, and then make a new one, or can we modify? MR. HILTON-I think you may be able to just modify. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine if you want to modify it. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRELIMINARY STAGE OF SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1996 BERKSHIRE-QUEENSBURY L.L.C., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Amended to include waiving of the Sketch Plan requirement. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MåcEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. We can move right into the Final of this. George, do you want to comment now on the part we're moving into also? MR. HILTON-Well, at this point, we are looking at Final subdivision approval, and Staff is comfortable with this portion. We will have some comments at the time of Site Plan, which is the next item, but - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) as far as this particular item goes, we would recommend approval of this subdivision. MR. PALING-Yes. This does go right into Site Plan, and I'm not even sure where some of these subjects are going to come up, but I have a carryover list of six from the previous meeting. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. LAPPER-I think those are Site Plan issues. MR. PALING-Yes. We can do the subdivision part now, and do that at Site Plan. Yes. Okay. Do we have any questions or comments on the Final? Okay. Do we have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1996 -BERKSHIRE- QUEENS BURY L.L.C., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Proposal is to subdivide a 2.01 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.01 acres and 1.00 acres. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-96 TYPE II BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION OWNERS: KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA BARON ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF MAIN ST., & WESTERN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 8,700 SQ. FT. CVS AND ADJACENT 6,000 SQ. FT. DOCTOR'S OFFICE BUILDING. PER SECTION 179- 24 RETAIL BUSINESS AND OFFICE BUILDING ARE TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USES SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 23-1996 SUB. 3-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/6/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-96, Berkshire Acquisition, Meeting Date: May 21, 1996 "The applicant is proposing the construction of an 8,700 square foot CVS pharmacy and a 6,000 square foot doctor's office on two lots located at the northwestern corner of Main Street and Western Avenue. This application was reviewed by the Planning Board as a discussion item on April 23, 1996. At that time staff issued comments and concerns about the site plan. Most of the concerns of staff have been resolved by the applicant. The only remaining concern appears to be stormwater management and future sewer and water connections." Earlier today, I met with the applicant, and we have resolved those issues. Everything is satisfactory to Planning Staff. "Staff will be meeting with the applicant prior to hearing this application and should have a resolution before the May 21, 1996 meeting. Subject to resolving these concerns, staff would recommend approval of Site Plan No. 8-96." MR. BREWER-It says on your notes, George, that 6,000 and 8,700, but on the plan it says 3600 and 8775. MR. LAPPER-The 36 gets combined with the other 3,000. Jon Lapper, - 8 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) for the record, representing the applicant. On the north side of the parcel, it's broken down into two spaces, the chiropractor's office and then the rental space. MR. BREWER-All right. I'm sorry, 36 and 3. All right. MR. RUEL-In that portion. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. RUEL-And then 80 something below. Okay. MR. BREWER-Right. I was just reading it 36, 34. MR. PALING-Okay. There is a Beautification Committee letter in this also, but I believe it's the same kind that we've just talked about. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Does anyone on the Board have any questions at the moment? MR. RUEL-Yes. The one question I have, on the temporary parking, you show here on the left side of the property future access to adjacent land. How wide is that parking space? For future access here, don't you need a greater width than what you have show there? JOHN CARUSO MR. CARUSO-My name is John Caruso. I'm the engineer from Passaro Associates. Actually, that was an original location where we centered a place for access to the site, but we've actually improved that by putting two access easements at the entrances of the property at Luzerne and Main Street, as requested by Planning Staff. So we really don't even need to do that, but to answer your question, a nine foot per stall, 27 feet overall. MR. RUEL-Yes. I see, all three? MR. CARUSO-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, what were you talking about the entrance? MR. CARUSO-Well, it was a comment that was brought up at the discussion, and Mr. Paling also, that at the access points to the site right here, right here it says provide access to the adjacent parcels if they are ever developed? MR. RUEL-Right. MR. CARUSO-We have an easement written over the top of that. MR. RUEL-I see. I don't have it here, right? MR. BREWER-Yes, you do. It's on there. MR. RUEL-What sheet is that? MR. CARUSO-On this drawing here. MR. RUEL-Here it is. Future access easement. MR. CARUSO-And this is the easement here, so they can come in and the same down here. MR. RUEL-Down here. Okay. Fine. What's the elevation next door? - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) It's up about what, 10, 12 feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-What way, west? MR. RUEL-West. MR. CARUSO-Westerly. Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-That little yellow house is. MR. LAPPER-We're talking about on the north side, on the Luzerne Road side. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. I think I'll just read from the list of notes which sometimes aren't totally accurate, but I had listed areas for discussion or whatever, water runoff, which I know is covered, left turn on Main Street, move the dumpster, the concern with the 45 foot turning radius for emergency vehicles, ingress/egress on the west and easement on the west. Now the easement on the west, that's done isn't it? MR. LAPPER-That's what we just talked about. MR. PALING-That's what we're talking about now. So that's off the books. MR. RUEL-So's the 45 degree. MR. PALING-Yes, and that's taken care of, and the ingress/egress on the west is taken care of, too. How about the dumpster? MR. CARUSO-The dumpster has been re-located. MR. RUEL-That's a compactor, right? MR. CARUSO-This is the rendering from last month. MR. LAPPER-John, is it a compactor or is it a dumpster? MR. CARUSO-I'm sorry. It's a compactor. MR. PALING-I had dumpster/compactor. MR. CARUSO-Right here, in this area, we show along, if you're looking at the plan, it's along the western property line. We re- located the dumpster/compactor from here to here, so that a tractor trailer could park here now out of the way and unload into the loading dock, loading doors. MR. PALING-Yes. All right. MR. CARUSO-And so we just built another parallel place where the tractor trailer parks. The issue at hand last time was, if it was parking in the fire lane, it would block. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. All right. That leaves two items that I'll turn over to you gentlemen, water runoff and the left turn on Main Street. MR. LAPPER-We brought our architect with us for the new Board member, if you wanted us to go through the presentation. MR. PALING-Summarize it? - 10 - -- - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. WEST-Yes, that would be good. Thanks. NORBERT HAUSNER MR. HAUSNER-I'm Norbert Hausner with N.H. Architecture. I could take you through it quickly. You guys have all got plans in front of you, so you can understand at the bottom of this plan is the CVS and at the top of the plan is the Doctor's Office. In the middle, that heavy line that you're seeing in there is the subdivision line, and the bottom of the subdivision line, at this point, there's a retail location. What we're proposing here is sketches here. I'll pass around an elevation you can look at. The CVS building, which this is the corner of it, quickly, this is a new prototype design for CVS, the brick clad building that has elements of kind of suburban type of construction, if you will, very eclectic. There's some dental work across the top of it. This is an efface system, kind of a simuntious coating over an insulation, an insulation system. What we've done here is we've put superimposed on the CVS sign logos. Those are channel letters, all illuminated over the top of an efface system, totally surrounded by some detail around the outside. Again, the efface, some columns along the edges, some nice glazing across the front. What you're looking at here is quite unique for this type of operation, the CVS being "the neighborhood drugstore" kind of theme, wants to enter into the suburbs in kind of a compatible type of fashion. What we're seeing in the front, and if you'll look at those renderings, you'll see two different CVS', the one with the sloped roof on it is what is actually happening on this site. The sloped roof gives us kind of a residential character, and these (lost word) or panels along this window plane basically hide the counters and things along on the inside of the retail application, and give it a little bit of a residential character. There's a little line across the front as well, some columns holding up that entablature, and along the sides of the building in this particular site are some gooseneck lamps that will wash the facade of that brick as it goes around the building. What happens in each one of these repetitive sections is a great deal of detail, that is (lost words) that basically undulates with soldier courses and recesses, going in and out along the site, and I've brought along some material samples, so you can take a look at the color. Those are actual representations of the brick and the shingle and the efface colors as well on that plane. What you're seeing over here on the side is a drive through, kind of tucked in along the long plane of the building. Again, it has that same dental detail. This brick scheme that goes around the building is on all sides of the CVS. The building is meant to be kind of a unique application. Usually the CVS are freestanding. This is combining, and with the doctor's facility, we're trying to integrate the building so that it can of looks like a homogeneous plaza, and on the other end of the building, we have the total care chiropractic, which is the other tenant here. He has a very similar architectural technique across the front wíth the dental work, but we're eliminating the kind of residential hip roof on that side. You'll see a little bit of that over here on this side. What you're not seeing in the elevation here is that the Luzerne side of the building is actually corbeled or stepped back, as the site is kind of an angled driveway. Luzerne is angled in the front of the building. So we've kind of corbeled the building so that it presents itself, we think, better to the plaza and kitty corner to it. This back side of the building, if you get a chance to look at this up close later you'll see that they're not turning their back to the neighborhood. This portion of the building has the same undulations and details on it. It's not the back. We think of all four sides as fronts, if you will. Again, there's these goosenecked lamps. The building will be well lit. John has all kinds of details on the plans regarding footcandles and illumination for the site. So it's well lit with - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) regard to its security application. A good deal of vegetation, as you can see, on the site plan. It's fairly extensive. These people want to be a good neighbor, and we're thinking that we're trying to show you here exactly that in the architecture. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. RUEL-Yes, I have a question. You mentioned the sloped roof lends residential character. However, 80% of the building is flat roof. Why don't you think of a sloped roof at the other end, since this is a transitional zone between residential and commercial? The emphasis here is mostly commercial and it's mostly flat. You have very little residential character in that whole building. MR. HAUSNER-I guess that's kind of a matter of interpretation. We're trying to set the CVS element apart from the chiropractic organization, and we think if they had identical roof lines, that they'd be competitive in themselves. I mean, you're talking retail and medical office. So we don't want a confusion building up on the site. We've got this rather lower end use tucked back in on the site. We'd like to see a differentiation. We think that the residential flavor of the building up on a rather active street will help to soften this street. MR. RUEL-Could be. MR. HAUSNER-It's also a substantial sized building to have a sloped roof on the whole thing. MR. RUEL-No. I wasn't suggesting that. I was just thinking perhaps a little bit at the other end. However, you put the slope roof in the area where it's all commercial, and in the area where it's partially residential, you have a flat roof, you know, just the opposite. MR. HAUSNER-Well, I guess it's the way you look at it. CVS' image is trying to blend in with the neighborhood, as opposed to being a staunch retail application. So, in their minds, they're doing their best to lessen the retail application. So it's just an effort in the right direction, we think. MR. RUEL-I understand that, and if this was strictly in a commercial zone, I would buy it, even if it was all flat roof, but you're right adjacent to residential zones, and it seems to me that the transition between residential and commercial, this is a little abrupt, especially with an 80% flat roof. MR. HAUSNER-Well, directly adj acent to this, you have about a 200,000 square foot retail plaza, or a 100,000 square foot, like Shop N' Save. MR. RUEL-That's what I said. I said on the left side, that's mostly commercial. On the right side, it's residential, and you have a flat roof there. MR. HAUSNER-It's zoned commercial. I guess what my point is, is that the image is of this retail tenant is to be more compassionate to the residential areas, because it's a neighborhood drugstore. So there is an element on the building that lends itself to that. Whether we think there's enough or not enough, I guess that would be up to your own personal preference. MR. RUEL-Yes. You don't have a neighborhood doctor, right? MR. HAUSNER-He's a member of the community. I guess there's a lot of ways to skin a cat. MR. RUEL-I have a question. It has to do with the plan. Can you answer something on the plan itself? - 12 - - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. HAUSNER-I can do my best. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-I'd just want to ask. MR. PALING-Miss, I'm sorry, there are no questions. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, you've indicated here some method of getting runoff water, I guess, all along the area. The resident that lives on property adjacent to it on. MR. PALING- Let me just interj ect something if I could, please. Ma'am, there is no public hearing. Just let me explain something. I didn't mean to be abrupt with you, but there is no public hearing or meeting on this tonight. This was previously held. MR. HILTON-No, there is, Bob. MR. BREWER-No, no, no. Yes, there is, Bob. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. a public hearing, at comment or whatever, then. I'm thinking of the last one. There will be which time you'll be welcome to question or but you'll have to hold your comments until MR. SCHACHNER-It's tonight. It's just in a few minutes. MR. PALING-There'll be one in a few minutes, as a matter of fact. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-It has to do with the area reserved for stormwater management. The occupant of the property next door had indicated some flooding on the back of her property, and this area that you've reserved here to offset this possibility of water runoff onto her property? MR. CARUSO-Yes, sir. MR. RUEL-Okay. Next question. You show here snow storage. If you pile this all up with snow, and it melts, where is it going to go? MR. CARUSO-The water? MR. RUEL-Yes. It's right next to her property, right? It's right on the property. MR. BREWER-Her property drops off about three or four, a couple of feet anyway. MR. HAUSNER-You're talking about right here? MR. CARUSO-Yes. That area, if you look at the grading on it, that area is actually a swale. So that when the water melts, it'll be brought to "the holding tank. MR. RUEL-It'll go to the holding tank? MR. CARUSO-Yes. MR. RUEL-It won't go onto her property. I couldn't tell, looking at the property, whether it sloped onto her property or not, and you're going to leave those big trees there. Right? MR. CARUSO-It's our design intent not to push any snow onto her property. We've gone through great measures to' take the water that runs onto her property right now, if it was to rain right now, it runs down into her property. We've gone through great measures to collect it all on our site and recharge it into the ground before - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) it ever goes onto her property, and the only time we would consider it going on to her property would be, at the ultimate, when the water would flow over a controlled exit point from the stormwater management area, and it would flow into the right-of-way and toward the storm sewers at the intersection. MR. MACEWAN-If I could interrupt. If we're heading down this stormwater management avenue, here, I'd like the Rist-Frost letter and Tom Flaherty's letter both read into the minutes, because I think there's some real concerns there that we need to deal with. MR. CARUSO-Well, maybe it would be best to read the last letter, which says that we've met all their concerns regarding that. MR. BREWER-Yes, well, I wasn't at the last meeting, and I have quite a bit of concern about that. I'll just ask the one question. Why was infiltrators not considered, rather than having a retention basin. MR. HILTON-Okay. I think, at this point, I am going to give the mic to Bill Levandowski and have him read, or summarize his letter of May 10, 1996, and then we can move from that. MR. PALING-Take it from there. Yes. Good. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-We've gone back and forth with the comments and responses. In response to our letter of April 19th, the applicant responded in such a manner that we raised further questions regarding the storm tie into the City of Glens Falls, and ultimately, as a result of that dialogue, the applicant elected to not tie into the City of Glens Falls storm system. So that the on- site storm system is more of a conventional one, where the stormwater is taken care of on site, or continues to flow as it did in the pre-development phase. We insisted that the applicant demonstrate to us that the post-development runoff to the off-site properties did not exceed the pre-development maximum rate, which is the policy that the Town typically applies to these kinds of projects, and ultimately we reviewed their final plans, and let me read the letter that we generated. To Mr. James Martin, Town of Queensbury, Reference Berkshire-Queensbury L.L.C. Site Plan 8-96 "Dear Mr. Martin: In response to comments, the applicant has revised project plans to eliminate the storm sewer connection to the existing system of the City of Glens Falls. He has also relocated the proposed sanitary sewer connection to the Luzerne Road side of the site. Additional computations have been submitted that satisfactorily address our concerns that the off-site post development runoff rate should not exceed the pre development rate. In response to our inquiry, the applicant has estimated that it would require approximately 48 hours to dissipate the approximately 2 feet of water that could accumulate in the detention pond during a storm. We have no further comments. Very truly yours, RIST- FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William Levandowski" That last paragraph regarding the 48 hòurs, approximately, to dissipate the two feet of water that could accumulate in the pond during a storm was an attempt to, for your benefit, quantify the amount of water that might be in the pond, and for how long it might be there after a storm event, just so you could address the comments which you just raised regarding the use of a pond, as opposed to infiltrators, and decide their merit. Technically, the pond works. It does require standing water for a period of time to function. MR. MACEWAN-When was this letter generated? I missed that? MR. PALING-Well, we didn't get it. We got like a little summary of it. That's all, though. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-The letter I just read was the entire text. It was - 14 - -' '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) dated the 21st, which is today I guess. MR. PALING-We didn't have a chance to see this, though, I don't believe. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-This dialogue with John Caruso's company has been going on almost daily until we finally came to a meeting of the minds, technically, today. MR. BREWER-If they were to use infiltrators, how long would the water stand in ~he basin, at any given time? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-The infiltrators, if enough were provided, could literally replace, I presume, the pond. MR. BREWER-So why wouldn't we go that way? Why wouldn't we suggest that to an applicant, and not just meet the pre storm, or the pre. MR. CARUSO-Tim, because you'd need 100 drY\'.lells. That's why. That's not a real efficient design system, when you have a site this big, and we do have five drywells on this site that we're using. We have two in the pond. I'm sorry, we actually have more than that. We have five drywells, and the foot and a half of íi storage in this pond that we're talking about needs to be discussed, because that is a 50 year design storm. That means it could happen once every 50 years, or twice every 100 years. You're talking about a magnificent storm event. MR. BREWER-The only reason I'm bringing this up is because every time we get a project, and they put these retention basins in, they say it'll work, and a year down the road, two years down the road, I'm not saying it's going to happen with you. I'll give you an example, Queensbury Forest. They said that would work, and nothing but water laid in there, and all you have is problems, and I don't understand why. I understand why developers do it, because it's probably the easiest and the best way for them to do it, but to have these ponds all around the Town of Queensbury with water in them when it rains for three or four weeks at a time, like it did this spring, to me, is ridiculous. That's my opinion. MR. CARUSO-I understand, and it's a qood opinion. You have to understand that we were faced with a little parcel of land between us and the road that is really in a no win situation. She's at the bottom of the hill. All this water runs right into her property. We couldn't just let the water go, and in meeting the requirements, and Bill and I talked about this, meeting the pre and post development requirements for this site could mean that I could literally have a point on my property where I could discharge five cubic feet per second onto her land, and right now, I don't discharge any until after a 50 year storm. I'm holding water, and in order to do that, I need a place to do it, and what we've done, this area that is labeled, you know, reserved for stormwater management, there's a depression. We hope that you don't notice it's there. We plan to make it lawn. It's a green area, and there's two drywells in the middle of it buried. We hope that no one notices it's there. We plan to landscape around it. We've built a berm along our property line, but we've really tried to make this not look like a pond and also stop the water from going on this person's property. We met with George, from Day One, and told that this was going to be an issue and the Town hates ponds. So, we're trying to make this, I mean, in a 50 year design storm, my routing computations show that all the four drywells are sucking water into the earth, re-charging call it, and it holds a foot and a half of water. That's not too bad. That's not too bad. MR. RUEL-And how about a 100 year storm? MR. CARUSQ-A 100 year storm, I didn't route a 100 year storm, but. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-It would overflow, right? MR. CARUSO-If it overflows, it would be the first time the water's left the site, because what we've calculated is it's not. We still did, in addition to what we have, is design a weir for the water to leave, in case something gets plugged, or if there's two storm events right in a row where the water needs a place to discharge. It discharges out to the right-of-way, not through her property. That was our intent. MR. BREWER-Out to what right-of-way? MR. LAPPER-Luzerne Road. MR. BREWER-Our to Luzerne Road, and then where does it go from Luzerne Road, because there used to be a catch basin on that corner, and when the Cool Beans built their place, they filled it in. So it's not there any more. So now the water goes down. MR. CARUSO-There is a catch basin there, at the southwest corner. MR. RUEL-It never works. MR. BREWER-No, sorry. MR. CARUSO-Whether it works or not, gentlemen, that's a municipal issue. MR. BREWER-It's filled in. I'm sorry. It may show it on a map, but in the real world, it's not there. Brian Granger filled it in. It's not there. That's my concern. MR. CARUSO-If, during a 50 year storm event, I met my requirements that I was to do, and I guarantee you that during a 50 year storm event everything is going to be in the do. I swear to you it will. To give you an example, in 1973 Hurricane Agnes was a 100 year storm event, which was not a very, technically, far different from a SO year storm, when you look at the rainfall intensity. A lot of bad things are happening, and at that point, we're still meeting your requirements, I think. With all those considerations that we just spoke about, to keep the water off this property next door. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-Enlighten me about this pond. In the winter, prior to snow fall, the ground freezes. On the bottom of this shallow pond is now solid, right, frozen? MR. CARUSO-Well, we actually have two drywells in the center of the property. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but aside from that. Now, it snows or it rains and the ground is still frozen. The pond is not going to absorb this water. The wells in there will, but that's limited, and now the water's going to go into this pond, and it's not going to go anywhere. MR. CARUSO-I'm not quite sure about this condition that you're referring to. You're saying the ground's frozen and then it rains? MR. RUEL-Yes, or snow melts, and the ground is still frozen. I have it on my lawn. I have a depression on the lawn and it freezes solid, and then if it rains or the snow melts, it gets water, and that water stays there like forever. That has no place to go. MR. LAPPER-You don't have a drywell on your property, either. - 16 - - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-No, but even a drywell can absorb just so much, right? It's limited. MR. CARUSO-The water, we had soil tests done out here, by a local geo-technical engineer, and he's determined that the water elevation's down around 10 feet, and from that, we know that we can use these drywells, if the water elevation isn't into our drywells, so we will get some seepage. We just have to get the water through the surface of the catchbasin. Now whether we have to go out there and clean that out because we see that the water's backing up or not is a maintenance issue for us, but imagine what it would be like if we didn't have this here. Imagine if we just had drywells and no pond, nowhere for this water to go. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-I have a question. Mr. Levandowski, are you happy with the pond retention that, you know, maybe in a 50 year storm, there might get a little bit of runoff going down Luzerne Road, but right now, you know, in a normal storm like we've had the last few weeks, there's no runof.f off the property? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That appears to be the situation. I'm not sure if it's exactly the 50 year storm that'll cause some minor runoff, but in general, that's correct. As far as whether a pond is acceptable under those circumstances or more drywells or infiltrators are more appropriate, that's not a technical issue. That's not for me to answer. It's more of an aesthetic one. Either one will work. MR. RUEL-I have a question for the engineer. Do we have other similar ponds in the area that have been functioning? MR. STARK-French Mountain Commons. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. I think it's probably only been up to the last couple of years when the Town has begun to, by policy, attempt to steer away from them, but I don't think any of the Ordinances or regulations have ever been revised to reflect that. It's been kind of a policy trend, I believe. There's a difference between a wet pond and a dry pond, too. This pond is essentially designed for 95%, 99% of the time to be dry. It's only to store some of the overflow and to infiltrate it during those events when it has to. MR. STARK-To answer Roger's question. In front of French Mountain Commons, the outlet stores up there, they have a pond that drains a lot more property than this property. The water gets probably one and a half, two foot deep, max. By the next morning, day and a half, it's gone in there. It's all grass, and they don't have drywells in the bottom of it. Over the last 10 years, I've never seen it overflow yet. MR. BREWER-That's just absorbed into the ground? MR. STARK-It's absorbed into the ground. I see it every day. MR. PALING-All year round. MR. BREWER-Is there any kind of a maintenance schedule for those drywells? MR. CARUSO-They construct them. really don't You wrap them. require any maintenance. You MR. BREWER-No, I understand that, but I'm just saying. MR. CARUSO-I guess it would just be visually. If you see that it's not working because the water can't get across a layer of ice that's plugging the drive, the inlets to the wells, you just go and - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) open them. MR. RUEL-Open them up. MR. PALING-All right. I think at this point we should go into the public hearing. Excuse me. George, did you have something else that you'd like to add? MR. HILTON-Yes. I'd like to maybe wrap up. There's a couple of other letters here that I didn't get to, and I'd like to maybe wrap those up before we go into the public hearing. There is a letter here from the Town Water Department, from Tom Flaherty, dated April 25, 1996. He raises a couple of concerns. I believe that we, the applicant has satisfied those concerns, but, Number One, it states that "The route of the proposed sanitary sewer along Corinth Rd. (Main Street) may run into a conflict with our existing 8 inch water main and meter pit at the intersection of Main Street and Western Avenue. The plans do not show the location of the meter pit which exist at this time." The applicant has indicated that, I believe they have spoken with the Water Department and there is no conflict with the 8 inch water main and meter pit at this location. I would leave it to the applicant to maybe address this issue. Number Two states, "We will provide one master meter and bill the property owner. The property owner will be responsible for sub metering the tenants." That just basically states what the policy is going to be for this site. MR. PALING-But that's not a concern of ours, sub metering? MR. HILTON-That's not a real concern. I think, Number Three, "Where does the overflow from the storm water management area dry wells discharge to?" I think we've discussed that already. MR. PALING- I think we've covered that, yes. Do you want to address the first question he had, about the eight inch main? Or just clarify it, I guess. MR. CARU80- Yes. There's a meter box on Main Street. The meter box on Main Street is located right here, and originally we were going to run our sanitary sewer down Broad Street to get to the sanitary manhole. Since then, we may have mentioned at last month's meeting that we were going to try to help out the local fire district and use the sanitary sewer, and in doing so, we've switched our sewer connection to Luzerne Road, and we're going to come from Luzerne, tie our sewer in, and leave a stub for an extension to service the fire district. So we made an agreement and we're going to (lost word) ours, so that they can continue on, and that eliminates that conflict. MR. PALING-Okay. That seems fine. MR. HILTON-I also have a resolution from the Warren County Planning Board. It was on their 8th day of May 1996 meeting, the County Planning Board reviewed this project and the recommendation was to approve with comment, "Concurring with local conditions. II Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. PALING-What was that last part again? MR. HILTON-It says "Comments: Concurring with local conditions." MR. RUEL-What does that mean? MR. PALING-Yes, what does that mean? MR. CARUSO-It's to your jurisdiction. MR. RUEL-It sounds like an out. - 18 - '- -' - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. PALING-All right. MR. HILTON-Lastly, we have a Beautification Committee recommendation here, and at their May 6, 1996 meeting, they voted to approve this site plan, and it's signed by Mrs. Mary Lee Gosline, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-I think one more Staff comment here. Today we were discussing this. They have plans to tie into the City of Glens Falls Sanitary Sewer system. They have petitioned the Town Board in order to do that. The initial resolution mentioned one lot. They have since subdivided, or have plans to subdivide this property, and we would condition any approval or any action on this site plan with the stipulation that they revise that resolution to tie into the Glens Falls Sanitary Sewer system'to indicate that there's actually going to be two lots served, and not just one. So that needs to be clarified, I would guess before a building permit is issued at this site, if the Planning Board is in a position to vote for approval. MR. CARUSO-The Planning Board should know that that process is already taking place and that we hope at the Town Board meeting on June 10th, that they will correct this technicality. They've already issued the approval. It just said one lot, and now there's two. MR. PALING-All right. We can make that a condition of the motion. MR. CARUSO-That would be fine with us. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-What about traffic? Are you going to hit traffic before the public hearing, or after? MR. PALING-Either way. Lets do it afterward. Lets open the public hearing. George, are you okay? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, because I think we all know what we've been saying and will say. Lets open the public hearing on this matter now. Is there anyone that wishes to speak about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPPER-For the record, there were some neighbors who spoke the last time, and they were satisfied, after we talked about it, in terms of the issues of drainage and trees next door, and they were happy with it. MR. RUEL-Yes. I know that the occupant of that house on the corner, she was here. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Then if there's no one else that cares to speak on this matter, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. We can get to traffic. MR. RUEL-Yes. time. Well, we had some discussion about traffic last - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. CARUSO-Maybe I'll tell you what transpired since the last meeting. MR. PALING-Yes, please do. MR. CARUSO-It was very apparent to me that the Board was uncomfortable, especially Craig, about the curb cut, as we had it designed at the last meeting, and what I had done is I went out to the site and I did the study that the County was asking us to do in six months from now, so that I had something to compare it to, and we gave a copy of the study to George VanDusen, at Warren County D.O.T., and along with that, I also took and tried to build on what George had mentioned at the meeting, was the removal of these medians, and that you were making a recommendation to the Town Board on that. We saw this to be a problem from Day One for maneuverability and maintenance and snow removal, and I think that's maybe where the Town is coming from. What we did is, and we talked with George about procedure on how we would revise this, and if you look on your plans, over to the left side of the drawings, you'll see an alternate entrance design, and to try to mitigate this left turn concern, we did a study, and we showed that there was some capacity here for the left turns coming out and we also designed an alternate design. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. That alternate entrance, I don't see it. MR. RUEL-Right here. This is the south, and that's the north. MR. CARUSO-And I as I said to you, George, at the last meeting, that if we could take the cost of that island out, that I would be happy to put it back in pavement for capacity and storage on the site, and what we're doing is providing two left turns out, and one turn in, one lane in, and I asked the Warren County Department of Transportation if this was an acceptable design to them, for his concerns, and he said, either way, he knows that this is a requirement of Queensbury, but either way, he would approve the alternate design, and we've noted at the bottom it does require approval, but there's two left turns out onto two exiting lanes. MR. PALING-There's no traffic light there? MR. CARUSO-Right. MR. PALING-But you would have two lanes exiting to the left? MR. LAPPER-A left and a right. John mis-spoke. MR. CARUSO-There's a left turn lane and a right turn lane. MR. PALING-It looks like you have two right turn lanes and one left turn. MR. BREWER-No, that's an entrance, Bob. MR. STARK-The one on the right's an entrance. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CARUSO-This goes right, and this goes left. MR. PALING-And that's an entrance. MR. RUEL-So what you've done, effectively, you've moved this over? MR. CARUSO-I actually didn't have to move it because the island occupies so much feet. This is 32 feet across, and this is 34 feet. I picked up two feet, and look how this doesn't line up, on - 20 - ',-'-.- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) this plan. Coming over two feet, it really made it line up nice and square. So if you want to go right, it does not impede the right turn motorists. MR. RUEL-But how does that mitigate the problem of exiting into that central lane? MR. CARUSO-Because if you were turning left out of there, and there was two, three cars behind you, and they're beeping their horn at you, you feel intimidated, and you force yourself to make a bad maneuver. Now if you're sitting in that lane and you're left turn, okay, the guy wants to go right, he can get around you, okay. MR. RUEL-Yes, but if he wants to go left also. MR. CARUSO-He's got to wait, too. MR. RUEL-He's going to blow the horn, right? MR. CARUSO-Wait a minute, now. That's going to happen no matter what. Someone's going to make a left out of there, whether we like it or not. What we should do is provide a place for him to stay safely. Now, two things are going to happen at that light. Cars are going to back up and no one's going to be qble to move, or the light's going to turn green, and that left turn lane is going to clear out, and then we're going to be able to turn, okay. So that light is going to trigger gaps to occur. Okay. MR. RUEL-I saw the traffic study. I use that intersection so many times, and it seems to me that cars will be piling up in that center lane, waiting for the light, and not allowing anyone to exit from your property, and when it is time for them to exit, now that light has ,changed, comes the traffic the other way. MR. CARUSO-You know that we didn't count more than four cars stacking up there, in the p.m.? MR. RUEL-Well, I've been going there for years, and I'm telling you, there are times when it really piles up. MR. CARUSO-I'll bet there are, but at the times that we counted during the p.m. peak, the signal light here functioned well enough to keep the cars cleared out of the queuing. MR. RUEL-Craig, you take that every day, don't you? Do you have any comments on this? MR. MACEWAN-I'm not convinced. I'll tell you, every day, and I went through there at 1:30 today, and I got hung up at that light, and I was the ,second car in that left hand turn lane going on to Western, and when the light changed, and I lost my arrow, there could have been some cars that could have come out behind me, but once the light changed, there was no way a car could come out of that area to make a left hand turn in that turn lane. Traffic was just too backed up that was heading west bound. MR. LAPPER-What time of the day, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-1:30 this afternoon, and that was after the noon hour rush. MR. LAPPER-As you can see, we designed that exit/entrance as far to the west as we could on our site. MR. RUEL-Yes, and it should be further. MR. LAPPER-Well, we don't have anYmore site. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-Yes. You've got a piece of property right there. MR. LAPPER-We couldn't buy it, and John has calculated that there's stacking for, what, 12 cars between the light and our exit? MR. CARUSO-Where, in here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CARUSO-No. It wasn't that many. MR. MACEWAN-From that turn lane to where your proposed entrance is, you probably could maybe put seven cars in there. MR. BREWER-Yes. One inch equals thirty feet, is it from the corner to here. MR. CARUSO-The point is that we know that there are times that it is impaired, that movement, and to do the best that we could, we had an alternate design that we sent through the County, and the County said they would approve this. Either design, the County said they would approve, and we've got it to the point now where we literally have to give them a contractor's liability insurance to pay the fee and we can draw up the map. MR. MACEWAN-What do you feel are your peak hours of operation, where that entrance/exit would be its heaviest usage? MR. CARUSO-I think 4:30 to 5:30. MR. MACEWAN-And that's the heaviest usage on that entire stretch of road, in that timeframe? MR. CARUSO-That's what we've found from our traffic study. MR. LAPPER-For the road, is what he's answering. That's the p.m. peak. MR. MACEWAN-I'm asking you, what is the peak hours that you feel that the store will be operating that that entrance/exit will be at its maximum, where the most number of cars will be going in and out? MR. CARUSO-Between 4:30 and 5:30. MR. MACEWAN-Which coincides with the busiest time that that stretch of Main Street is at its peak. MR. CARUSO-Well, that's because CVS, their customers are based on mostly people on the road, drive-by traffic. MR. MACEWAN-Based on what you just told me there, I can't see any car being able to get out of there and make a left hand turn without sitting there for an enormous length of time, and then taking an awful chance cutting out into traffic. CHRIS PEZNOLA MR. PEZNOLA-My name is Chris Peznola, and I work for the development company, but the reason I'm speaking is that also we've been working with CVS for about 20 years, and I have a pretty good understanding of their operations. Believe it or not, the peak hours that John thinks is probably more typical of the retail but not of CVS. That tends to be a slow time for them. It's really six o'clock to nine o'clock that they have the most traffic, and then a lot during the day, but I think it's also important to take a look and notice that we do have an alternative access onto Luzerne. One of the things that's very true about both of these - 22 - '- ----" ',- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) tenants, CVS and the chiropractor, is it's a lot of repeat, local customers, and they develop patterns, and they will find the easiest way out of the site. So if they're used to stopping there at 4:30, and they know that they're not going to be able to get out, trying to get on to Main Street, they're going to end up going out Luzerne and getting to their house that way. A lot of times we run into site plans that are much more difficult than this in Long Island, which we do a lot of business for them, where sites tend to be tougher, just generally speaking, and CVS will sometimes take a site that doesn't have access to the main road, if they can get access to the road that they know the people will develop a habit for. So that's basically what I was trying to get across. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-Mark, we don't have the right or the authority to waive that island anyway right now, do we? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm pretty sure that's in the zoning law. MR. BREWER-So it's a moot issue. MR. LAPPER-Well, no, what we would propose is that it be approved this way, with the stipulation that we'll go to the Zoning Board next month, on your recommendation, on this Board's recommendation, that they grant us a variance from that island, and we assume that, based upon your recommendation, that they will grant that. MR. STARK-Tim, we were supposed to, Bob was supposed to have prepared a letter for our last meeting. We were supposed to authorize him to prepare a letter to present to the Town Board, changing the Ordinance to eliminate the islands because D.O.T. doesn't want them. The Planning Board really doesn't want them. The builders don't want them. They're a useless thing, the islands, and Bob never got the letter made. So I still want to present that to the Town Board asking them to change their Ordinance. MR. RUEL-It's still to be written, right? MR. HILTON-Right, and I think right now the applicant would rather design the site without the island, but it's still in our Zoning Code. They have to comply with it or seek a variance. MR. CARUSO-For SEQRA and for your approval tonight, I have to show it this way, but you don'1: have to condition us on going there. We hope that you don't put a condition. We don't want any conditions we don't need, but you need to know that we're going to go to the ZBA and ask, though. We agree to go because we want to get rid of it, and we're going to be going there for a Sign Variance that we found out. So because the Sign Variance, we're going to be at the ZBA anyway, we're going to ask for those islands to be removed, and we are going to go with this. MR. MACEWAN-Didn't you talk, at one time, during the preliminary discussion aboùt this, that Warren County had some reservations about the feasibility of making that left hand turn on there, and they talked about doing something conditional for six months or something? MR. CARUSO-That still remains. MR. MACEWAN-Elaborate on that for me, again. What's the deal that this is giving you? MR. CARUSO-They said that they're going to give us approval for this curb cut, whichever one we're going to ask them for, and at the end of six months, they're going to ask us to evaluate the - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) capacity conditions here and submit it to them. MR. MACEWAN-What, specifically, are they going to be looking for? MR. RUEL-Accidents. MR. LAPPER-How well it functions. MR. CARUSO-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Accident reports? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that will certainly be one factor. Certainly, if there are accidents, that will be an issue, but just peak hour, in terms of stacking. MR. CARUSO-Stacking capacity, gaps. MR. MACEWAN-And if it doesn't work, what happens? MR. LAPPER-They would have the right, because it's their road, to condition our approval, because they're the ones that grant the permit, the work permit for that curb cut. It's their jurisdiction. So they would have the right to modify our approval, if they felt that it was necessary based upon that report, and we discussed that with this Board. MR. STARK-They could ban them from taking a left coming out of there. MR. MACEWAN-Could we, as well, do something to coincide with Warren County, as well, on that, Mark? MR. LAPPER-Well, it's their road. We would ask that you just go along with that condition that we have agreed to. That we would submit the report to Warren County and they would take a look at it, because it's their permit. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have something formally from them? MR. LAPPER-It's in a letter. MR. HILTON-I have it right here, and I will re-read it into the record. It's a letter dated April 17, 1996, addressed to me. It says "Dear Mr. Hilton: Before the Warren County Department of Public Works issues a permit for the proposed CVS Pharmacy on Corinth Road we will need to see a traffic study showing the future level of service for the entrance/exit accesses. Also, no surface water from the proposed Pharmacy, etc., will be allowed to flow upon the bounds of Corinth Road. Thank you for letting us review the proposed plans. Very truly yours, Roger Gebo Dept. Supt. of Public Works" We have another letter in here which was read at the discussion item of this. Do you have it? MR. CARUSO-Yes, I have it. I'll read it real quick. This letter was dated April 23, 1996, "Dear Mr. Passaro: After review of the traffic impact for the proposed CVS Pharmacy, we still have concern for the safety of vehicles exiting the site and attempting to make a left turn onto Corinth Road. While realizing that you have placed the driveway as far as possible from the intersection of Western Avenue and Corinth Road, a vehicle making a left turn exiting the site, it requires to cross the merge portion of the left turn lane approaching the signal. This crossing has an extra conflict not represented wi thin the traffic study. A driveway permit will be issued based on the condition that the developer supply an accident and congestion report six months after the completion of the project. The County D.P.W., if satisfied with the conditions, reserves the right to eliminate the left turn. - 24 - - -' - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) This report will be submitted to the County D.P.W. for review and acceptance. II MR. MACEWAN-And that's basically giving you the go ahead, based on getting a CO, right? MR. LAPPER-Right, and we agree to that condition, and we'll submit the report in six months and we expect it to work. MR. MACEWAN-I have some real severe reservations about how well that's going to work. If the County wants to do it that way, I would go along with it that way as well. I just don't see it working. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a suggestion here. It may be a bit far fetched, but it seems the problem is exiting here to the left. Right? Would it be possible, or would it be feasible, instead of a left turn out of here, have signage to the effect that they must go out this way? MR. LAPPER-That/s what the County's talking about as a last ditch effort. They're saying that it's not apparent that that is necessary. It would be a severe impact on our project, in terms of (lost word) . MR. RUEL-It's possible. It's feasible, but it would be an impact on your project, and you would go that way if,' at the end of a six month period, Warren County found, or D.O.T. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. RUEL-But you'd rather not do that now? MR. LAPPER-We think that there's more of a perception issue here. We've done a traffic study, and hired a traffic engineer. We expect it will work, but at the same time, we're agreeing to a condition that if it doesn't work, they're going to have the right to take away that left turn, and we're agreeing to that. That we'll build it this way, it will operate, and then we'll submit the report to the County and see what happens. MR. RUEL-Welll I just don't like the idea of waiting six months to see how many accidents we have and then decide that we should go the way I just mentioned. MR. LAPPER-Part of it is the perception issue, if you will, because in our Town, that is a congested road, but in terms of standards that a traffic engineer looks at, it's really a few times during the day, given the peak hour, and we all know that at other times of the day, you just drive right through and it's not a big deal. MR. BREWER-I disagree with that statement on that road. MR. MACEWAN-But realistically though, Jon, most people are going to stop at the pharmacy on their way home from work. MR. LAPPER-But the people that are coming from the north, if you will, aren't going to use the Corinth Road access. As John said, if it turns out that there's congestion there, people make their traffic patterns to avoid intersections, to avoid waiting, so they'll go out the back way. I mean, we need the left turn. It's very important to the tenant. MR. BREWER-Also, that back way is the front way to the doctor's office, right? - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. CARUSO-Yes, but it also will function, at the time where you can't get out and you want to go that way, there's another way out. It is an escape route, if you will, for that one hour that we expect the worst to be happening. MR. LAPPER-Or you make the right turn, if you don't want to wait for a left. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that's a long way to turn around again. MR. PALING-All right. I think we've discussed the left turn enough. Is there any traffic or circulation issues that we want to bring up at this time? MR. RUEL-The right turn is fine. MR. PALING-Thank you, Roger. public hearing has been held. We appreciate that. Okay. The MR. HILTON-I have a letter. It's a record of phone conversation. I'm going to read it word for word. It says "Call to Jim Martin's phone by Dorothy Kloss, property owner within 500 feet. Date: May 16, 1996 Regarding Site Plan No. 8-96 Berkshire Acquisition. Typed Verbatim: Hello, this is Dorothy Kloss, 12 Luzerne Road. I just got the Town of Queensbury notice of public hearing for the corner of Main Street and Western Avenue, the Cavayero proposal. I'm not for that because I really don't want it to lead to where the Liddle's, the Albert's and me have to forfeit our property so I am fighting for my property. I against that. That's my vote right know, I don't think I can come to the meeting because I have a previous commitment but I just wanted to give my vote. Thanks a lot - my number is 792-5681 if you need to reach me. Thank you." MR. RUEL-What address is that? MR. HILTON-12 Luzerne Road. MR. RUEL-That's next to Cool Beans, or further? MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that the yellow house? MR. LAPPER-Our client just said that that's the woman who was here who was satisfied. MR. PALING-The one that left? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HILTON-And that's the only phone conversation or any written comments that we have. MR. PALING-Okay. We've had a public hearing. This is a Type II Action. We've heard from the applicant. Does the applicant wish to add anything? MR. LAPPER-Before we're done, we have another issue that we'd just like to talk to you about, but I guess we want to make sure that you're all set on where we are so far. MR. PALING-Yes. I just have two notes so far, and one is the zoning variance regarding the islands and the other is the Warren County condition which we discussed. MR. MACEWAN-Are we going to tie into our site plan list, should we approve it, to that ZBA variance request, to make it easier for that ingress/egress to work? - 26 - '---- ---,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. LAPPER-A recommendation from you would certainly be helpful. That's different than a condition. MR. BREWER-We can do a recommendation afterward, Craig. MR. PALING-Yes. yet. Go ahead. We've got to go ahead with the motion, but not MR. LAPPER-Okay. The issue is an issue of signs. We want to just inform you of where we are and talk about it. There's two ways that this can be looked at, in terms of whether this is under the plaza designation under the Sign Ordinance, or just a separate freestanding businesses, because we have these two lots now, and where this comes up as an issue is that what we expect to do is to have a sign at each entrance, and each sign should list all of the tenants, and that will actually facilitate people using all the entrances, but under the Sign Ordinance, if this is not considered a plaza, then we would be considered an off premises sign, because the sign on Luzerne Road that would talk about CVS is off premises, because it's not on the CVS parcel, and likewise the sign for the chiropractor and the other rental space on the Corinth Road side, technically, would be off premises sign because we have this divided subdivision. So, if the Board, if the zoning department considers this to be a plaza, that would be okay, but if they were considered separate freestanding buildings, then they would be off premises, which you can grant us the permission to have without requirement of a variance. So we just wanted to talk about that. We think that it is better for the project to have, it's a very tasteful sign, to have that on both sides of the project so that everyone knows what's in the plaza. MR. RUEL-Who issues the signs? MR. PALING-We can do this? MR. BREWER-I don't even want to talk about it. stay away from that. I'd just as soon MR. HILTON-Okay. First of all, lets take the issue of a business complex or commercial plaza or however you want to deem it. I spoke to Jim today, and he classified this as not a business complex. The definition of a business complex is three or more businesses on one piece of land. This is three businesses spread over two pieces of land. So they cannot be considered a business complex. If they would like to maybe seek a determination or seek some type of approval from Jim, I'm not sure if they can do that, but then the question comes up, the sign that they have shown up there, they would like to put one at each entrance to this site. In order to have a sign saying CVS that would be on the doctor's office property, that's an off premises sign and would need approval from this Board. MR. CARUSO-We are asking this Board for the approval for the off premises sign, and then we'll go do what we have to do with another Board, which is, they don't have to do it from a location sign, just the one building sign is at issue. MR. PALING-Okay. That's new to me. We don't usually mess with signs. That's not our, but if you say it's our. MR. HILTON-Well, because it's an off premises sign, the Planning Board can recommend approval or approve an off premises sign. As far as Staff's concerned, we're comfortable with this, if you don't have any problem. If you look at this site and you read the sign code, you have, on the northerly lot, you have two businesses. So, according to our Sign Ordinance, each business could have its own freestanding sign, and one wall sign, but if you look at what the applicant is proposing, they only want one freestanding sign per - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) entrance, as opposed to the two that they could have on the north and one on the south, and if the Board was in a position to approve this off premises sign, we would ask for a condition that they only have one freestanding sign per entrance, if you understand where I'm coming from, one freestanding out by the property line. MR. PALING-Okay. Now there are a lot of other issues to do with signs that we're not concerned with. Are we by-passing them, or have they still got to get the regular sign approval, no matter what we do? MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-We can just do the off premises thing, if we choose to, without affecting anything else in the Sign Ordinance? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That's all we're asking for. MR. PALING-Yes. I understand. MR. MACEWAN-Why, all of a sudden, are we getting involved with a sign situation when we never have before? That's usually been handled by Staff. MR. HILTON-Well, issuing the permits is handled by Staff, and any variances are handled by the ZBA, but as far as off premises signs, it's specifically stated that the Planning Board has the approval process over off premises signs. MR. BREWER-We've done it before. MR. PALING-We have? MRS. LABOMBARD-Not in three years. MR. BREWER-Yes, we have. I'll give you an example, West Mountain. MR. PALING-I don't remember it. MRS. LABOMBARD-West Mountain? Well, that was before me. MR. PALING-All right. Be that as it may, we have three items before us. I think it's, do you have anything further? Okay. I think we ought to talk amongst ourselves a little bit here. We have the zoning variance regarding the islands. You have the six month condition of traffic testing with Warren County, now the off premises sign issue. MR. STARK-Mark, how should the concerns be handled, concerns, make a motion, and then make another motion recommend approval to the Zoning Board, and then for the what, or combine everything in one? not the that we sign, or MR. RUEL-Put it all together. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn't really matter, so long as, I think it is important that you separate out those portions and components. I don't think it matters whether you do that in one lengthy motion or separate motions, but parts of, whichever way you do it, parts of what you've said, as you've acknowledged, George, are merely recommendations, and parts of what you've said are actual approvals, and as long as you're specific, I don't think it matters whether you do it in one lengthy motion or a separate motion. MR. STARK-Fine. - 28 - -- -- - -~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. SCHACHNER-The only other thing I want to add is I think when you just went over your list again, I think you neglected to include one of the things that George mentioned as a Staff proposed condition, which is that the site plan approval also include as a condition that the applicant's agreement with the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls regarding hook up to the municipal sewer facility be revised to indicate that there are two lots, not just one lot. MR. RUEL-Yes, we have that. MR. SCHACHNER~Okay. MR. PALING-No, I didn't have it, though. Thank you. That's right. Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I might suggest, as a follow up to George's question, thinking of the ZBA receiving this, I might suggest that maybe the portion of your opinion regarding recommendation to the ZBA maybe should be a separate motion, as I reflect on it. I think that would make the ZBA's job easier. MR. PALING-You're talking about the islands now? MR. SCHACHNER-Any issue at the ZBA. Is it only islands? MR. PALING-Islands only. MR. RUEL-That's the only one with the ZBA. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's a recommendation, and I think George makes a good point. I think that would be simpler for the ZBA to deal with if that's a separate resolution at this Board. MR. PALING-Okay. So we can try it in two motions. have anything to add on this? Tim, do you MR. BREWER-The only thing I have to add is I still have a concern over the pond. Whether anybody agrees with me or not. MR. PALING-Roger, have you got anything to add? MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don't we go to a motion on this item. Roger, do you want to? MR. RUEL-Yes. I'll try it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-96 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To build" a 8,700 square foot CVS and adjacent 6,000 sq. ft. Doctor's Office building, with conditions. Condition One: That the resolution for sewer hook up for the two lots should be for two lots, rather than just the single as it is, prior to issuance of building permit. Item Number Two: The Planning Board recommends off premise signs, one per entrance, and to adhere to the Warren County letter dated April 23rd. Duly adopted this 21st, day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) ABSTAINED: Mr. West MR. PALING-Okay. Motion Number Two. MOTION TO RECOMMEND SITE PLAN NO. 8-96 BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For an 8,700 square foot CVS and adjacent 6,000 sq. ft. Doctor's Office building, for the applicant to obtain a variance from the ZBA for elimination of island in both driveways. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West MR. LAPPER-Just one point of clarification. I would presume the ZBA will grant that variance, and when they do, we will build it, without the island, and we're not going to have to come back before this Board? MR. BREWER-For a modification they will, very informal, Jon. MR. MACEWAN-Should you get your variance and come back here for a modification and be done in over with in five minutes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. BREWER-It's just procedure. MR. CARUSO-Because you could see it tonight and approve it, can't you? MR. BREWER-We don't know that you're going to get the variance. MR. LAPPER-We could build it without that. MR. PALING-Why do they have to come back? MR. SCHACHNER-Certainly the neatest, cleanest way to do it would be to come back to this Board for a minor modification. I mean, it's up to the applicant whether they're going to do that or they are going to try to get by on the notion that, I take it that the plan that was just approved actually shows an alternative design, actually physically on the same sheet that shows the plan with the island. If this Board wants to indicate that it's approved, the overall plan in either configuration, you could do that. That's up to this Board and the applicant. MR. PALING-Well, I don't see why we have to have them come back again to do this. MR. MACEWAN-If the ultimate driveway configuration is already on the plan, they wouldn't have to come back. MR. PALING-Right. I agree. MR. BREWER-Approve it either or? MR. MACEWAN-We've approved it already. MR. STARK-You can't approve it either or, we can't. - 30 - '.... - -- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. MACEWAN-Our minutes reflect that that's the one we want him to go with. So it's just up to the ZBA whether to give them the variance. MR. BREWER-What happens if they don't get a variance? MR. MACEWAN-Then they've got to go with the plan that's on the site plan. MR. PALING-Then they've got to go with the islands. MR. SCHACHNER-That's crystal clear. I don't view that as gray area at all. That's clear. MR. RUEL-In any event, it doesn't hold them up. The curb cut is still the same. Everything's the same. It's an island versus a painted line. MR. BREWER-Whatever. Then modify the resolution. MR. MACEWAN-You don't need to, Tim. It's already on the plan. I 'I don't think we need to do anything. The plan that we approved tonight, that you have is an alternate driveway configuration. It's already been approved. MR. PALING-All right. George, what do you say? MR. STARK-I agree with Craig. MR. PALING-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I think. My contention is, what I feel is that if the variance for the island doesn't go through, then they have to build the one that's here, and nobody here is happy with the one that's here. MR. LAPPER-But that's what the vote. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Our hands are tied on that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that, except what the new one to me seems more viable. MR. PALING-They would like it, too. So would we. MR. CARUSO-With your recommendation, we hope that it's not an issue. MR. RUEL-Cathy, you still have the six month trial period, either way. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger, what do you say? MR. RUEL-Go with it the way it is. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think, can we add to the motion or something that doesn't, or have we done it already and we're just saying that we don't require the applicant to come back, if he's turned down by ZBA. He's just got to go by the print. MR. MACEWAN-That's right. It's already been approved on the plan. MR. HILTON-That they can use the alternate plan showing. MR. BREWER-That's the point, Bob. If he's turned by the ZBA, he's got to go by the print, but the alternate's also on the print. So that's why it's a modification. So if you want to do it, lets modify our motion. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I agree with Tim. I do not believe that it is crystal clear on the record as it stands now that you're authorizing either configuration. If that's your intention, I think you should clarify your motion for approval. MR. PALING-Do you want to modify your motion, then? MR. RUEL-No. MR. SCHACHNER-If that's not your intention, then I maintain my original statement, which is I think the neatest, cleanest way to do this is, if the variance is approved, then the applicant come back and seek an extremely minor site plan modification. That still remains, in my opinion, the neatest, cleanest way to do this. MR. BREWER-That's the easiest way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Jon had no problem coming back. MR. LAPPER-As long as we can build this way, and I know we can. MR. BREWER-If you get your variance, come back, it'll take two minutes. MR. PALING-Are we all set here then? Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. CARUSO-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION CROSS ROADS PARK OWNER: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN ZONE: MR- 5 LOCATION: CORNER OF BLIND ROCK RD. AND BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR MODIFICATION OF CROSS ROADS PARK SUBDIVISION WHICH INCLUDES DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND LOT LINE MODIFICATIONS. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34 RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT; TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 21-1989 FINAL STAGE, Cross Roads Park, Meeting Date: May 21, 1996 "The applicant is proposing modifications to Final Subdivision No. 21-1989 which includes improvements to a proposed drainage system and lot line modifications for this subdivision. The lot line modifications would result in conforming lot areas and setbacks. Staff has some concerns over storm drainage and site grading. possible stormwater runoff into the apartments and the adjacent pond should be controlled on this site. Staff would recommend a stipulation that the applicant submit a grading plan for these lots indicating finished floor elevations with each future site plan at this location. Staff would also offer a stipulation that these lots be seeded and stabilized before the Town's acceptance of Hunter Brook Lane within this plat. This will help minimize erosion and runoff while the site awaits future development of the units shown on this plat." MR. HILTON-I also have here a letter dated May 14, 1996, from Rist- Frost Associates. It's regarding Cross Roads Park Subdivision. It reads "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the additional information dated April 24, 1996 regarding groundwater mounding and reserve area for replacement of sewage laterals. The concerns noted in our letter of December 1, 1995 have been addressed. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST- - 32 - - '- '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E." MR. STARK-Okay. please. Does the applicant wish to identify themselves, MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record, owner. MR. NACE-Tom Nace, representing Rich Schermerhorn. MR. STARK-Okay. You have these comments by Staff? MR. NACE-Yes, sir. MR. STARK-Would you like to address them. MR. NACE-Okay. I wasn't sure I quite fully understood the one on the grading of plans. We will, obviously, with each site plan submitted, provide the Board and have a full application for a site plan review of each lot that's developed. We've shown you a general layout of what we're envisioning most intensity development of the sites, so that we can show that the lots do meet the setback requirements. The site, as we've shown in the past, has good drainage. It's 20 feet to groundwater. It's all uniform good sands. The stormwater's going to be handled on site. I think presently it's pretty flat and most of the stormwater stays on the site. That's what we're going to be maintaining. We've done a groundwater mounding analysis. Fred Dente provided groundwater mounding analysis for the engineer's review that shows that, even at worst case, making some rather conservative assumptions that groundwater would get no higher than about 10 feet below the surface. It's a relatively easy site to do grading and work out grades. There's nothing inherent about this site that would make it difficult to provide the Board with grading and drainage plans for each lot that would work. So we think the providing those at the time of site plan review for each lot is certainly adequate. MR. STARK-Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Dave? Rog? Tim? MR. RUEL-I don't understand this, the requirement for the lots to be seeded and stabilized before the Town's acceptance of Hunter Brook Lane. MR. HILTON-Yes. If you look at this plat here, there is one highlighted building, and that is presently what is being built right now. The rest of the buildings are future proposed, but the ground underneath them has already been graded. What we're looking for is that area that isn't being built upon right now to be seeded and stabilized prior to the Town's acceptance of that curbed road which is Hunter Brook Lane. MR. RUEL-That curbed road doesn't exist now? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, only a portion. MR. BREWER-Only one building is up. MR. NACE-Hunter Brook Road exists up to a turnaround here, right now. MR. RUEL-And that cross hatched building is completed? MR. NACE-That cross hatched building is being completed. This landscaping, I think is pretty well underway, and obviously this lot will get topsoiled and seeded, as this is being occupied. The road right-of-way has to be completed, topsoiled and seeded according to the Town requirements before Paul Naylor will accept it. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. MACEWAN-When do you anticipate conveying the road to the Town? MR. NACE-As soon as it's completed. obviously. That will be this summer, MR. MACEWAN-How many more units would you have up? MR. NACE-This is the only unit we can occupy, before this road. MR. MACEWAN-You don't plan on coming back in the next month, two months? MR. NACE-I plan on being back in June. Wednesday for the next unit. I plan on submitting MR. MACEWAN-By the time you get ready to convey it to the Town, you figure to have one unit finished totally and the next one underway? MR. NACE-This unit will be finished. This unit will be underway. We cannot occupy this unit, next unit, until the road is conveyed to the Town. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me. Lot 9 is done. There is a CO that was issued on it. I've met all the site plan requirements. As a matter of fact, the lawn is 80% covered right now. I have the CO and I did everything that you approved on the site plan last. My proposal is to do the lot right next to the shaded one. So that will certainly be stabilized and seeded just as soon as we're done with that building. So, basically, Lot 9, I don't think is a concern anYmore, because I did get the CO and I addressed everything according to the site plan. MR. MACEWAN-George, how much of the property are you looking to have seeded here? I mean, are you looking to have their entire building lot seeded or just the right-of-way on the Town? MR. HILTON-We're looking at everything that is not shown as being proposed for building right now to be seeded and stabilized. MR. MACEWAN-You're asking them to seed all the way back to their property line? MR. HILTON-I'm asking them to seed everything that they've graded at this point, which they will not be building upon for some unknown time period. MR. RUEL-Which ones are those, six through fourteen, less nine? MR. SCHERMERHORN-First of all, lets keep in mind, I bought this project last fall, as you know. I bought a pre-existing, I don't want to say a mess, but I bought it pre-existing and cleaned it up. I don't know if anybody's noticed or walked the property. They logged a good portion of it. I cleaned up a lot of it. As a matter of fact, grass is starting to grow in that back section already. The lot, I don't know what lot number off hand, but the lot next to the shaded building I'll be starting as soon as I get the site plan approval next month. That will take care of another section. The road, of course, will be paved. That middle section, I really didn't do much to that, other than knock down a few knolls which is behind the teacher's credit union. I can spread some seed out, but I think it's going fine on its own right now. If you just take a walk out there, you'll see that it's starting to naturally come back up. MR. MACEWAN-Wouldn't it be more cost effective to do some sort of erosion control measures on the property lines? - 34 - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I'd like to address that as well. We had a couple of complaints from neighbors saying that the pond had a, you know, they thought some erosion was running into it. Well, on two occasions, DEC went out and inspected it. John Goralski, Betty Monahan and Mary Lee Gosline, a neighbor, walked the Michaels Group, Cedar Court, all along my pond, which three quarters of that pond is mine, and DEC, I think we have letters to reflect this. They didn't find any problem or anything that was unstable, and they did not request anything that I do, other than the fact, a recommendation on the old logging road to John Goralski was to put up maybe, or just throw some seed down the log road and let it grow up. DEC has had no concerns whatsoever and there's been no signs of any erosion control or any erosion running down. If you look at the site, as a matter of fact, it plateaus bac~up, and if you just walk it, you'll see there's been, I don't know how much more you could stabilize. It's all just natural vegetation and growth. I mean, it's really controlled pretty good, I think. MR. MACEWAN-George, where is this coming from? ' I mean, we've never asked this of any other developers before. I'm curious. Well, right now we have an open field. We have, you know, grading has occurred already. We have had some concerns about the pond. We have had some concerns about wind blowing sand across the road and taking it away from this site. Those concerns have lead to Staff asking that this site be seeded and stabilized. For some time period, we don't know when the rest of this lot will be built upon. MR. BREWER-How about we ask them to seed the area that he's disturbed? Is that fair? MR. HILTON-Well, we're seeking the area that is disturbed on the site, that is that's shown on the subdivision plat. MR. BREWER-Can you outline that for us on the map? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me. This area, these three lots on the inner loop right here, behind teacher's credit union, I did not disturb or do anything other than just clean out a few knolls and just basically cleaned it up. I didn't do any grading. I just kind of leveled out what was left there from before. The majority of the grading (lost word) done on Lot 9 where I had to take out a real big cut, which everybody probably saw the big sand pile I had there. A lot of the fill was from the basement. These basements are 110 feet long by 33 wide, and 7 foot depth, but in this back corner it had quite a bit of fill, and this next lot which we're calling Lot 10 and 11, this is where I'm proposing to hand in the site plan next month. So that takes out a big chunk of work where I did do grading. So it would be senseless to seed that right now when I'm going into a site plan. This back here, if you'll notice, that bank, that's been pre-existing. I only cleaned up all the trees that were overhanging that when they logged it originally, and that, as a matter of fact, this is the best section of all. As a matter óf fact, before the meeting, I drove out there, because we left some of the topsoil on top and it's starting to grow up already, and, you know, eventually, within several months I would say that's probably going to be pretty much controlled. If you look at the topo's and you walk the land, you'll see there's no disturbance with 2 or 300 feet of that pond, and twice DEC's been up there and they've found no reason for me to. MR. MACEWAN-Were you with them when they walked the property? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. John Goralski was and he's called me personally from DEC and I've spoken to him and they've made no recommendations other than he told John that the old logging road that's been in existence for quite a few years, you know, maybe just throw some seed down and that was about it. As a matter of - 35 - ., ,,-......-',,-.......-, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) fact, I went further than that. I put a silt fence and some haybales and I put a silt fence, and this wasn't even required by Staff at all, and John and Jim both, it was just a positive recommendation to do it, and I did it, and if you walk it, you'll see that there's no. MR. MACEWAN-Where did you put the silt fence? MR. SCHERMERHORN - I put one down by the logging road, the old logging road, which is down here. Then I put another one, you know how there's a big easement that was cut out along Blind Rock, so I put one down here. Then I started to run 800 feet of silt fence, per the Staff's recommendation, but when DEC went up there, John came back, Goralski, and said, no, Rich, we just want to see a little short section of, like, 20 feet down in that ditch, because they saw no way that I had disturbed anything. So," 600 feet of fence that I spent four hours putting up, to pull it all back out. As a matter of fact, I think I left a 200 foot section still there, but that's the only, more or less news to me. They did say it would be a positive recommendation to seed it. I mean, I don't have a problem throwing some seed down, but I mean, it's doing pretty well on it's own. Nobody likes blowing sand, but unfortunately it's, with every job site I do. You can't help it. MR. STARK-George, why did you make the recommendation that he seeds this, but when Passarelli subdivided his property up on Route 9, we didn't ask him to, we had him seed the front part of it, but the majority of it will be clear cut and everything. That hasn't been seeded or anything. MR. BREWER-George wasn't here then. MR. HILTON-Yes. I'm not sure. MR. BREWER-George wasn't here then. MR. STARK-Well, we didn't require this of any other applicant. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, again, we have had some concerns about the pond and blowing sand out here, and it's a Staff recommendation that this, the remainder of this site be seeded, to prevent any sand or other type of erosion on this location. I can't speak for past instances, but right now this is what we're recommending for this site. MR. STARK-Who made the recommendation to you to? MR. HILTON-It's a Staff recommendation. It's internal Staff recommendation, myself and the entire Department. MR. STARK-Who made the complaints about the sand blowing? MR. HILTON-I don't have those, personally. the complaints. I don't know who made MR. SCHERMERHORN-See, I'm not aware of any complaints, and I've been very good about addressing the complaints. As a matter of fact, I was up at Butternut Hill, had a complaint from one of the neighbors where 1'm building, and Ron Montesi gave a call to Staff. The next thing you know, I'm out there the next day putting silt fences up. The first time I've ever had to put them up on a job site. I'm on Glen Lake on Birch Road right now, beautiful, sandy, rocky soil. No complaints from any of the neighbors. Everybody says, you're doing a fine job. You've cleaned it up nice. I get a call from Staff, a couple of days ago, they want to meet me out there. Lee York has a concern, lives right around the corner. So the only sites I seem to have a, that have seemed to have concerns - 36 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) is where there's been some internal people in the, seriously, and then Mary Lee Gosline, which she's very, very good friends with Betty Monahan. That's where the concerns keep coming up, and I've met her husband Mr. Gosline. He comes over. He asking me if he can collect fire wood, ride his on my property. He asked me one day on the weekend if I could take my back hoe and help him dreg out the pond on his side. I said, geez, I can't do that, you know, I couldn't do it. So I'm not aware of any of these concerns. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. Tim, lets poll the Board here quick. Do you feel he should seed it or not seed it? MR. BREWER-I don't know. If we've got complaints, and I'm not saying they're legitimate or not. MR. STARK-What would you like to see him do? MR. BREWER-The parts that he's disturbed, seed it. If it's not a big deal, Rich, just seed it. The parts that he hasn't disturbed, I don't see a need for it. MR. STARK-Dave? MR. WEST-I agree. MR. STARK-Roger? MR. RUEL-No seeding. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think it's necessary. MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I think that the fact that he's putting in silt fences now are a quick solution to the problem. The seeds are waiting to germinate and hopefully take hold, provided you don't get a down pour, and take it from that way. I think what he's done now is adequate. MR. STARK-Okay. I concur. I think we're done with that situation. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. RUEL-I have a question that goes back to Staff again, and it's, we talked about seeding, but lets talk about the grading plan with finished floor elevations, the requirement for that. MR. HILTON-Yes. That just basically states that when the applicant comes in to develop each site, that they will submit a grading plan showing the floor elevation of each unit, or the base floor of each building that he's going to construct in the future, at the time of site plan. MR. RUEL-Fine, but that's not a condition. Don't they normally have to do that? Why should it be a special condition now? MR. HILTON-To tell you the truth, I think we, you know, if we get it at the time of site plan review, we just want to make sure that it works with the rest of the site, and as long as it's going to happen anyway, you're probably right. It may not have to be a condition. MR. RUEL-Well, if you feel comfortable with it and the applicant doesn't mind, I guess we can add it. MR. BREWER-It's something you're going to do anyway, Tom? - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. NACE-It's in your regulations. We have to do it. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I'm wondering why, all of a sudden, we have to mention it. MR. NACE-It normally isn't. MR. STARK-I don't think it does, Rog. questions on the Board? Anybody else have any MR. BREWER-No. MR. STARK-Make a motion, Rog. MOTION TO MODIFY SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 CROSS ROADS PARK, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption," seconded by George Stark: For drainage system improvements and lot line changes, with the condition that the applicant submit a grading plan with finished floor elevations at site plan submittal, per site plan. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. NACE-Could we just make sure that in your resolution that really meant site plan for each lot. MR. RUEL-All right. We'll just modify it that way, per site plan. MR. NACE-Thank you very much. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-George, normally when we do a modification, we also do some comment about, that it's not a substantial modification requiring any new SEQRA review. I don't know if the Board wants to consider doing that here? MR. STARK-No. We have done that in the past, and I forgot all about it. How do you want to word that? MR. SCHACHNER-You could just make a separate motion that there's no need for further consideration under SEQRA because this is not a substantial modification. MR. STARK-Roger, you want to do that? MR. RUEL-Yes. MOTION THAT SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 IS A MINOR MODIFICATION AND THEREFORE HAS NO SEQRA REQUIREMENTS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark - 38 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. MACEWAN-George, do you have a copy of the letter that they received from DEC from the field inspection? MR. HILTON-We don't have a letter for the file. MR. MACEWAN-I would ask to have Tom submit one for your file, please. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did give one to John Goralski. So I know he has it, but I'll make sure he has another one. MR. MACEWAN-Send it right to George. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED COLGATE PHILLIPS/LEIGH BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A., APA LOCATION: HILLMAN RD./CLEVERDALE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 12.68 ACRE LOT INTO 3 LOTS OF 8.27 AC., 2.08 AC., AND 2.11 AC. TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27 LOT SIZE: 12.68 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN CAFFREY & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1995 FINAL STAGE, Colgate Phillips Estate/Leigh Beeman, Meeting Date: May 21, 1996 "The applicant is proposing a 3 lot residential subdivision of property on Cleverdale Road. The Preliminary phase of this application was heard and acted on by the Planning Board at the April 16, 1996 meeting. Staff's concerns continue to be stormwater runoff and site drainage. Approval of the Final stage subdivision is recommended with the stipulation that a grading and stormwater plan be submitted with the application for a building permit for each lot within this subdivision. In addition, all comments from Rist Frost should be addressed prior to any Planning Board action." MR. HILTON-And at this time, I would ask Bill Levandowski to summarize his letter concerning this item. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-This letter is dated May 14, 1996, to James Martin, Town of Queensbury, Reference: Colgate Phillips Estate/Beeman Subdivision Final Stage Subdivision No. 8-1995 "Dear Mr. Martin: The development guidelines and sketches contained in and attached to the April 22, 1996 letter to the Town from H. Thomas Jarrett, P. E. should adequately define the stormwater management constraints that have b~en discussed. We assume they will be incorporated in the final subdivision plans. We have no further applicable comments on this review. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P. E." Since then, I believe Mr. Jarrett has submitted additional information which further confirms that they've complied with our comments and everything looks like it's in good shape. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have any other comments on this, George, or letters? MR. HILTON-Those are the only comments that we have at this time. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments by the Board? MR. BREWER-If we were to grant this approval, I would recommend - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) that this letter be attached to the final plat. MR. PALING-This letter? You mean the April 22nd letter? MR. BREWER-With one addition to it. Under the calculations, the paragraph that the owner/developer of each lot wish to deviate from the above areas and proposes more driveway, building or lawn, a revised stormwater management plan should be prepared for review by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, because we had so much discussion. MR. PALING-By the Town of Queensbury and Planning Board. MR. BREWER-By the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, only because we've had so much discussion with the stormwater and staff had concerns and Rist-Frost. If there's no deviations, then not. If they do deviate from it, then we should review it again. MR. RUEL-Okay. When you talk about this letter, you're also talking about the attached plan, or should the original plan be modified to reflect what's on here? MR. BREWER-The original plan that he has submitted, this should be incorporated. MR. RUEL-This is not part of it? MR. BREWER-Yes, it is. MR. RUEL-You're talking about this two page letter, right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. That seems reasonable. MR. RUEL-I have a question about this plan that was attached to it. Is this reflected in the overall plan, this information? MR. PALING-Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. JARRETT-My name is Tom Jarrett, representing the applicant. Yes. All the submissions that you have are made portion of the stormwater management plan. I've tentatively made an agreement with Staff that we would reference all these documents on the final plat, as part of final. MR. RUEL-Instead of putting this information on the plan, you're going to reference this information? MR. JARRETT-That was what we discussed. That's right. Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. JARRETT-It will be. Is this letter also referenced? MR. BREWER-That's fine. I just would add that word "Planning Board" at the end of that paragraph or sentence, if that's all right with the applicant. MR. JARRETT-Would you like to revise the letter? MR. BREWER-I think if we just wrote it in and initialed it or whatever. MR. PALING-Okay. Does the applicant have any more comments on this at the moment? Do you have anything you want to add or volunteer, whatever? Okay. All right. Now I wasn't here for this last one. We don't need to do a SEQRA tonight? - 40 - - --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. HILTON-It was done at the time of Preliminary. MR. PALING- It was done. The public hearing has been completed. So this can go right to a motion, if there's no further comment. MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995, COLGATE PHILLIPS ESTATE/LEIGH BEEMAN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To subdivide a 12.68 acre lot into 3 lots of 8.27 acres, 2.08 acres and 2.11 acres, with the stipulation that if the applicant deviates from items in the Thomas Jarrett letter dated April 22, 1996 that a revised stormwater management plan be prepared for review by the Queensbury Planning Board, and also with the stipulation that a grading and stormwater plan be submitted with the application for a building permit for each lot within this subdivision. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. West MR. PALING-Was that clear, the way he read that to you, the way the motion was? MR. CAFFREY-So that eliminates the need to pencil in on the April 22nd letter, because it's now referenced in the motion. MR. PALING-It's in the motion, so I don' t think we need to do further than that. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. It'll be in the resolution. MR. CAFFREY-Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM: MORGAN VITTENGL - REFERRED PER THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. We have a discussion item this evening, Morgan Vittengl, referred by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. PALING-Okay. Now this is a discussion item only, and there is no public hearing or anything like that scheduled tonight, but if there is public comment, I would like to accept it, because this is going to ,be in the form of a recommendation, and when we don't accept public input and we make recommendations, we can have troubles. MR. RUEL-This is Zoning Board asking us for an input? MR. PALING-Yes. They're asking us to review this, as I see it, as a site plan review, and then come back with comments to them. They have got to grant variances on this, but before doing that, they want to see what we think of it as a site plan. So we shouldn't be concerned with front and side yard setbacks as I understand it, because that's something that ZBA will handle at a future time. MR. HILTON-Well, right now, this is being referred to the Planning Board as a variance application. So it's still under a variance application. Once your referral, whatever that may be, goes back - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) to the Zoning Board, they're going to hear and act on the variance. If approved, the item will be back before you as a site plan. MR. PALING-As a site plan. MR. RUEL-Yes. Aren't they looking for an input beyond what they normally look at as a Zoning Board? MR. HILTON-Really what they're looking at, and I'll summarize this real quick, is when it was heard by the Zoning Board, there were some concerns as to whether or not this site could handle this. It's a pretty steep slope on the front end toward the lake, and on the back end toward Mud Pond, I believe it is. Some, questions came up, and really what we're here to do is get the Planning Board's recommendation this site can accommodate this development and how they feel about the proposed development on this site., MR. PALING-Okay. George, before we proceed, I'd like clarification on the Mud Pond issue. I'm a little muddy on that. Clear that up, please. MR. HILTON-At the public hearing for the variance, there was an issue raised as to how this development would affect Mud Pond, and setbacks of the proposed septic on this property, and I believe any of the buildings on this property. Currently, the Town of Queensbury has a setback of 100 feet in septic from any wetland, which Mud Pond is recognized as. There's a space of ground in between Mud Pond and this property, which is not classified as a DEC wetland. There were some concerns raised by some, I believe, adjacent property owners as to how locating a septic on the back end of this lot would affect that area between Mud Pond and Mr. Vittengl's property, and whether or not we had any regulations over it. We don't have any regulations over the land in between the Pond and this property because it is not classified as a wetland. The only jurisdiction that could, that anyone could have over this property would be the Army Corps of Engineers. I contacted the Army Corps of Engineers, and in a detailed letter that I have before me, which is dated March 14, 1996, we have it on record, it basically states that right now that land "disputed land" is not classified as a wetland. They don't have any jurisdiction over it. Basically, the letter says that the only thing that they can recommend or say is to stay out of that land in between Mud Pond and Mr. Vittengl' s property, and then they're not disturbing anything that they have control over. MR. PALING-Stay out of that land. MR. HILTON-Right. In other words, if they are going to locate a septic or any building, if it's entirely on Mr. Vittengl's property, and not in that area between his property and Mud Pond, then they see no problem with it because they have no formal classification for that land. MR. RUEL-It's swampy area though, isn't it? MR. HILTON-It appears to be high groundwater. Again, it's not classified a wetland, and we don't have any, no organization or entity has any control over it. MR. RUEL-I have a question for the Chairman. Is there any reason why we don't have public hearing on this? So many times a public hearing gives us inputs that we otherwise wouldn't have. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, we have two problems in regard to that, and that was illustrated with Indian Ridge. One is we may have some of the public here tonight and they may make some worthwhile comments, but when you come to a full public hearing, where everyone is notified that's involved, then you have a bigger turn out and more - 42 - - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) input, and then you might look back and on the decision you made and not like it too much. MR. RUEL-That has happened on several occasions. MR. HILTON-Right, but I can only tell you what's going to happen here. Once your recommendation is made, it goes back to the Zoning Board. It has been re-advertised. It was in, I believe, Saturday's paper, for a Zoning Board public hearing, which is going to take place this Thursday. So there has already been one public hearing. There will be a second and a third, should it make it back here to the Planning Board. MR. PALING-Yes. This is all well and good, but the point we're making to you, George, is that we didn't have the benefit of the input from those public hearings as a Board. MR. HILTON-Well, I believe the minutes are of record. I'm not sure if you've been copied with them or had a chance to look at them, but, you know, the concerns that were raised, I think that we've all sat down and tried to, you know, address them, and the only thing I can say is, as a formal recommendation, it's not a public hearing tonight, but we should have two more to follow, where any questions that have not been raised already will be. MR. BREWER-But our point being is we are making a recommendation about the benefit of that. MR. PALING-Yes, the public hearing. That's what we keep repeating. MR. BREWER-Didn't we say, two months ago, that if we were going to make recommendations, we were going to have a public hearing? MR. RUEL-That's what I thought. MR. PALING-Well, we said we want it. I think after Indian Ridge we feel even stronger about it, and I'm going to allow public comment tonight, if there's anyone here that wants to talk, and I think we're going to have to stipulate in our recommendation that we are making this without a full public hearing, and we don't like it. MR. BREWER-I thought we said we were going to do that? future, why don't we do that. In the MR. RUEL-Yes, we should. MRS. LABOMBARD-Did we say that in regard to something that we did? What precipitated that? I mean, I can't remember? MR. PALING-Well, we've had at least two things since I've been on the Board that precipitated this. MRS. LABOMßARD-We never came right out and made a resolution after Indian Ridge. We all talked about it, and I agree with you. MR. PALING-Okay. I think what we should do is to proceed with this hearing, make it clear, even within our recommendation of where we think we're coming from, and be careful with our recommendation, but lets proceed with the hearing and we'll ask, allow any public comment that can be made tonight, recognizing that the public has not been fully notified. So, having said that, why don't we proceed. MR. RUEL-We've got to change this procedure. MR. PALING-Well, lets discuss that after. There's no need to hold up this applicant with something like that. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-All right. MR. HILTON-Okay. Bob, if I may, I think we've addressed the issue of Mud Pond and the strip of land between Mud Pond and Mr. Vittengl's property. There appears to be no concern or problem there. I think where we should go from here is Rist-Frost has reviewed this application and has some detailed comments. I would ask Bill Levandowski to go over those comments for the Board. MR. PALING-Fine. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-This letter's dated May 16th to James Martin, Town of Queensbury, Reference: Morgan Vittengl Site Plan No 5-96. We actually reviewed this as if it was a site plan submission, even though it looks like that's premature. "We have reviewed the site plan and other data received May 2, 1996, and have the following comments: An EAF was not included. As noted in the application, variances are required for front and side yard setbacks. Parking appears to be adequate for the intended use. Utility locations are not specifically shown. General location for the septic tank and leach field are indicated on the plot plan. Landscaping details are limited. No clearing limits, if required, are shown. The seeding note is included on the site plan. Construction details are shown for the walkway and stormwater control system. Grading and erosion control details are adequately indicated on the site plan and accompanying notes. NYS Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control are referenced. The location of the test pits and perc tests should be indicated on the plans. If they were not performed in the area of the proposed leach field and stormwater infiltration devices and at appropriate elevations, they should be repeated. The stormwater management report should quantify the amount of storm drainage that will be infiltrated and the amount proposed to be discharged to the south via the open pipe. Consideration should be given to infiltrating 100% of the storm water on site if possible. Documentation of permission or an easement for grading from the adjacent property owner should be provided. The proposed construction details and construction methods proposed by H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. and CT Male Associates, P. C. need to be incorporated into the site plan. Subsurface sanitary disposal appears to be adequately designed. Details of septic tank, distribution box and leach field need to be provided prior to installation to conform with DOH requirements. As noted in the submittal verification of adjacent water supply locations need to be confirmed. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William J. Levandowski, P.E." MR. PALING-Okay. There's quite a bit to that letter. Did you have any further comment? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Since the letter was written, we've conferred with Mr. Jarrett and he has submitted some additional information which appears to be, at least satisfy us in general that the storm drainage issues can be satisfactorily resolved on site and that it appears that the percolation test data and test pit data does confirm, also, that the on-site sanitary disposal system should function all right. So, from a sanitary and storm drainage point of view, it looks like it's doable. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Are those the only open items? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-From our perspective. I don't know if George has anything. MR. RUEL-Was an EAF required? - 44 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I reviewed it as if it was a full site plan. Obviously, that's premature, you know, the comments. MR. HILTON-Because an EAF has been submitted, or we're going to do SEQRA review, at the time of variance, and should it come to site plan, we will address it then. MR. PALING-Okay. Who else has any questions on this? MR. RUEL-I had a question for George. George, do we normally ask the engineering firm for information about parking and landscaping and things like that? I thought it was strictly engineering? MR. HILTON-I'm sorry. I didn't hear part of your question. MR. RUEL-Well, I have the Rist-Frost letter here, and some of the items like parking, landscaping details, do we normally ask an engineering firm to check these items? MR. HILTON-I think they have a standard checklist, and they review each plan under that checklist. If Mr. Levandowski was reviewing this as a site plan, he may have that in his basic checklist. MR. RUEL-Because in the past, we had no comments about parking and landscaping. MR. HILTON-Right, and we don't, as far as variance is concerned. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-If the Staff sends the project down to us with no specific direction on what they want us to confine our review, we'll look at the normal checklist, but as I say, I reviewed it as a full site plan review, even though that was premature at this point. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. MR. PALING-This is the elevation of the house that's going to be there? MORGAN VITTENGL MR. VITTENGL-I'm Morgan Vittengl. I'm the owner. MR. JARRETT-I'm Tom Jarrett, representing the applicant. MR. PALING-Maybe I got the wrong perspective or something, but that house seems awful big for the lot I was standing on. With what you have there that's going to be removed, and I see this in its place, There's a big difference. How high, what's the height of this, of this structure? MR. RUEL-It'.s a one story structure with a basement, about 28, 30 feet? MR. VITTENGL-Exactly, 28 to 30 feet. The basement was built into that. MR. PALING-From the basement floor to the ridge. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's the basement here. That's a deck, and that's the first floor, but that deck is part of the structure. MR. PALING-How wide is it? MR. BREWER-It's on the plan. It's 43. MR. RUEL-The front setback from the lake should be 75 feet, right? - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-How wide is the building? MR. WEST-28 by 34, isn't it? MR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. PALING-28 high by 38 wide? MR. WEST-No, length, width, 28, 34. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. WEST-That's just about the same size as the other. MR. PALING-It would be quite a difference when that building goes in. MR. BREWER-28 by 34. How big is the other one? MR. STARK-You can't measure it. You've got the sides here and the sides there. MR. BREWER-Yes, I know. MR. PALING-There's no elevation, really, to it. MR. STARK-Bob, it's a one story house. higher than the guy next door. It's not going to be any MR. PALING-Okay. What other comments, questions from the Board? MR. BREWER-I have a problem with looking at this as though we're doing a site plan, before they get the variance. I don't, the guy's building a house on a lot that's existing. He's improving the situation. I don't know what more he can do. MR. RUEL-Well, I'd like to know, specifically, what the Zoning Board is looking for. MR. HILTON-The Zoning Board wants the Mud Pond issue to be looked at. I believe we've addressed that. MR. RUEL-Mud Pond. What else? MR. HILTON-Whether or not this site can be developed, given the slope, the limiting slopes on this property. I think the engineering work that has been done by Mr. Jarrett and reviewed by Rist-Frost indicates that this site can accommodate this proposed development. MR. PALING-Lets stay with that subject for a minute. Okay. I wonder if the applicant would expound upon that a little bit, to tell us what you're going to do, so there will not be erosion on that steep bank you've got. MR. JARRETT-Well, I would certainly try. In our opinion, there are three slope areas that are a concern. The slope facing Glen Lake, the slope facing Mud Pond, and there's a slope on an existing embankment to the eastern portion of the site. To address the slope facing Glen Lake first, what we're planning to do is minimize, essentially eliminate disturbance any further forward toward the lake from the proposed structure. We've consulted with a geo-technical engineer, and you see their recommendations on the site plan, essentially they feel the development of this house on this site will work without excessive problems, with regard to erosion or stability, as long as we don't disturb any portions of the lot on the lake side of the structure, but also stipulating - 46 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) that any disturbed areas be re-vegetated as soon as possible, including temporary re-vegetation, which was a subject discussed in part. MR. PALING-Well, what would you use for vegetation on there? MR. JARRETT-Typically ground covers or shrubs or quick growing grass. MR. PALING-You're trying to establish a root structure to hold the? MR. JARRETT-Well, it's a temporary vegetative measure. It's not going to be deep root structure, but it will suffice with erosion control measures. The long term stability of the slope will depend on root structure and ground coverage or shrubbery would be preferable. MR. RUEL-There is an existing building on that lot? MR. JARRETT-There is an existing building down close to the lake shore. You see the dotted line, the dashed line on the front of that site plan. MR. RUEL-What septic system did they have? MR. JARRETT-I don't know. I've walked the site. I would hesitate to guess. MR. STARK-Did you go visit the site, Rog? MR. RUEL-No. I'm too old. It's too steep. MR. STARK-You got that right. MR. JARRETT-Addressing the Mud Pond slope, we have attempted to minimize disturbance of that slope, and you'll note we have one four inch pipe that will protrude into that embankment. We've protected that with stone, and with temporary erosion control measures. We also have a shallow swale we're proposing along the eastern side of the property, for clean or uncontaminated surface water runoff. Other than that, that bank won't be disturbed. The embankment along the eastern property line, we propose to cut back to the property line and in fact encroach on the adj oining property for grading to achieve stability. Dr. Vittengl has contacted the adjoining owner and has permission to perform that grading. We've suggested on this site plan that written permission be granted in order for that grading. That slope will be left in finished condition, at a flatter grade than it is currently, and we've also had that situation reviewed by a geo-technical engineer in the field, but it will be stabilize in the proposed condition. MR. PALING-Okay. It seems that the plan you've got for long range, which woulÇi benefit the owner, would work. How about during construction? You're going to have to take some special measures then, aren't you? MR. JARRETT-Well, as I said, we're planning to limit, or recommending limiting any disturbance to the front of the building and south, and not going lake side with that disturbance. We also have shown a silt fence in front of the structure to contain any surficial erosion that may occur. MR. STARK- I think the plan is fine. You're improving the character of the neighborhood, and if I was your neighbor, I'd be all for you putting this in, but you're going to be building up on top on the same level as your neighbor to the west. Okay. That's very, very steep down to the trailer and with all the add ons and the wires and everything. How are you going to remove that, piece by piece - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) up the hill? MR. JARRETT-Essentially, the geo-technical consultant we retained was asked to address that issue, and they're recommending that the camp, shed and deck be removed manually from that area. MR. STARK-By hand. MR. JARRETT-Now, Dr. Vittengl does have access via adjoining property owners. There's a roadway along the lake shore coming in from the eastern side. He has permission to use that roadway to demolish the camp. So I don't believe there'll be any disturbance to our slope. MR. STARK-Fine. Thank you. No problem. MR. JARRETT-We, specifically, don't want equipment traversing that slope. MR. STARK-Because carrying it up the stairs would be mighty hard. I had all I could do to walk down the stairs. MR. JARRETT-Well, essentially, we don't want equipment allover the site, disturbing that slope. So, when it says, manually, I, essentially, would allow equipment as long as it doesn't disturb the slope, and as long as it traverses only that roadway. MR. RUEL-Anyone living in there? MR. JARRETT-In the trailer? Not that ~ saw. MR. PALING-That hasn't been occupied for a while, I take it? DR. VITTENGL-It is a summer residence. MR. PALING-There was some discussion in the ZBA minutes about test pits and boreings. Do you want to comment on that, George, the location? MR. HILTON-I think we're looking for the location of test pits done on this property to ensure that they've been done in the area of the proposed septic. If you look on your revised plan, there are indicated three test pits. MR. JARRETT-If I could correct that, George. pits and a percolation (lost word) . There are two test MR. HILTON-Okay, and they've been done, it appears, basically, in the area of the proposed septic, and I would, you know, if our engineer consultant has any problem with it, or any concerns, I would ask him to state them. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-No. They indicated, I believe, that there was no groundwater down to the depth of eight feet or so. MR. JARRETT-Our pits went to eight feet. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-And the perc rate was? MR. JARRETT-Ten to fifteen minute rate, approximately twelve minutes. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-The proposed septic system is a mound system? MR. JARRETT-No. It's proposed as being a conventional system. The groundwater depth is sufficient. It's quite deep in that area, the - 48 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) soils were adequate. We were called in, essentially, because there was initially a concern that it might not accommodate a conventional system. Our recommendations are that a conventional system could be constructed because groundwater is deep and the soils are adequate. In our opinion, it does not require a mounding system. MR. MACEWAN-When you do test pits, is there a standard depth that you should be going to for testing. Essentially, you should go a minimum of two feet below the bottom of the proposed trenches. As a rule, we generally go a minimum of six feet and try to go eight feet or more, just to see what groundwater soil conditions are like. MR. MACEWAN-How deep would the proposed septic system be in the ground? MR. JARRETT-This system is proposed to be approximately two feet, maybe 30 inches. MR. STARK-A leach field. MR. JARRETT-A standard leach field, essentially. MR. STARK-What was the groundwater, do you know? MR. JARRETT-There was no groundwater to eight feet. Now if you look at the embankment to the south, you'll see that there's quite an elevation drop, and my opinion is the groundwater is quite a bit deeper than eight feet. We did the test pits in January, and we had some difficulty with weather. So we didn't go deeper than eight feet, but it was satisfactory for the design of the system. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-The water level in Glen Lake is down in the 400 range and the water surface in the wetland of Mud Pond is also down in the 402 range, and if that's that granular, chances are the groundwater under the proposed site is roughly at that same elevation as well, which is 30 some feet deep. MR. PALING-The questions so far seem to be mostly, can you put the septic system in place right, is the drainage water going to affect any, stormwater runoff going to affect anyone else, and then the technical questions of, can you really build into that kind of a slope without any kind of damage in the long or short run, and it seems that you've answered them rather well, to the satisfaction of the engineers. MR. STARK-They're not building on the slope. MR. PALING-No, no. I don't mean they're building on a slope. They're building involvinq a slope, and it's technical questions that they seem to have answered rather well, I think, from what they're say:j..ng. MR. RUEL-I've got a question. variances, too? Variances, you're requesting MR. PALING-Not from us. MR. RUEL-No, I know, but two variances, front and side? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. Essentially, that's it. MR. RUEL-Why do you need the front one, 75 feet? Why do you need that? You seem to have enough space there. MR. JARRETT-You mean why do we have to have a variance? - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-Yes. setback? Why are you requesting a variance for the front DR. VITTENGL-Well, there may be a couple of reasons. One is limited parking in back, room to turn, as far as pulling in and off the property. Secondly, the adjacent house, that would put us at quite a disadvantage if we set it back much further as far as looking pretty much at the house. His house would sit way up in front of us, as far as any view. Thirdly, I believe that that has been altered, actually, the setback requirement, since we started the project. MR. HILTON-It's still 75. It was proposed. MR. PALING-We shouldn't be involved with setbacks. MR. RUEL-It was just a question, and the question had to do with whether it had a bearing on the location of the septic system, essentially. MR. JARRETT-Well, I'm going to state that, essentially, we're trying to protect the embankment overlooking Mud Pond, so we tried to set the septic system back at least 20 feet to that embankment. It's preferable not to site it, a leach field or any kind of a septic system, under a parking area if you can, or special design provisions. There are some difficulties with that. If you take into consideration the parking and the sewage disposal system, the current house location is the best. MR. RUEL-Okay. That's what I was trying to elicit with the question. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other comments or questions by anyone on the Board? Are we ready to make a recommendation by the numbers, so to speak, on this? MR. STARK-Bob, what's the Zoning Board want from us? MR. RUEL-It's more than a recommendation. Don't we have to supply the ZBA with a letter or? MR. PALING-No. This is a discussion item, as I understand it. MR. RUEL-The ZBA is looking for answers to certain questions, right? MR. PALING-They want to know if you can practically put a building on that building site. MR. RUEL-They want to know if we would approve it as a site? MR. HILTON-Well, I think they're just looking for a recommendation. We've had, you know, some information submitted. If the Planning Board feels that there's enough information to, I guess either proceed with the variance or if you feel that this site can be developed, given the concerns that were raised at the time of variance hearing. MR. PALING-If for some reason we don't think it can be developed or built on, whatever you want to say, we should state it, but if we think it seems reasonable, they can build on the site, then we should go, tell them, yes, we think it can be done. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-And if we have any exceptions or questions or comments, we should make them. - 50 - '--, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. RUEL-Do we have any? MR. BREWER-Do we have any comment from anybody in the public? MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Lets do that now. Is there anyone here from the public that wants to comment on this? Okay. So there is, at the present time, no public comment, and we've got to watch out. That'll happen some day, but we've got to, we're asked to do a thing, we'll do it, with that reservation. MR. BREWER-Information provided, I think that he can do it. I think he's substantiated everything they've asked him for. MR. PALING-And I think we've had the engineering look at it, that reinforces what our thinking is, so I don't think we have a problem, basically, with going ahead with this ,but we have not had a public hearing. MR. BREWER-There may be specific questions when we do have a public hearing. MR. STARK-Bob, so we didn't have it. There's nothing you can do about it now. So we've got to move on. MR. BREWER-Right. So we'll make a recommendation that we believe the applicant has supported his application that he can build on the lot. We'll just note that we have not had any public comment whatsoever, and that's our recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-You ought to be careful to say, based on the information presented to us tonight. MR. STARK-Yes, but then after this, then we can take up, again, with the Staff, about. MR. BREWER-Right, that's illY recommendation. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that's good, Tim. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-Then that's all we need do, as I understand this. That's part of the minutes. MR. HILTON-That's basically all you have to do. MR. PALING-We have no serious reservation about them going ahead with this, based upon the information submitted and the lack of a public hearing. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. BREWER-And that's it. MR. PALING-I don't think we need a motion. MR. HILTON-I don't think you need a motion or vote of any kind, as long as it's a general consensus. DR. VITTENGL-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Thank you. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're welcome. MR. BREWER-Is that it, Bob? MR. STARK-Now, if you want to bring that up, why don't they call - 51 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) for that on a discussion item, a public hearing. Why don't we make the recommendation. MR. PALING-We have a question from George. Go ahead, George. MR. STARK-Do we want to make a recommendation to the Staff that any discussion items that come in front of us need to be advertised for a public hearing? I think we ought to. MR. BREWER-No. I thought that we discussed this at the last, like last month, that if we were to make any recommendation to the ZBA or the Town Board for re-zoning or for whatever reason, that you would notify, like we would a normal public hearing. MR. STARK-Lets reiterate it, then, to the Staff. MR. BREWER-So then we have to tell Staff to advertise and notify. MR. RUEL-Tim, you're right, but lets start now. paperwork, and lets get it going. Lets do the MR. PALING-Let me interject, if I can. That was done exactly as you say, and I went on vacation and forgot the whole damn thing. So if you want, we'll just re-do it, and I'll bring the letter to the next meeting. MR. BREWER-We don't need a letter. We can pass a resolution, Mark said, I believe, if I'm right, that if we pass a resolution to notify and advertise for public hearing every time we make a recommendation to the Town Board or the ZBA, can we do that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, you need to have it in your budget that you can spend the money for the verification, which I'm guessing you do, and I take it that you're doing this as a matter of policy, and not trying to get an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations or the Zoning Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Right. No, it's just a, I mean, we don't have all that many of them. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. BREWER-It's just like when we had the re-zoning. MR. SCHACHNER-It would be over and above what's required by the Zoning law and the Subdivision Regulations. MR. BREWER-It's only to benefit us, really. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't have a problem with it. J.'m just trying to clarify that it would be over and above what's required under law, but as a matter of policy, you would feel that you would be benefitted by having public input, even on advisory recommendations. MR. PALING-And we can do that in the form of a resolution tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-I think you can do that in the form of a resolution tonight, a resolution whenever. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Make your resolution. MR. PALING-All right. I'll make a motion that the, I'm going to make a motion, and we want it directed to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-No, to Staff. - 52 - ~'--- -...-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/21/96) MR. STARK-To Staff. MR. BREWER-That when a recommendation is forwarded to this Planning Board, to give recommendation to Town Board, Zoning Board, we would like notification, just as we would for a. MR. SCHACHNER-As if it were a legally required public hearing. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. SCHACHNER-And I don't mean to split hairs, but you may find that it's not appropriate to call it a public hearing. You may find that, because I think your goal is to solicit public input, even during the advisory recommendation, and to that end, and I don't mean to split hairs here, but the reason I'm doing it "is because a public hearing is a technical, procedural step that's required by law, and what you're talking about is a step that would be exactly the same, but it's not required by law. MR. PALING-Well, it would include, however, notification as if it were a public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. I guess I would suggest that you call it something else, like, public input will be heard from any member of the public. Use any language you want except the word II hearing II , and the only reason I'm saying that is because a public hearing is a term of legal procedure, and it's not required, that is normally required by law that's not required here. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT ANY FUTURE REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, FROM THE TOWN BOARD OR ANYONE, THAT'S HANDLED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT THIS BE ACCOMPANIED BY PUBLIC INPUT, AND NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC WOULD BE THE SAME AS IF IT WERE A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A FULL BLOWN PUBLIC HEARING. IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC MEETING., Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1996, by the following vote: MR. PALING-I'd like to see this before it goes. I remember from last meeting, you guys are putting one together that I'm supposed to be looking at, too, where we certified, and I haven't heard anything from that. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't you have them just make a copy and give it to us in our packets for next Tuesday's meeting. MR. PALING-For next meeting, yes. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 53 -