Loading...
1996-09-24 QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 55-96 Tax Map No. 13-1-14 Site Plan No. 58-96 Tax Map No. 7-1-3 Site Plan No. 59-96 Tax Map No. 13-1-16 Mitchell Matthews 1. Rolf W. Ahlers 3. Angela Kladis 6. Cont'd on Page 25. Site Plan No. 60-96 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Tax Map No. 104-1-18.1, 12.1 7. Subdivision No. 13-86 EXTENSION Herald Square Phase III 24. 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 9/24/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN DAVID WEST TIMOTHY BREWER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-96 TYPE II MITCHELL MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-IA, CEA, LGPC LOCATION: MASON ROAD ON CLEVERDALE - TWO DOORS NORTH BEHIND MOORING POST MARINA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING F-SHAPED DOCK & BOATHOUSE AND RECONSTRUCT U-SHAPED DOCK AND BOATHOUSE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 84-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/21/96 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-60 JOHN CREEDE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there was a public hearing on August 27th. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. CREEDE-I'm John Creede. I'n\ representing Mitch Matthews. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. George, can we hear from you, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 55-96, Mitchell Matthews, Meeting Date: September 24, 1996 "The applicant is proposing the construction of a U-shaped dock with attached boathouse and stairway for access to the top of the boathouse. The proposed dock would meet the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The dock would be 36 feet in length and would be 657 square feet in area. The new boathouse would be 13 feet high and would contain a stairway to access the roof of the boathouse. The new dock and boathouse would have a side setback from the north property line of 10 feet and a setback of 22 feet from the south property line. The applicant has received a variance from the ZBA to construct a dock with these proposed setbacks. The height of the boathouse will be reduced from the existing height to a height of 13 feet. The applicant has indicated that the proposed ramp/stairway from land to the roof of the boathouse will be redesigned so that the stairs will be accessed from the new dock. Any plans submitted for a building permit should include this alteration to the plan. Staff believes this proposal will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and is in conformance with all Zoning Ordinance requirements. Lake views from surrounding properties will be improved with the construction of this new dock and boathouse. As a result, staff recommends approval of Site Plan No. 55-96." MR. PALING-George, there was some negative comment in regard to - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) having a land bridge in this case. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Is this just a simple case of something going from the land to the dock? MR. HILTON-That's the way that it was originally proposed, and I guess the County had some concern with that. MR. PALING-What is the problem with a land bridge? MR. HILTON-Well, that's something that the County, I guess in the past, has felt they're uncomfortable approving. I'm not sure what the reasoning is. Visually, I don't know if they think it's. MR. BREWER-The County has always turned them down. MR. PALING-Do you know what their reasoning is? MR. BREWER-I don't know whether it's aesthetics or what, but I know, from illY experience, they've always turned them down. MR. PALING-All right. Well, it's not a factor now, because it goes from dock to deck. So we don't care, but I was just asking. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-Because I don't think we've ever turned anybody down for having a land bridge. MR. HILTON-Right, and I don't understand what the County reasoning has been, but that's. MR. WEST-Can we find that out? MR. RUEL-We don't have that in our Ordinance. There's no mention about the land bridge, is there? MR. HILTON-No. There's nothing that says. MR. RUEL-Just the County. MR. HILTON-Just, the County has in the past historically voted against them. MR. PALING-Mark, can you shed any light on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Only the historical, which is that the Warren County Planning Board has essentially adopted a policy, but I don't mean anything formal in writing. They have never voted to recommend approval of anything that had a ramp connecting from a dock to the shore or a land bridge, whatever you want to call it, and their reasoning, they say that it's aesthetics, and they say that they don't believe it's appropriate. As far as I know, that's been their policy for at least 10 years, and as far as I know, they've never deviated from it, and I might add, as far as I know, there's not a single local board that necessarily agrees with that, and it's overridden routinely. MR. PALING-Yes. We'd have to have a super majority, but we can override it. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's often what happens. MR. WEST-I don't see the jùstification for it. I really don't. MR. PALING-Well, it's not a factor tonight, because we don't have a land bridge, but it was referred to earlier. I just wanted some - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) clarification. MR. BREWER-Couldn't they have a good case against that, Mark, if they, I mean, as far as handicappeq accessible? MR. SCHACHNER-Who's the "they"? MR. BREWER-Meaning an applicant. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes and no, in that, yes, I think applicants can often have very good justifiable reasons for ramps, no in that, when you say a case against them, if you mean legally, or just as a practical matter, yes. Legally, the Warren County Planning Board, since it's only a recommending referral body doesn't make any binding decisions. So nobody can really, they're not really accountable in a legal sense, but my answer's yes. MR. PALING-I just brought it up for clarification. It isn't a factor tonight. Okay. Other comments and questions? MR. RUEL-There will be an alteration to the plan, right? Not now. MR. HILTON-Yes, before a building permit is issued. MR. RUEL-Okay. You don't have to modify them now. MR. HILTON-No. MR. PALING-Okay. We've had a believe would have been closed. anyone cares to make it. Just close the public hearing now. public hearing on this, which I I'll allow any public comment, if to be sure, if I didn't, I will PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right, and this is a Type II. SEQRA. SO we can go right to a motion. We don't need a MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-96 MITCHELL MATTHEWS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To remove existing F-shaped dock and boathouse and to reconstruct a U-shaped dock and boathouse, with the condition that the plans will be altered to show the stairway from the deck to the roof, at the time of the building permit. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. CREEDE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 58-96 TYPE II ROLF W. AHLERS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-IA, CEA, APA LOCATION: END OF KNOX ROAD AT LAKE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) RESIDENCE. PER SECTION 179 -79 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 81-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-3 LOT SIZE: .34 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 ROLF AHLERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 58-96, Rolf Ahlers, Meeting Date: September 24, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition to an existing home on Knox Road. The applicant has received a variance from the ZBA for this expansion. This 812 square foot expansion would bring the amount of building area in this home to 2,700 square feet without the garage. This expansion, which will be built as a second floor on an existing structure, will meet the height requirements of the WR-IA district. Staff anticipates no adverse environmental impacts associated with this application and recommends approval of Site Plan No. 58-96." MR. AHLERS-My name is Rolf Ahlers. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Is there a stormwater management plan required here? MR. PALING-We ought to go to Warren County, first. MR. HILTON-September 11, 1996 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this application was reviewed and the recommendation was to approve, the comment "With the conditions that a stormwater management plan be developed and that the sanitary system meets the Code of the Town of Queensbury." First of all, regarding the stormwater management plan, I can make some comment. This expansion is on top of what already exists. There's no new building area going in on that lot. Staff really doesn't see that there would be too much of a stormwater management problem, but if the Planning Board feels it's necessary, the applicant could be asked to include some type of drainage ditches along the house and eaves or something at the time of the building permit. MR. RUEL-It's a new garage isn't it? MR. HILTON-No. The garage has already been. MR. RUEL-Existing. So everything, the footprint is all existing then. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. I don't think we need anything, personally. MR. RUEL-I don't think so, either. MR. BREWER-How far back away is it? MR. WEST-Forty-six, the new. MR. PALING-It's 46.3 feet from the lake, but it's behind the deck that was there before. MR. RUEL-It's the same footprint. MR. HILTON-Yes. It would be between 45 and 50 feet away from the lake, and it's within the same footprint that's there now. MR. RUEL-The same type of roof? - 4 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. AHLERS-The roof is different. The house now has a single story in the front toward the lake and two stories in the rear, and the roof of the front single story slants toward the lake, and the roof of the second story slants away from the lake. The new construction, which puts a second story on top of the first, will have a ridge roof running from the lake to the rear, and so the roof will be coming down, and the water will run off in different directions than it runs off now. On the south side, there are leaders and then runoff pipes, and I plan to attach the gutters on the south side of the roof to those same runoff lines which are buried in the ground, but not very deep. On the north side, I plan to have a ditch filled with a drainage pipe, and on top of it there is gravel, and the leader from the gutter can lead into that, and then in the front of the house it can go over into the same direction. There is the same amount of roof area. So there should not be any increase in rainwater, and it should create no problem. MR. RUEL-No increase, but it's a different direction. MR. AHLERS-It goes in a different direction. That's right. MR. RUEL-Instead of east and west, it's now north and south, the water. MR. AHLERS-Well, yes. We speak about north and south, even though it is not exactly north and south. It's a little difficult to know exactly in which direction things are pointing here. The point, Assembly Point, points into a, lets see, north/northwest direction I think, primarily north. MR. RUEL-It's marked on the map. MR. AHLERS-If it points north, then the northern direction of the one side of the roof, as I've said, is in fact correct. MR. PALING-Now, do we have a diagram of the plan that you just verbalized, regarding runoff? MR. AHLERS-I have drawn up nothing, no. MR. RUEL-Are you aware of this, George, do you know this? MR. HILTON-Yes. I've spoken with the applicant and understand what his plans are, yes. MR. BREWER-We are going to have a plan showing that? MR. HILTON-Well, when he comes in for a building permit, if he's planning on putting in this drainage system, it would be on those plans. MR. RUEL-It will be on a plan? MR. HILTON-It would have to be. MR. PALING-I'd like to see the motion include that. MR. RUEL-Prior to issuing a building permit, just note it on the plan, just what you told us. MR. HILTON-That's fine. MR. AHLERS-Yes. MR. RUEL-How you're going to handle the stormwater. MR. AHLERS-Yes. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. PALING-We will open the public hearing on this matter now. Is there anyone here that cares to speak about the Ahlers site plan? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-We have Type II. No SEQRA is necessary. I think we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 58-96 ROLF W. AHLERS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: For renovations and additions to existing residence, with the condition that the stormwater management plan will be shown on the plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 59-96 TYPE II ANGELA KLADIS OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-IA, CEA, APA LOCATION: 5050 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AT SHORELINE. SEE SECTION 179-60 B[5] (e) (3) (e) [3] - ALTERATION OF SHORELINE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-16 LOT SIZE: .45 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-60 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-96, Angela Kladis, Meeting Date: September 24, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to construct a retaining wall around the shoreline portion of her property. The applicant has received a variance to construct a wall that will be 4 feet high around the inlet portion of this property. The wall would be used in this inlet as an erosion control method protecting Lake George from runoff. Staff recognizes the need to construct a wall of this height given the steepness of the property in this location. Staff would recommend approval of this application allowing a retaining wall around the inlet portion of this property as was resolved by the ZBA." MR. PALING-Did you read the County Planning Board report? MR. HILTON-Yes, reflected that, the Zoning Board that inlet, and this evening. and I think that the Zoning Board's action the County's opinion, the County's concerns, and thus issued relief only to construct a wall around that's really the application that's before you MR. RUEL-They had a comment. Maybe you could explain it to me. It says, pouring the wall with haybales. What are they talking about? MR. HILTON-Well, I think they're questioning the erosion control methods, but also it should be noted that the applicant has received a permit from DEC to allow them to construct this wall. Erosion control methods have been reviewed by DEC already, and are subject to their. MR. PALING-Excuse me for a minute. Is there someone from the applicant, representing the applicant here? - 6 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. STARK-Bob, lets table this, because remember, that was the lady that said, I'll see you next week, when we were up there, and I don't see her here. All right. Lets just push it aside and go to the next one, and we'll come back to this. MR. HILTON-Sure, if you'd like. MR. RUEL-They don't have to be here? MR. BREWER-No, they don't have to be here. MR. PALING-Well, lets give them a chance, though. They don't have to be, but I'd prefer that they would be. Lets go to Enterprise. SITE PLAN NO. 60-96 TYPE II ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR OWNER: G. JOSEPH MONSOUR ZONE: PC-IA LOCATION: 676 UPPER GLEN ST., BETWEEN OF GLENWOOD AVENUE & FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM APPLICANT PROPOSES REUSE OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND BUILDING FOR AUTOMOBILE RENTAL. ONLY ALTERATIONS ARE BUILDING RENOVATION (NO ADDITION TO FOOTPRINT) AND RESTRICTION OF NORTHERN CURB CUT TO EXISTING RIGHT TURN TRAFFIC ONLY. ALL LAND USES IN PC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 76-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 9/9/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/11/96 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-18.1, 12.1 LOT SIZE: .86 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 60-96, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Meeting Date: September 24, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to reuse the current Jo Jo's Restaurant as an Enterprise Car Rental agency. This .86 acre piece of property which is zoned PC-IA is located on Route 9, south of Friendly's Ice Cream shop. Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments: 1. It appears that this site which is located next to Half Way Brook has no current stormwater management facilities on site. Staff would recommend that this plan be updated to include some berming and small retention areas for stormwater. 2. In order to protect Half Way Brook from washing detergents that could be used at this location, staff would recommend a stipulation that the washing of cars be conducted inside the building and not in the outside areas of the site. 3. In order to promote access management and reduce the number of conflicting vehicles movements at this location, staff would recommend that the northern access drive at this location be closed to all traffic. Staff would also recommend that the area be closed by constructing a raised island which would connect the two existing islands at the northerly portion of this property. If the Planning Board feels that it is acceptable to operate this site with a 'right out only' drive at the north curb cut, staff would recommend a stipulation that the proposed hatched island be constructed as a raised curbed island as suggested by the NYS DOT. 4. If the northerly access point is closed, staff would recommend that the parking in front of the existing building be relocated. Parking in this area would not be able to be accessed by any vehicles and would need to be relocated on the site. S. Staff and the Planning Board have been working with other projects along Route 9 to try and increase the number of streets at all locations on this corridor. On past projects of a similar nature, the Planning Board has required the planting of street trees &s a condition of Site Plan approval. The objective has been to create a natural looking corridor and reduce the amount of pavement along Route 9. Staff would recommend that any existing and proposed curbed islands be removed of concrete and planted with grass and street trees. The Planning Board may wish to consider requiring these areas be bermed in order to provide a visual buffer of the parking lot of this business from Route 9. Street trees such as - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) Honeylocusts and Hardy Maples could be used which would be able to survive the impact of road salt that will be used in the winter months. The Planning Board may also consider requiring shrubs and plantings be provided in areas around the existing building. 6. Comments from the Wastewater Department must be addressed by the applicant prior to the opening of this business." MR. HILTON-Warren County. On the September 11th meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, this application was reviewed with the recommendation to approve. "With the conditions as stated with the variance approved last month. Those conditions being that there should be a single curb cut, that the control of water runoff from the lot be controlled because of the automobiles that can be parked there, that no repairs of vehicles be undertaken outside and that all car washing be undertaken inside." MR. PALING-Why don't we also cover the Beautification Committee, George. MR. HILTON-The Beautification Committee, on September 9, 1996, reviewed this item. Comments here say, "Re-plant corner of left side of building possibly a tree. Curbing in front by driveway should be planted with shrubs in island. The Committee would like both islands planted with grass and shrubs. The Committee will give conceptual approval, but applicant will have to come back with landscaping plans." That should be noted before this Board this evening, and it was approved as such, and signed Mary Lee Gosline, Chairperson. MR. PALING-Okay. while. I think that's enough input, I guess, for a MR. HILTON-I think one other letter I'd like to read in, or comment, is just the Town of Queensbury Wastewater Department, their comment of September 11, 1996, stating "The above-mentioned site plan indicates that you are going to change the existing Jo Jo's Restaurant into an automobile rental establishment. Our records show that you have an exterior 1,000 gallon concrete grease trap now in use. When your restaurant closes, you will have to have the trap pumped by a licensed waste hauler and removed. The procedure for this is available at my office. Mike Shaw, Deputy Director" MR. HILTON-Okay. That's a good point. Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing the owner and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the proposed tenant. With me is Russ Burke, representing Enterprise. First of all, I'd like to make it clear to the Board members that what we're looking at here is simply a reuse of the existing property. Enterprise is proposing to go in and do interior alterations to the building, to make it useable as office space, and they're proposing to do some exterior building facia modifications to make it look a little nicer, but we are simply dealing with reusing the existing property. There has been a hardship with the existing restaurant. They have been before the Zoning Board to allow this use in this zone, for the rent-a-car business. The property has been deemed by the Zoning Board not to be economically viable for reuse as a restaurant, and the economics, even now, of using it for the car rental business are very marginal. Okay. We cannot afford to do a lot of modifications. It's not like we're coming in here and pumping money into a new building and totally renovating the property. That is not the intent. It's simply to reuse the property and to try to do that in the most economical way possible, without creating a worse looking or worse property from a Town Planning perspective than it is now. In fact, we think it's going to be better. There are several issues here. Let me deal with - 8 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) them one at a time. I guess the first is the curb cut issue. We had originally proposed, based on a comment from the County Board at the Zoning stage of the game, we had proposed to help alleviate the two wide curb cuts by closing the northern curb cut down to an exit only, but doing that with striping. Okay. After these plans were submitted to the State, and I discussed the project with Mark Kennedy at the State, he wrote a letter back which in essence I think you probably have it there in your packets, although it wasn't read into the record. I'm not quite sure why. The letter, in synopsis, states that if we do close the curb cut down, either partially or fully, it has to be done as a curbed closing. It cannot be done with striping and signage, but secondly he says, and I quote, we have no objection of the more northerly drive, but we will not require this for a project that only is a reuse of the existing building. So as far as DOT's concerned, if we're not making substantial modifications to the property, they do not require the curb cut to be closed. In fact, I think that we're reducing the amount of traffic using that curb cut substantially. We're going from a restaurant operation, where during a typical noon hour there are probably 30, 40 cars in and out of there easily, you know, if 30 people come in there, that's 60 trip ins, if you're doing a traffic type study. The car rental business, during their strongest months, which are the July/August summer months, historically averages about 20 rentals per day. Okay, and that 20 rentals, if they go from the rental agency, pick up the person that's going to rent the car, come back to the agency and then the renter takes the car, that means three trip ins, which would be, for 20 rentals a day, would be 60 trip ins for a whole day. Okay. I contend that Jo Jo's has had that or more in the peak hour at noon time. So we are reducing the amount of traffic using these entrances to begin with. So I don't think that's as much of an issue. I would suggest that if there's any way possible that the curb cut issue be tabled until such time that maybe, if this business prospers on this site enough, and they feel that the site has been good for them and has helped their business, they'll probably be coming back in the future to expand the building. At that time, when it's proved profitable and the site can stand it economically, would be, in my estimation, the time to require that the curb cuts be modified. One of the other issues was the landscaping. I talked extensively with the Beautification Committee and I think that what could be done here, and fairly economically, and I believe that between the property owner and Enterprise, it could be affordable, would be to take the two islands that exist, rip out the asphalt that's in the middle of the islands, and replace it with grass. I've looked up and down Route 9 in this section, and very few places are there trees right out at the curb edge, which this would be. Normally the trees are behind the sidewalk in a much wider island. So I think the best thing to make these look similar to the rest of the area up along the video stores and the Taco Bell would be to plant these with grass and then come in here, there's a piece of asphalt right up against the building that goes out almost to the property line. Since that's really not effective area for any use, for traffic, would be to rip up that asphalt and maybe plant a couple of shrubs and a small maple or something in there for landscaping, would be one of the most visible areas. That's, essentially, what I suggested to the Beautification Committee. I believe that that would be acceptable to them, and I believe it's affordable, can be done, and it will have the most favorable impact for the least dollars. The issue of storm runoff. Again, we're simply, we're not providing or proposing more pavement. We're not looking to increase the use of the property, per se. There is a substantial strip of grass between the edge of the pavement, which is back here. This is asphalt pavement back here, and this is crushed stone out here. There is a substantial piece of grass between that and the edge of the Brook, which buffers the runoff across here. Again, I would hope that maybe that's an issue that could be tabled until such time that the use of the property is actually increased with maybe - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) additions to the building or for some other reason back here before this Board. The car washing, there is no real car washing, per se, that takes place. They do prep the cars, which amounts to taking a hose and a brush, no detergents, and just brushing, wet brushing, the cars, and that would be done out here in the gravel area, where it can soak in, but again, that's not detergent. The Wastewater Department. I am not sure exactly why Mike Shaw is requiring that the grease trap be removed. I think that's, if the property were being abandoned and the building torn down, that's certainly a requirement, but I would like the opportunity to discuss that with him and see if that's a real necessity, just when the building's simply being re-occupied with a different use. MR. PALING-What's the grease trap made of? MR. NACE-It's concrete, the same as the septic tank. So it's not like a steel tank that's going to collapse after 20 years, and again, I think that's, normally with a septic tank if you abandon a building and tear it down, then the laws require that we remove the septic tank. MR. PALING-What's the normal maintenance cycle, or whatever, on a grease trap? What do you do? MR. NACE-It depends. Well, what you do is, just like a septic tank you pump it out, but in this case it's to remove floating grease that's in the trap. Now what may have to occur is, since the building's no longer going to be used as a restaurant, get in there and pump the grease, get the grease out, okay, and then leave the tank in place, but I would at least like the opportunity to discuss this further with Mike and satisfy him. whatever he requires and whatever the law requires, we'll do, but I'm just not absolutely certain that this is necessary in this instance. MR. RUEL-I have a question, Tom. It has to do with the building. The Warren County has indicated that repair and washing should be done inside. Is it possible to do it inside? MR. NACE-No. I believe, I haven't seen your building renovation plans, but I believe it's all office space. RUSS BURKE MR. BURKE-Correct, two office space, it's about 1700 square foot office space inside of the building. MR. PALING-Where do you do' your repairs? MR. BURKE-We don't, across the street at the Firestone, or right next door at the Warren Tire, Sunoco, that it's literally 50 yards away. MR. RUEL-Is there a garage door on this building? MR. BURKE-No, sir. MR. NACE-I'm not sure where the wash cars inside comment came from. There's no way to put a car inside the building. MR. RUEL-There's no real washing, just rinsing the car off? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. RUEL-When it's full of salt. MR. BURKE-Well, in the winter time that wouldn't occur, because it's cold outside, and it's not really feasible. We would go to the Route 9 Car Wash, just north up the road. - 10 - '--" ,-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. HILTON-I think the main concern there from Staff and also Warren County is the detergents running into the Half Way Brook, and if we can avoid that. MR. BURKE-Yes. There's no, it's literally like described before. It's prepping a rentable vehicle for the next consumer who's going to have it. It's not any type of detailing or anything like that. That does not occur. Any detailing we would do we would take off site. MR. RUEL-Does Staff think it's necessary to condition the motion, the non use of detergent? MR. HILTON-I certainly think it would be appropriate. It's up to the Board to determine. MR. PALING-George, this letter from Mr. Kennedy. I don't have it. Does anyone else h~ve that letter? MR. STARK-Yes, right here. MR. PALING-You do? MR. HILTON-My apologies for omitting that from the record. I'll be happy to read it in right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-But this isn't from them. MR. PALING-This is not from Kennedy. MR. HILTON-It's signed William Logan. MR. NACE-Mark Kennedy wrote it for Logan's signature. MR. PALING-Yes, all right. MR. RUEL-Contact Mark Kennedy. MR. PALING-Okay. That's all right. MR. HILTON-If you'd like me to read it, I can go ahead real quick. MR. PALING-All right. Go ahead, because it's been referred to. Why don't you read it into the record, though. MR. HILTON-It's a letter to Mr. James Martin, Town of Queensbury, dated September 13, 1996. It states, "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the site plan submitted with your September 5, 1996 letter and have discussed the proj ect with Mr. George Hilton of your office. Our comments are as follows: 1. The proposed plan is unacceptable; we will not restrict the width of a driveway with pavement markings nor place signs within an existing paved driveway. Narrowing the drive to the configuration shown with curbing and providing the proposed signing is acceptable. 2. We have no objection to the closure of the more northerly drive, but will not require this for a project that only is a reuse of an existing building. If you have any questions on this, please contact Mark Kennedy. Very truly yours, William E. Logan Regional Traffic Engineer" MR. RUEL-So, Tom, you will be meeting DOT requirements? MR. NACE-If we leave the drive open, totally open, we would meet DOT requirements. Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, for a one way turn. MR. NACE-No, no, leave it just the way it is now. They're saying - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) we cannot partially close it to one way with striping, okay, that that's not acceptable to them. MR. PALING-I can understand that. MR. NACE-We can still sign it for one way and put the signs back in the islands, okay. He will accept that. MR. RUEL-What's their objection anyway, too many curb cuts, or too wide, DOT's objection? MR. NACE-To the existing? MR. RUEL-Yes, existing. MR. NACE-He says, his last sentence it says, in essence, they really, for this type of a project, they don't have any objection, but in general, along Route 9, they have been trying to find opportunities to close off curb cuts where there are multiple curb cuts for one property. MR. RUEL-I think their comments, though, should be specific to this application. MR. NACE-They are specific to this application, in that they say we will not require this for a project that is only a reuse. MR. PALING-It says narrowing the drive to the configuration shown with curbing and providing proposed signing is acceptable. MR. NACE-In other words, if we, instead of striping, if we used curbing, but quite frankly we can't afford, if we use curbing, just working out in the highway right-of-way is so expensive for a contractor because he's got to have flagmen out there to maintain traffic and go through all the DOT permit process, bonds and insurance. MR. RUEL-But DOT's part of the government. This is why I couldn't understand the writing. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions? MR. BREWER-I do. How many cars are you going to have there at any given time? MR. BURKE-Anywhere from, worst, best case scenario, two to three, up to 20 or 18, 18 to 20. ' MR. BREWER-Are the other uses going to continue there, Tom, as far as the vegetable stand and Christmas trees and what not? MR. NACE-Yes, and I believe we have shown some parking over next to those, to accommodate that. MR. MACEWAN-Is that going to be year round, selling vegetables and fresh flowers? JOE MONSOUR MR. MONSOUR-Joe Monsour, the owner of the property. It'll be flowers spring time and maybe pumpkins and flowers in the fall and Christmas trees in December. That would be about it. MR. PALING-Right. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Staff. Were you aware that he wanted to have this seasonal operation? - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. HILTON-Yes. My understanding is that this seasonal operation has been taking place for a while now. The amount of cars that was indicated by Staff as part of the variance procedure, it indicates that we don't anticipate any traffic problems or parking problems out at this location. MR. MACEWAN-So you think there's ample parking there for both businesses to stop there? MR. HILTON-I think at this time, yes. MR. MACEWAN-What happens if we get down the road and there's not ample parking, what do we do? MR. HILTON-Well, that's a consideration that the Board may want to take in this evening, and address it with the applicant, but Staff feels that there will be ample parking. MR. BREWER-Where do you draw the line, though? I mean, when a business gets to be so busy, what do you do, tell one business he can't be there? MR. HILTON-Then in theory what happens is one of them has to come in for a site plan to expand and put in greater paving or more parking, and we can address it at that time also. MR. MACEWAN-Are these being considered separate site plans? MR. HILTON-I'm not sure if the vegetable stand or Christmas tree stand was treated as site plan initially, but in the future they would be. MR. BREWER-Yes, it was. You did have a site plan, that was a couple of years ago, I guess, maybe a year ago. MR. NACE-About a year ago, yes. MR. BREWER-It seems like a couple of years ago. MR. MACEWAN-I guess what triggered my thoughts here is that he has been talking about worst case scenario to be 18 to 20 cars on the lot, and considering if he has a nice fall or he's doing a lot of Christmas tree selling, is seven cars going to be enough for him? MR. MONSOUR-They're only there for, like when they get vegetables or flowers, they're there for a few minutes. They're in and out, two or three cars. MR. MACEWAN-What's the snow removal situation? MR. NACE-There's plenty of area in back for snow stockpiling. I think that's always the way it's been, plowed toward the rear, and again, during the winter is probably the slow portion of the year for car rentals. So there would probably be less storage on the lot, less stock piling of cars. MR. MACEWAN-What do you anticipate the cost would be if you were to put that curbing in out there and closing down that? MR. NACE-I'd have to talk to a contractor, but we're probably in the five to eight thousand range. MR. BREWER-There's no reasonable way you could berm that at the property line, Tom? MR. NACE-What berm? - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. BREWER-Well, where the northerly entrance/exit is. You couldn't berm that on your own property so that people couldn't enter and exit there? MR. NACE-DOT wouldn't allow that. You're leading in, you have a curb opening that leads into an obstacle, the berm. DOT wouldn't go for that. MR. BREWER-It just seems to me that there has to be a more reasonable way to do it, rather than, I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, economics shouldn't be our concern, in my opinion, as to whether a guy can have a site plan or not. I mean, if we feel that he should close one of the entrances, I think we should do it regardless of what the economics are. I mean, I understand what he's saying, that it's going to cost him a lot of money, but in the past we've tried to eliminate or reduce some curb cuts, and it's a hard thing to say yes or no to. MR. NACE-Sure, but if you look, historically, the times that you've been doing that is when there's major working going on on the property. MR. BREWER-But how do we know what's going to happen here though, Tom? I guess that's my point. MR. NACE-Well, if the businesses expand and there is work going on of any extent, we'll be back here before you, and that would be, in my estimation, an appropo time. MR. STARK-The applicant states that, or the DOT stated that it's fine just the way it is, and they'd be willing to put a right turn signal out at the, or a sign saying right turn only out of the north entrance, and it's a reuse of the property. It's not a new construction or anything going on. Leave it the way it is. MR. WEST-The point I was making with respect to expansion, I don't see much room on this property for expansion. MR. NACE-It would have to be, there's not much, within the setback lines there's not much. It would probably have to be with a variance that it would be done. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only comment, especially in that corridor up through there, we've been working very hard on access management and reconfiguring a lot of projects as they come back in. I'll be honest with you. I'm not comfortable with the idea of just leaving that curbing open like that. I'd rather see it closed off. MR. NACE-One thing to keep in mind, the background and the basis behind reducing curb cuts is to maintain or increase the through foot capacity of the main arterial, okay, being Route 9. If you talk to Joanna Brunso, what she is saying, and that's where DOT's coming from, is that the impact of curb cuts is that when you have traffic moving in and out of fairly unrestricted, you know, multiple curb cuts, it slows down the flow on the main through fare, and we're actually reducing the amount by reuse of this kind, we're reducing the amount of traffic that's going to be going in and out of this site. MR. MACEWAN-Could you repeat that part again? MR. NACE-Okay. DOT's main concern and their reason for, their only real reason valid reason for closing curb cuts is to maintain the capacity of the main road without having to increase the number of lanes, okay. If they could find other ways, they don't like to widen the road because it requires taking of private property, okay, and they have embarked on a program to do everything possible to maintain the capacity of the roads without having to widen them, - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) and one of their main thrusts closing down curb cuts because the length of road with 10 curb cuts and traffic making decisions at each one of those 10 curb cuts and looking for traffic moving in and out at each one of those 10 curb cuts moves slower than traffic on a through road with two curb cuts, okay, because there are less decision points. There are less points of interference. So the through foot traffic on the main arterial who's faster and keeps the capacity of that arterial higher, okay, and that's their reason for closing curb cuts, plain and simple, is to maintain the capacity of the road. MR. PALING-I think also it should be, we should note that we've got a crosswise with DOT on two situations especially that I can remember, Passarelli and Martha's, and in both of those cases, DOT was against what we did, but in this case we're talking something where they're saying, okay, with the way they describe it. So I think we are in a little bit different position in regard to this particular. MR. WEST-You mean to say with leaving it alone as it is is acceptable? MR. PALING-It's acceptable to DOT. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-And the other two where we got into disagreements, DOT was against what the Board did, and the Board allowed for more curb cuts than DOT wanted, but in this case, if we agree with them and go along with it, they're not against us. MR. RUEL-Every case stands on its own. MR. PALING-By itself, yes. MR. RUEL-Because there are many variables that effect this. MR. PALING-We've got to consider them all. MR. RUEL-Tom, will you have a landscaping plan? I mean, there were many comments about trees and shrubs. MR. NACE-Yes. We will be glad to come up with a plan that shows the asphalt in these islands grassed and some trees, and some shrubbery around that northwesterly corner of the building. MR. WEST-This is a privately owned enterprise franchise? MR. BURKE-We're a regionalized company. We're regionalized out of Clifton Park, New York. So that we have 16 locations in the Hudson Valley and Upstate New York and in the State of Vermont. We have one here. We have one in Saratoga. We have one in Plattsburg, and we have several in Vermont. I don't know if that answers your question or not. MR. WEST-It's not owned by a single individual? MR. BURKE-It is owned by a single individual, in the State of Missouri. However, it's a decentralized management that runs across the U.S. MR. WEST-Right. The reason I was asking is the financial hardship question, if this is a public corporation, I would have to believe you have suitable assets, if we were to ask you to fork over five to eight thousand dollars to construct a curb. MR. BURKE-Well, the financial hardship works in between, I guess, ourselves and the owner of the property in itself. When you're - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) talking about a corporation, I mean, we're talking, the hardships wise, when, I guess at the profitability point, we are new in this area. We have been in Upstate New York and in the Hudson Valley area for less than four years, but we have yet to generate significant profits in the reasoning, and part of it is where we are located in this County. That's part of the reason why we want to move to another location. The economic part is a major factor in continuing with this project. I am, and a part of my compensation is off of what we do, if that makes any sense, and that is part of the hardship, what we're talking about, the economics of the curb cut. I hope that answers your question. I mean, to go back to the single owner, I mean, he doesn't, or they, whatever the case, they're not over, I've never even met the person myself. MR. MACEWAN-Are you a franchise, or is it a wholly owned company? MR. BURKE-It's considered, it's not franchised. It's branched out. I mean, we are a branch of Enterprise Rent-A-Car. We are all owned under different management across the country. I don't think I answered your question the way you were looking. We're not a franchise. I don't own this business here. MR. PALING-You're an employee of Enterprise? MR. BURKE-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-In the other areas that are perhaps larger, bigger, and been there longer, what do you do about maintenance and car washing in those areas where you have been established and you're bigger? MR. BURKE-Okay. I would probably revert to like Albany and the Town of Colony, we wash on location, just like what we mentioned before, and you mentioned maintenance. Our maintenance is done all off location. MR. PALING-Okay. So even if you had a big busy place, you still go somewhere else for maintenance and hopefully with the major car wash you have that done elsewhere, too, just the way you operate. MR. BURKE-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-Lets go to the public hearing. Okay. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, if there's anyone here that cares to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. We'll go one round, start with Tim. Do you have any comments? MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-Dave? MR. WEST-No. MR. PALING-Roger? MR. RUEL-By me. MR. PALING-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I just want to comment, nothing that pertinent. - 16 - -- .~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) It's just that, you said, I think you said parking would be sufficient for both of the businesses because there are about 18 to 20 spaces around the building and east a little bit right there, 21, is that what you said, and then down at the bottom here, adjacent to where the Christmas trees would be, there are seven. There's 28. I was saying you could put a vehicle on the outside of those. I thought there was sufficient parking for the rental car, and then on the southern part you'd have that for the Christmas trees. MR. NACE-Even with 18 or 20 rental cars on the site, you still have (lost words) . MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words, they wouldn't leave that bottom part vacant for whatever business would be in there at that time. MR. NACE-(Lost words} how many cars they have on site, and whether or not this is open. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm saying, if it was open. MR. NACE-If it was open, you'd leave at' least three or four spaces there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I thought you'd leave them all. Okay. MR. STARK-Where are you located now in Town? MR. BURKE-We're at, formerly 274A Bay Road, now it's Collins Drive. They changed the name due to 911. MR. STARK-How many cars have you got there now? MR. BURKE-Quite honestly, it varies on the seasonality, anywhere from 30 to 50. Our business works off of a utilization. We're able to interchange those, unlike the franchise, unlike some of the other franchise, we're able to interchange those with say our Saratoga Springs office or our Rutland, Vermont office. When I say worst case scenario of 18 cars that we have there, quite honestly, we're moving those to a different branch of which we're going to rent those. If you go by our office today, there's two cars sitting out there right now over night. When, worst case scenario is like at our peak times, say Monday mornings and Friday afternoons, other than that, that's very. MR. PALING-You lost me a little bit there. Your range in numbers goes from two to fifty. MR. BURKE-Thirty to fifty in our rental fleet, okay, not ever sitting. I mean, that's what our utilization is. MR. PALING-Where are those 30 to 50 cars assigned? MR. BURKE-Those are out on rent. Customers are driving those. MRS. LABOMBARD-Out of the Bay Road office. MR. BURKE-Out of, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then you never have all of them there at one time. MR. BURKE-No, ma'am. MR. PALING-It would be a problem if you did. MR. BURKE-Well, we would, quite honestly if that occurred, those - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) would, I mean, we would take those to a different place. MR. PALING-Go some place else. MR. BURKE-Yes, sir. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then you're not going to keep the Bay Road office. MR. BURKE-No, ma'am. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then what you're saying is out of 50 cars plus that you're renting out at any given time in the area, that the worst case scenario would be 18 of them on site. That would be at a low point of business. MR. BURKE-Yes, ma'am. MR. MACEWAN-We were going to do something with the Beautification plan, and if it's going to be put into some sort of approval that you're thinking about, to make sure that whatever plan they have goes back to Beautification for their approval. MR. PALING-Yes. I've got five provisions on this thing, in doing this, and I can either put it in the form of a motion, or we can just discuss them. Whatever we want to do. I can just go ahead and make a motion, I guess, unless there's other comment, I'll go ahead with a motion. Okay. If it's seconded, then lets discuss them. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 60-96 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With the following provisions. Number One, that the grease trap be cleaned out by a method approved by the Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater, and if appropriate sealed. I want it cleaned out, and if necessary capped or sealed, whichever would be appropriate, so that it doesn't cause any damage or cave in or something like that. Second, that the applicant commits to not washing cars with any kind of soap or detergent on the property. That he's strictly talking about water and brush only. All other kind of washing is done off premises. Third, that the northerly drive be done in accordance with DOT description. Fourth, that there be a landscaping plan submitted to the Beautification Committee and to Planning Staff and approved before the final okay is given, and last is that the maximum number of cars at any time on the job site be limited to 23, and during the time of the opening of the seasonal stands, the cars involved with Enterprise would be limited to 19. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: MR. PALING-How many employees would you have? MR. BURKE-Six to seven. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Before a second, the trap, you mentioned the trap, what's that, the second item, first item? MR. PALING-No, no. This is all part. MR. RUEL-What item was that? MR. PALING-Item One. - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. RUEL-Item One. Why don't you make it subject to the approval of Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater? MR. PALING-Okay. Then I'll modify the motion for Item Number One concerning the grease trap, to be done in a method approved by the Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater. MR. RUEL-Second. MR. PALING-All right. Now the motion is seconded. I'll open it up for discussion, before we take a vote. Now, who wants to question or comment? MR. WEST-Well, on that motion you made about the trap, they're saying that it has to be removed. It says "You will have to have the trap pumped by a licensed waste hauler and removed." MRS. LABOMBARD-See, I don't know if that "removed" if that verb goes for the grease removed or the tank removed. MR. HILTON-I needs, this right now, removed. think if you leave your motion as is, saying that it site plan needs approval from Wastewater. As it sits or understanding is that the entire tank has to be MR. WEST-That's right. MR. HILTON-If Tom wishes to go talk to Mike Shaw and get a clarification and we get that in our file, then we're all set. MR. RUEL-AII you have to do is say, in accordance with this. MR. PALING-As long as they approve of what's done, and you people approve of it mechanically. MR. RUEL-That's good, as long as you've got them in here. They're the ones that made the comments. MR. WEST-Right, but they're saying that the trap has to be dug up and removed. MR. RUEL-No, they're not saying that. MR. PALING-Well, we're not sure. MR. RUEL-They're not saying that. They're either saying the trap has to be removed or the contents have to be removed. MR. WEST-Read the sentence. MR. RUEL-I read it. MR. PALING-All right. We're going to get that clarified, because it's going to go back to the Wastewater people. Now, if they can't get together on this, it's a no go, then it comes back to us. MR. HILTON-If there's some indecision or the applicant wishes to modify the site plan, he would come back before this Board. MR. WEST-I don't see any reason to have him dig up a trap. They should pump it out. They should not have to dig it up. MR. PALING-I agree with you, except that the Wastewater people would differ with us. MR. RUEL-I don't think that means to remove the trap. MR. BREWER-Let Shaw clarify it. - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. RUEL-A 1,000 trap, to remove it? Fill it maybe, but not remove it. They're talking about removing the contents. MR. PALING-Well, can't we leave it the way it is, and if there's disagreement between the applicant and the Wastewater people, they'll have to come back and talk with us. I think they can work it out. MR. HILTON-Yes, and you can leave it subject to approval from the Wastewater Department. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's it. MR. PALING-All right. What other comments do we have? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think the fact that we were just told there were going to be seven employees there, that just puts seven more vehicles on the site. MR. NACE-May I make a suggestion? Why don't you limit it to a total of 23 parked vehicles on the site, okay. MR. HILTON-The one thing that I would like to, pardon me if I may, bring up is that seasonal produce stands require four parking spaces for each stand. This is one stand. There's going to be at least four spaces on that site that are required for that stand. So that should be taken into consideration when you're calculating the parking. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, there will be a max of 23 plus four kept vacant during the seasonal times. MR. NACE-When it's used. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, during the seasonal times. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll modify the last item of the motion, in regard to the maximum amount of cars allowed here, the maximum number of cars allowed at any time will be 23, and during the time of the opening of the seasonal stands, the cars involved with Enterprise will be limited to 19. MR. RUEL-Excuse me, shouldn't the number of cars be limited to the number of parking spaces? MR. PALING-Yes. That's what we just did. MR. RUEL-Number of parking spaces are on the site plan. Why does that have to be a condition? MR. PALING-Because we're talking, we're not changing parking spaces. We're limiting the number of cars that can be in the parking lot, and they have the capability of putting more than the number of cars, more cars than spaces, and they're saying that's okay. When that happens, we're going to take them off premises. So we're just holding them to it. MR. WEST-So 23 that the site will accommodate, in addition to the seasonal stand. MR. PALING-When the stands are open, Enterprise can only have 19 spaces. When the stands are closed, Enterprise has got 23 spaces. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, Roger, here's where I'm coming from. When he said 18 rental cars, then I added seven employee cars, for a total of 25, and then I'm thinking, wait a minute, where are they going to park them, behind the building in the kitty corner there, or - 20 - ~. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) whatever. MR. RUEL-You mean other cars, beyond the number of spaces? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, and he said he would have, if he said he was going to have 18 rental cars and then 7 employees at a max, then if they were going to add 18 rental cars there, then the employees would have to come in and park behind the building or kitty corner in some place there, or, you know, double parked behind one of their other friends that work there. MR. RUEL-What would you do when you have all these cars, and all the spaces are occupied? MR. BURKE-I'm going to take them to Albany, to Saratoga, we're going to move them where we're going to rent them, is our ultimate plan. MR. RUEL-You won't exceed the number of spaces shown on the site plan. MR. BURKE-No, sir. MR. RUEL-Then why is it a condition? MR. PALING-It's to accommodate the temporary condition of the seasonal shops and to limit them to the number of parking spaces that they're using. MR. BREWER-Because it is, Roger. MR. RUEL-You can do it, but I don't see the need for it. MR. BREWER-That's the motion he made. MR. WEST-Because he has the potential for a lot more than that. So we're limiting them. We're limiting their potential. MR. BREWER-Why are we debating it? That's the motion. It's been seconded. MR. RUEL-That's it. Fine. Go. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. STARK-Angela said she was going to be here. MRS. LABOMBARD-She thought it was last week. We could still pass her thing. MR. MACEWAN-Bob, in that motion you made, what did you say about the curb cut? MR. PALING-That it be done in accordance with the letter, the DOT, whatever DOT asked for. Maria, I'd like to go over that motion before it's, I want to make sure it's got everything I said in it, but I just said in accordance with DOT recommendations, something like that. MR. MACEWAN-There were two recommendations in there, really, or recommendations. Which one are you going with? - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. PALING-All right. I'm going with the one that. MR. STARK-Says leave it alone. MR. PALING-Item Number One, "we will not restrict the width of the driveway with pavement markings nor place signs within existing paved driveway. Narrowing the drive to the configuration shown with curbing and providing the proposed signing is acceptable. II MR. MACEWAN-That's one suggestion. MR. STARK-They didn't want to do that. MR. MACEWAN-The second one is they have no objection to the closure of the more northerly drive, but will not require this for a project that is only a reuse of an existing building. MR. PALING-I didn't intend that number two be part of the motion. I only meant number one. MR. MACEWAN-So you're telling them that they need to narrow the drive, which is exactly what they didn't want to do. MR. STARK-No. They just want to leave it the way it is, Bob. MR. WEST-Leave it alone. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. RUEL-Don't make it a condition. MR. NACE-I misunderstood, too, Craig, thanks. MR. RUEL-Delete the condition. MR. PALING-No, Craig is right, in that what this is is narrowing the drive to the configuration shown with curbing, and providing the proposed signing is acceptable, and that means narrowing the drive with curbs. MR. MACEWAN-The site plan that they submitted to DOT shows that they were just going to stripe that northerly entrance. MR. STARK-That's not acceptable. MR. MACEWAN-DOT said they didn't want it striped, that if you're going to close it down, you' need to put a curb in it, or do nothing at all. Which one is in your condition? MR. RUEL-Neither one. MR. STARK-Nothing at all. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe you ought to make a motion to rescind that motion and try it allover again. MR. PALING-Well, lets rescind the one item in the motion, if we can do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can either clarify your motion by discussing the specific access or ingress/egress issue, or you can rescind that motion and do a new motion. MR. PALING-While we have that point, lets see if we can't clarify this. What do you want to do, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I just want you to be clear about what you're telling them to do. I was under the impression that you guys were saying, - 22 - -' -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) they don't need to do anything with that curb cut, but you're now saying your impression was you wanted them to close that thing down and curb it. MR. RUEL-Well, can't the condition be, in accordance with the site plan? MR. NACE-No. plan shows. DOT will not allow us to do exactly what the site MR. RUEL-No? MR. NACE-No. If it's restricted to a one way, narrower. MR. BREWER-You have to decide whether you want them to stripe it, or I mean leave it alone or curb it. MR. WEST-It's Item, Number Two, Bob. MR. PALING-My intention was to leave both curb cuts open, in accordance with DOT instructions. MR. WEST-Item Number Two of the DOT instructions. MR. PALING-Then the best we can do there, then, is to leave it as is, with at least signage that would have only a right hand turn on the northerly exit. MR. NACE-Yes. We can sign, as long as we put the signs behind the curb. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. NACE-And we're willing to do that. MR. PALING-Now, the only thing missing from what I thought it was is the curbing. Then if they're going to curb one, they've got to curb the whole thing, and DOT says. MR. STARK-Bob, you're making too much of it. Just leave it the way it is. MR. PALING-I can't. I don't think they're clear on. MR. STARK-They're clear. We're clear. Just leave it the way it is, put the right hand turn sign only. MR. BREWER-But John has to enforce the motion. John has to read the motion and look at it and has to understand what it says. MR. HILTON-You could, if I may, maybe put in a new stipulation saying that you would like a revised site plan indicating that the drive will be left open, and then the applicant can just submit a new plan showing that the drive will be completely open, and that will satisfy your intent, and, pardon me, DOT's. MR. PALING-Then we'd have to ask that it be submitted to DOT. MR. HILTON-Well, they've already reviewed it and said that they would feel comfortable leaving it open. MR. PALING-The letter doesn't say that, though. MR. NACE-Yes, it does. The last, the very last sentence. MR. MACEWAN- "We have no objection to the closing of the most northerly drive, but will not require this for a project that only is a reuse of an existing building." What they're saying is that - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) if they want to leave it alone, leave it alone. MR. BREWER-But they're not saying they're going to close it, Craig. They're going to say just sign it, as to a right turn only. They're not saying they're going to close it. They're going to leave it open and right turn only. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. NACE-Mark Kennedy's words to me on the phone was, we won't require any modification for, say simple reuse. Okay. MR. BREWER-So why don't you just amend the motion to say, leave drives open, northerly exit, right turn only. MR. PALING-Right turn only. MR. BREWER-Period. End it. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO MODIFY ITEM THREE OF THE MOTION CONCERNING THE NORTHERLY DRIVE, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: That will be essentially left as is, but signed to allow right turn exit only. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-All right. Now we go back to voting on the motion, am I right? No, the motion's passed. MR. SCHACHNER-You've modified. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Lets talk a little bit about Site Plan No. 13 - 86 Herald Square. From Nace Engineering to the Queensbury Planning Department. "Gentlemen: Due to the length of time required to make some changes requested by the Town Water and Highway Departments and due to delays in getting recreational fees paid, we are requesting that the Queensbury Planning Board extend the final approval' for Herald Square Phase III, from September 30, 1996 until October 31, 1996. Please call if you have any suggestions. Sincerely, Thomas W. Nace, P.E." MR. RUEL-I've got a question for you, Tom. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-What's this delay in getting recreational fees? MR. NACE-If that were the only issue, that would have been taken care of. What they were trying to do was to get a settlement from the Town on the water main that Guido put in on Round Pond Road two years ago, and take that money from one hand and transfer it back to the Town for recreation fees. If that were the only issue, we originally thought that could be taken care of in the middle of the month, and it turns out it's going to be a couple of more weeks probably. If that were the only issue, we probably would have just paid the fee, or the developer would have, and filed. However, we've ended up down to the last minute here, getting caught in between the Highway Department and the Water Department, and where - 24 - - -- --.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) they want the water main located relative to the pavement, relative to the property lines and relative to the drywells. MR. RUEL-Well, this is a trade off then. MR. NACE-Well, at this point, we think we're in the clear, but there's still, even though the mylars are sitting down here waiting to be signed, there's still, I understand, some discussion between Tom Flaherty and Paul Naylor as to what's going to be acceptable. MR. RUEL-Okay. What about these other changes with the Town Water and the Highway Department? Does that have to do with keeping the water out of Clendon Brook? MR. NACE-No, no. This has to do with what I just explained. We have drywells that are, instead of being under the edge of pavement, as they are normally with a paved wing swale, they're now outside in just a grass ditch line, and it makes it difficult, on that side of the road where there's water service, to locate the water line. If we put it in front of the drywells, then it's too close to the pavement for Paul Naylor. If we put it behind the drywells, it's too close to the property line for Tom Flaherty, and we're in between. MR. RUEL-So, it's going to be straightened out, you figure, you need another month? MR. NACE-Yes. Hopefully they will straighten it out tomorrow, but we're down to the last minute, and rather than have the approval expire, I'd prefer to get an extension and be safe, so that if for some reason they don't get their minds made up tomorrow or by the end of the week, that we're not in a bind. MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION REQUESTED SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 IN THIS LETTER FOR HERALD SQUARE PHASE III, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: From September 30, 1996 to October 31, 1996. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We're not finished yet. We've got to go back to Kladis. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. We'll go back to Kladis. MR. PALING-Go back to Angela Kladis, and we were with you, George, weren't we, on this? MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess I can read the County recommendation, from September 11, 1996. MR. MACEWAN-Before you get going, George, are we going to go through with this application? MR. HILTON-No reason why you can't. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't know why not. We were there. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. PALING-The applicant doesn't have to be here, do they? MR. HILTON-The applicant doesn't have to be here. MR. WEST-Can't answer any questions. MR. MACEWAN-That's right. It's been our practice that we've been tabling these things. MR. WEST-Yes. I think tabling is appropriate. MR. RUEL-I think it should be tabled. MR. STARK-We talked to the lady and she said she was going to be here. MR. HILTON-That's fine. MR. WEST-Remember, Bob, you had some questions on the stairs going down to that? MR. PALING-Well, they have modified this, have they not, since we talked last time? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but you know the whole purpose of this is, well, it's obviously for aesthetics, but it's an erosion control measure. MR. HILTON-One second, if I may. please open the public hearing not have to advertise it again, October. If we're going to do this, can we and start that, so we can at least and we can hear it first meeting in MR. PALING-All right. Then lets, without further ado, go to the public hearing. If there's anyone here that cares to speak, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-I'll leave it open. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-96 ANGELA KLADIS, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until the applicant is here. Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-All right. The last item I have are dates, all Well, just before that, Indian Ridge. If Indian Ridge comes us, we're planning to make it a special meeting. Next October 8th is the workshop. right. before month, MR. STARK-George, how much did you get in for next month? is it enough for two meetings, or no? I mean, MR. HILTON-Right now I think we're looking at probably two meetings, yes. MR. STARK-You couldn't fit everything into one and then have a private meeting, a separate meeting for the Indian Ridge? - 26 - '--' -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/24/96) MR. HILTON-It depends on what happens tomorrow, and we're going to inform, talk to Bob about this and he'll be in on the agenda, setting up. MR. PALING-We're going to take a look at it. We're just not going to make a bad situation worse in regard to a private meeting or jamming it in with other things, but we'll consider, at least, a private meeting. Okay, but they have to submit by tomorrow or they're not on in October. The workshop is the 8th. MR. WEST-I thought it was the ninth? MRS. LABOMBARD-We tentatively scheduled it for the ninth. MR. PALING-We had to move it because Mark has a class or whatever that day. MR. RUEL-What workshop is that? I wasn't here. MR. PALING-It's the Article 78. It's the towers. MR. WEST-Agenda control. MR. PALING-Agenda control, a bunch of miscellaneous items. All right. Site visits are still at four o'clock Thursday afternoon. I don't know how long we can keep it up, but that's the 10th for the site visits, and assuming that we have two meetings, they'll be the 15th and the 22nd. Just the same, third and fourth Tuesdays. There's no change there. MR. WEST-Okay. So site visits are on the 10th. MR. PALING-On the 10th at four o'clock. We'll be changing those. This'll probably be the last afternoon one. We go back to short days. We'll probably go back to Saturday mornings, after this time, in other words, in November. MR. WEST-What time do you do them on Saturday? MR. PALING-Usually nine o'clock. Are there any other items or comments or questions or whatnot to come before the Board? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 27 -