2001-11-20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 20, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 4, 2001: NONE
September 18, 2001: NONE
September 20, 2001: NONE
September 25, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2001; SEPTEMBER 18,
2001; SEPTEMBER 20, 2001, AND SEPTEMBER 25, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who
moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
EXTENSION REQUEST:
SP 67-2000 CONNIE GEBO APPROVED 11/28/00 – REQUESTING A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION SEE LETTER DATED 10/25/01
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything that we should be aware of?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No? Does someone want to move it, please.
MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN NO. 67-2000 CONNIE GEBO FOR ONE YEAR,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a one year extension request for Site Plan No.
67-2000, Connie Gebo for a Day Care Facility, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 10/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 11/16/01:
1. Staff Notes
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved for a one year extension to November 30, 2002 and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. 179-63C (in previous approving resolution dated 11/28/00 which is attached)
should be replaced with 179-65C.
2. The extension is to November 30, 2002.
3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/20/01 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Next item.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The next item is Site Plan No. 51-2000, an extension for the applicant,
Garden Time and Barrett Auto Sales, and they would like a one year extension, and this letter is
October 18, 2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion?
MR. BROWN-The applicant’s requested a bump to the end of the meeting, or as close as possible to
the end.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the purpose?
MR. BROWN-You’ll have to ask him that. He probably wants to discuss the Site Plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-All we’re doing is granting an extension.
MR. BROWN-If you’re comfortable doing that, that’s fine. I met with him yesterday. He decided
that he’d maybe want to present why things aren’t completed. What the schedules are, any changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff comfortable with everything?
MR. BROWN-Did you read the Staff notes?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the Staff notes.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, me, too.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s push it off, then, until he gets here.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If he’s not here by the time we get to the end of the agenda, we’ll just
move it through. Okay.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED RUSS PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSH
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD
EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CLEARING AND GRADING TO FACILITATE
DRIVEWAY, PARKING, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FUTURE SEPTIC AREA.
THE PROPOSED CUT IS 10,000 +/- CUBIC YARDS WITH FILL OF 5,000 +/- CUBIC
YARDS WITH A FINISHED ELEVATION OF 135 +/- FEET. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-29, 30
LOT SIZE: 0.9 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-65
RUSS PITTENGER & WALLACE HIRSH, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearings for the past two meetings on the 16 and 23 of
thrd
October were tabled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-2001, Russ Pittenger/Wallace Hirsh, Meeting Date: November
20, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant requested to be tabled at the previous meeting because NYSDEC had not visited the
site. The applicant has provided a revised drawing noted as sheet number 5. The drawing includes
the suggestions made by staff.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38,179-65)
Site Overview
The removal of material is proposed to be performed in a phased process with only a couple
hundred yards at a time. The applicant has indicated that the project will not occur during
summer periods. A portion of the material will be used to fill in 5,000 cubic yards to the east
side of the road. A contractor will remove the remaining material from the site. The
applicant has indicated the road is paved and material will not be tracked onto the roadway.
The final elevation is to be 135+/- feet 25 feet below the existing elevation of 160+/- feet.
The proposed finished grade is still above the homes which are at the 110+/- foot elevation.
The submitted plans including a grading and erosion control drawing. The applicant intends
to remove trees in the area where fill is to be removed. The photos show the existing tree
line-the removal of trees does not appear to impact the view from the lakeside. The view
will be similar to the neighboring properties.
The plans were forwarded to Soil and Water Conservation Services for review and comment.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant will be filling an area adjacent to a federal wetland. The ordinance only recognizes
mapped wetlands NYS DEC and APA.
Where and how will materials, if any, be stored or processed on the site?
o
How will the proposed fill area be stabilized?
o
What types of plantings, if any are proposed in the fill area or in the areas of excavation?
o
What are the comments and concerns of the NYS DEC, Stan Koenig?
o
How long will this project take to complete?
o
When will the work be performed?….( months and hours of operation )
o
Suggestions
Staff recommends approval of the project with the following notes / conditions. The final approved
site plan should be revised to depict all conditions, notes, changes and additions.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
1. NYSDEC permit number if it is determined a NYS DEC permit is needed.
2. Erosion control methods are to be consistent with Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment
Control in Urban Areas of NYS
3. Planting details, if any
4. Material storage / processing areas
Staff would suggest establishing a reasonable timeline for the completion of this project.”
MR. BROWN-I think you were provided some additional information tonight from the applicant
regarding the status of a site visit by Stan Koenig from the DEC I believe. I’m not sure of the
outcome of that, but I’m sure the applicant can address that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Good evening.
MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. How are you?
MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Would you identify for the record, please.
MR. PITTENGER-I’m sorry. My name is Russ Pittenger, and Wallace Hirsh is here with me. He
won’t be speaking much because he has a cold. I apologize. I did fax over to the office, to the
Planning Office, the results of my communications with DEC. I received that letter this afternoon at
two o’clock I have copies of it here if you did not receive them. Basically, I got Mr. Koenig on to the
site to review it. He sent me a letter on Monday with some concerns. I faxed him a response, and he
sent me a letter today indicating that he agreed. He has received all the plans that you people have,
and I’m providing you with a correspondence back and forth. His concern for the project was that it
didn’t take a long time. He asked that I limit, that we limit the work for the soil removal and the
grading to one year’s time, and we agreed to do that. He was also concerned about implementation
of the garages, and the action did happen following that. I have copies of these letters if the Board
does not have them.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we have them.
MR. PITTENGER-I’d like to briefly go through the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Fine. That’s okay.
MR. PITTENGER-This is a residential area of Glen Lake off Birdsall Road. Drawing Number One
in your package, I’ve oriented it to the rest of the drawings. There’s two lots. The Hirsh family
originally owned a lot of this property along this cove, and gradually sold lots off. So the two camps
that were there, where the Hirshs are and the camp that we bought from McKinney, were two of the
original camps there. So as a lot of other things happened on a lot of other lots on either side, these
lots were pretty much left alone. This blue line that I show, that I’ve highlighted here, is the original
old right of way that came along the lake and then up over the hill. As this property was developed
on actually both sides of these lots, the houses came to the front and the driveways got moved to the
back. In the process of that, for instance on the Beadleston lot here, they developed the house site
and pushed the dirt back to flatten that out. The Cooleys have a home here. They pushed this dirt
back to flatten that out. Back here at Kevin Dineen’s house now, it was then Carsen, that hill was
also taken down, pushed to the back, also for what then was Horowitz, and Anita and Frey live there
now, and also the Vittengls. So what we have, and you can refer to the photos, is a situation where
we have two original lots where the grading is such that elevation above the lake, the camps are at
approximately 10 feet above the lake. The parking areas are about approximately 20 feet above that.
We have a driveway that accesses across the neighbor’s property. We have an access across the back
of the lots that are used by people in the back and actually the Town to come in and pave that this
year, and then at this elevation, where all the driveways and roadways are, we then go up another 30
feet to a hill that comes down the other side. There’s a sharp slope here, on Dineen’s side to the
north, and the lot adjacent to my lot is approximately 15 feet lower. This Drawing Number Three
indicates the existing vegetation on the site. We do have the existing drive that goes through that
was paved by the Town. We have this lot that comes across Mr. Cooley’s lot to access mine through
mine to the Hirsh’s lot. We have a great number of trees on the front, on the lake side of the camps,
and we have some large trees in the back that we hope to maintain. Up on the hill, there are some
open areas and there’s a big right of way cut through up over the top of the hill and down. There are
some decent trees in here, though, that we would anticipate removing from the project. The sections
that we’ve provided, I’m going to go fast because I know Mr. Lapper has a birthday party for his
three year old to get to. This is a section approximately through, and I show on the plan where I
took it through, Mr. Hirsh’s camp, and this is similar to mine, except I think the hill on my side is
lower , but we really have access on both sides and around. The camps are lower, and the hill is in
the top, and what we anticipate doing is taking a portion of that material, filling in the back, adjacent
to the wetland but not in the wetland, and then the excess material, having that removed. Our
proposed site plan, and I believe you have a modified Plan Five, which responds to the Staff notes
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
from the original meeting, regarding seeding, storage areas, and something else. It’s our intention to
bring in separate driveways off of the paved road that the Town paved, to eliminate the access that
now comes across Mr. Cooley’s, to place garages here and have an opportunity to put in septic
systems when, in the near future, as we recognize that ours are older, and as we’re getting older, there
is some anticipation that perhaps we would build year round homes there, although we really haven’t
made plans for that, but what we’re proposing here is to put garages and then prepare a space where
we can put septic areas. The setbacks are indicated here, which work very well with our neighbors
wells and septics. The photos I’ve provided, the lake photos are really just an indication of the
character of these older camps. I think I was before you two or three years ago for this roof over
boathouse that was very successful, and I thank you for that, but you can hardly see our camps here,
due to the existing trees. There’s a portion in the back here that would be removed, but the ones in
the front would remain. These views are walking around the site, and if you had an opportunity to
go up there, I think you understand what our point is, is that we’re trying to make an area that is of
limited usefulness now and make it more effective for us and more usable, and it’s certainly our
intention to, we have an opportunity to preserve some very large trees here along the line with Mr.
Cooley. These trees would remain. The trees along the driveway would remain. They’re on Mr.
Cooley’s land. These are on mine and they would remain. There’s a large oak, there’s a couple of
large oaks in the back here that would remain, although we would be doing some clearing when we
do this fill, back on the back side of the road. I think that’s it in a nutshell.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Good evening. So you’re going to be taking about approximately 25 feet of height
off the fill?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and your letter to Stanley Koenig from New York State DEC, and you’re
going to be grading this site, and it will be done within 12 months?
MR. PITTENGER-That was their request.
MR. STROUGH-Twelve months from the time you initiate it?
MR. PITTENGER-I thought it would be 12 months from approval, but it would seem for their
concerns it would be 12 months from initiation. I think their concern seems to be that it gets into a
mine once the length of that approaches longer than a month’s project. That seems to be what I’ve
learned.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So I guess we’re kind of just assuming that it’s going to be 12 months from
the time you begin.
MR. PITTENGER-That would be fine.
MR. STROUGH-And when do you plan on beginning?
MR. PITTENGER-This spring I guess.
MR. STROUGH-This spring. Have you, you know, I see where you plan on taking at least about
half of the fill and putting it in on the other side of the road towards the wetland area. Have you
been in contact with, or do you know Richard Schermerhorn?
MR. PITTENGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-Just as an idea, he’s looking for fill, and you might be able to work out an
arrangement with him.
MR. MAC EWAN-See Mr. Lapper after the meeting. He can direct you.
MR. STROUGH-In any event, he could use the fill, and you might be able to make out a very nice
arrangement with him.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, that’s our desire, to find people that need it, control the operation, but
allow them to come and take it, because that’s less that we have to pay for.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it might be something you want to look into because if he can use it, and you
want to get rid of it, and we might not burden the wetland with putting it on the other side of the
road. This might all work out well.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. PITTENGER-Well, it’s certainly our intention, we would like to, I think we can dispose of a lot
of it there, but it’s, we’re not going to impact the wetland. I mean, first we’re going to delineate the
edge of the wetland and we’re going to come back from that. So we’re not, it’s not our thought to
fill up against it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got a feeling that you might be able to strike something there that might
be mutually acceptable.
MR. PITTENGER-Excellent.
MR. STROUGH-And the septic system, you’re going to be putting in, within about a half a year after
you do your grading.
MR. PITTENGER-I committed that to Stanley Koenig. It seemed that he wanted us to do stuff on
the map within a reasonable amount of time and that’s fine with us.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that seems reasonable to me, too, and, you know, if Richie is willing to take
all of your fill, then we wouldn’t have to worry about protecting the wetland, either, and making that
berm.
MR. PITTENGER-We’ll certainly entertain hauling it off instead of pushing it out.
MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s good. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I chime in here for just a second? I’m having concerns about the length of
time, as to when you start to when the clock stops ticking here, and it would seem to be, from my
point of view, that any approval that we might consider would be, the clock would start ticking, I
would think, from the day that we approve this thing, from both the standpoint of an enforcement,
to be able to look at this knowing that if this thing was approved on November 20, we’ve got until
th
November 20, 2002, that gives you documentation exactly when this project was going to start and
when exactly it would stop. Can you guys chime in and tell me if I’m on the right track or wrong
track, or what?
MR. BROWN-I think that entirely depends on how you approve it. If you want to say one year from
the start date, one year from today’s date.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would you know when the start date is?
MR. BROWN-I’d rely on the applicant to tell you that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, they said probably the spring.
MR. BROWN-And if you approve it with those dates, then that’s what the approval is.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you could stipulate that that start date happen within a year, so that the
approval remains valid, but it doesn’t sound like the applicant is contemplating starting the project
later than a year from now. Clearly the applicant is contemplating starting in more like three, four,
five months from now, at least that’s my understanding.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Sorry, John.
MR. STROUGH-No, that’s all right.
MR. PITTENGER-Could I ask a question? Is there a requirement that the work be completed,
other than the DEC stuff, that normal, a site plan application has to be started or it has to be
completed within a year’s time, or then you would request an extension?
MR. BROWN-It should be started within a year, and I think a significant amount of it should be
completed within a year, in order to consider it as a.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think it has to be started within a year, and then once they initiate action,
then they have a year to complete it. That’s the way I understand it, and that’s what DEC seems to
say, according to Mr. Pittenger.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s talking the entire project, though, not just the DEC scope of it.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. SCHACHNER-I think we’re talking substantial completions or substantially underway, so that
you don’t have an applicant that comes in on the 364 day after approval and turns one shovel full
th
and says, so I’ve exercised my permit. That’s not, I think our position is that that would not
constitute a valid use of the permit that you have to, the applicant would have to seek extension of
that permit or the approval would expire in one year.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s about what I was thinking. Our approval would be for one year.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And DEC’s way of looking at it is the minute they initiate action, substantially,
then that’s when they would look at the clock starts.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not clear in my reading of the DEC correspondence. I don’t believe
that’s clear, but I don’t believe you need to get worried about that.
MR. BROWN-That’s their issue. That’s their enforcement if they choose to do that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s fine. Where are the current sewage types? I don’t know. I saw
them on the map.
MR. PITTENGER-I don’t believe they are on the map, but certainly I can tell you where the line is,
immediately adjacent, there’s a septic tank here, and a leachfield. I think in both cases the septic
systems are immediately to the south of the camps. There’s lawn areas there, and I’ve had mine
serviced, but it’s the first time it’s been serviced since it was installed. I had to break up concrete to
get to it. So we’ve had, I’ve had mine checked and we’ve dye tested it. They’re okay, but it’s, you
know, it’s difficult, and it’s 50 years old.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, certainly, where you’re locating it is better than where they’re currently
located, and what do you use for water supply?
MR. PITTENGER-I have a point that’s down into the sand about 20 feet below the lake bottom.
So I’m pulling up well water.
MR. STROUGH-Will your wells be 100 feet away from your proposed septic system?
MR. PITTENGER-I believe on, it’s on one of these plans. The answer is, yes.
MR. STROUGH-And do you have the location of the wells noted on one of these?
MR. PITTENGER-On the lower lot there’s a small shed next to the lake, it’s labeled shed. That’s
where my pump house is, and I believe that that Wally’s is right, here’s the shed up in his upper left
hand corner.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, down near the shore of the lake?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. That’s correct. They’re over 100 feet.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now how about the electric and telephone lines? Are you going to have to
notify Niagara Mohawk? Are they going to have to relocate at least that northern pole, maybe?
MR. PITTENGER-Well there’s, you know, the pole’s on Mr. Hirsh’s side. So I’m not too
concerned about it, but the truth is that it does go through there. There’s going to have to be some
reconfiguration. I think that that pole, which is currently approximately in the center of the lot along
the right of way would have to be relocated, probably down.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to have to initiate a discussion with Niagara Mohawk prior to
doing your excavating.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, prior to getting to that point, that’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Now the only other thing that I would like to see, because, and I do this for
everybody, but not necessarily going to be a majority here, but I usually like to see, any time I see a
new plan come before us, a site plan review, that’s in a CEA, as this is, I like to see a stormwater
management plan. I mean, what kind of runoff, are we going to have detention basins with the
runoff coming from the new property? Because it will be at a slight slope toward the lake, still, even
after the excavation, if I understand it right.
MR. PITTENGER-That is correct.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-And do you propose any detention or retention basins in or around the driveway
area maybe?
MR. PITTENGER-I think that, I think certainly during construction we’ll provide temporary basins,
but what we would be doing is to be reducing the slope and improving the character of the soil up
there. So while we’re increasing the impervious surface by a very minor amount, our percentages are
really low, and I think the nature of the soil is so sandy there, we really don’t get that much runoff.
We can provide, you know, temporary basins during construction, but I think once it’s stabilized it’ll
be fine, because we’re really not building that much.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re going to put lawn there, right?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s going to include topsoil, but that has a certain impervious nature to it.
So that we’re still talking about a potential of ten, maybe fifteen percent, maybe even down to about
five percent runoff, depending on the permeability that remains, but, you know, it is in a CEA, and I
do like to see some kind of a catch basin so that it doesn’t go directly into the lake, you know,
because maybe you don’t fertilize it, but maybe somebody might buy the place from you afterwards
and they might fertilize it, and I like to see that stormwater runoff captured and allowed to filtrate
through the sand before it enters the lake. I don’t like to see it drain right to the lake is what I don’t
like to see.
MR. PITTENGER-I have to say that the parking areas that we have now are hard packed gravel,
packed as hard as you can, so the water never, the water from the sidewalks collects and is directed
into a lot of cobble walls that have been constructed on the sites. There’s no runoff that enters the
lake from our property, and there’s easily a 100 foot buffer from the work to the lake. Certainly, and
I don’t envision that that would get there, being that we’re maintaining this natural buffer that exists
there now.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you work for the LA Group, right?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. I’m one of the partners.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re familiar with this. This is a common request.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It’s not an uncommon one. Okay, well, I may be alone here, but, and thank you
for your responses.
MR. PITTENGER-And I appreciate it. It just never dawned on me to look at that. In a case where
we’re having extensive pavement, I will say this, when we’re putting in garages, it’s certainly practical,
and it’s always been my policy to provide trench drains and infiltration devices at the edge of the roof
drip so that that water goes immediately into the ground, and I think that any kind of pavement area
we would commit to provide infiltration for, for the non-impervious area, being the lawn, even
looking at the photos, there’s so much sand and gravel up there that I just don’t anticipate that
there’s a need for it, but I will commit to any of the paving or buildings, we’ll put infiltration for.
MR. STROUGH-Well, as an idea now, you are going to be re-working some of the driveway and the
parking area, and could that maybe be pitched away from the lake slightly, so that any runoff, that
would act as its own catch basin.
MR. PITTENGER-We could do that, and the other thing I will do is we could also put in a trench
drain, an interception drain at the top of that slope. We’ll dig a trench and put in a perforated pipe
with gravel back into it. So any water that comes and hits that thing and percs in. I mean, that seems
like a good, the sheet drainage, that’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that would be great. Well, thank you very much.
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to talk a little bit about the fill area that you propose. I mean, you
kind of already said that your preference would be to take most of the soil off site.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. HUNSINGER-Would your preference be to take all of it off site?
MR. PITTENGER-I would be open to that. I mean, we do create some additional land by doing
that. I mean, from my part, I’m not committed to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because one of the questions, I think, you know, and we all raised it
when we went up to the site on Saturday was, you know, how the fill area would be stabilized and
how you would avoid runoff or anything else into the wetland.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, the answer I guess lies immediately adjacent to these properties, one, the
one to the north, Kevin Dineen’s, he’s constructed a nice stone wall. He’s got grass. He’s stabilized
that slope. I don’t see any evidence of erosion there. On our south side, Mr. Luke Cooley, who built
all those cobble walls, I don’t know if you got down to our camps and looked. There’s just cobble
walls, there must be a million cobbles in there, and he built a lot of that stuff, and he’s pushed his
out, and he owns land considerably back, that actually goes back to the old railroad right of way, and
pushing that dirt back, the cobbles come down and they form a very stable edge, and so there’s not a
lot of slumping there. So I can appreciate your concerns in that, but it is a very stable soil. Even the
cut slopes, the property that Mr. Hirsh has, his north face that was cut by Carlson and is now
Dineen’s, that thing has got to be cut at a, it’s steeper than a one on one, and it’s just sitting there. I
mean, it’s not great, and that’s part of the reason why we want to deal with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess most of my concern really is where you were going to push the fill
across the road, you know, that bank.
MR. PITTENGER-I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s really the greatest concern.
MR. PITTENGER-If we have the opportunity to remove the fill, that would be our preference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Really, the other questions that I had I think you already addressed, such
as the septic, you know, location of existing and stuff like that. So I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Russ, could I see the plan before that one? The one where you show the
actual elevation? Right there. That’s the one. The blue and the orange one, yes. All right. So
Number Seven is the way it looks now.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, the blue is the existing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. PITTENGER-Then the orange would be the anticipated, and this runs through this way. Right
through Hirsh’s lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. PITTENGER-This one down here is a little bit confusing because it runs this way. There’s an
existing, our driveway is about, or this is the neighbor here, and it comes, it really rises to the
property line, then I would cut back here, and maintain these trees, but this rises, where the existing
driveway comes through, those trees are not on the property. Our property is back here. So we have
a piece back here that we can’t get to. We drive in this way currently.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then that Number Eight is not looking from Dineen’s. It’s looking
from.
MR. PITTENGER-No, it’s looking from the lake. It’s from the lake through the middle of the field
this way. It’s confusing, because our driveway’s here, and there’s some existing trees, and then we
would take it down and then bring it right across to Dineen’s. Here’s Dineen’s. This is the hill of
Dineen’s here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That’s, yes, okay.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s why I put the little arrows up.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now, when the project is done, if we were standing, right now when
we stood on the top and looked down at Dineen’s, it was pretty, like you say, it’s pretty steep there.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
It’s pretty high up. Could you just kind of give me an idea of where that elevation would be, where
the height would be?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-By just showing me the blue and orange, well, I like it better on that one. See
where you have the left hand side where it looks like, no, on Number Eight. Yes, where would it be
now?
MR. PITTENGER-If you were in Kevin Dineen’s driveway, you could walk right over to Wally’s.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-After the project’s done?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. Now you can walk over to Wally’s driveway, like, between the
fence. The idea is, if I can go back to the plan for a moment. The idea is that basically, along this
back road, along Dineen’s, which would be pretty much at the same elevation as Wally’s, back to
where my parking area is, and back to the road, that would basically be all the same, and this stuff her
would be gently graded out, pitched to grade.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It seems to me that 10,000 cubic yards, how many yards does one of those
big dump trucks hold?
MR. PITTENGER-The biggest ones I think run about 20. So you can go 12 to 20, maybe a little bit
more than 20, but it’s a lot of trips.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know.
MR. PITTENGER-I mean, so 20 yard trucks, if you did five trips a day, that’s 100.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How did you come up with that figure, just using your calculus and your
cross sections and stuff?
MR. PITTENGER-I went through, and the elevations here, I actually went out with my son who
shot them, so he shot them, and it’s a five foot contour mount. So I wouldn’t say it’s survey
accurate, but I did this, then I ran section through, calculated an estimate, you know, that was my
best calculation from the information I had.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, because we thought, John and I were thinking maybe 10,000 wasn’t
enough. That looked awfully big, you know, when we walked it the second time it even seemed
bigger to me.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, I ran sections through at 50 foot stations and then I did a cross section and
then took the area off and then tried to calculate it. So, I mean, I think it’s pretty close.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, fine. Thank you.
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Before I get into mine, I just want to, in Stanley Koenig’s letter of November
20, he actually says, sets the dates in there where he talks about the failure to complete by the dates
set forth in your 11/19/01 letter. I haven’t seen that letter.
MR. PITTENGER-It would be attached.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s attached to it.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it attached to it? Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-It’s a handwritten fax.
MR. SCHACHNER-The last page of the three pages of correspondence you have. If you have the
DEC letters, then you have the Pittenger letter.
MR. VOLLARO-I see it.
MR. PITTENGER-And what that does is more talks about the timeframe rather than the dates, and
I think that’s what he was referring to, but, because I didn’t really mention specific dates in my.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know. I can see that you haven’t. I’m looking forward to when we have to
do the motion on this. I’m not going to say something like the spring to the spring of. I’d like to put
a date on it, or don’t we, shall we not determine dates at all for completion on this project?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have an idea for that, the date.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it has to be, the section of the Zoning Ordinance talking about
expiration of site plan approval says that the project has to be undertaken and lists a bunch of things
that are considered undertaking within a year of approval. So I think what we said earlier, Craig and
I, is that Staff’s position is that it has to be either completed or at least substantially undertaken by a
year from this Board’s approval. What Craig said earlier, and I agree with him, is that you shouldn’t
get bogged down in what DEC does or doesn’t mean. That’s between the applicant and DEC. It’s
correct that Mr. Pittenger sent a letter that grading will be completed within 12 months. It’s also
correct that Mr. Koenig said, by the date you indicated is acceptable. Mr. Pittenger didn’t indicate a
specific date, and I think that’s between the applicant and DEC. You don’t need to worry about
that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. Thank you very much, Mark. Now I can get into my questions. On
the wetland issue, federal wetland issue, has that been resolved? I know Staff had a concern about
that, in their areas of concern, that the applicant will be filling in an area adjacent to federal wetland,
but then it goes on to say the Ordinance only recognizes mapped wetlands from DEC and the
Adirondack Park Agency. So I don’t know where we are with that federal wetland.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, if it was a DEC wetland, there would be a 100 foot buffer that would
have, any activity within that would be regulated. With an Army Corps wetland, if you do not affect
or impact the wetland, then no permit is required. In fact there is some level of permit acceptance of
impact without, I mean, you can do some stuff to a wetland under a threshold, but we don’t
anticipate impacting the wetland at all.
MR. VOLLARO-Did the Army Corps come down and flag the wetland for you?
MR. PITTENGER-No, but I will flag that before we do work. I have staff that are trained by the
Army Corps, and I can flag that to the Town’s satisfaction before we do any work. If you want the
Army Corps to verify that, it’s possible, but we don’t anticipate getting into the wetland. I’ve learned
a long time ago the easiest way to deal with wetlands is don’t impact them.
MR. VOLLARO-I can understand that. I know where you plan to put the soil. We looked at that
down there, and I didn’t see any flags. So there are none.
MR. PITTENGER-There are no flags there currently, no.
MR. VOLLARO-But how will we know whether you’re trespassing on those wetlands or not without
it being flagged? Is this something that Staff is comfortable with, in terms of review?
MR. BROWN-I think so. There’s no provision in the current Ordinance that talks about Army
Corps wetlands and the filling thereof. That’s a Corps issue, and I think you could actually get a
permit for a tenth or a quarter of an acre of filling within a Corps wetland, but it’s not something the
Town regulates.
MR. VOLLARO-It works for me. That’s okay. I noticed that, in the letter that Jim Lieberum wrote
back on October 10, concerning the site plan for your project, he talks about when more than 1,000
th
tons of material is removed, a conservation mining permit is required. Now, I don’t want to get
cross wise with Stanley Koenig on that, but my calculations say that you’re more than 1,000 tons.
Now, I’ll let that, I’ll let Mr. DEC handle that on his own, but it seems to me that’s a requirement,
and if it is, I don’t know why it’s been bypassed. Have you calculated the weight of 10,000 cubic
yards of that soil?
MR. PITTENGER-No, I have not. I gave Mr. Koenig the plans that you received, and went
through an exhaustive process to get the letter out of him today at two o’clock, and for the
determination of whether this fell under their regulations as a mine, he said it did not. I’m assuming
that he had all the information that you had.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s got to know more than me, that’s for sure, on that subject. I’m somewhat just
academically concerned. You’re going to be pumping, when you do put your fields in, you’re going
to be pumping up to a 25 foot head?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Where are you going to put the pumps, your lift pumps?
MR. PITTENGER-We’re going to put them underground. I think in my case, certainly I’ve looked
at it. We have a septic tank there now. We would keep the tank. We would do the overflow and
then pump the water up, with an environment one pump. They have self contained units. They just
go into like a 55 gallon drum sized hole. The whole thing is self-contained. It’s all wired. You pop it
in there and you’re good to go.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re just going to pump effluent up there?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s my desire to, yes. That saves on the grinder pump and all that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Taking a look at your site development data sheets, I have a couple of
questions in there. There are two of them. One is for Hirsh and one is for Pittenger and Whittle.
So there are two of them.
MR. PITTENGER-I hope I can answer them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Bob, ask away.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have a note down, when you talk about paved gravel or other hard
surface areas, there’s a note that says gravel drive is permeable due to light traffic. I think, the way
we’ve looked at this in the past, gravel is, a gravel driveway is a non-permeable surface.
MR. PITTENGER-And that’s the way I calculated it.
MR. VOLLARO-And you did calculate it that way there. Now, when you get to Pittenger’s and
Whittle’s, however, you come up with the total non-permeable area as being 6264 and I come up
with 5664. Because you didn’t include the detached garage in that calculation.
MR. PITTENGER-I think I filed a revised sheet on those because originally I did not have a garage
on my site plan and I revised that later. So that may be an older.
MR. VOLLARO-This is rev. 9/24/01.
MR. PITTENGER-It’s entirely possible. I’d have to go through and check this. I really can’t
respond. I’m not sure I have an answer to that.
MR. VOLLARO-Larry gave me a different on, without a rev. date on it, that does include, well, it
doesn’t have any detached garage on it at all.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. So the revised one is the 9/24/01, and it may be incorrect, if what you’re
saying is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve used the same figure on the original one of 5664 instead of 6264, which
would have changed your final number to 17.3%.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. I apologize for that. That was an error on my part.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to have the sheets reflect what you actually are going to do, and I think
that’s all I have. I did have one other question. It was, on your Short Environmental Assessment
Form, what is the present land use in the vicinity of your project, and you have a golf course. Is that?
MR. PITTENGER-Actually, the Country Club abuts our back line.
MR. VOLLARO-I see.
MR. PITTENGER-They own most of Mud Pond.
MR. VOLLARO-Not having grown up here, see, I don’t know that area.
MR. PITTENGER-I’ve been up there only 10 years. Mr. Hirsh has been there since Moses was a
pup, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Can somebody tell me what it states here from DEC, the project qualifies for an in
aid of on site construction exemption? What is that exactly?
MR. PITTENGER-It’s not a mine. That’s what I think that means. Where is that?
MR. METIVIER-It’s the letter from DEC, November 20.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you shed some light on it, Mr. Schachner?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. In English it means that DEC has determined that the proposed use is not
subject to requirement of a DEC permit under the New York State Mine Land Reclamation Act.
MR. METIVIER-Great.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-If you can’t sell the fill, is it your intention just to move it across the road?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, we have a limit on what we can, what I think, I’ve calculated that we can
get there, and it’s not the entire hill. So, I mean, it’s not our intention to sell it. It’s our intention to
arrange it, just get someone to take it away. We’re not interested in making money on it, but the
worst case scenario, going back a little bit as to our schedule for this and what would happen. The
worst case scenario is that we can’t get anyone interested that needs fill, and we scratch our heads
and either we start doing some work there, but we can’t really complete this project unless we have
someone that’s willing to come and take the material for very inexpensively or for no money. So,
there’s two things that could happen. One is that we just don’t do anything, and we’d have to come
back to your for an extension, or the second is that we start doing it halfway and the whole site
becomes a big mess and all falls apart. I don’t think the second’s going to happen because we’ve
been there for a long time. We’re concerned about that. It’s in a position where it’s really
surrounded by roads. It’s fairly self-contained. It’s not like you’re digging a big hole in the ground.
There’s no safety issues. So I think that the fact that the option that’s going to stay open and be
unsightly is not a concern of ours. We’d also like to limit the work not during the summer because
that’s when we’re mostly there. So the time constraints do put a little bit of pressure on us, but we
feel they’re workable. We have an opportunity to get to the hill from inside our properties, not from
the road. We can come around, and where my parking area is, we could start working on it that way
so we can keep it contained and keep the siltation down and keep all that effect down. So I think
that, you know, generally we have a lot of good options here, with a lot of unknowns still out there,
as to how we’re going to get this implemented. It’s not our desire to hire somebody to go in there
and haul it away and pay them $10 a yard to take it. That’s a lot of money, $100,000 grand.
MR. METIVIER-I guess my concern was if you start moving it across the road, you create a hazard
there and you try to put in as much as possible, and then you have to stay 100 feet from the wetlands.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, we don’t have to stay 100 feet from the wetlands, but certainly there is
going to be some traffic maintenance if we do start doing across the road. We might have to just
haul it across the road.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but still, I’m not concerned about the road, but I am concerned, you know,
what kind of bank you’re going to create, if you have to stay so far away, you know, that you try to
pile it up and look down the other side and you’re standing on a ledge that is going to keep eroding.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, it’s certainly our intention to, and it’s been my experience, that the best and
most cost effective way to construct a slope like that is to do a maintainable, stable slope. The
hardest thing is to go back in and try to fix it later. So we have examples in there of on the site, and
in the nature of material where a one on one slope can be made, it’s aggressive, but it can be made
stable. It’s certainly our intention to make it stable, and if we can’t get a one on one to hold, then
we’re just going to back off of it. I mean, it’s certainly not our intention to shove too much in there.
We’re going to do what we can and stop.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. I’m fine, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. PITTENGER-No.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? We have a public hearing scheduled
tonight. Does anyone want to speak to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
STEVE MILLER
MR. MILLER-I’m Steve Miller, full time resident of the neighborhood. I own two pieces of
property out there, and I’ve got to say that I oppose this project. I think the scale and magnitude is
just too much. A minimum of 10,000 cubic yards is a huge amount of material. A year disruption to
the neighborhood, and tonight I hear disruption of phone and electricity probably also, and it just
seems too big. It destroys the rolling hills of the community, the whole nature of the neighborhood
changes, for a seasonal camp that’s under 1,000 square feet. I think that’s just very excessive, and the
comments on erosion, I think, are very critical, to the environment, to the lake. The lake is already
under stress from infestation of Zebra Mussels and other erosion, and I think in the Zoning
Ordinance there is a requirement for these things to happen in a very timely fashion. For this project
to go over a year, I think the threat of erosion to not only Glen Lake but Mud Pond, the wetlands
which is, right now, untouched, puts it at great risk, and I think also Birdsall Road being newly paved
would probably destroyed, being it just has one layer of asphalt on it, and I don’t think that’s fair to
the taxpayers to have to go in and fix that, because that’s, when you’re talking a dump truck of 10
yards, that’s a tandem or triple axle dump truck. That’s a huge amount of weight. I don’t think the
road is rated for it. It’s definitely going to do some damage, and there’s also a safety issue, that much
construction going on in a neighborhood in the summer, the magnitude of this project is just very
huge for a small neighborhood.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ve just got pointed out that there was a letter
from Mr. Miller who wrote on September 16. Can we get this letter made part of the public
th
hearing, please.
MR. BROWN-It was submitted when?
MR. MAC EWAN-It was received by the Town October 16.
th
MR. BROWN-Was it entered in at your last meeting? Or there wasn’t a public hearing at your last
meeting?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. We opened the public hearing. We didn’t take comment, and we tabled it.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Chairman, I have something else I’d like to enter into the record, if I may.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s let him read that letter in. Would you read that in for us, please?
MR. BROWN-Actually, I have two pieces of public comment. One is from Don Beadleston and
Colleen Beadleston, it’s on the public notice, it’s just a return. It says, “We have no problem with
this application and we would be in favor of requests being granted to both applicants. Respectfully,
Donald and Colleen Beadleston” And we’ve got a September 16 letter from Steve Miller, to the
th
Planning Board, “Dear Planning Board: I am a full time resident of the effected neighborhood. I
oppose this project. This cut and fill project will forever change the look of the neighborhood. The
rolling terrain of the neighborhood is definitely one of its assets. This change would effect the storm
water runoff and drainage in a delicate wetland area altering the surrounding environment. This cut
and fill will certainly divert storm water runoff in ways not anticipated. The movement of charged
runoff into the lake is possible and could do harm to native species already challenged by zebra
mussel infestation. This cut and fill also changes the depth to ground water. The area may not be
able to support the biological loading of a septic system resulting in contamination of the ground
water. The large scale of this project seems out of proportion to the small lot size. Is all this needed
for a small summer camp? Is there any additional construction planned? The traffic required for
such a project would certainly damage the newly paved Birdsall Road requiring extensive repair
costing the taxpayers a significant sum of money. Considering the significant impact to the “look” of
the neighborhood, environmental issues, and damage to the road just to add parking and additional
structures to a summer camp, the negatives to the neighborhood and taxpayers seem to outweigh any
benefit. I strongly oppose this project. Regards, Steve Miller” I think that’s all of the public
comment that we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-What did you want to add, Russ?
MR. PITTENGER-Actually, I’d like something probably into the public hearing. I do have a
petition that we passed around to our neighbors, and it reads, “As residents of Birdsall Rd. we
understand the proposal by Russell Pittenger/Linda Whittle & Wally and Kate Hirsh to re-grade and
remove material from their hill. We encourage the Board to approve their request.” I have 20
signatures which represents 12 landowners, and counting Mr. Hirsh and I, that’s 14 landowners. I’d
like to give that to the Board, if I could.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can just give it all right to Craig.
MR. PITTENGER-I respect the comments made by Mr. Miller on the project. I think that I dispute
a couple of issues with him. I don’t want to get into a lot, but these are not small lots. I think,
compared to Mr. Miller’s lot, it may be by a magnitude of 10 larger, 10 times larger. Certainly it’s less
intensive development than on Mr. Miller’s lot. It’s not a Town road that goes up the back. It’s a
private road. The Town did pave it. The only people that really have access to it are the ones that
have easements which are at the end of the road, which are four more neighbors.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why would the Town pave a private road?
MR. PITTENGER-You tell me?
MR. MILLER-Because the road is used. The Town has received federal money since the 1960’s to
maintain it. It’s only recently been maintained for the last three years. It’s the taxpayers money to do
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a road by use. Okay. Continue on.
MR. PITTENGER-I think that there’s a, the concerns about runoff into the lake and degradation of
the lake quality are certainly concerns. They’re concerns that I share. I have a record of
demonstrating my understanding of how to deal with that, those sort of situations. I think that we
are capable of dealing with them in this situation. I am aware of the safety issue in the summer. I’ve
got kids up there, and I think a parent knows safety issues better that people that don’t have kids, and
we’re certainly aware of that, and that’s all I have to respond to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. So let’s move on to that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing
traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding
problems?”
MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty tough.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it could result.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think, too.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It could, and how can it be mitigated? How is it being mitigated? What are
the plans showing?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s partly, in a way, what Mr. Strough touched on, the one aspect.
MR. PITTENGER-My Drawing Six is an erosion control plan, demonstrates silt fence and some
erosion control measures.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think if we knew how much was going to be dumped right there, that’s the,
we don’t know how much is going to be dumped by the (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-Am I hearing there’s some real hesitation up here amongst Board members
because you’re not overly sure as to exactly how much fill is anticipated to be put on the wetland side
of the road, versus how much would be removed from the site in its entirety?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s about it, with me.
MR. METIVIER-I’m thinking here, why don’t we, if it’s possible, wait to see if you can get
somebody to take the fill away or at least give us an idea of how much will be taken away, versus
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
dumped on the other side, which might really make it a lot easier for us to understand the magnitude
of what might happen, and if you could get somebody that’s going to agree to remove this hill for
you and truck it to Bay Road
MR. PITTENGER-I can commit to you that if we could get someone to take this material, we would
not push any over the hill.
MR. METIVIER-And I agree with that, sure.
MR. PITTENGER-And I could also say that what, we’d provide our silt fence at the base of the hill
to protect the wetland. What DEC asked us to do is also create a berm down there, as also a
measure. I committed to Mr. Strough that we would provide a drainage swale, perforated pipe
infiltrator and catch any water that would be flowing surface drain there. So that that gets infiltrated.
We’d also put that on the lakeside.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think then what you would need to do at this point is supply us with a plan that
shows exactly those details. So that we have something that’s documented. For us to continue on an
try and muddle through this and do a neg dec on a SEQRA, then try to put a resolution together
that’s going to encapsulate all these different proposals that you’re doing, it would be too
cumbersome for us to try to achieve tonight.
MR. PITTENGER-I will suggest that the letter from DEC, where he asked that he did sign off on
this, based upon my commitment to him to do the things that he outlined in his letter and what I
committed to him covers that berm that we’re going to do, and I’d be willing to amend the plan to
do the infiltrator drainage Mr. Strough’s suggested to capture the water before it strikes off.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does he know where the berm is going to be?
MR. PITTENGER-It’s at the base of the hill.
MR. MAC EWAN-But does he know exactly where it’s going to be located? I mean, isn’t part of
what you’d be doing in your presentation not only to us but them as well, is to indicate all the actions
you’re proposing on this property, and what the finished results are going to be?
MR. PITTENGER-The purpose of my negotiations with DEC is to let them know, let them signoff
that this is not a mine, and that, he’s putting conditions on something that he has no jurisdiction
over, which he’s admitted, if we stay within the timeframe.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, but what I’m hearing up here from my fellow Board members, Russ, is
concerns over what the, over the activity and how you’re going to achieve your goal here, and what
the end results are going to be, and we don’t really have anything documented or a firm plan that’s
indicating this, how things are going to be finalized. I think that’s what the concern is up here.
MR. PITTENGER-Not beyond the grading plan, no.
MR. STROUGH-Would this help, Mr. Chairman? Can I offer something? As a further condition,
we could add all loading and unloading of heavy equipment will be done on the Hirsh/Pittenger
properties. Use of heavy equipment and trucking will be limited to the hours of Monday through
Friday, eight a.m. to six p.m.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that the issue, though, we have right at the moment, John, is hours
of operation and vehicle traffic and such. I think the issue is, the concerns I’m hearing echoing up
and down the Board here are if they put fill on the wetlands side of the road, is to how we’re going to
be sure that it’s not going to eventually flow into the wetlands, and what measures he’s going to do to
prevent that from happening.
MR. STROUGH-Why don’t you just make it a condition that no fill will be located on the eastern
side of the road? That way that forces the applicant to find an alternative location.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a possibility.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a possibility.
MR. MAC EWAN-But one commentor from the audience brought up a good point, which has me
thinking, how much weight can that road handle? If heavy vehicles are going to be using that road all
the time, is that road able to handle that kind of traffic?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I put use of heavy equipment and trucking, all unloading and loading and use
of machinery will be done on the Pittenger/Hirsh properties.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-But if they’re going to haul the fill out of there, how are they going to get it out
of there?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the dump trucks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, which is heavy equipment on that road.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s a concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would rather, for me personally, I would rather see a plan that shows what the
finished project is going to be like, inclusive of the proposed berms, drainage swales that he’s talked
about, that you talked about, and having that documented, other than just a letter from DEC saying,
well, I’m going to do what you want me to do because we have really no way of tracking exactly what
the finished product is going to be. Am I alone on this?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you’re not alone at all.
MR. METIVIER-The finished product could be altered. It could be one of two outcomes. We
don’t know what the outcome is going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t.
MR. PITTENGER-I’m faced with a situation where, of the fill, that we would move across the road
is less desirable to the Board, and there’s a concern about hauling the stuff away to be hauled away.
It doesn’t sound like I have a lot of options.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s not that, personally, for me, I’m totally turned off by the idea of hauling
it away, but I am concerned, being that, the way that road is, I mean, that’s a road by use, all these
years, that’s just been absorbed by the Town, has been taken care of by the Town, but it doesn’t meet
Town Code and Town standards for new highway construction. So whether a construction vehicle
would, you know, that many loads going in and out of there, what it would do to the road. I’d like to
get some input maybe from the Highway Superintendent, what his thoughts are. I mean, that’s
something that we need to look at. I mean, there’s a lot of houses along through there, and it’s a
narrow road at best, and there’s some potential for some impacts along that, from that standpoint
that I think.
MR. METIVIER-Russ, is this something you were going to try to start right away?
MR. PITTENGER-Not now, no.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, if we have time, let’s get some questions answered. If they’re going to start
in the spring, we have plenty of time to get some of the, you know.
MR. PITTENGER-Let me just say this. I can’t speak for the quality of that road that they take. I
know they didn’t put any sub-base down. They paved over the existing road. I can’t help that. Four
of the neighbors beyond this project, and ten of the neighbors, the other side of the project,
indicated they didn’t have a problem with it and they encouraged you to approve it. I’m aware of the
concerns that the Board has for this fill adjacent to the wetland. I think that the properties adjacent
to our properties did it without a permit, fairly successfully. I don’t see a lot of degradation. Because
the character of the soil there is so sandy and the cobbles that it is not very susceptible to erosion and
it could effectively hold the slope. I will revise the plans, as the Board wants me to, but I’m not sure
what to do with that, and certainly if you have issues with the Town, you want to talk about the road,
you know, I’m not familiar with that at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we’re going to table this thing, let’s be clear as to why we’re tabling it and
give some real sound direction as to what we’re looking for here. As far as showing us a plan, I’m
not sure how to put this into words, so I’m looking for some help here. We’re looking for him to
provide us a detailed drawing of the proposed drainage or drainage swales, or berms, for the
proposed action.
MR. PITTENGER-Can do.
MR. MAC EWAN-From not only, on both sides of the road.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The second question is as to how many, approximately how many yards
do you anticipate filling on the wetlands side.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. PITTENGER-That was the 5,000.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll want that responded to. Okay?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, that’s on all the plans.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have no idea what 5,000 yards is like, and the DEC said that 5,000?
MR. PITTENGER-Let me say this. If we were not hauling any dirt off of this, we could build this
by moving the 5,000 yards without a Town permit at all. Because you can clear and you can do
grading, and if we’re not removing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you could have just leveled 5,000 yards and just pushed it down the hill?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Over across the road.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you wouldn’t even need to come to us?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So right now your max that you’re going to put there is 5,000?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s, I think, all we can really get there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But thing is it’s not that you’re going to be grading it and pushing it. You’re
going to just kind of move it over there, and then grade it.
MR. BROWN-Mrs. LaBombard, if I could just jump in for a second. That type of activity still would
require site plan review, and the reason the application is before the Board is there’s a section in the
soil erosion or the mining and excavation, I’m sorry, Soil Erosion Standards, it talks about a certain
amount of fill that’s moved or removed and graded, and if you exceed that, that’s why you’re here for
review, and that’s why they’re here for review.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. BROWN-So if they were just going to move 5,000 yards, they’d still have to be here.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. I stand corrected.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, thank you.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you a lot.
MR. VOLLARO-I think a stormwater management plan would certainly help to clear a lot of this up,
myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Vollaro is suggesting a stormwater management plan.
MR. STROUGH-And part of that plan will be what Mr. Pittenger and I had basically agreed to, that
standard be a minimum of one percent pitch of the driveways and the parking areas toward the east,
toward the excavated, the new lawn area, the new septic for the proposed septic area.
MR. MAC EWAN-How are you going to put this all in so that he knows what we’re doing? We’re
doing a motion, you know, compiling what we need to to do a motion to table, and it seems like an
awful lot. How do we condense that?
MR. PITTENGER-I’m making notes, if you just want to table it. I mean, I think I’m.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, when we table it, we need to know for our own benefit why we’re tabling it.
MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s true, but don’t get too hung up on needing each and every element
in the actual tabling resolution. That’s not vital.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-The only reason why I’m suggesting that, in the past, we have tabled things and
not been very clear as to why we table it and have the applicant come back and say.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not discouraging you from being clear in your laundry list. I’m just saying
don’t get hung up on needing that in your tabling resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that Bob proposed a stormwater plan. I think that’s all we need to
put in our resolution. I think it’s understood, between the Board and the applicant, exactly what
we’re talking about, because we’ve talked about it, and I just kind of rehashed it, and so, going along
with what Counsel said, stormwater plan, I think, is sufficient. Also, the applicant said that they will
investigate alternative locations for fill deposition, and the hours of operation, I think could be
addressed by the applicant next time they come before us, and dust control measures that’ll be used
during excavating operations, and I think the agreement that, I didn’t see any problem with that, with
the loading and unloading of all the heavy equipment on your property, as opposed to on the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, to table it?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, are you looking for input from the Highway Superintendent?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I would ask that, just verify from him maybe the load capacity of that road.
Kind of maybe just give an idea of what this anticipated project is with vehicle movement and ask for
his opinion, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got six things here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go. I’m going to re-open the public hearing and leave it open, too.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When do we table it to, next month?
MR. MAC EWAN-If we table it to the second meeting of next month, is that enough time for you?
MR. PITTENGER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. To the 20.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s tentative right now, isn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s final. It’s going to happen. We just lost Chris for that meeting. That’s
all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001, RUSS PITTENGER / WALLACE
HIRSH, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Strough:
To the second meeting in December, tentatively the 20 of December, so the applicant can prepare
th
the following:
1. A Stormwater Management Plan what’s going to happen during the construction of
all of this, and.
2. Alternative locations for fill disposition, and
3. The hours of operation, give us exactly when he’s going to be working at this, and
4. Dust Control measures that would be implemented, and
5. Give us a plan as far as heavy equipment and the unloading and loading of it on the
property, and so you can go to the Highway Superintendent, also, and get some
input from him as to the load capacity of Birdsall Road, and.
6. The maximum amount of fill to be put next to the wetlands is 5,000 yards.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November 2001 by the following vote:
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Also so you can go to the Highway Superintendent and get some input from
him as to the load capacity of Birdsall Road.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to correct that, is that Number Six?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That we’ll direct Staff to do. That’ll be for us to have Staff do, for the Highway
Superintendent.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Staff will go to the Highway Superintendent and find out the load
capacity of the road in and out of there.
MR. BROWN-Yes. It may be more beneficial for the applicant to do that, so they can discuss the
details of the project with the Highway Superintendent, so he knows what the project is. I can give
him the application, but if he has questions, they’re going to be better answered by the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I just have one other thing. We know that the maximum amount of fill
that you’re going to put adjacent to the wetlands is 5,000 yards?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But there’s a possibility that it won’t be that.
MR. PITTENGER-That is correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but the max amount right now is 5,000. So you’re planning to
definitely get rid of the other 5,000 and put it some place else?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, wait a minute, and if the applicant is going to maintain the east side of a road
as a place for fill deposition, then you want a berm detail.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the stormwater management, all of that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Just as long as we understand.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. No, I think that’s okay.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get there, Russ.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s all right. It’s Thanksgiving. I’ll see you at Christmas time.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2001 TYPE II GF CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESS
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: ANDREW CRONQUIST ZONE: LI-1A
LOCATION: CORNER OF CORINTH & OGDEN RDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
PAVE 21,672 +/- SQ FT. OF THE CURRENT PARKING AREA AND ENTRANCE/EXIT
DRIVES. ALL NEW LAND USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-26. WARREN CO.
PLANNING BOARD: 10/10/01 CROSS REFERENCE: UV 79-2001 TAX MAP NO. 147-1-8
LOT SIZE: 1.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-26
ANDREW CRONQUIST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on October 23 was tabled.
rd
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-2001, GF Congregation of Jehovah’s Witness, Meeting Date:
November 20, 2001 “Project Description
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
The applicant was tabled at the previous meeting and requested to meet with Warren County Soil
and Water to review stormwater issues. The applicant has provided a revised drawing choosing one
of the suggestions offered by the District.
Project Description and Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
The applicant proposes to pave 21,672 +/-square feet of parking area. The parking lot lines will be
adjusted accordingly to maintain a minimum of the 20-foot drive aisle. The site will be able to
accommodate 51 parking spaces in the paved area. The site also has the potential to accommodate
an additional 20-30 vehicles as overflow.
The applicant proposes 4 new light poles around the parking area and one on the south side of the
building. The poles will be 18’6” high with cutoff fixture style with 250 watts sodium vapor lights.
The building light is an existing floodlight located at the gable end looking over the parking lot.
The applicant proposes three stormwater infiltration trenches, ( Option 3, Jim Lieberum 10-26-01
letter ) along the east and west sides of the parking area. The grading plan depicts an arrangement to
direct the parking lot stormwater to the trenches . With the amount of green area to the south and
east of the property, it appears as though additional stormwater control devices could be
implemented, if necessary.
Areas of Concern or Importance
With the adoption of a plan suggested by the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District, it
appears as though the major concern, stormwater, has been adequately addressed.
Suggestions
Staff would recommend approval of the paved parking area as shown on the revised plans and with
the associated construction details.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen.
MR. CRONQUIST-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please?
MR. CRONQUIST-My name is Andrew Cronquist. I’m the applicant. This is Victor Keersgarde.
He’s a long standing member of the Congregation and the owner of Adirondack Industries. So he’ll
be in charge of the major part of this project, as far as construction and heavy equipment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. Bring us up to date with where we left off.
MR. CRONQUIST-Well, with the concerns over tree removal, we decided to narrow our project.
Instead of trying to use as much width as we possibly could, we decided to stay away from the
boundaries and make the parking lot a little longer, and that way we would kind of ease up on
encroaching the other borders, and after considering Mr. Lieberum’s suggestions, we decided to go
with his third suggestion, which was a cubic footage of infiltration trench, which you’ll see on our
first set of plans there. I’m sorry, the second set, the second set of plans, and there should also be a
formula that he sent along with this, to figure out just exactly how many cubic feet of infiltration
trench we needed, to be able to handle that first half inch of runoff, and so keeping that formula
together, we came up with the numbers that we did, and that would seem to be the main concern.
There’s also a third set of plans which show our lighting proposals, as far as how we want to
illuminate the parking lot as well, but it seemed as though the main concern was the stormwater
handling.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like we’ve got something here now, don’t we. Anything else?
MR. CRONQUIST-I’m open for questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I certainly thought that a total of five drywells was more than what you
needed to do. So I think, by going back and revisiting this, you came up with something that’s better
all the way around. I like the new layout. As you pointed out, it takes out fewer trees, and certainly
the three trenches make more sense than the five. I really didn’t have anything else to add. I think
it’s an overall better plan and I think it served us all well by revisiting it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It looks good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Thank you for making the exit smaller. Now is there going to be signage saying
exit near the 18 foot exit?
MR. CRONQUIST-Yes, there is.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see any noted.
MR. CRONQUIST-That’ll be exit only.
MR. STROUGH-And I understand it will be the primary exit area?
MR. CRONQUIST-Yes, it will.
MR. STROUGH-So, whereabouts will those signs be located?
MR. CRONQUIST-Good question. I imagine they would be appropriate on either side of the
driveway, unless there’s some suggestion as to where we could put them.
MR. STROUGH-Probably would be on the corners of the eastern grassy treed area.
MR. CRONQUIST-All right.
MR. STROUGH-To the exit.
MR. CRONQUIST-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Other than that, it’s fine. It looks good. I like it.
MR. CRONQUIST-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? I left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a Type II. We don’t need to do a SEQRA. Would someone introduce a
motion please?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2001 GF CONGREGATION OF
JEHOVAH’S WITNESS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 44 –2001, GF Congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Property Owner: Same. Agent: Andrew Cronquist. Zone: LI-1A. Location:
corner of Corinth & Ogden Roads. Applicant proposes to pave 20,180 +/- sq. ft. of the current
parking area and entrance / exit drives. All new land uses in LI zones require Planning Board review
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
and approval in accordance with Section 179-26. Warren Co. Planning Board: 10/10/01. Cross
Reference: UV 79-2001. Tax Map No. 147-1-8. Lot size: 1.27 acres. Section: 179-26.
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 11/16/01:
1. 11/20 Staff Notes
2. 11/7 Meeting Notice
3. 11/2 Additional Info received
4. 10/31 Additional Info received
5. 10/23 Planning Board resolution
6. 10/23 Staff notes
7. 10/17 ZBA resolution
8. 10/16 Notice of Public Hearing
9. 10/10 Warren Co. Planning
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/23/01 and 11/20/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Signage be added to the eastern grassy treed area of the exit that is denoted by its 18 foot
width, and
2. With the deletion of the last Whereas on the first page of the resolution prepared by Staff,
dated 11/20, “Whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act…”
will be deleted, and
3. On the second page of the prepared resolution, the sentence that starts with “Plans have
been approved under authority of a resolution adopted” and the date should be changed to
11/20/01, and
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 10/ /01 11/20/01 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck.
MR. CRONQUIST-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1993 MODIFICATION FLR PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION:
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING
SUBDIVISION IN THE FORM OF A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. ANY
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 31-2000, SP 38-2000, AV
40-1993 TAX MAP NO. 118-1-4 LOT SIZE: 4.35 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGS.
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing for this.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1993, Modification, FLR Partnership, Meeting Date:
November 20, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a boundary line agreement between two parcels owned by FLR partnership.
The applicant has explained that the lot 118-1-4 appears to contain some contaminated soils. The
proposed modification would relocate the division lines between the parcels, so that all contaminants
are located on one lot. The adjacent parcel 118-1-5.1 is a known site containing contamination.
Study of plat (§ A183)
(1) Lot arrangement: No new lots are proposed, the new lot lines, as proposed would
relocate the southerly boundary of lot 5.1, some 135 feet to the south to a position
approximately 50 feet north of the existing building. This boundary line change
involves approximately 0.54 acres of land, more or less.
(2) Location and design of streets: No new streets are proposed.
(3) Topography: No changes in grading are proposed.
(4) Water supply: No additional water usage is anticipated.
(5) Sewage disposal: No additional septic disposal areas are expected.
(6) Drainage: No additional drainage structures are required.
(7) Lot sizes: Approximately 0.54 acres of land will be exchanged.
(8) Placement of utilities: No utilities are to be extended.
(9) Future development: Relocation of parking areas may be necessary.
(10) Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: This project appears to have difficulties
beyond the control of the applicant.
(11) State Environmental Quality Review Act. Determination of Significance.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The reconfiguration of these lots appears to be an attempt to locate all, currently identified,
contaminated soil within the bounds of one parcel. The New York State Fire Prevention and
Building Code requires a minimum 50 foot clear zone around this building. The proposed
modification appears to meet this requirement.
Suggestion
Staff suggests approval of this modification.”
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple and straightforward. Anything you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t have much to add. For the record, Jon Lapper. Fred Alexy, who is the
managing partner of this, is out of town, and couldn’t join me tonight, but when they did the
boundary, the subdivision to begin with, it was just because this has an existing PCB dumpsite that
had nothing to do with these applicants preexisting. It will eventually be remediated by others. It’s a
super fund site, and they’ve been doing testing in advance of that remediation, and it was determined
that some of the contamination had migrated. So in order for them sell the building, which they’ve
been trying to do for all these years and they finally have an offer to buy the building, and that will be
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
the subject of discussion in two minutes. The new owner doesn’t want to be responsible, or have to
worry about this. So we’re asking to move the line in a manner that complies with the Ordinance in
all respects, in terms of the building setback, and the applicant will retain the contaminated site. At
some point that it gets cleaned up, it’s anticipated that it’ll get sold for a dollar to the party that’s
buying the building, but for the time being it’ll stay with FLR Partnership.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion by anybody?
MR. RINGER-I had a question. If we do this, then, you need an acre for the Light Industrial, and
one of the lots would become less than an acre this way.
MR. STROUGH-Which lot’s that?
MR. RINGER-Whichever one that this was two lots that were 2.34 acres originally, I think it was.
MR. LAPPER-No. They’re both more than an acre.
MR. RINGER-They’re both?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Well, I was reading the resolution from the ZBA, and it said there was a total of 2.45
acres, 2.7 acres in the two lots.
MR. LAPPER-If you look at Matt Steves’ map that I submitted, one of them is 3.82, and the other is
1.75.
MR. RINGER-Well, then the ZBA in ’93, where did that 2.7 acres come from?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-My only question was to make sure we had an acre, and if we have an acre, forget the
question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I just had one, I guess. I see that it’s a very simple lot line adjustment, and both of
these, the drawing that is done by Paul Cushing and Associates shows where the future gravel
parking could be located, but in the meantime, you’re going to leave this parking and lease it back so
people can park on it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering why you don’t just go ahead and do on the property that’s
going to be part of the project, why don’t you go ahead and just do the parking now?
MR. LAPPER-Because it is likely that the remediation won’t require the parking lot to be destroyed.
It’ll be wells, probably pumping the stuff out, groundwater remediation, in other words, and when
we met with Craig Brown, he suggested and was correct that for the contingency that at some point
this parking lot may have to be removed, then we have to show it would have compliant site plan,
that there is parking. So this is shown that it could be built, but there’s no anticipation that it’s going
to be built. It’s just to show that it could.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it may never have to be. Is that the situation?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s just a question that I had, why put off what looked like it was going
to be a possibility.
MR. LAPPER-If it was inevitable, you’re right, but hopefully it will never have to happen.
MR. VOLLARO-So that this will be forever leased as parking space.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and ultimately sold.
MR. VOLLARO-From whoever owns that piece would be.
MR. LAPPER-The only reason for the subdivision is because of the contamination.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what we’re doing here. I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. STROUGH-The 20 foot right of way, I’m just assuming, on the eastern side of the lot, is for the
use of that back lot, , so it’s not landlocked?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you know when this remediation might be done?
MR. LAPPER-There’s been promises for a year. The fact that they’re doing soil borings now is a
good sign.
MR. STROUGH-It would seem to me it would be in the applicant’s, proposed future buyer’s best
interest to buy that lot back there, after it’s remediated, because they’re kind of limited to 50 feet
behind the building. Any major operation would probably desire a little bit more than that.
MR. LAPPER-Everybody would have been happier if this didn’t have to happen, and they could
have bought both lots, and that would be that, but here we are.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and the location of the drywells is right in an area that receives traffic, and
that’s kind of incongruent, but, other than that, I don’t have any problems with the proposal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Does someone want to introduce a
motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1993 FLR
PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to SB 11-1993, FLR
Partnership for a boundary line adjustment. Any modification to a Planning Board approved
subdivision is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 118-1-4, 5.2. Lot
size: 14.362 acres, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 10/31/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 11/16/01, and;
11/20 Staff Notes
11/7 Meeting Notice
11/6 New Info received
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2001 TYPE: FLR PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: LUZERNE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES FURNITURE STORAGE. ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS FOR
PAPER STORAGE (ENCORE) AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE (CRT
CONSTRUCTION), PROPOSED USE IS FOR FURNITURE STORAGE. NEW USES
IN LI ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 11-1993, SP 31-2000, SP 38-2000 TAX MAP NO. 118-1-
4 LOT SIZE: 4.35 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 54-2001, FLR Partnership, Meeting Date: November 20, 2001
“Project Description
The applicant proposes a furniture storage area to be located in the 26,912 square foot building. The
adjacent office building will remain as approved for CRT Construction (SP38-2000).
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
Site Overview
This site plan application is a combination of a modification to an existing plan and the
application for a new use of the property. The modification is directly related to the previous
subdivision modification, as the existing parking for the building on this site will no longer be
located on the property. In the event that the existing parking becomes unavailable
(fenced off or an excavated area ) this modification for the relocation of the parking area will
address the situation. The proposed relocation of the parking area appears to be consistent with
the existing site conditions and an appropriate location for the same. Traffic patterns, access
and circulation should not be affected by such relocation.
Areas of Concern or Importance
1. What will be the hours of operation?
2. Will there be any outdoor storage?
3. Where will company and employee vehicles park? How many?
4. Will there be any sales at this site? (not permitted)
5. Will this be attended storage or unattended?
6. While the proposed parking area appears to be consistent with the existing area and
therefore would not generate any additional stormwater runoff on the site, consideration
may be given to the method for controlling such stormwater for the “new” location.
Suggestions
Previous site plan approval for this property limited the parking of commercial vehicles (tractor trailers)
in the front of the site. Staff suggests a consistent position on this issue.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-In the Light Industrial zone, if you’re taking a compliant use and replacing it with
another compliant use, it still requires site plan approval. Right now the warehouse portion of the
building, which is the large, almost 27,000 square foot portion of the building, is used, I guess it has
been used for paper storage, and the proposal is to sell it to a company that would use it for finished
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
furniture storage, and no site changes are required by the new owner, and therefore nothing is
proposed. So it’s just a matter of this Board considering whether the existing site plan is compatible
for replacing the delivery and storage and pick up of paper with delivery storage and pick up of
furniture. I have the answers to the Staff notes. Hours of operation, Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This actually would be staffed. That was, I know, one of the things you were
thinking. So two to three people there during operating hours. No outdoor storage because this is
finished furniture. Employees would park in that parking lot in the back, unless they have to move
to the new parking lot in the back, if that has to get built. There wouldn’t be any sales at this site,
and we didn’t do any kind of stormwater for that new parking lot, the gravel parking lot. Gravel, in
Queensbury, is considered impermeable. It’s all a very sandy site, and if that is an issue for the
Board, I would propose, as a condition, that before that actually gets built, we could have an
engineered stormwater plan, but it would really, just in an industrial site, you’d just have it sheet drain
off to the side.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s pretty flat, too, that site, isn’t it,?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that part of it is.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t even see a stormwater requirement there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, I’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No problem with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 54-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
FLR PARTNERSHIP, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 54-2001 FLR PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 54-2001, FLR Partnership.
Applicant proposes Furniture Storage. Original approval was for paper storage (Encore) and
construction office (CRT Construction), proposed use is for furniture storage. New uses in LI zones
are subject to Planning Board review and approval by the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 118-1-4.
Cross Reference: SB 11-1993, SP 31-2000, SP 38-2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 11/ 6; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 11/16/01, and
11/20 Staff Notes
11/13 Notice of Public Hearing
11/7 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 11/20/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the draft resolution prepared by Staff dated
11/20/01 and is subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 11/20/01 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Thanks. Same to you.
EXTENSION REQUEST:
SP 51-2000 GARDEN TIME AND BARRETT AUTO SALES APPROVED 11/21/00 –
REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION SEE LETTER DATED 10/18/01
FRED TROELSTRA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-2000 – Extension, Garden Time and Barrett Auto Sales, Meeting
Date: November 20, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant requests a one-year extension for completion of the display and sales area for the
adjacent businesses. A recent November 14, 2001 inspection of the property revealed a significant
portion of the site work has been undertaken to improve the site as approved. However, there are
several outstanding site conditions yet to be addressed per the approved plan. Additionally, a sales
office and two storage buildings have been established on the Garden Time portion of the site. The
original plan identifies an information booth for the Garden Time use. The intent of the original
submission was to use this area for display, no on site sales were contemplated or approved by the
Planning Board.
Staff Comments
Consideration may be given to conditionally approving this extension request with the provision
that the previous Garden Time display area, on the north side of Quaker Road, be completely
removed by December 1, 2001 and that the property be cleaned up and that there be no further
usage of the property without further review and approval. Additionally, should the applicant’s wish
to add a sales office and modify the approved site plan; (SP 51-2000) such a modification would need
to be formally submitted to and approved by the Planning Board.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. TROELSTRA-Hi.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record you are?
MR. TROELSTRA-Fred Troelstra from Garden Time.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re just looking for a one year extension on this?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, that’s correct.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Under Staff comments it says, “Consideration may be given to conditionally
approving this extension request with the provision that the previous Garden Time display area, on
the north side of Quaker Road, be completely removed by December 1, 2001 and that the property
be cleaned up and that there be no further usage of the property without further review and
approval.” Did you have any issues with that?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the issues?
MR. TROELSTRA-The date that is imposed, December 1.
st
MR. MAC EWAN-How quickly could you get it cleaned up and move stuff off there?
MR. TROELSTRA-I’m asking for a year’s extension.
MR. MAC EWAN-A whole year to clean up that other side of the road?
MR. TROELSTRA-I’m asking for a year’s extension on this side.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking two different sides of the road here, right? We’re talking the parcel
between Garden Time and Barrett’s, that you’re asking for a one year extension on to finish the site
plan that was approved, and in conjunction with that you’re asking them to clean up the other side of
the road on the Sport line Honda side, and moving all the sheds and cleaning up that area to the
other side. Why will that take a year to do that side?
MR. TROELSTRA-Because I need to complete, let’s call it the Garden Time property side first,
before I remove all the material from across the street. I don’t want to work around the material that
I currently have across the street. I have made that request to the Department, and I told them, I got
concurrence on it that I would move that when I was complete on the Garden Time proper side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What do the approved plans say?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, Robert. I’ll start with you. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, my only questions are, it says there are several outstanding site conditions yet
to be addressed for the approved plan. Now you’re asking for an extension of one year on the pre-
approved, plan that was previously approved. Is that right?
MR. TROELSTRA-If you have questions what those outstanding site conditions are, I do, too, and I
wish that, I had requested the Department get me a copy of those staff notes to prepare myself for
tonight. That hasn’t occurred.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a note on my staff notes that says, what are they.
MR. TROELSTRA-I have the same question, what are they.
MR. RINGER-We’ve got the resolution, and there isn’t any.
MR. TROELSTRA-There was a site visit on 11/14, which I wasn’t there, and again on 11/19, which
is yesterday, and again I asked that those findings be presented to me so that I could prepare myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s what we’ll do. Let’s table this until next Tuesday night, put you
first on the agenda. Could you deliver, well, you’ve already got Staff notes, but you’re going to need
to get it to everybody, the conditions of approval for the original site plan we did last year, and also
supply it with Mr. Troelstra so that he knows what the conditions of approval were for last year.
MR. BROWN-Sure, I could do that. When I met on the site yesterday with Mr. Troelstra, we went
over the plan. I had made an inspection of the site, made some notes on where the deficiencies were,
went over that with Mr. Troelstra. I didn’t prepare any notes. I just have the plan that I have from
the inspection. There aren’t any notes to supply anybody. There’s just the plan that I made notes
on. I can formalize them and put them in a list and give you a detailed description of what the
deficiencies are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Our resolution, when we approved this thing, I think we had some conditions of
approval on that as well. Didn’t we?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. RINGER-We have our resolution here, Craig.
MR. BROWN-I think that’s the basis of this extension is to have time to complete all those items
and all those conditions of approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m concerned about is tying in the north side of the road to the south side
of the road, and I thought that was the whole basis of getting this other side between your place and
Barrett’s place for your combined display areas, so that it would quit using the north side of the road.
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, and for all intents and purposes, I haven’t used it. Have you traveled by it
recently?
MR. MAC EWAN-But if you’re still displaying there, you’re still using it.
MR. TROELSTRA-Have you traveled by it recently?
MR. RINGER-I went by today. You only had a couple of things out there.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re still using it, then, and that’s the issue. The issue is that I guess nothing is
supposed to be over there. So how quickly can you get what’s remaining? If there’s only two or
three pieces left over.
MR. TROELSTRA-I’d like to know exactly what is required for me to move. I’ve got a couple of
buildings there. I told Mr. Brown that those wouldn’t be a problem, but I’ve got a windmill that I’ve
got anchored in there that will be.
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a problem. I think the applicant will take care of the
outstanding issues within the next year. I don’t see this as being a major upset to me, to speak for
myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how does everybody else feel?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess what we’re trying to determine are what are the outstanding issues?
I’m having a hard time determining where he’s.
MR. STROUGH-He has a site plan. We’ve approved the site plan, and all he’s asking for is an
extension of a year to allow him to take care of whatever he asked for the first time. I don’t see any
problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I kind of feel the same way. I mean, he wouldn’t be before us asking for an
extension if he had completed the site plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But Fred’s not sure what, he’s not even sure what the issues are.
MR. TROELSTRA-I am not certain what the issues are. I know what the conditions that I have on
the site plan. That’s a given. I don’t have any difficulties with that, but just the way that it’s stated,
there’s several outstanding site conditions, and I’d like to further that. There are a couple of things
that I want to bring up that are incorrect on this project description. It says, additionally a sales
office and two storage buildings have been established. That’s not true. They are for sale, and I’d
like Mr. Brown, I’ve asked him to also state that. It says the original plan identifies an information
booth. That’s what I do have, and that the original submission was to use this area for display, “no
on site sales”. That is correct. There are no on site sales. So if he’s inferring that there are, that is
wrong. I don’t receive cash, and I don’t run credit cards on that parcel that we’re discussing. It’s
through the main register in the main building. So I’d like to see that removed from this project
description.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, all you’re doing is asking for a modification for you to complete your site
plan which is not complete at this point.
MR. TROELSTRA-I’m asking that, but then I’m also presented with this information which is
incorrect.
MR. STROUGH-Well, basically, Fred, you know, someone’s going to make a motion, maybe me.
All we’re going to do is make a motion to approve an extension of your site plan, whatever it was,
Number 51-2000, from November 20, 2001 to November 20, 2002. Whatever the issues. I think
you will take care of the issues.
MR. TROELSTRA-I will take care of the issues, but again, John, I don’t want to be having to defend
myself because of the fact there’s a storage building that isn’t a sales office.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. STROUGH-Well, whatever.
MR. TROELSTRA-Well, I’d like it to be established now that that’s not the case and that’s not going
to be discussed November 20, 2002.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then let’s fix the project description and delete what shouldn’t be there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what we’re here to do. We’re here to grant an extension. That’s what
he’s here for.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We can’t grant an extension on a project description that isn’t what he’s here
for.
MR. TROELSTRA-That’s correct. I don’t agree with what’s stated here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Staff notes are just background information for us.
MR. TROELSTRA-Well, they’re background information for you, but I don’t want to have a replay
in one year that that’s what has been established.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I understand.
MR. TROELSTRA-I don’t want to be defending myself at that point.
MR. SCHACHNER-Be sure you hear from Staff on this issue.
MR. BROWN-This extension is for, this request is for an extension of a previously approved site
plan. It’s not for an approval to do new things. It’s not for an approval to add uses to the site. It’s
for an approval to extend a time period to complete a previously approved plan. That’s it.
MR. TROELSTRA-I think we all agree with that.
MR. BROWN-If something happens between now and the time that this extension expires, that’s
another issue, the applicant will be back before this Board.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have a question. Now when we look at these Staff notes, these are
just to help us, and the person that wrote them sometimes could have a different outlook, but this
doesn’t go down in the record, the Staff note.
MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean by “down in the record”? It’s part of the record of an
application. It isn’t necessarily cast in stone.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Then, in other words, the Staff note is part of, it’s not part of the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it’s referred to in most resolutions, if you use the pre-prepared resolutions.
That doesn’t mean you necessarily agree with every word of it. It’s just referred to as one of the
pieces of information, one of the many pieces of information that’s part of the record on which
you’re basing your decision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t ever remember, in all these years, being called on a Staff note, what
was in the Staff note, and that’s what’s happening right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s not. You’re getting confused, because if we entertain granting an
extension of this original site plan, it doesn’t refer, in that motion that we’re extending that paragraph
that you’re thinking about right now. All he’s citing, from the Town’s standpoint, and there’s a
disagreement between Staff and the owner as to what exactly is taking place on that site.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. I understand that, but the second thing you said is what Mr.
Troelstra has his issue right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-But we’re clouding the issue here, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree.
MR. STROUGH-I’d just like to make a motion.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MR. RINGER-Let’s here from Counsel.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s okay. I just want to point out so that everyone understands. All of your
pre-prepared resolutions reference the current Staff notes. For example, this resolution, which is
merely a resolution approving or denying the extension request, in the third “Whereas”, it says, “The
above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information
not included in this listing as of 11/16/01. Number One, Staff Notes” And that doesn’t mean that
you agree with every word, or even any of the words in the Staff notes, but they are referenced, and
they are part of your record. I just want to make sure everybody understands that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s no problem for you to come into compliance with the approved site plan
within a year from now?
MR. TROELSTRA-Looking at it from today’s date, I would say no, but I’m working as diligently as I
can.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two years would simply be enough time, I would think, to come into compliance
with an approved site plan.
MR. TROELSTRA-We are trying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. TROELSTRA-As I stated in my letter that is a matter of economics.
MR. RINGER-Aren’t you using all that property now? I mean, don’t you have trailers stored over
there and your buildings?
MR. TROELSTRA-I don’t have a trailer.
MR. RINGER-No. You own the buildings. I mean, the property is being used.
MR. TROELSTRA-The property is being used. We have now completed a lot line adjustment
between ourselves and Barretts.
MR. RINGER-What have you got left to do in a year’s time to complete this?
MR. TROELSTRA-Well, if the notes were prepared, it would state, I believe, that I have to complete
a grading plan for the back half of the property. For all intents and purposes, less the landscaping in
the front, which won’t be complete this year, the front is complete.
MR. RINGER-Wasn’t there something that you had to put a connector road between the two
businesses that there was some discussion on it.
MR. TROELSTRA-No. There was at one point, because we had originally proposed an
ingress/egress between the two properties, but since then we had given that a concession because it
wasn’t favored. So we elected not to do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Say that part again now?
MR. TROELSTRA-If you recall, a year ago, we had proposed that we have an ingress/egress on the
property line. At that point, the Barrett’s owned the entire parcel. We were in a lease option.
February, as we had stated we were anticipating doing, we closed on the property. We exercised our
option, and we did a lot line adjustment, but on October 23, we gave the concession, we didn’t
rd
pursue it, to go with the ingress/egress as we had originally proposed. We had, instead, looked to
enhance our current ingress/egress. One of those, Mr. MacEwan, of those conditions for next year
is to move our current ingress/egress to be opposite the East Quaker Service Road. So I can say that
I probably will be done on the three and a half acre parcel, but then on the Garden Time parcel, to
move that ingress/egress, that’s going to be dictated by what happens.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER 30, 2002 FOR
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Conditional approval with the following provisions:
1. The previous Garden Time display area, on the north side of Quaker Road, be
completely removed by December 1, 2001,
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
2. The property be cleaned up
3. There be no further usage of the property without further review and approval
4. Should the applicant’s wish to add a sales office and modify the approved site plan,
such a modification would be need to be formally submitted to and approved by the
Planning Board.
Duly adopted this 20th day of November, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. TROELSTRA-What about the requirement for across the street? Are we wrapping that in here?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re dealing with your site plan that you have right now, and come into
compliance with the site plan that’s approved, you’ve got a one year extension. We’ll deal with that.
MR. TROELSTRA-Okay. So I’m to walk away from this understanding what about across the
street? I’ll move those couple of buildings?
MR. BROWN-That would be an enforcement issue with the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s part of what we’re doing.
MR. RINGER-It wasn’t part of our approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks.
MR. TROELSTRA-You’re very welcome.
MR. MAC EWAN-December’s meetings the 18 and the 20. Everyone here for that? That’s a
thth
Tuesday/Thursday.
MR. STROUGH-Then site visits will be the 15.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits will be the 15.
th
MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, Staff did try to coordinate, and I appreciate Staff’s attempt to coordinate
with us on the special night, the 20, but that’s not a night we’re likely to be able to be here, either
th
Cathy or myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then I think we ought to look at an alternative date.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How about the Thursday after Christmas? Christmas is Tuesday the 25.
th
What about the 27?
th
MR. BROWN-I’m sure if we anticipate any actions that are going to require input from Counsel, we
can confer with them first and have a position for the Board, if you’re comfortable doing that.
MR. SCHACHNER-And we’re certainly available for that, and we’re sorry. We’re generally available
one or another of us, but the Thursday the 20.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Are there any other dates available to us?
MR. SCHACHNER-The one Cathy LaBombard just mentioned, actually, is a date that we’re
available.
MR. MAC EWAN-You were kind of shaking your head on that. What’s the problem with that?
MR. BROWN-I just think, right after Christmas, you’re going to have a tough time, I mean.
MR. RINGER-Personally, it’s not good for me, but.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/20/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think after Christmas would be better than before.
MR. RINGER-The 27 is not good for me.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I have more of a conflict with the 20.
th
MR. VOLLARO-I think Craig’s idea is a good one. If we think we need Counsel for the 20, let’s
th
try to make that determination. I think Craig has put up a pretty good idea.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can also work with Staff to try to see, in terms of agenda control, if you
want some of the meatier one’s, so to speak, on the 18.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-We’ll try to work with you the best, as you know, the best we can.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll attend December’s agenda meeting. Any other business? Nothing
else? Okay. I move we adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
36