2003-12-23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 23, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER
JOHN STROUGH
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a couple of announcements. Site Plan No. 53-2003 has been tabled.
SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL
STAGE MALCOLM BATCHELDER PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT & JACQUELINE
KOCK AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 30 CLEMENTS
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.86 +/- ACRE PROPERTY
INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 15-1995, 11-1994, 2-1993 APA TAX
MAP NO. 27-3-1.3 266.3-1-65 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MR. MAC EWAN- Subdivision No. 21-2003 is going to be tabled to our January 15 meeting
th
because the subdivision advertisement signs have not been placed on the property. I’ll open up
the public hearing and table that application until the 15.
th
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2003 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ERNEST CENTERBAR AGENT: NACE
ENGINEERING, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE
SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 63 +/- ACRE PARCEL
INTO 36 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.57 ACRES TO 17.50 ACRES
IN SIZE. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 47-89, AV 47-89 NYS DEC [WETLANDS,
ENDANGERED SPECIES UNIT] NYS FISH & WILDLIFE, NYS DOH TAX MAP NO. 308.7-
1-3 LOT SIZE: 63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2003, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: December 23,
2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 7-2003 (Final Stage)
APPLICANT: Richard Schermerhorn is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 63 +/- acre property into 36 single-
family lots.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Sherman Avenue, east of the
Niagara Mohawk overhead transmission lines.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The Planning Board passed a
SEQRA Negative Declaration during the review of the Preliminary Stage of this subdivision on
November 18, 2003.
PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board reviewed and approved the Preliminary Stage of this
subdivision on November 18, 2003.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 63 +/- acre property in order
to create 35 new single-family residential lots, along with separate parcels for proposed Karner
Blue mitigation as well as potential future mitigation. The new residential lots within this
subdivision range in size from .57 acres to 1.29 acres. As some of the lots the proposed are
below the one-acre requirement of the SR-1A zone, this subdivision is being presented and
reviewed as a Cluster Subdivision.
The topography of the lot is generally level, with some areas of steeper slopes in the northeast
area of the site. The site contains an existing residence at the northern area of the site near
Sherman Avenue. The area surrounding this residence is generally cleared of vegetation. The
southern and eastern areas of this site contain a mix of mature trees.
The lots within this subdivision would have vehicular access from two new road connections
off of Sherman Avenue. The road network as proposed also provides for future vehicular
connections to adjacent properties to the west and south. The lots within this subdivision
would be connected to the municipal water supply and would have on-site septic systems.
STAFF COMMENTS:
DENSITY
As a follow up to Staff comments made at the time of Preliminary review, the applicant has
submitted a density calculation for this subdivision, which addresses an allowable density for
this subdivision and any future subdivision of the remaining lands. The applicant’s density
calculation considers the area of proposed roads, the Lupine Avoidance Area and a 2.17 acre
Lupine Mitigation Area in order to calculate allowable density. It appears that the 10.59 acre
property to be set aside for future Lupine Mitigation, the existing home on Lot 36 and any
future roads have not been considered. After considering these additional areas, the future
allowable density may only be between 6 and 9 lots. Allowable density for any future
development of Lot 36 will be addressed at the time of any future subdivision of this parcel.
STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
Based on the test pit information provided, it appears that some of the proposed basements may
be built below grade near the level where mottling occurs. What measures will be used to
prevent drainage problems similar to those encountered with other subdivisions in this area?
Any other Stormwater comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this
application.
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
As a follow up to comments made during the Preliminary phase of this application, the
applicant has added a note to the Landscaping Plan, which addresses the maintenance of trees
proposed along Sherman Avenue.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
As Staff mentioned at the time of Preliminary Plat review, consideration should be given to
including no cut zones between properties within this subdivision and adjacent residential
properties to the east. A no cut zone at the rear of Lots 1-4 would help provide a visual buffer
between the residential properties in the adjacent Smoke Ridge Subdivision. Additional no-cut
zones along the common property lines of proposed lots that back up to each other should be
considered, as such no cut zones would provide visual screening between for future properties
and property owners within this subdivision.
VEHICULAR ACCESS
The applicant has shown an interconnection to the proposed residential subdivision to the west
of this property (Schiavone). The construction of this interconnect should be coordinated with
the adjoining property owner and the Town of Queensbury Highway Department.
Staff has previously commented that vehicular access to any future development to the south
should be considered during the review of this application. The proposed subdivision has been
modified to provide a stub street to the south, which ends at the common property line with
NIMO lands to the south. Consideration should be given to extending the proposed stub south
of the NIMO lands and across the 10.59-acre property to be retained for future Karner Blue
mitigation. Staff believes land should be set aside and dedicated to the Town of Queensbury for
future road construction to the south. The timing and coordination of future construction of
such an interconnection would take place at the time of future development of the lands to the
south.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for the Planning Board to consider,
which address vehicular access to the properties to the west and south:
Prior to the acceptance of any ROW by the Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent, the
vehicular interconnection to the west will be constructed. The applicant may coordinate
construction of this portion of the roadway with the adjoining property owner and Town of
Queensbury Highway Superintendent.
Prior to filing of this subdivision, lands to be used for a future vehicular interconnection to the
south shall be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury.
ENDANGERED SPECIES
During the SEQRA review for this project, the Planning Board found there was a small impact
on endangered species that would be mitigated. The basis of this mitigation has been outlined
in letters from NYSDEC and USFWS. The mitigation includes:
A no-cut buffer along the NIMO lands to the south
-
An Avoidance Area near the western NIMO lands, including a Nectar Source Area for the
-
Karner Blue Butterfly
A proposed Mitigation Area in the southwestern area of the site
-
Provisions that Mitigation and Avoidance Areas be adequately screened and trespassing
-
and dumping prohibited
In order to protect the no cut zones, mitigation and avoidance areas outlined by NYSDEC and
USFWS, Staff has prepared the following conditions for the Planning Board to consider as part
of any final approval of this subdivision:
Prior to any site disturbance, clearing or construction associated with this subdivision, the
applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from NIMO for the construction of proposed
roadways (both the west and south) beneath NIMO powerlines.
Prior to acceptance of any ROW by the TOQ Highway Dept., the applicant shall install
barrier/fencing along the roadway shown adjacent to NIMO power lines in order to prevent un-
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
authorized access to the NIMO lands. Prior to construction of the fence, the applicant shall
supply documentation that the barriers are acceptable to NIMO, NYSDEC and USFWS
officials.
All property deeds shall contain a restriction stating that no dumping, dumping of yard
clippings, or motorized access of NIMO lands, Town of Queensbury lands and potential future
mitigation lands will be allowed. Similar language shall be contained on the final plat issued
for approval.
Prior to any clearing or disturbance of the parcel identified as ‘Avoidance Area’, Lot 12, or Lot
13, a fence shall be installed along the common property line between the parcel labeled
‘Avoidance Area’ and Lots 12 and 13. The fence details shall be subject to the approval of
NYSDEC representatives.
The Lots indicated as Proposed Mitigation Area and Avoidance area will be
combined/conveyed as one property under one deed.
Prior to any disturbance or construction activity associated with this subdivision, a NYSDEC
approved plan for the Nectar Source Mitigation area shall be submitted to the TOQ. Prior to
any disturbance or construction activity associated with this subdivision, fencing along the
Avoidance Area property and signage indicating that no access is allowed to this property
shall be installed.
Prior to the acceptance of any public road by the TOQ Highway Dept., permanent signage
indicating that access to the Avoidance Area is prohibited shall be installed.
The property shown as a future set aside mitigation area shall be deed restricted to prohibit
any future development or subdivision.
No disturbance or clearing of the Avoidance Area, Mitigation Area and Set Aside property shall
take place without expressed written permission of the Town of Queensbury, NYSDEC and
USFWS. To the extent that land preparation activities (consistent with restoration of the KB
habitat) can be completed in conjunction with road clearing/construction activities, the
applicant will assist in clearing and stump removal on the referenced areas.
Prior to acceptance of the road by TOQ highway department, all proposed TOQ lands are to be
accepted by the Town Board. In addition, a MOU between the Town of Queensbury and
NYSDEC concerning the clearing, planting and management of proposed mitigation areas will
be required prior to acceptance of any lands by the Town of Queensbury.
Prior to any clearing or grading of Lots 4-13, signage shall be installed identifying the 25 ft. no
cut zone at the rear of the property.
As the NYSDEC and USFWS letters were an important part of the mitigation cited during the
SEQRA review of this project, Staff believes these conditions are important and necessary in
order to adequately protect the endangered Karner Blue Butterfly in the vicinity of this
property.
In addition, Staff has some concerns about the creation of a Nectar Source Area on this property
as mitigation for the proposed subdivision of land of the Schiavone property to the west.
Specifically, the timing of creating this area and ensuring that clearing activities are consistent
with the mitigation specified in the NYSDEC and USFWS letters are of concern given that this is
directly related to a subdivision other than SB 7-2003.
Staff also has concerns about protection of the endangered species and habitat during
construction activities. The following conditions have been forwarded to the NYS DEC and the
USF&WS for comment and any further concerns will be relayed at the Planning Board meeting.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
No application of fertilizer, pesticides, or herbicides, water, or snow deposition, is
??
allowed in mitigation areas.
The conservation areas are to remain undisturbed by construction activities, storage of
??
materials or equipment, or landscaping activities.
Any construction near the conservation areas should be timed to avoid the flight
??
periods of the Karner Blue (approx. mid-May to late August). NYS DEC is to make the
exact timing determination before construction activity is allowed. This determination
shall be relayed in the form of written confirmation to the applicant with copies to the
Town of Queensbury (before building permits are issued).
All conservation areas are to be clearly marked to avoid encroachment. Some buffer
??
distance may be required. The use of silt fencing is recommended. The NYS DEC shall be
asked to approve the demarcation. This determination shall be relayed in the form of
written confirmation to the applicant with copies to the Town of Queensbury (before
building permits are issued).
The applicant, contractors, and future landowners need to be aware that any disturbance of
endangered species subjects them to federal and State penalties. This notice should go on the
plat.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Well, Staff notes are quite lengthy, and rather than read them verbatim I think
I’m just going to give a summary. For the most part our concerns, I’ll start with vehicular
access. The applicant has shown a proposed interconnect to the property to the west, and that’s
something that, in discussions with our Highway Department, they approve of. They’ve also
shown a stub to the property to the south to be set aside as future mitigation, and I guess we’d
be looking for some kind of extension of that, if you will, over the property lines or under the
property lines if you will, to the property to the south, not to be constructed at this time, but just
dedicated and potentially built at such time in the future that there is development on the
properties to the south. For the most part, our comments are centered around endangered
species. We have a list of conditions that we’ve, potential conditions, that we’ve attached or
included in our notes, and the goal is to kind of be in compliance with the mitigation that was
agreed to that was agreed to in the letters from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and New York State DEC,
which I believe were the basis of your determining a small impact in terms of SEQR. The
applicant has proposed to dedicate land and not clear and disturb and dedicate to the Town, I
believe, and that’s a positive step. However, I think we need to ensure that these areas aren’t
disturbed, and that they’re adequately protected. Part of what I’ve handed you tonight is even
in further revision as far as the conditions, and you’ll see one of the conditions being that a
preconstruction conference take place, and I think that’s very important. That may be
something that could tie a lot of these conditions together, that if there were a preconstruction
conference between U.S. Fish and Wildlife, New York State DEC and the Town of Queensbury,
perhaps some agreements could be made at that meeting, as to how to proceed and how to
fence certain areas and buffer certain areas and adequately protect the areas that the applicant
proposes to avoid, and leave as mitigation areas. I guess that’s my summary right now. If you
have any questions, that’s all we have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to add anything?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, George, why the conference?
MR. HILTON-Well, before there’s any clearing or grading on the site, it may be beneficial to the
applicant, and it may be beneficial to the applicant, and it may be beneficial to all parties
involved to have a preconstruction conference to make sure that none of the areas that are set as
avoidance areas, I guess to make sure that those areas are properly screened and buffered and
left alone.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, and Tom Nace. In general, we
were here last month and the Planning Board was very satisfied. We got Preliminary approval,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
and the Board felt that since there were only a couple of minor changes that you’d asked us to
make that Tom Nace could make those changes, submit the map in about 10 days so we could
get on to this meeting. What we see here from Planning Staff is a whole detailed list of
conditions which we hadn’t seen before, and the problem with this is Rich has been working
with the Planning Board very well for the last year and a half to come up with the mitigation
with the land that he’s dedicating to the Town, the avoidance areas, working with DEC and
Fish and Wildlife, which is no small task with those outside regulatory agencies, just in terms of
getting their time and attention. The problem with these conditions is that some of the areas are
completely out of Rich’s control. For example, that he can’t file a subdivision map until the
Town and DEC have an agreement as to how they’re going to manage the area that Rich is
dedicating. In practical terms, Rich has to, he has a contract to buy this from the Centerbars
who own the property. He’s buy most but not all of their property, and that requires that the
subdivision map be filed. These conditions would require that the Town Board and DEC and
Fish and Wildlife get together to come up with a management plan which could happen in a
year, five years, and it may never happen if the Town decides that it’s not their priority. So to
ask Rich to be at the mercy of something that he’s not even in the process of, it just doesn’t
work. We can’t have a closing. He can’t buy the land. He defaults on the contract, you know,
this doesn’t happen and the Town never gets the land. So we think that, I know that the
Planning Staff is just trying to button up the holes, but some of these issues are just areas that
are outside Rich’s control, and for the Town Board to handle after we get done. So, with that in
mind, we’d like to go back to the conditions that we had at the last meeting. We’ve gone to C.T.
Male, although apparently just one of the sheets by mistake the Planning Staff didn’t transmit it
to C.T. Male, so they didn’t know that that change was made, and Tom will go into that, but
we’d like to go through the conditions, most of which we think are totally reasonable, but some
of which we think will kill the deal, and we need to explain that to you, and that’s where we
stand at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Kill the deal in reference to you purchasing the property from the
landowner?
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would kill the deal, which ones?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, one of them is getting the NiMo approval to cross under the power line
because it takes months and months to get NiMo.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that was discussed at Preliminary, that was going to be one of the
conditions, we wanted that interconnect cut through, and we’re totally agreeable to the
interconnect, but the actual connection, Rich is dedicating the land, but the actual connection to
that is something that would happen when somebody on the other side of the power line
decides to develop. There’s nothing to connect to now, and the process of going through with
NiMo to get rights to, NiMo has to give you the right, but in terms of the design, they’re talking
about the height of the distance between the roadway and the power line, and that just takes
months to work that out with NiMo. Rich isn’t proposing that. He’s giving up the land. The
land’s there. It’s available for crossing, but to ask him to go and get that approval doesn’t seem
appropriate. The subdivider on the other side can do that because they’re the ones that are
going to need to make the connection.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The other application is still pending. The other application, the
Schiavone one, is still pending, and I don’t know where they’re at in the planning process, but I
don’t have any guarantee that it’s going to go through, because I know the plan changed again.
I did see a draft of it about a month ago. So I’m just not sure where they’re at.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s issues with that subdivision with wetlands and such.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay, and that’s my, I guess my concern.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff looking for the easement to be in place for this interconnect, or
actually the interconnect to be constructed?
MR. HILTON-Well, I know we’re looking for it to be constructed, and I think one of our
comments, I know one of our comments was coordination could be accomplished or done
between the Town Highway Department and the applicant to the west. How this gets built,
part of it is shown on the subdivision plat, part of it is shown on the other subdivision plat. We
don’t know who’s going to construct which portion or the entire portion and certainly that
should be coordinated.
MR. LAPPER-To answer your question, Craig, this condition that’s proposed is prior to
acceptance of the road by Town of Queensbury Highway Department, all proposed Town of
Queensbury lands are to be accepted by the Town Board. In addition, an MOU between the
Town of Queensbury and DEC concerning the clearing, planting and management of proposed
mitigation areas will be required prior to acceptance of any lands by the Town of Queensbury.
That management plan is something between the Town and DEC on the lands that the Town is
going to own, and that is totally outside of Rich’s control.
MR. SANFORD-Jon, what are you saying? Are you saying that Rich deeds over the land and
then we deal with it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Exactly. That’s what this Board asked him to do.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just my concern is, and this has happened in the past, I just, you know,
I mean, I’m willing to give the land up for it, for the connection that we want, to the west, that
the Planning Board wants. I have no problem with that. I just, for me to go put that section of
road in, and no guarantees that the other development’s going to go through, I mean, I suppose
I’m not opposed to, if you want some sort of assurance from me that, you know, at such time, if
it is approved, I will agree to pave that short section, because somehow I.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on doing this subdivision in phases?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, because it’s not large enough to do in phases.
MR. ROUND-Can I just speak up? Just some background. The applicant’s been extremely
cooperative in working with the Town in trying to resolve endangered species issues, but it’s
important to know, it’s the applicant’s responsibility to deal with the endangered species issue,
and we’re just, we’re facilitating some of those activities, and as a condition of the applicant’s
mitigation plan that’s been accepted, or avoidance plan that’s been accepted by DEC and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife, that condition says that the Town must accept the land, and all we’re trying
to do is, you know, if the Town doesn’t accept it, Rich has to deal with the management of the
property. So all we’re trying to do is minimize the Town’s exposure in that regard. Protection
of land is a good thing, but for restoration of the habitat on the property, certain activities have
to take place. We’ve had discussion with DEC. They’ve agreed in concept, but some issues
need to be finalized, and we have, I think Mr. Lapper opened up and said these are all brand
new conditions. We sat down with the applicant last week and walked through most of these.
We talked about them in conceptual form on previous occasions, and so a lot of these aren’t
new.
MR. LAPPER-They’re brand new for the Board. The Staff came up with the stuff between the
two meetings.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I did sit down, without Counsel. They said it wasn’t necessary
when I got a call from, I can’t remember if it was Craig or George, and also sat in the meeting I
said, gee, 80% of these are not what we discussed. I’m not saying we can’t work something out,
but this is a surprise to me, and I can’t agree to a lot of these because they’re out of my control.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the reality is that, you know, when we sent you on your way at
Preliminary and we gave Preliminary approval, that doesn’t necessarily mean that what
happens at Preliminary is what’s going to happen at Final. I mean, DEC still took another look
at this. They come up with some more things that they thought were beneficial to the project,
and they wanted to see them incorporated.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-DEC didn’t come up with any of these.
MR. ROUND-The applicant hasn’t seen this. How these new things came up, these aren’t
things that we dreamed up. Let’s back up a little bit. The project came to you for Preliminary
on November 18, okay, which is after our deadline date for December. After that, we made a
submission, you know, in a compressed timeframe, trying to expedite this process, and in the
meantime, we submitted the plat, trying to finalize our understanding of what the DEC and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s position was on the project. We submitted the materials that we had in
hand to DEC and they commented on our approval conditions, and yesterday, we received
additional comment from DEC. These comments are from DEC and have been assimilated by
the Staff, trying to assimilate their comments into our comments here. So, you know, I think
most of them are manageable. The applicant has indicated some were deal breakers. With
regards to the interconnection with the roadway, I think it’s very important that somebody
resolve who is going to do that, and that’s what we’re trying to do. We don’t have the other
application at the table. I think when they come to the table to say, well, that’s not our
responsibility, you should have asked the guy before. So is it the last guy in that does it? So
that’s your decision on who you want to impose that responsibility on. We’re saying it would
be beneficial if you had a crossing permit, because it’s proposed. Is it actually feasible or
permittable by Niagara Mohawk? Typically it is, but where it’s proposed, if the wire heights
aren’t suitable, if they’re not going to permit it, then the interconnection really doesn’t satisfy
the design element that we’re striving for, which is interconnection of a residential facility. So
those are just some background on those two aspects of the project.
MR. LAPPER-How about the example that I gave about a Memorandum of Understanding
between the Town and DEC concerning the management of the mitigation area that’s being
dedicated to the Town. How can Rich be held responsible for that? He’s not even a party to it.
He won’t own it. He won’t manage it. I think the option is the applicant retain the land and
manage it according to DEC. I mean, that’s certainly an option.
MR. LAPPER-But the Town wanted the land. That was what this whole thing was about.
We’ve been talking about it for a year and a half, that we would dedicate the land to the Town
for a management area to deal with the whole Karner blue issue because this land was so
suitable.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but you can’t manage it unless you have access to it, and that means NiMo
has to let you cross over it.
MR. NACE-No, not for the Karner blue issue. That’s the only easement requirement. Well,
yes, on the mitigation area you’re right. I’m sorry. On the avoidance area, it’s directly
accessible without crossing NiMo.
MS. RADNER-We’ve got the issue, too, this Board cannot bind the Town Board, and we’ve got
a change in the Town Board, which we knew was coming, when this was addressed at
Preliminary, and so for this Board to try and crystal ball, yes, the Town Board is going to want
to accept this land and be responsible for the mitigation plan, they can’t do, and that’s why
they’re trying to get a Memorandum of Understanding in your court, so that there can be some
understanding of what the Town would want and what could be there for mitigation for the
Town Board to be satisfied and to accept the property. Because the Town Planning Board does
not have that authority.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly, Rich can’t be responsible for that. He’s not a party to it. That’s
something between Town Staff and the Town Board.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-I think, with all due respect, I appreciate that comment, and I appreciate that
position, but I also would side with Staff in the fact that it’s the developer’s responsibility to
make, to take care of the mitigation measure, and if the Town and/or DEC decides that they
don’t want to, you know, manage the property, then it faults back to you.
MR. LAPPER-This Board said last month, all you’re responsible to do, Rich, is to dedicate the
land. You’re not managing it. You’re not clearing it. That’s on the record last month.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s well and good, but that was based on, you know, the
management plan being approved and accepted by all parties. Just by saying, well, you know,
we’re going to give the Town a piece of land, that’s our full mitigation, you know, you deal
with it, you take care of it, you do what you want, that’s, you know, putting your responsibility
onto the Town.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s our position. There’s no Karner blue on that land now, it’s just
suitable for it. So it has to be cleared and planted, and that’s something that would happen over
perhaps many years, and that’s something that’s a Town project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, like I said, I mean, I appreciate your position, but I think that Staff is.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, it really is a deal killer, Rich can’t close on it. So if that, then we
can’t do the 10 acres, I’m going to recommend to him that he fold up his tent and go home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe what we ought to do is just table this application and let you guys
have an opportunity to sit down with Staff and iron out these details.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that’s possible. I think we would agree to reasonable conditions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why isn’t that possible?
MR. LAPPER-Because we’re very far apart from Staff in terms of the concept here. I think we
need to work out which of these are fair to ask Rich to do and which aren’t, and let’s go through
them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you reluctant to want to sit down with Staff and work it out?
MR. LAPPER-No, we’d like to get through tonight and have the Planning Board override Staff.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I’ll go through the conditions with you. I mean, I’m willing to
work with the ones that we can work with. I mean, if you want to discuss them, let’s discuss
them now, but the ultimate decision certainly comes from the Planning Board.
MR. RINGER-It would seem more, for me, for the applicant to sit down with Staff and Town
Counsel, and try to iron out their problems and what they feel and then come back to us.
Rather than try to have us go through these one by one tonight, because we still would want
Counsel to be apprised and get Staff’s input. I would rather recommend that, and table it until
next month.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have a special meeting set up the 15 of next month.
th
MR. LAPPER-I guess our position is that there are, you know, 15 conditions, and we’d like to go
through them with you tonight and see if we can get somewhere.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-At least have some guidance, and if we’re going to table it, I think it’s
important that we do discuss at least the items, even if we can do it quickly.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. LAPPER-We’ve been working on this for a year and a half, this stuff. This just came up,
and some of these are just beyond what we imagined would be imposed on Rich.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I was given these conditions at a preconstruction meeting about a
week and a half ago, and I’m not saying it’s right or it’s wrong.
MR. MAC EWAN-Preconstruction meeting for this application?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, not preconstruction, but Staff had asked me to come in and look
at some of the conditions, and Jon wasn’t present, not was Tom because they didn’t feel it was
necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s set up a date right now where we can get together with Staff. I’ll be at
the meeting as well, right after the holidays. All right. We’ll sit down and we’ll work this thing
through.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We can’t discuss them now, just, because I mean there’s a full Board
here tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think in the interest of just procedurally, in doing the right thing, because
through Jon’s own admission you guys seem to be far apart from where Staff and DEC would
like you to go with this, I think it would be an opportunity to sit down in a meeting and just
iron these details out so that when we come back on the 15, hopefully we can move this thing
th
forward and get your final approvals.
MR. NACE-Since we’re being put in the middle of this, might it not be appropriate if we had a
copy of what DEC asked the Town for?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’ll make sure you get that.
MR. RINGER-You didn’t get a copy of the letter from Kathy O’Brien?
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’d like you to do, Jon, is contact Chris tomorrow, set up a date, let me
know what it is, and I’ll be there.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. It would definitely be appreciated if you were there.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, and we’ll do that and we’ll have you on, and we’ll table this
application to the 15 of January. Okay, because we do have a special meeting that night.
th
We’re doing some other subdivisions that were, because of postings and stuff. So we’ll put you
right on that one, and move it through. All right. I think that’s the fair thing to do.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLANS
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2003 SEQR TYPE: Y. OZBAY, USA GAS AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES
ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING GAS STATION W/REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF
SERVICE GAS STATION/CONVENIENT MART WITH NEW GAS ISLANDS AND
CANOPY. GASOLINE STATIONS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD IS
HEARING THE APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING A SEQRA
REVIEW. RESOLUTION SEEKING LA STATUS: 7/15/03 RESOLUTION
ACKNOWLEDGING LA STATUS: 8/26/03 SEQR & SP REVIEW: 9/16/03 CROSS
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
REFERENCE: AV 65-2003, AV 93-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO.
302.07-1-32, 31 LOT SIZE: 0.14 AC., 0.20 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020, 030
RICHARD JONES & PAUL HEILMANN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This application which was tabled, and I don’t have the date in front of me, but it
was tabled by this Board, is back before you. The applicant has submitted revised information,
a revised site plan which includes one gas island canopy now, as opposed to two, which has
received an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for granting setback relief. The
lighting plan’s been revised, and a foot candle average of 19.4 under the gas canopy is
proposed, as opposed to 72.9, which we’ve shown under one of the two previous canopies. The
19.4 is lower than what’s been approved for other gas island canopies along the main
commercial corridors of Queensbury. However it is higher than the 10 foot candle average
listed in the Zoning Code. Just a little point of, just a note. The Planning Board issued a
SEQRA negative declaration for this project on September 16, and should the Planning Board
th
feel that the proposed changes are in conformance with that SEQRA resolution, I guess you
should probably reaffirm those findings. Current tax maps indicate this site is actually two
separate parcels and Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that these two parcels be
merged in order to remove any nonconformities with buildings and canopies and such. My
comment here, any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this
application. We received a letter today from C.T. Male, stating that provided a couple of things
were included in a plan they had no further issues with this project, and that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project, and with me
is Paul Heilmann from Valley Equipment, our consultant for the fueling equipment on the
project. Basically what we’re proposing is a complete renovation of the existing gasoline repair
station that it sits on the corner into a gasoline convenient mart. Originally we were proposing
the two covered canopies. We’ve consolidated that into one canopy, brought that back into the
center portion of the lot, rotated it on approximately a 30 to 40 degree angle from Route 9 to
allow access and drive through from the various access points on the site. We’re looking at a
complete restoration of the existing gas station. This would include basically refurbishing of
exterior finishes, adding new window walls, window systems, entry doors, some lighted
canopies at the two entrances that we’re creating into the building. The majority of the parking
has been pulled around into the front side of the building. We have four additional spots on the
north end of the parking, which would be for basically Staff and overflow of parking area. We
need 11 parking spaces and we have provided those. The canopy will accommodate four
pumping stations which will allow eight vehicles under the canopy. As I had said, we have
changed the shape of the canopy. It is a little bit wider to accommodate the angled, double-
tiered situation that we have for the vehicle access under the canopy, and in doing that, we
added on row of lights, which did increase the foot candle level to the 19.7, as an average from
the 17.9 that we had previously. In looking at the site itself, we’re doing major improvements to
the, basically the green space on the property. We’re taking the two black top islands that sit
out by Route 9, they’re actually not on the owner’s property, DOT has indicated to us that they
will allow us to remove the pavement, convert those to grass areas, and put plantings in those
areas. We’ve also incorporated additional green space on the little infill area near the island at
the intersection of Route 9, adding additional planting there. We’re adding additional planting
on the back side and removing pavement as well, to basically be able to collect stormwater
runoff from the back side of the building. The canopy will have a roof drain system for
collection of roof water in that area, and in addition we’ve provided a trench drain across the
northern most entrance and exit from the site. This is to collect, basically, any runoff from what
would be the northeast corner, back corner of the building, the existing building, as well as the
entry canopy area. It all sheds toward that entry/exit area. We’re collecting it in that general
area, in a trench drain type system, bringing it through a drain inlet at the corner, and then
infiltrating in two new catch basins, drywells, which are located in the paved area underneath
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
the parking area where we’ll have four additional spaces. Basically, we’ve been able to mitigate
all of the runoff from the north end of the site that was existing and currently going into
Halfway Brook. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s start off. We’ll do this by category. Does anybody have any
questions or comments regarding building design or corridor design guidelines? Signage?
Lighting?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have a question on lighting. Again, you’re deviating from what is
recommended or suggested, in terms of the intensity of the lighting. You’re actually up from
17.9 to 19.4. Is there any way you could get closer to the 10 that we’re looking at?
MR. JONES-The problem with 10 foot candles under the canopy, the light level at 10 foot
candles is not sufficient to be able to read the pump and that type of thing. Ideally, the foot
candle level should be in the 15 to 20 range for that type of thing. It’s a little bit similar to what
you would have at a bank drive up canopy.
MR. STROUGH-Don’t (lost words) usually have their own lighting?
MR. JONES-Some do, some don’t.
MR. HEILMANN-And there’s all kinds of warning labels and appropriate directions and
instructions on the outside. Another reason is safety. If you’re coming in there, you want to be
able to see all the pedestrian and all the customers that are underneath the canopy. You don’t
want anyone hiding out in the shadows from behind the dispensers. We try to eliminate those
so no one physically gets hurt because they’re hidden in the shadows.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, where did we end up with the foot candles for Stewarts on 149?
MR. HILTON-The average was actually 12 and change, I think 12.4.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re less than that here?
MR. HILTON-We’re more than that here.
MR. SANFORD-The question that I’m kind of going at is the 10 recommended, almost all the
applicants that have been coming in having been wanting more than that, and so it begs the
question, is this 10 an appropriate or inappropriate standard, and if it is an appropriate
standard, we’d like you to comply with it.
MR. RINGER-I think it depends on the business that you’re looking at, Richard.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, I know that location pretty well. I mean, that’s a pretty visible area
there.
MR. RINGER-No, I meant it depends on the business, how much lighting is necessary. A gas
station where they do have to read pumps and stuff needs more lighting than a parking lot, say,
at Wal-Mart or something.
MR. SANFORD-We went through Stewarts and we went through Cumberlands and we’ve
dealt with this.
MR. RINGER-And we increased them all from the Town Code.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m not sure where Stewarts resides because I might not have been at the
last hearing on that one.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, Stewarts, like George says, is 12. something. I thought maybe closer to
13, but whatever.
MR. SANFORD-I’d like to see it come down to be at least closer to, you know, come down from
the 19.4, down closer to something like the last Stewarts one, which was, what, 13?
MR. STROUGH-Well, you could say 13. It was 12. something. It was 12 and change, like
George said, and Marilyn Ryba sent us a memo, gee, a month or so ago explaining that it’s been
determined that 10 foot candles is an appropriate amount, is a safe margin, and we would have
been willing to go a little bit more than that and kind of compromise with the applicants.
MR. SANFORD-We’re looking for a compromise.
MR. JONES-Yes, and part of the reason that the light, the foot candle levels went up from what
we had previously at 17.9 was because of the shape and the fact that we basically now have two
rows of pumps under this canopy. Originally both canopies had one row of pumps. So we
were able to light them with a single row of lights on either side of the pumps. What we’ve
done now to basically eliminate the dark spots in the center, we’ve added another full row of
lights down the middle. I mean, we could back off, right now there are, we have 10 lights under
the canopy. If we were to take the two that are dead center in the canopy, and just do them in
the ring around the perimeter, we probably could drop it, I don’t know how much we could
drop it, but we could at least get it down at least to where we were with the 17.9 on the original
application.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’d have eight instead of ten?
MR. JONES-Yes. We would delete the two fixtures in the center of the island, the canopy. We
would then have a light on either side of the pump, which would give them lighting at the
pump location for the fueling. Those two lights actually sit in between the two islands.
MR. SANFORD-We only see one on our drawing.
MR. JONES-Okay. If you go to the small scale, the lighting level one, there’s two right smack in
the middle, right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, you don’t happen to have that comparison of the lighting that we
had from a couple of meetings ago, do you?
MR. HILTON-I may have. I may have a comparison in some of the older notes in here. I’ll take
a look.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why not just drop the wattage and get more uniform wattages.
MR. JONES-We’ve already dropped the wattage from what was recommended by the vendor.
We’re down.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I don’t understand, if Stewarts can live with this at 149, which is in a
very rural area and having about 12 foot candles illumination, and you’re in a very Highway
Commercial zone with a smaller parcel, with more lighting, why can’t you come down?
MR. JONES-I think a lot of it is the shape of the canopy, too, Craig.
MR. HEILMANN-Yes. The shape of the canopy, as I understand, that canopy over there is a
two dispenser location, the one that you’re thinking of, that’s a 20 by 20 canopy, two dispenser
location with four 320 watt Scottsdale light fixtures. So because of the size of, or 250 watt
Scottsdale fixtures, but because of the size of the canopy and there’s only two fueling positions
there, in relative size, you do the math, you get the foot candles down to where they are. They
have the side shields on them.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody recall where we ended up with Cumberland Farms on Ridge
Road, Quaker Road, and Cumberland Farms Route 9?
MR. HILTON-Yes, I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got, George?
MR. HILTON-The Kendrick Road and Route 9 Cumberland Farms had a maximum of 31.8,
minimum of 20, for an average of 27.85. The Ridge and Quaker site had a maximum 36.7,
minimum 20, for an average of 28.13.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Stewarts on Corinth Road listed there?
MR. HILTON-You know, I don’t have that.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Board’s pleasure?
MR. METIVIER-Could I make a comment? We really pushed Stewarts up on Ridge to have
lower lighting because of the rural nature of the area. I don’t see why we should be as sensitive
here, and don’t get me wrong, and, please, if anybody’s in the crowd don’t get me wrong either,
but you’re not going to affect any of the homes behind it because the building’s there, and
you’re entering the most, you know, commercial corridor we have in Queensbury. So why
would we even attempt the same lighting standards that we have up on Ridge? It’s two
different sites. So if you’re saying that your average on Quaker for a Cumberland Farms and
Kendrick is in the high 20’s, if you’re looking at a 19 here, you’re doing much better, you really
don’t have to look at the standards of the Stewarts on upper Ridge because it’s a different site
altogether.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good point.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Town Code says 10.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I think that’s the point I’m trying to make. What’s the purpose of a Town
Code if we’re always finding that every applicant finds it’s drastically too low. We ought to be
able to have some way of being able to hang a hat on either that we’re comfortable with it or we
aren’t. I agree with everything Tony said, though, about the location here, but I still would like
to see some degree of movement down lower from where they are now, maybe down to the 15
level and we could rest with that, but I think in the future what we need to do is really get a
definitive answer as to what is appropriate here, because we’ve never heard a single applicant
say that that 10 foot candle level is appropriate. They’ve all said it’s not. It’s too low.
MR. HILTON-Well, I guess my understanding is that the 10 is in our Code. It’s a standard
that’s been developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. They’re
lighting engineers, if you will. Their main purpose, their main function is to review lighting
plans and review safe and adequate levels of lighting, and they recommend 10. Now that’s
what’s in our Code. I understand the context in the neighborhood is important as well, and you
know, I think there’s something to be said about eliminating a couple of the lights underneath
there where they may not be needed, and bring it down a little bit from 19 and, you know,
compromise.
MR. ROUND-The are guidances, and I think the other thing to keep in mind is that that’s,
there’s always going to be that tension between what the applicant desires and what the
community desires, because you see it with signs. Hey, the bigger the sign the better. Well, the
community recognizes that regulating signs and minimizing size of signs is appropriate, and
you see variances and so it’s a negotiation. It’s not a hard and fast standard. It is a guidance,
and I think George commented, you have to look at context, and you try to achieve that goal,
but you’re not going to always be successful, and I don’t want to send the wrong message.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-So there’s a lot of variables, I mean, not only eliminating the lights, but also
going down with the (lost words) bulbs and stuff. I mean, can you get it down to 15? Could we
agree to that?
MR. JONES-We’re at 100 watts right now with the metal halide. If we were to take the two
center ones out, we could probably get the average down, I would think in the neighborhood of
somewhere between 15 and 17 at least.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would at least feel comfortable with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s a good compromise.
MR. STROUGH-The 100 watt fixtures?
MR. JONES-Yes, they’re 100 watt metal halide.
MR. STROUGH-You’re going to knock out 2, 100 watts?
MR. JONES-Yes, and if you look, that’s the highest concentration for foot candle level in the
center. Typically we’re around 16 foot candles under the single fixtures.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions, comments relative to parking, pedestrian traffic or
traffic in general? Stormwater?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Could you just clarify the stormwater again?
MR. JONES-Basically, right now the area in front of the existing building sheds toward Route 9,
and there is a trench drain across that one way in, closest to the side street. The area on the roof,
we will be also on the front half of the roof will be shedding that way as it currently is and
collected in that area. The back half of the roof will be collected along a green area that we’re
creating. We’re actually taking out pavement on the, what would be the east side of the existing
building, adjacent to the adjoining property. Right now it’s blacktop from the edge of our
building right into their parking lot. So we’re removing the blacktop there to create an
infiltration area. The area on the north end, which is the minimal width portion of the building
right here, everything from this area sheds toward this ingress, egress onto Route 9. Currently,
everything is running toward that intersection and basically collecting in a swale and going
directly into the brook. What we’re proposing is a trench drain that runs from the south side of
that entrance/exit all the way to the north side of the entrance/exit, next to the power pole,
which will collect everything shedding that way. Adjacent to that will be a drain inlet to collect
and infiltrate, or basically to collect and separate any sands and that type of thing in it. From
there we then pipe it into two drywells that’ll sit under that parking area for the four vehicles.
As part of the system, in dealing with Soil and Water Conservation, they worked with us in
coming up with something to stop the infiltration and the basically the migration of all the
drainage into the brook. There’ll be a valve to basically control the flow from the trench drain
into the drywells, so that if there is some type of a spill underneath the canopy we can stop that
water from migrating into the ground area near the brook itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-The (lost words) a trench drain going to Glenwood Avenue. Is that what I’m
seeing?
MR. JONES-Well, there is a, there’s a trench drain right now across the intersection of
Glenwood and Route 9. That’s existing. There is also one across the first one way entrance that
we have coming from Glenwood toward the north. That one way entrance in, there’s an
existing trench drain there that’ll remain. Currently Glenwood Avenue is actually higher than
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
the property and sheds, Glenwood actually sheds into the property and flows across to that
trench drain at the first entrance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one of the things I’ve been seeing gas stations do lately is they put, in the
dispensing area, they put that sump in the concrete. So there’s like a lot of, I don’t know, 100
gallons of retention.
MR. HEILMANN-Underneath the dispenser.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. HEILMANN-Well, in the concrete, they put the cuts in the concrete, in Massachusetts.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re starting to see it up here now, too. So you have like 100 gallons capacity
(lost words).
MR. JONES-That’s fine if you’re in the summer condition, but if you’re in the winter condition
and it’s full of ice, it’s going to flow down to what we’ve.
MR. HEILMANN-That’s a new design that has been mandated in Massachusetts that
Cumberland Farms uses, and that’s where you’ll see them. You’ll see them at Cumberland
Farms, and at Cumberland Farms, that’s their standard design in all their buildings. They just
take the building design and they put it on the piece of property. What they are finding, after
last year, is that the dry mats are getting beat up from the snow plows, and they’ve been finding
that in Massachusetts as well. They’re just getting the snot beat out of them. The reason that
they’re installed in Massachusetts is for fire code. So that the fire doesn’t get out from
underneath the canopy.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was just thinking it might be a good idea to protect Halfway Brook, but not
(lost words).
MR. HEILMANN-No. There’s more protection, I think, here with the trench drain.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why couldn’t you just saw cut the concrete around the island?
MR. HEILMANN-They’re not saw cuts.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what they’re talking about. It’s a saw cut that they put in the pad, and
it’s just meant to hold, if there’s a gasoline spillage. It’s not much, but it’s just meant as a
deterrent for the gasoline to stay on the pad area.
MR. JONES-It’s like a little shallow trench.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HEILMANN-There’s a name for them, but there’s four of them. They could be installed
around the perimeter.
MR. MAC EWAN-All it is is a saw cut around the perimeter of the concrete pad.
MR. HEILMANN-Yes. It’s formed into the concrete when you pour the concrete.
MR. MAC EWAN-Regarding the questions regarding stormwater, the December 18 letter from
th
C.T. Male, they had a comment relative to stormwater.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a signoff on it?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. JONES-Yes, you do.
MR. MAC EWAN-You did get the signoff on that? We’re all squared away on that one bullet
item, regarding stormwater, regarding the concrete sign, foundation for the sign?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. JONES-Yes. We’re going to remove that sign.
MR. HILTON-Yes. We received a letter today from C.T. Male saying they received a fax from
the applicant provided that certain information included in that fax is incorporated, the letter
states the revisions address their comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions regarding stormwater?
MR. STROUGH-It’s just that I think I was kind of wrestling with this the same way Tom was,
because we didn’t get a stormwater plan with details. I mean, we didn’t get, you’re pointing
out trench drains and everything else, but this is landscaping. This is site plan. This is
everything. A lot of times, Dick, we get a separate plan showing the stormwater devices.
MR. JONES-There’s a separate plan which has all that details on it. There’s a separate plan that
has grading and drainage, and then there’s a detail sheet.
MR. STROUGH-And it shows the?
MR. JONES-Yes, it does. You should have an SP-1, an SP-2, and an SP-3 and then a full
drainage report as well.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got SP-3, and it shows signs, how you’re going to plant the trees.
MR. JONES-Yes. Go to SP-2. SP-2 is grading and drainage, and the detail’s on the left.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. JONES-Yes, drywells. It has all the infiltration.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I stand correct then, Dick, and I’m wrong about that. I just
missed that, but anyhow, I was kind of at ease, because Warren County Soil and Water is kind
of working with you on this, and so, gee, if anybody can do it right, you know, working with
them, it’ll get done right, as good as it can reasonably be done. So, the only thing I’m going to
ask is that the Warren County Soil and Water give a signoff for this as well.
MR. JONES-We do have one.
MR. STROUGH-We do have one?
MR. JONES-Yes, we do.
MR. HILTON-Yes. We do have a letter in the file where they have stated they’ve reviewed this
and it seems acceptable.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, then I’m comfortable with this. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Landscaping, screening? Any other questions, comments that I didn’t hit
on?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Now, Staff comments, are you willing to merge the two separate parcels,
or have you already done that, or?
MR. HEILMANN-The owner’s attorney is in the process of handling that paperwork. I don’t
know if he’s completed it. It might even be done. He was doing it last week.
MR. JONES-It was in process when we went to zoning last week.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the only other concern that I had, and I don’t really have a
problem with what you have designed, but I’m just making sure it’s all Code. I know the new
width of the new sidewalks is five foot, but, you know, this is your connecting, you know,
you’re extending a sidewalk that’s four foot, and it only seems to make sense that it continue to
be four foot, but.
MR. JONES-I think we’ve got five foot on here.
MR. STROUGH-We’re playing with the Federal Government, I’ve got four foot. Is my eyesight
okay?
MS. RADNER-The Americans with Disabilities Act says five feet.
MR. STROUGH-It says four foot.
MR. JONES-It says four, you’re right. It’s a continuation of what they had.
MR. STROUGH-Are we going to be all right? I mean, I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, are we going to be all right?
MS. RADNER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, are we going to be all right?
MR. ROUND-The ADA, is a guidance. Five foot is the recommendation, and I think what they
typically look for, with any new construction that you install five feet. So if you’re capable of
doing it, it’s okay. If it’s not a continuous five feet, that’s acceptable under many circumstances,
and generally we’re looking, five feet allows you a clear pass zone, and it doesn’t necessarily
have to be the sidewalk itself. If the sidewalk is part of an overall pavement, clear pass zone
works.
MR. JONES-I always thought the five foot was for where you were pulling cars up next to it.
MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s typically, you want a clear pass zone within like every 200 feet. So you
can have segments that are four foot, but five hundred, you need at least every two feet. So I’m
not familiar with the plan myself.
MR. JONES-Because we’re not connecting to the old sidewalk, it actually starts on the other side
of the curb cut, we could make it five feet if that was the Board’s.
MR. STROUGH-Well, to me four feet’s fine. I just brought up the issue because I know the new
Code says something about five feet, and, you know, Chris seems to think that this plan is all
right, and that’s fine. I just didn’t want to run into any snafu’s. I just thought, I’m just thinking
out loud, kind of, really. The other thing that I have that’s a miscellaneous thing is, you know,
the Town Historian, Marilyn VanDyke, has shown an interest in this property because of, well,
several historical reasons, the proximity to Halfway Brook and the history associated with
Halfway Brook, but also Jeffrey Cowprey was stationed in this area to watch over the Block
House, which is actually on the other side of the road, but there were some garrison homes and
garrison temporary structures here that he was watching over. Fort Amherst was across the
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
road from you here. So, you know, of its historical importance she had expressed a concern, we
shared that letter with you in a prior meeting. Now, also, I’m working with Marilyn on a State
program called Lakes to Locks, and Lakes to Locks gets funding for many things, but for one
thing kiosks, and what a kiosk is, sometimes it’s just a two sided sign with a little canopy on it,
you know, and it tells the history of the area. Now the Lakes to Locks program, through there,
will pay for those, and so we could probably locate one on the State right of way as we do most
signage, and I’m not going to condition it or anything. I just want to see if the applicant’s
friendly to this idea of possibly locating a kiosk in the southeast corner where you have it
grassed.
MR. JONES-Yes. That would be fine.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t think that would be a problem, and like I say, I’m not going to
condition it. It’s just a friendly kind of maybe this might be and we might come to you and say,
hey, do you mind if we put a kiosk, it would probably be on State property, but I don’t want to
do something, it’s not going to be lit. Anyhow, it might also be good for your business that we
do have this historical kiosk on the corner of your property, because it is a historic area that
you’re locating in. So, it might work to your benefit to have it identified as such. So, just on a
friendly basis. Just one other thing, I don’t know. I might be out on a limb on this. It would be
the last time I’m out on a limb, but you know, and I’m as patriotic as the next person, and I like
the flag, but what I don’t like are all of the flags. Okay. I think it doesn’t do the flag justice
when Cumberland Farms on the corner of Kendrick and Route 9, they have a similar style
canopy to what I’m looking at here, and each one of these little corner posts has got a little.
MR. JONES-There’s no stanchions on that.
MR. STROUGH-Beautiful. Okay. End of questions. Good. Well, it’s USA Gas. I didn’t want.
Those flags detract from the aesthetics. Okay. That’s about it for me. I think it’s a pretty good
plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has anybody got anything else? Anything you wanted to add? Staff? I’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-Conditions. Lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Delete the two lighting fixtures in the center canopy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. RINGER-Merge the two parcels together.
MR. STROUGH-And reaffirm our previous SEQRA findings.
MR. SANFORD-C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve already got the signoff.
MR. STROUGH-We’ve got Warren County Soil and Water.
MR. RINGER-We’ve got that signed off already.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-What did we want to do with the saw cut around the perimeter of the
pumps?
MR. MAC EWAN-They said they’re willing to do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Should that be a condition?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think so.
MR. RINGER-I thought he said it wouldn’t work.
MR. HEILMANN-It’s called positive limiting barrier.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, does it work?
MR. JONES-In the summer it does.
MR. HEILMANN-In the summer it does.
MR. METIVIER-Well, yes, you look at them now and they’re frozen solid.
MR. HEILMANN-They’re frozen solid full of water and then they become a tripping hazard.
MR. RINGER-I thought you said by (lost word) them the water goes elsewhere. So I would
rather not have them in.
MR. HEILMANN-They become a hazard in the wintertime when they fill with water.
MR. METIVIER-I just, my point was I happened to look down the other day in Cumberland
Farms, because I remember those in there, and I thought to myself, obviously right now, I mean,
it’s brutal, but you have to question yourself as to, and the fact is that they just fill up with
cigarette butts.
MR. HEILMANN-That’s exactly what they do.
MR. METIVIER-And, you know what I’m saying? I understand, you know, and I agree with
the concept.
MR. RINGER-And we’ve got a signoff without them, from C.T. Male our engineers.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, plus you said there’s valve going into Halfway Brook also?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. RINGER-This is so much better than it was before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, would someone like to introduce a motion, then, please.
MR. RINGER-I thought somebody was working on the conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-We just listed them.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we were talking about.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 37-2003 Y. OZBAY, USA GAS, Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Site Plan No. 37-2003 Applicant / Property Owner: Y. Ozbay, USA Gas
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: 651 Upper Glen Street
Applicant proposes conversion of existing gas station w/repair bays to a self service gas
station/convenient mart with new gas islands and canopies. Gasoline stations in the HC-Int.
zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 65-2003
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 302.07-1-32, 31
Lot size: 0.14 ac., 0.20 ac. / Section: 179-4-020, 030
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/16/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/19/03, and
12/18 ZBA resolution
12/17 ZBA Staff Notes
12/8 M. Shaw, Wastewater Dept. comment
11/18 Revised Site Development Data Sheet
11/6 Application w/deed, stormwater management report, site lighting plan,, light
fixture
cuts, picture & elevation of proposed canopy, drawings SP-1, 2 and 3.
10/20 Y. Ozbay from CB
10/15 Application w/deed, stormwater management report, site lighting plan, light
fixture
cuts, picture & elevation of proposed canopy, drawings SP-1, 2 and 3.
10/10 Warren Co. PB recommendation – AV 93-2003: NCI w/stipulation
*9/23 Staff Notes
9/22 Request by agent to be tabled
*9/17 ZBA resolution
9/3 Meeting Notice
8/26 Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status and Neg Dec
8/22 CT Male engineering comments
8/22 Transmittal from agent: Letter from WCSWCD, revised SP-2, revised site
lighting info, letter to CT Male dated 8/20, and color picture and details of
proposed canopy fascia system
8/20 G. Hilton from J. Lieberum, Warren Co. Soil & Water
8/19 Planning Board from GH: Staff Notes
8/19 L. Stone from M. VanDyke, Town Historian
8/19 C. T. Male Associates comments in response to 8/8 re-submittal
8/11 Transmittal from agent: drainage report, drawings SP-1, 2, site lighting info,
letter to CT Male, memo regarding staff comments
8/8 G. Hilton from R. E. Jones Assoc. – revised information
7/24 DOT response to Lead Agency request
7/23 ZBA resolution consenting to PB being lead agency
7/22 PB resolution, Tabled
7/22 Staff Notes w/ 7/16 ZBA resolution, 7/9 Warren Co. resolution, 7/16 CT Male
comments, 7/3 letter from NYS DOT
7/21 GH from J. Lieberum, Warren Co. Soil & Water
7/18 Staff notes faxed to agent
7/16 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments
7/16 ZBA resolution
7/16 Transmittal to interested parties: SEQR Lead Agency request
7/15 Resolution seeking Lead Agency status
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
7/10 C. MacEwan from CB
7/9 Warren Co. Planning: approved w/condition
7/3 NYS DOT comment
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/24 Water Dept. comment
6/16 Application w/deed, stormwater management report, site lighting plan, lighting
cut sheets, maps R-1, SP-1, 2 & 3.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 22, 2003, August 26, 2003, September 23,
2003 and December 23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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.
WHEREAS, 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 Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The two (2) lighting fixtures in the center of the canopy be deleted from the site
plan.
2. That the applicant merges the two parcels together into one tax parcel.
3. We’re also reaffirming the negative SEQRA declaration from September 16, 2003.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. HEILMANN-Thank you.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 5-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM’S RESORT
CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, RR-
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
3A, LC-42A LOCATION: NYS RT. 9L, DUNHAMS BAY APPLICANT SEEKS
RECOGNITION AS A PRE-EXISTING CLASS A MARINA PER SECTION 179-10-035 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE. LGPC, APA WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 9/10/03 TAX
MAP NO. 252-1-75.3, 239.20-1-1, 252-1-89, 90, 91 LOT SIZE: 10 ACRES SECTION: 179-10
JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’ll turn the reins over to Larry.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Special Use Permit SUP 5-2003, Dunham’s Resort Corp, Meeting Date: December 23,
2003 “APPLICATION: Special Use Permit 5-2003
APPLICANT: Dunham’s Resort Corp
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant seeks recognition as a pre-existing Class A Marina
LOCATION: NYS Rte 9L – Dunhams Bay
SEQRA STATUS: SEQRA Type: Unlisted
STAFF COMMENTS:
While additional information has been submitted, as requested by the Board, there appear to be
a few, important questions left unanswered. These questions have been raised in previous staff
notes and during past meetings however, some answers have yet to be provided. Direct
responses to the following questions should offer valuable information regarding this
application. It does appear as though the applicant has presented enough information relative
to the existence of the marina operations. However, certain factors appear to have changed
over the years that ultimately affect the operation of the use. The answers to the following
questions should prove beneficial in this decision making process.
Are the lands currently occupied by the use the same lands as those occupied prior to 1981?
The bulk of the landholding originally associated with the 1981marina operation has not
??
been presented as part of the existing operation. The property has been subdivided.
Are the uses currently undertaken as part of the project the same as those undertaken prior to
1981?
Dock rental, boat repair, dry-dock, PWC rental, boat rentals, handicap ramp, boat
??
storage, trailer storage, parking on the north side of Rte 9L, etc.
Is the quantity and quality of the uses, both primary and accessory, the same as they were prior
to 1981?
Regardless of DEC or LGPC requirements regarding the dock lengths, were the 6 foot
??
extensions in place in 1981 with the necessary building permits? Are the numbers of
boat slips, parking spaces, boat storage, trailer storage, restrooms, buildings, etc.
identical to those involved in the 1981 operation?
Given the current requirements, an applicant must show that a marina operation has been
established prior to 1981 and to be given a pre-existing acknowledgement, the use needs now to
be the same activity and intensity. Lacking an affirmative response to each question above it
appears as though any Special Use Permit issued should be limited to the 1981 site conditions
and all variations from those conditions would be subject to a comprehensive review prior to
inclusion in the permit.”
MR. HILTON-I guess just as a quick summary of the Staff comments, it seems like there’s been
additional information, there has been additional information provided by the applicant. It
seems that there are a few questions that remain. The first question are the lands currently
being occupied by this use the same lands as those occupied prior to 1981? I think some kind of
reconciliation, if you will, of what uses were previously approved as part of the entire Special
Use Permit, where do they sit now, on which property, and are they a part of the current
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
operation that’s been subdivided off with the other lands, it’s kind of complicated, but I think
the applicant can and probably will address this. Secondly, are the uses currently undertaken
as part of the project the same as those undertaken prior to 1981, and third, is the quantity and
quality of the uses, both primary and accessory, the same as they were prior to 1981? Just to
give you a kind of idea where this application sits, the applicant is seeking a pre-existing,
nonconforming Special Use Permit for a marina. Should this Board not find, I guess in respect
to the Code, that you cannot grant such a permit, this application would then be subject to a full
review of a marina Special Use Permit, with a site plan included, and just a complete review of
the entire operation. That’s where we are at this point. Those are, like I said, just a brief
summary of the notes and a few questions that seem to be outstanding. We have received a
piece of public comment, in between the last meeting and today, and that’s all we have at this
time.
MR. RINGER-The documentation that John was to provide as to permits and all that stuff,
we’ve got that?
MR. HILTON-Well, we do have a document that indicates the 1980, and I don’t have a date, ’81,
DEC permit for a marina, we do have that. Beyond that, we have information that the applicant
has supplied indicating the location of slips, and boats and in attempting to, I believe, his
attempt to account for the numbers of boats and parking spaces that were represented on that
DEC permit, but to answer your question, yes, we have a DEC 1981 marina permit that was
issued to the applicant.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now I wasn’t at the last meeting that this applicant was at, and it was
tabled. I read the minutes, but I don’t remember the reasons for tabling it. Can you refresh me
to make sure that I’ve covered them all?
MR. HILTON-Sure. If you want to begin, I’ll get the resolution.
MR. SANFORD-Now, I’ve got a question before we begin. You may recall we’ve changed our
process on this.
MR. RINGER-It doesn’t qualify for an administrative, if that’s what you’re asking.
MR. SANFORD-Well, let me have a minute on this. What we’ve done is we’ve clarified how
we’re going to be evaluating this, and as it now stands, if a new applicant came, was interested,
they’d make an appointment with Mr. Brown, they’d come in, if they showed him a permit, that
would probably be sufficient. He would then approve the project and that would be it. Now,
the reason I’m, if we’re now saying, well, that doesn’t apply now because this was already in
process.
MR. HILTON-Which is the case.
MR. SANFORD-Which you say is the case, then there’s something that’s not 100% logical here,
because then Mr. Salvador could say, okay, fine, I withdraw my application, call up Craig
Brown, go in, show him his permit and get issued, and grandfathered in.
MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I wouldn’t guarantee that Mr. Brown would issue such a permit,
but, yes, to answer your question, he could withdraw the application and proceed, and continue
through that route.
MR. SANFORD-So the new approach seems to be more streamlined, a little bit more, a little bit
less clumsy, and my only impression or feeling that I’d like to let my fellow Board members
know on this, is I’d like to move this thing along, and deal with this in a reasonable manner and
expedite this.
MR. RINGER-I think we all would, Richard.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-All right. Fine. I’ll turn it over.
MR. RINGER-So let’s start moving it along, and to answer your question, knowing John, there’s
no way that John would say, to heck with this, I’m going to resubmit it again. I mean, he’d
rather come before us.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you can’t speak for him. Let’s move this along.
MR. RINGER-Would you identify yourself for the Board, please.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m John Salvador. I’m here with my wife Kathleen tonight. To answer your
question, you know, it begs the question, was the Town serious when they went to work and
instituted a Special Use Permit provision for marinas and other special uses in Town? Were
they really serious in that they were going to make an honest to goodness site plan review and
get some of the deficiencies we have out there in order? It doesn’t appear they were serious.
That’s my only comment there, but you’re absolutely right. I would not withdraw this
application. I think we can qualify.
MR. RINGER-I’d have put money on it, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think we can qualify, and we’re here to do that. With regard to the
Staff comments, I apologize, I didn’t get these until a couple of days ago, and I also took the
trouble to FOIL the comments that were submitted on this application during the past month
and I got those yesterday as well, but in any case, let’s proceed with Staff comments here. I
think this is the point of departure for this meeting. Additional information has been submitted
as requested by the Board. There appear to be a few important questions left unanswered. I
would like to insert the word “new” questions, because I think we’ve answered all the
questions that were before us at the last meeting. These questions that are here have not been
before us before, or we would have answered them. It says here, direct responses to the
following questions should offer valuable information regarding this application. I agree with
that. However, certain factors appear to have changed over the years, that ultimately affect the
operation and the use. Certainly some things have changed, but we feel that all the changes
that have taken place have taken place, have been properly permitted, or there was no
requirement for a permit to change. For instance, let me give you some examples. If an
operation in the business of selling boats sells 10 more boats this year than they did last year,
(lost word) get a permit to do it. If we have 16 more members in our Boat and Beach Club, we
don’t have to get a permit to do that. Some things require a permit to increase the use. Some do
not. The first question is, our lands currently occupied by the use the same lands as those
occupied in 1981, and the question is no. The bulk of the land holding originally associated
with the 1981 marina application has not been presented as a part of the existing operation. The
property has been subdivided, yes, it has, and you folks approved that subdivision plan. We
were able to accomplish a subdivision of our total land because basically we had two separate
operations there. We had a lodging facility, a resort marina, on one side of the road, excuse me,
a resort on one side of the road and a marina on the other side. It was very, very easy to
subdivide. The operations that took place on the north side of the road were quite different
from those on the south side of the road. So the subdivision was not a difficult thing to
accomplish. However, in the process of the subdivision application, and you remember it was
quite lengthy, Staff insisted, as a condition of approval, that we land hook some of the land on
the south side of the road, with the land on the north side of the road. That was a condition of
approval. If we did not agree to that, there would have been no subdivision approval, and so
we agreed to that. So in effect today, that subdivision is, if there are any questions concerning
that, it’s a very part of this application, because it is the underlying operation we went through
to separate the two aspects of our business. So the property has been subdivided, and if that
has an effect on this application, then I would like to address that, but I’ve explained to you in a
few short words what we did. The next question is, are the uses currently undertaken as a part
of the project the same as those undertaken in 1981. These uses, yes, there are other uses that
you don’t address and don’t talk about. I have a list of them, but let’s take a look at these. Dock
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
rental. Yes, you know we’re in the dock rental business. I think that’s without a question.
There should be no question that we rent boat slips.
MR. SANFORD-No question.
MR. SALVADOR-Boat repair. We do repair work, our own boats. We do incidental repair
work on our Boat and Beach Club member’s boats, and that’s been going on since Day One, and
it’s still going on. A dry dock. Begin to use that term, it’s nothing more than a boat cradle and
we’ve had those forever on our site. PWC rental is a new term. Back in 1981, we referred to
those simply as watercraft. Watercraft was a term that encompassed all kinds of floating boats,
if you will, including canoes, row boats, everything. So PWC is a term that’s come in to play in
the recent, let’s say 10, 15 years. It does not go back to 1981. Boat rentals, yes. The
handicapped ramp is a project that was approved by this Board. The boat storage is something
that is also a new term back in 1981, when we registered our facilities, boat storage was in the
category called rental, lease or accommodation for boats, all kinds of accommodations for boats.
Inside, outside, summer, winter, whatever. Trailer storage, we liken trailer storage the same as
parking. If a trailer’s there, a car is not there. So one offsets the other, but we’ve done that over
the years. Parking on the north side of 9L, I think I’ve addressed that in one of my responses. I
think, I would hope there’s no question concerning parking on the north side of 9L. If there is,
I’d like to know specifically what it is and we’ll address it. Is the quantity and quality.
MR. RINGER-So your answer to bullet two is, yes, then?
MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me?
MR. RINGER-Your answer to bullet two is yes.
MR. SALVADOR-There are questions concerning parking.
MR. RINGER-Are uses currently undertaken the same as they were prior to? Your answer is
yes to bullet two?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and in addition to that, there are other uses that we have that.
MR. RINGER-Right. I just wanted you to say yes, John. Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Okay. Is the quantity and quality of the uses, both primary and
accessory, the same as they were in 1981? We should clarify something here. We have
absolutely no primary use on our lands, which this permit applies to. There is not a primary
use. All of these lands are zoned residential. There’s no residential dwelling on these lands.
These are all accessory uses. Regardless of the DEC or Lake George Park Commission
requirements, the dock lengths where the six foot extension’s in place in 1981, with necessary
building permits. Upon reading this, I filed a FOIL request with the Town, yesterday, asking
for the Codes, building codes, zoning ordinances, that require permits for these six foot dock
extensions. Upon receipt of that, I will address which one of our permits, I think we have it,
falls into that category, but I’m awaiting that answer. Are the numbers of boat slips, parking
spaces, boat storage, trailer storage, restrooms, building, etc., identical to those in 1981? Some
yes and some no. The boat slips, I think I’ve addressed that. You’ve got that plan numbering
the boat slips.
MR. HUNSINGER-That begs the question, though, I’m sorry, John, I don’t mean to interrupt.
The question, I think, is pretty straightforward. It’s either yes or no, are the number of boat
slips the same now as they were in 1981.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. RINGER-That’s all you’ve got to answer on bullet three, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Are parking spaces? No. We have more parking spaces now than we
had in 1981, and I addressed that in a letter concerning the parking. Boat storage. We have
acres and acres of land. Boat storage comes and goes. It’s up and down. I can’t tell you, from
one year to the next, what we’re going to have for boat storage. That depends on people’s
desires. Trailer storage, again, that goes with boats. Restrooms, we have restroom facilities that
were approved by this Town. Site plan and building permits. Buildings, etc., all the buildings
we have on the premises, there’s only one, is fully approved by the Town, both site plan and
building permit, etc., identical to those involved in the 1981 operation, no, they are not. They’ve
been built since then, but all with permits. Given the current requirements, an applicant must
show that a marina operation has been established prior to 1981, and given a pre-existing
acknowledgement the use needs now to be the same activity and intensity. We do not have the
same intensity. The question, in all regards, the question here is the quality of the uses. I would
hope the quality of our uses are better than in 1981. Lacking an affirmative response to each
question above, it appears as though any Special Use Permit issued should be limited to the
1981 site conditions. That is something we can’t accept. Certain things are in accordance with
the approvals in 1981. Certain things we have gotten permits for, and I can address those in
detail.
MR. RINGER-I think we’re looking at the number of slips and the number of vessels we want to
know.
MR. SALVADOR-It doesn’t say that here.
MR. RINGER-His letter, but that’s what we’re looking for.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I cannot answer in the affirmative to all three of those questions, okay.
In addition I’ve briefly read Mr. Sweeney’s submissions, and I would like an opportunity to
address those, and I would suggest that.
MR. RINGER-Mr. Sweeney wrote the letter that you’re talking about?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-We haven’t seen that yet, John. So why don’t you wait until after public hearing
to address those, because we’re not familiar with it yet.
MR. SALVADOR-I cannot not address that. I’ve read the letter.
MR. RINGER-We haven’t seen it.
MR. SALVADOR-I understand. I have read the letter, and it’s going to take some effort for me
to research and articulate and come up with a response.
MR. RINGER-Well, let’s see what we decide after we hear the letter from him on the public
hearing. Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I am requesting that this application be tabled, giving us a chance to
respond to the questions that have been put forth by Staff, we receive the FOIL request we have
put in, and we have a chance to respond to Mr. Sweeney’s comments.
MR. RINGER-You want to table it now? I mean, if you want us to go on with the process, we
might be able to get you approval tonight. I don’t know. I was kind of hoping we’d get this
thing over with.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, I have said before, I don’t want an approval for the wrong
reasons.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. We can table it right now, then, if you would like, although I’m going to
open the public hearing and let George read in the comments and then we’ll come back and
we’ll table it for you.
MR. SALVADOR-Fine.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-So we’ll open the public hearing, and anyone from the public any comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRANK PARILLO
MR. PARILLO-Good evening. For the record, I’m Frank Parillo, the owner of Dunham’s Bay Docks and
Launch, which is adjacent to the applicant’s marina, and we want to be sure that Staff and Counsel and the
Board has had a chance to review what Mr. Sweeney’s latest letter that was delivered, I believe on December
18, and you said you haven’t received that yet?
th
MR. RINGER-Staff has received it. The Board has not received it. He’ll be reading it into the record.
MR. PARILLO-Okay, but my concern is this, that.
MR. RINGER-Would you like him to read the letter, before you go on?
MR. HILTON-What I can do, just to interrupt real quick, I guess, is we received the correspondence on
December 16. We kept it. It’s public comment, based on past practice, it was our plan to introduce it this
th
evening as we do with other public comment. We do have multiple copies. If it’s your pleasure, if it’s the
Board’s pleasure, I can certainly hand out copies to you at this moment, and either Mr. Parillo can summarize
the letter or I can read it into the record. Whatever you’d like.
MR. RINGER-Well, how about passing it out so we’ve got copies of it, and then if you’d like to summarize
it.
MR. PARILLO-Well, I’m not going to summarize it. I mean, Mr. Salvador has asked that this be tabled.
MR. RINGER-It will be tabled.
MR. PARILLO-But I am concerned to sit back there, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, with the
information that has been submitted, and you make a statement that maybe we can approve this this evening.
There is a letter from the Attorney General’s Office that clearly states that Mr. Salvador has installed
additional docks within the last few months, or within the last year, and it’s kind of important that this
information be investigated before we say that maybe we can approve this application tonight. Do you agree
with me or not?
MR. RINGER-We didn’t have this information. If this information, by us and our Counsel’s determination
that we didn’t have, we needed more input before we could approve it, that we would wait. Mr. Salvador has
already asked us to table it. So it is going to be tabled.
MR. PARILLO-Okay. Then I guess I have really no more to say, and my counsel will be here at the next
meeting to be sure. So, thank you for your time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Salvador. George, there’s no use reading it in to the record, because
we will have an opportunity to read before the next meeting.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Then I’ll just make a note on the record that we received this as public comment and
we distributed it to the Board.
MR. RINGER-And as per the applicant’s request, we are going to table this application. I can’t give you a
date for the tabling. It’s probably not going to be until February, John.
MR. SALVADOR-The next hearing, we have to submit. We have to submit answers. Is there a due date for
those?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. HILTON-Well, the deadline for any new information for January has past. The next deadline is January
15 to be on in February.
th
MR. RINGER-So we’re looking at February. So when would he have to submit for February deadline?
MR. HILTON-January 15.
th
MR. RINGER-January 15, for the February meeting. The January deadline has already past. Okay. So we’ll
th
put you on the agenda for February.
MR. SALVADOR-And our submissions must be in by January 15.
th
MR. RINGER-January 15. So, Counsel, can I just, instead of tabling, can I just move it to the February
th
meeting?
MS. RADNER-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-So we’ll just move this application and the public hearing to the February. George?
MR. HILTON-First meeting, second meeting?
MR. RINGER-Let’s go first meeting. I won’t be here. So you’ll get a break. I won’t be here. I’ll be in
Myrtle Beach. So this will be moved on to the first meeting in February, John. Have a nice holiday.
MRS. SALVADOR-George, what is the date of the first meeting?
MR. HILTON-The 17.
th
MR. SALVADOR-The 17 of February.
th
MRS. SALVADOR-We’re here.
MR. RINGER-That works for you?
MRS. SALVADOR-Right now we’re here.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, if that isn’t going to work, then get back to Staff, and again, have a nice holiday,
and we’ll see you next year. I won’t, but the Board will.
OLD BUSINESS: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 2-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
RECOMMENDATION DOUG & TERESA MILLER PROPERTY OWNER: GEORGE &
DAWN DRELLOS AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT
ZONE: SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: RC-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE A 21.38
ACRE PROPERTY FROM LI TO RC-15 IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN INDOOR SPORTS
FACILITY. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE
TOWN BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. TB REFERRAL: 6/16/03, TB
RES. #296,2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING BOARD: 11/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3 LOT
SIZE: 21 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-15-020
JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DOUG MILLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change, PZ 2-2003, Doug & Teresa Miller, Meeting Date: December
17, 2003 “Staff Notes:
Description:
The applicant proposes to re-zone 21.38 acres of vacant property from LI, Light Industry to RC-
15, Recreation Commercial 15,000 sq. ft. The property is located at the southwest corner of
Sherman Avenue and I-87. Staff has attached vicinity maps showing surrounding development
patterns and zoning. Adjacent lands to the west, immediately to the south, and on the east side
of I-87 are zoned LI, Light Industry. Properties to the north of this site are zoned residential.
Application:
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
The Town Board referred the application to the Planning Board for referral on June 16, 2003.
The Town Board also consented to the Planning Board as Lead Agency for SEQRA review.
SEQRA Review Process:
The proposed action is a SEQRA Unlisted action and a Long Form EAF has been submitted.
The Town Board has asked the Planning Board for a recommendation on this rezoning. Prior to
any SEQRA review, the Planning Board must accept Lead Agent status for the environmental
review of this project. Any Town Board action on the rezoning request cannot be made until
the Planning Board reaches a SEQRA determination. Future subdivision and development of
this property shown on plans submitted with PZ 2-2003 can only occur unless and until the
Town Board approves the rezoning.
Planning Board Review:
The Planning Board as Lead Agent for SEQRA purposes must conduct an environmental
review of this application. Some of the issues likely to be considered during an environmental
review include visual impact, traffic, stormwater, noise and conformance with the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan.
In determining if this proposal is spot zoning, several questions or “tests” exist to determine if
the proposal is spot zoning. Town Counsel should be consulted if there are any questions as to
whether or not this proposal can be considered spot zoning.
The Planning Board needs to address Petition for Zone Change questions when considering
their recommendation to the Town Board. The applicant has also addressed these questions, as
submitted with the application. Staff has provided analysis for discussion beneath each
question.
1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?
The rezoning to RC-15 from LI will benefit the applicant by allowing the construction of
a sports complex on this 21-acre property.
2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
Zoning districts located in other areas in the Town allow Recreation Centers; these are
RC-15 and RC-3A.
3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?
Staff has included an area Zoning Map, which shows adjacent properties to the west and
east zoned LI, Light Industry. Properties to the north are zoned residential.
4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone?
The property being considered as part of this proposed zone change is a vacant 21 +/-
acre property, which is mostly forested and is relatively flat. This property meets the lot
area requirements (15,000 sq. ft.) of the proposed RC-15 zone. It appears that all other
dimensional requirements can be met.
5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities?
Municipal water service is available to this property. No public sewer facilities exist in
this area. Additional commercial development will not directly add to the school
population. Minimal impacts on emergency services are expected.
6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question?
Other properties in the Town of Queensbury exist which allow recreation centers.
However, these properties may not be vacant, and in the case of the RC-3A zone near
the West Mountain Ski Center, may contain topographic constraints, which would limit
the development of these properties.
7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
Some of the environmental issues for the Planning Board to consider include visual
impacts, traffic, stormwater, noise and conformance with the Town’s Comprehensive
Plan.
Visual Impact
The applicant has submitted a visual assessment, which indicates that the proposed
sports dome will not be visible above the existing tree line at this site. However, since a
large amount of vegetation will be cleared as part of the proposal, what will the visibility
of the proposed structure(s) be through the remaining vegetation? Will the structure be
internally lit, and what will the visual impacts be from any light spill and/or glare from
such internal illumination?
Traffic
A preliminary review of the traffic data submitted appears to indicate that LOS levels for
Sherman Avenue will not be substantially reduced as a result of this proposal. The
applicant’s traffic study states that 75 percent of the traffic coming to and exiting this site
will enter and exit from the east. Additional comments regarding traffic may be
provided from CT Male.
Stormwater
The applicant has submitted data concerning stormwater management and drainage.
This information has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment.
Noise
Will air compressors be used to keep the dome inflated? What noise levels can be
expected with such compressors and all other mechanical equipment to be used as part
of the proposed sports complex? In addition, what noise impacts can be expected as a
result of the proposed clearing of existing vegetation?
8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive
Land Use Master Plan?
This site is located in Neighborhood 12 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan states, “The Niagara Mohawk
property and the land east of it to the Northway should allow light industrial uses…. A
sizable wooded buffer (discussions suggested 100 feet) along Sherman should be
included…”
While considering this application, the loss of 21 acres of industrially zoned lands
should be considered. As this property is within close proximity to the Interstate
Highway system, this property may be a property, which could accommodate future
Industrial expansion within the Town of Queensbury.
Strategy S6.3 of the Townwide Plan portion of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan identifies
providing more recreational opportunities west of the Northway and south of Aviation
Road.
9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal?
The proposed sports complex would result in increased recreational opportunities in the
Town of Queensbury.
Comments:
Site Plan Review and Subdivision will be required as a follow up should the Town
??
Board approve this petition for zone change”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. HILTON-This application has been forwarded to the Planning Board for recommendation,
and also for a SEQRA review. The Town Board has sought to designate the Planning Board as
Lead Agent, and there’s a resolution before you, this Board, the Planning Board, performs any
SEQRA review this evening, before you, to accept that designation and potentially forward a
SEQRA determination and a recommendation on to the Town Board. Really quickly, the
applicant proposes to rezone approximately 21 acres of land from Light Industry to Recreation
Commercial to accommodate an indoor sports complex. The property is located on the south
side of Sherman Avenue, just west of the Northway. This action is an Unlisted Action, and a
Long Form EAF has been provided. I’ve gone in the notes and outlined the questions that are in
the application, that we use for our analysis in determining, in acting on the zone change.
Obviously the zone, the proposed zone change will be a benefit to the applicant and will allow
the construction of the sport’s complex. There are other zones in the Town, other areas of RC-15
and RC-3A that can accommodate recreation centers, but as I’ve stated further on in the notes,
these areas appear to be either occupied or there are physical constraints, topographic
constraints that limit development in those areas. Staff has included in your packets a zoning
map and aerial photo map which shows neighborhood development patterns and zoning. It’s a
large portion of residential to the north and areas to the west and immediately to the south are
zoned light industry. This site is relatively flat and vacant forested at this point. Municipal
water will be available. On site septic will be used at this site. The applicant has included some
information, in terms of environmental issues, some visual impact analysis, traffic analysis,
stormwater and some other data. Staff has some questions concerning visual which we’ve
noted, visual impact. Since a large amount of vegetation will be cleared, what will the visibility
of the proposed structures be through the remaining vegetation, and the applicant has, you
know, provided information indicating that the domed complex will not be seen above the tree
line, but once you clear the property, what impact will that have? The structure, if it will be
internally lit, what will the visual impacts of that be? Traffic. The applicant has included some
traffic analysis that C.T. Male has commented on, and we just received a letter today concerning
this project. Some preliminary comments from C.T. Male have also been received on
stormwater. In terms of noise, just a question, will air compressors be used to keep the dome in
play, what impact will that have? The property is located in Neighborhood 12 and the
Comprehensive Plan states that this area should allow light industrial uses. One issue with this
rezoning is the retention and development of these lands as light industry in the future, and
how this really results in a loss of that land. However, Strategy S6.3 of this Comprehensive Plan
identifies providing more recreational opportunities west of the Northway, as a goal and a
strategy. The proposed sports complex would result in increased recreational opportunities in
Queensbury, and just as a note, site plan review and subdivision will be required, as a follow-
up, should the Town Board approve this Petition for Zone Change. As I mentioned, we do have
some C.T. Male comments that I can touch on, if you get to the point of doing a SEQRA review,
and again, just to recap, this is before you for recommendation to the Town Board, and also for
a SEQRA determination, which, prior to doing that, you must pass the resolutions accepting
Lead Agency, and I think that’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Doug Miller, Tom Nace and Mike
Chevalle to my left, who’s the traffic engineer from URS Corp. out of Clifton Park. I think
George summarized the information that we submitted at the Board’s request since we were
here last. I appreciate that Staff pointed out the recommendation in the Master Plan, the Comp
Plan, that talked about the need for recreation uses on the west side of the Northway and south
of Aviation Road. All the land on that side of Town, with the exception of the West Mountain
property, is zoned either residential or industrial. So if you want to provide recreational
activities, it will, by definition, require a rezoning because West Mountain obviously isn’t
suitable for much topographically, other than skiing. I think the biggest issue last time was
visual impact, and the balloon was provided as the Board had asked and we have the
photographs. In terms of the buffer issue, the materials submitted show that there’s a minimum
of a 200 foot buffer and up to 300 foot of trees that would remain, which is pretty sizeable, and
certainly beyond any of the buffers required under the Town design guidelines to make up for
the adjacent uses. We think that not only is this needed on that side of Town, but that an
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
industrial use would be something that the residents to the north at Hidden Hills would have a
problem with in terms of impacts of those type in that this is certainly more compatible. Mike is
here to answer any questions on traffic. The only issue that was really raised by C.T. Male was
whether a left turn lane might be needed. Mike made some assumptions, and under his
assumptions, basically, with some carpooling, but also the fact to be conservative that drop offs
and pickups would happen at the same time. He doesn’t feel, and he’ll go on the record, he
doesn’t feel that a left turn lane would be necessary unless background traffic got to some
amazing level, but because it’s a three phase project, that could be something that the Board
reserves, or as a condition that we agree that agree that the Board would look at again at the
second phase expansion, but it certainly shouldn’t be something that’s needed now. It may be
needed in the future, and I’ll let Tom address the noise issues and the visual issues that were
raised.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before you do that, could you go through the phasing again one more time
for us?
MR. MILLER-The first phase would include the dome structure itself, for the indoor fields, and
for the outdoor fields. The second phase would include the hockey facility in the northwest
corner, and the last phase would include the tennis structure.
MR. NACE-Okay. I think Jon fairly well covered, or addressed the comment on the visual
assessment. There’s a very large buffer. There’s the 100 foot scenic corridor along the
Northway that, of course, is remaining. We’re providing some additional buffer on our
property, and there’s, outside that 100 foot scenic buffer, there’s also the original Northway
corridor, which includes some trees, and you can see from the photograph that’s been provided
in the visual assessment that up to our clearing limits there’s pretty much a minimum of 200
feet and as Jon said up to 300 feet of remaining vegetation, and most of that vegetation is fairly
dense. As far as stormwater, C.T. Male had some good comments that we ought to provide
some pre-treatment buffers, vegetative buffers, along the edge of the asphalt, which we will do
at site plan review time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. NACE-Noise. Do you want to address?
MR. MILLER-Yes. There are no compressors to keep the structure in play. It runs at basically
less than the gas pressure that comes out of your range at home, if you have gas service, and
that is supplied by a unit very similar to a rooftop unit that would be on this building here,
typically in the 10 ton range, 10 ton is the air conditioning load, and this building probably has a
very similar sized unit. There’d be two of those, and all the noise is directed inside. The fans
blow in to the structure. So there’s no loud, nothing that you’d hear from outside here.
MR. MAC EWAN-What about a Phase III for the hockey facility? Phase II for the hockey
facility?
MR. MILLER-The same sort of structure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Relative to the noise for the ice making equipment and stuff?
MR. NACE-For the ice making? That’s a small compressor unit that it’s, again, probably very
close to the size of a commercial air conditioning unit you would find on a store, a rooftop unit,
compressor unit.
MR. MILLER-The hockey rink is nothing the size of the Civic Center. It’s a small training
facility. A quarter the size.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a full sized rink?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MILLER-No, no. Not a full sized rink. So you won’t have near the need for the
refrigerations you have in the Civic Center.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll go down this by topic for Planning Board members. Maybe we
can just keep things very generic, not get bogged down into a lot of site plan detail question
type stuff that we would normally pick up, but if you have any comments or questions
regarding building design or layout?
MR. SANFORD-Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just get some clarification on sequencing
here. I think the first question that we’re asked to talk about is whether or not we believe a
rezoning makes sense, and I don’t know, has this Board addressed that in a prior session?
Because the basic, the question that I’m basically dealing with here, when I’m looking at it, is
there was apparently some rhyme and reason that went in to the zoning reg’s, and this was
earmarked as a piece of property that could perhaps provide for some light industrial activity,
and I believe probably the intention was that that would be good for the community. It would
bring jobs and some employment, and now we’re contemplating whether we want to change
that zoning, and before we go and look at building or stormwater and everything else, I mean,
that’s a real fundamental question is, why do we want to entertain a zone change when we are
increasingly losing land that could be used for true, viable employment opportunities for the
community? And that’s fundamental. I mean, this may be a great idea for their use, but the
question that I have is do we want to change the zone to allow this use, and I think that’s
fundamental. If the answer is yes, then we go into all these things. Maybe the answer is no, we
don’t want to change the zone. So I’m asking you what the proper sequencing.
MR. MAC EWAN-We can go that route, if you want to go that route. I was going to go through
this first and hit on that, but if you want to hit on that topic first, that’s fine by me.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I would like to hit on that, because I think that that’s sort of a prerequisite
for going further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. We’ll start with you.
MR. SANFORD-I think I’ve said it pretty much. I mean, I’m not sure, you know, what kind of
employment opportunities your project will offer people living in the community, but, you
know, my knee jerk reaction is not a whole lot. It would provide maybe recreational activities,
but it wouldn’t necessarily provide employment opportunities. Would you care to comment on
that?
MR. LAPPER-If I could comment, to begin with, the Comp Plan talks about the need for
recreational activities, as well as the need for industrial, light industrial job creating activities.
So I think that they’re both goals of the Town. Since the Comp Plan, a number of things have
changed in Town, in terms of the zoning for Light Industrial. One is the Queensbury Industrial
Park over by the airport at the corner of Queensbury Ave. and Dix Ave. which is, I don’t recall,
about 40 acres that’s going to provide a number of industrial lots, that’s being marketed by
Warren County Economic Development, which wasn’t on the table at all when the Comp Plan
was done, a second industrial park, which is smaller, but nearby is 10 acres that the Queensbury
Economic Development Corp. is undertaking for the cut through street that you’ve probably
read about between where the emergency squad is on Main Street and Luzerne, which is very
near this vicinity of Town, and that’s going to provide industrial lots as well. Both of those are
much more remote from residential development, so probably more suitable for industrial, but
then as I began, there is also this need for recreation on that side of Town where there’s
relatively nothing, and it has to be, since the zone doesn’t exist, if you’re going to provide it,
then you’re going to have to use residential land or industrial land.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So you’re basically just making an appeal that we should understand
your reasoning and say this sounds like a good idea? Really, that’s what you’re doing.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s a good idea in terms of recreational, we need recreational, and that since
the Comp Plan and the rezoning, there’ve been changes, and more industrial lots have been
created in Town, just on the other side of Town, except for the 10 acres which is really on the
other side of the Northway, but on this side of Town. So that need has been addressed
elsewhere.
MR. MAC EWAN-Both of those sites will have sewer access, too, won’t they?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and this one doesn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. That’s a big hindrance to industrial development west of the
Northway is the lack of sewer capacity.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a good point. The Town just brought sewer to the airport, which is why
that was rezoned for an industrial park, because the sewer is running along Queensbury Ave.
right there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have you looked at other areas at all?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, it’s a tough zoning map for a recreation commercial. There’s the
Great Escape, which is all spoken for. There’s West Mountain Road, where we attempted to put
this small skating facility which is, you know, a quarter the size of a rink, on the one relatively
flat area at West Mountain near the northwest mountain, and the neighbors were very
concerned about that being incompatible. There were some drainage issues and such. We went
to the Zoning Board to talk about that. So, the Town doesn’t provide for a lot of areas where
you can have recreation commercial.
MR. SEGULJIC-So really it all comes back to this site plan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it doesn’t have to be in Queensbury either. I mean, I don’t know, you
know, I don’t want to be argumentative with you, Jon. I mean, I appreciate what you’re saying.
It just seems to me that, you know, the big question I came up with when I was reviewing this is
why do we want to change it? I mean, don’t we want to try to encourage some light industrial
development in this area, and I said definitely. We have, we don’t get enough of it, and so this
is another piece that we’re taking off that won’t be developed. Now you’re pointing to the
airport area. I don’t know what to say to that other than that may be true, but I don’t know if
that really reinforces any kind of an argument other than you’re suggesting there are other
places where you can have some kind of industrial development. We don’t know what the
terms of that property might be, whether it’s affordable or not affordable. We don’t know the
terms here. I, for one, just, you know, think it’s great that you want to do something like this. I
just wish you would go to an area where it’s properly zoned and do it, rather than ask for a
rezoning.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Dick, I appreciate your concern for losing light industrial, and I share that
concern, but in this instance, and I think a good point was brought up, and even Chairman
MacEwan seconded that, and I’ll third it, is that it doesn’t have sewer, and I think that locating a
light industrial complex would want municipal sewer. This doesn’t have sewer, but further
than that, I know that, being a teacher at Queensbury, and talking to some of the coaches, there
is a serious need for something like this in Town close to the School, relatively close to the
School, there’s a lot of enthusiasm for something like this project to take place, and the other
thing is, though, if you take a look at the map, you know, it’s adjacent to a rather large
residential area. There would be a lot of light industrial applications that probably wouldn’t be
appropriate for this, for noise reasons and/or aesthetic reasons, and while I’m on the concept of
aesthetic reasons. I think this proposal is a lot more residential friendly and a lot more aesthetic
being adjacent to a residential situation than a lot of light industrial proposals would be. I don’t
think it’s going to be a serious traffic problem. Any problems that do get addressed it’s going to
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
be a three phased, so we could attack those problems as a second or third phase. I think it
provides ample buffers. This proposal is, you know, I think the way it’s being proposed is
pretty good. I’m pretty happy with this proposal here. I’m just going to disagree with you on
that, Dick.
MR. RINGER-If I may, I find it very hard here that this is John’s last meeting and I’m going to
have to agree with him. I think that light industrial on Sherman Avenue is not good zoning. I
think that Sherman Avenue is more of a residential, and I think that this would be a better
rezoning than having light industrial there on Sherman Avenue. So I think it’s a good, if tins
were on Luzerne Road, I would certainly feel differently and I’d feel like you perhaps, Richard,
that I wouldn’t want to give up light industrial, but being Sherman Avenue, in so much
residential and so much more residential going up on Sherman Avenue, we’ve got two
subdivisions before us right now on Sherman Avenue.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I appreciate your point, and John’s as well, you don’t have to convince
me. I just wanted to weigh in on how I felt about changing zoning, you know, maybe there is a
compelling reason to do so. I just feel that we have to think good and hard before we move
forward and change it because if we ever do get the opportunity, Bob isn’t here, but he talks
about all that nanotechnology, is that what it is, and, you know, if we ever do have the
opportunity to take advantage of what’s happening south of us, in terms of some good, clean,
highly desirable employment opportunities, we may not have the space for it, and I think part
of the planning process is to look to the future.
MR. STROUGH-But there’s several properties along the Northway, and I don’t think this is
going to surprise anybody on this Board, that are zoned residential, and that should be zoned
commercial, light industrial, should not be zoned residential. So I think there’s room for
increasing our amount of commercial space, in getting ready for the nanotechnology park,
Luther Forest, should it ever come about.
MR. SANFORD-Well, now, John, your argument is let’s go change residential to light industrial,
instead of preserving what is already zoned what we want it to be zoned.
MR. STROUGH-We have a bird in hand, here, that meets a community need. Otherwise, I
would be opposed to it.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have to bear in mind, Rich, that for all practical purposes, sewer, right
now in Queensbury, extends as far west as the Northway, and that’s the barrier, and there has
been discussion in the past about extending sewer up Sherman Avenue, and it’s just not been
met with any kind of warm response. I think to extend sewer west of the Northway at this
point is probably several years down the pike, and I think, added to the fact that, because we
don’t have sewer, which is a main selling point of attracting any light industrial along with
many other issues that would attract light industrial to New York State, not necessarily just to
Queensbury, John’s point of having a light industrial operation located so close to residential,
with light industrial you’re talking 100 foot buffers, right, all the way around it, which would
severely hamper the developability of that parcel, and you have to look at truck traffic, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to say.
MR. RINGER-And the fact that most of Hidden Hills, which is across the street from this, is
Glens Falls School District that doesn’t bus. So those kids are walking down Sherman Avenue
to get to school.
MR. STROUGH-And then like I said, this is a sporting complex being proposed, which is a lot
more friendly, family friendly, and residential friendly.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to chime in on the traffic issue. I think a bigger hindrance to this
piece of property for development as light industrial is the whole truck traffic issue, and I don’t
think anybody wants to see any kind of density of truck traffic on Sherman Avenue. So I think
there are some real good trade off’s with the proposal in terms of traffic, traffic flow and traffic
patterns.
MR. SANFORD-I guess I’m out on a limb on this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad you raised the question. I think that’s exactly the question that we
have to consider and talk about, before we get into details, and I think it was the right.
MR. SANFORD-The right question, but the consensus is that it makes sense. Okay. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m just personally thinking, and it probably is selfish of me how a meeting
would go, if somebody came in with a light industrial use in this area, people would freak out.
MR. RINGER-We’d fill the chairs.
MR. METIVIER-I was just thinking, what a planning disaster that would be, because you would
never have any, you know, think about it, in this particular area, and I think of all the other
areas, I look at the complex that we approved on Luzerne, or is it Sherman? I don’t even
remember, for the Glens Falls technology park, Veterans Field. It sits idle. You have that whole
strip on Queensbury Avenue, the airport road, whatever, County Line Road, it’s sitting idle. So
this is a nice project for this area. It truly is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Another comparison to make is the Carey Industrial Park. It’s been
developed for how many years now and it’s nowhere near capacity.
MR. METIVIER-It sits idle. For something light industrial, and yet you drive around that and
it’s huge in there. It’s good access. This is terrible access for truck traffic. Because you can’t get
there from here. You know, you have 18, Carey Road, all that is right there, off of the Exit, and
yet it sits idle. So, I think it’s a great plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Move on?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, move on.
MR. STROUGH-Move on.
MR. MAC EWAN-General questions relative to building design and layout?
MR. SEGULJIC-Why domes?
MR. MILLER-Cost, the cost per square foot. To do something of this sort with a clear span,
because this is a full sized field, if you can envision a regular football field with a track around it
like you’ve got at Glens Falls or Queensbury, essentially 90% of that field and track will be
under cover and to have a clear span building with no columns in the middle, it’s cost
prohibitive.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how long would the dome last?
MR. MILLER-Fabric, we’re using the top of the line fabric. We talked a little bit about fabric at
the last meeting. Kevlar coated fabric will last in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 years.
MR. SEGULJIC-Twenty to twenty-five years? And the snow just slides off of it?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MILLER-Snow slides off. Obviously, there’s a maintenance issue with moving that snow
away from the foot of the structure, so that it doesn’t build up and push in on it.
MR. STROUGH-In researching this, you’re on the structure, I came across two companies that
are worldwide, Seman and Rub, that make the structures for these.
MR. MILLER-Well, they make the fabric. That fabric that’s in your hands there is made by
Seman.
MR. STROUGH-Dupont makes the fabric.
MR. MILLER-Dupont Seman.
MR. STROUGH-And Seman makes the structures for the fabric to go over, and so does Rub, is
another major, is either one of those going to be building the structure?
MR. MILLER-Those are tension type structures that those two make, the air support and
structures, the two, basically three manufacturers worldwide, Bird Air, Yade and Farley, and
I’m looking at two of those three.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to that? Lighting/traffic?
MR. RINGER-Lighting. The basketball courts and the softball diamonds, I assume they’re
softball diamonds, they’re going to be lighted at night?
MR. MILLER-Does that create a problem for the Board if they are?
MR. RINGER-I would have some concerns with lights, because the noise, lights and noise
combined, if you’re looking at 10 or 11 o’clock for a ballgame. I remember Little League down
at Fort Edward for tournaments and stuff, it was quite noisy down there to the neighborhood.
MR. MILLER-Yes. You’re getting into bedtime hours and that sort of, we’re far enough away
from Hidden Hills, and there is, were you at the site plan, Larry? Or site visit?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. MILLER-The berm that we’ve got there is going to provide, the natural berm, Sherman
Avenue down to the site itself, is going to provide a nice natural berm to deflect sound and
keep it from getting into Hidden Hills, but as far as lights go, I’d like to have that possibly as a
future, that’s not in our plans now, and you won’t be approving that outside lighting.
MR. STROUGH-Well, especially if you can stay away from the Wal-Mart type lighting.
MR. MILLER-Yes, no, no. It won’t be any of that. The light in the structure, in the dome, is
contained within the dome, you know, there’ll be some lights along the road, the entrance road
into there.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I was thinking more of the lights for the fields, is what I’m thinking of.
MR. MILLER-No, there won’t be any, like East Field and that sort? No. I may come to this
Board in four or five years asking for that at this point that’s not in the plans.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the dome itself doesn’t emit any light?
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-From inside doesn’t shine through the building?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MILLER-No. There are domed structures that are transparent, translucent, which will
allow light to come through, and they rely, those type rely on, or the benefit to that is outside
lighting, or natural lighting during the day can help reduce your illumination costs inside, but
those are much more energy inefficient. The lifespan of the fabric is not as great. We’re going
with the, what the fabric that you’ve got here, opaque fabric. Which actually has, and the fabric
that you’ve got in your packages, I don’t know if each of you got them, I submitted six or seven
copies to the Board, that is just the outer fabric, the outer layer. Inside of that there is an
insulation layer and then inside that there is another inner layer. So you’ve actually got three
layers, and the light’s not going to go through that, any more than it will through your sheet
rock walls at home.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking of the Carrier Dome. I went to Grad School in Syracuse and
there’s certain places you walk up over the hill, and I mean, it literally looks like a bright orange
space ship has landed, but it’s primarily lights on the side of the building.
MR. MILLER-And even that fabric has, it’s only single layer. It doesn’t have the insulation layer
and the inner layer.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to building design?
MR. STROUGH-Well, is the inner layer the Kevlar as well?
MR. MILLER-No. I think in your package you’ve got, if I recall correctly, you’ve got a lighter
fabric in there. Do you have that in there?
MR. STROUGH-I’ve just got the one sample of the Kevlar.
MR. MILLER-You’ve just got the one, it must be George. The inner fabric is not a Kevlar coated.
It’s just a polyethylene, or a polypropylene coating, coated fabric.
MR. STROUGH-Now, the Kevlar itself is, I don’t have my sample with me, but what was it, 18
ounce?
MR. MILLER-Yes, Kevlar is just a coating over the fabric, over the polyethylene or polystyrene
or polyurethane.
MR. STROUGH-Is it 18 ounce or?
MR. MILLER-You can do 18 or 32 ounce.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and yours is 18?
MR. MILLER-Yes, 32 ounce per square foot.
MR. STROUGH-And how many mils is that?
MR. MILLER-I would have to pull the specs out to tell you that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, because some of the statistics I’ve looked at were 10 mils and didn’t
work on ounces, but it’s not important anyhow, Doug.
MR. MILLER-It is in the, the information is submitted in the packet that you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to keep things very general here. Not get bogged down in too many
details. Has anybody got questions relative to traffic or parking, inclusive of pedestrian traffic?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I do.
MR. MILLER-I take that back, we may not have submitted the inner fabric, just because we
didn’t want to confuse the issue with numerous types of fabric. We gave you the outside fabric,
which is what the outside public is going to say.
MR. STROUGH-Well, like the Chairman pointed out, it didn’t really have much bearing on
where we’re going with this. It’s just my curiosity was getting the best of me, and this is my last
meeting, and so I asked the questions. On traffic, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-All right. In the SEQRA Part I, Page Five of Twenty-One, I see Number G,
Maximum Vehicular Trips Generated Per Hour, you’ve got 294, but reading your traffic
analysis, it doesn’t seem to jive here. The traffic analysis says something quite different. You
see where I am? First of all, Part I of.
MR. CHEVALLE-It is right. If you take the 147, it’s 147 entering and 147 exiting. So that’s 294.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it does have the potential of 294 vehicular trips per hour?
MR. CHEVALLE-Both entering and exiting, combined, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MILLER-Figure if somebody’s coming in and dropping somebody off and then leaving.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MILLER-And that’s peak.
MR. NACE-That’s maximum usage at this facility. That’s worst case scenario.
MR. STROUGH-Worst case scenario.
MR. MILLER-Complete build out after all phases are done.
MR. STROUGH-After all phases.
MR. CHEVALLE-Yes. It assumes a number of simultaneous uses.
MR. STROUGH-And do you think that, is it 221 parking spaces is going to be sufficient? I
mean, it’s 181, plus the 40 for the ice complex.
MR. NACE-Correct. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And, because one of the problems, remember we worked with that four years
ago, was the Morris field. If we were to go back and revisit that, Tom, I would have more
parking.
MR. NACE-Okay, but it’s also a little different use. Morris field is a high school athletic
complex where a lot of the kids are driving themselves, a lot of the parents are coming to watch,
separately, and does require more parking than a facility like this where a lot of the kids get
dropped off and parents leave, you know, the kids for an hour of practice.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think my point being is I think this does offer more parking than Morris
did.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. NACE-Okay. I’m sorry.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would this facility, utilize all types of athletic activity year round? I mean,
you’re not going to have baseball, softball going at the same time you would soccer or football
or hockey?
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s seasonally driven, right?
MR. MILLER-It’s seasonally driven. The indoor structure will have a full sized field that will be
subdivided, it can be subdivided into three cross fields, or, if teams, particularly high school
teams may want to play full field, so there’d be one game going on at a time, so you’re going to
have 15 competitors on a team, two teams, so you’ve just cut your maximum participants down
to a third of the numbers that were used here, generating the traffic counts. In the summer, you
have, there are six fields, three fields that are combination soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and
three softball fields. Only one of the softball fields while the other lacrosse, soccer, field hockey
fields are being used because of the fact the fields overlap one another. So the most fields we
could have going on outside at any given time are three fields. I think the Morris complex, if
I’m not mistaken, is five or six. It’s at least five, and it may be six. The other part, and I know
that there have been some concerns about people at Morris fields parking along Sherman
Avenue. The parking lot is right next to Sherman Avenue. If you look at the site plan here, the
parking lot for this, they’ve got a drive in, and we’ve got grass areas on the southeast side of the
dome that can be for overflow parking. When we talked to staff early on, green space is
something that they’d prefer to see, as opposed to paved area. So the discussion took place that,
well, we’ll leave this as green space and if the need arises for additional parking, we can then
expand the parking facilities.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to traffic/parking?
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to touch on one comment C.T. Male made in regard
to access management and traffic, it says as a general recommendation we would ask that the
applicant review the need for a left turn lane into the site to help maintain continuous
westbound through traffic along Sherman Avenue. Perhaps that could be accomplished with
some kind of traffic monitoring after construction, with a report, provision of that data back to
the Board or Staff at such time, to evaluate the need for such a left turn, and to get a firm handle
on what true traffic counts are.
MR. MAC EWAN-We could always do that like a condition of moving on to Phase II or
something, you know. Any other questions relative to traffic access? Stormwater/sewage?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think sewage is a potential issue. Just because of the types of uses you
have. I mean, you don’t have like a steady, constant use. So, you know, you would have
periods of very heavy use and then periods where you wouldn’t be using it much at all.
MR. NACE-Sure. It’ll be a septic system. It’ll be a large septic system, we have very good soils,
and there’s plenty of room to add septic.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess it’s really more of a design question than a real concern. Just to
make sure that, you know, the engineers review it.
MR. NACE-And we have adequate capacity, yes. We agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions regarding landscaping, screening?
MR. STROUGH-I think it’s pretty buffered, and not only that you have the other buffers, you
have Sherman Avenue on the north. You’ve got the Northway the east. You’ve got the power
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
lines to the west. You’ve got an arrow to the south, plus the applicant is proposing a substantial
ample buffers all the way around.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Emergency access, emergency services?
MR. STROUGH-We could have them review the project in site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that I may have overlooked?
MR. METIVIER-Can I ask a question, and, honestly, you don’t have to answer this if you don’t
feel it’s necessary. I just have to know. Where is the return on investment in this thing? I
mean, you’re putting so much money into this, into the land, into the dome, parking, I mean,
where are you going to recoup any of that cost? And the point to my question is, what’s the
potential of us being stuck with this big, huge dome? I mean, is there a potential that exists? I
mean, I just, I cannot grasp the concept of you making any money on this at all. I just don’t get
it.
MR. MILLER-I guess there’s always the potential of having a big white elephant there, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-A huge white elephant.
MR. MILLER-If you look at the Moreau complex, 85,000 square feet, $15 million. Because it’s a
solid structure, it’s a metal block structure, and the question was, why a dome. Basically
because of the cost. This project will be around three and a half million dollars, for one hundred
and twenty thousand square feet. Revenue is generated by leagues coming in. We have
tremendous, if anybody saw the article in the paper when, early this summer, when Hoyts first
came to the table, before I’d even rolled our project out, the coaches had, from the school
coaches, from the league coaches, in soccer, in field hockey and lacrosse had tremendous need
for this because they’ve got kids going, and parents. I’ve got parents every day saying, when
are you going to get this going, when are you going to get this going. They’re driving to
Albany. They’re driving to Clifton Park. They’re driving from Lake Placid right past here, and
those leagues are what generate the revenue. Indoor driving range during the day, because
while school is going on in the winter we’ve got hundreds of people that drive to Clifton Park,
Latham, drive golf balls, and that’s a small piece of the revenue. The significant piece is the
rental of the field. Basically, you’re renting that square footage, on an hourly basis, for teams,
leagues to come in and practice, have competitions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there a potential to over saturate the market?
MR. MILLER-Yes. If somebody else was to do the same thing, in Hudson Falls. The market
couldn’t bear it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s that one that’s been proposed off Dean Road for a while.
MR. MILLER-All right. I’m glad you brought that up. That is a totally different structure, or
totally different use. It is only summertime. It’s for a 12 week, 8 week, 9 week period,
somewhere in there, 19 fields, they bring kids in, they’re there for the week, and they play
games all week, or practice. Tom could actually answer that a little more.
MR. NACE-Sure. That facility is planned to service only people, teams coming in from outside.
They come in from all over the country. It’s not for the local market at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Really? Okay.
MR. METIVIER-I guess, you know, and obviously, I’m sure you’ve done your homework or
you wouldn’t invest money, or at least I hope you wouldn’t, but, you know, I just.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MILLER-I’d be glad to show you the economics, and we still have some room for some
investors, if you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? Has Staff got anything to add? Could I ask
you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. 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-The first we need to do, before we do a SEQRA, is acceptance of Lead
Agency. Does someone want to move that, please.
MR. STROUGH-I still had a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-You did? I just gave you the opportunity before I opened up the public
hearing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I missed it. I’d like to have it back.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Seeing as how it’s your last meeting.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, this is 21.3 acres?
MR. NACE-Actually, the surveyors at the last minute gave me an update, as they were closing
and adjusting the property lines, and it’s a 20.62 or 65, something like that.
MR. STROUGH-You’ve got 20.6, but on the site plans and some of your calculations were based
on 21.38.
MR. NACE-The actual is, after the plans were finished and printed, as I was doing the
Environmental Impact Statement, or Assessment Statement, I made that change, it’s 20.61, I
believe, is the correct number. Yes, that’s correct, 20.61.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MILLER-Yes. On Page Three, the numbers after completion, 3.1, 7.9, and 9.6, do add up to
the 21.6.
MR. NACE-On Page Five I missed making that change.
MR. STROUGH-Well, on the plans when you go roads are 17.4, and buildings are 19.7, that was
based on 21.38.
MR. NACE-Correct. Those I will change, okay, but we’re still so far under the permeability
limit.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m just saying, so it gets cleaned up before you get to these guys
next time, because they, no doubt, would pick that out.
MR. NACE-Yes, it will get cleaned up.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that straightens that up, and all my other calculations were going
back and forth, okay, between the two. The only other thing is I have, let’s see, all right. So on
here we have 3.1 is going to remain forested. I’m on Page Three of Twenty-One of Part I of
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
SEQRA, 3.1 is going to stay forested. All right, but keep that picture in mind, 3.1 is going to stay
forested. Because when we get back to Page Five.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, Page Five is wrong.
MR. MILLER-Page Five is the incorrect number. That should be the 20.6.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but minus the 3.1 that is going to stay forested, okay.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-You’re right.
MR. STROUGH-That’s it. Just a little clean up work.
MR. NACE-As far as what’s going to be developed?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. Typically I look at that as if we’re going to develop the whole property and
even though we’re leaving some of it pristine.
MR. LAPPER-That’s wrong. You’ve got to take off the buffer that’s not going to be developed.
MR. NACE-Okay. I’ve always looked at that wrong, then. I’m corrected.
MR. STROUGH-Well, fine. That’s the last time you’ll have to talk to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move that motion, please, accepting Lead Agency
status?
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PZ 2-
2003 DOUG & TERESA MILLER, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Petition for Change of Zone application
for a proposed Indoor / Outdoor Sports Facility located immediately west of the Northway at
Sherman Avenue on the south side of Sherman Avenue, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a
Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has agreed to designation of the Planning Board as SEQRA Lead
Agency, and
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its acceptance of Lead Agency
Status for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of
Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such acceptance.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Long Form, right? Okay. “Will the proposed Action result in a physical
change to the project site?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m reading down through the list. Small to moderate impact, and what
would the impact be on?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the impact is the development of a wooded lot.
MR. SANFORD-Craig, at this point in time, are we supposed to be doing, I mean, are we a little
premature to do the SEQRA at this point?
MS. RADNER-You’re required to do the SEQRA at this point.
MR. SANFORD-We are?
MS. RADNER-The SEQRA is the first step before anything else can happen, and what you’re
doing your SEQRA on is sort of two things in your mind, the Petition for Zone Change, which is
what’s before you, which contemplates any potential use of the zone that’s allowed once you
make that zone change. That then becomes the zoning for this parcel, also keeping in mind the
plan that you know these people are proposing to develop the site for. So you want to keep
both of those things in mind as you do the SEQRA review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Should we get into site plan and find things that may differ from our SEQRA
findings tonight, we can always amend those SEQRA findings.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, that was my point, because we don’t know enough, really, about the
project, other than at conceptual.
MS. RADNER-It has to be sort of a worst case scenario SEQRA review at this point.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I’m sorry.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why we submitted traffic and stormwater.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Back to your list, there, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-Let me go down through the examples then, if the answer is yes. Examples
that would apply to Column Two, which would be a potential large impact, any construction on
slopes of 15% slope or greater, well, the answer here is no. Construction on land where the
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
depth to the water table is less than three feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or
more vehicles, construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of
existing ground surface, construction that will continue for more than one year or involve more
than one phase or stage. Here we do have three stages. Excavation for mining purposes that
would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material per year, construction or expansion of a
sanitary landfill, construction in a designated floodway or other impacts. So I think the only
thing we could answer yes to is there’s more than one phase to the project. Unless you’ve got
something else in mind.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Actually, I was thinking more in the line of small to moderate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface
water runoff?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but it can be mitigated through the project development.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we had two items where we had a small to moderate impact.
MR. HILTON-I just want to add one thing. In terms of endangered species, or threatened or
endangered species, the applicant, on their SEQRA form, as part of Question Number Eleven,
has indicated no. However, with the comment to be verified by New York State DEC, and we
don’t have any verification from New York State DEC as to whether there are threatened or
endangered species on this project, on this property. I just wanted to bring that to your
attention.
MR. MAC EWAN-At this point , we’ll stick with our no answer, and if we have to amend our
SEQRA findings during site plan when we get some sort of verification from a field survey as to
whether there’s habitat, we’ll address it at that point.
MR. HUNSINGER-Seems reasonable to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Neg dec it.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. PZ 2-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DOUG & TERESA MILLER,. 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,
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.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
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 23 day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION
TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR THE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 2-2003 DOUG &
TERESA MILLER FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO RECREATION COMMERCIAL,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
For reasons that were submitted as part of this discussion.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Should you get your zone change approved, when you make submission for
site plan, you’re submitting all new material.
NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLANS
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2003 SEQR TYPE II GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK AGENT:
FRANK DE SANTIS ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 696 UPPER GLEN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BANK. BANKS REQUIRE SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 91-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/10/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-21 LOT SIZE:
1.30 AC. SECTION: 179-13-010, 179-4-030, 060
FRANK DE SANTIS & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-2003, Glens Falls National Bank, Meeting Date: December 23,
2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 51-2003
APPLICANT: Glens Falls National Bank is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. building addition, new
canopy, lighting and new architectural treatment to an existing bank.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 696 Upper Glen Street.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int. Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a Type II SEQRA action. No further Planning Board action
is required.
PARCEL HISTORY: Site Plan 9-2001, (ATM relocation); AV 91-2003 related to this application,
seeking setback relief for the proposed building addition was approved by the ZBA on
December 17, 2003.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. building addition,
entrance canopy, additional site lighting and new architectural design for portions of this
existing building. The ZBA will review an Area Variance application associated with this
proposal on December 17, 2003, which seeks setback relief for the proposed addition. The 900
sq. ft. building addition is proposed for the Glen St. side of the existing building. A new
entrance canopy is proposed just to the south of the proposed building addition. The site plan
proposes new lighting for the entrance canopy, as well as new lighting to highlight the
proposed change in the building face at the west and north elevations.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
As part of this proposal, the applicant plans to alter the north and west elevations to look more
colonial like the main Glens Falls National Bank building in downtown Glens Falls.
The applicant also proposes to convert a driveway adjacent to Lafayette St. to green space. This
will increase the amount of green space at this site, and will remove an access drive, which is
very close to the Rte. 9/Lafayette St. intersection.
A review of the most current tax maps shows that the bank is actually located on three separate
parcels, two of which appear to be under the one-acre requirement of the HC-Int. zone.
Consideration should be given to merging these parcels in order to have all parking and
operations associated with the bank on one conforming property.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes a 900 square foot building addition, entrance canopy,
additional lighting and architectural façade for the existing Glens Falls National Bank. The ZBA
approved an Area Variance on December 17 for the required setback relief associated with this
th
project. The applicant has requested stormwater management waivers, grading plan waiver.
As part of the plan, the applicant proposes to convert a driveway to green space. This will
obviously increase the green space at this site and remove an access drive close to the Lafayette
and Route 9 intersection. A review of the most current tax maps indicates the Bank, and I’ve
just highlighted one of the properties here, but it’s actually spread over three different parcels,
and I guess the suggestion would be, consideration should be given, I guess, to merging these in
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
order to potentially remove any conformities. As it exists, it isn’t a nonconforming operation or
business. It’s just a, you know, for purposes of cleaning up the site, if you were to consolidate.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking the two easterly properties, the parking lot and that storage
building?
MR. HILTON-Yes, you’ve got the parking area here. You’ve got the main parcel here, and then
even this access drive which are three separate parcels.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HILTON-I guess our suggestion would be, you know, some kind of merging. C.T. Male
has submitted a comment letter which you have in your packets, you should have it. If not, I
can summarize it for you. That’s the only correspondence we have at this point. There is no
signoff. However, the items do appear to be minor. Consideration, I guess, could be given to
conditioning it on receiving a C.T. Male signoff. It appears to be a relatively minor project, and
that’s the only comment we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. DE SANTIS-Good evening. For the record, my name’s Frank DeSantis and I’m here on
behalf of Adirondack Construction, the designers and builders of the project. With me is Curt
Dybas from Crandall Associates, the (lost words) of the project. We received a C.T. Male letter
and (lost words) Staff notes two days ago. Just to address the issue of the three lot (lost words),
but I don’t have a response from them yet. We told them of the Town’s concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be a big issue if it was a condition of approval?
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t have any way to address it, is what I’m saying (lost words) any kind of
a response from them as to what their feeling is on that (lost words). The reason for this
application (lost words) variance received (lost words) is really twofold. Primarily the Bank
wished to improve the appearance of the structure, have it look a great deal more like the
Downtown office. I believe you have in your packages an elevation which I’m just showing to
you now. This is what the goal is to do. This moves out the foundation wall (lost words) Glen
Street requires a variance. Also the second story tenant in the building, a long time (lost word)
is the United Way offices, and the desire was to greatly improve the handicapped access to that
facility and we’ll be constructing an elevator, as you can see from your plans, and we needed to
create space for that. Also we wanted to move the night deposit box from the former ATM
location in the north corner of Lafayette and Glen to the south side of the building, and there’s a
canopy that’s being constructed on the south side which is shown in the elevation and on the
drawings, and this allows us to eliminate what we felt was an unsafe U turn driveway and the
associated signage and site lighting and therefore increase the green space. We’d also eliminate
the sidewalk across the front of the building and we’d create a much better traffic pattern in our
opinion. The notes from C.T. Male, we talked about the signoff letter that Staff mentioned, I just
want to address that. The only one I could see that (lost words) hasn’t addressed is the
possibility of the infiltration trench. I mean, the other one just says we’re increasing
permeability. (lost words) signoff on that, things such as that, but I’m going to let Mr. Dybas
address the technical issues here.
PROBLEMS WITH MICROPHONE (Not on???) (Some discussion lost)
MR. DYBAS-As Frank touched upon the whole (lost words) variance (lost words) first of all the
900 square feet (lost words) and the reason it’s (lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything Staff wanted to add? Okay. We’ll open it up, any questions
relative to building design, corridor design guidelines? Lighting? Traffic, parking?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the, it’s hard to imagine, you mentioned the old drive through.
It’s hard to imagine the level of traffic that they have there now going through that old drive
through. I mean, I remember when we approved the new drive through lanes, so I think
eliminating that is a huge improvement.
MR. DYBAS-The drive through that exists now that comes out of (lost words) is primarily just a
night deposit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. DYBAS-And that’s not an ATM or a teller machine. It used to be.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s what I’m saying. Yes, it’s hard to imagine.
MR. DYBAS-I remember when it was.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so do I.
MR. DYBAS-But it was a disaster.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-People used it for a turnaround and everything else.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It’s just a lot better eliminating it, and making it green space. It’s just a
win/win.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater? Landscaping/screening? Any emergency access
considerations?
MR. RINGER-The only thing we’ve got on that stormwater is the C.T. Male, and then his
comment number five. The applicant has indicated that he’d prefer not to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything I missed?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t see any real advantage to an existing structure like this, in putting
infiltration trenches around the perimeter of the building.
MR. RINGER-I don’t, either, John, but I’m not an engineer, and I just wanted to point it out that
our engineer has made a recommendation, and we generally have the applicant talk to our
engineer and say, wait a minute, I don’t think we need it here. It’s something if, you know, if
he questions it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’ll get a signoff. I mean, any approval you give condition it on the
engineer’s signoff.
MR. RINGER-Right. I certainly agree with that, and I’m sure Jim Houston will go along with
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Anything I missed? I’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment on this application? We do not need to do a SEQRA on this?
MR. HILTON-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I can do it. The only condition I’ve noted, other than to approve the
waiver request, was, are we going to ask the applicant to merge the three parcels, and I think
the reason why we’re doing this in a little by little manner is it helps, I think, on a County level,
get all these little bits and pieces all rolled into one when appropriate, and I think it helps Helen
Otte in the Assessor’s Department getting one lot, one project, one application rather than three.
MR. RINGER-And it stops it from being nonconforming.
MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, and it helps it to be more conforming when you do.
MR. DE SANTIS-This building is never going to be conforming because of the Corridor Overlay
Zone, essentially 75 feet.
MR. STROUGH-It would be more conforming, but it’s not a big deal to merge the lots, either.
MR. DE SANTIS-I understand, but I mean, this building could never be conforming, is what I’m
saying. The merger of the lots would not solve the problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the issue is the Town’s just looking for any of these piecemeal tax
parcels to merge them into one tax parcel and make it easier for accounting purposes and
documentation and following through. The only other thing you need to add to that is you
need to have a C.T. Male signoff.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2003 GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 51-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Glens Falls National Bank
SEQR Type II Agent: Frank DeSantis
Zoning: HC-Int.
Location: 696 Upper Glen Street
Applicant proposes addition to an existing bank. Banks require Site Plan Review and
approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 91-2003
Warren Co. Planning: 12/10/03
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-21
Lot size: 1.30 ac. / Section: 179-13-010, 179-4-030, 060
Public Hearing: December 23, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/17/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/20/03, and
12/23 Staff Notes
12/18 ZBA resolution
12/17 ZBA staff notes
12/16 Notice of Public Hearing
12/10 Warren Co. Planning
12/5 M. Shaw to F. DeSantis – Wastewater Dept. comments.
12/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on December 23, 2003; and
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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 Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Board does grant the waiver request for the stormwater
management plan and grading plan as requested by the applicant.
2. The applicant will merge the three (3) parcels into one parcel.
3. The applicant will obtain a C. T. Male engineering sign-off.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business?
MR. SANFORD-I’d just like to wish our fellow Planning Board member success as he moves up
to the Town Board and hopefully he won’t be a stranger and he’ll be able to join us in the future
for three minute comments. Once in a while.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, John.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, thank you, everybody. It was a pleasure working with everybody, the
Staff, Counsel, Maria, everybody, it’s been a pleasure. I’ve had a wonderful four years, and
might be back in two.
MR. RINGER-I had one comment on tonight’s meeting. You said that you wanted to meet with
Counsel and Staff with the applicant with the Subdivision for Schermerhorn.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. As a Board, we made a motion, a few years ago, that we, as individuals
or as a group, would not meet with any applicant, and I just wanted to remind you of that.
That, as a Board, we.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I offered to be there as a mediator, so to speak.
MR. RINGER-I’m only saying our motion was that we, you know, because we didn’t want to
get into a position where one member or two members or three members, you know, and we
did that motion in regards to the Great Escape because the Great Escape. I’m saying that, as a
Board, for whatever reasons, we made a motion and approved, or made it part of our rules that
we would not meet with an applicant on a one on one basis or a one on two basis or anything
like that, you know. I don’t necessarily agree that we should have done that when we did it
three or four years ago, I’m only saying we did it. Now we’re going against what we voted on.
So I don’t know, Craig. I just want to be accurate in everything that we do.
MR. MAC EWAN-What does everybody else think?
MR. METIVIER-In this particular case, I think that it’s good that you’re going to be there.
MR. RINGER-The problem was that, why this came up was that several years ago the Great
Escape kept asking to meet with Board members in a discussion item.
MR. HUNSINGER-Individuals.
MR. RINGER-Outside of a public setting, so to speak, and we decided at that time, wait a
minute, we could get ourselves into trouble here by doing these types of things. So it was
agreed upon or voted on by the Board that we would not do that anymore.
MR. MAC EWAN-In that case with the Great Escape, in that particular instance, that was to
discuss a project that wasn’t even on an agenda. That was a sit down and talk about a proposed
project they wanted put in front of us on the agenda. In this case, we’ve got an application
that’s in front of us. There’s some obvious differences, though, as to what the applicant feels he
needs to provide in order to have a complete application that would garner some approval in
this late stage of the whole deal with DEC having a second look at it, and I know Staff has had
discussions with them, and I just thought I was hearing, I was interpreting it as more or less an
(lost word) response.
MR. RINGER-I’m only bringing up what we as a Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and you’re refreshing my memory.
MR. RINGER-I’m not challenging any, you know, I’m just pointing out that we did this. For
whatever reason, we did it. Now we’re going against it. I just don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’ve got me wondering, should I not go?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know. I’m just saying we did this and now we’re saying, maybe we
should, maybe we shouldn’t have that rule. I don’t know.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
53