2003-02-18
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
ANTHONY METIVIER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL WOODBURY AGENT: TOM PRACTICO, BAST
HATFIELD ZONE: HC-INT. & MR-5 LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY RD., BETWEEN 369
& 379 BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STORY, 29, 952 SF PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE BUILDING, RE-PAVEMENT OF DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS, AND
INSTALLATION OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENT.
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ARE ALLOWED IN BOTH ZONES WITH SITE PLAN REVIEW.
CROSS REFERENCE: SP 87-89, SB 11-97, AV 76-95, SP 2-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-32/61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: 4.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-9-080
JEFFREY MC CARTHY & TOM PRATICO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a public hearing on January 28. It was tabled and left open.
th
MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-After the last meeting the Board tabled this with a resolution specifying certain
items that they were looking for. Some new plans have been submitted containing those items,
and we also have a C.T. Male signoff. So at this point I don’t have any further comment.
MR. RINGER-Anyone here for the applicant?
MR. MC CARTHY-Good evening. Jeffrey McCarthy with Ivan Zdrahal Associates, the
engineering firm. To my right is Tom Pratico from Bast Hatfield, representing the applicant as
agent.
MR. RINGER-Do you want to bring us up to date on what you’ve done?
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes. As was stated, this project was last before the Board on January 28.
th
Sets of revised plans have been submitted and copies of the stormwater management report
have been provided for all to review. The front setback was revised to 75 feet. The entrance
driveway was revised to a boulevard entrance. The dumpster location was shifted to the
northeast corner of the parking area. A six foot high stockade fence is proposed between the
western end of the parking area and the western property line adjoining west side townhouses.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
The water supply has been revised to be from Bay Road via a directional bore across Bay Road.
The water service that exists on the property connecting with Westwood Town Homes will be
capped and abandoned. Building entrance lights are shown on the lighting plan, and a cut
sheet was provided. Back on January 31, plans for the first and second floor building floor
st
plans were submitted with this application.
MR. RINGER-Did you get C.T. Male’s letter? He’s got it dated February 13, suggesting you
th
contact the County to make sure that it’s centered. Did you have an opportunity to do that?
MR. MC CARTHY-To contact the County?
MR. RINGER-The County Highway Department to make sure that this new entrance that
you’ve proposed is satisfactory to them?
MR. MC CARTHY-I did not get that letter, no.
MR. RINGER-Okay. It’s dated February 13. I don’t actually think that’s the date of the letter,
th
but he put it on there. He’s got two comments, and I’ll read them to you, or, George, would you
read C.T. Male’s letter that’s dated 2/13?
MR. HILTON-Sure. It’s dated February 13. The applicant was copied, however. It does say,
th
“In reference to the proposed office building, we have received a resubmittal from the
applicant’s consultant consisting of a cover letter dated January 31, 2003, a revised set of plans
(latest revision date of January 31, 2003) and a stormwater management report (latest revision
date of January 2003). The revisions shown in the resubmittal were made to address two
primary concerns raised at the January 28, 2003 Planning Board meeting. One concern was the
Board’s preference to have a boulevard entrance and the other was to tap into the water main in
Bay Road versus utilizing the existing main through Westwood Townhomes property.
Regarding the boulevard entrance, it appears that the revised plans address this request.
Regarding the water main, the plans show a new connection to an existing 12” diameter water
main on the east side of Bay Road. The plans should clearly indicate the proposed method of
crossing Bay Road and that Warren County Highway Department agrees with the construction
approach. With regards to the termination of the main at the west property line, consideration
should be given to terminating the main immediately after the tee that services the hydrant to
avoid leaving a section of dead end pipe. If you have any questions related to this matter, feel
free to call our office.” Signed Jim Edwards for James Houston.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see a problem with this, other than you may get an approval tonight
subject to Warren County Highway approving this new entrance. Okay.
MR. MC CARTHY-We went to Warren County Planning Board back in January.
MR. RINGER-Not County Planning Board. We’re talking County Highway Department now.
Bay Road’s a County road and you’ve changed the road configuration, and C.T. Male has asked
that you run this new diagram by the County Highway to make sure that they accept this
boulevard concept.
MR. PRATICO-I understand that. What is the approval when we go to the County and Warren
County?
MR. RINGER-It’s not approval. It would be that, we could give you approval tonight perhaps.
Part of the approval condition would be that you get a signoff from the County Highway
Department that the boulevard entrance is okay. It saves you a month.
MR. PRATICO-Okay. Fine.
MR. RINGER-And the other thing that Male had was terminating the main immediately after
the tee. Is that a problem?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. MC CARTHY-Well, that is not our property. We’d have to get permission to do work on
their property. Our proposal is to close the valve at that tee. Essentially that land becomes
abandoned at that point. There’s no water in it. We’re going to cap it on our property. So if
someone should open it, no water would flow. We’d have to get permission to go on somebody
else’s property.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I think we can get around that one, too. So we’ll start with the Board.
John, we’ll start on your end. Have you got any questions?
MR. STROUGH-Just a few simple ones. Everything appears to be in pretty good order here,
and thanks for the boulevard entrance. I think that makes sense to me, and it’ll look nice too, I
think, a little bit grander entry to your project. Now, previously, and I’m talking, I think, 10
years ago, we had a stormwater plan that was going to utilize 24 inch pipes. Are those going to
be removed, with the exception that I understand that subcatchment 12S is still going to use,
and that’s a very little part of the project, is still going to use those 24 inch stormwater drains,
but the rest of the project, it’s basically going to be on site, and I don’t have a problem with that.
It looks good, but is all the rest of that piping going to be removed?
MR. MC CARTHY-There’s no on site 24 inch pipe. The 24 inch pipe exists in Bay Road, which
this project, 10 years ago, when it was built out to the building pad, tied into that with a 12 inch
pipe.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. MC CARTHY-The detention basin discharges through an existing catch basin on site and
that, I believe it’s a 12 inch pipe along the driveway to the 24.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and in the original plan it kind of showed it going around the proposed
building.
MR. MC CARTHY-Those existing, essentially most of that will remain. Around the building
will remain. To the parking lot remains, and then at the parking lot edges, it has to be
reconstructed to reroute the water to the new basin.
MR. STROUGH-So they’ll be eliminated. What I’m saying, let me start over again. In the
original plan, the whole parcel was basically draining directly into the 24 inch stormwater drain
of Bay Road. Now it’s not. Reading your stormwater report, Subcatchment 11S and 13S go to
detention and retention basins.
MR. MC CARTHY-Directly, yes. Everything still drains through that, but it goes to the basins
first.
MR. STROUGH-And it won’t be drained, with the exception of 12S, they won’t be draining
directly onto the Bay Road drainage?
MR. MC CARTHY-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s good.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-Now the new boulevard entrance, is that going to hamper or hinder your
stormwater plan at all?
MR. MC CARTHY-No. We adapted.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. MC CARTHY-Previous workings around it.
MR. STROUGH-All right, and now the parking, you’re proposing parking that’s more than
under Code but not more than 20%?
MR. MC CARTHY-It’s basically, again, this parking is paved. It was paved 10 years ago, and
we are cutting some of the islands, some of the sections off to reduce it down to the regulated
no more than 20% more, and I think we’re under that still.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, the reason why I ask is, and I don’t have a problem with that, but do
we have to approve that separately, stating in a condition that we are approving the 20%
increase in parking?
MR. MC CARTHY-We’re not over 20%.
MR. STROUGH-Or is that part of the overall site plan? You’re not?
MR. HILTON-Yes, they’re not.
MR. MC CARTHY-We cut the pavement back. So we’re not over 20%.
MR. HILTON-So they’re fine.
MR. STROUGH-So they’re not over Code. Okay, but in any event, if we would have, would we
have to address that separately, or do you look at that as a whole site plan?
MR. HILTON-Well, I think the Code says you can’t go above 20%.
MR. STROUGH-Only with Planning Board approval, but is that like part of the site plan, or do
we have to address it separately?
MR. HILTON-I don’t know. That’s a tough question to answer. I think it might be something
beyond the Planning Board, but in this case it doesn’t apply. They’re within.
MR. RINGER-If they went beyond the 20%, then it would be a ZBA situation and not us, but we
can approve up to 20%, as shown on the plans.
MR. STROUGH-Right, but my question was, do you have to, like, make that a separate
condition, or is that generally?
MR. RINGER-It’s shown on the plans. So you approve the plan as you see it. So I wouldn’t
think it would be a condition.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well.
MS. RADNER-Yes, that’s correct. If you went beyond the 20% that’s allowed, you’ll need a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, but as long as you’re sticking within those
parameters, you can consider it as part of the plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Just one last question. For traffic
generation, did you get an estimate?
MR. MC CARTHY-I do have some figures. The AM Peak hour would be 102 trips. That’s
basically 3.4 trips per thousand square feet, I’m sorry. The AM Peak hour is 82 trips, 2.77 trips
per thousand square feet The PM Peak hour is 102 trips, 3.42 trips per thousand square feet.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. MC CARTHY-That’s based on a National Institute of Traffic.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Thank you, and I see we’ve got the fence and we’ve got our
Austrian Pines and everything looks pretty much in order to me. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I just have a couple of comments. I want to take a look at this, I was reading
the stormwater report on Page Two. The stormwater report is based on the 25 year, 24 hour
storm event.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I guess on Page Seven, it confirms, in your conclusions on Page Seven, it
confirms the use of a 25 year, 24 event. Now, 179-6-80, which is our Code, requires a 50 year
analysis for commercial and industrial projects, and 183-27 of our Subdivision reinforces that
and requires a 50 year analysis when retention and detention basins are used. Now, I noticed in
reading the stormwater report on Page Five, it says that, and will actually contain 50 year event.
Your design is based on 25 and 24, is really based on 25 year 24 hour storm.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes, but that has provided for a 50. If you continue to look through
Appendix B, there’s two sections. There’s a 25 year storm and a 50 year storm.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I looked at your conclusion first, in other words the conclusion on
Page Seven says the basic design criteria is 25 and 24.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And the figures that you use in there I think support that, though, don’t they,
the figures that you use in your stormwater report are all based on 25 and 24.
MR. MC CARTHY-Twenty-five year, 24 hour storms.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct, and we require the computations to be fifty, fifty year storm.
MR. RINGER-He has got, on Page Four, that the analysis of.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that. Page Four, it says that it will support.
MR. RINGER-A fifty year storm.
MR. VOLLARO-A fifty year event, but that’s not the design criteria that was used to put out the
stormwater report. We may be able to get around that by going along with his comment that
this design will indeed support 50 years, but the design’s not based on 50 years, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RINGER-And the fact that Male reviewed it, too, and approved the stormwater.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t necessarily have to always agree with our supporting engineer.
MR. RINGER-No, but we would be on solid ground if we did approve it with that, I think. We
could be on solid ground.
MR. MC CARTHY-Where was the reference to the 25 year requirement?
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-five year requirement is on 179-6-80 of your.
MR. MC CARTHY-6-80?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On Drawing E-2, just a real quickie for yourself. Correct the spelling of
“boulevard”.
MR. MC CARTHY-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at E-2, the large spelling of “boulevard” should be corrected I
think, just for housekeeping purposes. Delete the cross striping on, again, we’re on E-2. I
would delete the cross striping on the main drawing until the 24 foot wide interconnect is made.
I think that the detail shows that, if an interconnect is made, if you look at the detail on the
upper left hand corner of that drawing that you’re looking at now, it says that there are three
spaces there currently, and that when the drive through is made you will re-stripe the end. So I
don’t think that that drawing needs to show the cross striping on the main drawing. On
Drawing E-5, I just want to discuss the luminaire schedule on that. First of all, I noticed that,
yes, I just have a question. It may be an academic question more than anything else, but all
your wattage are 150 watt clear high pressure sodiums, on all 16 of your lights throughout the,
and yet underneath wattage, we get 295. We’re getting double the wattage out of 150 watt bulb.
I think these are kind of standard numbers. I’ve seen them before. I don’t quite know how you
get, like, for example, out of 150 watt clear, ET 18 inch high pressure sodium horizontal position
bulb, we’re getting 465 watt capability out of 150 watt bulb. I’m just trying to satisfy myself on
that one, as to how that happens.
MR. MC CARTHY-I’m sorry. I cannot shed any light on it. That was done by outside
consultants.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MC CARTHY-It is confusing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. I mean, I just don’t know how you get that much increase in
capability out of 150 watt bulb. It’s pretty interesting. If he’s got a good answer to that, let me
know. The next question I have is the placement of the Type A light. If you take a look at your
drawing, the lights are right in the middle of the driveway there. The boulevard separates a 45
foot wide drive, and the light is sitting right in the middle of the road. It might, I don’t know
how you want to do that, but you might want to put your lights in the middle of the boulevard.
That would kind of dress it up a little bit. I would think.
MR. MC CARTHY-It adds conflict. One of the purposes of the boulevard median is so that if
you have to, you can cross to the other side and enter. So I think you’d want to leave that as
unencumbered as possible, but they have to be shifted.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think moving the lights a little north will bother the radiation pattern of
the lights, or the luminate pattern, but they should come out of the middle of the roadway
nonetheless.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The last thing I have, Larry, is the site development data sheet. It
should go from 50 to 75. He’s already corrected his drawing to show the setback on Bay Road
to be 75 feet, but his site development data sheet should be changed from 50 to 75, and that’s all
I have, Mr. Chairman, on this.
MR. RINGER-Richard?
MR. SANFORD-I really don’t have much. I’m comfortable with the proposal as you seem to
have done a pretty good job with it. Just a couple of general questions, because I wasn’t at the
meeting when you first presented, for the first time, but are you planning on having four or
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
eight medical practices in this building? Because the first floor looks almost identical to the
second floor.
MR. PRATICO-We don’t know how the tenancy’s going to break up. It’s set up for possible for
four for each floor.
MR. SANFORD-For each floor. Okay. So at this point in time, you’re building it but you don’t
necessarily have the tenants lined up?
MR. PRATICO-We have one and a half tenants lined up. We have one tenant for sure.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, best of luck to you.
MR. PRATICO-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any comments. I think the applicant did a real good job
of addressing all of the recommendations that we had made at the last meeting. I guess I just
want to follow up quickly on Bob’s comment on the lighting for the boulevard. Would the light
poles go into the median then, or would they be shifted?
MR. MC CARTHY-No, I think they’ll shift to the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-To the north. Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing to add. I think you did a great job with everything that
we had asked for at the last meeting. It looks good.
MR. RINGER-And we left the public hearing open. Anyone here from the public want to
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-We’ve got to do a SEQRA now. Any other comments from the Board before we
start the SEQRA?
MR. VOLLARO-No, no comments from this chair, at least.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Is this the Long or Short Form?
MR. RINGER-It’s the Short.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s the Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
RESOLUTION NO. 6-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, 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.
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 18 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’re ready for a motion. Has anybody been working on the motion?
There are a couple of conditions.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Do you want me to run by what I’ve got so far?
MR. RINGER-Yes. Just do your conditions first, John, and then if you wouldn’t mind.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The conditions I’ve got so far is that the applicant will have to get the
approval of the Warren County Highway Department for the newly proposed boulevard
entrance. The applicant will have to get the approval of the Warren County Highway
Department for the applicant’s method of crossing Bay Road to connect the applicant’s water
supply, and the old or original water main entering site from the west will be terminated
immediately after the T that services the hydrant to avoid leaving a section of dead end pipe,
and the only other condition that I saw was from C.T. Male. He said that, he made a note in
reference to the stormwater management pollution prevention plan, the SPP must contain a
certification statement that should be read and signed by the owner and contractor, and the SPP
must include a schedule of construction as it relates to erosion protection measures. I didn’t
know if we needed to put that as a condition or not.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-I’d put it in and read it just like you did there. Make it Condition Number Four.
MR. MC CARTHY-That’s a previous. It’s been addressed since then. They are in there. It’s in
the stormwater management report. There’s an appendix that has the form in it.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s in there, John.
MR. SANFORD-I’m confused about the T, because I thought when you inquired about that.
MR. STROUGH-No, that was stormwater. This is in reference to the water supply main.
MR. SANFORD-No, no, but I thought that that was discussed, and there’s a misunderstanding
about that T because they claim they were going to truncate prior to even reaching it. Isn’t that
what I heard? The hydrant?
MR. MC CARTHY-Well, that’s our desire. We’d need permission to go on Westwood’s
property in order to do more.
MR. SANFORD-So you’re not going to be getting the water from that area?
MR. MC CARTHY-No. We’re proposing to cut it off at the property line. There’s a couple
hundred feet of main there now. So that it would be abandoned.
MR. PRATICO-After that valve, it’s about an eight foot piece of pipe through the property line.
MR. MC CARTHY-It’s covered on E-1, existing conditions.
MR. SANFORD-That’s not on their property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say the same thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it just seemed to make sense to me that you don’t leave something that
could go wrong on somebody else’s property, that you terminate it so that this pipe that’s not
going anywhere doesn’t present anybody else any problems, and I think I agree with, C.T. Male
suggested it, and if the applicant has to get permission from the owner to terminate it there,
well, I don’t think that as being a tremendous hardship.
MR. RINGER-I don’t either, John. Put it in your resolution.
MS. RADNER-You can’t condition it on somebody who’s not here before you tonight giving
permission. You can condition it so that they make an effort, but you can’t require it.
MR. RINGER-But couldn’t we, Cathi, require it, and if they can’t get it, then they’d have to, it
seems like they’re going to be able to get it. If we put it in there as a condition, and they can’t
get it, then they’d have to come back and say, hey, we couldn’t do it. Then we could do a
modification to the approval. I mean, we’re trying to agree with what our engineer has
recommended. This is a way to agree with what John has proposed, and a way to agree with
what our engineer has recommended. Then if they can’t do it, as you say, we can’t force them
to go on somebody’s property. Then they come back for a modification and we have to go with
another way.
MS. RADNER-If that’s acceptable to the applicant, then I would say yes, but.
MR. MC CARTHY-Could I add that, the valve is going to stay on the T. Because that’s a very
good way to secure the T the way it is. So the only thing you’re going to do is move a plug 10
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
feet closer to the T. I’m just throwing it in for thought. The plug is going to be there. It’s just
going to be closer to the valve.
MR. HUNSINGER-How close is the valve to the hydrant? Or is it within the hydrant?
MR. MC CARTHY-The T serves as the hydrant. The valve is on the end of the T. It’s on your
plan, Page E-1.
MR. RINGER-Well, how does the Board feel? Do we want to go with what the applicant has
suggested? Can we accept that?
MR. VOLLARO-I would, and I also would say that, in the motion, all I would try to do is.
MR. RINGER-As Cathi said, make an effort.
MS. RADNER-If the adjoining property owner is willing, then this applicant agrees to cap it.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, fine. I just thought that maybe our engineers misunderstood the situation.
MR. RINGER-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m okay.
MR. RINGER-Then leave that out of your motion and put in what Cathi says. As Cathi read it.
So, try your motion, and, John, the only other thing you might want to add is that this site
development data sheet show the 50, the 75 foot setback, be changed to show the 75 foot
setback.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I haven’t gotten over the problem with the stormwater
management plan yet. Are we going to let that go or what?
MR. RINGER-Well, let me poll the Board on that, because I got the feeling that Male looked at
it. They make the reference to the 50 foot, and I think that we could let it go, but if you feel
uncomfortable about it, Bob, or can’t vote because of it, I’ll poll the Board for you.
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s okay. If you want to let it go, that’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Well, that’s just my opinion now, Bob. If you have an opinion, if you don’t feel
comfortable voting on this because of that, I’ll poll the Board for you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, normally I would agree with Bob on this, but there were, there was more
than one reference in the stormwater report that the plan would be capable of withholding a
fifty year storm event, and it says that in the stormwater plan and C.T. Male did review this and
must have also come to the same conclusion. I’m assuming.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s an assumption, right?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just saying that the design criteria used was not the design criteria that we
want used, and that’s a problem for me.
MR. STROUGH-I’d agree with you on that point.
MR. RINGER-Well, Bob, do you feel strongly enough, do you want me to poll the Board, or do
you feel that you could go with it?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. VOLLARO-No, let’s have the vote.
MR. RINGER-Okay, John, then go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-By the way, the other thing in the motion is that the light’s to be moved to the
north of the boulevard.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, Bob. Did you get that, John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-These are the lights that are currently in the right of way.
MR. MC CARTHY-The drive lane.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s Drawing E-5, the placement of the Type A lights should be moved north of
the roadway.
MR. STROUGH-Of the boulevard?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the boulevard is north of the roadway.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So roadway is the verbiage you want?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. North of the roadway. Is that satisfactory to the applicant?
MR. MC CARTHY-Driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Driveway.
MR. RINGER-Do you want to try it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Did we still want to include the stormwater management pollution prevention
plan notation made by C.T. Male? But the applicant says it’s already in the stormwater report.
So is it there?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s certification statement of stormwater pollution prevention plan is in
Appendix D already. He’s already submitted it.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s not necessary then?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. RINGER-Right. I agree. You had three, and then Bob just added the fourth, I think.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then we are going to ask the applicant to make an effort to obtain
the adjoining property owner’s permission to terminate the water main after the T that services
the hydrant to avoid leaving a section of dead end pipe? Okay. Well, then I guess I can go with
it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go with it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 PROVIDENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
LLC, 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:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
Site Plan No. 6-2003 Applicant: Provident Development Group, LLC
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Michael Woodbury
Agent: Tom Pratico, Bast Hatfield
Zone: HC-Int. & MR-5
Location: West side Bay Rd., between 369 & 379 Bay Rd.
Applicant proposes a two story, 29,952 sf professional office building, re-pavement of parking
areas, and installation of drainage improvement to meet current requirement. Professional
Office are allowed in both zones with Site Plan Review.
Cross Reference: SP 87-89, SB 11-97, AV 76-95, SP
2-96
Warren Co. Planning: 1/8/03
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-32 / 61-1-37.3
Lot size: 4.08 acres / Section: 179-9-080
Public Hearing: January 28, 2003 [Tabled, PH left
open]
WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/14/03, and
2/14 Staff Notes
2/5 Meeting Notice
1/31 New info received
1/28 Planning Board resolution: Tabled
1/24 Staff Notes
1/21 Notice of Public Hearing
1/15 CT Male engineering comments
1/10 Authorization form from M. Woodbury
1/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
12/30 Meeting Notice
12/26 Wastewater Dept. comment
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 January 28, 2003 and February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
1. That the applicant will obtain the approval of the Warren County Highway Department for the
newly proposed boulevard entrance, and
2. The applicant will obtain the approval of the Warren County Highway Department of the
applicant’s method of crossing Bay Road to connect the applicant’s water supply, and
3. The applicant will make an effort to obtain the adjoining property owner’s permission to
terminate the original western water main immediately after the “T” that services the hydrant
to avoid leaving a section of dead end pipe, and
4. In the final submitted plans, light fixtures on Drawing E-5, Type A lights, will be moved north
of the driveway, and
5. The Site Data Sheet will be updated to show the 75 foot setback.
Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-My no vote is based on the fact that I can’t accept a design criteria that’s not
been used as called for in our zoning chapter. The whole design criteria that was used to create
that stormwater management plan was not based on a 50 year storm. That’s my reason for no
vote.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 55-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK PARILLO AGENT: ABD ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 92 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXISTING
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE TO BE CONVERTED TO A SATURN AUTO DEALERSHIP
INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF 44,000 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF AUTO DISPLAY AREAS. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE IN
THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-14/104-1-4.32 LOT SIZE: 5.76
ACRES/SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & TOM DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a public hearing on January 28 that was tabled, and also closed.
th
MR. RINGER-George, do you have anything?
MR. HILTON-No. Just since we last met we’ve received an updated revised determination
from the Zoning Administrator concerning the parking of vehicles, it’s location, which states
that a variance is not required, due to the fact that they’re using some of the parking for
inventory, not for the operation of the business. We have updated plans. We have new C.T.
Male comments. That’s all I have at this point.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper with Tom Davis from ABD Engineering and
surveyors and Rich Perrella, on behalf of the applicant, is here to answer any questions. I think
at the last meeting we got pretty close to an approval, and the application has been very well
received by the Planning Board. We had the parking issue that George just mentioned and
that’s all set now, which the applicant very much appreciates, as do I. The C.T. Male, we had
submitted the revised plans that addressed all of the C.T. Male comments and they’ve now
reviewed those revised plans and they signed off, with the exception of two very minor
additions that they just asked for on the stormwater plan, which we agree to as a condition as
provided for in their letter of February 13. This is a site that was untreated currently, that was
th
just sheet flowing across the site towards Hovey Pond in the back, and now it’s being treated
before it’s released from the site. So that’s a major improvement, in terms of the site design, and
the applicant’s ready to submit building permits and get going.
MR. RINGER-I think you’ve really done everything we’ve asked you to do, and Bob, we’ll start
with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would just, my comment, I think, Jon just gave the comment, but I
would, in a motion, take a look at C.T. Male’s third paragraph, and we’ll put that in the motion.
That has to do with the deep sump, three feet deep minimum, to prevent the rapid plugging of
the outlet, and just one other thing I have, and I noticed that, in our 179-6-020, we’d prefer the
use of high pressure sodium. We don’t say we should use it. I notice that you use that metal
halide lighting. Is there any reason for that?
MR. DAVIS-I would assume that that came from Saturn, as far as their use on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I know that our 179-80 doesn’t say you must. It says we prefer. So I’m
just wondering if there’s a reason for the preference of metal halide, and if it’s just.
MR. LAPPER-We are certainly complying with the Code, in terms of foot candle.
MR. VOLLARO-No question.
MR. LAPPER-But, yes, I think that those lights were a part of the spec from Saturn.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it’s a great, it’s been done. I think it looks good. I think it’ll be a
real asset to the community.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s it for me.
MR. RINGER-Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m at a little bit of a disadvantage, because I wasn’t around in January.
So maybe some of these areas have been addressed and I don’t know about it, but the alignment
of the street, under Staff comments, has that been addressed?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-So those things have been dealt with in January.
MR. RINGER-The way they were addressed, Richard, is that the, Jon, you try it.
MR. LAPPER-The location of the building, the part of the building that’s going to remain, is
directly across from where that intersection would be. Ordinarily, if we could, we would have
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
just aligned it, and cutting in our favor, in terms of not having to do it, is that that’s not the
customer entrance. That’s where the car carriers are going to enter to offload. So it wasn’t
possible to turn in and then turn around the building. So it was just a physical thing.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So I guess the other one that had to do with the green space, that
probably already was discussed as well last time. Okay. The only thing that I had, and again, I
don’t think it’s too important unless other people feel, when this was presented, I was at the
first presentation, and I mentioned that, as a general rule, we try to have properties connect to
other properties, and.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve got that now. We added that.
MR. SANFORD-You did add that.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s in the back.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. DAVIS-It’s not on that one there. It’s on the sheets that are in front of you.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. DAVIS-Down in that corner. It’s just easement for future connection, and it’s also paved.
MR. SANFORD-Thank you. I don’t have any further questions, then.
MR. RINGER-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any questions or comments. I did have something kind
of nit picky. On the revised stormwater management report, I noticed that it wasn’t signed by
the engineer. There was a line there for a signature, but it wasn’t actually signed. So, I thought
we should probably have a signed copy for the file.
MR. LAPPER-First I’m shocked that John or Bob didn’t catch that, at first, but we’ll make sure
to submit that. Sorry about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other than that, I thought it looked good. I commend Staff for their
interpretation on the parking issue. Because I thought we were really going to get hung up on
that, because I thought that was a real good memo that Craig provided for the file really
addressed the issue, and I think sets precedents for us for future reviews as well. That’s all I
have.
MR. RINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add. I think it’s a great plan. I wish you the best with it.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We had a public hearing. We closed that. John, would you possibly have
a comment?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you know, I’ve got to get back to my ageratums and Sylvias and
Millers. Now, we’ve discussed this, that skirting the base of these trees are the three flower
groups we’ve mentioned several times, and the last time, and I didn’t have the benefit of seeing
the updated plans, you assured me they were on the updated plans. I don’t see them.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll stipulate.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, how about this. You know the five maples along Quaker?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And the two around the bend on Lafayette, in other words, the front? Do you
see where I’m talking?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That I will ask you in a motion that you will skirt those trees in an arrangement
similar to the Central Avenue Saturn, with the Red Sylvias, Dusty Millers and blue ageratums?
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to write that down, John?
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got it written down over here. So is that agreeable?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Do you know where, just because the record has to be corrected. I knew I
saw Dusty Millers. On Sheet Two, the note about Dusty Millers is at the corner. It’s not at the
maples. It’s right at the corner of the site.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see the Dusty Millers. That’s not what, you know, I even showed you the
picture around the base of the trees. I thought we understood.
MR. LAPPER-We will stipulate that we will put the same as Central around the base of the
trees.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, the lighting, here’s the cut sheets, but when I go to the schedule
on the lighting plan, I can’t line up what you’ve given me as a cut sheet with what’s proposed
on the lighting plan. I’ve got the lighting plan here some place. So I’ve got One of Three, the
lighting plan, and it has the schedule of the fixtures proposed to be used. You see the catalogue
numbers on the cut sheets, and I’m looking at the catalogue numbers on the luminaire schedule,
and I can’t make them, I don’t know if we’re talking about the same fixtures. The fixtures on
the cut sheets are the ones we agreed to. I mean, I could just make a condition that the
schedule.
MR. LAPPER-I think the difference is that the catalogue numbers are, these are the Saturn
versus the manufacturer.
MR. STROUGH-All right, well then there’s no problem with me just conditioning them that
they will be of the SAT type?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s certainly the intention.
MR. STROUGH-As opposed to whatever they’ve got listed there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So there’s no problem with that?
MR. LAPPER-No problem.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, do you too, do you also have to apply for a SPDES permit?
MR. LAPPER-Just the construct SPDES permit, just the stormwater during construction, which
just has to be filed before construction starts. It’s not really a permit. It’s just a notice filing.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Did you ever get that clarified, the vehicle display in the wastewater
easement area? There was a note in the Staff memorandum of December 13, in reference to a
th
vehicle.
MR. LAPPER-The sewer line, yes. I submitted a copy of the plan, and I also talked to Mike
Shaw.
MR. STROUGH-I saw that. Did you get approval?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. As long as that was fine with them.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We added a note.
MR. DAVIS-There was a note clarification that the improvements that were put in the easement,
if the sewer line ever had to be dug up again, the owner of this property would be the ones to
repair their part of the property back to the existing conditions.
MR. STROUGH-I saw that. I just didn’t know if you had gotten the approval from the
Wastewater.
MR. LAPPER-The issue was that when the Wastewater Department raised it, they didn’t know
if those paved areas were actually concrete blocks, on sort of a structure, and they’re not.
They’re just pavement, but they couldn’t tell from the site plan. So it was just a clarification.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Are you the engineer for the?
MR. DAVIS-I’m representing ABD tonight.
MR. STROUGH-ABD. Could you quickly, I mean, I did read through the stormwater report,
but when we get to, you know, doing the sub catchments and things like that, my eyes can’t
read this. I can’t make, could you go through it quickly for me? I know we’ve got, what, three
sub catchment areas.
MR. DAVIS-Well, basically you’ve got one detention area here, which actually, on the last plans,
actually picks up this area here, and what we’ve got is we’ve got storm structure right here
which we have an orifice on. The water that comes from all the structures here and from the
building area come down to this structure and then will back up in the storm line that comes
from here up here back into here. It’ll back up into it. This is the control point for that
structure. I believe it’s a four inch orifice, and basically that’s designed to take and handle the
50 year storm for detention purposes. These, the storm structures that are here, are also have an
oversized pipe in it. I think they’re an eighteen inch pipe or twenty-four, I don’t remember off
the top of my head, but I can look at it real quick here. Those are twenty-four inch pipes. Those
are also for purposes of volume detention for the ponding area, and then this back area here,
which is part of this parking lot plus all this, goes to this detention area which is also set up for
the same conditions. As a matter of fact, this one here, in fact, is set up for, I believe it’s about a
foot and a half of the water, which would go toward a slight infiltration or percolation back into
the storm structures which runs down this way, but basically this portion of the water comes
this way. This area here, and this area drain to these and to these storm pipes over here.
MR. STROUGH-So there’ll be no direct stormwater flow into Halfway Brook, it all gets treated?
MR. DAVIS-All this parking lot here drains back this way, to this storm structure, to this one
and to this one.
MR. STROUGH-Which go to that detention basin.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. DAVIS-Which then goes through this detention and will go from here into the storm
structure that’s down here. It’s a 12 inch pipe, but it’s a 4 inch opening in the pipe.
MR. STROUGH-And one last question, and that’s good. I think that’s an excellent plan. One
last part. Where is the stormwater structure that C.T. Male’s referring to when he’s asking for a
deeper sump?
MR. DAVIS-We’re going to clarify that with them, but I believe it’s these three right here, and
it’s not just one. I think it’s three of them.
MR. STROUGH-It’s three.
MR. DAVIS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, well, thank you very much.
MR. DAVIS-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And that does it. So I, too, think it’s going to be a nice project here. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions from the Board? Then we’ll do the SEQRA. John, when
we’re doing that SEQRA, if you could work on those couple of conditions that you had there,
I’d appreciate it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s the Short Form again.
MR. RINGER-Yes. It’s the Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 55-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC, 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.
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
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
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 18 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Okay, John, how are you coming?
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got the first one done, but I’m going to need a little bit of time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I’ll give you a minute, 59 seconds. Take your time, John, I’m just kidding.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, in the motion, the C.T. Male letter has been entered in the
motion, the last paragraph in there. I don’t know if we have to reiterate it or not.
MR. RINGER-Well, it’s there, but we should make it a condition of approval. Okay. The letter’s
there, but we should make it as a condition of approval.
MR. VOLLARO-We ought to condition the approval on Paragraph Three.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but C.T. Male says consideration should be given, not that it has to be
done.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right.
MR. HUNSINGER-What I’m hearing people want to say is that we want to say that it should be
done.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think you’re right.
MR. RINGER-If they’re willing to do it, and he thinks it’s a good idea, we should have them do
it.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the applicant seems agreeable.
MR. LAPPER-We have no problem with that Paragraph Three.
MR. DAVIS-The (lost word) itself would be one foot anyway. So you’re really only talking
about a difference of (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Read your conditions first, John, and then we’ll go for a formal.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’ve got three that I’m aware of at this time. The applicant’s
proposed parking lot lighting fixtures will be of the SAT type as shown in the provided cut
sheet, and will be shown as such on the applicant’s final lighting plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-The five maple trees along Quaker Road and the two maple trees on Lafayette
near the Quaker Road/Lafayette corner will be skirted with Red Sylvias, Dusty Millers, and blue
ageratums, in a manner similar to that used in the Albany Central Avenue Saturn as depicted in
the provided fixtures, and, three, the applicant will get clarification from C.T. Male as to what
stormwater devices we’re referring to in C.T. Male’s February 13, 2003 letter that says that
consideration should be given to providing an extra deep sump, three foot minimum, three foot
deep minimum, to prevent rapid plugging of the outlet. Additionally, some protection should
be provided for high flows that enter the proposed standpipe. Those are the three things that
I’ve noticed so far.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The other one that I had was that the revised stormwater
management report would be signed by the engineer. The original one was actually stamped as
well.
MR. STROUGH-And the fourth condition will be that the revised stormwater report would
have an engineer’s stamp.
MR. HUNSINGER-And signature.
MR. STROUGH-And signature on it.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Are those conditions satisfactory to the Board?
MR. RINGER-Good. Now read the motion with all of them in it.
MR. STROUGH-I’ll try.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2002 NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY,
LLC, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 55-2002 Applicant: Northeast American Realty, LLC
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Frank Parillo
Agent: ABD Engineers & Surveyors
Zone: HC-Int
Location: 92 Quaker Road
Applicant proposes existing office/warehouse to be converted to a Saturn Auto Dealership including
demolition of 44,000 sq. ft. of existing office space and construction of auto display areas. Automobile Sales
and Service in the HC-Int. zone requires Site Plan Review.
Cross Reference: Many
Warren Co. Planning: 1/8/03
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-14 / 104-1-4.32
Lot size: 5.76 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: January 28, 2003 [Tabled, PH closed]
WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/14/03, and
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
2/14 Staff Notes
2/3 PB from C. Brown, re: Parking spaces
1/31 New info received
1/24 Staff Notes
1/21 Notice of Public Hearing
1/14 CT Male engineering comments
1/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
12/30 Meeting Notice
* Additional submissions – pg. 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 January 28, 2003 (left open) and February 18,
2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
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 applicant’s proposed parking lot lighting fixtures will be of the SAT type as shown in the
provided cut sheets and will be shown as such on the applicant’s final lighting plan.
2. The five (5) maple trees along Quaker Road and the two (2) maple trees on Lafayette near the
Quaker Road Lafayette corner will be skirted with Red Sylvias, Dusty Millers and Blue
Ageratums in a manner similar to that used at the Albany Central Avenue Saturn, as depicted
in the provided pictures.
3. The applicant will get a clarification from C.T. Male as to what stormwater fixtures we’re
talking about, but C.T. Male made a reference in it’s February 13, 2003 letter that consideration
should be given to providing an extra deep sump, three foot deep minimum, to prevent rapid
plugging of the outlet. Some protection should be provided for high flows that enter the
proposed standpipe.
5. The revised stormwater report will include an engineer’s stamp and signature.
Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 2-2003 JEFFREY L. AND SALLY A. KELLEY PROPERTY OWNER:
JEFFREY L. KELLEY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT A RESIDENCE TO A
RETAIL STORE, GIFT SHOP AND RESTAURANT-FOOD RELATED ICE CREAM STORE.
RETAIL STORE, GIFT SHOP AND RESTAURANT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IN MU
ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 72-2000, SP 63-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03
TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-37/129-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020, 030
CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY KELLEY, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a public hearing on January 28, 2003, that was tabled, and the
public hearing was left open.
MR. RINGER-George?
MR. HILTON-As you’ll remember, last month’s meeting this application was tabled per the
applicant’s request. Since then, we’ve received updated plans that substantially address Staff’s
comments and we’ve received an additional letter from C.T. Male. The only item for
consideration from the Planning staff’s point of view would be the lighting, the light spill on the
east and south property line, and any C.T. Male comments, water and sewer comments that
might be out there. That’s all we have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Gentlemen, please introduce yourselves.
MR. SCUDDER-For the record, Charlie Scudder, representing the applicant as his engineer.
MR. KELLEY-I’m Jeffrey Kelley, the applicant.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tell us a little bit about your project if you would. This is Old Business
and has been tabled, but you’ve never have come before us. So tell us a little bit about your
project.
MR. KELLEY-Basically it’s a reduced, scaled down version of a plan that was here back a couple
of years ago. At that time, we were talking about a restaurant, a gift shop, an ice cream and so
forth. Things have happened since then. I’m no longer in the bagel business. I don’t need a
restaurant anymore. So I still own this piece of property which is, well, separated by one house
from where Lox of Bagels still is today. The house is existing. It’s a house that I lived in about
four years ago. It’s been actually remodeled on the inside, and it has a new roof and so forth.
What we thought we’d try to do, from an economic standpoint, would be to utilize the existing
house, since it is relatively close to the street, which is kind of in line with the thoughts of the
Town with the new Main Street corridor. Basically keep it as, the house as a gift shop. Add on
a 25 by 35 addition for a soft ice cream business, the ice cream being a seasonal business from
April to October, 1 to 1 or 15 to 15. Whatever. The gift shop would be a year round
ststthth
business, and I guess that’s pretty much it. It’s not anything to complicated. We tried to utilize
the property with the building where it is now obviously. The addition is on the side where
there’s the most usable space. We’ve tried to keep the parking, I would say it would be on the
east side, which would be towards the Hess station, leaving the other side free, because there is
a residence there currently. I think probably somewhere in the back of my mind there might be
a potential use or further use or expanded use of the property on the west boundary line, so to
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
speak. So that’s why it’s all kind of left open at this point, but that would be something that
may or may not come later, and if it did, we’d be back here to do whatever. I guess, it seems
fairly clear cut to me, but obviously you’ve got questions and go at it.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Similar to your previous plan, Jeff, when you were here, that parking in that
plan, as I remember, was more in the rear than on the side, but it does.
MR. KELLEY-Well, yes, that particular plan, you came in on one side, drove around then came
out on the other side.
MR. RINGER-I think we’ve got three new Board members now that weren’t here when you
came before us before.
MR. KELLEY-They look pretty familiar.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Mr. Scudder, did you get the letter from C.T. Male on February 13?
th
There were questions in reference to your letter of February 7, where you answered (lost
th
words)?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, sir, I did.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now he had some additional comments there. Did you get a chance to?
MR. SCUDDER-To think about them?
MR. RINGER-Or do anything about them? If you’re familiar with them.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, let’s see what those comments are. He talked about the 100 foot contour
along the sidewalk behind the building. I, myself, I don’t see what the issue is. He merely
comments that the sidewalk should be installed such that it drains positively towards the
parking lot, and eventually into the new drywells. Well, that’s the intent, and that’s what I
think the plan shows.
MR. RINGER-You didn’t get an opportunity to go over it with Jim?
MR. SCUDDER-No.
MR. RINGER-Obviously, he must feel perhaps differently than you do, or he probably wouldn’t
have made the comments.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I don’t understand it.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t either. That’s why I’m asking.
MR. SCUDDER-Because it’s elevation 100 on the sidewalk, and it’s elevation 98.5 at the drop
inlet, and it’s intended that the slope will be, you know, constant across that distance.
MR. RINGER-He apparently made the comment for a reason. I don’t know what the reason is
either, but I thought you would. It’s his comment, I thought you would check with him. How
about Number Two?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s the same thing, just on the other side. He mentions this contour line
on the east property line adjacent to the Hess property, and he says this would raise the grade
slightly compared to existing grades.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Scudder, I think he’s talking about the fact that you’ve got an elevation of
98.69, sitting where this picnic area is. I guess those little round circles are supposed to be
picnic areas.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, that’s the existing elevation.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the existing elevation, and I think what he’s saying is that the 100
foot contour is a little higher than that. So that the flow would be in a westerly direction, and I
think he’s asking for some sort of a drywell to catch that flow. That’s how I read what he had
on paper.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, you see there’s a 100 foot contour on the Hess side, on the front.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that.
MR. SCUDDER-So, you know, as it is now, the land slopes in the direction we want it to, you
know, right now.
MR. VOLLARO-The Hess side has got a higher elevation than your 98.69, though. Doesn’t it?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So that means that the water shed from the Hess area would start to flow
toward your 98.69 without anything to interfere with it.
MR. SCUDDER-It does now. It does now, because I’ve got a spot elevation existing of 98.69, as
you just pointed out.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SCUDDER-And we’ve got an elevation, an existing elevation, of 100 on the Hess property.
MR. VOLLARO-So the Hess property is going to flow towards you.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it does now.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but that’s the other situation, but I think what the engineer is trying
to drive at here is some of that water should be caught and dealt with before it gets to the
property. I mean, I think, that’s how I’m reading his comment, when he talks about it.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, if the 100 foot contour goes where I show it, along the, just inside the
fence, it’ll be essentially flat across there, but when we get to our project, our water’s all going to
go flow towards our DI’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. RINGER-I think you’re going to have to discuss it with Male.
MR. SCUDDER-Fine.
MR. RINGER- How about Three?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I think that business with the Warren County Highway Department is
going to be similar to what was talked about with the previous applicant. If they have any
objection to the type of curb cut we’re proposing, I’m sure they’ll let us know. We’re going to
have to apply for that. As to the curb radii, we show 20 feet. C.T. Male thinks 25 feet would be
better. Well, okay, you know, that’s no problem.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Four?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SCUDDER-I interpret that to mean if we look at the sidewalk coming down to Main Street,
on the east side of the building, the suggestion is that we consider providing a handicapped
accessible sidewalk drop at the south end of the driveway. Well, that’s fine. When we looked
at this, we were thinking that persons with handicaps would park in the back and use the
handicapped ramp at the back of the building. That’s the intent.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t understand C.T. Male’s comment either, Mr. Scudder.
MR. SCUDDER-My inference is, Mr. Vollaro, that they’re thinking that there will be a sidewalk
there after the road’s re-done. I don’t know exactly where, and it would make sense that these
sidewalks.
MR. VOLLARO-See I look at the handicapped drop as an impediment to the flow of that
driveway, however. That’s the thing that bothers me on that. I didn’t agree with C.T. Male’s
Number Four.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, you’d have to depress the curb as well as the walk.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody coming in that’s going to drop somebody off, it would impede the
flow either in or out. They’d have to stop their vehicle to let a handicapped person off. It didn’t
make sense to me. Number Four does not make sense to me.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s a comment. It’s on there.
MR. RINGER-Did you have any other comments before the Board starts?
MR. SCUDDER-No. I think we’ve addressed. On the January 15 letter from C.T. Male, there
th
were 10 paragraphs, many more items than 10, and we addressed each one of those. So it’s
come down to this.
MR. RINGER-Right. Just those few items.
MR. SCUDDER-Just these few things, and they’re really throwing these things up, you know,
for us to think about, but from my point of view, we’ve already thought about them. It’s just
that they chose to comment on them. To me, they’re non-issues.
MR. RINGER-Okay, well, to us they may be. We’ll start, any questions from the Board? Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything to add, other than what was already discussed.
I mean, I remember the prior plan that you brought before the Board. You made a comment in
your presentation that ice cream would only be seasonal. Does that mean that section of the
building would be closed off? You would still have sales there. Right?
MR. KELLEY-Well, the ice cream business would be closed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-But the parking lot would, you know, remain open and the lighting and all for the
gift shop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KELLEY-Would all remain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was really the only question.
MR. KELLEY-But basically it’s, probably from an ice cream standpoint, it would be like turning
the lights out. I mean, I’m not going to board it up, you know, we’re going to be there.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KELLEY-I mean, some people, you know, when they close them up, it looks like a ghost
town type of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KELLEY-I mean, having another business there that would be open, I mean, I wouldn’t
want to make it look, you know, deserted so to speak. We’ll still have lights on, and the parking
would be lit at night. I mean, make it as good as you can and still have it not be open.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, Nothing else.
MR. RINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing to add.
MR. RINGER-John?
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Kelley, well, you know, I was pleased, and remember we all who were
here before remember you as the first person to be voluntarily agreeable to the Main Street
program that we’re trying to go along with. I’m glad to see you’re still at it. I’m kind of
unhappy that the other proposal didn’t come to fruition, but that’s life. It looks like you’ve got
a nice little proposal here, and I’ve got a few questions. Now, the lighting. I see it looks like
your standard commercial type of lighting. The reason why I mention that, that’s fine for out in
back. I was wondering if you gave any consideration to that first light pole near the entrance of
being an antique style, because if I remember right, I think we were looking at doing antique
style lighting in your Victorian looking restaurant, and I was just, you know, do you see what
I’m saying, the one that’s closest to Main Street. We’re trying to get that Main Street look, and
I’m just wondering if these are a little too industrial looking for what we’re trying to achieve on
Main Street, and simply changing that one pole to something antique, and leaving the others
back as proposed is fine, but, you know, addressing, because your house is kind of Victorian
looking. Even your new restaurant and ice cream shop is kind of Victorian looking. Have you
given any consideration to changing that light pole to something Victorian? Did you consider
that at all?
MR. KELLEY-I hadn’t. It sounds good to me. I mean, the better I can make it look, I’m in favor
of that. I think where it came from was I went to Glens Falls Electric and said I need a lighting
plan, and they said, okay, well, these would be the lights that would do it, and I said, okay. I
need the lighting to meet the requirement. If I can, you know, change that to a Victorian light or
maybe because of the way the light is dispersed, add another one on the other side of the
driveway or something to provide the proper illumination, I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. STROUGH-Don’t you have street lighting right there? Isn’t there a pole right in front of
the place or near there?
MR. KELLEY-Yes. I think it’s across the street. Well, I’ve got Hess.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it’s not dark there.
MR. KELLEY-I don’t need a light.
MR. STROUGH-But, you know, a Victorian, 18 style light, rather than this.
th
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SCUDDER-Do you mean similar to the lights up the way on the other side of the street, at
the convenient store/gas station?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not familiar with those. Downtown Glens Falls has some of the acorn
style, the antique lighting downtown. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-It’s just a Victorian looking single pole with an acorn top.
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, if you want to go fancier, that seems to be the most basic canopy, you
know, Victorian style design.
MR. KELLEY-Well, I’d love to.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, we can do that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-We’ll stipulate to that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to change the lighting distribution, John.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, the reason why I’m not concerned is that surface area is well lit as it
is.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. John, I agree with the aesthetics of what you’re trying to do, but what
we’re going to be approving tonight is this lighting plan, and what you’re doing is going to be
changing that plan. I think we’ve got to talk about that a little bit.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we will. We will, but my position is going to be that that’s near the front.
The front is well lit as it is, with the Hess station and lighting across the street. This will provide
additional lighting, and I don’t think being antique style it’ll be excessive lighting, because
generally the antique style is not excessive.
MR. VOLLARO-It depends on the wattage that they pick.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but.
MR. KELLEY-Could I make your stipulation for you?
MR. STROUGH-Well, we can work on that, Bob, but aesthetically, you know what I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have no problem with that. I just want to make sure that what we’re
approving, there’s a light plan submitted and we’d be approving this distribution of lighting.
What you’re doing is changing the lighting plan, essentially, and it’s going to change that.
MR. STROUGH-Right, and I don’t see anything becoming more serious than that. If anything it
would be less serious than that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but that’s true, I mean, as a statement, but the plan will change.
That’s my concern.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, we’ll talk about it as it goes down the Board. I mean, just as an
idea. Now, another thing, are you going to have a sign out in front? Now I noticed, in the older
plans, but I did not notice signage out in front on this plan.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. KELLEY-It basically, you’re talking about a freestanding sign.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-And then probably, well, it depends on the square footage requirement of the
Sign Ordinance, whether it’s two separate ones or it has to be one with a space in the middle,
whatever, on the building, so it would show ice cream and gifts, whatever.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Yes, the freestanding sign, we still would like to do something similar to what we
wanted to before. We had a, and it was going to be like an arched top, and it had this picture of
this Victorian woman painted on it, and then, you know, the different businesses listed below.
We still propose to do that.
MR. STROUGH-And there’s two reasons why I mention that. One is because I didn’t see it on
the new plan, and the second reason is when I looked at the old plan, and I do have a copy of it
here, but I don’t, I think you all know what I’m talking about. It shows it right on the filtration
bed of your septic system. Now, you know, if it’s going to be a monument style sign, and you
bury the posts, what, three feet down to give it stability, is that going to get in the way of the
septic system infiltration bed?
MR. SCUDDER-We don’t think so. When the road’s re-done, that septic system is going to be
abandoned anyway. You know that.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s too bad you have to put it in for just a year.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s life.
MR. STROUGH-But you don’t think that’ll be all right?
MR. SCUDDER-No, I don’t think it will. The laterals are six feet apart. They’re on six foot
centers. So it’s possible to straddle the laterals.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. So you’re actually going to start this project before we put the new septic
in, the sewer in, I mean?
MR. SCUDDER-You mean before the new road goes in and all that?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Yes, I want to start tomorrow.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right.
MR. KELLEY-Ice cream is not far away.
MR. STROUGH-I just thought I’d ask. Now, a couple of questions on the landscaping. I think I
know the answer, but I’ve got to ask. The area that, you know, is not labeled as parking, is this
going to be grass over here?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And this is going to be grass out in front?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he says on his drawing, John. He says remove driveway and walk
and reclaim area as green space.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. It says green space. Is green space grass?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would say green space is grass.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I just wanted to get some clarification. I did see that, Bob. All
right. Fine. That’s going to be lawn. Now we’ve changed from that. So the lighting fixture is
an issue that’s still. Have you, I didn’t see it on the plan, but are you planning on striping the in
and out lanes going in?
MR. SCUDDER-It seemed to me that it would be a good idea to have a center stripe, to separate
the lanes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-But not necessarily to run it all the way to the north end of the parking lot.
MR. STROUGH-No, but just to get people oriented in coming out and going in, so they don’t
get in each other’s way.
MR. SCUDDER-Exactly.
MR. STROUGH-So a center stripe would, okay. Just a suggestion, and you like it.
MR. SCUDDER-I do.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Also, while I’m thinking about striping, your pedestrians are going to
get some ice cream, and hopefully lots of it, during the summer, and then cross your highway,
you cross your driveway, excuse me, and go over to your picnic area and utilize that. Do you
think it would be a good idea if we put like a pedestrian cross path there? Or just leave it
unmarked?
MR. SCUDDER-You mean painted?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Because the new law says that if you have identified pedestrian crosswalks,
and a pedestrian is there to make the stop, the pedestrian has the right of way.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That goes with areas that are only identified as pedestrian crosswalks.
MR. RINGER-Does that apply to private property, Cathi?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if it applies to private property.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it’s a good idea anyway, and that’s not a big deal.
MR. STROUGH-But, you know, if people get in the habit of stopping for a pedestrian.
MR. SCUDDER-You could put it right across here, or something like that.
MR. VOLLARO-They do in California.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-They do in New Hampshire, too. You step in that crosswalk, that car’s stopped
dead, and they’re in a good habit of doing that.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-But I just thought for public safety. Let me see, and this color scheme, have
you determined that? And the siding type. Are you going to keep the current siding on it? Or
you haven’t gotten that far?
MR. KELLEY-We’re talking about probably redoing the whole thing, roof and siding.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Because we’re trying to tie something new to something old. At this point we
had talked about doing some kind of like a, you know, a narrow vinyl type thing, and new roof
so that it’ll all be cut, in other words, I don’t want it to look like an old with a new add on. I
want to make it all look uniform.
MR. STROUGH-Look uniform, yes.
MR. KELLEY-And basically new, really, but I’m not locked in on a color yet, or color scheme.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just thought I’d ask out of curiosity.
MR. KELLEY-We still want to do the Victorian theme idea.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-So I’m, you know.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me, and the only other question I’ve got, on the bottom of my
notes, what type of trees, are these going to be Hackberries? I didn’t see where it was labeled
what kind of trees they’re going to be anywhere. We talk about, you know, Cotton Easter,
Hackberries, Spireas, and then the bushes, and the bushes are all identified, but the trees aren’t
identified, except we’ve got, one Hackberry is identified.
MR. KELLEY-I want to say the trees by the, now the big tree, the big circles, those were
Hackberries. Up in the plant schedule there it calls for nine of them, and there’s nine on that
plan of the big ones.
MR. STROUGH-Well, they have the one to the west that says “DH”.
MR. KELLEY-Well, “DH” is that Deciduous Hackberry symbol.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So they’re all Hackberries?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right.
MR. KELLEY-And, I mean, I don’t know how much you want to get into that, but I asked some
more questions myself, and it’s a two inch caliper.
MR. STROUGH-I think there’s a Town Code on the caliper of a tree. Offhand I don’t want to
quote it.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. KELLEY-Yes. Okay. I have the sizes of all of those different evergreens, you know, by
inch size or gallon size, whatever.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s it for me. Thank you, applicant, Mr. Kelley.
MR. RINGER-Robert, you’re the man.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m the man, yes. I’ll just go through quickly on my notes. I noticed, Mr.
Scudder, on your letter of February 7, you referred to we submitted data to Frank D. Walters. I
th
was looking for, in your stormwater analysis, I was looking for references to his collection of
data, observed observations and measurements, didn’t see it. Were they transmitted to C.T.
Male?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, they were, and the soil log that’s shown on the drawings is taken from that
information.
MR. VOLLARO-The soil log that’s on the drawing is reference to Frank Walters?
MR. SCUDDER-Right. In the upper right hand corner, just under the location map.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it, where it talks about topsoil medium grade, this whole soil log
investigated by Frank Walter.
MR. SCUDDER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I see it’s on the drawing.
MR. SCUDDER-Right. There’s an attribution there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Got it. Thank you for that one. I guess what I’m doing it taking a look
at that comment that C.T. Male made and I looked at the drawing and what I did is merely
injected a drywell at that spot, for myself, you know.
MR. RINGER-You’re looking at Comments One and Two, you’re talking about?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at C.T. Male’s comments on those contours. I think that has
to be looked at. I see where you’re coming from, Mr. Scudder. It’s draining in that direction.
It’s a pre-existing drainage, and you’re just as, you’re comfortable with having it set at 98.69.
MR. SCUDDER-No, 98.69, Mr. Vollaro, is the existing spot elevation.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I see it. I’m looking right at it, but that’s the spot elevation for that, and
yet there’s a 100 foot contour line. So it says that the water is going to sheet flow towards your
project, somewhat.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think all C.T. Male is saying is can that be contained in any way? I think
it’s probably a question that he has.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, I think you said something about maybe a little trench along there or
something.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, he either said a drywell or a swale.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SCUDDER-Collected in a swale or a drywell. Well, okay, but I think it’s a stretch.
MR. VOLLARO-He talks about collection into a swale or drywell. So he’s giving you an option
there that’s, now, I don’t know. I guess you as the owner of the property probably should say if
it sheet flows to my property it sheet flows to my property, and that’s it. I don’t care if it runs
over. I mean, that’s a position you might want to be taking here. I don’t know, but I think he’s
giving you some fairly good direction as to what to do. I think maybe we ought to look at that.
MR. HILTON-Just a suggestion. I mean, you could condition an action that they get a final
signoff or that they satisfy these comments. You know, I don’t see where it could really hang
everything up.
MR. RINGER-That’s the way I was looking at it, too, George.
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Ringer suggested that we check back and satisfy these comments. So, we’ll
do that.
MR. RINGER-Well, we can give you, perhaps, an approval tonight with one of the conditions of
approval that you satisfy C.T. Male.
MR. SCUDDER-We’ll stipulate that we’ll do that.
MR. RINGER-I’m not saying you’re going to get approval, we’re a little preliminary, but
everything looks pretty good right now, and I’d hate to have you come back just for these minor
things, if everything else goes according to Hoyle.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RINGER-Bob, go ahead. I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the lighting plan, I noticed there’s a considerable amount of light
spill to the east, toward Hess, and to the south, toward Corinth Road. The spill over into Hess
doesn’t bother me any, because they’re a point source of light as it exists anyway. I’m not
concerned about that. I’d be more concerned about whatever spillage going onto Corinth Road.
John’s recommendation to put an acorn up would probably bring that light in a little bit because
I don’t think their as intense as some of these metal Halide lights are.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. We’ll cut down on the foot candles for that entrance light. His point is
well taken. It’ll be in keeping with what’s going on elsewhere along the street.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The average foot candles look okay. I mean, I did a quick look at the
average foot candles. They seem to fit our Code pretty well, and, again, everybody is using
metal Halide versus the high sodium, high pressure sodium. I don’t know why. It must be the
electrical contractors must be pushing that, are they, or what? What’s the story with that? All
right. I don’t have anything else. That’s the only thing I have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Nothing much. I’d just weigh in, though, I mean, that I actually agree with the
applicant that these comments don’t appear to be particularly material, and if we want to
address them some way or another, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t want to certainly hold anything
up, especially since it looks like it’s going to flow in the right direction anyway. So, that’s all I
have, and I wish you well.
MR. RINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Okay. We’ve got a public hearing
scheduled. I’ll open the public hearing.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Kathleen Salvador. I just have a
couple of comments. I guess most of you gentlemen were on the Board when Mr. Kelley came
with his previous project. I think if you know Mr. Kelley and his experience and his expertise in
this field, you would know that anything he’s going to do is going to be done right. I don’t
think you have to worry about that. As far as the lighting goes, Mr. Kelley has agreed to go
along probably with whatever there’s going to be on Main Street, but do we know, today, what
the lighting is going to be on Main Street? If we do, this is fine, and then Mr. Kelley, I’m sure,
will go along with that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, we do have a conceptual plan.
MRS. SALVADOR-There are plans? Okay. As far as this drainage that you’re talking about,
draining from the Hess property onto Mr. Kelley’s property, if they’re satisfied with it, and as
long as it drains downhill, which I think it always does drain downhill, I mean, you can’t push
on string and it always flows downhill. If there is any problem, it would be the Hess’ problem,
the Hess station’s problem, not Mr. Kelley’s problem. Basically, I think it’s a great idea, and as I
say, I think anything that Mr. Kelley is going to do is going to be an asset to the Town, and
that’s what we need in the Town. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, Kathleen. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Gentlemen. Okay. We’ve got to do a SEQRA on this, Short Form.
MS. RADNER-Type II.
MR. RINGER-Type II. No SEQRA. Why is it a Type II?
MS. RADNER-I’m not the one who did the analysis, but I believe, based on the square footage,
it’s primarily just a change of use.
MR. RINGER-I mean, I’m happy. I don’t want to do a SEQRA. Okay. Any further comments
from the Board? Okay. I feel that, you know, we can go ahead with this. I think we should put
a condition that the applicant does get further confirmation from Male as to Male’s comments
and come to an understanding. I don’t think it would be difficult. You explain to Jim your
position and he may agree. He still may have some concerns which I’m sure you’ll be able to
resolve. I think you got a consensus from the Board and from the public that you’ve got a heck
of a nice project here, Jeff, and it’s certainly going to be an asset to the Town.
MR. KELLEY-I’m trying. The only thing I’d say about, you know, where you talked about that
98.69, that’s an existing grade. Because it’s existing, that isn’t necessarily what the finished
grade’s going to be. I mean, if you’ve got 100 over here, we don’t know what that is, and you’ve
got 98.75 at the drain, it’s going to go that way. The other thing is, it’s a green area.
MR. RINGER-Jeff, it could make a thousand sense to me. I wouldn’t have a clue. That’s why
we have the Town Engineers, and they look at this stuff and I don’t think you’re going to have a
problem.
MR. KELLEY-But anyway, we can do with Male whatever we need to do to make it work. I
don’t have a problem with that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John, are you working on the resolution? I see you scribbling over there
really quickly.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Here’s what I have so far. The applicant feel free, if it needs further
clarification, to speak up. The southern most light fixture, labeled as A-7 on the Lighting Plan,
the one adjacent to Main Street, will be Victorian or antique style, and this fixture’s coefficient of
utilization will be similar to but not exceed the original lighting proposal. Is that okay, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-It makes sense to me. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s Condition One. Condition Two, the access drive will be center
striped for the first 30 feet. Is that reasonable?
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-From the Main Street intersection, and will be shown on the final submitted
plans, and a painted pedestrian crosswalk will be shown on the final submitted plans showing
pedestrian access from the building to the picnic area, and, Four, the curbed radii for the
applicant’s entrance will be relabeled to 25 foot on the final submitted plans, and you wanted
something in concern to C.T. Male. I’m not sure how you want it worded, Chairman Ringer.
MR. RINGER-I would say that, what condition are you working on, Four?
MR. STROUGH-Five now.
MR. RINGER-Five, that the applicant review C.T. Male’s comments of February 13, I believe it
th
was, and get a signoff or agreement with C.T. Male on final site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-If that’s one of the motions, then I would propose to remove a portion of the
special area, talking about the 25 foot radii, because that’s something that I think Mr. Scudder
and.
MR. STROUGH-I think we’re referring to Number One and Two.
MR. RINGER-Right. One and Two, Items One and Two.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, the first and second comments.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have Mr. Scudder look at all of the comments that C.T. Male
made are we?
MR. RINGER-Yes, right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That would eliminate the five foot, because he’s going to discuss that,
the 25 foot versus the 20.
MR. RINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-No sense putting it in there twice.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Your Condition Number, whatever condition that was, John.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. RINGER-Good point, Bob.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So I’ve got the applicant will review C.T. Male’s comments of February
13, 2003, with C.T. Male, and obtain a C.T. Male signoff.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SANFORD-I think, first of all, it doesn’t seem to make, initially, sense what C.T. Male is
saying, and I think we’ve discussed it at length, and to require the signoff may be a bit strong.
In addition, they’re talking about runoff from the west side of Hess be collected. Again, why,
aren’t they sort of talking about somebody else’s property here? Potentially?
MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Scudder makes a very good argument, and I looked at this, I read
C.T. Male and I listened to Mr. Scudder, and I agree with Mr. Scudder, there is no issue here. I
mean, it goes 100 foot down. I mean, C.T. Male seems to have an issue with it, and I think that
Mr. Scudder will be able to resolve that with C.T. Male. I don’t think it is a big one.
MR. RINGER-And since we’re not the Town Engineers, we should listen to the Town Engineers
and have the applicant go back to the Town Engineer and address what.
MR. STROUGH-I agree with you, Richard, but.
MR. SANFORD-I know, but earlier we had an issue with, Counsel came in and it was sort of
like, you know, it’s inappropriate for us to put conditions that may impact and involve
somebody who’s not the applicant, and in this case, Item Number Two seems to have a problem
with how water is flowing off of Hess’ property.
MR. RINGER-No, I think Counsel said that we couldn’t go on other people’s property. Is what
Cathi said.
MS. RADNER-Yes, my point was you can’t make a condition requiring somebody to enter onto
the private property of an adjoining landowner who isn’t even here. What we’re talking about
here is whether the grading plan shows the stormwater is going to be sufficiently addressed
and end up in the right place. I think it’s a different issue.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. KELLEY-Could I make a comment, just maybe for clarification?
MR. SANFORD-Sure.
MR. KELLEY-The Hess property line is curbed. I mean, there’s no water that comes from Hess
onto my land. It was just, I didn’t know if you knew that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a practical solution that makes sense.
MR. KELLEY-I only throw it out for what it is. Okay.
MR. RINGER-And your arguments should be made with Jim from C.T. Male, and I’m sure, you
know, if your points are certainly valid, and they sound valid to me, but he would be the person
to let us know and to signoff on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-He probably didn’t do a site visit.
MR. RINGER-We may think we’re engineers, or want to be engineers or want to be whatever
we are, but we’re not. So, John, your thing sounds good, and make it formal if you would.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 2-2003 JEFFREY L. AND SALLY A. KELLEY,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 2-2003 Applicant: Jeffrey L. and Sally A. Kelley
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
Type II Property Owner: Jeffrey L. Kelley
Zone: MU
Location: 87 Main Street
Applicant proposes to convert a residence to a Retail Store, Gift Shop and Restaurant-Food
Related Ice Cream Store. Retail Store, Gift Shop and Restaurant require Site Plan Review in the
MU zone.
Cross Reference: AV 72-2000, SP 63-2000
Warren Co. Planning: 1/8/03
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-37 / 129-1-15
Lot size: 1.01 acres / Section: 179-4-020, 030
Public Hearing: January 28, 2003 (left open)
WHEREAS, the application was received on 12/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/14/03, and
2/14 Staff Notes
2/12 G. Hilton from C. Scudder: info as submitted to CT Male
2/7 J. Edwards from C. Scudder: response to 1/15 engineering comments
2/5 Meeting Notice
1/28 G. Hilton from C. Scudder: request to be tabled to Feb. mtg.
1/24 Staff Notes
1/21 Notice of Public Hearing
1/15 CT Male engineering comments
1/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
12/30 Meeting Notice
12/26 Wastewater Dept. comment
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 January 28, 2003 and February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
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 southernmost light fixture, labeled as A-7 on the Lighting Plan, adjacent to Main
Street, will be Victorian or antique style, and this fixture’s coefficient of utilization will
be similar to but not exceed the original lighting proposal.
2. The access drive will be center striped for the first thirty feet from the Main Street
intersection and will be shown on the final submitted plans.
3. A painted pedestrian crosswalk will be shown on the final submitted plans showing
pedestrian access from the building to the picnic area.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
4. The applicant will review C.T. Male’s comments of February 13, 2003 with C.T. Male
and obtain a C.T. Male signoff.
Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. STROUGH-Well, good luck.
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen. One meeting you got it all approved.
MR. KELLEY-Well, this is good.
MR. RINGER-The first one in a long time. Good luck, Jeff.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DONALD
KRUGER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI LOCATION: 74 BIG BOOM ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6.00 ACRE LOT INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.64 AC.,
1.80 AC., AND 2.56 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-98 TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-
23.2/137-2-4.5 LOT SIZE: 6.00 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a public hearing scheduled for tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-2003, Preliminary Stage, Donald Kruger, Meeting Date:
February 18, 2003 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 6-acre lot into three lots. The property is
zoned Light Industry (LI) and is located on the west side of Big Boom Road south of Main Street
and east of I-87.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement:
The three proposed lots would line up from east to west with shared vehicular
access off of Big Boom Rd. from Lot 1.
Topography:
The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement of providing
existing and proposed contours.
Water supply Sewage Disposal:
The proposed lots have access to the municipal water system and
will be serviced by on site sanitary disposal systems.
Drainage
: The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement of providing a
stormwater, grading and erosion control plan.
Lot sizes:
The proposed lots range in size from 1.64 acres to 2.56 acres. All lot areas comply with
the requirements for the LI zone.
Future development:
No future development is outlined in this request.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
State Environmental Quality Review Act:
Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a short
form.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 43-98; resolved 8/18/1998, approval of site plan for processing and storage of earth materials
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to subdivide an exiting 6.54 acre property into three lots ranging in size
from approximately 1.6 acres to 2.5 acres. The proposed lots conform to the size and
dimensional requirements of the LI zone. Vehicular access for all three lots will be from a
shared driveway on Lot 1 as indicated on the proposed subdivision plat. This site was the
subject of a 1998 Site Plan approval to allow the processing and storage of earth materials.
The applicant has submitted a request for the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading and Erosion Control Plan
-
Sketch Plan submission
-
Mapping of Topographic Contours
-
Future development for this site has not been indicated on the proposed plat, however any
future development will require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board.”
MR. RINGER-Comments, George?
MR. HILTON-The application is a Preliminary Stage subdivision which proposes the
subdivision of one Light Industrially zoned lot into three lots which conform to the size of the
underlying zone. The applicant has submitted waivers for stormwater management, waiver
requests from stormwater management plan, grading and erosion control, Sketch Plan
submission and topographic contours. Any future development on these lots within this zone
will require site plan review anyways. So Staff doesn’t have a problem with granting, or
considering these waivers. That’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, representing Don Kruger. I guess
first thing just let me set the record straight. As far as the agenda, the way it was noted, I guess
what we just found out, according to your Code, all subdivisions are Type I, and this
subdivision is Unlisted. So for the record.
MR. HILTON-We still have it listed as Unlisted. However, in the Subdivision Regulations, and
I was going to get to that when we got to SEQRA, Type I or Unlisted subdivisions, per our
Code, require a Long Form. So it’s still an Unlisted action, but they have submitted a Long
Form for the SEQRA, for you to consider SEQRA.
MR. NACE-My mistake. Okay. No real issues here. It’s simply an existing six acre lot between
Big Boom Road and the Northway. Don has been marketing the lot for a while. He finds that
it’s really too large to fit the types of potential buyers that he’s seeing. Therefore we came up
with a way to subdivide it where it would not require any infrastructure the Town would have
to maintain. Shared common driveway. Even though they are flag-shaped lots, it allows the
shared common driveway so there’s only one access onto Big Boom Road. We located that at
the northern end of the lot where it lines up opposite one of the driveways into Glen Batease’s
site on the far side of the road, and very simply three lots, no infrastructure, no improvements
at this time, other than subdividing land.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s it, Tom?
MR. NACE-That’s it.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Okay. Tony, you’re up. All right.
MR. METIVIER-The only real question I have, it seems like a simple subdivision. I would
assume that you wouldn’t ever come back for a rezoning from Light Industrial to another use.
MR. NACE-At this stage, I can’t predict what any potential purchaser of one of the lots would
come back for, but, the intent is to still keep it Light Industrial. I think that’s what, you know, is
there, adjacent uses, but as far as I know, that’s the thrust at this point.
MR. RINGER-That’s it, Tony? Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-All the information only mentions Preliminary Stage. You’re not looking for
Final Stage?
MR. NACE-Well, we hadn’t been here for concept. This is the first time we brought it to you.
So we figured we’d ask for Preliminary, and be back next month for Final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-If you want to give us Final, we’ll accept it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I just wanted to clarify your intention.
MR. RINGER-We don’t have an application for Final. So we couldn’t do it anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, exactly. That was really the only question that I have. I thought it
looked pretty straightforward.
MR. SANFORD-It’s straightforward. You just really want to put this together in a way that it’s
more likely to be marketed to potential businesses.
MR. NACE-Correct. To a two acre lot, you can go in and put a 5 or 6,000 square foot building,
and, you know, develop a small business, and that seems, you know, the way we’re developing
now around here, industrially, at least, it’s smaller companies and not a need for big areas.
MR. SANFORD-I have nothing further at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-The first thoughts I had was, and I just want to run this by the Planning Board.
Any time we get a situation where we have limited access to a back area, we’ve asked for a
boulevard styled entry. Now I know this isn’t residential, and I don’t know if that makes a
difference with my fellow Planning Board members or not, but I wondered if you got your plan
reviewed by, who’s the Fire Chief, would this be West Glens Falls, Larry?
MR. RINGER-Yes, West, but it’s 80 foot across there. Isn’t it?
MR. STROUGH-How far is it?
MR. NACE-How far back?
MR. HUNSINGER-Four hundred and twenty-six.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Four hundred and twenty-six feet.
MR. NACE-It’s 400 feet, which is not very long.
MR. STROUGH-But like I said, it’s just an idea that’s just one of the thoughts that I’ve had, but
this is Light Industrial. I don’t know if that makes a difference. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to get
this run by the Fire Chief over there and see what he thinks about a single access to that back
lot.
MR. SANFORD-How wide is the road?
MR. NACE-The road is, we’ve provided the 40 feet of common shared ingress/egress. Okay.
Whoever develops the first lot in there is going to set, you know, with whatever they come in
for a site plan, is going to set the precedence for what the road’s going to be. So that might
really, it might be a more appropriate or easier for the Fire Chief to comment once he knows
what the use is, or at least what the first use is going to be.
MR. RINGER-Also, John, a boulevard entryway, when you’re dealing with tractor trailers and
stuff, is really not a really effective.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I just threw it out there for an idea, Larry.
MR. RINGER-No, I’m just pointing out.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s a good point.
MR. NACE-Yes, tractor trailers will use, at least at the entrance for the first 50 to 75 feet will use
both lanes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-No, that was my only thought, and then we are going to get, you know, when
it comes to Final where the easements and the showing the utilities and all that stuff.
MR. NACE-Yes. Well, no, for Final?
MR. RINGER-No, you won’t get that until site plan.
MR. NACE-That’ll be for site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Site plan.
MR. NACE-The final subdivision plat is going to look like just what you see.
MR. STROUGH-Well, conceptually, I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I said was grant the waivers. That’s the only comment I’ve got on my
thing.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. NACE-Okay. That sounds good to me.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled. Anyone from the public wish to
speak? John, I thought we were going to wait for you to come up with your own thing tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. With regard to the shared common access, I
believe they need something to conform to the requirements of the general business law, and I
think it’s Section 352E, which talks about shared ownership. There is a way, the Attorney
General does have a procedure for shortcutting, what you might call an offering plan, a
homeowners document for something they call a diminimus interest, but there is a procedure to
go through, and they should have this in place before they sell lots. I think you’ll find Town
Law Section 280A talks about these non-municipal type roads and access, and there are very,
very stringent requirements with regard to emergency access and all of that, but I think it has to
be all part of this plan before the subdivider goes to market with the lots. That’s a requirement,
Section 352E of the General Business Law and Section 280A of Town Law.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, John. Any other comments from the public? I’ll close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Cathi, John made some comments. Wouldn’t a simple easement do the job?
MS. RADNER-I’m not prepared to comment on them at this point. I haven’t (lost words) to the
issues raised, and I don’t think they’re germane to.
MR. RINGER-Well, when you get a shared driveway like this, aren’t easements from one to the
other, isn’t that the way that they normally work?
MS. RADNER-There’s more than one way they can work. You can have a dominant estate, and
a serving estate, so that one part for the owner owns the driveway and other property owners
have access to use it. You can have a driveway that straddles the property line with cross
easements. There’s different ways to do it that affect the property owner’s rights, visa vie one
another, and create enforceable rights to them. Different issues are raised with respect to the
Town’s enforcement abilities in regard to what has been approved as part of a plat. The Town
has been encouraging the use of shared driveway and shared access because of the limits of
curb cuts and the better direction and flow of traffic, and so they’ve been encouraging these
sorts of agreements between owners of properties and there are most assuredly ways you can
accomplish it.
MR. RINGER-We wouldn’t be in any difficulties the way this is presented to us tonight,
subdividing it?
MR. NACE-Yes. There’s going to be ownership. Each piece is going to have their own fee
ownership with the cross easements to allow ingress and egress.
MS. RADNER-Yes, particularly for Preliminary Stage you may wish to, before granting Final,
review the easement language to make sure that it’s going to assure access.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, Cathi. Any comments from the Board? Okay. We’ve got a Long
Form on this.
MR. STROUGH-Do we do that at Preliminary?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-Yes, we do the SEQRA on the Preliminary. That gives them the right to go into
Final.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 3-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DONALD KRUGER, 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.
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 18 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
TH
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to clarify one point. There is no septic required to be shown on this
drawing, and I notice in the Long Form we have is subsurface liquid waste proposal disposal
involved and it says yes, and really we don’t know what that is yet.
MR. NACE-Well, in the Long Form we’ve got to consider the ultimate development of the land
that we’re subdividing. So, ultimately, when that’s subdivided, whatever’s on there will have a
septic system, unless sewers get up Corinth Road first.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. RINGER-All right. We need a motion.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2003 DONALD
KRUGER, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by
Subdivision No. 3-2003 Applicant / Owner: Donald Kruger
PRELIMINARY STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering
Type: Unlisted Zone: LI
Location: 74 Big Boom Road
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6.00 acre lot into 3 lots of 1.64 ac., 1.80 ac. and 2.56 acres.
Cross Reference: SP 43-98
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.2 / 137-2-4.5
Lot size: 6.00 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: February 18, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 1/15/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 2/14/03 and
2/14 Staff Notes
2/11 Notice of Public Hearing
2/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on
February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. We would like to see the easement language being used for this proposal, so that
Counsel may review that before Final.
2. Waiver request(s) are granted: Submission of Sketch Plan, Topographic and 2 foot
contours, Stormwater Management Plan, Grading & Erosion Control Plan.
Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Do we want to condition this that we do want to see the easement language
and have Counsel review that?
MR. RINGER-Won’t need it until the Final, I wouldn’t think.
MR. STROUGH-We’ll need that for Final?
MR. RINGER-Cathi?
MS. RADNER-You can place conditions on Preliminary, and then you just have to understand
those conditions have to be satisfied before Final. So by all means you can place that as a
condition.
MR. RINGER-Do it then, John.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-That’s it. Now you’re all set, Tom.
MR. NACE-Now I’m all set. Is there any chance that if I submitted a Final application and
resolved this issue with Counsel, that we could get back on for next week for the Final, since it’s
a real simple? Or is that asking too much?
MR. RINGER-If you can get all the information, can they do it in time, George?
MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, today was the deadline. Today was the submission deadline.
MR. NACE-The deadline. Okay.
MR. RINGER-So we’ve got to advertise the public hearing. We wouldn’t be able to do the
public hearing.
MR. NACE-You just did the public hearing.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I’d still have to have a public hearing for the Final.
MR. NACE-For Final? No. You don’t have a public hearing for Final.
MR. HILTON-I believe we traditionally have.
MR. NACE-For a subdivision?
MR. RINGER-Well, normally we do the Preliminary and the Final together. So we do the public
hearing together, but if we don’t need a public hearing, I don’t see any reason why you can’t be
on next Tuesday. I’m trying to recall next Tuesday’s agenda, but it doesn’t seem like we’ve got
a heck of a lot on.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I was just looking at it.
MR. RINGER-It’s practically nothing.
MR. VOLLARO-Pretty simple.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MS. RADNER-Planning Board’s may require a public hearing. It’s at your discretion.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then I’m going to say go for it, and you’ll get on next Tuesday. George,
would you put them on.
MR. HILTON-Next Tuesday.
MR. NACE-I really appreciate that. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN SALVADOR, JR. ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: DUNHAM’S BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF BRICK
PAVING STONES ON LESS THAN 10% SLOPES. NO SHORELINE FILL/HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF ANY LAKE SHALL BE PERMITTED EXCEPT BY SITE
PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: SP 25-99,
LETTER FROM Z.A. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 252-1-75.3 LOT
SIZE: 6.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-60D2e(4)
JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-And there is a public hearing scheduled for tonight.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The applicant’s proposal, which is an approximately 100 square foot area of hard
surface to serve as an access walkway on their property. It seems to be a very minimal
application in regards to stormwater, erosion, drainage issues such as that. However, there are
some concerns about the location and the potential of it being within a Town right of way and
Staff suggests that further comment be sought from the Town Highway Superintendent. That’s
all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-I talked to you this afternoon. Did you get an opportunity to talk to Rick?
MR. HILTON-We’ve made an attempt to talk to him. We have talked to him, and I think at this
point it’s going to need, we’re going to have to pursue it further, in order to get some more
discussions going with them.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I also had a chance to call Rick’s office on this same subject, because I was
interested in it, and I was told to talk to you, Mr. Hilton. That you had the answers. So I had
assumed from that that because she had talked to John on the mobile, not to John, but to Rick
Missita.
MR. HILTON-Right. I don’t have the final answer. I can tell you that, that certainly I think
because of the issue at hand, the Town Highway Superintendent should at least, and his
opinion is going to supercede mine, but I can tell you in a conversation with him, he did not
provide a written or otherwise opinion, and I still think that that’s something that’s necessary.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what’s the issue here. What’s the big issue here?
MR. HILTON-The location as it relates to the Town right of way. If he’s constructing a
walkway within the Town right of way, I think that’s to the discretion of the Town Highway
Superintendent, whether or not to approve that, and since we have no comment from him at
this point, I can’t sit here and say that it’s allowable or not allowable.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SANFORD-I’m wondering what difference, what they’re proposing what is the material
difference that it’s going to make for, I guess you’re talking about potentially plowing a road. Is
that the issue?
MR. HILTON-Well, I think that that’s something the Highway Superintendent would have to
address or answer. It could be some issues with maintenance of the roadway. I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Could I ask a question? Does he plow the roadway now?
MR. RINGER-But, Bob, let’s stay with George and get this, and then when we get to John.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, you know, I’m going to, I think this is, I’d like to hear.
MR. RINGER-I agree with you, Bob, but let’s finish up here.
MR. SANFORD-I’d like to hear from the applicant, but I think we’re making a mountain out of
a mole hill here on this whole issue, but that’s one person’s opinion.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s two people’s opinion.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. HILTON-Again, as I said to you previously, I don’t think that it will have a negative
impact, as far as stormwater and drainage. The location itself is an issue that I cannot address
and answer personally, and Staff, Planning Staff, can’t do that.
MR. SANFORD-But we can here.
MR. HILTON-Well, I think that the, I guess the Highway Superintendent has.
MR. RINGER-Going from there, let me try from there. I think where we probably might end up
tonight, and I think the majority of the Board is probably perhaps with you and Bob on your,
what the heck is this. However, I think that if we do approve it, it’ll be approved with the
condition that it is acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent. I think that’s what we’ll
end up doing, but we do want to hear from, I’m sorry, go ahead, Cathi.
MS. RADNER-I was just going to tell you, in general terms, I know that the Town’s Highway
Department rather jealously guards it’s right of way and there have been some issues with other
Town citizens over the years who put permanent things in the right of way like boulders and
things like that, and it’s probably concern for those sorts of issues that makes the Planning Staff
very sensitive, because we know that Mr. Missita doesn’t like anything permanent in the right
of way where he might need to go for road maintenance and for construction
MR. RINGER-We learned about boulders, anyway, a couple of years ago. In any event, Cathi,
well, let’s go through it and then we may come back for legal for some opinions, okay. So, John,
the floor is yours, if you would please identify yourself, although I think I identified you.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen, and we
are the applicants. The first thing I’d like to do is just pass out a short sketch I did here as a
result of our appearance at the County where they recommended a stormwater control, which
we can do if you think it’s necessary, and what I’ve prepared here is a short sketch and I’ll hand
that to you now.
MR. RINGER-The County recommended a stormwater?
MR. SALVADOR-George, would you?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. HILTON-I must tell you that we didn’t receive our copy of the County’s actions until
today. It’s dated 2/18, but they did have a recommended stipulation that they address
stormwater impacts, and once I get to it exactly here I can read you the recommendation. The
County Planning Board recommendation says No County Impact with stipulation. “The
County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the Stipulation that stormwater
and erosion control methods be implemented to minimize impact on Lake George.” That’s how
it reads.
MR. RINGER-John, go ahead and pass out, you gave Staff one of these, too?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I did.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we find it increasingly necessary to provide barrier free access for our
guests, our clients, our employees, and we do maintain boat dockage in this area. You see on
the map, and we do have a sailing charter there, and frequently they do cater to groups. These
are handicapped children who come and they will, six of them at a time, will get on a very large
boat, sailboat, and go out onto the Lake, and we just find it necessary, it’s difficult for them to
traverse this area. It’s not hard going down, but coming back trying to go up that slope without
having some kind of stabilization, makes it extremely difficult. So that’s why we’re proposing
this. The parking place is already there. The parking area already exists. It’s the slope. It’s
what we’re putting in, the pavers are well outside of what the Highway Superintendent might
claim as his right of way. In fact, the right of way is listed as a 17 foot wide road, Town road by
use. So, we’ve, on previous occasion, have asked the Highway Superintendent, it was Mr.
Naylor at the time, to locate that. He refused to do it. Because we set back from this, wherever
his road is, 17 feet wide, we set back from it, and that’s where you measure a setback from, and
we’ve had difficulty in the past, I don’t know what, and that was the Zoning Board of Appeals’
Chairman who asked him to locate the center line and he refused to do it.
MR. RINGER-Well, Paul was his own person, and Rick is a little easier.
MS. RADNER-Larry, just to bring you up to date, what had happened is there was two maps
submitted, one that was referred to as the Steves’ map, which is the one that Rick Missita felt
was accurate, and a map submitted by Mr. Salvador. Mr. Salvador asked the Town Highway
Superintendent, who was at the time Mr. Naylor, to go out and lay out the center line of the
Road. Mr. Naylor’s position was, in a nutshell, the road is where the road is, and he felt that the
Steves map was accurate and refused to lay out the center line. It went to court, and the court
found that Mr. Naylor was correct on that point. So it’s not just a matter of Mr.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me it’s still in court.
MRS. SALVADOR-It’s still in court.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s still in court.
MS. RADNER-Okay. The determination which was published is you are not entitled to a
mandamus action, and it upheld the determination of Paul Naylor.
MR. SALVADOR-That was the first, that was the first, there’s an action pending, before, I
believe, Judge Alessy right now, on the issue of the 17 foot wide location of the center line of the
road.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Cathi?
MS. RADNER-That’s it, just wanted to make sure you were up to date.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anything else, John?
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-If you have any questions.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll start now. We’ll start, John, on your end.
MR. STROUGH-All right. John, when was the last time this was surveyed, or has this road ever
been surveyed?
MR. SALVADOR-The road?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s Mr. Naylor’s job.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what we’re discussing.
MR. SALVADOR-What you see here, this line, is the land taking line for the right of way of
Route 9L. That’s the property boundary line coming through there at the angle.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s an unsurveyed, where the pavement is kind of?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s a sketch in there.
MR. STROUGH-That’s a sketch?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That is a public right of way?
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Naylor claims it is.
MR. STROUGH-If it is, if it’s determined that it is a public right of way, are you allowed to
designate a parking space on a public right of way?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, his public right of way is by his own submission, he submits a list of an
inventory of roads, and this road is on his inventory as 17 feet wide. Now that sketch in there
must be, what’s the scale on this, an inch, an inch equals fifty feet. That’s got to be almost 50
feet wide there, not 17. Seventeen is one-third of that.
MR. STROUGH-So there is some question about the accuracy of the location of the road?
Obviously.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-But if it is determined that it’s a public right of way.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s only 17 feet wide.
MR. STROUGH-Would you be allowed to have a designated parking spot on a public right of
way?
MR. SALVADOR-Outside the 17 feet, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Outside the 17 feet.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s our land.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MRS. SALVADOR-But he has to lay it out first.
MR. SALVADOR-Tell us where it is, that’s all, and we’ll move off.
MR. VOLLARO-That piece is undefined, John, is what he’s really saying. Seventeen feet wide
it’s depicted as fifty on the print. Something’s not matching up there at all. What John is
saying, in theory he’s outside the 17 foot boundary. I think that’s what you’re saying, aren’t
you?
MR. SALVADOR-This says it’s a macadam driveway. The asphalt, if you go down there, the
asphalt probably does go along those lines. That doesn’t mean, and by the way, the Highway
Superintendent didn’t put the asphalt in.
MRS. SALVADOR-And the Highway Superintendent does not plow.
MR. SALVADOR-He does not plow that road.
MRS. SALVADOR-He has never plowed that road.
MR. VOLLARO-That was one of the questions I was going to ask. Did he ever institute his right
to plow?
MR. SALVADOR-Periodically he might come down there, but the problem is he cannot
negotiate this steep slope with his equipment. He just can’t come down. This is a one way
road. This is a one way road. It’s the only one way road in Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Where does it terminate at the northern boundary, John?
MR. SALVADOR-It comes out again to 9L, the top of the hill.
MR. VOLLARO-Has anybody ever used this as a right of way? Do people get off 9L, go on that
road and come back on 9L?
MRS. SALVADOR-Only to use it as a driveway.
MR. SALVADOR-Our guests use it as an access to our facility.
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t see people, the general public, I wonder how it got to be a right of
way.
MR. RINGER-All right. Let’s stick to the issue. A road by use, it’s going to be a road by use,
and we aren’t going to change that.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I understand that, but I can’t look at a drawing that John says, I don’t even
know, you know. I withdraw my questions, Mr. Chairman, because I consider this a, you
know.
MR. RINGER-I do, too, but we’ve got an application in front of us, and we’re going to have to
act on it, and we may all agree that 10 foot, I mean, what the heck are we talking about here?
But I would think as we go through this, and we’ve got a process to go through, that we can
approve this thing, if the Board feels so inclined, with the understanding, or with the condition
that it is acceptable to the Highway Superintendent, and if it isn’t, then John has the actions he
may want to take, if it’s legal action or whatever, but we’re assuming that Rick may say, hell, go
for it. I would hope he would, but if he doesn’t then John would have legal options available to
him if he so chooses.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we, this is just a recommendation, but
I would recommend that we get to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and then right
after that, I would like to make the motion to approve this based on the comment having to do
with the Highway Superintendent, that the installation does not interfere with the maintenance
of the road. I’d like to try to not spend too much time on this.
MR. RINGER-I agree with you, but let’s take the steps the way they should be taken.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-So let’s go through, and, John, have you got any comments? And again, we’ll go
through our normal routine.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, so it hasn’t been recently surveyed, or hasn’t been surveyed at all.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we have a registered, this spot, this drawing has been done. It’s very
recent. It’s been revised June 1, 2002, just last year, less than a year ago.
MR. STROUGH-And this road’s on there.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s, the boundaries of that road, the asphalt boundary is what you see there,
the macadam drive. It’s all our surveyor can call it.
MR. RINGER-John, we’re not going to resolve the issue of who’s right of way it is. We’re not
going to be able to do that tonight.
MR. STROUGH-No, I was done with that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. All right.
MR. STROUGH-Now, John, is there a State or Federal law, or agency that is directing you to
provide this handicapped access?
MR. SALVADOR-Not directly, but indirectly. We’re given notices all the time, and it’s for our
own convenience. As I said, we maintain a rental facility, a charter facility here, and they do
have a group of people that come, young people that come. They’re usually in wheelchairs, and
it’s not too hard to get down to the boat, but going back up that slope, it’s extremely difficult.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-By the way, the U.S. Justice Department enforces the handicapped access,
okay. That’s where it comes from.
MRS. SALVADOR-We get notices from them all the time.
MR. SALVADOR-All the time we’re getting notices.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, State laws have to mirror Federal laws, and Federal laws act as a
floor. We can do better, but, moving on.
MR. SALVADOR-Also, if I might add, your site plan checklist, there’s a checklist, site plan
review, we go through this checklist that we’re furnishing everything, and one of the
requirements is provision for pedestrian and handicap access and parking. That’s for any site
plan. You’ve got it on your inventory here.
MR. STROUGH-I know that, John. Well, the question was, I was just wondering if there was an
agency telling you, at this point in time, that you have to provide this access.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Not by direct order, no.
MR. STROUGH-No. Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-But we are obligated to provide barrier free access.
MR. STROUGH-I understand.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MRS. SALVADOR-Excuse me, John, we did, a few years ago, because of the Lake George Park
Commission, we had to have 24 hour rest rooms, and all, at the waterfront facility. We were
renovating those facilities and we came before the ZBA, I believe it was, and the ZBA sent a
letter to the local handicap association, whatever that is called, down on Quaker Road, and that
gentleman came, at the meeting, and said that we had to put a handicap walkway to these
facilities at that time, and at that time we did put a handicapped walkway to those rest room
facilities.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, dear, it wasn’t the ZBA. It was Staff.
MRS. SALVADOR-It was Staff, whoever.
MR. SALVADOR-John Goralski was the Zoning Administrator at the time.
MRS. SALVADOR-But they did come, and we had to do that. Otherwise we would not have
gotten our permit to renovate those facilities without putting a handicapped ramp in there, and
I think this handicapped facility that we’re putting, trying to put in now is even more important
because these are handicapped children and adults who come all the time for these charters and
also our guests, and we do have guests who come with boats who have to have the
handicapped access, and we have that on record. Who we have, and how often we have them.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and this is going to be level with the road. I mean, there’s not going to
be any vertical obstruction here.
MRS. SALVADOR-No, absolutely not. If he wants to plow the snow down there, that’s fine,
too.
MR. STROUGH-And my thought about that is this. If I want to put a driveway to the road, I
put my driveway from my house to the road. If I want to put a sidewalk to the road, I put a
sidewalk from my front door to the road. Now at the time I built houses, I never had to get the
Highway Department’s permission to do that. It was just basically understood that’s what you
do, because you’re providing access, public access to your facility and automobile access to
your facility. So, the only reason why you’re here is because you’re going to create an
impermeable area, and that, I think, is the issue, and so, with that being the issue, the way I see
it, to provide, an impermeable area to provide handicap access, will you explain your storm
plan to me, because I’m not quite sure I understand.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, there’s a lot of lines on there. Let me add one thing before we get on to
the stormwater plan. On your plan, you’ll see an area there to the, let’s see, it would be to your
right, we have a driveway access permit from the Highway Superintendent for that area. I
don’t know if you inspected the site there. There’s a chain across it. It says tow.
MR. RINGER-We were up there Saturday, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. That area, I have a Highway Superintendent’s Driveway Access
permit for that access right there. The stormwater plan, what I’m saying here is we’d build
some kind of a trench at the bottom of the slope, an infiltration trench.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-So that Section AA is the trench that’s at the bottom?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that’s right. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And the top is some kind of a metal grate?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Similar to what we have in the other area.
MR. STROUGH-I see, and then the width of the grate will be six inches.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, open.
MR. STROUGH-And the depth will be the same as seven and a half inches?
MR. SALVADOR-A two by eight.
MR. STROUGH-Seven and a half inches.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s just going to take the runoff from the walk, John, and it’s going to hold it
and get it into the sand area. Yes, that’s pretty simple.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’s it for me. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Again, I just don’t understand why this is even being an issue. I support it
with no signoff required from the Highway Superintendent. I think it’s just straightforward.
Like John said, you’re providing access for wheelchairs and handicapped people. If there was a
driveway, it wouldn’t require a signoff. That would be providing access for a car. It’s pretty
straightforward. No questions.
MR. RINGER-(Lost words) good legal interpretation on that, but, go ahead, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had two questions. In our material it says that the slope is less than 10%.
Do you know what the slope is of the proposed walk?
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t know. I’ll have to make it, you know, less than 10% because that’s
what’s required.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but is it fair to say it’s close to that now?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then the other question I have is what would the material be from
this new walkway to the dock?
MR. SALVADOR-It’s grass, but it’s level.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Once you get down on the level.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I just want to make sure I understand. You made the comment earlier
that the only reason you really need the walkway is because of coming up the hill. So I just
wanted to get a clear understanding.
MR. SALVADOR-Usually people are pushing, trying to push a wheelchair. You know, when
you push it, trying to go uphill, the wheels dig in, and what happens is we’ve got some sandy
gravel now. With rain, the sand washes out to the tow of the slope, and that’s soft, and that’s
where, it’s not stable. What we have is not stable.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don’t have any problem with that. I just want to get some more
information.
MR. RINGER-That’s it, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it.
MR. RINGER-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No, I’m all set with it. It’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-I have one more comment as to why we’re here. I addressed a letter to Chris
Round last summer. I could just have gone ahead and done this, nobody would know, but I.
MR. RINGER-I kind of wish you did.
MRS. SALVADOR-We don’t do things that way.
MR. RINGER-I know, Kathy, but sometimes, you know.
MR. SALVADOR-You’ve got a big target back here, but I did address a letter to Chris Round,
gave him a little sketch and all, and I just asked him, do you think a site plan is required, and I
did get a letter back from him saying the rule is, the addition of impervious area within 50 feet
of the shoreline of Lake George requires site plan review. That’s why we’re here.
MR. RINGER-That’s it, John? We’ve got a public hearing. Does anyone want to speak to this
application? Going, going, gone.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-We can do a SEQRA. However, I do want to get, before we do the SEQRA, I want
to hear Cathi’s, because we’ve had a comment here from the Board, one member, that says we
shouldn’t even have the Town Highway Department involved in this.
MS. RADNER-Bear in mind, I’m not an engineer, and I haven’t reviewed the plans the way you
do. If what’s being proposed is as, Richard suggested, bringing a ramp to the edge of the
existing road, then I think you’re right that it’s well within your realm as the Planning Board to
not impose any conditions upon it. If you’re concerned that, in fact, the proposal isn’t going to
stop at the edge of the road, but is going to go into the Town right of way, perhaps change the
level of the grade within the road, then a reasonable condition might be to seek Town Highway
Superintendent’s signoff.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-I thought the issue was, Staff assumes that it’s in the Town right of way, or the
road right of way. Is that right, George?
MS. RADNER-Based upon the plan submitted, it created an appearance, at least, that to some
extent you cross into the Town right of way. Which is why there was concern that there might
be a change of grade and there might be an impediment to plowing, is my understanding. You
can correct me, George.
MR. HILTON-Well, I just want to add, yes, based on the information that we had available to
us, it appears that it could be within the Town right of way. However, our concern is that we
get some kind of signoff from the Highway Department. I don’t, again, anticipate it being a
huge project, a huge stormwater producer or anything like that, but if, in fact, it is within the
Town right of way, possibly getting the Highway Superintendent’s permission may be
something the Board could consider. That’s our only point.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, may or could, I’m looking for legal. Are we obligated or not?
MS. RADNER-Another option that might be acceptable to the applicants would be a condition
stating that the ramp would join the existing pavement, regardless of who may own that
pavement, and not create any change in elevation.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s self-evident.
MRS. SALVADOR-That’s a given.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s a given.
MS. RADNER-That condition might satisfy everyone’s concerns.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s go. I mean, this is such a small thing, John, and you’ve got a
consensus. Everyone wants you to have it. We just want to make sure that what we’re doing is
the right thing, you know.
MR. SALVADOR-We can’t change the elevation, otherwise it doesn’t work.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s do a SEQRA on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is the Short Form.
MR. RINGER-The Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 7-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN SALVADOR, JR., 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.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now we’re ready for a motion, and we’ll have that for you in a second.
We’ll read the condition first and then we’ll read the motion.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to put a motion up.
MR. RINGER-On this one?
MR. VOLLARO-On this, yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to put a motion up. I would like to make a motion to approve Site
Plan No. 7-2003, with the resolution as it’s prepared by Staff, with the condition that, based on
the comments from the Highway Superintendent, that the installation does not interfere with
the maintenance of the road, period.
MR. STROUGH-And we have here.
MR. RINGER-Well, wait a minute. I’ve got a motion. I want to get a, let’s get a second to it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, don’t we always?
MR. RINGER-Let’s get a second and then we’ll discuss it, and then we can eliminate the motion
if we want to, or for lack of a second, if we don’t get a second, then we’ll go to the next motion.
So, do I get a second on Bob’s motion? That’s all I want is a second on Bob’s motion.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now we’ll have discussion. Go ahead, John.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, the applicant had no problem with the verbiage, and I’ll run it by the
Planning Board, and here’s what Counsel and I came up with, and then the applicant said this is
a no-brainer. The applicant will meet the existing pavement, and will not change the contours
or elevations of the existing right of way or pavement.
MR. SANFORD-I like it better.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Do you want to withdraw your second?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I will withdraw it.
MR. RINGER-And you’ll withdraw your motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-John, would you make the motion?
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2003 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 7-2003 Applicant/Owner: John Salvador, Jr.
Type: Unlisted Zone: WR-1A
Location: Dunhams Bay
Applicant proposes installation of brick paving stones on less than 10% slopes. No Shoreline
Fill / Hard surfacing within 50 feet of any lake shall be permitted except by Site Plan review by
the Planning Board.
APA, CEA
Cross Reference: SP 25-99, Letter from Z. A.
Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/03
Tax Map No. 252.-1-75.3
Lot size: 6.08 acres / Section: 179-6-60D2e(4)
Public Hearing: February 18, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/10/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/14/03, and
2/14 Staff Notes
2/13 Warren Co. Planning
2/12 Memo to Planning Board from G. Hilton
2/11 Notice of Public Hearing
2/5 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 February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
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 applicant will meet the existing pavement and will not change the contours and
elevations of the existing right of way or pavement, and
2. As part of the information included in the prepared motion, we will include the
applicant’s stormwater plans submitted here tonight, dated February 18, 2003, and
3. Waiver requests granted: Grading Plan, Lighting Plan, Landscaping Plan, Site Plan
scale.
Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. May is say a few words on a subject that was before you before?
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got another item on the agenda, but go ahead.
MR. SALVADOR-It won’t take long.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-I am up to my eyeballs in Lake George on an issue very similar to this three
lot subdivision where a developer has subdivided land, sold the lots, and made a, put together
a maintenance, an easement agreement and put it on file at the County. There’s no tie between
the maintenance and easement agreement and the subdivision approval. There’s nothing in the
deeds that would tie it together, and they wound up, the reason I’m in this is they wound up
with a maintenance agreement to improve a road, half of which is on our land, and it’s got to be
at least a half a mile long. Now, I’m telling you, look for yourself. Look at the laws yourself,
but there are rules that the State has, the General Business Law is very clear on the subject of
syndication. When you sell a security in pieces, in parts, you are syndicating, and you’ve got to
make disclosure, and that’s what the offering plan is all about.
MR. RINGER-John, thank you for your comments.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. RINGER-We went, we checked with Counsel, and Counsel is who we rely on for our
information. We do appreciate your comments, though. Thank you very much. One more
item of business is the approval of the minutes of December 19. So I need a motion for
th
approval of the minutes of December 19.
th
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
December 19, 2002: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Approved with the following comment. During our last meeting, and I’m
going to be referencing back to the minutes of that meeting, there was a discussion.
MR. RINGER-Wait a minute. Let’s do it this way. You’re making a motion, before we approve
the minutes, or make a motion to approve the minutes, I’m going to have a discussion on those
minutes and let you discuss it, because you’re making a motion to approve, and before you’re
getting a second to it, you’re already creating the discussion.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we approve the minutes as written, as they’re written here in front of
me.
MR. STROUGH-I think Larry said he wants a second and then we’ll discuss it.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. RINGER-All right. You seconded it. Now discuss it, Bob, and then you can add on to
your, I just want to make sure we do everything according to Hoyle’s.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you. My discussion’s going to be based, again, and I’ve read this to the
Board several times in the past, but the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Brown, on August 7, 2002,
issued a memorandum, to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the Planning Board both, and he
says in there, “On occasion applicants that appear before you may present an application that
requires additional information or an application that might change and require modification.
In most instances, these applications are tabled to allow the applicant to make the necessary
amendments to the application. While this process is the most practical for minor changes or
additions, the extended tabling of applications makes it not only difficult for us”, for Staff, “to
track, it may prove to distance the application from the attention of the Board which in turn,
might make a difficult project more difficult to review. Dormant applications are soon
forgotten. While the requests for tabling are at the discretion of the Chairman and the Board, I
would request that you consider limiting the extended tabling of applications to a one-time
maximum of 62 days. Major changes from the original application may best be handled with a
denial or withdrawal and resubmission”, of said application. Now getting back to the minutes,
during the minutes of December 19, I had a discussion concerning this very issue, and the
th
Chairman at that time, Mr. MacEwan was seated, said I think he, meaning Mr. Vollaro, is
suggesting is that to table an application beyond 62 days, you’re better off having the
application resubmit. In this case, that I am aware of, it hasn’t been 62 days since we last saw
this application, and he said this on December 19. So if we table it again, it’s another 30 days
th
before we table it again, and I say that’s correct, and he says then, but if he wasn’t planning to
come back to us much before March, or something like that, I think it would be proper to do
that, meaning it would be proper to either deny or to have the applicant resubmit. That was the
Chairman’s statement. Now what we tabled on December 19 was the last application of the
th
Valente’s. They won’t be before us, based on my input from Staff, before March 18. From
th
December 19 to March 18 is a 90 day period, and what I’m proposing here in this motion is
thth
that the applicant resubmit a full package to us as opposed to us having to look at data that’s
strung out since November 19. The original position before this Board by that applicant was
th
November 19, and at that time we extended, we did not table but we extended until December
th
19, and now we’re going to be looking at the application probably the soonest, from what I
th
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
gather from Staff, at March 18, which would be 90 days. All I’m asking for here is that a
th
complete application be put before the Board, and before me, so that I can review that without
having to look back at all the information that was submitted prior, which started in June of
2002, with a Sketch Plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m sympathetic to what you’re getting at, Bob, but the motion is, is there
any inaccuracies in the current minutes before us.
MR. VOLLARO-There are no inaccuracies in the current minutes before us.
MR. STROUGH-And the motion is on the minutes, and then what you’re proposing is a whole
separate issue.
MR. VOLLARO-No, what I’m proposing is to do what the minutes said we would do. If the
minutes are accurate, and you folks approve the minutes, in the minutes, intrinsically, in these
words, it says that this application should be resubmitted.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, I think what John’s saying is do the minutes accurately reflect the meeting,
and the answer is yes, and now something totally separate is you would like to have a vote
taken to basically request that Staff contact the Valente’s and have them resubmit a new
application.
MR. VOLLARO-That is correct.
MR. SANFORD-That’s a separate item.
MR. RINGER-And, I agree with John that, you know, it’s separate from approving the minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but it’s intrinsically tied to the minutes. I mean, if we approve the
minutes, we’re approving.
MS. RADNER-It’s tied to the minutes, but it’s not, you’re not, I think that your fellow Board
members are right, that you should do that as a separate other business, and I understand
you’ve asked a representative of the applicant to stay tonight for this discussion.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MS. RADNER-So you could approve the minutes and then proceed on to that as other business.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2003, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
Duly adopted this 18 day of February, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now any further business to come before the Board, you can bring it up
now, Bob. However, I want legal to be involved in this. This is an application he’s bringing
before the Board, without an applicant present. He’s not the applicant. He’s the applicant’s
engineer.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. I already asked Counsel about that and she suggested to bring the
applicant’s engineer here so he could hear what I have to say.
MR. RINGER-I’m asking Counsel, is it, can we bring something to the floor, in an open meeting,
without the applicant here?
MS. RADNER-Typically, I would say, no, that it’s not appropriate to discuss something without
the applicant here. It’s my understanding, though, that this is the applicant’s engineer. What I
would suggest to you is perhaps that you generically discuss the subject and, in terms of this
application, unless the engineer is acting as the agent on this application, and I don’t know if he
is or isn’t. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. I think you’re on thin ice if you
proceed without the applicant.
MR. RINGER-I also have another question for you, Cathi. The public hearing was left open on
this. Can we discuss this application with the public hearing open without notifying the public?
MS. RADNER-Well, once the public hearing is opened, then the public can show up at any
further meeting, and the public hearing remains open. For example, if Mr. Salvador, you know,
had a strong urge to speak on this application, now, technically the public hearing is still open.
If he sent in a letter tomorrow, the public hearing is still open.
MR. RINGER-Okay. As I recall we said in that, at the end, when we tabled this, that we would
notify the public of any future date. Did we not, Bob? I want to just cover every angle that I can
cover, Cathi.
MS. RADNER-Absolutely. I don’t even know that I was at that meeting. I don’t recall it.
MR. RINGER-Because there was so much controversy, and we weren’t sure of the timeframe, I
think we stated that we would reissue a public notice, but, Bob, you’d have to.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for it now.
MR. RINGER-If you would. Then I’ll get back to that thin ice thing.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it in the minutes. I don’t see it at the end at all. At this point, we’ll
table this application pending you getting additional information that we’re looking for. Mr.
Valente said thank you, we appreciate your time. MacEwan, thanks, next item on the agenda.
MR. HUNSINGER-No resolution.
MS. RADNER-I would recommend against taking any official action to change the tabling
status, since that was what was done with the applicant here, but I think with particularly with
the applicant’s engineer here, if you want to have discussion about it and about the ethicacy of
continuing this application beyond the next date, that it’s okay to do so.
MR. SANFORD-But, one piece of clarification. If he was listed as the agent for the applicant last
time, rather than just the engineer, there’s a legal distinction you’re making.
MS. RADNER-Absolutely.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s not a debatable issue. That should be on record as a fact that he
was either the agent or something other than the agent.
MS. RADNER-It sounds like, from what Bob just read to me, that Mr. Valente appeared himself
at the last?
MR. VOLLARO-He did.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-Right, with Mr. Scudder as his engineer.
MR. SANFORD-We can ask if he serves as his agent, and that’s a pretty yes or no answer.
MS. RADNER-Absolutely.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Would you want to take this? You’re under no obligation to take it?
MR. SCUDDER-Hey, I’m a nice guy.
MR. RINGER-You heard the comments.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, I heard them. I don’t have those papers with me, obviously, because I
came tonight for another purpose, but I think that I’m represented on the application as the
agent for this project. That’s my recollection.
MR. SANFORD-So, now Mr. Ringer’s concerns are somewhat removed at this point in time, in
that the applicant is represented, in essence, legally, right now.
MS. RADNER-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-So Mr. Vollaro can proceed.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m trying to do is to determine whether the direction that this Board got
from the Zoning Administrator is valid or invalid.
MR. RINGER-It’s a recommendation.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a recommendation.
MR. RINGER-It’s a recommendation, Bob. Don’t, let’s not get into that this is mandated or
anything like that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I didn’t say it was mandated, Larry. I’ve got a letter here from the
Zoning Administrator that’s recommending that we do that, and for very good reason, I feel, in
the memo.
MR. RINGER-You’re using words like, you know.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not using words. You’re putting words in my mouth.
MR. RINGER-All right. Then go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All I’m trying to get at here is, is it valid for this Board to consider a new
application for this after the 62 day period. We’re going to be into 90 days of trying to track all
the information that we have and trying to come up with a resolution at the end of 90 days. Is
there anything wrong with having the applicant come back with a complete application? So I
think it’s beneficial to the applicant. It’s beneficial to us.
MR. SANFORD-To the public, too, because the continuity of the public comments gets broken
down over time. There were some people who commented and if enough time goes by, that
kind of record gets broken down to a degree. So I actually support your point, Bob.
MR. RINGER-But as an aside to that, if he comes with a new application, all that information
from the last application would not become part of the new application.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SANFORD-No, it would start over.
MR. RINGER-So all that public comment that you got, it wouldn’t be part of the new
application.
MR. VOLLARO-But if what you’re saying, Larry, is correct, then the recommendation, if you
want to call it that, from the Zoning Administrator, is impractical.
MS. RADNER-There may not be the same answer on every application. There may be some
times you’ll want to accept this recommendation and there may be other occasions when you
feel that the situation warrants not following the recommendation. There’s no legal magic to
following that recommendation.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. In this particular case, in examining this subdivision application,
we have, there’s a lot, a lot of drawings involved, and I’ve looked at them all. In order to do an
integration of all of those drawings and try to understand this application, with elevations and
setbacks for DEC and all of that, I would like to see it as a brand new application, because
there’s been a lot of interface between the applicant and C.T. Male, and a lot of that C.T. Male
input has been put into successive drawings, and it’s very hard to follow. It’s hard to follow
the way I review it, a set of plans, and that’s why I think it might be beneficial to both the
applicant, and to the Board, to get a complete set that we can say, okay, I don’t have to look at
all this other stuff that’s been put. This is what I’m reviewing. A complete application. That’s
all I’m saying.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, Bob, I think, if I recall, I kind of agreed with you that it appeared that this
was going to be a lengthy process before all the ducks got lined up by the applicant in this
process, and we were concerned that, it’s not going to be a matter of 60 days. It may be a matter
of 160 days or 260 days or whatever, and we were concerned that there were too many open
items, and instead it went the way it went, which was, with some sense of assurance that, no,
this would be back in front of us in a short period of time. That hasn’t happened and I think
what we’re interested in doing now is basically putting it to the Board as a vote to see if we
want to request a resubmission or do we want, or if not, we continue with this being a tabled
application. Is that right?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s essentially correct, and if it’s a tabled application. Then we’re going to
be getting additional information, but the tabled information then takes into account all of the
things that we’ve taken and looked at before, rather than I think what makes a lot more sense is
a new application that condenses all of what the applicant has put together, so we can review
that as one drawing, one plan, one submission.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, then, if I may.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Then we’re going back and starting with a Sketch Plan application?
MR. RINGER-No. Your Sketch Plan is never, you’ve already come through for a Sketch Plan.
So that’s just a review to say, hey, you’re all right to go on to Preliminary. There’s no approvals
with Sketch Plan. So you’ve got a Sketch. You’d have to come back with a Preliminary.
MR. SCUDDER-A new Preliminary application.
MR. RINGER-A new Preliminary, if that’s the way the Board goes.
MR. SCUDDER-Is a Preliminary application where we notify all the landowners and all that
stuff?
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-Yes. That’s going to be done anyway. If we continue it tabled, the next time you
come up, there’s going to be a public notice sent up. Okay. Because of the timeframe of your
last meeting until now, there will be another public notice sent.
MR. SCUDDER-So we’d have to revise our list of the adjoining property owners.
MR. RINGER-Why would you have to revise it? You’ve already got the list made out. It
already went out once. It could go out again.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, maybe some property’s changed hands or something.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, then you’d have to revise it.
MR. SCUDDER-If I recall, we had 86 separate properties.
MR. RINGER-Maybe the Town should pick that cost up for you, instead of you picking that cost
up, because we’re asking it, and not to require.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, the Town does the mailings, but we have to do the research.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I thought we, you paid for it.
MR. SCUDDER-No. Not now. We pay, maybe indirectly, but. I guess what confuses me is
why do you have to go back and look at everything from the beginning? Because the latest
submission incorporates the changes that have been made, in virtue of our relationship.
MR. RINGER-Our members all look at applications differently, and some of them go back to the
very beginning and work their way back to the present, to see if all the changes that have gone
through have been made. Others don’t do that. So each member is individual how they review
an application and site plan maps, and previous data.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, let’s talk specifically about what we’d be submitting, then. I assume we’d
be submitting the latest and greatest and most recent revision of the plans. Isn’t that correct? It
wouldn’t make any sense to go back and.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely not.
MR. VOLLARO-No, but I would like to see it all on one drawing, Mr. Scudder, so that, or a set
of drawings.
MR. SCUDDER-Or a set, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That essentially integrate everything that’s gone before that you think is
necessary to be in the new drawing.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, then that would represent the latest revision of the set of drawings, right?
MR. VOLLARO-That would represent the latest revision of the set of drawings. That’s correct,
yes.
MR. SCUDDER-Which is what we’d be submitting anyway. That’s what we’d be submitting
anyway. I guess I don’t.
MR. RINGER-It’s a discussion item. We all may not be in favor of it. Bob brought it up for a
discussion item.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, no, but I’m just, you know, we’re just talking here, and I’m just thinking.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d tend to agree with you. I don’t see any compelling issues to treat
this application differently than.
MR. SCUDDER-I don’t see the difference. I understand that it might be difficult to remember
what went on back in November, and to bring that up to March. You might lose the continuity,
but the continuity is implicit in the revised drawings.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think the issue, I mean, is somewhat, it’s a theoretical discussion. I
mean, if enough time goes by, you could have Board members come and go, and there’ll be
major disadvantages for an appropriate review. Public’s interest, and/or concerns may be lost
over an extended period of time as well. By starting the process new, you’re reopening up a
process and allowing it to start fresh, so you don’t have to be concerned about things falling
beneath cracks or being lost because, again, it’s a new process, and I think, with this particular
application, and again, I remember it from a few months back, it seemed like there were just so
many issues that had to be resolved that it just didn’t appear to be able to be done on a timely
basis. I, personally, think that the correct action would have been for it to have been withdrawn
back then, but instead it was tabled, and now it is going to be longer than the recommended
time and it’s going, it looks like the soonest it could be is 90, but this probably won’t even be the
final.
MR. VOLLARO-It may not.
MR. SANFORD-No. It looks like there’s a number of things, and so I think that that’s what
we’re concerned about when we talk about a compromising the ability for us to properly
evaluate it.
MR. SCUDDER-Let me ask you a question. Have you ever done this before on any other
application?
MR. RINGER-Not in this short a timeframe. We have had applications that were a year old and
we said, no, that’s too long, but nothing in this short a timeframe. That I can recall.
MR. VOLLARO-Where did the 62 days come from? That Craig Brown used in this. Was this
something that he just sort of dreamt up?
MS. RADNER-He may be considering the 62 days that you have to act from the time that a
public hearing is closed, and it may be out of his concern that you’ll inadvertently close a public
hearing and not issue a decision within the 62 days allowed. That’s what the 62 number hits in
my mind.
MR. RINGER-When we talked to Craig about this three or four months ago, he stated the
reasons were similar to what Bob had said when he started, that the data got old and people
forgot, is what Craig had said.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he says it may prove to distance the application from the attention of
Board which in turn might make a difficult project more difficult to review. Dormant
applications are soon forgotten. Those are his words.
MR. RINGER-My own opinion is, you know, if the application is moving and they’re working
on it, then we should continue it. If it goes dormant and nobody’s doing anything at all, and
that’s when a new application should be.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, that’s manifestly not the case here.
MR. RINGER-I understand that, and that’s why I’m not necessarily in favor of a new
application here.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SCUDDER-I’d just mention this, you know, we have no control over the time it takes C.T.
Male to turn around on submittals.
MR. RINGER-And Tom and DEC. Yes, you’ve got so many issues, as Richard just said, that it is
going to take time to get them all resolved.
MR. SANFORD-My preference would have been that at least some of these outstanding items,
you know, get completed up front, and instead it looked like in this one I think ENCON or
DEC, I mean, all kinds of people were involved, and we know that their process isn’t short, and
so, realistically, I think this is going to be a lengthy application for sure. I’d rather see it when
it’s closer to actually being completely satisfied.
MR. RINGER-The other side of that coin, as I said earlier, Richard, is that you lose all of the
information that came before it.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you remember it that long? If you do, you’re better off than I am.
MR. RINGER-Sometimes when I get an issue, as this one has been, I do read the minutes
because I do like to hear the public input, or recount what the public comments were. As far as
the drawings go, I always look at the latest drawings and listen to what our engineers say, that
the comments that he, or the items that he requested are completed.
MR. SCUDDER-My recollection is that there was a, in the hearing, in the public hearing, which
has been continued, or tabled, same thing, there was one person who spoke.
MR. RINGER-I think there were two or three people who spoke about, but there was one lady,
and she’s sent us a lot of literature since then, believe it or not, or at least I got a bunch of stuff in
the mail.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think we all did.
MR. VOLLARO-I think her name was Mrs. Sullivan.
MR. SCUDDER-It could be. She spoke at length last time, and I don’t remember anybody else
speaking.
MR. RINGER-I’m going to poll the Board, you know, and end the discussion and determine to
see if we want to continue, and, Cathi, are we on terra firma ground if it does go that they
wanted to?
MR. SCUDDER-Have you, could I just ask, Mr. Chairman, have you all discussed this with Mr.
Brown, or has he, other than a written memo, has he made any kind of an oral presentation to
the Board?
MR. RINGER-The letter that Bob refers to here, back, two, three, four, five months ago.
MR. VOLLARO-August 7, 2002.
MR. RINGER-He presented it to the Board at a meeting.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, was there some give and take when he presented it, or did he just hand
you the paper?
MR. RINGER-Well, there was some discussion, but not a great deal.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, okay. Why don’t you proceed and I’ll shut up.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony, the question is, do we want a new application, or do we want to
continue it as a table?
MR. METIVIER-I think we should continue it as a table, and the only reason that I say that, I
think that it was intended if you have an application two or three times and it’s continually
being tabled for missing information, then a new application should be submitted, but in this
case, I don’t think, since the applicant, and I know the agent might be here, but the applicant
isn’t with us, that you could blindside him with coming back, a month before he’s to appear in
front of us, and say, no, new application. I think that we all have the information. It might be
in bits and pieces, but if we have all done our job with saving the information, it’s got to be
there, and if it’s missing information and we have to table it again, then we would, in front of
the group and the applicant, state that we should deny the application and request that they
resubmit a new one at that time.
MR. RINGER-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would tend to agree with Tony. A lot of comments that Richard
just made about, you know, the reasons for requiring a new application I think are certainly
valid. I certainly agree with the memo in theory. I wasn’t really prepared to discuss this
specific application tonight. I don’t think we should do it unless it is on the agenda, and the
applicant is here, and, I don’t know, I feel as though there’s really no compelling reason to
single this out and treat it differently than we’ve treated any other application since I’ve been on
the Board, that’s what I’m feeling like we’re doing, even with this discussion.
MR. RINGER-Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think you’ve heard my position already stated. The reason I think we
should request a withdrawal of the application or a resubmittal is simply because the reason
that it wasn’t done last time was, as the minutes show, because the expectation was that
progress would be made and we would be meeting again with the applicant, and it hasn’t
happened, and at the time, the reason I was supporting a resubmission was because I saw an
extended timeline before this thing would be put into shape where it could seriously be
evaluated, and that, nothing’s changed. I still think it’s going to be a really long time before all
the bits and pieces come together. So nothing’s changed there, and that’s my opinion. So I
would be in support of a resubmission.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I think you know my position.
MR. RINGER-I do, but I still feel you should be heard, you would want to be heard.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, certainly. I support the resubmission, based on the fact that you do lose
some continuity when this thing strings out as long as it does, and I feel, for the benefit of the
applicant as well. I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I think if I were going to submit to a
Board, I would like to have a complete application in front of me, as opposed to a tabled
application, which has a whole bunch of strings tied to it, other drawings and stuff that’s been
submitted that members of the Board may talk to in the future. I’d rather have a condensed
application that I’m putting before the Board for review so I understand it thoroughly and they
understand it thoroughly, but that’s just my opinion.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, although sympathetic to Richard and Bob, I’m leaning towards what
Chris and Tony said. This application wasn’t held up because of anything that the applicant
did. It was held up because of mitigating circumstances. We have to wait for the sewer. We
have to wait for Schermerhorn to put his sewer in. I mean, there’s so many ifs, ands or buts, it’s
not the applicant’s fault, although I am sympathetic with Bob. I like to have stuff fresh and I do
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
tend to forget things, but I don’t feel like punishing this particular applicant because it’s been
delayed from not really anything on their behalf or their fault. So I would not be in favor of
resubmitting as a new application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but I certainly honor your position, John. I don’t know whether the
sewer is holding this thing up. I don’t understand that one at all. The Schermerhorn sewer is
not holding up this subdivision in any way that I know of.
MR. STROUGH-Well, he can’t come up with a final map plan and report until we know exactly
where the lines are going to be and at what depth they’re going to be.
MR. VOLLARO-But the map plan and report is tied to his site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And not to a subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-Well, so that’s what’s holding it up. I mean, that’s one of the main things that’s
holding it up, and I agree with you, you know, these get drawn out and you do tend to forget.
MR. VOLLARO-If that’s true, that’s not a good way to review a plan. I mean, I honor your
decision.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’re moving the poll, I’m of the feeling that we should also continue it and
not ask for a new application, also. I did talk to the Chairman today, and Bob, you had talked to
Craig about this issue on Saturday, I believe, and Craig was under a different impression than
you presented tonight. Craig’s thought, when we talked, was that you had suggested to him
that we reapply the, or re-notify the public hearing on it and not that we have the applicant
submit a new application.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m doing is reiterating what’s in the minutes.
MR. RINGER-I realize that, but Craig had a different opinion than what you expressed tonight,
because he knew you were going to bring this up, and when we talked about it, that was what
he thought you were going to bring up, not that you were going to ask that the application be
resubmitted.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m doing is going back to the minutes and the words that are mentioned in
the minutes, and that’s all.
MR. RINGER-In any event, the discussion, the vote of the Board is to continue the application as
tabled, and we thank you, Mr. Scudder.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Vollaro. Again, I thank you for
coming out to tell me what you were going to do here.
MR. RINGER-I think that was a good, forward way to handle that.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, I appreciate that. I would like to ask if I could think about this, maybe talk
to Craig Brown. I’ve talked to my client, who is leaving first thing in the morning for a week in
Florida with his parents. So I won’t be talking to him, but I’d like to think about this and maybe
give the Board a memorandum, if I could, expressing my point of view and so forth.
MR. RINGER-Well, give it to, all your correspondence should go through Staff.
MR. SCUDDER-I’ll submit it through.
MR. RINGER-Staff.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 2/18/03)
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Hilton.
MR. RINGER-Okay. No problem.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you very much.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, Charlie.
MR. RINGER-I would call for the meeting to be adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman
68