2003-09-23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
THOMAS SEGULJIC
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
July 15, 2003: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2003, Introduced by John Strough who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Site Plan No. 37-2003 Y. Ozbay Gas has been tabled tonight pending a
variance application outcome.
OTHER:
TAKUNDEWIDE MASTER PLAN 4/24/03: DISCUSSION 5/30/03: LETTER TO
APPLICANT FROM PB CHAIRMAN 8/18/03: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INTENDED TO COMPLETE THE MASTER PLAN
PROCESS
JON LAPPER & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-You have the Staff Notes, and essentially I’ll just give a little bit of background,
because this has been in process for a while. The Master Plan was formulated as a proactive
approach to reasonably assure the Town and the Takundewide Homeowners Association that
because of its unique individual and common land structure, the buildings and the
infrastructure, any increases in Floor Area Ratio and the accompanying potential for year round
use for all of the units at Takundewide could be accommodated. So the intent is to look at the
environmental capacity of the site, if it were fully expanded, and we should also note that the
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
Master Plan is not an Environmental Impact Statement, but you could look at it as more of an
Environmental Assessment Form. This is something that the applicant has agreed to look at, I
think, for their benefit, for the benefit of the Homeowners Association, as well as for the benefit
of the municipality, in terms of future applications that go before the Zoning Board for
variances and the Planning Board for site plan review. A package was submitted in August. It
appeared to address all of the questions that were in a letter sent by the Planning Board
Chairman in May, and you also have a draft resolution/memorandum of understanding. I want
to emphasize that it is draft, but as Staff I tried to outline all of the parameters, all of the
questions, and make sure that we had a format that we could follow for the future, that is
making sure that when something’s approved all of the maps, etc., are updated, and if you have
any questions, just let me know. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open it up to the Board. Any questions for Staff or the applicant?
MR. SANFORD-Well, just one question, for either Staff or the attorney. The memorandum of
understanding, we used to use them a lot in health care. It basically, my understanding of what
that is, it’s merely a statement of intent that commonly, but not always, is a preliminary step
that might lead to something more legally binding, but really that’s all it is. It’s just a statement
saying, you know, there’s a couple of parties and we’re hoping to move in a certain direction,
and it has really not a whole heck of a lot of legal significance. Is that correct?
MS. RADNER-That’s not a bad characterization. There is no build out planned. There’s no
proposal that’s being approved tonight. What the Board wanted was some evidence that it
could rely upon in reviewing further applications, so that you knew what cumulative impact a
potential build out might be, without knowing what each individual homeowner might want to
do in the future. So what we’re hopefully creating by establishing this Master Plan is the first
document that you would look at in reviewing any further application, and you’re not
guaranteeing anybody that any application that’s put forth is going to be approved merely
because that Master Plan exists, but you’re all agreeing that this Master Plan can be the starting
point for reviewing any future applications.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Bill Mason. Bill obviously spent a lot of time
responding to the letter from the Chairman. We’re very pleased with the draft of the
memorandum of understanding that Marilyn prepared and on behalf of Takundewide, we’re
ready to agree to it, obviously subject to any questions or changes that the Board has tonight.
MR. RINGER-You have the revised 9/23?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, first of all, I want to say that Mr. Mason deserves a lot of credit for
finally wrapping up a nice package here. I do think it’s a foundation for a future analysis, and
it’s a good one. It’s a nice package. It’s comprehensible, and it does give us kind of an
environmental assessment, in a comprehensive manner, that now we can use this as a platform,
as giving us on the Planning Board, and I’m sure the Zoning Board, should it come before them,
some comfort knowing that a lot of analysis has already taken place, and we see what we can
do. We’ve seen the limitations, and we see the potentials of what we could do. So, even though
this exercise, I think, started about three years ago, and not even in my mind did I think it
would take three years before we would come to what we have today, which is a pretty nice
little package here. I was impressed with it, but I do have a couple of questions. Now it does
make reference, and in the Town of Queensbury letter, that there are going to be areas for
stormwater containment, okay, and they should be designated so that new septic systems are
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
less likely to fail. So I fail to see where, you know, it might be my fault. I just may have just
missed it in oversight and you can bring it to my attention if that’s the case, but I didn’t see
where those areas of stormwater containment are designated. Now, was that just an oversight
on my behalf?
MR. MASON-I don’t think so. I think that our response to that was, which number was it?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m referring to the letter, that’s Page Three of the Town of Queensbury
letter dated May 30, 2003, Page Three of that letter, which is Chapter Two for you in your
Master Plan, and it’s under the category of a bolded stormwater, and it’s the second bullet
down.
MR. MASON-Okay. So that would be 22 in our response, because we labeled that 21, 22, 23,
because we wrote, as homes are upgraded, expanded and stormwater containment added, we
will delineate it in our Master Plan, such that we preclude impacting the septic system
operation. In other words, as the applications come in, rather than trying to sort it all out now,
where each.
MR. LAPPER-Because we don’t know who’s going to apply for what in terms of the
homeowners. So it would be designed at the time of the site plan for an individual unit
upgrade.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I can buy that. That’ll work. I mean, as we do site plans, we’ll do
stormwater.
MR. LAPPER-It would be part of each one.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. It’s understood. All right. So, that’s fair. Well, just a question. Now
I’m on Chapter Five, the first page. Now, in the letter, it’s like a generic letter, talking to people
that may have desired to have their septic systems pumped out.
MR. LAPPER-Right here. Tab Five.
MR. MASON-Tab Five, I’m sorry.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I call it chapter, tab. Now, are you suggesting that these people don’t
have to get their holding tank pumped out, that it’s an optional thing?
MR. LAPPER-Everyone doesn’t need it every year.
MR. MASON-Each one of them is different, and each one, some of the thousand gallon concrete
tanks with the nice drain fields, the more modern systems, that when we inspect them and we
find that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them and the owner has said to me, please
pump it out this year, but when we uncover it and take a look, it makes no sense. You’re
pumping out something that really doesn’t need pumping out, and the reason is that they have
maybe two months of use, and ten months to recover, and the septic system is really doing the
job, breaking everything down, so it’s all liquid, and it’s a waste of the owner’s money. So what
we had come up with, this is really not a brand new program. This is an old letter that we’ve
done for many years, and I’ve maintained inspections on the, each one of the septic systems as
I’ve taken a look at them, and each owner kind of comes up with a program for their own septic
system that makes sense. Some of them use them more. We have one resident who’s there for
12 months, and they obviously pump out much more frequently, and then the systems that are
smaller and more marginal pump out every year. I have some of them that pump every single
year.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. MASON-But they each should get an inspection, a regular inspection, taking a look.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-I’m every three years.
MR. MASON-Well, that’s really what we get down to, but we have some that do it every year,
okay, and we do have a minimum recommendation, but they are privately owned, but it
doesn’t take, like you know, it doesn’t take much to understand that $120 every three years is a
lot cheaper than replacing a septic system.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and some of the places, and I can understand your argument, too, they’re
only used two, three, four months a year, and they sit, you know, idle the rest of the time, and it
does give them a chance to recharge. Okay. That’s a satisfactory answer.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Now I’m on Tab Six, the first page, which is titled Takundewide Boat Slips and
Moorings, and my question to that is this. Are those same people who have been identified as
having boat slips and moorings on that page, are they also concurrent owners with the cottages?
MR. MASON-Yes. Their address at Takundewide is the first column. Number 1 Seneca Drive.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I didn’t know all the drives.
MR. MASON-I’m sorry. I should have made that clear. The reason I don’t have to have
anything further on their address their, those are all Takundewide addresses. That’s all
Cleverdale, NY, the first address.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t know that.
MR. MASON-And then that’s the name of the owner of that unit, and the boat space that’s
assigned to that owner at that unit.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MASON-On that row, and I’ve got their home address and so on after that, but.
MR. STROUGH-All right. That was my question, and you answered it.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Now the only other thing is, when I punch in Takundewide and do a search,
and I did update it last night, and I keep getting, you keep showing up on these annual water
reports. Here’s the latest one, but I’ve got 1999. I’ve got 2000. I’ve got 2001, Annual Report on
Public Water Supply Violations, and in each case, in ’99, 2000, and 2001, you’re listed as being
noncompliant. Now this only goes to 2001, and it’s put out by New York State, and the web site
is, you know, health.state.newyork.us. It’s New York State Health Department I’m assuming.
MR. MASON-Yes. That’s true. We were noncompliant for many years because of the surface
water treatment rule which demanded filtration, and when it was, I believe the word is
promulgated, but anyway, when we were told, almost 15 years ago, that we needed to comply
with that, and install a system, it appeared to us, in investigating it, and we hired an engineer at
that time, that there wasn’t really any technology out there yet for our sized system that was
large municipal or small individual homes, but a system of our size was falling in the middle.
So we kind of put it on hold, and there was no problem with the Department of Health for that,
even though we were in noncompliance for all those years. We’ve now installed a filter system,
and we are in compliance. I bragged many times to you about the water system we currently
have.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I did, but, you know.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MASON-It’s two years old now. It was put in in January. I’ve now completed my second
year of operation, 2001.
MR. STROUGH-And this goes only to 2001, but I had to ask.
MR. MASON-That would be why.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay.
MR. MASON-And if you contacted the Department of Health now, they would say that we’re
really a model system.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, because there was no more update than 2001 (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-You guys went two summers with it?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-So that was 2002 then, January of 2002. You’ve gone through Summer 2002,
Summer 2003.
MR. MASON-That’s correct. January 2002.
MR. LAPPER-That’s why there are no more notices of violation.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, you know, in the overall package, I’m very happy with it. I think,
you know, and I’ve said this from Day One. Let the Nizoleks go ahead with an addition on it.
Because this addresses, and I went back to the Day One notes, when we had our first meeting,
and I had an outline of what I would want the Master Plan to do, and it does it, okay. There’s
just one other concern, and it’s going to continue to be a concern, not with the Nizoleks,
necessarily, but down the road, I mean, every time I go on site, there’s three pages of a Google
search of hotels and motels in Cleverdale, NY. Takundewide is listed. Hotels in Cleverdale,
NY, Takundewide cottages. Lake George Net, the outlying guide, and directory to Lake
George, call and reserve your site at Takundewide Management. I mean, I even went to Booster
Bob’s Travel Page, and he’s got a whole thing on Takundewide. He says just be careful of the
rattlesnakes. All right, well, that’s the sample of what’s on the web for Takundewide, and, well,
it’s a residential area, and I’ve been kind of perceiving it as a residential area, but it is
something, it is something else. You’re kind of in the twilight.
MR. LAPPER-I can address that, John. The simple answer is that, like any other single family
residential owner in the Town of Queensbury, some of these owners, everyone has the right to
rent their house if they want to, and some people, some of the owners do rent their house for a
week or for the summer or, you know, numerous weeks, but it still doesn’t change the character
as single family residential. Certainly, you know, the majority of the people there don’t rent
them, but other people on Cleverdale rent their homes as well, and that actually was brought
before the Zoning Board of Appeals probably a year and a half or two years ago, and the
Zoning Board of Appeals ruled that they’re single family residences and that issue was
addressed. You can look it up.
MR. STROUGH-Well, okay, Jon. Fine. Okay, and like I said, I think Mr. Mason has done
everything that we’ve asked him to do, and that’s the bottom line. Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I just, I don’t really have any direct questions, other than to try to get a
handle on what you’re looking for, in terms of an outcome after the discussion at this meeting.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think that, if the Board passes a resolution to accept the memorandum of
understanding, we’ll go have it signed at the next Board of Director’s meeting and bring it back
to the Town. The reason this all started, as Mr. Strough alluded to, we had come in with a
variance for owners of one of the less than 800 square foot cottages to add a second story, which
is just bring existing roof line with dormers for bedrooms upstairs. I think five people have
already done that expansion. It doesn’t change the footprint, but it gives them a lot more living
space, and an upgrade of the septic system at the same time, and at that point the Zoning Board
said, look, we’ve been approving these one at a time, and there’s no impact to each one, and
that’s why we’ve been approving them, they asked a question, if everybody here, with 32
cottages, decided to do the same thing, would their be a cumulative impact on stormwater and
septic and parking and all these things, and that’s how, so they directed us to come here. We
didn’t have a project pending before the Planning Board, but we started the process of a Master
Plan, and it got refined as the Board asked for more specifics. So I think that the memorandum
of understanding would set the agreement as of right now, and by its terms, as long as no
changes are contemplated that go beyond the scope of the Master Plan, we’d start any future
review process with this document. If somebody came in and said they wanted to do
something completely different, whatever that would be, then we’d probably have to go back
and come here to change the Master Plan.
MR. SANFORD-Well, okay. I think what one of the things that John was perhaps trying to get
at, regarding the listings of the cottages on the Internet, is that if they’re expanded and made
larger, and if, in fact, a good share of them are being rented out, it’s going to be a much more
intensive use, in terms of sewage and other environmental impacts, than it would be if it was
just perhaps expanded and maintained by the homeowner and used on a less frequent or a less
intense basis. So I think that there is some concern about the extent to which these cottages are
being utilized, during the season, by renters.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if you assume that they’re used during the season full time by the owners,
it’s really no different if another family comes in and uses it for a week. It’s the same impact on
the sewer system, if you will, whether it’s the owners or another family, as long as it’s one
family.
MR. SANFORD-Perhaps not. More people can fit into a larger house, and the presumption
would be that the existing family may fit in to the smaller house comfortably, but they want.
MR. LAPPER-Well, these, our argument with the Zoning Board was that these units don’t even
meet the minimum size requirements for a lodging and a residence in Queensbury that are less
than 800 square feet, which is the minimum. So we’re talking about pretty modest
improvements, and I think the Master Plan says that we’re only talking about expanding on the
same footprint. So if anybody wanted to do anything more than the same footprint, that would
be a Master Plan change, which would obviously be more significant.
MR. SANFORD-No, and I go by them by water often, and I think the ones that have been
renovated to the second floor are extremely attractive. I mean, I don’t really see any major
problem with it. No, I think this is great. I’m viewing this MOU as sort of a guideline.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. SANFORD-And I think if that’s really the extent of it I think it’s probably helpful and
useful, and that’s all I have.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing to add. I think it’s excellent. You did a nice job with it.
It’s very complete. It really is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything to add. I agree with the second draft. I certainly didn’t
agree with the first resolution, but I can live with the 9/23 draft. I don’t have any questions as
long as we stay with the 9/23 draft.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have any questions either. I think the applicant did a good job of
giving us everything we were looking for in the Master Plan. I think they did a good job.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks like a good plan, but I do have a couple of questions. Septic system and
fertilizer. I’m always concerned about the lake’s water quality. Those are the two biggest
contributors. With regards to the septic system, in Section Five, on Page Two, I believe it’s
reference fifteen, where it talks about the effectiveness of the septic systems, and there’s a
comment, like three quarters of the way down the paragraph, that says lack of positives for e-
coli samples taken from the beach area. So there’s been biological sampling at the beach, then,
for e-coli?
MR. MASON-I did do that. It was, we took raw water samples. It was around the same time
that we were doing the new water system, and we were just checking what the water, what our
raw water coming into our water system was, and that’s at the beach area.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. When was that taken, in the summer, fall, winter?
MR. MASON-There were two tests taken, and I’m sorry, I forget. The previous submission,
they weren’t in July.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MASON-Okay, and we thought about doing them in July and August this year, but the
issue kind of died. I put them in and no one, well, anyway, no one requested them further.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s positive. Okay. Now, with regards to the septic system, would you
just clarify, so once a year you send out the letter, I forget which attachment it is, but the front of
this. I mean, how, I mean, I’d like to see something more aggressive about inspecting the
system to make sure they’re functioning properly, because that’s probably the Number One
problem with the lake is failure of septic systems.
MR. MASON-We don’t, but we don’t have, I’m not going to argue with you that that’s not a
good idea. I mean, being aggressive in this sort of thing is a good idea. I won’t argue with you
there, but they are privately owned, and so I’m kind of walking a fine line there. I’m a
managing agent and a contractor and I’m trying to drum up business at the same time that I’m
trying to recommend that people do this, and the Homeowners Association, when they discuss
it, they might want to have a regulation, but we don’t have, when we address things like that,
we don’t have problems. We don’t, I mean, the engineer who studied the property said the lack
of problems on the surface and the record that you, the written record that you show,
demonstrates that you’ve got good sound systems. You don’t uncover them all and look at look
at all the laterals to try and figure that out, because that would be cost prohibitive.
MR. SEGULJIC-But my concern is that some (lost words) if I recall correctly. I don’t have that
in front of me, but some of them are.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MASON-Yes, some are. And those that are older, we do maintain much more frequently,
as I say, annually, they get pumped. They get inspected, and the reconstruction, that’s, when
they build the new building, then they either get a brand new system, or, like in the case of the
Nizoleks, they’ve got a 1,000 gallons concrete tank in the ground, plus a certain amount of
laterals. We’ll dig up all the laterals. We’ll inspect it. We’ll see what they’ve got exactly. We’ll
map it out, and then we’ll see what we’ve got to do to bring that exactly up to Code.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Code would drive that at that point.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MASON-And it does drive it. For instance, the one that we did, or that Mr. Forbes did five
years ago was on the lake, and it was a cess pool, and he now has a 1,000 gallon concrete tank,
the minimum distance back from the lake, with perforated pipe, the whole.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because I just don’t think people are educated enough on that, but it sounds
like you’re doing all you can. The other thing is fertilizer use. I mean, I don’t know if we can
say anything, I mean, can say something about that, but I don’t know if you can do anything
about it, because to me, personally, there’s northing more wasteful than throwing fertilizer on a
lawn that just washes into the lake, and grows weeds.
MR. MASON-And we do fertilize, and weed control once a year, and the reason we do the
weed control is because the bees that sit on the clover sting the little kids, and so, aside from
that, we went for years without doing it, and we decided that it was time because the bee stings
were happening too often. So we try and do it once a year. Sometimes we miss that
opportunity and it doesn’t get done that year, but no more frequently than once a year, and we
do, when we’re doing the weed control, we throw a little fertilizer on just to try and keep the
grass green. It’s a liquid fertilizer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Brown grass around the lake wouldn’t be that bad.
MR. MASON-Well, it’s minimal, and it’s a liquid fertilizer. So it doesn’t have, the granular is
worse because more of that washes in to the lake. We’re very conscious of exactly what you’re
saying.
MR. SEGULJIC-Can you at least agree to use like slow released fertilizers instead of chemical
fertilizers?
MR. MASON-I don’t know what we’re talking about, organic, you mean, or slow release?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, organics, instead of the chemical fertilizers that will runoff right away,
they’re very quick releasing. The slow release is more like the fish type, they’re very slow
release, do release it before a rainstorm. Only 50% will get into the lake instead of 100%, for
example.
MR. MASON-Well, we’d love to keep talking about this. I mean, this is something that I’m
interested in. Protecting the lake’s important to me, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, as long as you keep on talking about it with everybody there.
Okay. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff want to add anything?
MRS. RYBA-I do have the dates of the coli form analysis if you want them.
MR. SEGULJIC-What were they?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MRS. RYBA-February 7, 2002, and May 31, 2002, and this is from JB3 Consulting, and it was
dated, well, it was part of a package that was submitted to the Planning Board on March 6, 2003
from Takundewide Homeowners Association.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Anything you wanted to add? Does somebody want to
move it?
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE THE TAKUNDEWIDE
RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MASTER PLAN BETWEEN THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AND THE TAKUNDEWIDE HOMEOWNER’S
ASSOCIATION., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Takundewide HOA has agreed to formulate a Master Plan for its benefit and to
reasonably assure the Town Planning Board, that because of Takundewide’s unique individual
and common lands structure, the environmental capacity of the site if fully expanded, would be
able to accommodate further development, within the parameters outlined, and
WHEREAS, several meetings were held with the Planning Board at which the Takundewide
HOA and/or representatives have discussed the situation and reasons for the Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the Master Plan information package provided to
them by the Takundewide Homeowner’s Association (HOA), dated August 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board and the Takundewide HOA fully understand the purpose and
function of the Master Plan is to:
Act as a guideline for use by the Takundewide HOA individual property owners and
??
the Planning Board, and
Provide reliable information for use by the Planning Board when it reviews future
??
requests for expansion, and that those future applications are likely to be viewed
favorably as long as there are no changes to the typical request upon which the Master
Plan is based, and
Consider the Takundewide Master Plan as an expanded environmental assessment that
??
addresses potential cumulative environmental impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board and the Takundewide HOA also fully understand that:
The Master Plan is not a SEQRA review or document; SEQRA documents still would be
??
required as applicable under law, and
The Master Plan does not provide, nor assure, future approvals, and
??
All Town of Queensbury codes and application procedures must be followed as
??
applicable under law, and at the time any application is reviewed
Neither the Takundewide HOA nor the Planning Board is bound by the Master Plan
??
such that changes beyond the intent and scope of the Master Plan may require
additional information, and
It will be the responsibility of the Takundewide HOA to assure that all present and
??
future property owners are aware of this Master Plan, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED AND RESOLVED, THAT,
The Takundewide HOA agrees to perform the following activities to assure that the Master Plan
is maintained as agreed in the August 2003 package, and as a practical matter, so that:
Notice of the Master Plan and this agreement/resolution, and any subsequent
??
amendments, is to be provided to the new owner before a sale of property, and
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
A notice of the availability of Master Plan information and this agreement/resolution,
??
and any subsequent amendments, is to be publicly posted on site, and
Cottages already expanded, and those expanded in the future, shall be noted on the
??
Master Plan Map with the reference to the HOA building/lot number and Town of
Queensbury application approval numbers, and it shall be the responsibility of the HOA
to provide the updated pages/documents to the Town in a timely manner, and
A copy of changes made to the Master Plan Map, concurrent with the Master Plan
??
submission (such as but not limited to stormwater containment delineation, septic
system upgrades, etc.) shall be provided to the Planning Board, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT,
This Resolution shall become a Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board and the Takundewide Homeowner’s Association (HOA) upon
signature of the HOA noted below.
NOTE: The Master Plan Map is the drawing labeled, “Takundewide, Inc., March 13, 2003, Scale
1”=50’, Sheet 1of 1, S-1,” and any subsequent revisions as approved by the Town of Queensbury
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. MASON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002 MODIFICATION PREVIOUS SEQR PYRAMID CO. OF GF
AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION.
SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING
BOARD.
JON LAPPER & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Really briefly, this is just a minor modification of a previously approved
subdivision, the Aviation Mall. It appears to be, as I said, very minor. With no substantial
impacts, and Staff feels there really is no change over the previous SEQRA and should the
Planning Board feel the same, Staff suggests including a statement reaffirming the previous
SEQRA findings. That’s all I have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. ORLANDO-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Bob Orlando. I apologize to the
Board that we have to spend your time doing this again. This is, this should have been done
correctly by us the last time. We subdivided an eight and a half acre parcel for the new anchor
tenant, and we’ve subsequently realized that, in discussions with the new anchor, would not be
a tenant but would be an owner, excuse me, that this was the proper place to draw the line. It
doesn’t affect the site plan at all. It’s a question of who owns which parking spaces subject to a
reciprocal easement, so that all tenants and customers can use any space, and the Zoning Board
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
last week approved the modification of the variance to allow us to have the eight acre parcel for
the new department store rather than the eight and a half acre, and that’s really all there is to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? It seems relatively simple and
straightforward.
MR. LAPPER-We’re hoping to really get this in the ground pretty quickly at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-When do you plan on breaking ground?
MR. ORLANDO-Some of the work should begin within the next 30 days.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002 PYRAMID CO.
OF GF, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 14-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: Pyramid Co. of GF
Previous SEQR Agent: Jonathan Lapper
Zone: ESC-25A
Location: Aviation Mall
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved subdivision. Subdivision modifications
require the approval of the Planning Board
Public Hearing: Not required for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/15/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/19/03, and
9/26 Staff Notes
9/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, we find the modification consistent with previous SEQR findings and
Be it FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for Modification is hereby granted
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. ORLANDO-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS
SITE PLAN NO. 41-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: 630 GLEN STREET PARTNERSHIP AGENT: JOHN RICHARDS,
ESQ. ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 643 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE ALONG PORTION OF SOUTH BOUNDARY AND
LANDSCAPED ISLAND NEAR SOUTHEAST CORNER ADJACENT TO UPPER GLEN
STREET. LANDSCAPED ISLAND. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 91-41, INC. ALT.; BP 96-2098,
WALL SIGN, SV 1376 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-2 LOT
SIZE: 5.40 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-060
JOHN RICHARDS & THOMAS JACOBS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 41-2003, Reliable Racing Supply, Inc., Meeting Date: September
23, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 41-2003
APPLICANT: Reliable Racing Supply is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 5 ft. high fence along the
southern property line. The site plan also indicates some landscaping in front of the property
along with some boulders to be used for landscaping at the rear of this site.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 643 Glen St.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int. Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a
SEQRA short EAF.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning actions
involving this property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site plan indicates a 5ft. high fence to be constructed at the
southern property line. The plan also indicates an area of landscaping to be added to the site
near Glen St. in the southeastern area of the property. Approximately 15 landscaping boulders
(3 – 4 ft. in diameter) are also proposed at the rear of the property.
STAFF COMMENTS: As a result of the proposed fence construction, the three parking spaces
located on the south side of this building may not have the required access from a 24 ft. wide
drive aisle as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
The fence proposed for the south property line cannot exceed 4 ft. in height from the front of the
building to Glen St.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a five foot high fence, plant some
landscaping out on Glen Street and locate some landscaping boulders behind the Inside Edge,
as I said, on Glen Street. The fence that’s proposed, first of all, can only be four feet in height,
from the front of the building towards Glen Street, and I think that’s something that the
applicant could indicate or amend on the plan easily enough. One of the main issues seems to
be the three parking spaces on the south side of the building, and with the new fence, there
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
would not be, it appears there would not be the 24 foot wide drive aisle required by the Zoning
Ordinance, and again, perhaps the applicant could amend the plan to somehow realign those
spaces to provide the 24 foot drive access, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. RICHARDS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I’m an attorney in
Glens Falls. I’m here on behalf of the applicant. With me is Thomas Jacobs who’s a principal of
Reliable Racing. This, of course, is the Inside Edge property as we know it commonly around
Town. Both the points that George had just mentioned he had been kind enough to contact me,
and we’re certainly agreeable to restricting the height of the fence from the front of the building
on and to realign those three spaces as necessary to have the proper turning aisle. So that’s not
a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now on it. How are you going to realign those spaces
and still get four spaces?
MR. RICHARDS-Well, there’s three, and if we had to, we could just run them parallel to the
building. They’re not essential to the operation. We’d like to keep them.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I mean, we can tell anything from the plans we’ve got here. I mean, I
didn’t know anything about that until I read your Staff notes.
MR. RICHARDS-Yes. We’re not entirely sure we’ll need to do that, but we’ll certainly measure
it and make sure that we comply.
MR. RINGER-Well, just for clarification, I mean, it appears that the 24 foot drive aisle may not
be there, and if that’s the case, 24 foot is required, they should be somehow repositioned.
MR. RINGER-Thanks, George. Thanks, John. I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I really don’t have any questions, other than, I just want, a question I
guess more for Staff. If they’re proposing a five foot high fence, and the Code says that it can’t
exceed four feet, can we approve the five, or would it have to be four?
MR. HILTON-The Code just says in any front yard. So from the building, the face of the
building towards the road, it cannot exceed four feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought. Would you propose a tiered fence then, or
would it just be four feet for the entire length?
MR. RICHARDS-I think four feet uniform is probably what we’ll do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s the only question I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Why the need for the fence?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. RICHARDS-That’s part of the overall, they’ve been working for years and continue to
work to improve the looks and the operation of the facility, and that’s part of improving the
traffic control and delineation, as well as sprucing it up, of the boundaries.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only thing that I’m concerned about is, you know, the back of Mr.
Jacobs’ enterprise is used by, you know, the cross country skiers and the race teams and the
buses are back there, and, now, you know, when the snow falls off the roof, and it piles up next
to the building, and I see the corner of the fence, and I’m talking towards the rear of the
building, I don’t think a bus could sneak through there any more, and I know that they use that
as a turn around.
MR. RICHARDS-Yes. I think Mr. Jacobs wants to have the buses come through on the north
side the building where there’s plenty of room.
MR. STROUGH-Enter and exit on the north side?
MR. RICHARDS-He can speak for himself, of course, but he wants to emphasize that the
objective is not to restrict the use by the schools. He wants to encourage responsible use, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Are you trying to keep your neighbor possibly off of your property as well?
MR. RICHARDS-Certainly one is to delineate the boundaries, because there has been some
overflow and other use of the property. So, yes, that’s certainly, I wouldn’t put it in those
words, but that’s part of it is to make it clear where the lines are and to do it in an attractive
manner and to generally enhance the whole area. The neighbor’s done a great job in enhancing
his property in the front, and this is part of our continuing effort.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just didn’t know if something less visually obtrusive, like just plain
curbing would solve your problems.
MR. RICHARDS-We’re confident this will not be visibly intrusive. This will be attractive an
enhancement.
MR. STROUGH-It is a nice looking fence.
MR. RICHARDS-And on top of that we’re doing the berm there, the proposed landscaping at
the corner. It’s all part of the proposal.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that brings me to my next question. Since, you know, there are
restrictions to bringing fences out beyond the face of the front of the building and, you are
proposing landscaping that almost goes up to the face of the building, is there really a need for
a fence to extend all the way to your eastern property, all the way to Route 9? Is there really a
need for that with the landscaping? Won’t the landscaping achieve the kind of barrier that
you’re looking for?
MR. RICHARDS-Well, Tom, you might want to address that. I would think it would look at
little odd to have the fence kind of stop in mid-stream, but, you know, it’s a choice that the
owners have made.
MR. STROUGH-Well, actually, it would look more odd having the fence extend down to Route
9. It would be nicer having the fence extend to the landscaping and then have your
landscaping.
MR. RICHARDS-I think you could go either way, couldn’t you, Tom?
MR. JACOBS-We’ve landscaped the front of the building, and now we want more of that to sort
of bring it all together and make it look attractive.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. RICHARDS-I would say you’d certainly take that into consideration, as you put the fence
up, and if you want to stop, you can do that.
MR. JACOBS-We can stop where the berm is.
MR. STROUGH-That’s exactly, the berm, the landscape would achieve exactly what you
wanted it to achieve. The fence would achieve the rest of it, but, you know, and it does, and I
was over there several times, and your neighbor, I noticed some cars being loaded, the truck
delivering the cars was stopped on Route 9, forcing traffic to go around it. The truck couldn’t
get in to the site adjacent to you. I know that’s not your issue, but it did bring up another issue.
Were there any conditions that went back with Merrill Automotive, because there’s cars on the
right of way and everything else next to Mr. Jacobs. Are there, George, are there conditions that
would go back to the Merrill Automotive days that they not park in the right of way, etc., etc.,
etc., and wouldn’t those conditions apply to the new owner, even, because the use is the same?
MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t know the answer to that. I’m not familiar with the site plan that
you’re speaking of.
MR. STROUGH-Craig, you’ve been around here long enough, were the conditions that you
applied to, let’s say the Merrill Automotive.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t recall, specifically, what the conditions would be.
MR. STROUGH-But wouldn’t they apply, even as new owners took over?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d defer to counsel, but I would think that any condition of approval for a
commercial site plan would run with the land, no matter the ownership change, it would still
apply to that site.
MS. RADNER-Right, unless later modified by this Board.
MR. STROUGH-So if it has been modified, the same conditions still apply.
MR. MAC EWAN-An example is we had a commercial enterprise in Town here that we
approved a couple of years ago which had a rather intensive landscaping with it, a new owner
came in and purchased the property and proceeded to cut down five or six trees in the front of
the parcel, that was part of a condition of approval, and they were told to replant. So it would
seem to me it would run with the land.
MR. RINGER-And if there was, John.
MS. RADNER-I know there’s no current enforcement action for any violation. That’s as much
as I can tell you at this point.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know, could you have Bruce look into that, maybe, George?
MR. RINGER-John, if there were conditions there, they would also show in the parcel history
here, because it would.
MR. STROUGH-Well, this is a different parcel.
MR. RINGER-I know, but you’re saying if they went over into the next.
MR. STROUGH-No, no. I’m saying whatever the automotive place is, it wouldn’t show up on
this application because that application is not before us.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. RINGER-Yes, but if their land is going on to this land, it would have shown on this
application if there was a history because there would have had to have been an approval
somewhere to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand what you’re saying, but he’s talking about violating of previous
approvals for a site plan on the adjacent property.
MR. STROUGH-It’s just a question. So, to get to the bottom line, after looking at the situation
back and forth and, you know, I, as one Planning Board member, don’t like to see fences, but, if
you absolutely have to have a fence, I would like to see that fence stopped at the front of your
building, where the landscape starts, because I think it achieves the same purpose without a
fence, and I don’t think fences are that attractive to start with, but for a fence, the one that
you’ve picked is just fine. We’ll see how the other Planning Board members go on that.
MR. RINGER-If he went back to the building, then he wouldn’t be restricted to the four foot.
He could go to the five foot, then.
MR. STROUGH-That’s right.
MR. RINGER-So if you went back to the beginning of the building, that relieves you of that four
foot restriction, and you could go with your five foot fence, if you so desired.
MR. RICHARDS-I understand. Yes, we’re not trying to spend more money on fence than
necessary, believe me.
MR. RINGER-Well, I know, but you applied for a five foot, and this would be an opportunity
for you to keep what you applied for, just by moving it back to the building, and aesthetically,
as John says, it may look better.
MR. RICHARDS-And it may, and certainly if it does, I’m sure he’d love to stop the fence. It’s
just that until it’s up, it may look differently once it’s up, and it may look better with the fence
up. I’d hate to commit tonight that we definitely will stop at the fence, I mean, at the building,
or at the berm, and then have it look strange when it’s up and have to come back here to extend
it the way we originally intended. So, we would certainly stop it at the berm, if it looks better
and it’ll save us some money, there’s no question we’d stop it there, but I’d like to at least have
the flexibility to take it all the way in as proposed, if necessary.
MR. RINGER-The difference would be, John, though, that you’d be limited to a four foot then.
MR. RICHARDS-I understand that.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I’m fine with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just wanted to add, I guess I would be interested to know, it just seems like
there’s just an abundant supply of cars next door. I mean, much too much for that lot, and my
thought on the whole thing is if we did have something in place from the Merrill Automotive
days, maybe it could prevent a fence from going up all together. Just because we saw, when we
went back there on site visits, you have the orange fence up, and I just could not believe the
amount of cars all over the place next door, and obviously there’s a reason for you putting an
orange fence up. I mean, it’s clear that there’s a problem. So if next door, if there was some
kind of regulation, because we have, in the past, regulated the amount of cars that some
dealerships can display on their property. If they’re over, maybe it would alleviate a lot of the
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
problems and there wouldn’t be a need for a fence. I mean, certainly, I don’t object to it, but is it
absolutely necessary.
MR. HILTON-I guess, you know, if the Board so chooses, you can certainly instruct that Staff
look into that.
MR. MAC EWAN-On behalf of the Board, I’ll direct Staff to take a look at that.
MR. HILTON-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-See if there’s any violations in terms of approval. Anything else?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’d ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a minute or two.
We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, gentlemen. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little
& O’Connor. I represent the owner to the immediate south of the Jacobs property, and they
have some concerns over the application of Mr. Jacobs, and perhaps, in all honesty, this is not
the proper forum to really try and work this thing out. My involvement is within the last two
days, and today when I actually got an opportunity to look at this thing, I then went off to other
things, right through seven o’clock tonight. So I haven’t had a chance to talk to Mr. Jacobs.
There’s been a history between the two properties, and my client’s only recently purchased the
property to the south, and up until early August, we thought, or my clients thought, that they
had Mr. Jacobs’ son’s approval for a process that would improve on a joint basis the common
area between the, not common area, but the area between the two properties or two buildings
with some paving. There was a joint effort last year at snow plowing, and it was hoped that
that would be continued. So we are still going to explore that, and I guess I’m kind of betwixt
and between here as to how firm I am with my comments, because I certainly don’t want to
create a feeling between the two property owners that I can’t later reconcile, but I think what
you have before you is contrary to the intent of your ordinance. This is Lower Route 9. You
have a streetscape proposal for that. You have, throughout the Ordinance, discussion about
trying to encourage common access between properties, and basically here you’ve got an owner
who wants to totally fence off his property from the adjoining commercial property, requiring
any one, for whatever reason, to go back out onto Route 9 to go from one property to the other
property, which is typically contrary to the way that you set these things up. You also have the
opportunity, and I think you’ve mentioned that you want to go back and look at the prior
approval from my client’s property to make sure they are not doing something that they are
prohibited from doing, and they understand that, and they understood that when they asked
me to come here and I told them that. I said, you know, when we come in to speak we’re going
to put our use under scrutiny as well as the proposed use by Mr. Jacobs. When they purchased,
they were not told of any restrictions, and were told that they were the same use that was there
prior, they wouldn’t have to seek any approvals, and I don’t know, offhand, I’ve not gone back
that far to look to see.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t recall, either.
MR. O'CONNOR-Whether the Merrill property had some restrictions or didn’t have some
restrictions, but aside, so I’m betwixt and between. I think the Board has hit on some of the
comments. Obviously, the language of the Ordinance talks about having a clear vision, and not
impeding clear vision. Clear vision zone, I think, and a clear vision zone is defined in your
Ordinance, which in this instance would at least be the front yards of the two properties. So I
think there shouldn’t be any fence in that area, and any landscaping should be of a minimum
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
height, so as not to block the vision of vehicles either leaving our property or his property, or
we’re going to create a safety issue for traffic that’s out on Route 9. We ought to look seriously
at access of abutting properties as provided for in Page 152 of the Ordinance, and I’m not sure if
you need to provide for provisions for internal connection between the two parking lots,
regardless of how big they are. There is a separate use from, and I don’t know if it’s by custom,
or, I don’t know if it’s part of Mr. Jacobs’ business or not, but in the wintertime, there’s a great
deal of use behind this building of people that park there, including school buses, for cross
country skiing. Those people come back through our lot to get to the City property, mostly by
walking because I think what’s shown on the Sketch Plan is an attempt to show the actual treed
area on the Jacobs’ property. They don’t go through the Jacobs’, they park out back, they don’t
go through the Jacobs’ property to reach the ski trail area. They come back through our lot.
They probably still could do that with, I think on the back boundary he’s going to put landscape
boulders there, but I don’t know about emergency vehicles being able to get access to either the
Jacobs’ property or our property in the back. We’re 19 feet off of the property line. He’s 15 feet
off the property line. Both have roofs that have snow fall that encumber that 34 feet. Right now
by custom, whatever, it could accommodate access. I’m not sure what application we had here
not too long ago, but because of the square footage of the commercial building, we were told
that you had to have access on all four sides of the building, or all three sides of the building,
and the access had to be at least, I think, 25 feet or 20 feet in width, to accommodate emergency
vehicles. Here you’re going to build a fence to a point where you have 15 feet between his fence
and his building. I don’t think you’re going to have that same type of access in the back. If you
look at our survey, too, and I’m not 100% sure of this, and I don’t know if the Town looked at it,
there are some easements on the property, and maybe Mr. Jacobs is more familiar with them
than I am, for sewer. There’s a pumping station in back, a grinder pump, in fact, on the
property of my clients. We believe that that sewer line runs along the common boundary out to
Glen Street, that you’re now going to establish the fence on, which I think is going to be a
maintenance issue, potentially a maintenance issue. Now I may be incorrect on that or not, and
they may have more information than I do. This is also an opportunity if you want to look, as I
said, to, indirectly, I guess, look at our property, and see whether or not we’re in compliance.
This may be an opportunity for you to look at the actual access to that property of Mr. Jacobs.
He has 200 feet of frontage, and I think again, under the limited access, on this regional arterial
road, you’re supposed to have 340 feet of separation between driveways. There’s less than that
because he only has 200 feet of frontage. It may be an opportunity for you to improve that. It
may be an opportunity for him and my clients to talk about doing single driveways, and maybe
eliminate more than one curb cut along that part of the street. There is an opportunity here to
do some good land use planning. I don’t know that, if there is a rush or not a rush to complete
this. I certainly would like the opportunity, and I would like to have input from the Town
Sewer Department to see whether or not they think that this is going to create a problem. I go
back a long time ago and I don’t know if it was this Board or the Zoning Board that told me that
a fence is a structure, and if it’s continuous, it has to abide by the setbacks, when you talk about
front setbacks, and that was in a lakeshore case. So I think if you’re talking about a structure,
you’re talking about a 50 foot setback from Glen Street, and you may be talking more than that
because it’s an arterial. They’ve measured the fence, and that went to the Supreme Court, they
measured the fence as being continuous, it was over 100 feet, it was a structure. It was not an
accessory structure. So we would like to see this plan modified. We would like to have the
opportunity to try and work out something that’s agreeable to both property owners.
MS. RADNER-Do you have any deeded right of way, or is it, at this point?
MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I’m aware of.
MS. RADNER-Thank you. Do you know if there was any condition in your client’s approval
that states you’d reserve for common driveway in the future, anything of that nature?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not familiar with the terms of the approval. I think commonsense and
good land use would be to have them establish a common driveway right down the middle of
the common line, and both sides use it. Whether or not both parties are agreeable to that, or
willing to agree to something like that, I have no idea.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-That would require your client making an application to this Planning Board.
We just can’t arbitrarily take into account the next parcel of land and say that we’re going to
modify access to these sites by having a common driveway serving both sites when we only
have one application in front of us.
MR. O'CONNOR-You can require the one applicant before you to provide for interconnection
to adjoining lots. You’ve done that on other commercial projects.
MR. MAC EWAN-That is within the Zoning Ordinances, as a recommendation whenever
possible, to do interconnection of lots, yes, it is. Sometimes it doesn’t work. Sometimes it does
work. Sometimes the parties are unwilling to want it to work.
MR. STROUGH-But if I may, Mr. Chairman, you know, Mr. O’Connor, I do agree with you that
good neighbors, fences don’t make good neighbors.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I had an aunt that was 90 years old that said fences are good neighbors,
but I understand what you’re saying.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and ideally I’d rather not see a fence there either, but, you know, what I’ve
seen, in the several times I’ve been there, is your client seems to be maximizing the use of his
property. There are cars all over the place. I’ve never seen the density of cars in any one
particular place as I have there. Of course he’s restricted. The property that he has is very
restrictive. It’s not the Parson’s Ford it once was. That area used to be wide open, vacant lots.
So I can see, I mean, we’re getting to the point where the auto deliveries are being carried out on
Route 9, which I’m sure is illegal, because the auto delivery trucks cannot access the site.
There’s not enough room. I almost think that that has lead, the maximum use of your client’s
property has lead to some problems. I don’t know the specifics, I really don’t, but I think that’s
why this fence is being proposed, and I would love to see the two owners of the property sit
down and talk it out and work out their differences, I really would, but I think your client’s
going to have to realize, they’re going to have to back off on some of that density. That’s one
reason why I was asking the question. Were there any conditions that went along with the
Merrill site, that this current auto dealership would have to abide by as well, because it just
looks like it’s causing these problems.
MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that, and part of my discussions, even this afternoon, were
along those lines, and how do we improve it, and one thing that we have, I think that people
have come to realize is that they have some vehicles on there that aren’t really ready for sale,
and they need to be put on a secondary lot, and we would like to, we’re going to explore that,
which will make the vehicles on site less dense, or not as dense. We understand that, but I do
think that there are some statutory requirements as to the fence that’s in the front yard, and I do
think there are some access requirements, and I think there are some safety issues that you need
to address, and I don’t know, honestly, whether or not there is a sewer easement issue that
needs to be addressed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Richards. Staff comment?
MR. HILTON-I guess, just as far as fences, again, reviewing the Ordinance, there’s a specific
section that deals with fences stating that, in any front yard, fences cannot exceed four feet in
height, and this fence section doesn’t seem to prohibit fences from being located in the front
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
yard, or having to comply with any front yard setback that a house may have to, or a structure
may have to, and in fact in this same section, it deals with shorelines and states that no fence
great than four feet in height as measured from the level grade at a point along said fence shall
be erected within 50 feet of the mean high water mark of the shore. So even in that section I
think there’s some allowance for a fence up to the shoreline, as long as it meets a certain height
set in the Code. I guess that’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any further questions or comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Well, both sides have their legal representation now. That’s established, and
there is the question of the sewer right of way, and it would give them possibly another month
that they could sit down and work out their disagreements between them, and if a month, they
still have the same disagreements and they can’t come to any agreements, then I would favor
the fence.
MR. SANFORD-Well, John, if we approve the fence, that doesn’t preclude them to reach an
agreement and not to build the fence.
MR. STROUGH-That’s true, too.
MR. RINGER-I kind of agree. We have an application in front of us that we should act on with
the information that we have presented. What Mike has said may or may not be in regard to
the sewer line. We just don’t know, and if we do approve this tonight they still, before that
fence is constructed, they can still negotiate and may decide, if this is some negotiations, that
they don’t want a fence after that, but I don’t think we should hold the applicant up for an
application.
MR. STROUGH-Well, Larry, I’ll agree with you.
MR. SANFORD-The one that I think would be, if the applicant would be willing, would be to
agree to Mr. Strough’s proposal, which, looking at how he has it mapped out, it makes some
sense to me, which is the approval of up to the four foot fence, or the four foot fence, but having
it stop short of going right to the road, because of visibility issues, but, in fact, ending where the
landscaping begins. I would feel more comfortable with that, I think if that was the way you
would proceed, rather than making it or keeping it discretionary, which is what I think you’re
asking for. You want to build and then see how it looks. I think that the visibility issue is
probably important enough to not have the fence go all the way to the road.
MR. RINGER-I like that, too, Richard. I’d like to see them agree to that, to starting that fence at
the building, and not go all the way to the road.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Ordinance does provide them the opportunity, though, to install a five
foot high fence along the side property line.
MR. RINGER-Right, if they start back, yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I know. I think they voluntarily said they would. I mean, what I’m asking
them is would they do the four foot and stop short of that.
MR. RINGER-You’re asking them to start the fence at the building, but you’re not restricting
them to the four foot?
MR. SANFORD-No, I’m asking for a four foot fence, but not going all the way to Route 9, but as
Mr. Strough pointed out, stopping the fence at the beginning of the landscaping, to improve
visibility, and what I’m picking up by the nods is that seems to be something that would be
acceptable to the applicant.
MR. RICHARDS-Yes, that’s fine.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ll agree with Mr. Sanford that the four foot fence would proceed as
shown on this plan, up to the face of the front of the building, not extending beyond that. In
other words, it would extend up to almost where you’re proposing your landscaping.
MR. RICHARDS-Well, I thought you said to the landscaping.
MR. SANFORD-It’s the same thing.
MR. RINGER-Well, it’s not quite.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it appears to be, we’re talking about inches here. Okay, and then you
stay in Code if you don’t extend beyond the face of the building, but in addition to that, Mr.
Sanford’s proposing that the entire fence be four foot, which I seem to agree with. It would
accomplish the purpose of separating the properties, possibly leading to some peace, and it
wouldn’t be as visually obtrusive as a five foot fence.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as clarification, that if he decided to put the four foot high fence all the
way to the edge of the berm, and extends beyond the face of the building, he’s still within Code
because Code says four foot in the front yard, with a fence.
MR. RINGER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Unless he agreed otherwise.
MR. MAC EWAN-Unless you agree otherwise.
MR. SANFORD-Right, and that’s what I’m asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking a couple of feet. What difference does that make?
MR. RINGER-Yes. He could extend the berm out to the fence line.
MR. SANFORD-I see what you’re saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form?
MR. MAC EWAN-Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 41-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY, INC., 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.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
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 23 day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 41-2003 RELIABLE RACING SUPPLY, INC.,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 41-2003 Applicant: Reliable Racing Supply, Inc.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: 630 Glen Street Partnership
Agent: John Richards, Esq.
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: 643 Upper Glen Street
Applicant proposes construction of a fence along portion of south boundary and landscaped
island near southeast corner adjacent to Upper Glen Street. Landscaped island.
Cross Reference: BP 91-41, Int. alt.; BP 96-2098, Wall sign, SV 1376
Warren Co. Planning: 8/13/03
Tax Map No. 302.11-1-2
Lot size: 5.40 acres / Section: 179-5-060
Public Hearing: September 23, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/19/03, and
9/23 Staff Notes
9/17 FOIL request: Qu. Auto Mall
9/16 Notice of Public Hearing sent
9/3 Meeting Notice w/Project Identification marker sent
8/13 Warren Co. Planning: NCI
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 September 23, 2003; and
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The fence will not extend beyond the front of the building, and
2. The fence shall not be more than four feet in height.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. RICHARDS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
MR. RINGER-That still doesn’t preclude you from working with Mr. O’Connor to come up with
something.
MR. RICHARDS-I understand that.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED GARY & JILL WILSON PROPERTY
OWNER: GREEN MALCOLM TRUST, HOYT’S CINEMA AGENT: EDWARD ESPOSITO,
BAST HATFIELD, INC. ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 3201 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES RENOVATION OF FORMER CINEMA FOR INDOOR SPORTS AND
YAMAHA COUNTRY SPORTS DISPLAY SALES & SHOP, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION
OF A 24,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW INFORMATION
RECEIVED. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-2 LOT SIZE: 3.73
ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
ED ESPOSITO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GARY WILSON, PRESENT
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Following the tabling of this application, the applicant has provided additional
information, including a new pylon sign placed in front of the property, which appears to
conform to sign requirements of the Town. Just a note, however, a separate sign permit will be
required. The applicant has provided a floor plan of the existing building, as requested by the
Board. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan, indicating types and numbers of
species, and this plan appears to meet the Route 9 Design Guidelines. The revised information
contains three separate sheets relating to lighting. The applicant has indicated to me in a
conversation that the lighting plan produced by ABD Engineers represents the plan of record,
and the lighting levels on this plan appear consistent with standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance. However, any new wall mounted lighting that is proposed should be reflected and
cut sheets for all proposed lighting should be submitted. After a conversation with the
applicant the other day, the applicant did provide cut sheets for the pole mounted lighting, and
the plan has been updated to indicate the location of water lines and the location of the septic
field as requested by the Board. I think that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. ESPOSITO-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. WILSON-Gary Wilson.
MR. ESPOSITO-Ed Esposito.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we start with C.T. Male’s letter of September the 19. Would you
th
take us down through that, Mr. Esposito, or Mr. Wilson and touch on that.
MR. ESPOSITO-Okay. I believe there were, from C.T. Male’s comments, we’ve got five
comments, and I’ve modified a new grading contour per his recommendation at the front of the
parking lot. For this evening’s plan I didn’t see in holding Gary up, but we do have very
positive drainage to our drywells that were introduced in this front paved area. We’re on notice
with DOT. I’ve got a copy, and a permit in motion with Department of Transportation,
perhaps. We could seek approval this evening contingent on a DOT driveway permit. Mark
Kennedy, it seemed very favorable to introduce the curbs. It was at the Board’s discretion. He
says it’s an existing driveway, but if the Board wants the 34 foot curb sweeps, that’s fine. We’ve
got the detail. Gary, I guess, could comment on the shared access agreement with his neighbor.
At this point, it seems to me like a handshake, but it seems like it’s an access of use and it’s in
both property’s interest to have the common access for fire safety and so forth, and if you need
any more you can ask Gary this evening. The grease trap that was referenced I believe we
commented last time is more or less for wash down of equipment and protection from the shop.
We’re going to introduce a trench drain and drain it positively to a hold and haul tank. It’s
situated in the back of the existing building and noted on the plan, and the last comment that
I’ve got from C.T. Male, although Phase I has some 235 cars, I believe, 285 cars existing out of
the 99 required for Phase I. We’re, perhaps we could discuss, this evening, this shortage. I
know we’re proposing 24,000 square foot of new building in the back, but all of it isn’t, it’s a
gross square footage, but there are closets. There are areas that perhaps the Board could look
upon. If we need a variance, we’ll have to pursue that upon a Phase II review. We feel,
although we’ve given you plenty of information to look at the whole site, that was, I guess
George’s indication to submit everything. We had some outstanding discussions the last
meeting regarding the existing features, the scale and size and color of the sign. Gary brought
his sign information this evening, and we agreed to have the appropriate color selections that
were commented by the Board in the tans, and Gary, again, has color chip samples if we want
to look at these items as well. Anything that moves the review along, and perhaps regarding
the Phase I, we still are seeking approval. Gary really needs to renovate this building, and he’s
got a lot of inventory, I’m told, that needs to be made use of. So we don’t feel it’s too much to
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
ask, but perhaps we can have continued discussion about the content of Phase II approval.
Again, looking, there’s two outstanding items. The future force main connection, perhaps, our
engineer could update the correct connections of both buildings at the appropriate time when
the County sewer is realized next year. There’s no sense in having that. I couldn’t address it
correctly at this time, but, and any other engineering data that the Board feels appropriate,
perhaps so we wouldn’t necessarily need to come back for another review of the same two
footprints, but perhaps we could discuss about a follow up with the appropriate engineering
data that would allow for a Phase II consideration this evening, and lastly, I wanted some
discussion of what requirements the Board would place on Gary to do the new lighting and
paving plan. These were items that I had hoped to have Gary renovate the building Phase I,
and, seeing as though it’s an existing facility, perhaps do the front new parking lot areas that
would be more or less along the lines of public safety, and we know that there’s going to be saw
cut trenches and paving repairs to accommodate the new treed islands, and those new lights,
but the back of the building, I don’t know if we can really do the total phase lighting plan.
Maybe if Gary’s electing to do the total phase lighting and landscaping plan, we can resolve this
issue of what he needs to do for Phase II, and I might add that he’s, I believe, 17 cars deficient
from calling it a day and looking at both phases being accomplished. He’s 17 cars short. We
did discuss this last meeting, and I believe one of the members, I don’t see him here this
evening, he says we’re pretty close and confident that, in looking at the loss of parking,
accommodate the new treed islands, we feel we’re pretty close. So maybe we can have some
determination on this, both phases this evening. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall when we first started talking about this, project, weren’t we
talking about doing this in two phase approvals?
MR. HILTON-I believe so, and I think our comment at the time was, in order to assess the first
phase and address any concerns that may come up, be it stormwater or lighting or anything,
look at the additional building as part of a second phase, and, you know, that may address the
concern over parking, to look at that second building in the second phase at some later future
date I guess.
MR. RINGER-That was my understanding, too, we were going to do Phase II separately from
Phase I. You would have your parking requirements if we approved Phase I. You wouldn’t
need the additional until Phase II.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll start with you, Tony.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I’m confused about a few things. The first one, and maybe it’s the
phasing that’ll help me out. I’ll ask Gary, what’s the deal with the access to the south with your
neighbors, I mean, what’s going on?
MR. WILSON-I had a conversation with Keith Ferraro. Right now there’s a gravel driveway
access. It actually goes down, turns into my back parking lot. Keith has no problem with joint
use of it. He’s using it now. He’s using my parking lot now. There’s no issue there. If we need
it in writing, he can do it. I didn’t realize it was necessary.
MR. METIVIER-I assume, well, I’m going to assume at this point time is of the essence for you
to get started, getting in to October.
MR. WILSON-Definitely. I’ve got inventory that I have to get in that front Pro Shop.
MR. METIVIER-So you objected to a Phase I versus Phase II, I mean, two different phases of
this, way to look at it?
MR. WILSON-Right. That’s fine. If that’s going to expedite it, then let’s do it that way.
Definitely.
MR. METIVIER-The sign is coming down?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. WILSON-The sign’s coming down. We’ve got permits in hand to put up new signage.
MR. METIVIER-So you can’t get by with that sign. Sorry about that.
MR. WILSON-Well, I didn’t try. You folks wanted it down. I’m trying to comply. The only
idea was to save me some money out of the whole start up cost, quite honestly.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. Besides that, really, I mean, I don’t think I have any other questions for
you. I think it looks good. We’ll have to address the parking, obviously, at another time,
because that many cars is an issue, obviously, but we’ll get that, I guess. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything now, for Phase I, and, you know, I would feel that we could
possibly go ahead with Phase I and come back for Phase II when he’s ready.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I really had any questions or anything to add, other than
what’s been commented on. No, I think the lighting plan looks fine, the landscaping plan, and I
had the same opinion, you know, that we would look at the Phase II when you had a specific
proposal, but my own personal opinion is, if you’re, you know, 17 parking, 16 spaces short, you
know, I think, speaking for everybody, I’d rather see the landscaped islands in your parking lot
than to see 16 more spaces.
MR. WILSON-The other thing that we’re going to have is we’re going to actually have two
different times of usage. So, I mean, when we get there, we’ll discuss it, but, I mean, part of the
complex would be shut down when the other part is actually operating, but that’s another time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-So the overall plan is you’re going to take the existing, the former Hoyt’s
theater, renovate that, for the motorcycle dealership, I guess.
MR. WILSON-A portion of it. Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you’ll do the repair there and selling. Okay. A couple of things. With
regards to the landscaping, is there going to be a sidewalk along Route 9? I don’t see it on the
plan.
MR. WILSON-There’s a sidewalk there now.
MR. SEGULJIC-There is a sidewalk?
MR. WILSON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, because I didn’t see it on the plan at all. Nor did I see like a grass strip
between the sidewalk and the road. Not on the plans, at least what I’m talking about, and that’s
something I think should be shown on the plans.
MR. WILSON-Okay.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-And then, looking at last meeting’s notes, there was some discussion about
closing down, eliminate the curb cut on Hidden Farm Road?
MR. WILSON-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re not going to do that then?
MR. WILSON-No, we’ve agreed to do it. We’re talking to the State right now, in regards to
that, what they want.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then with regards to the appearance of the building, you said you
had some color chips with you?
MR. WILSON-Right. Right now there’s kind of a white grayish brick on the front. We’re
looking to incorporate some grays, blacks, possibly some awnings over the doorways. This is a
color that’s in our signage now, which will be on our signage as we move it up there. These are
primarily the colors of the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. WILSON-Basically we’re changing the yellows and the browns that are on the metals right
now to grays and whites.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then that should look good, then. How about the sign? You said you have a
sample for the sign?
MR. WILSON-This is one sign. Basically it’s going to be in black frame. Our Yamaha sign will
go over the top of it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how would that sign be?
MR. WILSON-That sign is.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’ll meet the Ordinance.
MR. WILSON-Yes. I’ve got a permit for it. I’ve got the permits in hand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have copies of that? Copies of his like color selections and the
anticipated signage that he’s going to do?
MR. HILTON-Well, we have the schematic of the sign that’s in the site plan drawings, but as far
as color samples, no, we don’t.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That’s it for me for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, let’s see if I got everything straight. Phase I, you’re going to re-do
the building, put the motorcycle shop in the northern part, and the rest of it’s going to be a
sports activity area for soccer practice.
MR. WILSON-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And as part of Phase I, the landscaping’s going to be done on the driveway that
we’re talking about on the front of the building, going towards Route 9.
MR. WILSON-Right.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-And all the stormwater measures will be taken care of also, as part of Phase I,
as far as that front parking lot goes?
MR. WILSON-As far as the front goes. Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I, too, and I’ve probably said this before, and this is not going to be
any surprise, a down grade of the parking, is not going to be a problem, especially with the kind
of enterprise that you’re talking about where there’s going to be a lot of parents, basically
dropping off their kids, and some will stay and park, but not everybody, and it’s not an
intensive use to begin with, but, I mean, it’s not that big of a building. You’re building it back,
again, will be an expanded version and probably closer to indoor regulations. As a matter of
fact, the building in back might be close enough to allow regulation games. I don’t think you’re
building that you have now.
MR. WILSON-No, no, ours is going to be more of a practice, clinics, that type of thing.
MR. STROUGH-And there certainly is a need for that. So that’s good.
MR. WILSON-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And I, too, support the concept of approving this in a two phase manner, but I
didn’t know if all of C.T. Male’s comments were addressed. For example, regarding
stormwater, and if you did address this, please excuse me, I just didn’t catch it. The plans
should more clearly show a swale in the grassed area between Route 9 and the parking lot to
direct runoff to the drywells.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Did you have a response yet to that?
MR. ESPOSITO- Well, when I got the comment two days ago, I agree that perhaps to even
lower the elevation to prohibit any washout to Route 9, that the area at the end of the pavement
we could trench, and it’s a simple addition of one contour 97, John, to this plan that I look to
resubmit, again, for that one contour I didn’t see the real need in holding Gary up for my error,
but I do agree I can get as many copies as we need to the appropriate persons.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a condition of any Phase I approval on getting a C.T. Male signoff.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t any major problems, and that
doesn’t appear to be a problem, and the grease trap, is there one being planned to be installed or
no? I mean, are you going to have?
MR. WILSON-Right. That’s in the plans, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and are the buildings going to have sprinklers? Do they have to by?
MR. WILSON-No, not at this point.
MR. ESPOSITO-So that would be as required. I think he’s working with Dave Hatin now on
the first building, the back building. It looks like he will.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I didn’t know, with a big open building like that.
MR. WILSON-Well, it’s actually, they’re partitioned off by block walls.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-You wouldn’t be required sprinklers for the motorcycle dealership?
MR. WILSON-Not at this point, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, would it be a discount to you on your insurance if you
did have it?
MR. WILSON-Well, there’s a fire wall in there. It’s double sheetrock. It’s block. Everything’s
masonry steel. I have a question in regards to the Route 9 landscaping. We’re going to dig it up
in the spring to put the septic through.
MR. ESPOSITO-Or you mean the force main connection with the County?
MR. WILSON-Yes, would it be necessary to put that in this year or after C.T. Male’s, or
whoever’s putting the septic through? Could I do it at that time?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure we can be flexible in that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I think so. That’s an extenuating circumstance, and that only makes sense,
to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s not a problem.
MR. ESPOSITO-We want to do it once and right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-No, that does it for me. I mean, from what the other Board members have
covered, I think everything’s been covered. Thank you.
MR. SANFORD-My turn?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t really have much to add, but I think I agree with going with Phase I
approval now and then moving to Phase II. When do you think Phase II would be ready for site
plan review?
MR. WILSON-We’d have to wait for the force main to come through, because obviously all of
our septic’s behind the building, current building. So it’s kind of hinging on that.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. WILSON-We’d have to wait for that to fall into place.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but I think, you know, what I’m hearing, everybody seems to be pretty
comfortable with this, and so am I.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? Staff? I’ll ask you to give up the table for
a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MS. RADNER-Remember that your SEQRA needs to be on both phases.
MR. HUNSINGER-But it is the Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
GARY & JILL WILSON, 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 23 day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Metivier has drafted up some conditions. Why don’t you just go over
the conditions will everybody before we act on it, just so everyone understands where we’re
going.
MR. METIVIER-Number One, needing a signoff from C.T. Male, obviously, this will be for
Phase I only. Landscaping along the Route 9 corridor must be completed within 60 days of the
sewer line being hooked up, and New York State Department of Transportation approval must
be obtained prior to a permit being issued.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-Submit lighting fixture cut sheets.
MR. HILTON-We received the cut sheets for the pole mounted.
MR. STROUGH-You only need the.
MR. HILTON-The wall mounted.
MR. STROUGH-The wall mounted cut sheet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. RINGER-The only problem with the 60 days is if the sewer is completed in such a time in
the middle of the winter and then they can’t get the planting in. It could present a little problem
to them trying to comply.
MR. STROUGH-That’s a good point, Larry. How about within six months?
MR. RINGER-Yes, that would work for me.
MR. METIVIER-Of course then, you know, you could argue that it’s, no, that’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-I think it’s in his own interest to get it fixed up and looking good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you just need to tie it down, just from the standpoint of being able to
track the application.
MR. RINGER-Right. I think it’s good to put a timeframe in there, and I think six months is
certainly a good timeframe.
MR. WILSON-That’s fine.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-2003 GARY & JILL WILSON, Introduced by
Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 36-2003 Applicant: Gary & Jill Wilson
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Green Malcolm Trust, Hoyt’s Cinema Corp.
Agent: Edward Esposito, Bast Hatfield, Inc.
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: 3201 Route 9
Applicant proposes renovation of former cinema for indoor sports and Yamaha Country Sports
Display Sales & Shop, as well as the addition of a 24,000 sq. ft. building and associated site
work.
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-2
Lot size: 3.73 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003, Tabled, PH left open
WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/16/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/19/03, and
9/23 Staff Notes
9/19 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
9/3 Meeting Notice
9/2 Additional info dated 8/15/03 (2 maps) forwarded to CT Male
8/22 Application forwarded to CT Male
8/15 New Information
7/22 Staff Notes
7/21 Returned 500’ notice
7/17 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
7/3 NYS DOT comments
7/9 Warren Co. Planning
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/24 Water Dept. comments
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 22, 2003 and September 23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. There must be a sign-off from CT Male.
2. This is only Phase I of the approval, Phase II to be completed later on.
3. Landscaping along the Route 9 corridor must be completed within six months of
the sewer line hookup.
4. You have to submit lighting fixture cut sheets for wall mounts.
5. A New York State Department of Transportation approval must be obtained
before a building permit is issued.
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, gentlemen.
MR. WILSON-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SEAN JT GARVEY PROPERTY
OWNER: LONG RIFLE ENTERPRISES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 257 DIX AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES AUTOMOTIVE SALES & SERVICE FOR A SITE CURRENTLY
USED AS AN AUTOMOTIVE STORAGE FACILITY/DISPLAY LOT. AUTO SALES &
SERVICE USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEWAND APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ & SP 75-2000 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 9/10/03 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.27 LOT SIZE: 6.965 ACRES SECTION: 179-
23.D(3)b.
SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-2003, Sean JT Garvey, Meeting Date: September 23, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 44-2003
APPLICANT: Sean Garvey is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 13140 sq. ft. building and
parking lot in association with an automobile sales and service use.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 257 Dix Avenue (north side of Dix Ave., west of
K-Mart).
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a
SEQRA short EAF.
PARCEL HISTORY: Previous Planning Board activity for this property includes SP 75-2000
(resolved 10/21/2000), granting approval for an automobile storage facility.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to expand the current use of this property
from an automobile storage facility to automobile sales and service by constructing a 13,140 sq.
ft. building to be used for automobile sales and service, along with a new parking for the
display and storage of vehicles. The applicant is seeking a waiver from the requirement of
providing a landscaping plan. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan
and report as well as a lighting plan as part of the site plan application.
STAFF COMMENTS: Any comments from CT Male concerning the stormwater management
report submitted by the applicant should be addressed during the review of this application.
As this application represents an increase in the use of this property, consideration should be
given to providing street, interior parking lot and exterior parking lot landscaping as required
in the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, additional landscaping along the Dix Avenue frontage,
landscaped islands adjacent to the new parking area, as well as some plantings surrounding the
new parking area would be consistent with the requirements of § 179-8.040.
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan with information concerning new pole mounted
lighting to be used at this site. The applicant proposes to install twenty-four (24) 1000-watt
fixtures on 8 poles of thirty (30) feet in height. Information submitted with the application
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
indicates that the fixtures will be cut off fixtures. A uniformity ratio has not been provided with
the lighting plan. If any wall-mounted lights are to be used, cut sheet should be provided and
the lighting plan should reflect the use of wall mounted lights. The lighting plan indicates some
light spill to the east; however, the proposed lighting levels within the parking area appear to be
close to the average foot-candle value of 20, which is the standard listed in the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff recommends a condition be included with any site plan approval that all
lighting be downcast with full cutoff, flat lens fixtures.
How much of an increase in vehicle traffic is anticipated as a result of the increased use of this
property (automobile storage vs. automobile sales and service)?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a 13,000 +/- square foot building, in addition
to parking lot expansion, in association with the automobile dealership on Dix Avenue. Just a
couple of quick comments. C.T. Male, any comments from C.T. Male concerning stormwater
and other issues should be addressed during review of this application. As this application is
an increase in the use of the property, consideration should be given to providing street, interior
parking lot and exterior parking lot landscaping, as required in the Zoning Code. As I’ve
mentioned in the notes, additional landscaping along Dix Avenue, parking lot landscaping
islands adjacent to the new parking area, as well as some plantings surrounding the new
parking area would be consistent with this section of the Code. The applicant has submitted a
lighting plan with information concerning new pole mounted lighting. Pole mounted lighting
would be, well, the applicant proposes to install 24 1,000 watt fixtures on eight poles, 30 feet in
height. Information submitted with the application indicates that fixtures will be cut off
fixtures. At the time of the writing of these notes, the uniformity ratio had not been provided.
If any wall mounted lights are to be used, cut sheets should also be provided, and the light
levels reflected in the lighting plan. Overall the light plan shows some spill to the east.
However, the proposed lighting levels appear consistent with the average foot candle values for
automobile lots. Staff recommends, however, a condition be included with any approval that
all lighting be down cast with full cut off flat lens fixtures, and just a question of the applicant.
How much of an increase in vehicle traffic is anticipated at this site, with the increased use of
the property, and I think that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. GARVEY-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. GARVEY-I’m Sean Garvey.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. The floor is yours, Mr. Garvey.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you. I’ll try to keep this short. I’m sure you guys don’t want to stay here
real late tonight, but for some reason I kind of feel like this is like a job interview. Basically, the
history of the site, we purchased, my brothers and I purchased the site off of Dix Avenue, it’s a
seven acre parcel, in the Year 2000, and we’ve used it as a storage facility since then. We
rezoned it in 2001, with plans on putting a dealership there, as I promised you then. What
we’re back here tonight is to continue developing the site as a, for vehicle service and sales. I
would like to build a separate Hyundai dealership there, basically 13,000 square feet. It’s going
to house all departments. The site plan is basically pretty simple and basic. If you have visited
the site, you’ll see that we’ve paved the front part of it. The building that we propose is
rectangular in shape. It’ll be placed in the center of the site, just short of the current pavement.
Lighting will be extended down both sides of it. Dennis MacElroy has done an incredible job,
with EDP, in reference to the site plan, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions or go over any
part of that with you. I have copies of it here also, for easy viewing. I’m not sure if you are
aware of it. The comments from C.T. Male, and the Community Development Staff, most have
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
been handled, basically, or they’ve been addressed, I should say. C.T. Male is primarily
concerned with stormwater management, and those comments have been addressed. I have a
letter here. I’m sure the Community Development Department has it also, that any concerns
that they addressed with the site plan review have been addressed. I have a letter here from
Warren Electric that basically also clarifies the lighting information that was not placed on the
original site plan application, basically pertaining primarily to the wall packs that are mounted
above all doorways. The average lumens of the lighting plan is 14.4 for this use. You can go up
to 20 lumens per square foot, and the uniformity ratio is less than four to one. Those were
concerns brought up by C.T. Male and the Staff here, and the parking lot lights are going to be
duplicates of those that are there now. It’s a current, currently we use a downcast full cut off
shoebox flat lens fixtures, and the ones that are there now would be duplicated exactly. Also
Staff mentioned they were wondering what the anticipated traffic was, would be, for use from
storage facility to vehicle sales and service. Currently my estimate is around 83 cars a day that
use the site. My estimated use is about 250 a day, which is an increase of threefold. I’ve also
asked for a landscaping waiver, due to the current conditions of the site. I think it looks very
good for a vehicle storage facility. It would look great as a vehicle service and sales facility.
We’ve gotten, actually, many compliments on it, from friends and customers, and the way the
site plan has been developed with the Beautification Committee’s blessing, they gave me final
approval May of 2001, and actually the berms in front are all twice in size than the original
application. We were going to have four or five berms, and now we have the very large ones
that you see there now. So I basically, respectfully ask you for your approval of my site plan
application.
MR. MAC EWAN-You did well.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think my biggest concerns in reviewing this site plan were the
lighting issues and you addressed the details, I think, that I was looking for, and then also the
landscaping. I mean, the berms are nice, and I realize Dix Avenue’s a little different than, you
know, Route 9 corridor where we talked about some large shade trees, and things like that. So
those were really my big concerns, plus the, you know, fairly extensive list from C.T. Male. Did
we receive the response back from C.T. Male? Other than the letter from September 19?
th
MR. HILTON-Yes. A September 23 letter stating that revisions substantially address the
rd
comments. The only exception being that the detention basin calculations include a six inch
diameter pipe, outlet pipe. The diameter of the outlet pipe should be added to Plan Sheet One.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the only thing left.
MR. HILTON-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. You guys did your homework.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you. It might look like two sheets are almost the same, but there’s so
much grading and lighting information, Dennis MacElroy felt that it would be better to have a
Sheet One and a Sheet Two, and when they re-supplied them with the information they needed,
they forgot to take that little measurement and put it from one sheet to the other, but it is in the
plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it sounds like the only issue we have left is the waiver request on
landscaping. So I think I’ll just wait and hear what other people’s comments are on that.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-In regards to landscaping, I’d like to see more myself. Actually I was kind of
surprised when, first I realized it was a vehicle service area, and I looked in the Code and it says
you do have to have the landscaping in the vehicle service area. So I would like to see enhanced
landscaping in the parking areas, and along the edges there. Now, with regards to the
stormwater, I guess if you could just explain to me how the stormwater on the site’s going to be
handled.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. Should I go into detail with that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just an overview.
MR. GARVEY-Would you like, one moment.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because it looks like there’s just the one catch basin. I could be mistaken.
MR. GARVEY-On Sheet Number One, on the northwest corner, you’ll see there’s a storage
basin there now, a drainage pond. I’m sure there’s more technical names for it. There’s one
there that exists now, but this is going to be modified slightly. Basically, the site basically
handles most of the water in this direction, though there is a swale on the back here, that’s in
the back here, and there’s a man made stream that goes through here that handles water from
Earl Town. So basically what we’re trying to do is keep the water out of this stream, and so the
way that this is designed is the water gets brought to the east on this side into the swale, but this
water gets brought to the north, and of course the rest of this water gets diverted into this
drainage pond. You’ll also notice that there’s a dark line that runs from the pond over to the
parking lot. That’s because the water off the front lot is diverted into this grate here, and that
brings it to this holding pond. So this settles it and then there’s the, that’s the egress and the
outgress, or the whatever the right term is is higher. So as the water settles, then it gets
introduced into this stream here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So essentially it’s going to be like a stormwater down the center,
everything on the east side, if I’ve got it correct, is going to go into the swale?
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Everything on the west side will collect into the detention basin there?
MR. GARVEY-Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, with regards to the interior of the building, what are you doing
with vehicle service in there, I’m sure you’re going to have floor drains in there. I didn’t notice
any oil water separators or anything like that.
MR. GARVEY-Currently they’re not required. This is, Mike Shaw has made, has had two
separate conversations with me and with EDP or Dennis MacElroy. Apparently, the current
thinking is if you have a grate in a repair shop, and heavy concentrations of oil or antifreeze
accumulate there and grease, there aren’t any septic system providers that are willing to pump
that out, because no one will accept it. So, by having the drain in the middle of the shop that is
hooked to the sewer district, smaller particles of oil and antifreeze are, or grease that might get
washed off a car or soap can be much more easily handled by the sewer department.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you checked with them and they allowed that?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. They do not want it.
MR. SEGULJIC-They don’t not want it?
MR. GARVEY-They do not want a floor, oil separator.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-Oil water separator.
MR. GARVEY-They do want a sand which we have, we use that anyways.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the last thing is the building’s appearance.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. Because this is going to become a Hyundai dealership, all manufacturers in
the world that Copernicus was wrong and they’re the center of the universe, and they require,
they all want to be branded like maybe McDonald’s or other common names. They want all
their buildings to look very similar. I don’t know if you saw an article in the Post Star last week
that had a picture of the building. This is a very similar design. Basically, it is a steel building
with a brick façade down the front and part of one of the sides. The brick façade is on both
sides in the front. There’s large glass panels above those are a silver panel, silver panels, which
are, it’s a Hyundai silver, and this square panel that has the Hyundai logo, that’s actually like a
medium blue, and the Hyundai logo itself is silver. Basically, it’s very simple, that on the side
here this would be white or silver, and there’s, this façade is built up underneath the canopy,
underneath the customer driving area for protection and weather.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, Tom did a good job. The only other question that I have is, the additional
asphalt, I assume, because we are talking in the site plan review, additional asphalt, and I was
over there this afternoon. I’m just assuming, and correct me if I’m wrong, you’re going to pave
over the area that’s currently blue stoned on the north side.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. It’s about 75 feet in width, and whatever the length is. Right?
MR. GARVEY-Yes, I would think so.
MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it for me. Thank you. Tom did such a good job, and I’ll agree with
Tom, though, I want to reiterate, concur with Tom, that with the pavement and the building, the
landscape, by the way, out front does look nice. You’ve got that manicured and well kept up,
and that looks nice, but I’ll have to agree with Tom. It’s going to look pretty plain in the
interior. I mean, nothing even around the building?
MR. GARVEY-Actually, I do have plans. Snow removal has always been a tremendous
problem. If any one of you have plowed, a blade, no matter how wide it is, only can carry so
much snow, and when you’re moving, and I’m going to go back to this, either one of these,
when you’re moving snow off the lot, this, obviously, we need to display, our products have to
be seen. We can’t have piles of snow banks. So all the snow has to be brought on the back here
typically, and a blade, it’s very difficult to plow, and with the additions of like parking fixtures,
it makes it very difficult to negotiate a plow around them. They also accumulate snow, which
you’ve seen, I’m sure, in many lots, maybe like, like I have a problem when I go into Lowe’s or
maybe Staples or even the brand new Home Depot. It’s kind of difficult to negotiate it with all
the curbs. I know that these curbs accumulate snow and ice during the winter, and typically the
wildlife that’s on these islands die, like the ones at the Mall. So they’re a tremendous hassle.
We, if you’ve gone on to any of our lots after a heavy snowfall, we move everything and
everything’s plowed. So you don’t have any ice build up or snow or anything blocking your
view as you negotiate your way through the lot, but we are planning on putting two large trees
right in the front here, on both sides of the front door, and those round large cement planters.
This is the front of the building, and to the right of the front of the building is a covered canopy
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
which is a customer drive and drop off area, and on the right side of that canopy you can see
that there is a cement wall there. That’s 83 feet long, and here’s the side view of that wall here.
That wall will have bushes in it all the way over. There’s actually going to be a hole cut in the
wall so you can get to it easier from the parking lot, but there’s going to be an 83 foot, basically
hedgerow there also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? John?
MR. STROUGH-No. I’d like to see a little bit more landscaping, but, you know, I’m, overall,
pretty happy with the proposal. I think it, you know, it’s a fine proposal.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-I just hate to see the sea of pavement, but I’m not as concerned with you being
an auto dealership, as I would be with a retail enterprise, but Larry’s going to say I should treat
everybody the same. So, with that in mind, I’ll just see how it goes. Thank you.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, do you want to comment?
MR. RINGER-I think you’ve done a pretty good job, Sean, with the shrubbery that you’ve got
out front there, when you put your storage lot there, it looks good.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-And I think your plans are well laid out. I don’t have any comments, other than
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Just a couple, when you first opened up your discussion, or your narrative, you
mentioned, when you came in front of us about a year or so ago, that you were intending to put
a dealership there, but my recollection was rather clear, that you just wanted a parking lot to
store cars, and this must have come later. Would you care to just clarify that? Not that it’s too
material of a point, but you suggested that you always intended to have a dealership for sales
and service on this site, but my recollection’s different.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. I have minutes of that, and I can show you, and also my notes. There’s
two applications. The initial application which was made in the Fall of 2000, I wanted it to be a
storage facility then. Because it was then zoned as light industrial, Chris Round made the
determination that I cannot bring customers on that site because that would be considered auto
sales and service, Highway Commercial use. The fall was approaching quickly. Paving places
close around Thanksgiving. We really wanted to pave it if possible. So instead of challenging
his ruling or asking for a Use Variance or rezoning the site, we decided to just proceed with the
site plan application and we’d deal with it afterwards, and it was approved. Then we, I came
back again to rezone it to Highway Commercial, and you people have to approve that, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-We make a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. GARVEY-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Ultimately they’re the ones that have the final approval.
MR. GARVEY-And at that time is when I promised I’d come back and put a dealership there,
because then things had changed a lot since 2000. Business had increased, and we needed more
than just a storage facility.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, I’m not sure where we stand with the landscaping. We just
recently had a meeting, and we spent an awful long time on landscaping for a different site, and
here we seem to be a little bit more comfortable, but I think, as I’m sizing it up, Tom has, and
John would both like to see a little bit more of a landscaping proposal, and so would I. I
certainly wouldn’t want to just waive it. I would like to see something a little bit more than
your request for a waiver for landscaping. So I’ll weigh in on that, and see how the rest of the
Board feels, but other than that, I have no real questions or concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just need some clarification on what you stated about oil separators, oil and
water separators.
MR. GARVEY-Apparently, when we built the Volkswagen Hyundai store back in, 18 years ago,
then they required it. In two different discussions with Mike Shaw, that he does not, it is not
mandated to have it, and he does not want you to have it, because if you do have an oil water, a
separator, let’s say at the corner of the shop or just outside, that catches all the oil and all the
water and grease and separates those, and then you have a sludge left, and it has to be pumped
out. No septic service will accept that because where they bring their septic, refuse will not
accept it, because you have such a high concentration of oil and grease.
MR. METIVIER-But there’s a company.
MR. MAC EWAN-Safety Kleen.
MR. METIVIER-Thank you.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-That comes and does that, and I wouldn’t expect that you would, expect a
septic company to come and get that.
MR. GARVEY-Right. So what Mike Shaw says is that you do not need it. It’s not mandated.
He would rather have small particles of oil and grease in your wastewater along with soap and
the gray water. So I said okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have something in the file relative to that, Mr. Shaw’s position on
that? It just strikes me as odd because we just recently approved a new Warren Tire facility on
Lafayette Street. I believe there’s an oil separator for the new Hoffman Car Wash on Quaker
Road. Right? Both of them have oil separators.
MR. METIVIER-And the only reason, it just strikes me odd that here we’ve required it as part of
the site plan for three.
MR. GARVEY-Currently I’m working on a one parcel sewer district extension for that site, and
there was a hearing proposed, it was in front of the Town Board last night, the hearing’s
October 6. We had prepared this according to, I have it right here, all of Mike Shaw’s technical
th
specifications, and it’s not in it. It’s right here.
MR. RINGER-Tony, I put down, trying to get some conditions and stuff, you know, any
condition would be subject to a signoff by Mike Shaw and the Town of Queensbury Water and
Sewer Department.
MR. GARVEY-I’m happy with that. I should have had him write the letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you use an oil separator over at the Garvey Volkswagen dealership?
MR. GARVEY-Yes, we do.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-And you have somebody like Safety Kleen come in and pump it out?
MR. GARVEY-We’ve looked at it a number of times, and there’s really nothing in it. Because
we keep the floor so clean. So, if we have an oil spill, we don’t let it run in the drain. I mean,
that’s real serious. You don’t want that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Larry, back to you.
MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question I meant to ask earlier, regarding traffic. When you drive
down Quaker Road, you know, you’d be able to see this from Quaker Road.
MR. GARVEY-Partially, but not that well, because it would be blocked by the high berm of the
shared site that the landscaping company and Barrett own, plus the Barrett building.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you don’t anticipate a lot of sort of drive by traffic off Quaker Road?
MR. GARVEY-No. I do not think. We’ll be a destination point. I don’t think you’re going to be
able to see it to any great extent. The building isn’t very high.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s just always been sort of a pet peeve of mine that there’s no cross
through from Dix Avenue to Quaker Road, and, you know, Barrett Road would almost.
MR. GARVEY-That would be perfect. It’s a private drive. We’ll talk to him.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody else?
MR. GARVEY-Could I make some comments, if possible.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. GARVEY-I was hoping to address the landscaping and put that to rest. You can’t blame
me for trying to do nothing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, while we’re on the landscaping, could I ask you a question before you
begin?
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-The front of the building, which would be the south side of the building,
there’s the front of the building. Here’s the showroom.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And here’s a handicapped sidewalk or ramp.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-What are those two rectangular blank areas.
MR. GARVEY-We are going to put two trees there. We can make it grass.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Those are the ones he’s talking about putting in the big cement.
MR. GARVEY-That’s where the two large maples will be.
MR. STROUGH-Could we make everyone happy by suggesting that, not only do you put the
two trees there, but the entire rectangular area, other than the sidewalk for handicapped access,
will be professionally landscaped?
MR. GARVEY-I have no problem with that. That’s a good compromise.
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to define landscaping.
MR. STROUGH-Well, professionally designed.
MR. MAC EWAN-His definition, my definition, your definition and everybody else in this
room’s definition could all be different.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t want to mention any names. I’ve got a landscaper in mind who
always does a great landscaping.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, are you talking grass, are you talking perennials, are you
talking shrubs? You need to be specific.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d rather not see grass. I’d rather see perennials and shrubs and various
types of plants. Grass has got an upkeep to it, whereas, you know, if you plant these different
bushes of different varieties, you can even just plant bushes around the tree, you know, the
different kinds and the different colors.
MR. GARVEY-For the different seasons.
MR. STROUGH-There’s very minimum upkeep. You don’t have to mow it.
MR. GARVEY-We want it to look nice. We had planned on doing that. To be honest.
MR. STROUGH-And they can look great, but, you know, for me to sit down right now and say
what I want exactly, or Tom to sit down, as he’s taken the initiative here to say what we want
exactly, but I’m saying that seems to satisfy most of us with just landscaping those two areas.
That’s the additional landscaping.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I don’t think you need to get bogged down in the detail of caliper size
and scientific names and all that sort of thing, but, when you say professionally landscaped and
leave it at that, there’s any number of things that come to mind that one could do to it, not
saying that he would or wouldn’t do it, but I’m just speaking in generality here. You just need
to be a little bit more specific about what your intentions are, so that when it comes time to go
through the checklist, before they’re issued a CO, that all the conditions of site plan have been
met.
MR. STROUGH-I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. We’ve said it before and we’ve gotten away
with it, but you had to say something.
MR. MAC EWAN-I always try to steer us in the right direction.
MR. STROUGH-So that would make everybody happy, I guess.
MR. GARVEY-How about if we have like an assortment of bushes, and plants, and trees to
maybe come up to maybe a 25% saturation in those areas? Would that be aesthetically
pleasing?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by 25% saturation?
MR. GARVEY-Well, if this was an area that needed to be landscaped, at least 25% of it would be
filled with bushes and trees.
MR. STROUGH-Considering they’re going to grow and will probably maybe fill the whole
thing.
MR. GARVEY-I’m just using that number as an arbitrary percentage.
MR. STROUGH-It sounds good to me.
MR. GARVEY-Would you all be satisfied with that?
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds good.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’ve got a general consensus.
MR. GARVEY-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We just have to word it carefully, however we’re going to do it. Anything
else that you wanted to add?
MR. GARVEY-And if that’s enough of a compromise for the landscaping, I’m happy with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute and we’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-John Salvador is my name. I really have some grave concerns about Mike
Shaw’s recommendation with regard to oil water and antifreeze. Mike Shaw is not operating a
sewage treatment plant where that stuff is going, and it has a hell of an impact on the chemical
process.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, I have the letter here dated August 25, 2003 from
Mike Shaw to Craig Brown. It says, “The proposed Garvey Hyundai building on Dix Avenue is
not within a Town Sanitary Sewer District. I have spoke with both Sean Garvey and Dennis
MacElroy of Environmental Design Partnership about the procedure of a District Extension.
This District Extension will require a public hearing and Town Board action prior to the
sanitary sewer connection.” Certainly I think it’s been touched on. You can condition that the
plan have final signoff from the Town Wastewater Superintendent. Something along those
lines to ensure that the plan and any drains and grease oil separator, whether it’s required or
not, make sure Mike has the final say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why wouldn’t you want an oil separator? Is there a reason why you
wouldn’t want to have one?
MR. GARVEY-He told me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Never mind what he said. Just from you, from a personal standpoint,
running a business.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. GARVEY-To be honest, it was in the initial plan, when we showed him the initial plan and
said, here’s the oil separator, this is where the sewer, this is where we’d like it hooked up to the
building. He said, what do you have this for here, and I said, because we, the builder presumed
that we needed it, and he said, you don’t need it. You don’t want it. If it does become filled
with a concentrated form of waste, the septic people that pump it out won’t be able to accept it,
or wherever they deliver it, so I would rather, his words, have small particles of oil, he said,
when you think of the thousands and thousands, the tens of thousands of gallons of water that’s
used there, the incremental bits of oil that might be in it is minimal. It’s almost like, well, like
shampoo and soap is form of oil. I mean, it’s a lard.
MR. MAC EWAN-It just strikes me, as one individual on this Board, that it’s very odd that he
would take that position considering all the previous site plans that we’ve considered over the
last couple of years where we’ve made that part of approval to have the oil separators with
automotive related enterprises. It would make sense, for your own personal satisfaction and
safety, to have one on site. I mean, because, you know, typically oil water separators aren’t
going in to a sanitary sewer system. They’re being pumped out by a company that reclaims
those and reprocesses, someone like Safety Kleen, that has a regular route to go and empty
them once a week or once a month or whatever the case may be.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. I’m not an expert to really express my opinion on it. I’m not an engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Personally I would feel more comfortable if you had one, as one member of
this Board. I don’t know how everybody else feels, but I’d feel more comfortable if you had
one.
MR. GARVEY-I used his recommendation, because I presume he knows more about it than I
do. He felt that it was a preferable way to handle the minimal amount of waste. We’re talking
parts per billion.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, what’s throwing me about this whole thing is that he would have
reviewed the Warren Tire application. He would have reviewed the Hoffman Car Wash
application, both of those parcels have oil and water separators.
MR. GARVEY-Yes, but the Warren Tire, I don’t know, I’m supposing, maybe, they do a large
quantity of oil changes, where a car dealership doesn’t do as many, and I presume the Hoffman
Car Wash, it’s just the quantity of soap, and the oils.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, they have a jiffy lube franchise, too.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. I wasn’t aware of that. I’ll do what he says.
MR. SANFORD-I feel more comfortable with where you’re going with this, Craig. I’m just
wondering how we can get clarification on it. Should we direct the inquiry to C.T. Male for
their comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s any number of ways to do it. I mean, we could condition our
approval that we are requesting an oil separator be part of this site plan approval. We could
condition it that, you know, like George is suggesting, a signoff by Mike Shaw with the sewer
and water department, as to whether the site would actually need one or not. I mean, the Town
Board is going to play a role in this, the sewer extension, so they’ll have an opportunity to
review it. There’s any number of avenues we could pursue with it. It’s just depending upon
how strongly the Board feels about it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you feel pretty strongly about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to me it makes sense.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-Me, too.
MR. GARVEY-We have one at the Volkswagen Hyundai store that’s been there for 18 years.
We’ve never had to pump it out. Because the way that we, I guess the way that we take care of
our, we have our own sewer district, own septic system there. We’re not hooked to the sewer
there. I don’t know what cost. I have no idea what those things cost. It was in the original
plans, and he told us, don’t put it in. He’d rather take wastewater with very, very small
particles of waste oil, which obviously doesn’t end up traditionally in a drain.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about it?
MR. RINGER-I’m surprised, and we’re not experts. Mike Shaw would be more of an expert
than us.
MR. GARVEY-Why don’t we have him signoff on it, then.
MR. RINGER-Well, certainly, that would be part of any, if we did, rather we should insist he
have it. Since I’m not an expert, I don’t know if I should.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just throwing out my opinion.
MR. RINGER-I know it. I just don’t know. I’m not an expert. I wouldn’t have a personal
opinion. I’d have to rely on an expert opinion, I guess is what I’m saying.
MR. GARVEY-If he wants us to put one in, I will put one in.
MR. HILTON-I guess the only thing I would say, based on what you’re telling me, is that, you
had a discussion with Mike and he said you don’t need it, not that he was opposed to it.
Perhaps the Board could, you know, stipulate that it be placed on the plan, but at the same time
that the plans receive final signoff from Mike Shaw. Something along those lines.
MR. GARVEY-Obviously, C.T. Male did not think I needed it.
MR. RINGER-Yes. C.T. Male didn’t make any comment about it at all. I was reading through
there to see.
MR. SEGUJLIC-I’m surprised he’s not asking for one, but it’s usually up to the Town to decide
that, and it’s a very good idea to have one, but I don’t think auto dealerships really have that
much oil there, per se.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll consider conditioning it based on a signoff from the sewer and
water department. How’s that?
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 44-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SEAN JT GARVEY, 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,
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
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 23 day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr.
MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, I see you feverishly writing down there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s what I’ve got. The two rectangular areas located on the south side
of the proposed building, on the Dix Avenue side, between the front of the building, and the
ramp for handicapped access, will be landscaped with at least two trees. What kind of trees?
MR. GARVEY-Maple.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine.
MR. GARVEY-I think I like maples.
MR. STROUGH-I like maples. With at least two maple trees and a variety of shrubs and bush
like, bush type plants to infill a minimum of 25% of the identified above. The remaining of the
area will either be lawn or bark mulch, whatever your preference.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Would that work, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Anything else, conditions?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got the oil water separator. I said we should get final signoff by the
Town’s Water, Wastewater Department, with a special note that Mike Shaw address the oil,
water separator concern by this Board.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-Can we poll the Board on this issue? I mean, I think what Tom said was very
interesting, in that the Town, perhaps, should set the criteria on this, rather than maybe C.T.
Male’s suggestion.
MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male, for all practical purposes, is part of the Town because they’re our
hired consulting engineers who review applications for us.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tehcnically.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, but, I think in every other dealership in my short tenure that we’ve dealt
with, it’s been suggested and implemented that they have this separator installed. I mean, this
seems to be a very unusual circumstance that we’re now hearing that it’s not preferred.
MR. RINGER-I think they’ve all come with it and we’ve never questioned it, I guess, you know,
they’ve all had them. I’ve never, I haven’t had one that hasn’t had one.
MR. MAC EWAN-The compelling argument that Mr. Garvey makes is that the type of
dealership he is and the amount of oil changes and potential for accidental spillage and stuff is
much less as compared to someone like Warren Tire or jiffy lube or somebody like that who’s
business is to constantly do oil changes all the time.
MR. SANFORD-I understand, but I believe Saturn has one, and it would probably be a
comparable dealership to Saturn. So, again, I mean, I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-I polled the Board but I didn’t get a lot of reaction to it. So people seem to be
comfortable that we want to go this route and ask that Wastewater review it and signoff on it.
MR. SANFORD-Is that how everybody feels?
MR. RINGER-Well, I’m not an expert. So I have to rely on, I feel they’re’ more of an expert than
I am.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re the ones who have to protect the plant.
MR. HUNSINGER-I almost feel like it’s a Building Department issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Either way, we’ll get an answer. He’s got to go through two routes. It’s got
to go to Mike Shaw to be reviewed. Then when the Town Board considers the sewer district
extension, they’ll consider it again at that point. Maybe you might want to add a footnote to
that condition you’ve got in there that the Town Board look at it as well when they consider the
extension of the sewer district.
MS. RADNER-That would be a recommendation. You don’t have the authority to require it
from the Town Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did I say require? I meant recommendation.
MR. SANFORD-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-We suggest.
MR. RINGER-I would also imagine that Dave Hatin, when he looks at it, would make a
determination, too, on something like that. I would think, I’m not sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, John?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got here, wall mounted lights, cut sheets should be provided.
MR. GARVEY-There’s a letter that you should have been supplied by Staff, addressing that
issue. It’s the letter from Warren Electric. I could read it. I’m sure Staff has it. I faxed it to, C.T.
Male, in their approval, mentions the letter from Warren Electric.
MR. STROUGH-But are you going to have wall mounted lights?
MR. GARVEY-Yes. They’re above every man door.
MR. STROUGH-All you have to do is provide us with the description of the light.
MR. GARVEY-The description of the light is on the site plan, Item Number Four in the bottom
left hand corner. They’re also referred to in the letter from Warren Electric. In one paragraph it
says only shielded cut off 100 watt wall packs would be mounted 10 feet above all doorways.
The design would not affect the submitted lighting plan in any way because the downcast light
will only be focused on the doorway’s entrance and will quickly diffuse within 20 feet.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I think that sounds good and all.
MR. GARVEY-And C.T. Male was happy with that.
MR. HILTON-But certainly if you can, if the applicant, I think what we’re looking for is just a
drawing. There’s a sheet that comes from the manufacturer that shows.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Garvey, it’s like a catalogue cut sheet. All they want it to be is part of the
public record.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. It’s on the top left hand corner of this one, but he, they can add those wall
packs. What’s going to happen is that you’re going to have little spots over each door way with
the lumens.
MR. STROUGH-Warren Electric, they give you a cut sheet, that’s easy.
MR. GARVEY-That’s fine. Okay. I’ll supply that.
MR. STROUGH-And that all lighting be down cast, full cut off, flat lens fixtures which you’re
already planning on doing.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So we’re just assuring that’s what they’re going to do with the wall
mounted lights.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. That’s all I have. Anything else I should add?
MR. MAC EWAN-Run with it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2003 SEAN JT GARVEY, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 44-2003 Applicant: Sean JT Garvey
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Long Rifle Enterprises
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: 257 Dix Avenue
Applicant proposes Automotive Sales & Service for a site currently used as an Automotive
Storage Facility/Display lot. Auto Sales & Service uses in the HC-Int. zone require Site Plan
Review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: PZ & SP 75-2000
Warren Co. Planning: 9/10/03
Tax Map No. 110-1-1.27
Lot size: 6.965 acres / Section: 179-23.D.(3)b.
Public Hearing: September 23, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/19/03, and
9/23 Staff Notes
9/18 CT Male engineering comments
9/16 Notice of Public Hearing sent
9/10 Warren Co. Planning
9/3 Meeting Notice w/Project Notification marker sent
8/29 Application forwarded to Warren Co. PB
8/25 CB from M. Shaw, Wastewater
8/22 Application forwarded to CT Male, Water, Wastewater, & City of GF
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 September 23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will receive a final signoff by C.T. Male or the Town’s Engineer.
2. The applicant will receive a final signoff by the Town’s Wastewater Department, in
particular we’re asking Mike Shaw to address the Planning Board’s concern over the oil
water separator.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
3. We would also like the Town Board to take a hard look at the potential need for an oil
water separator with this automotive enterprise.
4. Cut sheets will be provided to the Planning Department for all wall mounted lights, and
that all lighting be downcast with full cut off and flat lens fixtures.
5. The two rectangular areas located on the south side of the proposed building on the Dix
Avenue side, between the front of the building, and the ramp for handicap access, will
be landscaped with at least two maple trees and a variety of shrubs and bush type plants
to infill a minimum of 25% of the identified above. The remaining area will be either
lawn or bark mulch.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of September, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. GARVEY-Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 5-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM’S RESORT
CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, RR-
3A, LC-42A LOCATION: NYS RT. 9L, DUNHAM BAY APPLICANT SEEKS
RECOGNITION AS A PRE-EXISTING CLASS A MARINA PER SECTION 179-10-035 OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE. LGPC, APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/10/03 TAX MAP
NO. 252-1-75.3, 239.20-1-1, 252-1-89, 90, 91 LOT SIZE: 10 ACRES SECTION: 179-10-060A
JOHN SALVADOR, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Just a brief summary if you will. As I’ve mentioned in my notes, the
applicant has submitted a Special Use Permit application, prior to the January 1, 2004 deadline
as required in the Town Code for all marina operations within the Town of Queensbury. As
I’ve stated, in order to qualify for a pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit, the
applicant must demonstrate, or comply with the requirements of Section 179-10-035. As a
general comment, the data provided with the application by the applicant refers to past
approvals from various agencies, however copies of these approvals and/or permits have not
been provided. Consistent with other marina SUP reviews, copies of the past permits from any
regulatory agencies, other regulatory agencies, such as the APA or Lake George Park
Commission for marina uses at this location should be submitted to support this application. It
is unclear how many boat slips for rental and/or storage have been historically approved,
versus what’s being used at the present time. Should the Board not, I guess, should the Board
feel that you cannot grant a pre-existing, nonconforming Special Use Permit, this application
then would be opened up to full Special Use Permit review as cited in our Zoning Code, and I
guess that’s all I have at this time.
MR. SANFORD-George, when you first opened up, you mentioned the deadline date. What
was that date?
MR. HILTON-Yes. January 1, 2004.
MR. SANFORD-So if I understand it, that voluntarily all interested parties who want to be
grandfathered in have to be in front of this Board prior to that date?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. HILTON-Yes. I don’t think it’s a voluntary.
MR. SANFORD-Well, do you know what I’m saying, if they don’t do it, they’re not?
MR. HILTON-Well, I’ll read the Section to you really quickly. It says, “All Class A Marinas, as
defined by this article, in operation as of the date of the adoption of this chapter shall be
required to apply for a special use permit on or before January 1, 2004. An existing Class A
marina may qualify for an administrative special use permit per § 179-10-035.” So in a sense, or
in reality, all Class A marinas must meet that deadline.
MR. SANFORD-How many are there and how many have come before us?
MR. HILTON-Well, I think you can probably count, or recall the ones that have come before us.
How many are there?
MR. MAC EWAN-Three.
MR. RINGER-Three have come before us. There may be twenty or thirty of them out there.
MR. HILTON-There may be.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what I was wondering.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I’d like to address Mr. Hilton’s
comment about substantiating that we have all these permits. I brought with me my file.
Attached to our application is an index, a summary of all the permits we have ever received
from the beginning of time, with date and number, and there’s a file folder in that box for each
one of them. Now, before we go any further, would you like to look at these, examine them,
satisfy yourself that we have, in fact, these permits?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. As part of your application, you were required to supply copies to the
Town. It’s not for us to go sit there and go through a file cabinet or a file folder to look at, you
know, whatever correspondence you have that may associate with it. You know that.
MR. SALVADOR-So we’re required to file copies all of these with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-It says so in the Ordinance.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not necessarily all of them, but enough to substantiate what the
Ordinance requires.
MR. RINGER-That the docks have been existing and they have been used as rental or marinas.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You don’t have to give them all of them.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I was surprised to see that there were no Park Commission stickers
issued.
MR. SALVADOR-Stickers?
MR. METIVIER-You know, the wharf registration. I mean, as you sat through the other
hearing.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s not a permit.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MRS. SALVADOR-That’s not a permit.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s a fee we pay annually.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but the other people that sat at that table had to prove that they paid
these for so many years, and they all did.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s no problem.
MRS. SALVADOR-That’s just one file.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, gentlemen. I am here this evening with my wife Kathleen,
responding to the recently enacted Town of Queensbury Local Law No. 1 of 2003, which
requires that all those conducting activities identified in Town Code Chapter 179 Article 10 as
special uses be required to obtain a special use permit by January 1, 2004. By necessary
implication, we presume that such uses will not be allowed to continue operating without a
Special Use Permit in place by the forthcoming January date. The Zoning Ordinance does
specify those uses and activities which require special consideration due to their characteristics
so that they may be properly located and planned with respect to the objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance. We understand marinas, Class A and Class B, as defined in the Town Code Chapter
179 at Section 179-2-010, although considered by many to be an essential service, have been
identified as one of those land uses and/or activities requiring a Special Use Permit in a
Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. Because we have exceeded the operating levels of a
marina, Class B, we then fall, de facto, into the Class A Marina hopper. We want to point out
that marinas, Class A, B or otherwise, have never been an allowable use anywhere in the Town
of Queensbury, without some sort of Town permit, ever since the advent of the Town Zoning
Ordinance. The concept of Class A and Class B marinas was first introduced with the
promulgation of 6NYCRR Part 645-2.1, which became effective May 13, 1988. As for the need
for the Town to be concerned with the proper location of a facility such as ours, where else but
in a waterfront land ill suited for single family residential use as our lands have ever been
zoned, regulated and taxed. We want to say a few words about our commercial business
organization, and by the way, in all of this marina definition, use, the word “commercial”, the
“C” word, is avoided. I think there’s a presumption that a marina is a commercial activity, and
conducts its business in accordance with the general business laws of the State of New York.
Otherwise you don’t call yourself a marina. It is a commercial activity. Our application reads
Dunham’s Resort Corp. is the applicant applying for Special Use Permit SUP 5-2003. Dunham’s
Resort Corp., organized on January 1, 1983, presently operates a water based recreation facility
under the trade name “Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club”, on lands including under water
lands, titled in myself and my wife. We appear here tonight fully authorized to represent said
corporation. I am the President of the Corporation and my wife, Kathleen, is the
Secretary/Treasurer. Such a business structure, where real property assets are involved, is not
an unusual arrangement. Consider, we held a liquor license at one time. We have permits to
do certain things that involve enormous liability concerns. We need a corporate veil between
the assets and the operating company. As I say, it is not an unusual arrangement. Beginning on
February 28, 1973, when we purchased the property, and continuing until January 1, 1983,
beginning on February 1, 1973 and continuing until January 1, 1983, we operated as sole
proprietors. That is the reason our names, as individuals, appear on some early permits as the
applicant/owner/operator. The total of the recreation goods and services authorized to be
offered by our Boat and Beach Club far exceed those that might be ongoing at a conventional
marina. For example, we were required to register our recreation uses, with the Lake George
Park Commission. On April 23, 1990. We listed, as recreation uses, that have been ongoing at
some time or another at our facility in the following categories as required by the Park
Commission. Regattas. We have sponsored fishing tournaments, the New York State Diving
Association conventions, and an antique boat show. The offering of parasail rides. By strict
definition of parasailing, a balloon tethered to a boat is a parasail.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Salvador, can you provide documentation to the Town that all these
docks that you have on your parcel of property have been operational as a marina since 1981?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all you need to do. Why do we need to go through all the rest of this?
We’re just here as a Special Use Permit application to verify that your docks have been
operational as a marina since 1981. According to the Ordinance and the requirements of the
Ordinance, you’re to provide documentation substantiating that that’s been done. No one’s
denying you the fact that you’ve been operating as a marina, philosophically, whether you
agree or disagree with the way the Ordinance is written now, and the fact that people have to
come in and go through this review process is immaterial at this point. It is what it is, and this
is what the requirements of the Ordinance have us do.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the Town Assessor has been assessing us continuously.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something you need to take up with them. It’s not relative to the
Planning Board.
MR. SALVADOR-Pardon me?
MR. MAC EWAN-Your assessment, your gripe that you have with the Town Assessor is not
relative to the proceedings in front of this Planning Board.
MR. SALVADOR-The Town Assessor maintains an inventory of the facilities on our property,
as a basis for assessment. That’s been going on since 1973 when we arrived here. That’s in the
Town record, the public record. There they are. I have a map. I submitted a map.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my only question to you is, why didn’t you provide copies of the
Lake George Park Commission permits on a yearly basis going back to 1981 as part of your
application?
MRS. SALVADOR-Because that really doesn’t prove anything.
MR. SALVADOR-We have a DEC permit going back to 1981 that allows us to operate a marina
on Lake George.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then, why didn’t you provide that as documentation? As part of your
application, not tonight, not now, not throwing it on the table in front of us tonight, as part of
your application, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. It is part of the application. It’s indexed on that inventory.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a copy of it in here, other than just the index?
MR. SALVADOR-Just the index you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So you didn’t provide the copies we were looking for, did you? I
mean, you can give us an index here and we can sit here until one o’clock tomorrow morning
going back and forth like this, but it’s going to be counterproductive. It’s not going to get
anybody anywhere.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ll find it. Just a second.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give it right over there to Staff, please.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s a public document. We filed it at the County. It’s in the special.
MR. HILTON-Just reviewing what was submitted, it looks like an application, to begin with an
application for a permit to operate a marina on Lake George, signed by Mr. Salvador, dated
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
November 14, 1981, along with a marina permit issued by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, it looks like 4/67, let me clarify that. The application filled out by
Mr. Salvador identifies the number of boat slips at 67, parking for customer vehicles at 75
spaces. The actual permit issued by New York State DEC, with a date of March 22, 1982,
identifies the sale or rental of marina products, services and dock space for 67 boats, along with
parking for 75 customer vehicles, and that’s, in terms of a permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many boats?
MR. HILTON-It says 67 boats. I’ll read directly from the permit, “Sale or rental of marina
products, services, and dock space for 67 boats”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does it define this parcel?
MR. HILTON-It describes an address of permitee location, general location being Dunham’s
Bay. The permit itself doesn’t appear to have any specific tax map or parcel identification.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you comfortable with it?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, it’s certainly one piece of evidence that states that there’s a marina
permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was easy, wasn’t it?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s one prong of the test.
MR. RINGER-When you sat down with George for your pre-application conference, George
didn’t ask for that, or you didn’t have that?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, if you look at that inventory, okay, it’s a voluminous thing. I didn’t
know that all of it was necessary. Not only is there the permit, in many cases the permit starts
with an application and then flows into a permit. So there’s a lot of data.
MR. RINGER-John, I’m saying, when you sat down with Staff, for your pre-application
meeting, Staff told you, I’m sure, what they thought that they would like to see, and wasn’t the
permits, or these things you just gave to Staff, weren’t they part of what they had asked for at
that time?
MR. SALVADOR-I chose to inventory the complete list, okay. If all that is necessary, I have
supplied it.
MR. RINGER-I don’t want to make this, when we can do it with this.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s why I brought all the records with me. I brought them with me
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-What you supplied is ample.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-That makes life easy. Questions from Board members?
MR. METIVIER-I just have one. Back in 1981, you obtained 24 dock permits from the DEC,
Numbers 2591 through 2615. These are the placards that we all obtained, having docks on Lake
George that had to be registered at the time. I count 29 docks along the road, plus the wood
dock, which I believe was done afterwards. I think that’s the one you just put in recently. How
do you account for the discrepancies?
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Actually, we pay the Lake George Park Commission on a lineal foot basis, not
on a per dock basis.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Lineal foot, and they take a bunch of stickers, representing, and they stick
them in an envelope and I have some of them here.
MRS. SALVADOR-Maybe there’s a half a dozen for all of them.
MR. SALVADOR-Half a dozen. One year you get 12, the next year you get 3, last year we got 2.
I don’t know how they do it. We pay what is invoiced, and they respond with stickers.
MR. STROUGH-On previous applications, the Lake George Park Commission has always
identified the number of docks, and then identified the number they were paying commercial
rates on and the number of docks they were paying residential rates on, so that we could
ascertain that they were in fact paying commercial rates. Therefore we’ll assume those were
rental berths. So that was always identified, in all the Lake George Park Commission literature
that we’ve seen.
MR. SALVADOR-Ours is identified. We pay, I can give you the survey that they’ve made in
1988, a copy of that survey, that shows the lineal footage of docks, and they’re all commercial.
We have no residential docks. They’re all commercial.
MR. METIVIER-I can vouch for the fact that you’ve had these docks there forever, because I
pass by it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we all know that.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, I mean, it’s one of those things where the boats have always been there. I
mean, I can go back to the 70’s and tell you what kind of boats sat there, because it was just the
way it was. So I was just inquiring as to why you had 24 placards and 29 docks, but if you say
it’s based on lineal, then that’s fine. That’s all I was asking. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. STROUGH-Well, all we’re trying to do is, I think, ascertain, you’ve got 29 docks, and I
believe from what I’m hearing, 67 berths, potential rental berths, and it’s pretty simple, the way
the Code’s written now, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, okay. It’s your call.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I’m all for doing site plan review, and it seems like you’re
eager to do it, but the way the Code’s written, we don’t have to. All we have to do is ascertain
that you’ve been a marina. Bingo.
MR. METIVIER-And actually your marina looks very nice.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up
the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BOB SWEENEY
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SWEENEY-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Bob Sweeney. I’m an
attorney and I’m here on behalf of Frank Parillo who’s an adjoining property owner to the
marina in question. This afternoon I faxed to Town Hall a letter detailing my comments on the
application, and did the letter get to the Board?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it did not.
MR. SWEENEY-Okay. I have extra copies and I can distribute them.
MR. MAC EWAN-We won’t accept it because on the night of a meeting we do not accept
something put on our table the night of a meeting. However, Staff does have it. If you want to
read your letter into the record, you’re more than welcome to, but it’s just been a policy of this
Board that the night of a meeting we do not accept any new information pertaining to any
application, pro or con, from anyone the night of a meeting.
MR. SWEENEY-Okay. I will read my letter into the record. This is a public hearing, and I’m
certain, as a matter of law, I’m entitled to submit both documentation and oral testimony.
MR. MAC EWAN-It has been submitted. Staff is in receipt of it. It just has not been distributed
to the Board.
MR. SWEENEY-Okay. The Board just hasn’t seen it. Understood. Very good. “To the
Chairman and Members of the Planning Board: Please be advised that this firm represents
Frank J. Parillo, a property owner and marina operator on Dunham’s Bay on Lake George in the
Town of Queensbury. Mr. Parillo’s property interests include certain lands and docks shown
on the ‘Site Plan – Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club’ prepared by Donald L. Pidgeon, Jr.
dated August 15, 2003 (the “Pidgeon Plan”) submitted by John Salvador on behalf of Dunham’s
Resort Corp. (the “Applicant”) in connection with an application for ‘….. recognition as a pre-
existing Class A marina per Section 179-10-035 of the Zoning Ordinance” (the “Salvador
Application”).” That plan that I’m referencing is the plan that’s attached to the application that
was submitted to the Board. It’s also attached, a copy of it is attached to my letter. “A copy of
the “Pidgeon Plan” is attached hereto as Exhibit A. It appears from the Planning Board agenda
that the Applicant is seeking approval pursuant to Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Section 179-
10-060A(2), which provides as follows: All Class A marinas, as defined by this Article, in
operation as of the date of the adoption of this Chapter [3-10-2003] shall be required to apply for
a special use permit on or before January 1, 2004. An existing Class A marina may qualify for
an administrative special use permit per § 179-10-035. Section 179-10-035A provides that
“substantiated pre-existing, nonconforming uses shall be exempt from a comprehensive
Planning Board review”. Subsection B requires that the property owner’s site plan review
application demonstrate that the structures associated with the use were constructed according
to permitting procedures in place at the time of construction, and that the use of the property
and structures has been continuous, without interruption, “….since prior to 1981 for
marinas…”. Section 179-10-035C provides that: The Planning Board shall, upon finding the
substantiating evidence valid, complete and satisfactory, issue the applicant a pre-existing
nonconforming special use permit. This special use permit shall be considered a permanent
permit and may be modified only upon review and approval by the Planning Board. This
special use permit shall serve to document the existing status of the project. (emphasis added).
Our concern, on behalf of Mr. Parillo, is that the “Pidgeon Plan” does not accurately depict the
“existing status of the Project”, contains elements evidencing an infringement on the property
rights of Mr. Parillo, and contains certain extraneous detail designed to support the Applicant’s
efforts to further infringe on the property rights of adjacent landowners.” As footnote to that
description of the “Pidgeon Plan”, my letter notes that the “Pidgeon Plan” is labeled “Site Plan”
only. It is not a certified survey. It is not stamped or signed by a licensed surveyor. More
importantly, an important aspect to Mr. Parillo’s rights, the “Pidgeon Plan” Map Reference #8
identifies a line on the plan labeled approximate location of the marsh, and this is, if we got
into it, a detailed and long-winded issue that Mr. Salvador has been promoting for some years
now, but for purposes of our discussion here, the full description of that isn’t necessary, other
than that Map Reference 8 puts on this site plan, through Map Reference 8, a line that comes
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
from a document that isn’t a survey, that isn’t even a site plan. It’s labeled a Sketch by a man
named David Bolster. So on this plan we have shown, as a property indication, a line from a
sketch, and we’ll take a look at that in just a minute. “Our major objections to the “Pidgeon
Plan” are as follows: 1. The five docks and adjacent land circled
on”, and this is in my letter. I’m sorry you don’t have the letter in front of you. I’d be happy
to give copies to the Board so they can follow this and look at the locations that I’m describing.
You can give them back to me when you’re done if you don’t want to accept them now, but it
would be easier to follow.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. I think we can follow you.
MR. SWEENEY-All right. “the attached Exhibit A (as location “#1”) are the property of Frank J.
Parillo and operated by him as a Class A marina pursuant to the Lake George Park Commission
Permit No. 5234-22-96. Mr. Parillo’s ownership rights in the two easternmost docks were
established by Court order. See Parillo v. Salvador, 248 A.D.2d 847 (3 Dept., 1998). As
rd
depicted on the “Pidgeon Plan” it would appear that the Applicant’s “hidden agenda” is to
secure the Planning Board’s approval of a Section 179-10-035C “pre-existing non-conforming
special use permit” with respect to Mr. Parillo’s five docks on Dunham’s Bay.” If you look at
that “Pidgeon Plan”, it’s, the configuration of Mr. Parillo’s property has been altered from
previous surveys, which we’ll get to in a minute, and if this Board grants a Special Use Permit
based on the evidence put in the record on this plan, it will be granting a Special Use Permit to
Mr. Salvador for Mr. Parillo’s land and docks. “For this reason alone, the “Pidgeon Plan”
submitted by the Applicant in connection with this site plan review application should be
rejected by the Planning Board. 2. The “Pidgeon Plan” is inconsistent with prior surveys
prepared for the Applicant. Attached as Exhibit B is an excerpt from the Applicant’s own
survey” and this is a survey done by Coulter & McCormack I believe, “depicting Mr. Parillo’s
property extending to the north boundary of Route 9L and then continuing to the south of
Route 9L (the Route 9L portion being subject to public use for highway purposes).” Mr.
Parillo’s property extends both north and south. If you compare that to the “Pidgeon Plan”, you
can see that this “Pidgeon Plan”, which, again, is not a survey, has altered the configuration of
my client’s property in an effort to get this Board to grant this applicant a marina permit for my
client’s docks and land. “This survey should be compared to the configuration of Mr. Parillo’s
property on the uncertified “Pidgeon Plan”, which is clearly designed to improperly secure
marina permit rights on Mr. Parillo’s property. See Exhibit B, hereto. 3. The parcel of land
south of Route 9L labeled “Lands of Salvador, Liber 546, Page 362”, etc. (see Exhibit A at “#3”)
inaccurately represents the property interests of the Applicant, and infringes on the property
rights of Mr. Parillo (see, once again, Mr. Parillo’s property on the Applicant’s certified survey,
Exhibit B).” This is the property on Dunham’s Bay, the five dock property, that extends south
of Route 9L. If you look at the Coulter & McCormack survey done for Mr. Salvador a couple of
years before this event here, you’ll see that that property is configured just the way I described
it. Now, for this application, he’s changed the ownership name on that piece south of Route 9L
and claims it’s Lands of John Salvador, whereas before, on the survey, it was Lands of Parillo.
4. The broken line on the “Pidgeon Plan” labeled “approximately location of marsh” (see
Exhibit “A” at “#4”) is extraneous detail inserted by the Applicant in an effort to “bootstrap”
some legitimacy to another of the Applicant’s theories designed to interfere with the property
rights of Mr. Parillo. This line is irrelevant to the Application and should be removed from the
“Pidgeon Plan”. Note also that this line has its basis in Exhibit “A” Map Reference 8,” the
sketch by Mr. Bolster that was prepared for Mr. Salvador, “which is nothing more than a
“sketch” made for the Applicant. 5. The line on the “Pidgeon Plan” labeled “approximate
southerly road boundary of the former County road as scaled from Map Reference No. 7” (see
Exhibit “A” at “#5) is also inaccurate and irrelevant to the application. Once again, this line
represents an effort by the Applicant to “bootstrap” some legitimacy to another theory designed
to interfere with the property rights of Mr. Parillo by way of its location on an approved Town
permit plan. The “Pidgeon Plan” should be rejected for this reason. 6. Upon information and
belief, the “Pidgeon Plan” depiction of the French Mountain Tract Lot 10 and Lot 11 boundary
at the Dunham’s Bay Creek Bridge (see Exhibit “A” and “#6”) is inaccurate and also irrelevant
to the application. The Pidgeon Plan should not be approved with this lot configuration shown
in this manner.” Once again, if you compare that location on the “Pidgeon Plan” to the survey
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
that Mr. Salvador had done, you will see that he’s altered the property lines in an effort to get a
Town marina permit on lands that are outside what is shown on the survey as his property.
The purpose for that is, obviously, an issue to do with the ownership of the creek and the bridge
structure under the creek where Mr. Parillo’s boats from the marina on the creek enter
Dunham’s Bay. “7. Upon information and belief, the dock configuration in the vicinity of the
“handi-cap access” dock (see Exhibit “A” at “#7”) is not accurate. It is believed that the
additional docks have been installed to the north of the area labeled “wood dock”.” I have
some photographs of those docks and I’ll put them in the record with the permission of the
Chairman. “On behalf of Mr. Parillo, we request that the Planning Board reject the “Pidgeon
Plan” as failing to provide “….valid, complete and satisfactory substantiating evidence”
documenting the existing status of the project as required by Section 179-10-035. If the Board
has any questions or requires further elaboration or documentation of these issues, we would
request that the public hearing scheduled for this evening be continued to a later date in order
to provide an opportunity to respond on any open issues. Very truly yours, Shanley, Sweeney,
Reilly & Allen P.C. Robert L. Sweeney”
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Those photographs you have, if you’d like to give them to Staff,
they’ll see to it that they’re distributed to Planning Board members.
MR. SWEENEY-We’ll do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-My intention, at this point, would be to leave the public hearing open and
we’ll probably table this application and sort it out. I appreciate it.
MR. SWEENEY-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’m going to leave the public hearing open for the time being.
You can come back up.
MR. SALVADOR-The so called “Pidgeon Plan” is a site plan. However, the “Pidgeon Plan” has
its foundation in a map that we filed at the County, a survey map, a survey.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t you just provide the survey map?
MR. SALVADOR-Because, firstly, we wanted to reduce it so you’d have a manageable piece of
paper in front of you. Secondly, a site plan we needed to put more information on it than a
survey would require.
MR. MAC EWAN-But this isn’t a site plan. It’s a special use permit.
MR. SALVADOR-We require a site plan to be submitted with a, for a special use permit, I
believe. A site plan shows things pertinent to the application. A survey shows things pertinent
to property boundary descriptions, and we didn’t want to confuse one with the other. With
regard to the accuracy of the underlying map that we filed, we have discovered, over the years,
that some really sloppy work has been done in the area of surveying on Dunham’s Bay. It had
its beginning in the late 1950’s, when the Conservation Department mapped the shoreline of
Lake George. They did it primarily with aerial surveys. It was an aerial survey, and then they
superimposed on it property lines. This led to a lot of inaccuracies, and we’ve been living with
those inaccuracies ever since. The land that Mr. Sweeney speaks of south of Route 9L was never
conveyed by us to the Nature Conservancy, never conveyed by us to the Nature Conservancy,
and we have since filed a correction deed in that regard, and that’s why we have a tax parcel
number for that. What we have done on our map that we filed at the County, we have used the
best information we could. We have done the field survey necessary to do the mapping. We
went out in the wintertime and mapped the wetlands. We did it in the wintertime, when we
could go out there on the frozen surface. In any case, we’ve established all of these boundaries,
these reference points, by using old maps, sometimes not the best scale, if you will, but the best
information available to us.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SANFORD-Can I interrupt you just for one quick minute and ask legal a quick question? Is
it essential or is it a requirement that the Special Use Permit needs to have, as part of the
application, a map? In other words, can a person come in and make, and basically request to be
grandfathered in as a Class A Marina of their property, that they own, by providing
documentation that it’s been in continuous use without showing a picture of what this property
is? In which case, we can maybe avoid this confusing issue by merely, if we feel comfortable
that there’s been documentation with the permits of Mr. Salvador’s property, we could basically
eliminate this as part of the application and not create a big brouhaha if it’s not necessary.
MS. RADNER-Well, what that Section says is that the property owner has to submit a site plan
review application, together with information demonstrating that, and then it goes on to list the
structures and use, blah, blah, blah. I think it’s been read about three times tonight. It never
delineates what that information has to be. That’s up to the applicant to submit sufficient
evidence to demonstrate to your satisfaction what’s at the property and the use of the property
and the continuing status of that property from 1981, basically, to date, that there’s been no
interruption. There’s been no major change. It wasn’t abandoned for 20 years in between.
MR. SANFORD-I take it, then, that the map is not an essential component.
MS. RADNER-Not an essential component, but it is up to the applicant to submit whatever
materials he feels support his application.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, if the applicant withdraws the map from the application, and
basically goes by description as probably the permits identify, then we can move forward on
this.
MS. RADNER-He could do that. My understanding is at this point he’s submitted a list of the
things that support his application, but hasn’t actually submitted those documents. He
submitted tonight one of those documents, and I don’t believe that the other documents are
hard to reference. Just a list of those documents.
MR. SANFORD-The reason I bring it up is apparently the individual, Mr. Sweeney, what he
was getting at is that this is not necessarily accurate, and he believes that if this becomes part of
the record, it might prove to be built upon some way or fashion in the future, on something else,
and I’m saying maybe if we just eliminate it, and we deal with just the approval of the marina,
without the picture or the map, we can accomplish something that everybody’s happy with.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, Cathi. In another part of the Code book it does have criteria
needed for submission of a site plan review.
MS. RADNER-Correct, but you’re not doing site plan review here. What you’re doing is an
administrative determination to see if you can avoid doing a comprehensive Planning Board
review, but it does say a site plan review application.
MR. STROUGH-It has a site plan review application in the Code book. It has a list of criteria
that’s required, and I believe, Richard, that a map is part of that.
MR. SANFORD-I just asked the attorney, and she said it wasn’t.
MS. RADNER-Well, again, the level and the detail aren’t set forth. So we don’t have, for
example, a requirement that every site plan be supported by a survey certified to the Planning
Board. What we get and the level of detail we get at various times varies.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we frequently get maps that are just hand sketches.
MS. RADNER-Basically, and I don’t think that you have the power to tell an applicant
withdraw this, don’t submit this, we won’t consider it, but at the same time, you don’t have an
obligation to bless it and accept it, and you’re finding of a satisfaction that they’ve met the
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
criteria doesn’t necessarily mean that you accept everything that they set forth in their
application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what I want to do. I want to table this application tonight. I want
Staff to provide us with a copy of the Coulter & McCormack survey map that’s been referenced
tonight here that was submitted at the last application he did about two years ago I think it was.
I would like Counsel to review the Sweeney/Parillo letter and offer us some comments and your
position on that and the validity of their arguments, and three, you can provide any additional
information you want, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Comments to Mr. Sweeney’s letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. You can provide any of that information you want.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I’m not going to take it tonight because I’m not going to turn this thing
into a kangaroo court, and that’s where we’re headed. I’m just not going to do it tonight.
Three, I want the applicant to provide copies of additional evidence to support the continued
use of a marina since 1981. Take that in stride. I’m not looking for you to copy your entire file
box over there. Provide us a copy with checks, I mean.
MR. SALVADOR-Your Town Surveyor required federal tax returns.
MR. MAC EWAN-We want something from the Lake George Park Commission that says
you’ve been operating as a Class A Marina since 1981.
MR. SALVADOR-You may not get that. We do not have.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know the task in front of you. Provide what you to support your
position. That’s all we’re asking you to do.
MR. SALVADOR-We are here to get a Town Special Use Permit, so that we can go to the Park
Commission and make application for a Class A Marina permit. We got the same letter the
Hoppers and the Smiths got, putting us on notice that this was required to get their Class A
Marina permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’d like you to do, John.
MR. SALVADOR-But I can’t do it until I get your Special Use Permit.
MR. METIVIER-But they provided us with the information from the Lake George Park
Commission indicating that they did have commercial docks, both Hoppers and Smiths.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we can do that.
MRS. SALVADOR-We can do that.
MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. That’s what we ask for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s table this for one month, to our second meeting of October. All
right. Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-The second is the 28.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-October the 28.
th
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. SALVADOR-Before we adjourn, though, I think Mr. Sanford’s question should be
addressed, because it could be precedent setting for other applicants.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t want to get into it tonight, John. However, I do want to add one thing
while I’m thinking about it, because you’ve already missed the deadline date to supply your
additional information for October 28. I’ll give you until, what’s the first Friday in October?
th
MR. RINGER-The 3.
rd
MR. MAC EWAN-Until close of business on October 3 to supply your additional information.
rd
All right.
MR. SALVADOR-And the additional information is evidence that we have been paying
commercial dock fees since 1988 when they started.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, since 1981.
MS. RADNER-The use of the property and associated structures has been continuous to date
without interruption since prior to 1981, and that the use was constructed according to the
permitting procedures which were enforceable by the Town at the time of construction.
MR. SALVADOR-See, we haven’t gotten to that tonight.
MS. RADNER-No, we haven’t.
MR. SALVADOR-We haven’t gotten to that.
MS. RADNER-That’s what we need from you, though, is that evidence to support that.
MR. SALVADOR-I was prepared to present that tonight. Okay. I was prepared to present that
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of your submissions.
MRS. SALVADOR-May I just ask a question? You’re saying, and Ms. Radner is saying that you
need information that we have been in business without interruption and all, can that be just a
representation or do you want everything?
MS. RADNER-Absolutely. We don’t need every single day. We need evidence sufficient to
demonstrate to this Board the nature and scope of your business and that it’s been ongoing, and
since it’s been a single ownership throughout that time, it shouldn’t be a major hurdle for you.
MR. MAC EWAN-As an offer of suggestion, FOIL the Smith’s application. Take a look at what
they supplied in their application with their stuff, and that’s exactly what we’re looking for. I’m
making it easy on you. Let’s not turn this into an extravaganza here.
MR. SALVADOR-With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we usually do a better job than that, at
what we do.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, you already did more work, really, than you needed to do. I mean,
the list of documents that you, I mean, I was just blown away.
MR. SALVADOR-And this whole scenario comes into better focus every time you work on it.
Really.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, gentlemen.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. Other business, I would like to just comment on the
Takundewide application as you were talking about the docks. The rules hold that only a
homeowner or a leasor, leasee, only a homeowner or a leasee occupying that unit can use that
dock. The boat in that dock has to be registered to the homeowner. Now, there are homes at
Takundewide that are owned by the same person, multiple homes are owned by the same
person, at least they were the last time I checked. This means that that person, to use the five
docks, or the five homes he owns, he’d have to have five boats registered in his name, or if he’s
only got one boat, four of them remain empty, otherwise they’re operating a Class A Marina.
Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Did you ever run that by Mike White?
MR. SALVADOR-We try. See, and in reality, the Park Commission has a full inventory of, they
know exactly where every boat is docked on this lake because you have to get their sticker.
MRS. SALVADOR-Even the day people have to put down if they’re going to be staying
overnight, where they’re docking.
MR. SALVADOR-Even the day people. Absolutely.
MRS. SALVADOR-They have that in their computer, and one push of the button.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they can tell you where every boat is, and by the way, while we’re on
that subject of the Park Commission, they came out with their boat survey. They come out with
it every year, and if you study this, you’ll see that there’s been an increase from about 8,500 to
about 12,500 boats on this lake, in the 15 years that the Park Commission has been regulating
docks and that sort of thing, but if you look at the breakdown, you’ll see that there are no more
boats in commercial marinas. All the boats are on residential property. All the, the increase in
boating traffic is associated with residential property, not commercial marinas.
MRS. SALVADOR-As are the PWC’s.
MR. SALVADOR-And the PWC’s. There’s only 30 PWC’s in commercial use on the lake. The
other 600 are private. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. SALVADOR-Gentlemen, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we need to act on this resolution seeking Lead Agency Status for Richard
Meath? Seeking to do the cluster subdivision at the corner of West Mountain Road and Gurney
Lane.
MR. HILTON-I would say so, since this is the last time you meet before October, and this item is
scheduled to be before you for referral to the Town Board in October.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to move this, then.
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 6-2003
RICHARD MEATH, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Petition for Change of Zone application
for a proposed cluster subdivision on the corner of West Mountain Road and Gurney Lane, and
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/23/03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to be a
Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency
for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of Community
Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent.
Duly adopted this 23 day of September 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Strough
MR. STROUGH-Footnote. Meeting next meeting next month is the 21 and the 28. Site visits
stth
will be back on the 18. Anybody who can’t be at a meeting next month please let me and Staff
th
know as early as possible. Larry, we already know you’re going for your sabbatical. Any other
business? All right, adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
62