2006-11-28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 43-2006 Bear Pond Ranch, LLC c/o Ralph Macchio 1.
Tax Map No. 278.-1-77
Site Plan No. 40-2006 MT Associates, Inc. 3.
Tax Map No. 288.-1-59
Site Plan No. 42-2006 Brooks Teele 23.
Tax Map No. 227.18-1-8, 9
Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 36.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6
Subdivision No. 27-2005 Shirley Harvey 39.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.17-1-3.1, 3.2
Site Plan No. 47-2006 Hanson Venture 42.
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-16.11
Subdivision No. 13-1972 Clute Enterprises 52.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 296.9-1-55, 54
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
CHRIS HUNSINGER
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
TANYA BRUNO
THOMAS FORD
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-There’s going to be a little bit of change in our agenda tonight. I’ll read it
off to you for those of you who are interested in the change. Site Plan No. 43-2006 Bear
Pond Ranch, LLC has been tabled, and I’ll read the tabling motion to you. I’m also going
to give the Board a chance to read a letter that we got today from Little & O’Connor. I
believe it’s from Michael O’Connor who’s in the audience, and I’d like everybody to take
a minute to read that letter from Mr. O’Connor before I make a motion, and for all of you
who have read the letter that we got from Dreyer and Boyajian, which is an attorney that
represents the Town of Queensbury in the French Mountain Bear Pond, LLC, signed by
Christopher A. Amato. So we have two letters here, one from one attorney, one from the
other. The attorney that represents the Town has asked us not to continue with this, and
I understand and appreciate what Mr. O’Connor is saying about the independence of this
Board, and if anybody on the Board has a question concerning this, I’ll first make a
motion and then we can decide what we want to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before you do that Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I just wanted
everyone to remember that two of my children worked at the Ranch last summer and so I
will abstain from any discussion or consideration.
MR. VOLLARO-Surely, absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunsinger.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2006 BEAR POND RANCH, LLC c/o RALPH
MACCHIO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
To an unspecified date. This action is based on a letter from the attorneys representing
th
the Town, being Dreyer and Boyajian, dated November 14 2006. In their closing
paragraph they state, “Since this matter is in litigation, the Town Board requests that the
Planning Board table any consideration of a new site plan application pending resolution
of the court proceedings. Christopher A. Amato”
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Is there going to be a discussion?
MR. VOLLARO-Who asked for discussion?
MR. FORD-I did.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. Go forward with it.
MR. FORD-Just an observation of my own, and that is I believe for us to proceed would
be to place us in a possible position of jeopardy with a lawsuit and litigation already in
session. I don’t think that we should do anything that will in any way interfere with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I speak on this?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Mike O’Connor, for the purpose of your record, from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I represent Mr. Macchio who is the principal of Bear Pond Ranch,
LLC, and he’s here with me at the table, and also in the audience is his wife. I just don’t
understand how the Town Board can usurp the authority of this Board to review
applications. The issue of a violation of the Zoning Ordinance is not what’s before this
Board. The issue is whether or not somebody can build a forest road on their property
when it’s a, there’s no prohibition against it in the Town of Queensbury, and I’ve never
seen a Town Board, whether it be this Town Board or Lake George, Bolton, and I’ve
been involved with a lot of matters that have had litigation over violations, ever tell the
approving Board, regulating Board, not to go forward with it. In fact, if you read the Stop
Work Order that was issued by the Town, they tell us to make application to the Planning
Board and they, in fact, suggest what we would include in the application, and that upon
that application the Planning Board might require other information, but that was the way
to cure the violation. This is, in essence, a paper violation, in the sense that it is a
permitted activity on this property, and the question is, the application is not made before
the activity took place. So you have the right to look at it as though the activity did not
take place, but your guidelines still are within your Ordinance as to what you can tell the
applicant to do or not to do, and there’s nothing in our Ordinance that says that a person
can’t build a road through this property. So it’s a question of what road he builds, how he
builds it, and that’s what’s properly before this Board. The issue of the violation of the
zoning is not before this Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. O’Connor, the only thing that, what I did when I read the letter from
our attorney, the attorney currently representing the Town, the big thing that pops out to
me is not the question that the Town Board told us to do anything. The question in my
mind is this is presently in litigation, and I think anything that’s in litigation should not be
brought before a Board and be discussed until the litigation is satisfactorily resolved.
MR. SEGULJIC-It seems as though there’s a number of unresolved issues that need to
get resolved beyond our control, and as I read it, the Town Board is just recommending
to us, suggesting that we table the application. They’re not telling us to.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve only had the letter from Mr. Amato read to me. I haven’t seen his
letter. We learned of that yesterday, I believe. I think he specifically says that the Town
Board has asked him to ask you to table the application.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll read it to you from the last paragraph. “It is our understanding that a
new site plan review application was filed by Ralph Macchio, one of the defendants in
the above referenced action.” The action is tied to the letter. “Subsequent to the filing of
the Town’s lawsuit. It is our understanding that the application involves lands that are
the subject of an ongoing enforcement action. Since this matter is in litigation, the Town
Board requests that the Planning Board table application any consideration of new site
plan application pending resolution of the court proceedings.” That’s the last paragraph.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think, in sum and substance, that’s the Town Board’s
requesting you to table it, which is very unusual. I would note, just for your record, and I
don’t meant to argue this. I want to make a point on the record, I think it’s important to
make a point on the record that I think that they have gone to another agenda here that is
not going to be approved by the Courts when we get done with the Courts, but this
application was not filed subsequent to the service of the lawsuit. That’s a misstatement.
The application was filed prior to the lawsuit. I think the application actually brought
about the service of the lawsuit.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have a motion on the floor. We have a second to that motion,
and I’ll now call the vote.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. I’ll continue with the movement of the agenda. The
agenda will take place, the only other thing now in the “Further Business”, where it had
an Administrative item was to be the Northeast Dining & Lodging resolution, that will take
place later on. The reason for that is that the attorney for this Board is, won’t be here
until about nine o’clock. He’s coming down from Brandt Lake. I got a call from him
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
asking if I could change this agenda, and I changed it some time ago. I hope that’s okay
with everybody. The last item will stay the same, discussion regarding the 2007
Planning Board positions of Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary. So with that, we’ll
start off with MT Associates.
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MT ASSOCIATES, INC.
AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): DANIEL LOMBARD ZONING:
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1477 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,135 SQUARE FOOT
CONVENIENCE STORAGE W/FAST FOOD VENDORS, A 3,160 SQ. FOOT FUEL
ISLAND AND A 1,025 SQ. FT. CAR WASH. CONVENIENCE STORE/GASOLINE
STATION/CAR WASH USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-06, AV 54-89,
UV 74-89, SP 35-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/11/06 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES
[2.43 RPS] TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-59 SECTION 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & KIRK MOORE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-The floor is yours. Go right ahead.
MR. LAPPER-In general, we just got the Staff notes and the C.T. Male comments in the
last two days. So we view the C.T. Male comments as very technical in nature and not a
problem, but obviously it’s going to require a re-submittal to address them. So we
thought that we would come anyway tonight to present to you the site plan and to see if
the Board had any other issues. C.T. Male and the Planning Staff were pretty
comprehensive, but we thought while we’re going to make a re-submittal, it would be
best to hear the Planning Board comments. So Kirk Moore is the project architect. I’d
have him introduce the plan and just go through it. I’m sure you saw from the notes that
we did get our variance for the setback relief for the canopy, and actually as part of that
we agreed to move the building back five feet from where it is now, which is a minor
change, but so that the Zoning Board would give the minimum relief, we were able to do
that.
MR. VOLLARO-I read the notes.
MR. LAPPER-And that’ll be part of the resubmission to this Board, giving a little more
room up front as well, but let me just ask Kirk to walk you through the site plan and then
we can take questions.
MR. MOORE-Thank you. Is this close enough for you to see?
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve looked at the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-We got a good look at the plan, studied the plan, so we can follow it from
there, at least I can.
MR. MOORE-Yes, I’ll be brief. I just want to give you a quick overview of the concept on
the site, and you probably know that the site’s oriented with Route 9 at the bottom of the
sheet. Project North is roughly to your right. The existing building on the property is
located forward of this orange block which represents the new convenience store. It’s
actually centered between this gas canopy which is in light orange and the convenience
store itself. That building will would be razed, obviously, and we’d be redeveloping the
entire site, or the front portion of the site, which is about 1.2 acres. We’re proposing a
five pump gas island out front here. As Jon mentioned, we did receive a variance two
weeks ago roughly, for relaxation of the setback from Route 9 for that. We’ve got
customer parking along the front of the building, over on the side here, with a few spaces
down near the gas pumps, and then the convenience store located over in the center
here. The convenience store does have a drive up window on the back. We’re
anticipating getting a couple of food vendors in the building, such as Dunkin Donuts or a
Subway vendor, which is a common concept now in a mix of convenience stores gas
stations. In addition to that, we have a single bay carwash over on the southerly side of
the property. Employee parking around back, dumpster enclosure, delivery zone. We
actually have two delivery zones on the property, mainly because if there’s a Dunkin
Donut franchise here, they will get semi-tractor trailer deliveries, whereas the smaller
delivery items would be coming in on a small truck. So we provided a smaller truck
delivery area in the front of the building. We have a total of I believe 59 parking spaces,
31 of which we’re showing in reserve in the back. We’re requesting that based on
experience with having done many of these stores, what we feel is a practical need for
parking, for both employee and customer parking. So we have roughly half the parking
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
we plan to build when we do the store, and then we’re reserving an additional 31 spaces
in the back. The exterior of the building, this is a new design for Smart Shop that we
have not done before. I saw a reference to photographs of some of their stores in
Vermont, and this is a kind of a new approach that we’re taking, and it’s basically a
masonry building. We tried to use some traditional storefront flare on the front of the
building, and kind of give it a fresh new look to it. I think you have all the elevations in
the package. The carwash would also be a masonry building, and it kind of plays off the
theme of the main convenience store. That’s pretty much it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I think most of the Board members have
taken a pretty good look at this application. So I’m going to toss it off to the Board now
and see if anybody’s got any comments they’d like to make. I realize there are two
significant letters, I think, that go along with this. One is the C.T. Male letter, as you
mentioned, of 11/21, and then there’s Scott Bernard’s letter from the Queensbury Water
Department of 10/12 which also has to be adhered to.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve actually addressed that with the Water Department, and we’ve
agreed to make changes. So we think that’s going to be pretty flat when we get that
back to you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Those are the two letters that stood out to me, in addition to
everything else. So I’ll throw this open to the Board, if the Board has any questions. I
have some. I’ll hold mine until the end.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, would it make sense for us to go down our checklist?
MR. VOLLARO-You can if you want to, if that’s what you’d like to do, you can.
MR. SEGULJIC-It will just keep us organized.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t have my checklist with me. So, if somebody does, go right
along with it.
MR. FORD-Let me ask you a couple of questions, before you get to the checklist.
Number of employees anticipated?
MR. MOORE-I believe that’s on the parking count, on the Sheet ST101. We have eight
employees plus the convenience store will generally be one or two. So up to 10.
MR. VOLLARO-I see you have 13 on your.
MR. FORD-You have more parking spaces than potential employees.
MR. MOORE-That’s driven by the Zoning Ordinance. I’m saying as a practical matter
there’ll probably be an average of eight to ten employees there, but we calculated the
parking based on the Ordinance.
MR. FORD-Can you address in a little more detail the 31 spaces you plan on reserving in
the rear?
MR. LAPPER-In the Queensbury Code, if you feel you don’t need them, the Planning
Board can grant a waiver. I mean, those can be built now, but if they’re not needed, it’s
generally been viewed by this Board that it’s better to show them on the plan and they
could be built in the future when the Town said they were needed. Because the parking
calculation in Queensbury goes by the mathematical calculation of square foot plus
seats, etc., employees, this size store would need that much parking. For example,
carwashes don’t need parking because you just wait on line and drive through. So what
we’ve shown on the plan as being proposed to build is what the applicant believes is
sufficient, and if the Planning Board wants the rest of them to be built, they’ll be built.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the whole site? In other words, where you have the reserved
area back there.
MR. LAPPER-There’s hundreds of feet back to the Northway.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of the questions, because I was up there today, and looking
back at that slope, heading toward the Northway, there’s a stream back up in there. It
doesn’t seem depicted any place on your drawing.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-That’s part of the stormwater plan and we’ll talk about that. That’s going to
be managed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I didn’t see it. I didn’t know whether this was
representative of the entire site. I didn’t think it was because I didn’t see the Northway
boundary line. What we’ll do is we’ll go through a site plan review criteria. We’ll go down
it, one at a time, and talk about it. The first thing we have is design standards,
conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the one that’s currently in
existence now. How do we feel about that? Frankly, I haven’t gone through this today
myself, in this manner. I just picked out what I thought were the pertinent points to this,
and this’ll be my first time going through this, conformance with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Does anybody have any comments on that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have no comments on that.
MR. SIPP-Jon, you said you moved it back five feet.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Now what does that bring it from the road? Is that the building that we’re
talking about or the canopy?
MR. LAPPER-We made the canopy smaller, so that the building would be farther back.
MR. FORD-Is the building further back or is the canopy smaller, and the canopy is further
back?
MR. LAPPER-Both.
MR. FORD-Both.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We picked up two feet on the canopy and three feet on the building.
MR. SIPP-So what does that bring the measurements from the road?
MR. MOORE-The variance request was for 36 feet, and I believe what we agreed to was
the 41. So the canopy will be five feet further back from the property line than it was
originally shown on this drawing.
MR. SIPP-Then that would bring that building back.
MR. MOORE-We’re going to make up that five feet in a combination of areas. We’re
shrinking the canopy by four feet. So there’s two feet off of one side. We’re going to
probably take out a foot or two feet out of the building and another foot out of the back.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the drawing we have now is not representative of what you
got from the ZBA?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we’re going to make it better by moving it back, and that just, there
wasn’t time to make a resubmission to this Board because of your deadline.
MR. SIPP-And one other measurement here, the sign, the freestanding sign in the front
of the property, is that back, this is a three lane road so it’s got to be back 45 feet, I
believe, from the centerline of the road.
MR. LAPPER-It’s got to be back 25 feet from the property line, and what it is, it’s actually
27 feet from the edge of pavement, because in this case the justification for the variance
was that DOT, when they did the widening, recently took a bunch of land. So when you
look at it, it’s 27 feet back from the curb, but it’s actually less than that back from the
property line because the DOT owns some of the property there now, but visually it
would be complying with the intent of the Ordinance with 25 feet, and then some.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re talking about design standards. I like the glass in the front of the
building, but I like the photograph that was submitted with the Staff Notes. I believe this
is a Manchester, Vermont location.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t believe we got a copy of that.
MR. MOORE-That is not one of Smart Shop’s stores.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not?
MR. MOORE-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, where did that come from? I was under the impression this was
a new option.
MRS. BARDEN-I was, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-We did not receive a copy of that. That’s the first time I’ve seen that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just along those same lines, you know, I think the materials that you
proposed are fine, and I think the look of the building is good, but I think it needs a little
more detail some maybe additional peaks in the roof or something like that, that would
bring it down to more of a pedestrian scale if you will, and I think that’s maybe the
biggest difference between the photo that was mentioned and the design that you have,
because the materials are very similar.
MR. MOORE-Well, actually I haven’t been able to see that photograph, so I’m not sure,
but I know the building, and I believe that’s a wood clapboard style building. This is a
masonry building.
MRS. STEFFAN-This is brick.
MR. MOORE-It does have brick? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s clapboards on the dormers, but it’s brick.
MR. MOORE-The reason we don’t have sloped roofs or gabled roofs like that particular
one does, what we’re trying to do is have a flat roof on this building with a parapet
around so the equipment will be completely hidden from view.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes.
MR. MOORE-That’s one of the advantages of going to the flat roof with the parapet is we
can put all the condensers and refrigeration equipment so it’s not seen.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s probably a bigger building as well.
MR. MOORE-Yes, it is much bigger.
MR. HUNSINGER-Than what’s shown here, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Unfortunately that flat roof is not, it just doesn’t have any design
elements, in my opinion, that are aesthetically pleasing, plus the building, the Scooters
building next door to this location, has just gone through site plan review and received an
approval, and their building is going to be two story, and just, you know, as we look at
redevelopment in that corridor, this is not quite what I was looking for. I was looking for
something a little more visually interesting.
MR. MOORE-Well, we certainly can re-visit it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would echo that also.
MR. FORD-So would l.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something with some more character, and one of my concerns with the
site layout is all I see is a lot of asphalt. You’ve got a sea of asphalt with a building in the
middle. There’s not a lot of.
MR. MOORE-It’s kind of the nature of a convenience store/gas pump configuration.
Because, I mean, we have met the design guidelines for landscaping in terms of green
space internally and around the perimeter of the site. There is a ratio of green space
that’s required around the building that we do meet.
MR. SEGULJIC-But for example, why is the carwash separate from the main building?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-So that if you’re going to the drive thru for Dunkin Donuts you can get
around the carwash and separate the people that are on-line to go through the carwash.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if we were to put those together, we could have more green space
on the site.
MRS. STEFFAN-But then you wouldn’t be able to have the drive thru for the Dunkin
Donuts.
MR. MOORE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I like green space.
MRS. STEFFAN-If you want to get donuts, you have to get your car washed, too?
MR. MOORE-We do have 67% of green space of this site that’s being retained.
MR. FORD-But most of that is toward the Northway.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d rather have the green space up in front. I mean, can we do
something about making the site more visibly appealing? Because once again, all I see
is a sea of asphalt.
MR. LAPPER-If you look at the plan, there is a lot of landscaping along Route 9, and we
can certainly look at the size and design of those.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, personally, I don’t think there’s a lot of landscaping along Route 9.
MR. FORD-Is there more than we see on that plan there?
MR. LAPPER-No, but I’m just looking at the same plan you are in black and white, and
it’s a lot of shrubs and some street trees.
MR. SEGULJIC-But that representation there is probably five years from now when the
trees grow up?
MR. LAPPER-Well, maybe we could compromise by starting with some bigger trees than
usual. The real issue with the architecture of the building is something we can certainly
look at and try and make it more interesting, but just because, as Kirk said, the nature of
a convenience store, we need the asphalt.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why can’t we put the carwash further back?
MR. MOORE-There’s got to be visibility from the road, and there are a lot of circulation
issues we’re trying to address here. You have a drive up window which is the reason
why the carwash is not connected to the building itself. Because you have conflicts in
traffic. I mean, you have people that need to swing out around the drive thru window to
go into the carwash, and people that need to come out of the drive thru and be able to
exit without going into the carwash. So they do have to be separated.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying you’re maybe doing too much on the site?
MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s not a carwash on this side of Town. So it’s a nice addition,
as a service for the residents that live there to have a carwash nearby. I mean, it
certainly fits it. You’re saying you’d like some more green space, and I think we have to
look at the landscaping and see what we can come up with to address that, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-I would like to address the architectural element for a minute. You’re
discussing convenient stores. One local convenient store that comes to mind are the
Cumberland Farms as they’ve been redeveloping. The detailing that they use does lend
more of a New England flair, but if you look at the rooflines and the parapets and some
of the fo applications towards the front, they do utilize some slopes that hide their
mechanical equipment that is on the roof. I would like to stress that since we are on the
northern side of the Town, that we try to remember our Adirondack gateways in this part
of Town. So therefore the New England detailing wouldn’t necessarily work, but certainly
you can take some of those elements and turn them into architecture or Adirondack.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. MOORE-Well, yes, I hear what you’re saying and they’re good points. We actually
did have that in mind when we came up with this design for the front façade. If you look
at it closely we have some bracketing on there for example, it’s a play off the Adirondack,
but not a direct copy of a traditional Adirondack, but there are certain images on there
that reflect that. A brick building is a very downtown building in general. So that’s why
we chose that material. There’s awnings on the building. The storefront is a very
traditional storefront. It’s not aluminum storefront. It’s a wood or a clad wood looking
window with divided lights. So, you know, we were really trying to find a mix there and a
blend that I think would be a very handsome building. It’s not, and it’s interesting, I’d like
to go see the Cumberland Farms you’re talking about, because you know the older
models are pretty stripped down, plain, and it’s good to hear they’re doing something
interesting on those now.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s down off of Exit 17. I’m not sure of some of the more closer ones, and
I understand what you’re saying in terms of the brick and wanting it to look a little bit
more downtown, and even though I was mentioning the detailing, I think I was trying to
stress what my fellow Board members had said in terms of the peaks. Peaks are a key
element to Adirondack design, and I think we need to get that in there. Mrs. Steffan had
mentioned the building next door that will be going up. Not only is it two stories, but it will
have some very strong gable lines to it, which actually may end up causing your building
to look a little squat. So you just may want to try to work on that.
MR. MOORE-We’ll certainly take a look at it.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. FORD-Just to reinforce that from a slightly different angle, why don’t you come back
with an Adirondack design that in the future this Board could point to and say, something
like that.
MR. MOORE-I’m sorry, but are you talking about the sign or the building?
MR. FORD-I’m talking about the building itself, the design, the sign, the site.
MRS. BRUNO-So we’ll no longer be mentioning the Cumberland Farms. We’ll say the
Smart Shop, take a look at that.
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll give you something to shoot at. That’s what they’re talking about.
MR. FORD-And, am I correct in assuming that 20 cars, 20 vehicles could be fueled here
simultaneously?
MR. MOORE-Ten. Five pumps, ten cars.
MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re not double pumps?
MR. FORD-They’re not double pumps on either side, then.
MR. MOORE-No. The way they’re configured, there are double pumps but, well, I
suppose if you got two cars back to back you could, but, realistically, you’re going to pull
one car up to one side, another car up to the other.
MR. FORD-All right. Let me rephrase it. How many pumps are there?
MR. MOORE-There’s five islands.
MR. FORD-Are there not four per island?
MR. MOORE-Five with four pumps.
MEMBER OF APPLICANT TEAM
MEMBER-Five islands, five pumps. One pump on each island.
MR. MOORE-One pump each island.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s not a double pump on an island like you’re familiar with in some
other places.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MEMBER-Two hoses per pump. Maximum capacity would be 10 vehicles.
MR. LAPPER-Sometimes there’s a pump on one car and one behind it, like the Hess
station at 19, and that’s not the case here.
MR. FORD-That’s what I wanted to confirm.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would cars pull underneath so that they’re in between the pumps,
or do they park parallel to the road?
MR. LAPPER-Perpendicular to the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought.
MR. SEGULJIC-What does the canopy look like? What are you proposing for that?
MR. MOORE-It’s in your package.
MR. FORD-But that’s also going to undergo modification, correct?
MR. MOORE-We were not planning on that. The modification is in terms of size. It’s
going to be 24 instead of 28.
MR. FORD-Right. It’s the design is the same. The size is different.
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-This?
MR. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there going to be any lighting in the canopy proposed?
MR. MOORE-The lighting is shown on the lighting plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to do too much jumping around. If we’re going to stick to the
site plan criteria.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about site design, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a thing called lighting design.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m just talking about how it’s going to look.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-In general. I guess what I’d like to see is what colors are you proposing
for that? I mean, that doesn’t look very appealing to me, and I’m not an architect. So I
don’t really know what to suggest, but it looks pretty plain.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a line drawing is all it is, actually, from what I can see.
MR. MOORE-It’s a standard gas canopy, and the color is going to be determined by
what the vendor is, and right now they’re not sure if it’s Exxon or Mobil. So, they have
different colors.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I was about to ask a question, and then I realized that maybe we
can dictate that. There are some of these gas canopies around Town that are of hideous
colors, and they just don’t fit with the theme, you know, what we’re trying to create in the
Town, and so we may need to talk about canopy color.
MR. MOORE-I know the one you’re talking about.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. MOORE-At the moment I think what we’re looking at is a white canopy with a red
accent on it or a blue accent, red or blue.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-We should probably have some color renderings of that to take a look.
MR. MOORE-We can get that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’re down to stormwater and sewage design now. I think
we’ve got quite a bit on the site development, unless we want to talk about parking field
design. I think we’ve talked about that a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had on that, Mr. Chairman, is I just wanted to get
out for the record, in the past there’s been concerns about the queuing line for any drive
up window. If you could just give us an estimate of about how many cars would be, the
site could handle, you know, waiting in line to drive up to the drive up window. I mean, it
looks to me like you have more than enough space.
MR. MOORE-We do, and it’s always a big concern of ours when we do a drive up
window.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MOORE-This particular layout has enough for at least eight to ten cars, depending
on the size. I think you’ve also received, we did have a traffic analysis done for the
project, and that’s where the vehicle trip ends came from that’s referenced in the
comment letter, and the conclusion was that there would not be real significant impact.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just polling the Board while you’re talking about the traffic analysis. I
didn’t get one. I didn’t see a traffic analysis. I’ll have to ask Staff. Did you see a traffic
analysis when you did this?
MRS. BARDEN-I did not. I think there’s a reference to.
MR. VOLLARO-The only reference that I saw in there was in your Part I.
MRS. BARDEN-In the EAF.
MR. VOLLARO-In the EAF, where you use 119 as your peak hour trips, and I was going
to ask you where you got that number from, but other, but other than that, I haven’t seen
a traffic analysis.
MR. MOORE-The analysis was done by CME. It was submitted back in September.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s Creighton Manning you’re talking about now?
MR. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen that. Was it in here?
MR. MOORE-No, it was not in the original packet, the book that you have. It was
submitted subsequent to that.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve never seen that. Because I have a comment that need a traffic
study based on the curb cuts, and I recommended Creighton Manning.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had another sort of follow up question, if I could.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Go right ahead, Chris.
MR. LAPPER-It was submitted, and if somehow Planning Staff didn’t get you out copies.
MRS. BARDEN-What is the name or the reference on the traffic study? Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just follow up on the drive up window access. It looks as
though there’s some sort of marking that would delineate the drive up window lane as
opposed to other cars going out. I just wanted to make that that was the case.
MR. MOORE-There is a line to delineate the drive up lane. There’s also signage that
would direct people to the drive up window.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a drive up window that I occasion. Fortunately it’s not in
Queensbury so I wouldn’t offend anyone if I said it was, but it’s amazing how many traffic
conflicts you have because people waiting at the drive up window are blocking the lane
for you to get out and around, and I’m someone, I won’t wait in line. I’ll park and go in,
instead of waiting in line for the window.
MR. MOORE-And this site happens to layout well enough to where we could address
that where we have two lanes, so someone wanting to just pull around, whether it’s an
employee to park their car or someone to go to the carwash, they’re not going to be
blocked off.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, and there would be striped, and people would be able to figure
out.
MR. MOORE-Right, that’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s good. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be a busy site, though, the way I look at it, with three
applications on the site. You’ve got a convenience store. You’re going to have your gas
pumps, and you’ve got your carwash, and I’m trying to look at the overall comprehensive
mix that takes place on this site in a snapshot.
MR. LAPPER-They’re hoping it will be busy, Bob, but it’s primarily existing background
traffic. It’s people that are on the road, which is obviously a lot of people, but they want
to capture the people that are driving on that roadway.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, in the summertime that’s a keen place to be. I mean, I
understand what your marketing strategies are there. That’s not our concern here,
though, on the Planning Board. I know what you’re trying to do. One of the things I’m a
little bit concerned about I guess is I’ve seen you give her the Creighton Manning traffic
study. I’ve never seen one quite that thin from Creighton Manning before, and this is a
critical spot we’re talking about on Route 9. There are no lights here. That’s number
one. The curb cuts that I looked at this morning, none of the curb cuts that are there now
align with the curb cuts along the way. They’re all like this, maybe 30 or 40 feet apart.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that was done by DOT. They put those curb cuts in when they did
the widening.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. We’re going to have to work around whatever the DOT
thing is because the curb cut that’s furthest to the south, that one looks to me like there’s
an ingress and an egress there, and I see where it says DOT parcel.
MR. LAPPER-That’s because, they acquired an easement so that there can be one curb
cut for both uses, for both properties. That was specific. We read the DOT taking
document.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s take a look at the egress on that southern side. Your next door
neighbor, which is Scooters, is going to have parking right adjacent to where those cars
are going to be coming out. I’m trying to look at the whole package the way we’re
looking at this plus the Scooters operation next door, and they’re going to have cars
parked right there, because I was up there this morning talking to the gentleman, and I
believe he’s in the audience now, and he was showing me where the cars were going to
park, and I’m saying, you know, this is going to be, people coming out of the carwash or
whatever trying to get out with cars parked right almost against that line.
MR. LAPPER-I wonder if they have a DOT permit yet? I mean, I wonder if DOT’s passed
on that.
MR. VOLLARO-They got a site plan review from us, so as far as parking on their site is
concerned. So I don’t know anything about a DOT approval.
MR. LAPPER-My point is just that DOT acquired that as ingress and egress for both
sites. So it might not be suitable for DOT. That was probably not explained to you by
the neighbors, and it might not be suitable to DOT to have cars parked right up against
that DOT parcel, but that would be something they would have to be applying to DOT.
MR. VOLLARO-So that whole square now belongs to the Department of Transportation?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-They don’t own it in fee, but they have an easement over that.
MR. VOLLARO-So there was no taking on the site.
MR. LAPPER-There was a taking, but it was an acquisition of an easement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see. So that’ll have to be cleaned up somehow.
MR. SEGULJIC-To continue on with the traffic flow. If I understand the plan correctly,
there’s a vacuum on the southern border?
MR. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if you have a car using the vacuum, another car backed
up using the vacuum. Cars coming down out of the carwash or around the building, is
there going to be enough room all that activity at that point, of people using the vacuum?
MR. MOORE-The bypass lane around the outside, on the southern side of the carwash
is really just one more way for them to get out. It’s going to be, in our experience, will
hardly ever used because someone coming out of the carwash bay itself, they would
never be blocked by someone at the vacuum station. If you had maybe three cars
backed up at the vacuum and somebody tried to go around that far bypass lane, which
would be unusual, then, yes, they would be blocked.
MR. SEGULJIC-But then you have the 10 parking spaces out back people will be using.
MR.MOORE-Those are for employee parking.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if you were to pull in here and you just wanted to go to the store, and
these spots on the north were taken already, you’d end up parking in the back and you’d
end up coming down this way.
MR. LAPPER-Well, you’ve got the north. You’ve got along the road and you’ve got in
front of the store.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve really got a lot going on here.
MR. VOLLARO-As I said before, it’s a busy site, Tom.
MR. SEGULJIC-A very busy site.
MR. SIPP-And you also have another vacuum station on the north side?
MR. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. SIPP-Right next to Number Eight parking space.
MR. LAPPER-I can’t think of another gas station, convenience store that has 15 spaces
in front like is proposed here. I think that it really is provided for.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can’t think of another convenience store with all these things going on.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a trend, now, to do, instead of just serving coffee, to have Dunkin
Donuts serve coffee because it’s better coffee.
MR. MOORE-I think what you have to realize is that all these uses aren’t operating at
any kind of peak level all at the same time. I mean, for example, Dunkin Donuts, its
hours are primarily from 6:30 in the morning until about nine o’clock in the morning.
MR. LAPPER-Prime hours.
MR. MOORE-And then it falls right off. Carwashes are usually on the weekends, during
the day. We actually had a scheme where we had a two bay carwash and the carwash
people we were talking with, the suppliers and so forth, said don’t do two bays. You
won’t have a need for two bays there in this market. One bay is sufficient. So we cut it
back to one bay.
MR. LAPPER-And then a sandwich shop.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. MOORE-The sandwich shop would be obviously driven in the afternoon, but the
other thing, to get back to your question about the parking earlier. It’s very conservative
calculation because we’re treating the food vendors, Dunkin Donuts and Subway, as fast
food categories under your bylaw, which has a real big parking requirement. As a
practical matter, they’re not really working as a fast food restaurant in here. They’re as
an aside vendor within the convenience store itself, and I’m sure some of you have been
to some of these operations where they have an adjunct food vendor in there, whether
it’s Quiznos, Subway or something like that, but there’s not people beating down the
door to it. It’s more of they’re capturing the customer base that’s coming in to buy gas or
to buy milk or whatever and they grab a sandwich while they’re there.
MR. FORD-It’s only to go?
MR. LAPPER-No, there’s a few seats.
MR. FORD-How many seats would there be?
MR. MOORE-There’s 12 seats, I believe, in the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that you’ve got to consider is where you’re putting this
and what this area looks like in the summertime. We’re talking about, you know, things
like Dunkin Donuts having their maybe 6:30 to 9:00 o’clock traffic route, but that’s not
what this section up here is like in the summertime. This is very active packed section.
So I don’t know that all of the things that you normally think of are going to happen here.
I think there’s going to be a much stronger mix in this particular area for this site.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s usually not too bad first thing in the morning, but midday, that’s
when things, in the summertime, get very congested.
MR. MOORE-I’m real familiar with the issues you face here, because I live in
Manchester, Vermont, and I have also been to Lake George many times, so I totally
understand what you’re talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, last I knew, the outlet stores didn’t open until 10
o’clock, unless they changed their hours. So, by the time their peak time’s done, that’s
before it gets busy.
MR. VOLLARO-That for just Dunkin Donuts, for example.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-The convenience store will probably work. The carwash will probably
work. The gas pumps will be working.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking through the whole day, as to how much activity is on the site.
I think there’s a lot of activity on the site. That’s what I’m trying to rationalize in my mind,
but they’re getting our message on that I’m sure. This is a good interchange for you to
understand what some Board members are thinking here at least. If we get down here a
little further, because I don’t want to, being that you’ve got so much more to do with the
C.T. Male requirements and so on, I am interested in taking a look at that Creighton
Manning traffic study, though. Have you looked at it, Susan, since he’s handed it to you?
MRS. BARDEN-I have, and it’s really just speaks to trip generation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So is it talking about the ITE Trip Generation at the 119 that
they’ve put in on their Part I SEQRA? They’ve used 119 in trip generation. Is that what
Creighton Manning is addressing there?
JIM SECOR
MR. SECOR-My name’s Jim Secor. I’m the engineer for the project. We had contacted
Creighton Manning on the project for basically three things. Granted the report’s not
voluminous with a lot of counts and everything else. We looked at it both first for the trip
generation numbers requirement, but also looking at this as to where that traffic was
coming from. As you read the report, you’re going to notice in there that really this is
capturing the traffic that’s already existing on that roadway system. This isn’t a
destination site. People aren’t going to drive from Downtown Glens Falls to go to this
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
site. We’re grabbing the traffic that is already utilizing Route 9, and then we also said,
well, given that information, and what they’ve already got for information on Route 9, are
we looking at any adverse impacts on Route 9 due to this project, and those were the
three things that were covered in that report.
MRS. BARDEN-Do you want me to read the conclusions of this?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Would you? I just want to get a quick shot at what they had to say.
MRS. BARDEN-“This letter summarizes the additional traffic expected to be generated
on the roadways adjacent to the proposed project site with the development of a gas
station with 10 fueling positions, a 3,135 square feet convenience market and an
automatic car wash on US Route 9 in the Town of Queensbury. Based on the analysis,
the site is expected to generate 52 “new” vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 66
“new” vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Given that the proposed development will
not be a destination site and will primarily draw traffic from the adjacent roadway
network, no significant impacts are expected along Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-What were the two ingress, egress numbers? Fifty-two and what?
MRS. BARDEN-Sixty-six.
MR. VOLLARO-Sixty-six.
MRS. BARDEN-Fifty-two during the AM peak and sixty-six during the PM peak.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now what our Cod requires is 179-19-010(3)(c)(3)(a) & (b) is that
we get this number from an ITE Trip Generation at full build out. That’s what our Code
calls for, if you get into 179-19-010, go down to C, go down to 3 and look at A and B, and
it calls for ITE Trip Generation at full build out. That’s why I was wondering where you
got the 119 from.
MR. SECOR-In the body of the beginning of the report you’re going to see the ITE
numbers. Those are the increased numbers that they expected as not just capturable
volume but new trips that may be generated that this may cause, and those are one way
trips.
MR. VOLLARO-My only concern was where did the 119 come from. You’re telling me it
came out of ITE data at full build out?
MR. SECOR-Yes. It’s in the front section of the report, those numbers.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On stormwater and sewage design, C.T. Male has a significant
amount of questions on stormwater, and I don’t know whether we should be able to get
into that. One of the things that we want to make sure that you understand is that we’re
concerned with the stream that’s up in the back and how that flow is going to be handled.
MR. SECOR-I can give you a quick overview on that and also some descriptions. The
engineer in my office that designed it is here, if you want to get into more detail data, but
I can handle a quick overview. Let me start with the easy ones first. I talked with Mike
Shaw on the sewer. He hasn’t given us anything in writing. That’s why the Board hasn’t
seen it. We had some changes. We’ve accommodated his changes. I sent a revised
print to him and I’m just waiting for his response back. I talked to him today and he didn’t
seem to see any problems, and also Scott’s letter, we did send back a revised drawing. I
have not heard back from him. I think I sent that out the middle of last week after I
received his letter, but I mean, anything, what Scott asked for we did. Basically we’re
looking at bringing the water tap and service for the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, did Mike tell you you needed a map plan and report? He told you
about that?
MR. SECOR-I’m sorry?
MR. VOLLARO-I said did Mr. Shaw tell you you needed a map plan and report in order
to tie into the sewer project? It’s called a map plan and report. It’s a very specific item.
Has he said anything to you about that?
MR. SECOR-Not in those specific terms. We have filed the application. We’ve paid the
fees, we’ve sent him the prints and he’s approved the prints verbally, with one more
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
change that he wants to see the backflow preventer or the back water valve movement
of the building.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s not the water now. We’re talking.
MR. SECOR-No, this is the sewer. It’s a backflow valve that goes on the sewer lines that
they ask for in Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, it’s not a sewer district extension.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s in the district? Okay. Good enough.
MR. SECOR-The drainageway that you’re talking about is back in this location now. We
are not allowing any water to go back to that location as part of our stormwater design at
this point. Everything is coming back in either through a catch basin systems back to a
treatment basin back in this location, and that is coming back out and being tied in, under
controlled circumstances, with a pre-treatment device back into the DOT system, and
we’ve been in contact with DOT about how much water they’re going to allow us to
release over time. We haven’t filed a formal SWPPP paperwork yet because we’re
waiting for their comments back. We’ve got them verbally but we should have them in
writing in another week.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that in C.T. Male’s letter to you, that he’s looking for a SWPPP.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just clarify that? So there’s going to be so much capacity
held. Once it exceeds that? Jason Dolmich from my office. He did the full design.
JASON DOLMICH
MR. DOLMICH-Hi. Jason Dolmich, MSK Engineering. Essentially, the site, obviously
we don’t have a full site plan. We’ve got two and a half acres more or less on the site.
You can see, this actually gives a better showing of the whole site. This area here is
very, very hilly, and pitches slightly back this way. There’s a mound here that pitches
down and to this, this is roughly that stream or drainage channel here. There’s a hillside
or a slight hillside here, and then obviously the existing site. Our proposal, under this
application, does not impact this drainage basin in any way. We’re not grading around it,
and there’s no existing water now from this site that even drains to it. The site as a
whole, as you may have seen when you visited, slopes approximately four percent or so
to Route 9 right now, and then goes up at about an eight percent grade to a hilltop, and
essentially along the drainage divide is where the grading of this site is going to stop,
and how we propose to, one, treat the site on a qualitative level as well as a quantitative
level is to essentially utilize the redevelopment strategies by the State of New York, the
interim redevelopment strategies, which basically says, okay, we’re redeveloping so
many square feet of existing impervious, and since we’re using a nonstandard practice,
which is a hydrodynamic device, it’s a vortecnic unit, basically to treat the quality, treat
100% of the quality on the site, there’s a ridgeline basically that bisects through the
center of the building and we’re running essentially all of the new impervious back to a
standard treatment practice, which is an infiltration trench. So we have a small pre-
treatment four bay, an infiltration trench which will deal with both quality as well as
minimizing our pre-existing or our proposed quantity discharges for the 10, the 100 and
the channel protection storm.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the vortex system a passive system, the one that’s down?
MR. DOLMICH-The vortex system is passive, yes. Essentially it’s a swirling device with
some screens and essentially it gets out the debris for the standard storm that we have.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that the proposed CDS system?
MR. DOLMICH-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Have there been test borings made in the area?
MR. DOLMICH-We haven’t conducted those, but we will as a part of this application.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-Assuming that additional parking is put in the back, what happens to
your stormwater management?
MR. DOLMICH-This area, because we’re looking at just doing this site, we decided that
we’d manage this section, we’d come up with a strategy to manage that section, either
through infiltration or some other kind of practice separately, if and when they decide to
go to that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. DOLMICH-So as opposed to over sizing the system now to accommodate it, we’d
look at a different strategy.
MR. SIPP-But you found no runoff from the hill, from the Northway?
MR. DOLMICH-This area here?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. DOLMICH-That swale essentially takes all of it. So that, you can see, if you look at
475 is right here, and it’s essentially, this is about 475 or 474. The swale is 470.
Basically the top of the swale is somewhere around 473, and then you obviously on this
area you start going back down. That ridge then drops. So this whole section drains to
Route 9 right now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a pretty good idea of what’s going on here. I think you still
have to answer a lot of C.T. Male questions. I just have one question on the infiltration.
On your infiltration pond detail, you have to go to your drawings. It’s C-103.
MR. DOLMICH-Right here?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Now you talk in there about a catch basin being, the top of basin,
bottom of basin. You’re at 467.10 and 461.90. This would be on your Drawing 103. Is
that what you’re looking at?
MR. DOLMICH-Bottom of catch basin. Okay. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So that gives you five, two. Now, your test pit data needs to confirm at
least five feet. You don’t have any test pit data on there yet, to make sure your bottom is
going to be working.
MR. DOLMICH-We have to test to below four feet of the bottom of the basin, that’s
correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So long as you know you’ve got to do that. You’re going to need
some, because we’re going to be looking at test pit data information when you finally
come back with it, to see whether your pits are going to be working or not.
MR. DOLMICH-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have a couple of things on lighting. Does anybody want to
talk about lighting, or do you want me to get going on it and you can jump on?
MRS. STEFFAN-Staff notes identified spill.
MR. FORD-Spillage to the north side.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the uniformity ratio is off. They have to get into compliance. It’s
too far off. It’s 10 to 1, versus 4 to 1.
MR. VOLLARO-On your parking, off the top of my head, you need two foot candles
average on your parking. This is to get to uniformity now, and I’ll tell you how to get
there. You’ve got to get about two foot candles for your average, and get down to, your
min has got to be .5. That’ll run you to 4 1, okay. That’s how you’ll get to four to one, but
the spec on your parking lots have got to be roughly two foot candles on the lot. If you
get two, as an average, and try to get your min down to .5, you’ll come out to four to one.
Are you okay with that?
MR. MOORE-Yes. So the parking area you want an average of two.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-An average of two, and that’s in the Code. That’s not my, it’s an average
of two. So to get four to one, you get your min down to .5.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then also under the canopy the Code recommends 10.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s 30 foot candles. I want to ask Chris a question. Remember
when, sometime back, kind of a standard we were using. We said 10 was a little low.
This goes back up stream a way. I think we looked at somewhere near 28. Does that
number ring a bell to you?
MR. HUNSINGER-That does ring a bell. Their maximum is 16.1 as proposed.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they talk about 30 foot candles under the canopy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they’re saying that Hubble recommends no less than 30, and if
it is less than 30, they’re not responsible for any damage, but if you look at the notes to
the right, under canopy grid it says that the maximum is 16.1, and the average over min
is 4.49.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So they’re pretty close.
MR. VOLLARO-Pretty close, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Under the canopy. In fact, I might argue that that’s pretty good, but
your point’s well taken on the parking, though. The parking is a little off.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MOORE-So we’re currently showing 2.3 on the parking, and you want to see that at
2.1, per average.
MR. VOLLARO-The average, to get to a four to one uniformity ratio, you know what I’m
talking about, you’ve really got to be two to .5. That gives you, now you can play around
with that number a little bit. I’m not saying it’s got to be exactly that, but there’s a reason
for uniformity ratio, and you know what it is. It has to do with your eye’s ability to change
quickly in the lighting situation.
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-You know who I think has a great lighting plan for a, I don’t even know
what to call this, convenience store, gas station, Dunkin Donuts, I’m not sure, carwash, is
the Stewarts on the corner of 149 and 9L. I’m not even sure what the lighting is there,
but I think it’s very subtle. I’ve never heard of any problems there. There’s nothing
worse, in my book, than an over lit gas station with no green space.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the reason we’ve got them down to where they are there at
Stewarts is because we didn’t want them to spotlight that area. That’s a pretty dark area
in there.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s true.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve given them a good deal of.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we want that across the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, under the canopy is a different story. I mean, people are
going to be doing things under the canopy. Somebody wants to check his oil.
Somebody wants to do this or that.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no problems out at Stewarts.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what Stewarts is. We’d have to go back and see what that
is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-That is the model plan that we were talking about for several
applications. We were looking at the applications for these convenience stores up near
Exit 19. We were using that as a model.
MRS. BARDEN-I can provide that.
MRS. STEFFAN-One question that I have that’s related to lighting and signage at the
same time. I noticed that the signs, they have the gas prices posted. Are those the
plastic numbers? They’re not lighted signs?
MR. MOORE-No. They’re plastic numbers because they change every day.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-Sometimes more than once.
MR. MOORE-Sometimes more than once.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. Good. The reason I ask that question is there is a
service station up off of Exit 19, and we made a mistake by allowing a red lighted sign.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s like neon.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s awful.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s like an LCD sign, you know, they can change the numbers
very easily.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s so bright. It was a bad decision. So I just wanted to bring that
up.
MR. VOLLARO-If we bat 500 on this Board we’re doing pretty good these days. One of
the things that I couldn’t understand, C.T. Male doesn’t understand it either, and I
grappled with it, and it’s on the southern property line, where you have the 20 foot
setback, and it takes a weird jog right through the carwash. What is that about?
MR. MOORE-It’s because of the DOT taking along Route 9, the setback has to jog also,
because we had to follow that taking.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. The taking is an image of that square that’s down at the base. Is
that where you’re at? Is that how you did it?
MR. MOORE-There was a combination of DOT easements and DOT taking, where they
actually own it in fee simple, and there’s a little sliver right along Route 9 for the sidewalk
that was actually taken in fee simple by DOT.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, so that jog mirrors the sidewalk where the taking, just bringing out the
setbacks.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty confusing, folks, pretty confusing, let me tell you. When you’re
staring at a drawing like this home, with nobody like you around, you just don’t
understand.
MR. MOORE-We actually didn’t pick it up until the very end either because in fact it was
in our preliminary review with Staff that they pointed out you have to go from the new
property line for your setbacks.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. A couple of things quickly on parking. The doors of your
dumpster, take a look at your spaces 26 through 29.
MR. LAPPER-That is absolutely the case that those spaces block it, but those are
employee spaces. Maybe they’ll have to be labeled employees only, but the garbage will
only be twice a week, and obviously it’ll have to be managed. The employees might
have to move their cars.
MR. MOORE-It’s a fairly common thing that we have on a lot of the other stores that
we’ve done for Smart Shop.
MR. LAPPER-It’s just a way not to waste the space.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. MOORE-Just to make the point, we talked earlier about an average of eight to ten
employees and we have actually thirteen spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got 13 spaces. While I’m looking at that, you’re requiring 59
minus 13. So you’ve got really 46 spaces for customers, not 59.
MR. MOORE-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-That also includes carwash employees?
MR. MOORE-There’s no employees. It’s fully automated.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Put your quarters in.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The last thing I have here, I think Staff notes said something
about needing to fill out a FAR, which is our Floor Area Ratio, but with the amount of
square footage that they have, there’s 103,000 square feet here, and it’s a 30%
requirement. So they’ve only got 7,296 proposed.
MR. LAPPER-We actually did it for, it was in the variance packet, but not in the site plan
packet. So we did fill one out, and their numbers are right. We’re so far under.
MR. VOLLARO-I said you probably didn’t need it with the amount of property you’ve got.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll certainly submit it because we have it.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it in our packet. You did it for the ZBA?
MR. LAPPER-It went into the ZBA packet, but not into the Planning Board packet.
MR. VOLLARO-The ZBA, do they know anything about FAR up there?
MR. LAPPER-Only when you ask for a variance, which we didn’t here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-They’re only used to dealing with that on the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things I want to impress, I may, I will not be here
probably when you folks come back with, because I’ll be leaving this chair and leaving
this Board, but I want to impress on the Board one thing. Do not go into SEQRA early on
this project. Do not, and I’ll just leave you with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Don’t worry.
MR. VOLLARO-We have a public hearing on this tonight, and I would like to get some of
the public up here to talk, and I think we’re, the involved agencies, did you put DEC as
an involved agency here or not? I didn’t get to see that. That would be in your Long
Form, and I didn’t notice that in the Long Form. I don’t know what you put in the Long
Form for involved agencies. That would be in your Part I?
MR. HUNSINGER-Water Department, DEC and Wastewater Department.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. DEC and Wastewater.
MR. LAPPER-DEC is here, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I think with that, considering the amount of work you’ve got to
do, in any event, I don’t want to belabor this. It’s a quarter after eight. We’ve been on
this a while now. I would like to get the public up here, if there’s anybody here that would
like to speak to it. So could I ask if anybody from the public would like to speak to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
VANCE COHEN
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. COHEN-Hi. My name’s Vance Cohen, Manager of Scooters right next door. I do
have a couple of concerns for the property, or the plans that they’ve proposed. One of
them is the amount of traffic that’s going to be pulling in where these gas pumps are. It
looks like their gas pumps are kind of spread out along Route 9, and one of the pumps
looks like it hangs over the northern entrance which, to me, the amount of traffic that
comes down Route 9 that would be pulling in there, they would be creating some sort of
traffic jam onto Route 9. If you had one car pumping gas and you had another car
behind it, waiting to get gas, then anybody trying to pull into the parking lot is going to be
either having to swerve around them to the left or to the right, which would, you know,
allow them to go to the back, I guess, towards the drive through, but I think that end
pump is really a concern.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see, it’s hanging over the northern entrance.
MR. COHEN-Right, and that’s like almost a straight shot to where their drive through
would be, and one of the things about it being a destination, there’s a campground right
across the street, right around the corner there, the R V park, which has a few hundred
campsites. I’m pretty sure Dunkin Donuts is going to be a destination spot in the
morning, with all those folks going there, plus the masses that go to The Great Escape
up Route 9. That starts about 8:30, the traffic for The Great Escape, and it gets almost
grid locked by 9:30, 10:00 o’clock going to the Park, and it goes all the way up towards
the Tee Pee, so there’s significant traffic right there, and I’m sure a good number of
those folks are going to want to get a nice Dunkin Donut coffee on their way. So I think
that there should be consideration either moving, you know, maybe the building needs to
go back a little bit further. I think 10 spots is what they’re estimating for the drive through
line. I think that that’s probably an underestimate of how many cars are actually going to
get in there, based on the grid lock traffic that I see in the mornings, being there every
day. The gas station right down the road, Sunoco, has where people can drive around
the outside of the building, and most of the cars that don’t get gas are parking along the
edge of their property and they all drive around the back side. So I see a big traffic flow
around the far side, which is the south side towards our building right there, which would,
again, create a very, you know, some sort of line right at the entrance which would hinder
people pulling in and out of our parking spots as well, right at that entrance. I don’t know
if it would be something that they could widen the road or widen that entrance, or maybe
even have a third entrance somewhere along the line there, and the way the pumps are
set up, you know, if they spun them maybe like a 180 towards the building from the road,
that may allow for better traffic, because as it’s set up, cars are going to pull around,
depending on what side your gas tank is. So you’re going to be having cars pulling in
and out, you know, if you’re going to have 10 cars trying to get in there, you’re going to
have probably 15 or 20, you know, milling between getting in and out during those peak
times. Every one of the gas stations that are up there are extremely busy in the summer,
towing boats. You’ve got trucks pulling campers. They’re all, you know, loading up with
gas. It just doesn’t seem like that’s a very feasible layout for that type of traffic that we
do see right there, and boats, trucks with boats are like the biggest thing right up there in
the outlets.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t think about the boat traffic.
MR. COHEN-And there’s also concern for me with the amount of parking that would be
required for this site, that as the Board would be requiring them to have that additional
parking in the back because it would be required for the amount of people that would be
coming on to the site for the food, the convenience store and the gas station, which
would concern me with the runoff that would be coming in to the stream that’s right there.
We’ve got a pretty extensive layout for a drainage system right now with what our plans
are, and anything that would be coming in there I’d hope to see it, you know, not overrun
any of the systems.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the impervious material that would be required if
they built those extra parking spaces in the back, and that runoff is what you’re
concerned about.
MR. COHEN-Right. Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand.
MR. COHEN-Because that would be almost directly coming right towards my property.
Those are a few of my concerns. Along with the parking alongside the road and the way
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
the pumps are set up. I just don’t, it really concerns me with the amount of traffic and
the way it’s going to be flowing on that property.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
MR. COHEN-I look forward to speaking again.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application this
evening? Okay. I’m going to hold the public hearing open, and I’ll bring the applicants
back up. Does anybody else have any other comments that they’d like to make here
before we put together a tabling motion with the conditions?
MR. SEGULJIC-One other question. That’s the light poles. What are they going to look
like? A 23 foot pole and a?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, on L101, C-4, you’re talking about, explain the difference between,
if you get on L101, on Site Plan 100, you’re talking about 20 foot poles, right on the top,
in an area called the lighting schedule.
MR. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Then when you get back into the details, on L101, and I believe
it’s L101, let me take a look on my notes.
MR. SEGULJIC-They’re talking about 23 foot poles.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re talking about 23 foot poles, or 15 foot. I didn’t know which, what
was going to go in there. Our spec is 20. When you look up on your lighting schedule on
SD-100, that’s a correct height, 20 feet.
MR. MOORE-They would be 20 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-So the detail that you have there on, the detail that you have on 101 is
not correct?
MR. MOORE-That’s correct, it should be 20 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty feet. Okay. Is that what you were concerned about, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You picked up the same one I did.
MR. FORD-I just want to make one more observation. It seems like you want to provide
something for everyone on this relatively small site, and I’m concerned about that.
You’ve got a tremendous number of different draws for the public to come in off 9 and
return to Route 9, and I, for one, am concerned with all of these offerings, and not all for
the same population, and I would just ask that you give active consideration to that as
you go back to the drawing board.
MR. LAPPER-Tom, I think that in a gas station convenience store these days, this is
pretty typical, but coffee, donuts, sandwiches are available in general, and what’s
different here is that they’re branded. So it seems to you like it’s three different stores
but the square footage that they’re going to take up are pretty small, not a lot different
than a coffee counter with donuts. So I think that it’s really just the fact that you’re
recognizing, you’re looking at Dunkin Donuts and you’re thinking of it like three separate
buildings, but these are just taking up a few square feet in this convenience store, but,
you know, we’ll certainly continue to talk about it.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand what you’re saying. I agree with you, but my
concern is I think what’s causing a lot of issues is the carwash. If you eliminate the
carwash, you’re going to open up a lot more space. You’re going to solve a lot of
congestion problems.
MR. FORD-Look at how important that carwash really is.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think people are going to use it a lot, either, but we’ll update the
traffic report to have some numbers to talk about the carwash.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-As long as there’s a bypass lane, it’s not like you’re going to have 20
people on line here for a carwash, you know, this is just the carwash that you put the
coins and it goes over the car.
MR. SEGULJIC-I see this convenience store being very busy because I see people
driving by after a day of skiing and going to get a cup of coffee, this and that, and
gassing up.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t disagree, but those are people that are driving by anyway.
MR. SEGULJIC-I agree. It’s not so much. I agree, you’re not generating any new traffic.
I’m concerned with what’s going to happen in this site.
MR. LAPPER-And the site has to work. It has to have parking. It has to have bypass,
and we’ll come back with the next generation and we’ll talk about it.
MR. FORD-And there is a difference, if you have the same number of cars, simply going
up or down Route 9, or if they’re entering and exiting. It has an impact.
MR. LAPPER-There are two gas stations already in this corridor, and, I mean, you know,
personally, as a resident and taxpayer, I look at it as, in the middle of the summer when
you have everyone coming from Lake George, I’m glad that people are spending sales
tax dollars in that corridor, and I avoid it and take the Northway if I’m going up north, but,
you know, obviously it has to work.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the concept with the carwash, there’s a gas station that I frequent
where they actually offer a discount on the gas if you buy a carwash. So is the concept
to get people to buy a carwash while they’re there buying gas?
MR. MOORE-I think generally, yes, not only to buy gas, but also to come in and buy a
gallon of milk.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, for coffee.
MR. MOORE-Or coffee, but you have a mix of customers, obviously, and this concept
has been a very popular one in the recent four, five years across the country where
they’re mixing brands and trying to offer more at a one stop type shop.
MR. LAPPER-Doesn’t the Hess station at Exit 19 have a sandwich shop?
MR. HUNSINGER-They do, yes.
MR. SIPP-Is there any franchise infringement here? You’ve got Dunkin Donuts two
miles down the road and you’ve got a Subway a mile and a half?
MR. LAPPER-Those are representative. It may be, you know, other franchises that
ultimate sign a lease.
MR. SIPP-These are not cut in stone?
MR. LAPPER-They’re negotiating, but it’s not clear yet. We don’t have anything to sell
yet because it’s not approved, but it’ll be them or somebody else.
MR. VOLLARO-Gentlemen, I think we’re about at the end. We’re going to come up with
a tabling motion and there’ll be conditions tied to the tabling motion, and the Secretary
will make that motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 MT ASSOCIATES, INC., Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions:
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
1. That the applicant address the items listed in the Staff notes,
2. Address C.T. Male letter of 11/21/06,
3. Provide an enhanced landscaping plan,
4.Consider building re-design for enhanced visual interest, an example of
adding peaks or Adirondack design elements,
5. Provide a traffic study to meet Code requirements,
6. Provide canopy color renderings, also vacuum station color renderings,
7. A revised lighting plan to meet Town Code with a four to one uniformity ratio,
8. Drawing L1-01 detail on the pole height needs to be corrected to 20 feet,
9. Scott Bernard’s letter of 10/12/06 from the Queensbury Water Department has
to be addressed as well,
10.Tabled to January 23, 2007.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-How do others feel about having them address the issue of the five pump
stations compared to four?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there was a good point made by the public there, the fact that the
one pump station is hanging almost dead center to the northern entrance.
MR. MOORE-Can I address that? It’s not. The edge of the canopy is in alignment with
the curb cut, the southerly curb of that north curb cut. There’s a good 10 feet of clear
way there. A car parked there or even two cars parked near that pump will not block
traffic trying to go through the drive through lane.
MRS. STEFFAN-I also think the applicant, you know, they’re moving the building and
there are some things that we’re going to move on the plan, and they’ll identify once
those changes are made whether it works sufficiently.
MR. SEGULJIC-But I, just to clarify, the pump lines up with the edge, the canopy
overhangs?
MR. MOORE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I think the other thing you have to consider is you’ve got a lot of
people hauling things up here, from mobile homes to boats, snowmobiles, they all gas up
at these stations. So you have a double, two cars there already, for example, plus
someone waiting.
MR. MOORE-We’ll certainly take a look at that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you. That’s all we’re asking.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re all set.
SITE PLAN 42-2006 SEQR TYPE II BROOKS TEELE AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND,
JR. OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE
LOCATION 10 FISHING HOLE LOOP, KATSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION. EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 65-06, AV 1456, SP 3-1989, BP 01-358 WARREN
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
CO. PLANNING 11/8/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 0.83
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-8, 9 SECTION 179-4-
DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HOWLAND-Good evening. I’m here with Brooks Teele. I’m the agent for Mr. Teele.
What we’re proposing is to put a second floor addition above his family room. In the
packet, and I tried to put it on the print up here, it’s dotted in an outline of where the new
two bedrooms would be. It’s basically going to take the existing roofline on the lower line
and raise it up to the main level roof, which is about eight foot six inches, plus or minus a
little bit. Other than that, it has a septic system that will handle the two additional
bedrooms, and we did go through the Area Variance, which was caused by the southern
part or the pre-existing part of the house.
MR. VOLLARO-Everybody on the Board, I believe, has been to the house. One of the
questions, where was your portable water supply? I didn’t see it. Is it a well or is it the
lake?
BROOKS TEELE
MR. TEELE-I have a drilled well. Because down in our little bay, in the summer it tastes
like swamp water. So I had to put a well in.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FORD-How deep is it?
MR. TEELE-My well is 100 and some feet deep, 110 feet. It’s right near the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Does anybody else have any questions on this application
they’d like to bring forward?
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just run through the history of how the house got to where it
is, if it started out as camp at 800 feet and now?
MR. HOWLAND-It was originally a camp of 832 square feet.
MR. TEELE-It was a cottage. When I bought the house, I tried to enlarge the home, after
I realized my family couldn’t really stay in an 800 square foot house, and I went to the
Board. I went to the Zoning Board and I went to the Planning Board at that time in 19, I
think it was ’88, and I applied for a permit to expand the house. At that time, they only
allowed me to expand it to the point it’s at now, and the reason for that was that they
wanted me to put in a holding tank to control my wastewater, and at that time, they told
me that’s as much as they really wanted me to do, and it makes it difficult to live in a
house where we have grandchildren come and we have our family come and they may
be only there for a week or two, but it’s hard to live in a house where your upstairs is so
small that it’s just like camping out, and I’d like to add the two bedrooms because my
family’s grown. My daughter comes from Michigan with her husband and my three
grandchildren and you want to enjoy the house, and it’s not a heavy use, but it’s what we
do, and they maybe stay a week or two and have a nice time and go home. That’s why
I’d like to expand my capability of having more sleeping area.
MR. SEGULJIC-When was the deck put on the front?
MR. TEELE-The deck was original.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s original?
MR. TEELE-I had it repaired, rebuilt. The deck was original.
MR. FORD-You maintained the original size?
MR. TEELE-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-One of the things we’re trying to do is get buffering along the lake.
MR. TEELE-Right.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re all concerned about the water quality. I realize it’s not everything,
but at least we’re making strides. How do you feel about putting some buffering along
the lakefront?
MR. TEELE-I feel that, you know, I have my boathouse there, and I have plantings along
that, the left side of my property. I have an apple tree, a crab apple tree and a berm and
I have some shrubbery on that, and then as you come over towards my beach area, I
have, the lawn has been there forever, right down to the lake, and I felt, when I wanted to
add the two bedrooms, that this was the easiest way to do it. In other words, I’m not
going to be digging. I’m not going to be disturbing the ground. I’m going to simply go up
with my roof. Right now I have a cathedral ceiling which is, it’s hard to heat. It’s cold in
the winter, and so I want to put the two bedrooms right over that area, and I tried to do it
in a way that wouldn’t disturb anything. I really am concerned about the lake. I’ve lived
there all my life, and then I thought about the shrubbery. If you want to put some
shrubbery or something down by the water, then you’ve got to disturb the ground, and I
thought about it, because somebody mentioned it, and I said, that’s just going to disturb
ground and disturb dirt, and when you do that, you get runoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-If you do it properly, you shouldn’t disturb it. I can understand you
maintaining the existing footprint of the building, which is good.
MR. TEELE-Well, that’s why I’m trying to do it that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-But once again, lawns are a bad thing for the lake.
MR. TEELE-Well, see, there’s three families that share my frontage.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, lawns are a bad thing for the lake because they’re
habitats for geese. Why do you think we’re having more geese? Because everyone has
a lawn. They love lawns. Now you see people string wire across the front of their lawn.
If you planted some trees and some vegetation there, we could reduce the geese
population. The geese are not helping the water quality. So I think, having buffering
along the lake is a step forward. It’s a small step, but I think it raises people’s awareness
of we can’t cut down all the trees along the lake and put in lawns. That’s what we’re
trying to achieve.
MR. TEELE-I did find a solution for the geese though. What they don’t like, my children
swim there, and there’s two other families that swim there, and they own the houses in
back of me and they swim there and all the kids come down and swim there, and so we
put up a swimming pool pulley, just a simple rope with a pulley. They won’t go over that.
They won’t come up on the lawn. They don’t go across it. They’re afraid of it, and the
reason I hesitate to put shrubbery down there is there’s these children down there all the
time and nobody can see them when they’re in the water, and I’m worried about them
needing help and somebody not seeing them.
MR. HOWLAND-There’s one other thing, too, I’d like to mention. His shoreline, again,
I’m there all the time. I’m a relation, but where the stonewall is, you saw it right along the
beach, that’s where everybody steps down and over it. The kids play in the little sandy
part. The lawn has been there, I was born in 1945, directly across the water, and there
was a family that lived in the cottage right to the back or just north and to the back.
Those grounds haven’t changed. I’ve got pictures of it when I was four and my mom
walked across. It was always a lawn. It’s always been a lawn. I don’t think anything’s
changed in that site on years.
MR. SEGULJIC-The water quality.
MR. TEELE-Well, no, I try to keep that, I don’t fertilize. I don’t abuse the lake. I really
don’t.
MR. SIPP-Was there topsoil brought in to make that lawn?
MR. TEELE-No.
MR. HOWLAND-No, sir. The lawn’s been there ever since I was a little kid. I have
pictures of it from 1945 all the way up through I think ’52 when they moved.
MR. SIPP-Have you used any, you use no fertilizers or pesticides or herbicides?
MR. TEELE-I use no fertilizer on that lawn.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HOWLAND-Most of it’s clover in the summer.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you’ve got a high lime content there because you’ve got a lot of clover
growing in there. So the high lime content is, when you drilled this well, where it is in the
front of the house, between the house and the lake, did you hit rock?
MR. TEELE-Yes.
MR. SIPP-At what depth?
MR. TEELE-I don’t know what it was at this point. I know there’s rock there all around.
MR. SIPP-Well, I read someplace that in order to put in your septic system it took
blasting.
MR. TEELE-Yes, we put the septic as far away from the lake as we could. It cost me
almost $38,000. I did everything I could do to get it away from the lake. I really did.
MR. SIPP-Well, I’m not saying that you didn’t. I’m just trying to piece together the
geology of what’s there and how far down is the rock and whether it is solid enough so
that there is runoff along the ledge, along that ledge to the lake.
MR. TEELE-There probably is, because we can feel cool spots underneath the ground.
There’s cool spots there, like springs running under there.
MR. SIPP-Well, see, that’s one reason for putting in buffer strips because these plants
recommended for these areas have deep roots, and they tend to draw up the nitrogen
and the phosphorus that may be leaching along those lines, and Lake George
Association has put out a pamphlet.
MR. TEELE-I see that, yes.
MR. SIPP-And I have taken that and adapted it to different soil conditions and different
moisture conditions, so that if you want to take a look at some of the plants that can be
grown there, which will do the lake a lot of good by sucking up some of this, you can’t, no
matter how good a septic system is, you’re not going to get all of the material to flow
downward, and particularly where you’ve got rock ledge.
MR. TEELE-Where I put my septic system I did have a good perc there and I did put in a
new Eljen system which is really.
MR. SIPP-Yes. We saw the mound type system.
MR. TEELE-Right, very extensive, too, it’s huge.
MR. SIPP-So I would ask you if you would take a look at this, when you leave tonight,
and get an idea of what you can do, and it’s not necessarily that it has to be solid across
the front, so that you’re blocking off your view of the lake, and most of these do not go
much more than four or five feet in height, but you can isolate little patches here, stagger
them so that they cover the area and soak up a lot of the moisture that may be running
along that rock ledge. Going on from there, I was struck by the fact that you did not
include the basement in your calculations. What is in the basement?
MR. TEELE-Just a basement.
MR. HOWLAND-Just a basement, and part of it is about five feet high.
MRS. BRUNO-That was under the original camp?
MR. TEELE-Yes, the old concrete stairs.
MR. HOWLAND-Correct.
MR. SIPP-What is in there? Is there a furnace, hot water heater?
MR. TEELE-Yes, my furnace, hot water heater.
MR. HOWLAND-In the five foot section, yes, there is.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. SIPP-But you have a double door entry from off of the front lawn.
MR. TEELE-That was simply to get in and out of the basement, that’s all.
MR. HOWLAND-It’s just a basement, if you looked in the door.
MR. SIPP-There’s storage?
MR. HOWLAND-There’s a freezer. There’s a table with stuff on it, but it’s just a
basement.
MR. TEELE-My freezer’s down there. Washer and dryer, yes.
MR. SIPP-So you have water down there.
MR. TEELE-Right.
MR. SIPP-And how does that water get to the septic system, is it pumped?
MR. HOWLAND-It pumps up. The washing machine pumps up.
MR. TEELE-The only thing that pumps up is the washer. That pumps up and goes into
the drain, and then I have to pump, I have a big duplex pump station that pumps the
water all the way up to the road, and I have three holding tanks.
MR. SIPP-It goes in the holding tanks first and then is pumped from there to the road.
MR. TEELE-Yes. I even have a 1,000 gallon overflow tank in case the pump fails.
MR. SIPP-Alarm system which shuts off your water.
MR. TEELE-Yes. So it’s pretty elaborate.
MR. VOLLARO-For $38,000 it should be pretty elaborate.
MR. TEELE-Well, I had Environmental Design from Clifton Park design the system for
me, and he’s a good engineer.
MR. SIPP-Is there access, well, obviously there’s got to be access from upstairs.
There’s a stairway down.
MR. TEELE-Right.
MR. SIPP-I’m just curious as to why it was never used as part of the house itself. In
other words, if you’ve got water down there, you could put a bathroom down there.
MR. TEELE-I don’t really like basements, you know. Basements are not very, you know,
they’re not very pleasant to be in. I don’t want to have my grandchildren come and stay
in a basement.
MR. FORD-Is the maximum height, you mentioned there was a height of five feet.
MR. HOWLAND-You’ve got five feet on one side and you’ve got seven feet on the other,
less, then you have beams going across, the floor joist support. So you’ve got, the
lowest you might have a six foot five underneath the beams. It’s just a basement, and
again, the high part’s only maybe, what, about a third of it, and that’s where the door is,
and that was the natural lay of the land. I’m assuming that’s how the door got there.
MR. SEGULJIC-How does everyone feel about the buffering? What I’d like to propose is
three, 10 by 10 foot areas with a 50 foot area of the lake, which would include Group
One plantings.
MRS. STEFFAN-See, I’m not in favor of that, just because the grass is established, and,
you know, what we’re talking about here is the second story addition, but I don’t think we
should be dictating, you know, disturbing the land, and I understand what the Lake
George Association has asked to do, but in this situation, that grass and that lawn has
been there for some time. We don’t see any stormwater runoff. The applicant has told
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
us he doesn’t use fertilizers, which has always been a concern of ours. We talk about it,
and I think we should leave well enough alone. That’s my opinion.
MR. SIPP-Well, grass roots are three or four inches at the greatest density, and that’s all
you’re taking water from is the top three or four inches. This is why when you get into
drought conditions, the grass is the first thing to go because of the shallow root. You get
a deep rooted plant, which would take much more moisture much deeper under the soil.
MR. HOWLAND-Sir, you won’t get very deep on most of that property. If you walk, if you
go about 20 feet north of the property, you’ve got maybe that much soil, and the rock
goes up to the, if you saw where the U-Shaped driveway is and you came up over that
little mound, that’s rock that goes up there, and then goes towards the rear.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we’re talking about disturbing an area that’s been undisturbed for
many, many years.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re talking the bedrock is shallow there.
MR. HOWLAND-Correct, where it’s very shallow.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what happens with the septic system, then, is the leachate from the
septic runs along the back lot.
MR. HOWLAND-No, it can’t, because the rock comes up and then the rock goes down.
It can’t get through the rock.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see putting three small buffering areas as disturbing that much
soil. Lawns are not the best thing to have along the lake.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s an established lawn. It’s been there for many, many years.
Why should we be dictating that this person has to put in buffering strips when he just
wants to put a second story addition on his house? There’s no change to any of the
landscaping that’s currently there, and I don’t know why we would dictate a disturbance
when I don’t believe one’s warranted in this case. We do have modifications that come
before us where they’re totally ripping out the lawn and changing the topography of the
land. In this situation they’re not touching any of that, and so I just.
MR. SEGULJIC-This time we have a chance to establish buffering along the lake.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just don’t think in this situation it’s warranted. That’s my opinion.
MRS. BRUNO-Sometimes when you look at buildings strictly, and this is kind of a
parallel comparison, if you look at a building and you do additions or renovations and it’s
over a certain percentage, you’re then required to bring the rest of the building up to
Code, and I think that goes into, you know, what your current requirements are. I see
both points this evening, that everything is there and there hasn’t been any storm runoff,
but on the other hand, you know, kind of we’re adding on whatever the percentage is to
the house. You kind of have to look at the project as a whole and that’s really what
coming in front of the Planning Board does. So it really opens the door to any discussion
along this line.
MR. TEELE-Adding the addition adds 20% to the existing house.
MR. HOWLAND-But there’s no increase in the roof. They’re not required by anybody’s
law to put in stormwater management that I know of. I’ve never heard of it.
MRS. BRUNO-Right. I’m just making a parallel comparison to when you add on or do
something significant, which 20%or more is, that you then look at the whole site or
project and bring it up to current standards, and since we are concerned about the lake
currently.
MR. TEELE-Well, I’m very concerned about our bay, because we never had geese, and
now we have geese running all over the place. Never had them. We shoo the ducks, we
shoo the geese away. They’re all over the place.
MRS. BRUNO-I was, unfortunately, unable to see some of the sites for this week. On
the lakeside of your house, do you have gardens or plantings up towards the house?
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. TEELE-Yes. There’s no grass over there to speak of. It’s all crab apple trees for
the birds to feed on. There’s cedar trees. It’s pretty nicely landscaped. I try to maintain
it that way.
MRS. BRUNO-And then you said it kind of opens up more going north because you
wanted the visuals for the.
MR. TEELE-Right.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but there’s a lot of hard surfacing just to the west of the house between
the house and the lake, and that water’s got to go someplace.
MR. TEELE-Correct, yes. That water is on that patio, yes. I know that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what’s the Board want? I’m seeing both sides of this argument.
Obviously I’d have to vote one way or another. Looking at the size of the lot and the
condition that I saw it in when I was there, and understanding quite well what the two
gentlemen on the right are talking about, I think that I would not be in favor of, at this
point anyway, of disturbing that area. I don’t know how much we’re going to get out of
that. If I thought there was a lot of percentage in it, I could see it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I understand what you’re saying, but we’re gaining something.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but in this particular instance, I think we’re gaining little.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that, but we’re gaining something.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re gaining something, but if we can apply the logic you’re using to
the new construction that’s going on on the lake, I’d be totally in favor of it. I mean, for
example, I’ll be perfectly honest, with the hard surfacing that you’ve got in front of your
house, had you wanted to build that hard surfacing today, I would have a difficult time
with that. I couldn’t do it, you couldn’t do it.
MR. TEELE-I agree with you. I agree with you totally.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think the lot itself, the way it’s laid out, it presents itself nicely. It’s
pretty from the lake. I would not be in favor of disturbing it personally, myself.
MR. TEELE-One thing I did do that may help to solve some of the problems between my,
in my backyard, which is not the lakeside, I call it the back, towards the road, I built a
mound there, so that any drainage from that area would come down and not go right
down into the lake. There’s a mound there. In other words, the water from my back 40
doesn’t run down into the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that when I was there. You do have it mounded.
MR. TEELE-And when we get a big rainstorm, that back 40, there’s water standing out
there, because it’s not running down the road into the lake. It kind of stands out there for
a little while. It seeps in, but it’s not running right down into the water.
MR. FORD-I believe that any time we have a structure being modified this close to the
lake, that we need to examine all possibilities, and I believe that they have been
examined and explored, and been given an opportunity to receive some material on it. I
personally, as a Board member, don’t feel that, I think we have to weigh in in terms of our
own value judgment, and we look at the history of this plot, and I think that the history
indicates that you have made great strides to care for the lake, and I accept that, and I
think this is one instance where adding on to the structure by going up, I don’t think we’re
going to impact negatively what appears to be a good situation. So I would not be in
favor of mandating that there be additional plantings.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just one quick thought that I had, in looking at the drawing, and I
know that we’re, I want to get some quick history in my head here. I guess there’s a
variance that granted some time ago for the distance from the lot line of, I guess, what is
it, nine feet on the one side. Was that granted?
MR. TEELE-That was the old house, the old cottage.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s where it was and always has been. So this goes way
back. Okay.
MR. FORD-Bob, is there a public hearing tonight on this?
MR. VOLLARO-There is a public hearing tonight on this, yes. There’s no SEQRA
because this is a mod, but there is a public hearing, and if anybody would like to speak
on this application, come forward.
MR. TEELE-I might consider some plantings, too, over on that side, on the north side of
the lot.
MR. SIPP-I wish you would.
MR. TEELE-That’s where the rock kind of sticks out over there, too. So I’m willing to
look at what we can plant.
MR. SIPP-They come in some nice colors.
MR. FORD-I like that. I just don’t want to mandate it.
MR. TEELE-I’d like not to have to, I’d like to hire the proper guy to do it, too.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. Mr. Salvador, would you like to come up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My comments tonight are more procedural than specific to the addition,
but they do deal with this project. You have included in your packet the minutes from
Site Plan 3-89 to which Mr. Teele referenced, on Page Three it’s numbered. I’ll read
from that. Mrs. York, Mrs. York, at the time I believe was the Director of Community
Development. Mrs. York noted to the Board that the application is Type I action because
it is within 500 feet of Lake George. Thus necessitating a SEQRA process, which means
the determination of a lead agency, and if you read the rest of that page you’ll find that
the Planning Board did do a SEQRA review, a full SEQRA review as the lead agency.
Okay. I maintain that from that point forward, this project, anything done on this site, was
subject to SEQRA Type I review, and it should have been done under a Supplemental
Environmental review, as provided for in SEQRA, as well as this project. Now, the
history shows that for some reason this site plan was done and the Planning Board
mandated they go on a holding tank. I suspect the holding tank was sized for the
number of bedrooms that were in the dwelling. Then for some reason they were allowed
to go off of this holding tank onto a septic system that you referred to without any kind of
SEQRA review, absolutely none, and now they’re adding two more bedrooms. Where is
the capacity provided for in their wastewater system for these additional bedrooms?
Somewhere along the line we went from a holding tank that was probably no bigger than
what they needed for the number of bedrooms in the dwelling at that time.
MR. VOLLARO-What should have happened there, and I tend to agree with that, but
they got a building permit obviously from the Building Department to put in the septic
system without having to go before a Board for review, and that’s where the thing was
jumped.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-And that puts us in a bad spot here on this Board.
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly, but the point I’d like to make is that back in 1989 there was an
appreciation that because the project was within 500 feet of the lake it was a Type I
action, and that’s significant, because this Town has ceased to consider that, and you’ll
note, you know from the letter that I gave you, a copy of the letter, that the Lake George
Park Commission effectuated that CEA in 1988, and that’s why she referred to it in 1989,
and the 500 feet is what she’s referring to. So we’ve gone astray is my point, and
somehow, some way we’ve got to get these projects back into where they belong in the
review process. I’m not saying you shouldn’t grant this permit for this, but I think it’s got
to be done properly so that the record is there for everyone to see what was done.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t been able to trace through all of our documentation where the
500 foot from Lake George area creates this Critical Environmental Area. We know that,
but I haven’t been able to translate that into a Type I yet. Go into 117.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. You look at the SEQRA law. You’ll see for residential
development there are, there’s a criteria of exceptions where it is not an Unlisted Action.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about 617 now?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s very ambiguous in there, John.
MR. SALVADOR-No, it’s not. Where you’re dealing with a non public wastewater
system, okay, a non public, it becomes a Type II action.
MR. VOLLARO-A Type I action.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m sorry, a Type I action.
MR. VOLLARO-We’d have to look at that. Chris, are you looking at that in any way, in
terms of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, anything like this at all, where we’re, or
even in our 179 re-do that Mr. Catalano’s doing for us. Is any of this being looked at at
all?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes and no. The specific question that Mr. Salvador raised is not
being addressed, but what is being addressed, and at this point it’s just a draft, is that
any project that comes before the Board within the CEA has to document and
demonstrate that they have a septic system that’s up to Code. I can’t remember the
exact language. John’s been at the meetings as well. I can’t remember the exact
language that’s been proposed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what we’ve got to really do is track to see whether a CEA
triggers a Type I action, and I think that, it seems to me that that’s kind of a little bit
draconian, but I’m not sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-That we would get into, Type I’s a big deal in SEQRA. I mean, it’s an
Environmental Impact Statement and the whole bit, and I don’t know that, I haven’t seen
that translation.
MR. SALVADOR-The other thing you should appreciate, that when all of this went into
place in 1989 it was anticipated that the Lake George Park Commission would
promulgate wastewater regulations very similar to the stormwater regulations that you’re
familiar with in 147, okay. You know how perfect they are, 147, all inclusive, all
encompassing, and the wastewater regulations were intended to be the same. They just
never materialized, and we’re bare bones. We’re without those now, and now we’re
relying on our Building Code Enforcement to do this job, and it’s failing, it’s just failing us.
Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, John. We’ll have to look at that. Susan, one of the things
you could do in Staff is take a look at 617 and see, when you get into the CEA sections
of 617, whether we can clearly transit from there to a Type I. It seems to me that’s a
huge stretch, but let’s take a look at it anyway.
MRS. BARDEN-My understanding is that the law has changed since then, and the
standard is somewhat relaxed with regard to CEA’s. So at this time when this was
deemed a Type I action, that was probably the law at the time, and now it’s a Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re going to look at that, John. You’ve got your point.
MR. HUNSINGER-The issue that I wanted to raise, and I thought Mr. Salvador might
raise it, is the fact that their septic tanks are on a separate parcel. Staff had brought that
up as well, and I wanted to raise the issue with the applicant about combining the two
parcels into one parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think, I’ve got a comment on that myself.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Because to be honest, I don’t know how you can legally do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think these are contiguous lots. He has a common lot line.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Where we talked about that problem was where a road separated two
properties, and they were putting a septic system on the property on the other side of the
road. So now the properties are not contiguous any longer. The road makes the break.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure that he has to, and I don’t know this for sure, but I have a
note down in here that talks about the fact that the area that the septic system is on now
is only .38. Is there any reason why you wouldn’t want to consolidate those two
properties?
MR. TEELE-Well, the lot is part of an Association. There’s two other homes there that
are adjacent to this lot. There’s two homes there, that we all had an Association at the
time. The only reason the lot’s in my name is because I went through a divorce, and the
lot ended up back in my name. I had to pay my wife for the lot, as part of the divorce
settlement. The lot contains access to the lake, contains an Association dock which is
part of the Park Commission’s docks. There’s three docks that are used by my
neighbors, and also by that lot. So the legal ramifications of that lot is just like the
neighbors. They have a house there, but they have a right to use my beach and to use
my dock down there, use the docks down there, Association dock, and I just don’t, I’ve
been paying taxes on this lot for 30 some years.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s in your name, obviously.
MR. TEELE-And she just raised, the Assessor just raised it to more money. So now I’m
paying 600 some dollars a year, and I’m going to look into that possibility.
MR. VOLLARO-Of tying it in, consolidating the lots.
MR. TEELE-Yes, but I don’t want to commit to that right now because I don’t know the
ramifications, and I didn’t feel, I was going to have an attorney tonight to talk about that,
but I didn’t feel I had to come to this Board with an attorney.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess my feeling is that it is a legal issue. I don’t know how
you can have a house on one lot and your septic system on another lot, and have that be
legal.
MR. TEELE-Well, it’s by, I think that’s a good idea, by the way. I was going to argue that
point. I think it’s good that people can put their septics away from the lake as far as they
can. If they’re across the road, that’s great. I think that it’s a good idea that people can
be able to put their septic systems away from the water, on somebody else’s lot, even if
they buy an easement from somebody.
MR. HOWLAND-Can I just mention one thing? We did Mike Ginsberg’s house on Old
Assembly Point. We were mandated by this Board to put it across the road, mandated
by the Board, even though we could have put it on the main lot, and they’re still in those
separate deeds or not divided. Got it in Cleverdale, Seeley Road. You have it numerous
places on the lake.
MR. TEELE-I think it’s great they’re putting septics away from the water if they can, by
easement or by ownership.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think there’s at least a couple of concerns in my mind that are
raised by having your septic on someone else’s lot. Number One, by definition, a
buildable lot has to be able to maintain its own septic. So almost by definition now you’re
saying that the lot you have your house on is not a buildable lot. Secondly, if the, I
mean, I’m raising the question. I’m not an attorney. I don’t know the answer. I’m saying
these are the questions that came to my mind when I read the Staff comments.
Secondly, by having your second lot, if you will, the lot that’s closest to Pilot Knob Road,
as a separate lot, that would be a substandard lot, now, that you could develop, and I
think that’s really where my concern is mostly coming from.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s where I was at as well, because I looked at, if he has only .3
acres up there, and he wants to put a house, a well, and a septic, and have a 100 foot
separation between the well and the septic, I don’t think he could manage it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no offense, but I see the rulings that have been coming out of
our Zoning Board, and I could see our Zoning Board approving that, giving them a
variance.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we can’t make that determination here. The Zoning Board
does.
MR. TEELE-I tried to put this septic up there in good faith.
MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate that.
MR. TEELE-And my friend Mr. Salvador has stirred up the pot. Why, I don’t know, but,
you know, he stirs up the pot, I guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was raised by the Staff comment. Not by anything Mr.
Salvador said.
MR. TEELE-It was raised by Mr. Salvador, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. TEELE-I’m trying to do a good thing.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we should be looking into, we have our attorney here tonight. So,
Mr. Schachner has come aboard. Maybe I can just explain it to you simply. There are
two lots. They are separated by a lot line. They’re contiguous lots. You have a septic
system on a lot other than the living lot, other than where the house is, and I guess what
we’re trying to do is to determine, do those lot, does he have to make that a
consolidation in order to have, in order for it to be a legal place for him to put his septic
system? His septic system is now on the alternate lot.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure if I’m addressing the question or not, Mr. Chairman, but
it is possible, legally, to have easements off of one’s property to have any number of
utility type things like a septic system on another property. There’s nothing per se, I
mean, the law can accommodate that by way of appropriate easements. In fact, on
occasion, and maybe this is the comment, I might have been hearing a comment like this
as I walked through the door, but I didn’t know what the reference was, but on occasion,
such an application requires a variance of some sort and on occasion Zoning Board’s
approve such variances. Remember that I am, although your Counsel not the Zoning
Officer, and I don’t know, specifically, if what’s required meets our Zoning Law or not. If
that’s what you’re asking me, I don’t know the answer to that, and that would be a Zoning
Officer determination, in any event, but I can tell you that it is legally possible to have a
well not on one’s property, a septic system not on one’s property, and typically that’s
accommodated by way of easements.
MR. VOLLARO-But this is his property. He owns both.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Two different lots owned by the same individual.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-Even easier to accommodate the utilities, because, again, one
obviously can give permission to one’s self, so to speak. What I don’t know, and I don’t
know if this is what you’re asking, but I’m not the person to answer this question if you
are, is whether our Zoning Officer would determine that that complies with our Town
Code. I don’t know the answer to that.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s looked at this. We looked at this. We looked at this during what we
call preliminary reviews, and he did not contest the fact, he did not require these lots to
be merged.
MR. SCHACHNER-Nor did he indicate any need for a variance?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-No, neither one.
MR. SCHACHNER-So assuming, and this feature was brought to our Zoning Officer’s
attention, the feature of the septic system being on a different lot than the structure, than
the residence?
MR. VOLLARO-When we did completion review.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-We discussed that and he did not make that comment.
MR. SCHACHNER-So based on what you’re telling me, it’s my perception that our
Zoning Officer has, whether by virtue of issuing a formal determination or not, that our
Zoning Officer was made aware of the situation where we have a house on one lot, a
septic system on a separate lot, albeit owned by the same applicant, and determined
that that did not, or I guess I’ll phrase it in a positive, determined that that complied with
Code, the lack of need for a variance or merger of the lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. When we went through completion review, we didn’t dwell on this
subject, but he knew and saw.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re saying it was brought to his attention?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I wasn’t present, but based on what you’re telling me, it would
sound to me that a logical conclusion would be that there’s been a determination that this
does not require a variance or a merging of the lots. Having said that, what is the
applicant here seeking? Site plan review, subdivision approval, what?
MR. HUNSINGER-Site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s site plan review for an addition to a home. That’s all.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-If the Zoning Administrator was made aware of the issue and didn’t
see a problem with it, then that’s satisfactory to me.
MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t sort of dwell on it the way we’re dwelling on it here with him,
but during completion review we open the drawings, look at it, he looked at it, and we
talked about the two lots, and I asked did he think we needed to consolidate that, and he
said no, that’s about as far as we went.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-It also was taken up by the Zoning Board of Appeals and by the Chair of that
in Staff conference, I believe.
MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Chairman, could we ask Counsel, though, about the 617 and the
CEA?
MR. VOLLARO-What we’re talking about is the Critical Environmental Area and CEA.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, Counsel knows what is a CEA is, and Counsel’s pretty familiar
with what Part 617 is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-I can save you that part of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It has been brought up tonight that in the past a CEA would have
triggered a Type I SEQRA review.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct. Prior to the SEQRA regulation amendments of 1996.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That answers my question on that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-So, I would like to propose a motion. Does anybody have any
conditions on the motion?
MRS. BRUNO-I think we should just put the note about the fertilizer. Although we know
that the applicant is very concerned, if he should sell the property, I think this would
follow through, although it’s not on the deed.
MR. VOLLARO-It would have to be recorded in the deed in order to be.
MRS. BRUNO-Would it? Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we close the public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-Not yet, no. Then I think there isn’t anybody else here. We will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And I think we are ready for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2006 BROOKS TEELE, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a second story addition.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires review by the Planning
Board.
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and scheduled for 11/28/06; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy and, if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO
APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2006 BROOKS TEELE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five
does not apply because it is a Type II SEQRA, and Paragraph Seven, Whereas the
applicant will provide as built plans to certify that the site plan was developed according
to the approved plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got it.
MR. SIPP-I’d ask the applicant to try this out. Work with Group 1. Different colors,
different depths, different types of plants. Trees are all right, but actually some of these
plants.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to do Northeast Dining now?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-I’ve got all the rest of them, so, yes. This way Neral can go home and lick
his wounds.
MR. VOLLARO-If you’d like, we will do that.
SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHEAST DINING &
LODGING AGENT(S): THE CHAZEN CO. OWNER(S): RICHARD CUNNINGHAM
ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION NORTH QUAKER ROAD APPLICANTS
PROPOSE A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
RESTAURANTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. NEW
INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN RESPONSE TO THE
AUGUST 15, 2006 TABLING. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-2005 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 3.104 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.18-1-6 SECTION
179-4-020
MR. VOLLARO-And I will read that for you. I have an introductory that I’d like to make
on this resolution, and I’ll read it.
MOTION TO DENY SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING AND LODGING,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
179-070, entitled Procedures, under D, filings of decisions, “The decision of a Planning
Board shall immediately be filed in the office of the Town Clerk and a copy mailed to the
applicant. The decision shall contain such Finding of Fact as required by 179-9-070
hereof”. Planning Board members have each received such Finding of Fact in sufficient
time to adequately review the document. In addition, the Finding was introduced by a
confidential attorney/client privilege communication dated November 15, 2006 from a Mr.
Mark Schachner, Counsel to the Town of Queensbury. Due to its length, I do not intend
to read the Findings. However, they are subject to Planning Board discussion prior to the
vote, which is called for on Page 25 of the Findings. At the end of the Findings
Statement, on Page 25, there is an area that says, “For all of the above reasons, I move
that the application be denied”.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-Now I will ask each member of the Board, have they had the time to
adequately review the Findings that were given to them, and I’ll start with you, Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Seguljic?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD-I’ve had both the time and an inclination. I have studied it.
MR. VOLLARO-Mrs. Steffan?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I have read the document.
MR. VOLLARO-Mrs. Bruno?
MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I have read it.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris Hunsinger?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’ve read it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Knowing what was said in Mr. Schachner’s covering
memorandum, which was basically the confidential attorney/client privilege
communication document, is there any discussion on the Findings Statement?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with the Findings Statement. I thought it was very thorough
and complete.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there any discussion?
MR. VOLLARO-You want discussion? I asked for discussion and I didn’t hear anything.
MRS. STEFFAN-You actually asked whether we read it or not and so I’m, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We are at the discussion phase, is that where we are?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Whoever wants to discuss any section of the Findings Statement
may proceed to discuss that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have a couple of comments. I have read the Findings Statement, and
I have some comments of my own before we vote. This application has been in process
for some time. The Findings Statements authored by Chairman Bob Vollaro is
compelling and certainly identifies an area where it appears that information was
withheld or misinformation was disseminated. Whether intentional or not, the outcome
leads me to question the project plan and its consequence to our community. That said,
having been part of this process and weighing, considering the volumes of information, I
choose not to believe that the applicant or their agents tried to deceive this Board. I
choose to believe that in their question to achieve their goal, they felt that they could
mitigate all issues related to stormwater, parking, access management, traffic, including
pre-construction phase, construction phase and post construction, wetlands setbacks
and retaining wall requirements. I believe that this site has severe limitations. However,
the applicant is willing to spend a great deal of money to make this site work. I feel that
this buffet style dinner only restaurant would be an acceptable use for this location and
site. I understand that there will be significant truck traffic during the construction phase.
It will be the applicant’s responsibility to meet traffic and safety issues, safety rules and
laws. If they fail to meet their obligations, the consequence of compromising public
safety would be a public relations nightmare for their business and brand. Our
engineering consultant has accepted their data on traffic and stormwater and has
provided a signoff. Therefore, I accept it, too. I think it would be appropriate for an
insurance bond to be part of a conditional approval so that we can guarantee funding for
stormwater management adherence to plan, which will protect the wetlands whether the
ownership of the business stays the same or changes hands. I looked at the four
findings that were contained in the Statement and some of the conclusions I think are
subjective. The first one, the off-street parking is inadequate. That is a subjective
conclusion. Number Two, the project would generate too much truck traffic on Quaker
Road for an acceptable period of time. It would be a temporary situation. Number
Three, the project would not comply with driveway spacing standards. It is my
recollection that Mr. Boychuk expressed that he would not be interested in sharing
access. I might be wrong because I didn’t go back and check the minutes from one of
the initial meetings, but I do believe that he expressed that he was not interested in
access management, and then Number Four, the proposed retaining wall fails to comply
with applicable requirements, and, you know, this issue asks us to consider whether to
allow the applicant to exceed Zoning Code requirements for parking, and based on
everything I’ve heard through sitting through all of the hearings, I was certainly willing to
consider that based on, you know, that it would protect the wetland, and so I just wanted
to go on the record with my statements.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Mrs. Steffan.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think I would, first of all, echo the statements made by Gretchen. I
also reviewed the Findings Statement very carefully, as I’m sure everyone on the Board
did. I appreciate the time and effort that was put into it. It’s a very lengthy document, in
terms of the Draft itself, but I think I have been on the record at the last meeting with
many of the comments that were just echoed by Mrs. Steffan regarding the site plan.
Yes, it’s a difficult site, but I think that the applicant did address all of the questions that
were made during the lengthy review. I do have some sort of specific comments about
the Draft Findings Statement. I think there are some statements that are made that are
either misleading or inaccurate, and I found of few of them to be actually argumentative.
On Page Three, there’s a comment that the Planning Board has elected to deny the
application based on site plan issues, rather than to re-open SEQRA. Calling them site
plan issues does not make them site plan issues in my mind. I felt that the issues raised
were SEQRA issues and not specifically related to the site plan itself. Just a couple of
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
other sort of general comments. I think the specifics have already been mentioned.
Some of the impacts I think are overstated in this Draft, and I think there are at least a
few statements that are just not true, and I think there are some inaccurate and
incomplete conclusions that are drawn based on analysis that was not provided by either
the applicant or our engineer. Finally, I think that if we proceed in approving this, I’m
afraid that it sets a dangerous precedent with respect to access, specifically to shared
access. We have never forced an applicant, or denied an application because they were
unable to gain access to their neighbor’s property, and my fear is that’s what we’re doing
if we approve what is before us this evening, and I think that would amount to a taking,
and I think, again, it would be a dangerous precedent. There was nothing in the record
that was not fully developed that I really see as a reason to reject the application that is
submitted. I guess that covers everything I had to say. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks, Mr. Hunsinger. And with that, I think, at this point, does either of
the two folks want to make a motion for approval, either Mrs. Steffan or Mr. Hunsinger?
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not prepared to do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, as a point of order, you do have a motion and a second on the
table.
MR. VOLLARO-Then, the motion is on a table and I would call for a second to the motion
on the table.
MR. FORD-You have it. It’s already been seconded.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. VOLLARO-With that, I will pass a copy of the Findings Statement to the Town, if
that’s appropriate.
MR. SCHACHNER-We don’t have one. It’s been adopted, we should have one.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-As a point of order, should we say the applicant should be mailed a
copy, or should we give the applicant a copy, I have one for him.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct me if I’m wrong, you all just adopted this by a majority vote of
five to two as written, is that correct?
MR. VOLLARO-That is correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-So it is now a public document. The only thing is, if your document, I
didn’t have one, but if your document has at the top the verbiage about the Draft
decision, that’s no longer correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-So really the applicant and any member of the public should not be
furnished with this document, or should not be furnished with the cover of this document,
because the word Draft is on it. A Final document can be generated, obviously, very
easily, simply by removing that legend and by removing the word Draft, and I’m sure that
can be worked out with Staff in a very short order.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does Staff agree with that?
MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely.
MR. SCHACHNER-But upon doing so, it’s a public document for the applicant and
anybody else who wishes one.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. So it would be up to Staff now to do that and to generate a
document for the applicant?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. My guess is that can be handled by midday tomorrow.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
NERAL PATEL
MR. PATEL-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 27-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SHIRLEY
HARVEY OWNER(S): S. HARVEY/LARRY CLUTE ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 489
WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO UTILIZE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS TO EACH LOT.
MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 1.26 AC., 1.0 AC. TAX MAP NO. 301.17-1-3.1, 3.2 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to cover for the applicant?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I presented this to the Zoning Board for the variance and Matt
Steves was going to present this to you because it’s a subdivision modification but he
was, I think, in Horicon tonight. Was Matt Steves with you in Horicon tonight?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. Do you want me here or do you want me to go?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not necessary now. I think you’ve covered what you had to cover.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, Matt Steves was not at the Horicon meeting.
MR. LAPPER-He may have just told me that, but here I am. This was a two lot
subdivision that had a condition of a shared driveway, and for a variety of reasons, most
importantly because of the existing water line that was not known at the time, the
location was not known until the construction started, and because they didn’t view any
safety reasons, the Zoning Board allowed separate driveways. So I’m here to request
that you modify the subdivision to remove that condition.
MR. VOLLARO-I was, I guess, really surprised to find that we had a water line that was
servicing the house way in the back and that is the primary reason for this request,
almost, at least it was in the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-When was that determined, Jon, where in the process?
MR. LAPPER-According to the builder, Larry Clute, it was once they started to construct
the house or during the construction. I don’t know if it was the beginning, middle or end
of the construction. There was also an issue of accommodating, the request was by the
existing owner, the owner of the existing house, Ms. Harvey, because it would also cut
through the front of the lawn to get, it’s possible to happen, but she just felt that it was
preferable, if it wasn’t a safety issue, to have her own driveway because the driveway
would have had to have cut diagonally across her property to get to the garage, and
when we appeared at the Zoning Board the purchasers of the new home were here to
support the application as well.
MR. VOLLARO-In the minutes of the prior meeting, I looked that up, there was really
never mention of, I guess it was uncovered by Mr. Clute when he was doing some work.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s what he said.
MR. VOLLARO-But we never got into that in the prior readings. I never saw that. The
final subdivision approval was conditions, One, for the existing home that’s closest to the
Upper Sherman intersection to grass over their driveway and, Two, to have a
maintenance agreement covering the shared drive. Now, I never saw those. Those
were never put into, it’s still there. The grass hasn’t been put onto that at all. So there
was no compliance with the requirements of the prior motion.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-I was unfortunately not involved up until they asked for the variance. So I
just don’t have the history. I can’t comment, but I know that the Zoning Board pondered
it and after a debate, as you’ve seen, they did elect to grant the relief.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t understand. How does the water line effect the construction of
the driveway?
MR. LAPPER-The driveway would have to be on the property line to comply if both.
MR. VOLLARO-First, it’s not good practice to cover a water line with pavement.
MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t a water line like three, four feet deep?
MR. VOLLARO-It should be. It probably has to be at least four so that it doesn’t freeze.
MR. SEGULJIC-The driveway is two feet deep? I don’t understand. I’ve got to believe
there’s a lot of water lines under driveways.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was one of the reasons that they gave. I notice in reading the
minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals, one of the things that came up there was the
fact that the water line was under the driveway. I believe there was some discussion of
that during the ZBA meeting, and the way I see that, that water line would run right, not
too badly on the currently shared, this drawing that we’ve got doesn’t show how the
current, but I have a drawing home that shows the shared driveway, and that water line
does go underneath the shared driveway, not underneath the way this has been
depicted here. One of the reasons that they gave were for sight distances. Now, you
know, the existing home that’s there now, which is to the north, the sight distance there is
the poorest to the south because of the way West Mountain Road runs there. It’s a
pretty steep incline going down. So even when you’re sitting at the intersection, and I
have to do this every day, this is where I live, when you’re making a left hand turn from
Upper Sherman coming southbound on West Mountain Road, you can hardly see the
tops of the car coming up the hill. You really have to look for it. The sight distance is
very poor, and that’s from Upper Sherman. The sight distance just as bad from the
existing house. It gets better as you go south. You can see it a little bit better. So
there’s where the shared driveway helps a lot, as far as sight distance is concerned, at
least I feel that way, in looking at it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m confused. The reason why they want to have two driveways
now is because of the water line?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that’s one issue. I don’t think it’s THE issue. I think it’s one
issue. They would rather, what they’re proposing to do now is put the driveway on the
existing house, which is the northernmost house, which has roughly 100 and some odd
feet from the intersection of basically Upper Sherman and then I believe this is called
Clendon Brook Road. This is not, Sherman Avenue Extension is not correct. That’s
Clendon Brook Road.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s there. I, personally, like the way it looks now with the shared
driveway, and the beginnings of the shared driveway are already there, on House
Number Two which is the southern home, but I’ve got mixed emotions. I would probably,
if the applicants, I think it’s the applicant’s call if they want to put two driveways in there.
I don’t know that I would have great objections, although I think it is not probably in their
best interest to do so.
MR. FORD-What was the original rationale for a single shared driveway?
MR. HUNSINGER-Traffic management, access management.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Without the variance, it’s mandated because of the separation
distance.
MR. VOLLARO-Not only that, but it’s the double width on West Mountain Road. They
would have needed to have twice the lot width.
MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly right.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and so you mitigate that by giving them a shared driveway. That’s
the way the Code is written.
MR. LAPPER-Without getting a variance, they couldn’t get the subdivision any other
way, other than with the shared driveway because they didn’t have the lot width. So the
thought was, I mean, I think after everything got built, the two neighbors said, gee, we’d
rather not be sharing a driveway, even though they didn’t see it as a problem up front,
but after they went to the Zoning Board and got the variance, so it at least makes the
legal issue go away.
MR. SEGULJIC-But they built the other house and they never took care of their
driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-No, they didn’t comply with the request that we made.
MR. SEGULJIC-And don’t they have to do that within one year, I believe?
MR. VOLLARO-I believe, I think it’s a year. I don’t know that we conditioned it on a
particular time certain.
MR. SEGULJIC-Isn’t an approval good for a year?
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we approved it on January 17 of this year.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And I think it only came up once the new house had buyers. So I don’t
know where in the process, it was when it was constructed, and then they came in and
said, gee.
MR. FORD-I personally feel that there was a good rationale for granting that shared
driveway, and I’m sure that there are many water lines that go under driveways. I don’t
see a reason to change.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess, I have to apologize, only because I got a call midday to ask
me to sit in on this because I was on the agenda. Otherwise, and if I was going to handle
it, I would have asked the neighbors to be present. So I think that if the Board doesn’t
feel this is a simple modification, I would ask that it be tabled and let’s let the neighbors
come in and talk to you themselves, because they would have the facts a lot better than I
do.
MRS. BRUNO-I think that’s a smart move.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d feel better about that, because it was approved very specifically, as
you read through the minutes, and it would not have been approved if it did not have a
shared driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-And one of the issues I had, in reviewing this for this evening’s
meeting, was the way that this was presented to the Zoning Board, saying that the
Planning Board members thought it was a good idea, but we only required it because of
the Code, and that wasn’t, in the review of the Planning Board minutes, that was not the
impression at all. I mean, we were unanimous in our comment that it be a shared
driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and we did that to mitigate the fact that the lots weren’t wide
enough.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, but I guess the question, well, if we’re going to table it, we
can raise that question later.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll put it on the January date.
ththrd
MRS. STEFFAN-January 16, right Susan, the 16 and the 23?
MRS. BARDEN-When it was approved, the subdivision?
MR. LAPPER-No, no, the next meeting.
MRS. STEFFAN-The next meeting, the January meeting.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-When’s the first meeting in January?
th
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. January 16.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. FORD-Jon, you were kind of put between a water line and a driveway, weren’t you?
MR. LAPPER-And if it’s important to the neighbors, let them come and explain why.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 27-2005 SHIRLEY
HARVEY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded Robert
Vollaro:
This is tabled to the January 16, 2007 meeting, and it is tabled so that the applicant’s
counsel can ask neighbors to attend the public hearing.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to call just a five minute recess, if I could, please. Now, the floor
is yours, Mr. Lapper.
SITE PLAN NO. 47-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HANSON VENTURES AGENT(S)
RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HIGHWAY
COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION BAY RD. ADJACENT TO STEWART’S
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,400 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL DELI FACILITY WITH
FUTURE OFFICE SPACE. RESTAURANT USES IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRE
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 1-05, MR. BAKER-
17-04, SP 65-98, SB 12-98, SB 12-98, AV 3-99, SB 14-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING
11/8/06 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-16.11 SECTION 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Ethan Hall, the project architect, and Carl
Schoder the project engineer, and Richard Holsclaw, who will be baking and preparing
sandwiches is here to answer any operational questions. This is Lot One in an approved
five lot subdivision. It requires use of a shared driveway with Stewarts, and in light of all
of the office development and ACC, we think this is a good use in that zone to provide
lunch, and dinner. We just received the C.T. Male comments, and actually Carl has
reviewed them and we don’t have any problems with it, but it’s just a matter of
responding and making some changes to the drawings. Carl will address that, but I
guess we’ll just start off having Ethan walk you through the plan, and then go on to Carl.
MR. HALL-Basically we are Lot Number One. We’re the adjoining lot to the Stewarts
property. The intent is to utilize the shared access driveway with the existing northern
access road from Stewarts. There’s a 75 foot Travel Corridor buffer that we have to
maintain off of Bay Road. So we’re set, we have the building set for that 75 foot level.
We’re going to put our parking adjacent to the exit road from the drive thru’s at the
Stewarts area. So our parking is kind of adjacent to their, they do have a few spots
along that exit only road. We are providing a 400 square foot storage garage for tractors
and mowers and that kind of thing on the back of the lot. We’re also proposing a shared
ingress/egress easement to Lot Number Two in the future development phases for this
five lot subdivision. We’ve been in touch with the folks that are working on the next
phases of this subdivision as well. They have copies of these plans. So they’re aware of
what we’re proposing for them.
MR. VOLLARO-For Lot Two you’re talking about?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HALL-Lot Number Two, yes. That Lot Number Two and Lot Number Three, I
believe the stipulations on those lots were that they cannot have access to Bay Road
either. That’s why we’ve got the funny shaped Lot Number Two has to go back to the cul
de sac. So we felt that an ingress between our lot and Lot Number Two was entirely
appropriate for that.
MR. VOLLARO-I had an additional comment to that. I’m going to save my comments for
after the Board speaks. I usually do that. So go right ahead. I’m sorry.
MR. HALL-The design of the building, we’re going for kind of an Adirondack type theme.
We’re using some stone. We haven’t determined yet whether that will be cultured stone
or natural stone. We’re still looking at our options there. Champlain Stone is now making
a thin cut veneer that’s a natural stone. We’re still kind of playing that about. I have a
colored rendering underneath this drawing that kind of shows our color scheme for the
building.
MR. FORD-My compliments for not having made that decision yet. Because some of the
stonework that is on the market today can be, as far as you can see it you can say it’s
phony.
MR. HALL-I would agree with you on the ones that utilize a grout pattern. The ones that
mimic a dry stack look, that don’t have any grout lines in them, are far more realistic than
the ones that have the grouted look to them. The ones that have the wide grout to me
look fake, too, but we’re still talking about that a little bit.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HALL-The intent would be that we’re using neutral browns with linen colored trim.
We’re looking at a wedge wood colored roof with browns and tans and mixtures thereof,
sand tone colors for the doors and windows, and along those lines.
MR. VOLLARO-Interesting looking deli.
MR. HALL-That’s the color scheme that we’re working towards.
MR. LAPPER-Well, it fits the Bay Road corridor guidelines.
MR. HALL-Trying to keep with the peaked roofs and as opposed to flat roofs and things
of that nature. We do have, the parking area has, just as you come in to the first set of
parking spaces, there’s an island between us and the store next door, which we’ve put a
tree on that very front access drive there, and then as you get down towards the back of
the parking lot, to separate the drive access aisle and the loading area for the deli in the
back and the catering service. We’ve got a landscaping area there. Our dumpster’s
going to be in the very back of the site. The intent is to landscape and put fencing
around the dumpster, and then we’ve got some trees that we, our main stormwater
detention pond is up in the front of the building, between the building and Bay Road, and
we’ve got some landscaping that’s going to go along the, some street trees that will go
along Bay Road with some foundation plantings closer to the building.
MR. LAPPER-The reason Ethan’s mentioning that is because Susan put in the Staff
Notes that five percent of the landscaping should be internal to the parking lot, and the
problem here is that we don’t have a double loaded parking lot. So you don’t have two
aisles, it’s just a small site, so you don’t have two aisles of parking stacked against each
other. So what we tried to do was to, as Ethan was just explaining, have some
landscaping in between two areas of pavement. It was pretty much the closest we
could, but we certainly exceeded the green space requirement on this site. It’s just a
small site.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked at this a little differently. In the Code, in 179-8-040, it says less
than 24,999, and I said, well, is that the number we’ve got to use or is it what’s less than
that, and I sized out your parking lot at 7600 square feet. That’s five percent, and I said
we only needed 380 square feet of.
MR. LAPPER-Interior landscaping.
MR. VOLLARO-And so that would add, to me, one more Red Maple, that’s what it does.
Because I’m looking at a Red Maple taking about 10, and that’s how I got to where I got.
I don’t know, we have our tree expert sitting on the end here, but I think a Red Maple
would take about 10 feet across when it got matured, and so I didn’t see that we had to
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
take five percent of 24,990. I don’t know whether the rest of the Board interpreted it that
way or not.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think from my point of view, on the landscaping, I was going to ask, or
certainly I would appreciate it, in the landscaping plan, if the trees were larger trees, you
know, often we’re looking, you put in the small trees that really don’t do anything for
several years, but on this particular site, it’s flat, and we’re trying to improve the look of
the corridor, and if we put in some more mature trees, I think it would be visually
appealing.
MR. HALL-Yes, we’re talking about, for Red Maples, we’re talking a two and a half to
three inch caliper base. So, you know, we’re talking about a tree that’s, you know, it’s
not a sapling when we stick it in the ground. It’s got a fairly big root ball to it and it’s got
to be set in the ground fairly soon. I agree with you, there is no landscaping out on this
site right now.
MR. HUNSINGER-So how would that convert into approximately how tall would the tree
be?
MR. HALL-It really varies, because they’re going to be, a two and a half inch caliper is
probably going to be in the neighborhood of about 15 to 20 feet when it’s planted. So
that’s to the top of the crown when it’s put in the ground. I mean, they’re not mature
trees by any stretch of the imagination, but they’re, you know, they’re not twigs when
they go in the ground either.
MRS. STEFFAN-And usually when you plant something that size within three years
you’ve got a nice spread and they look well established.
MR. HALL-Yes, you’ve got a canopy on the top and it’s really starting to come into its
own.
MR. SEGULJIC-The trees that are going to be inserted along Bay Road, are they going
to be in the stormwater detention basin?
MR. HALL-No, they’re outside the detention basin.
MR. SEGULJIC-Outside, to the Bay Road side.
MR. HALL-To the Bay Road side. So the detention basin will be behind those trees,
between the trees and the building itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-The only sign that you’re going to have is the one sign, well, what are
you going to have for signage?
MR. HALL-At this point, we have one sign indicated out by the first row of trees and out
by the entry drive. One of the comments that we got from the engineer is that we have to
look at moving that a little bit farther north, but the intent is to have a two sided sign out
by the road.
MR. SIPP-What size?
MR. HALL-Whatever size we line up with is going to comply with what the requirements
for the Zoning Ordinance are.
MR. SIPP-Have you looked at some monument signs, five to seven feet in height?
MR. HALL-I don’t see it being that big. Yes, one that’s anchored to the ground?
MR. SIPP-Anchored to the ground.
MR. HALL-Yes. As opposed to.
MR. SIPP-Or in a planter that has.
MR. HALL-Yes, as opposed to one that’s sticking up on stilts.
MR. SIPP-A pylon type sign.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HALL-Yes. We can certainly look at that. The intent is to put it in a planting bed,
yes.
MR. FORD-The current plan calls for no eating outside. How would that change?
MR. HALL-Well, at this point, we don’t really have an area set aside for outdoor dining.
We have tables inside for that. I don’t see any real place for us to put a dining area
outside. We’ve got a retention basin up front.
MR. SIPP-Stewarts as picnic tables.
MR. HALL-Yes, I know that they’ve got some picnic tables out front. We really haven’t
talked about that a whole lot. I mean, I don’t think that’s the intent to have outdoor
dining.
MR. FORD-I just wanted it addressed.
MR. HALL-Other than maybe somebody sitting on the bank of the pond having their
lunch sitting on the grass, but we would not be providing a seating area. Obviously if
somebody wants to sit on the grass and have their lunch.
MR. SEGULJIC-So no signage on the building is proposed?
MR. LAPPER-Well, they can have one sign on the building and a monument sign.
MR. HALL-Yes. At this point, I don’t know.
RICHARD HOLSCLAW
MR. HOLSCLAW-If we did, I wouldn’t want it very big.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s such a nice looking building.
MR. HOLSCLAW-Yes.
MR. HALL-Right. I think it would take away from the look. I mean, I don’t really see
there being anything on the Bay Road side. We might potentially have something maybe
just over the door to the entry to the building.
MR. FORD-Everybody’s going to know where you are and who you are, and they’re
anxious for you to get in.
MR. HALL-And it’s the only thing within the facility. It’s kind of a point destination.
There’s really nothing else there, other than the deli. So when you’re in the parking lot,
you know what you’re there for.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Carl?
MR. SCHODER-Okay. From the civil engineering aspects of the project, there is, of
course, water and sewer that’s available along Bay Road, and we’re intending on tapping
in to that. There is a sewer tap approximately in that location that currently comes over
from the sewer main going to, tied to this, then similarly there is a water main tap that
comes in that we anticipate connecting to. We’re not going to have a really high
demand. It’s going to be a deli operation, there’s some dishwashing but not a lot. So
we’re not anticipating really high flows. From the point of view of stormwater, probably
the most difficult part of the design was that. Stormwater, or test pits revealed that we
have relatively shallow mottling. That’s not great surprise in that area. We know that
there are issues. One of the things that the project entails is building up the site
somewhat. We’re raising the grade, bringing some fill in so that we can set the building
up higher.
MR. FORD-About how much fill will be brought in?
MR. SCHODER-I think it’s about two feet, Ethan, as I recall, a couple of lower spots will
have a little more.
MR. HALL-We’re trying to pitch all the pavement and keep all the stormwater on the site
and collect it and funnel it towards that detention basin out front.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. SCHODER-Yes. One of the things that I think is beneficial in the area, with regard
to stormwater is currently the golf course properties and the other lands back in here
tend to have a bit of a problem when there’s a lot of rain. We have very clay soils in this
area.
MR. FORD-Or sometimes not a lot of rain, just some rain.
MR. SCHODER-Or just some rain. That’s correct. We had opted not to drain, the
current natural drainage course actually heads generally in that direction, but we opted
not to drain this stormwater runoff from these impervious areas into that area because of
the potential for exacerbating that problem. Consequently, we contacted Warren County
Department of Public Works because as you know there’s a storm sewer that runs,
actually there’s one on both sides of Bay Road. We contacted them with the possibility
of discharging after retaining the appropriate volumes and attenuating the appropriate
flow rates, dumping our overflow into that storm sewer. They had asked us to, at that
time, investigate the capacity of that pipe to make sure that there was adequate capacity.
This, I might add, is something that is being done currently at Stewarts next door. That’s
basically what their approach is also. They have a control structure and their overflow
goes to it. We looked at it. We also looked at it from a flooded condition point of view,
which is one of Jim Houston’s comments in his letter, and determined that we did have
adequate capacity in that storm sewer main, even considering the flooded outlet at the
existing culverts down in Halfway Brook. So, it seems to be a fairly logical approach that
will in fact reduce the amount of runoff that’s going off to the back part of the site even
from pre-development flows. So that might help that flooding issue a little bit. Basically
there will be, as Ethan noted, internal drainage. There will be several catch basins that
are constructed within the parking lot. Catch basins will lead to a detention basin
somewhere in this area. The detention basin will then go to a control structure and out to
a manhole to tie in to the sewer. From the point of view of the site, I think that’s it.
MR. LAPPER-The issue was raised in the Staff notes about the sewer district extension,
and this, as Carl mentioned, the sewer line runs along the front of the property. That was
the sewer line that was installed by Rich Schermerhorn for the office building, but this
subdivision has not been included in the sewer district. So the two choices would be to
temporarily be an outside district user for this site, or ultimately when the site next door
comes in for an office building, really this whole subdivision should be made part of the
sewer district. It’s just a question of the timing. I’m also working on the next site which
will be a medical office building which will be combining three of the lots. It’s not, it’s just
in the early stages. It hasn’t been designed yet, but it certainly makes sense that
everything should be added as a, it would be cheaper to be in the district rather than to
be a contract user.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You could do a map plan and report for the whole, you could stay
as a contract user and then do a map plan and report for all five would probably be the
best way to do it.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That is absolutely the best way to do it.
MR. HALL-There are actually, there’s stubs that come off from that line to feed all of
those lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. FORD-Jon, what lots are you referring to that you’re working on?
MR. LAPPER-This is part of a five lot subdivision. So it’s, this is Lot One, and then Two,
Three, and Four are under contract for a medical office.
MRS. STEFFAN-That subdivision is a very odd size.
MR. LAPPER-I expect that I will probably be here in about three months.
MR. SIPP-And they would be fed off one driveway, one entrance way off from Bay?
MR. LAPPER-There’s just the roadway that’s there now and then the curb cut with
Stewarts. So no new curb cuts for any of this development, and that’s what you wanted,
what you mandated when it was designed.
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll work. This is exactly what we asked for.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-It’s not like there’s a visibility problem, like you said.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s it, and we’re ready for questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody on the Board want to raise any issues on this at all?
There’s basically three issues, parking, lighting, landscaping. Landscaping we’ve talked
a little bit about.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’re obviously going to have to table them for those issues. So they’ll
be included in the conditions.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what I did on the parking, you asked for 23 spaces. Right?
Looking at the mix of convenience, deli, kitchen, catering, so I said, okay, convenience
and deli is 1800 square feet. Kitchen is 600. Catering is 1200. That’s 36 divided by
150. I used the part of the Code that talks for every 150 square feet for convenience
store, and I got 24. You’ve got 23. So I think you’re okay there, except, one of the things
that I wanted to talk about, and I might as well do it while I’m doing that because it hinges
on this 24. I’m not the best one on this Board for doing interconnects between different
things. I probably don’t do that very well. More people, like Mr. Hunsinger does it well.
Gretchen does it well. Other folks here do it well, but in this instance, I also did it, and
I’m saying that while I understand the cross easement for Lot Number Two, and it’s a
good spot for it, I’d like to take two of your spots here and use that for a cross easement
into the back of Stewarts.
MR. LAPPER-You know what the problem is, though, that’s the drive thru for the bank,
which is already, I use that branch, and it’s a little tricky already because you’ve got
people coming around the back of Stewarts. So I think.
MR. HALL-One way out, and because we’re raising our grade there, there’s going to be
a fairly steep.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a way to make a second over to Cronin Road, in any way, so
that you can do that? You don’t see that?
MR. HALL-Not without altering the drainage course at the Social Security/IRS office.
MR. LAPPER-There’s also a concern that if you allow people a short cut to avoid the
intersection, you might get cut through traffic that wanted to just not have to wait on line.
The intention of the interconnect is so that people that are going between the sites don’t
have to go into the public road, but because that’s an intersection where you’ve got
Harvest and everything and Bay Road has traffic, it’s possible that you might be creating
a dangerous situation where people scoot past the bank drive thru teller to try and get
out onto the Bay, which you wouldn’t want.
MR. FORD-I agree with you, because oftentimes you do get a back up of traffic there
trying to get onto Bay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s nix that. No more talk about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we go off that, Mr. Vollaro, I had somewhat similar
comments with respect to where the driveway intersects with the Stewarts property. Is
there any way to move the driveway up further?
MR. LAPPER-That was a requirement of the subdivision. So we did exactly what the
Planning Board mandated on the subdivision plat.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought your answer would be. I wanted to make
sure.
MR. HALL-We’re actually making it a little bit wider. We’re actually making it so that
there would be one in and two outs.
MR. LAPPER-We should have explained that. It’ll be a three lane apron over there.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HALL-With a left turn, right turn and enter lanes. We’ve got a 40 foot wide. Right
now it’s about 32, 33. We’re adding eight feet of pavement. We’re making a 40 foot
wide curb cut there, so that we’ve got two out, left turn and right turn lane out.
MR. LAPPER-So that if people are making a right, they can scoot right out and not wait
for the lefts.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess my primary concern is the angle that your driveway
enters into the sort of common driveway, if you will, and the propensity for that to create
some conflict.
MR. HALL-I think if we made it any steeper, if we brought it in any sharper, I think we’d
have problems with people trying to cut across and cut off traffic trying to come into the
lot. This allows for somebody to stack up on our side as well as on the Stewarts side
and it’s nice and wide open and we kept all the plantings back so there shouldn’t be a
problem with the two lots merging and crossing there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HALL-I think if we bring them in any steeper to each other I think that there’s the
opportunity for somebody to get in a trap trying to make a left out of that, or trying to
make a right out of that site.
MR. LAPPER-The three lanes weren’t mandated by the Planning Board. Ethan just
came up with that as a better to have the designated left turn out.
MR. HALL-Yes. The mandate from the Planning Board was that Lot Number One must
used shared egress with the Stewarts property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s right. No, I think that’s a real good solution. I think that
that driveway’s been begging for a left hand turn going out. I go in there a lot myself.
MR. HALL-And it is, if there’s somebody sitting there waiting to make a left, it’s a little
tight. You’ve kind of got to drive up onto the curbed swale to make your right hand turn
to get out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the significance of the line I’ve got yellowed out here? I just, I
see this is the curb cut.
MR. HALL-The line that you have yellowed out is the existing pavement line.
MR. LAPPER-So that’s going to be an insignificant line.
MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice if that wasn’t there, because it screws up this drawing to
beat the band.
MR. LAPPER-I asked him the same question.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-You said you had an issue with the lighting?
MR. VOLLARO-The lighting, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-It looked good to me.
MR. VOLLARO-There was a couple of things about the lighting. You’ve got a 10 to 1
Uniformity Ratio there. Normally on parking lots, parking and walkways we look in the
Code for two foot candles, average, and if you go to a min of .5 you get four to one.
MR. HALL-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Now you’ve got some other issues, I suspect, you’re going to talk to me
about.
MR. HALL-Yes. All we’ve done, all our lighting engineer did, was took into account for
our lights only. At the back of the site, the ATM, the drive thru ATM, they have a
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
standard that they have to meet for light levels, which is very, very high. There’s a lot of
over spill coming from that site that we didn’t take into account at all. All we took into
account for was the lights that we’re putting in, and nothing else. There is a lot of light
spill that’s coming from the Stewarts side, from the drive thru side. There’s also three,
400 watt high pressure sodium lights on the IRS building that are shining, one shines
towards the IRS building from the back and that floods onto this site as well. So we
didn’t take any of those into account. So, I know our numbers look a little bit dim, but
taking into account all the rest of the stuff, all the light pollution that’s coming from those
other areas, we felt that we’d rather have it at this level and let the light pollution spill
over and bring the rest of it up.
MR. VOLLARO-There was no way to merge the photometrics?
MR. HALL-The photometrics, we don’t know what, we’d have no idea what they’ve got.
The only thing that I could offer up, I talked with our electrical engineer about it. We
could go out there with a light meter and walk around and see what’s there now. He said
he’d have to try and mask it off and add that light there first, and then see how his
numbers run, but trying to put them into the grid without accurate locations is (lost word).
MR. LAPPER-The IRS building was done before, obviously, Queensbury had these
standards. So they just have too much light.
MR. SIPP-What are your hours of operation?
MR. HALL-We’ve talked about it a little bit. It’s mostly going to be a breakfast morning
lunch time and, you know, pick up food on the way home. We don’t typically see this
being much past seven or maybe eight o’clock at night maximum. I don’t see it being a
nighttime destination for dinner. Rich would like to be out of there by 5:30, but we’re not
going to let that happen. I don’t see it being a nighttime destination.
MR. HOLSCLAW-I think we’re more targeting people on their way home to stop and grab
something to take home for dinner. Not people come there for dinner at 7:00 o’clock. So
I personally would like to be closed by 7:00.
MRS. STEFFAN-And just for the record, can you just state your name for the record?
MR. HALL-This is Rich Holsclaw. We introduced him at the beginning.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Some of the things that came out in Staff notes that we looked at was
the light on the building itself, and I think on the front edge of the building. What I had to
do is get a loop out and take a look at these numbers, because I don’t see whether
they’re, it’s very difficult to read the numbers along the sidewalk, but I get 3.6, 1.9, 3.4,
2.6, and 3.8, which doesn’t seem excessive. That’s what I looked at when I put a loop on
these numbers. They’re hard to read.
MR. HALL-Where are you looking, again?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m right here, along the concrete walk at the front of the building.
MR. HALL-Okay. There’s three light bollards along that walkway which just are providing
lighting down onto the walkway. We’ve got a 6.0.
MR. VOLLARO-A 3.6.
MR. HALL-That’s a 5.6.
MR. VOLLARO-It is a 5.6?
MR. HALL-I believe it’s a 5.6.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you put a loop on it, it looks like a three. It’s tough to read. I
had 3.6, 1.9.
MR. HALL-Okay. That might be deceiving, because that should be right underneath the
lights. 2.6, and 3.8, 3.4, 2.6, and 3.8.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s right. So the average of that is not anywhere near a five or
six, which the Staff notes said it would, the building shows between five and six foot
candles. I don’t think that average gets out to that.
MR. HALL-No, I don’t think it’s up that high.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not.
MR. HALL-We’ve got one hot spot right at the entry that comes in under the double
doors which is a 6.1. That’s because of the recessed light that’s up in the soffet shining
right down on the doors. We’ve also got a 7.0 which is at the kitchen exit, the exit that
comes out of the kitchen out towards the parking lot. Again, that is directly underneath
the canopy light. There’s a recessed light up underneath the canopy.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re mostly concerned about the amount of light that’s on the front of
the building showing off Bay Road, and it doesn’t look too intense to me.
MR. HALL-Yes. Most of our light is intended to go straight down at the doorways, and
then we’ve got these light bollards which provides lighting just at the ground. It doesn’t
actually project light up. It throws it right down on the ground so you can see where
you’re walking.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, when you get to talk to Jim Houston over at C.T. Male you’re going
to talk to him about this infusion of lighting.
MR. HALL-Yes. He felt it was dim.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’re going to have to talk to him about that.
MR. HALL-I’ve not ever gone before a Board and had somebody tell me they needed
more light. So I think that the infusion of light, plus with what’s being planned for Lots
Two, Three, and Four, and the amount of parking that they’re going to have there, I can
see some spill coming from those as well. We’ve got enough light pollution in
Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-We could probably look, it would be nice to integrate that whole thing in
a lighting plan for that whole development, as opposed to doing it incrementally like
we’re doing it here. Because we’re going to run into the same situation you’re running
into from light spill from other.
MR. LAPPER-But you’re not going to add too much.
MR. HALL-Ours, we’re actually at zeros along our property line to that side. Actually we
hit zero actually before we get there. We’ve got really nothing. We’ve got a 0.2, a 0.1
and a 0.2 at our proposed crosswalk.
MR. VOLLARO-And what I’m trying to get at is for a Planning Board, and I won’t have a
part in this because I won’t be here, but probably somebody on the Board ought to think
about an integrated lighting program for that whole Dreps subdivision. It would make a
lot of sense to do that.
MR. HALL-For the other part. Like I said, this information has been given to the other
engineer. I just don’t know how far out they are.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of timing on that one, there is a contract but none of the design
work has been done yet. So it’s really months away. They’re just doing their program for
how big the building’s going to be, etc., for a medical office.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you could all do is get together all of them and hire one
engineering firm to do an integrated lighting study. It’s been done before.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s just unfortunately, in terms of the timing, they’re not going to be
able to tell us.
MR. HALL-I don’t know how far along they are.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yours can stay the same, but now that we know what’s going to
happen there and that there is going to be cross talk in this thing, somebody ought to be
thinking about.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the next guys can do that. As Ethan said, we’re at zero on the
property line. So we’re not causing a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to be community minded about this, Counselor, you know
what I’m saying?
MR. LAPPER-No, it’s just that I can’t force them to do their design work any quicker.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. FORD-There is a common denominator, however.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. I’ll let them know. It’ll be done right.
MR. VOLLARO-Have they accepted that we want to add one more maple?
MR. HALL-Yes. Is there any specific?
MR. VOLLARO-Spot you mean?
MR. HALL-Yes, where do we want it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only place I picked was right here, right about.
MR. HALL-Midway between the two?
MR. VOLLARO-Right there.
MR. HALL-Out behind there, but the dumpster behind Stewarts does have some
arborvitae around it. So we’ll have to mix and mingle.
MR. LAPPER-It’ll be a little bit this way.
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-A little bit east of there.
MR. LAPPER-When you drive down Bay, I’ve often noticed that that backside of
Stewarts is not real attractive, and mostly because you’ve got this vacant lot. So doing a
nice building with landscaping should certainly soften that. It’s kind of bothersome.
MR. HALL-One of the notes that came from Jim Houston was regarding that area along
there. He was talking about something to keep the vehicles, there’s a one on two slope
right in that general area. Our intent there is we’re going to put a timber guardrail along
that area where we’ve got the steep slope to keep somebody from driving over the top of
it, and down the bank.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that.
MR. HALL-That’s a fairly simple fix to that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tabling motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There is a public hearing and a Short Form SEQRA, but you’re
going to table it. So we’re not going to do either of those. Go ahead.
MRS. STEFFAN-So, does anybody want to speak to the application?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. There’s nobody here.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2006 HANSON VENTURES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
th
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Table it to the January 16 meeting with
the following conditions:
1. To address C.T. Male letter of 11/21/06,
2. To address Staff note comments, and
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
3. To provide an enhanced landscaping plan.
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1972 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CLUTE
ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER OWNER(S) MARJORIE &
RICHARD RODRIQUEZ ZONING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – ONE ACRE
LOCATION 5 TWICWOOD LANE & 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
A MODIFICATION TO SECTION TWO, TWICWOOD SO LOTS 54 & 55 [FORMERLY
LOTS 89, 90] CAN HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY. MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 13-72, BP 06-389, 06-140 WARREN CO. PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 0.55 AC., 0.71 AC. TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-55, 54 SECTION A-183
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. LAPPER-This is the opposite situation of Shirley Harvey. Because here we’re
seeking a shared driveway, and modifying the subdivision. I’m sure you’re all familiar
with Twicwood and that’s a hill, and this could certain accommodate its own driveway,
but there’s no good reason to have a driveway that would come out on the hill, and I’m
sure you’ve seen how nicely the asphalt drive was done, and so this is a way that it
doesn’t change, as the Staff pointed out, it doesn’t change the size of the lot at all
because the same goes both ways but it allows for the shared driveway which certainly
has to be looked at as less impact on the neighborhood, and I certainly have no problem
with the condition that was suggested that there would be no, never be a driveway onto
Maplewood.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I had that no additional driveway either on Lot 89 or 90, either of
the two.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I do have a problem with the drawings.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The first drawing that was submitted is very adequate, but it’s the wrong
one obviously. The first drawing that we got has a surveyor stamp on it and it’s got a
date and the date is 10/16/06. It’s the same scale, but then another drawing comes in
and it’s exactly the same, 10/16/06. So will the real drawing please stand up, I guess is
what I’m looking for here. They’re identical but they’re different.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had the same question.
MR. LAPPER-Well, what I’m looking at is the one that’s .07, the one with the diagonal
line.
MRS. BRUNO-The older one, right?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s the one that’s stamped, because the other one’s not stamped.
MR. VOLLARO-The one that’s stamped has got a straight line, that’s not the right one.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know that.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the one you want changed is it looks, this is the second drawing that
comes in, and it now looks like this. It’s staggered.
MR. LAPPER-I’ve seen both, but Steph submitted it and I guess she didn’t tell me which
was the last one.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Here’s a difference. One of them shows a pool and the other one
doesn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. BRUNO-Also there is a difference. One shows .07 acres being transferred and the
other shows .04.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Look, the first plan was submitted on October 16, 2006 by
Stephanie, your colleague. That’s the straight line.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Then the next one that comes in is November 2, 2006, and that’s the
one that’s got the staggered lines. This is the latest drawing.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then I’m looking at the wrong one.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re looking at the wrong one.
MR. LAPPER-And so is Susan because she had .07 also, which is what made me think
this was the most recent, and the issue is that it’s not stamped and you need to have it
stamped.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not stamped and it’s not it’s not upgraded. Both drawings are
10/16/06. You wouldn’t know the difference.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. If you would allow that as a condition, I will.
MR. VOLLARO-I certainly would allow it. I just wanted to point that out.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the diagonal straight line is the wrong one?
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the wrong one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at the attached letter from Stephanie DiLallo, you’ll see
nd
one is November 2, one is in October.
MRS. STEFFAN-So which one do we want?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can’t identify the right drawing for you because they’re both the
same date.
MR. LAPPER-I would say you could identify it as the one with the pool.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, the drawing that shows the pool, right, and the drawing that
comes in should be stamped by Mr. Steves, and updated to a new date.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good, I preferred that one.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s the only thing that we want to do a condition and
approval on because I’m not going to mess around with.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m curious as to why they switched it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know. Maybe it was because of the setback from the property to
the pool.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. It looks like the property line’s closer to the pool,
though. Maybe because of the shed. I thought maybe it was because of the shed, but
the shed looks like it’s more than 20 feet away, too.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-And it’s a modification so we don’t have to do SEQRA, if everyone
agrees.
MR. VOLLARO-They talked about that this would be a Type II, however, and I don’t see
it. I think it’s basically a modification. So I would say we need no SEQRA. There’s
nobody here to talk at the public hearing.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1972 LARRY
CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
1. WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning
Board for the following: Applicant proposes a modification to Section Two, Twicwood so
lots 54 & 55 [formerly lots 89, 90] can have a shared driveway. Modification to an
approved subdivision requires review by the Planning Board; and
2. WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and
3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5. WHEREAS, the 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
6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be
submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the
Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further
permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and
7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is
developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1972 LARRY
CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions:
1. Paragraph Four complies,
2.Paragraph Five, whereas this application is a modification and the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the proposed modification does not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impact, and therefore no further
SEQRA review is necessary.
3. Paragraph Seven, the applicant will provide as built plans to certify that
the subdivision is in accordance with approved plans prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy,
3.The applicant provide a current drawing to include the pool and the most
recent revision date that is stamped by a licensed land surveyor,
4.The addition of a plat notation stating no additional driveways on either
lot.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of November, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have one other piece of business tonight, and it’s under
Discussion concerning the 2007 Planning Board positions for Chairman, Vice Chairman,
and Secretary. I’m going to make a recommendation, but I’m going to take myself out of
the ballgame here tonight and just recuse myself from this entire operation, but I would
make a recommendation that this Board allow the Town Board to make the appointment
for the Chair for 2007. However, if the Board decides it wants to deliberate on that
tonight, I’m going to recuse myself from that deliberation since I won’t be here, and you
can do what you will with this. Basically, the Town Board is the authority, in any event, to
appoint the Chair, and I would let them do that if they want to. Now I’m going to pull
myself out of this and let six members debate this issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll add my two cents. I think that’s bad policy to let the Town
Board try to decide who the Chair of the Planning Board should be, and I know.
MR. VOLLARO-They do anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know, and it’s always created a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-And it has, between you and I, and we suffered with it, both of us.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-All through 2006.
MRS. STEFFAN-And all the rest of us suffered as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-And 2005.
MR. VOLLARO-And 2005 as well, but they do, unfortunately they have the final say on
who Chairs this Board, and what I wouldn’t want to see happen here is what happened
between you and I the last time. I think that was a terrible situation, for me, particularly,
and for you as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, and I realize that the Town Board would never approve me
as Chairman. I mean, I realized that for the last year.
MR. VOLLARO-Don’t be sure of it.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to nominate you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure about that. Just based on past track record.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that balance, there may be one in the balance that changes. You
know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I don’t. I really don’t.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would you be interested in being Chairman? Because I’d like to
nominate you for Chairman.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know, I’m basically, well, similar position to where Bob was
last year. I have one year left, and, you know, at the end of 2007 my term is up, and at
this point in time I really don’t anticipate seeking re-appointment. I like serving as Vice
Chairman, to be honest.
MR. SEGULJIC-Would you accept the nomination?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, and part of my hesitation is because I am still Chairing
the PORC Committee, and it will be well into 2007 before that work is done, and between
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
the two, it’s a big lift and it takes a lot of time, as I’m sure Bob can attest, and I think it
would be a good time to try to groom other leaders from the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good point.
MR. FORD-Gretchen, notwithstanding the fine job you’re doing as Secretary, would this
be something you would consider?
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s something I’ve thought about. It’s something that other members of
the Board have talked to me about, and it’s not a job that I particularly want. I’m happy
with my role as Secretary. I think I do a good job there, but I’m also very aware of some
of the tensions that we have on this Board, and some of the tensions that might exist at
the Town Board level, and I look at the most senior people on the Planning Board at this
point, like Chris, Tom Seguljic and myself, and, Tom, you have a lot of experience
because of the zoning, your zoning experience, and so I’ve looked at officers and what’s
the right fit for the Board going forward. I don’t want the responsibility, but I guess if I
could work with, maybe work with Chris, and maybe we could work this as kind of like co-
Chairman that that might be a good fit, but I don’t know if that’s precedent setting. I don’t
know if that’s acceptable.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that we can have co-Chairman. Because somebody’s got
to go down and sign the plats.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of problems. The Chairman’s got to sign plats.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Chairman has to sign plats, but that’s about the only real specific
requirement that the Chairman could not delegate or could not be shared.
MRS. STEFFAN-Now can the Chairman delegate that task to the Vice Chairman?
MR. HUNSINGER-That I don’t know, to sign plats. I don’t think you can, because I think
it’s in Town Code.
MR. VOLLARO-It says on the plat, when I sign them, I’ve signed a dozen of them now,
maybe more, it says Chairman. It doesn’t say co-Chairman or Vice Chairman. It says
the Chairman’s got to sign that, and I get the phone call from Staff that says the plats are
ready to be signed and I’ve got to run down and do them.
MR. FORD-What about the other responsibilities in terms of establishing the agendas
and meeting with Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can just tell you what we do do, after a meeting like this.
MR. FORD-There’s a lot of hours involved, and I don’t know that we want two different
people operating in that capacity.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’ve been doing, the precedents that I’ve set as operating with Staff
is the following. Following a meeting like this tomorrow morning we do debriefings. We
debrief this meeting, what went on here. That’s Number One. Two, once a month
there’s completion review which is probably, I’m going to say that completion review for
us has been about a three to four hour operation. I get in there at usually nine o’clock
and don’t leave until one, to do completion reviews, and completion reviews are
becoming more and more, rather than just say all the paper is here for the applicant to
get before the Board, we’re taking a little more of an in-depth view of each one of these
things, to make sure that things don’t get before the Board that just get tabled. Because
tabling just spreads it across that blackboard. So we’re trying to make sure that when
things get before the Board, they’ve got a good chance of either being approved or
disapproved, but tabling is something we’ve been watching and that’s one of the
advantages of completion review. So that takes time. We meet with Counsel. Counsel
comes in once a month, I believe, it’s the first Tuesday of every month, and I sit at the
Counsel’s meetings, and if I have anything to ask the Counsel I do, and other members
do, like ZBA members have things to answer and so does Staff. So we have a meeting
once a month with Counsel, and that’s usually, what, at about two o’clock?
MRS. BARDEN-Two o’clock, first Tuesday of the month. Can you think of anything else
that I deal with?
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MRS. BARDEN-You set the agenda.
MR. VOLLARO-I set the agenda, yes. The agenda is set, we do the completion review,
and what we do then, we see how many we’ve got. Let’s say we’ve got 13. I think we a
have 13 for December, I believe, 12 or 13. We take a look at when they came in, their
order, and then we try to not load up one night with all the heavies and one night with all
the lights. We try to give it a good mix. The rules are six now, with the Chairman being
able to, for good reason, being able to add the seventh. I don’t like to see the Chairman
just say, yes, we’ll go back to seven because I’ve got the authority to put another one on.
We voted for six and six. We voted for 12 a month, and I would recommend that that’s
how you stay. Because I think when you get into the seven’s and even the eight’s you
don’t do a good job anymore. The review is tough, just at home. I found them that way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and it really has evolved. I mean, you’ve been on the Board
eight years now, Bob. I’ve been on a little over six, because I started as an alternate, like
many others did, and it really, the work has gotten, the load has gotten a lot bigger. I
mean, when I first was on the Board, we were always out by ten o’clock.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We used to go down and have a couple of beers at O’Toole’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. That’s when we were having fun on this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then we got in trouble for that. I don’t know if we ever had a
quorum.
MR. VOLLARO-And we never discussed business.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we never did.
MR. FORD-I want to throw out something else as well, and that is one night when we
were short handed here, Tom Seguljic filled in and did an admirable job. So I would
have great confidence in Tom’s ability to lead our Board as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I appreciate that, but I’ve just got too much to do.
MR. FORD-Well, you did a good job.
MR. SEGULJIC-I appreciate it. It was fun. I enjoyed it, actually.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have a tough time finding a Chairman I can see.
MR. SEGULJIC-My wife wouldn’t be happy with me.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m definitely out. It’s been fun. I’ve enjoyed working with all of you.
You’ve been a great group. I think we’ve done a good job for the Town, the best we can
do. I’ve certainly put my time in.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, you have.
MR. VOLLARO-Tried to do what’s right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So who’s going to, so, Gretchen, how do you feel?
MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to vote tonight? Could we put it off until the first meeting
in December? What would be the risk if we put this off until the first meeting in
December?
MR. VOLLARO-No risk at all, that I see. Except that the first meeting in December you’ll
be coming in without a Chairman.
MRS. STEFFAN-In January?
MR. HUNSINGER-In January.
MR. VOLLARO-In January.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 11/28/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Town Board traditionally makes the appointment of
Chairman at the January organizational meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So we would still be able to give the recommendation to the Town
Board prior to the January organizational meeting.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you would. In other words, December 26 is our last meeting this
year.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
th
MR. VOLLARO-So you could do it on the 26 if you wanted to and still.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was thinking the 19.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Or the 19 is good as well. That would give them enough time to take a
look at it.
thth
MR. FORD-The 19. Let’s shoot for the 19.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The 19.
MR. VOLLARO-With that, I think we’re going to adjourn the meeting. I think you want to
th
put this off until the 19, and I think that’s a good idea.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
58