1999-04-20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT VOLLARO
TIMOTHY BREWER
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
MEMBERS ABSENT
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD
GEORGE STARK
SENIOR PLANNER-CHUCK VOSS
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 16, 1999: NONE
February 23, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 16, 1999 AND FEBRUARY 23, 1999 MINUTES,
Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION MICHAEL
CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME ZONE WR-1A, CEA APA APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS TO
DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE STORAGE BUILDING, SHIFT THE LOCATION
AND INCREASE THE PAVED AREA. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 59-95M, AV 63-1995
AV 37-1996, AV 70-1997 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-17, 18, 32, 15.3 LOT SIZE: 1.9 ACRES
SECTION: 179-16
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-There is no public hearing scheduled for this evening.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 59-95 – Modification, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: April 20,
1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify the storage building approved
with Site Plan 59-95. This proposed project is a part of a larger project that received area variances
and site plan approval. The proposed modification complies with the ordinance for the Waterfront
Residential – One Acre Zone. Staff Review: The applicant has presented a drawing that represents
the former location and the new location of the proposed structure. The modification is minor since
there is no loss of total impervious surface. The structure is located on a residential lot and will not
generate above or beyond a residential traffic volume. There is no provision in the code for parking
requirements for a storage building. Staff would note the structure is accessory to a dwelling unit,
and a dwelling unit requires two spaces. This appears adequate for residential accessory structure
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
use. The applicant has provided information that implies the stormwater will be handled on site. No
new landscaping is proposed. There is adequate access to the storage building. The proposed
construction is required to adhere to the NYS Urban Erosion Control guidelines.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the condition that an
updated plan be submitted showing erosion control measures. Staff would also condition the
approval with a reminder that the building is not to be used to store vehicles.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design,
representing Mr. Cantanucci.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anything that you wanted to add to Staff’s comments?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, just reiterate that the area of the newly configured storage building and
parking, we’ve worked to get it the same as the original proposal, so that we’re not creating any
additional impervious surface.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Any questions?
MR. PALING-I’ll just ask you, there’s three points Staff raised, that the stormwater will be handled
on the site, that the plan will be submitted showing erosion control, and that the building is not to be
used to store vehicles. Do you want to comment on those three?
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. Regarding the impervious surface, or the stormwater, the grading has
been revised to, again, accommodate the storage necessary for that area of impervious surface.
MR. PALING-Is there a print showing that, or something submitted to Staff that backs that
statement up?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, it’s similar to our original proposal where we had a stormwater
management report submitted, the areas of the impervious surface is the same and the grading
related to it.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. He’s satisfied Staff comments. So I apologize for reiterating it again, but he
has satisfied my comments on erosion control, stormwater. The only other condition was that the
building not be used for vehicles, and that’s just a reminder.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Just a question. On the previous resolution, were all the concerns and comments
taken care of, before you got to this point?
MR. MAC ELROY-They have been or will be, as the site is still under construction. So it’s in the
process.
MR. BREWER-Do we have a copy of that, Laura, of what the concerns were back in ’95?
MRS. MOORE-I have what’s written on the resolution, yes. Dennis has addressed most of them, as
he explained to you that they will be incorporated into the construction now.
MR. BREWER-I’m looking at this, and I voted no on it, and I don’t know the reason why, and I
guess it doesn’t matter, but, I don’t know what the discrepancies are in the motion. Do we have any
idea what they are?
MRS. MOORE-I didn’t take out the minutes, I don’t believe. I didn’t review that. I just know that I
supplied you with copies of the previous resolution.
MR. BREWER-I would just suggest that we take them out and make sure all the concerns of ’95
when we approved this are taken care of. Do you know what I’m saying?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s against the Rist-Frost letter?
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I don’t recall what they were, but there must have been something.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one question. There were two drawings supplied to me. One is
the large drawing, is the 30 to 1 scale.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And the other is a smaller drawing, and what I looked at there was the force main
that comes off the building itself, and if you take a look at, on the one drawing, the force main goes
right under the building, which is probably not a good idea to have that building over the force main,
and the other one shows the force main about four foot from the building, the large drawing. Now
which is correct? One is dated March 30, 1999, that’s this drawing that’s done in, with the little color
under it, and the other is 4/8/99. So the 4/8/99 is the later drawing, and I guess it shows that the
force main comes four foot from the building. That’s pretty close.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I’ll tell you that the force main avoids the building area. It doesn’t reflect
that representation, because that force main is in place.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got the force main spotted?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So you know where it is and you know where to set the building?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Staff?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-95 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced
by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
As written, with the exception that the 1995 minutes will be reviewed, and any conditions in those
minutes will be brought to the attention of the applicant to be complied with, and that it was
confirmed by the client’s representative that the new building will not be used for car storage. The
Planning Board has determined that there’s no significant change in the site plan modification and
further finds there’s no sufficient change to the original SEQRA findings.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification to Site Plan No. 59-95 to decrease
the size of the storage building, shift the location and increase the paved area; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99 consists of the following:
1. Letter dated 3/31/99 from D. MacElroy w/two maps (modification & elevation)
2. Map titled 1997 Variance Site Plan revised storage bldg. area & parking, revised 4/8/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/20/99 - Staff Notes
2. 4/8/99 - Meeting Notice letter
Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve the
Modification to Site Plan No. 59-95 for Michael Cantanucci.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1999 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED MARIANNE
GRANGER OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-5A & LC-10A LOCATION: LOCKHART
MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL INTO 7
LOTS OF 3.79 AC., 4.07 AC., 6.95 AC., 9.71 AC., 7.97 AC., 5.29 AC., AND 18.55 ACRES.
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 23-1-35, 37 LOT SIZE: 66.33 +/-
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No.4-1999 – Sketch Plan, Marianne Granger, Meeting Date: April 20,
1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a seven lot subdivision on Lockhart
Mountain Road. The proposed project meets the minimum requirements under Article III of
Chapter 183 Subdivision of Land. Staff Notes: The parcels involved with the subdivision are within
a split zone, RR-5A and LC-10A. The drawing indicates that a majority of the development activities
would occur in the RR-5A zoning portion of the parcel. The plans should establish limits of clearing
to provide protection to and from the Lake George view shed. The limits of clearing and other
conditions should be incorporated in the deed. Please note: Lots 1 & 2 on the Map S-1 dated
3/17/99 may need variance relief for undersized lots. Recommendation: Staff would recommend
approval of sketch plan and forward the applicant to preliminary.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. I represent Mrs.
Granger on this application. As you can see, it’s a seven lot subdivision on Lockhart Mountain Road,
utilizing Lockhart Mountain Road as the access to all the lots. One of the lots would be the
southeasterly corner, they would also incorporate into a larger piece of about 15 acres that was not
surveyed on this. It was a landlocked piece, a wood lot, that Mr. Granger owned, and we’d be
attaching that to one of the lots. As far as the comment about the lots on the west side of Lockhart
Mountain Road, the two lots of approximately four acres a piece for the variance, I would ask the
Board that we can consider this, because of the larger lots on the other side of the road, and that we
would say no further subdivision would be allowed on those lots, because it is a five acre zone, and
you can see I've incorporated most of those lots to be around the eight, nine acre range, that they
can’t be further subdivided. So the density is used, that I don’t need a variance, that I would consider
this a cluster.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s Staff’s comments on that?
MRS. MOORE-It’s something that we could review, at Staff level, and report back to you with
information.
MR. STEVES-That’s something we can work out. If I have to go for the variance for those two lots,
I would, but I think we could work around that, because in the RR Five Acre zone, the minimum lot
size for clustering is one acre, and if we could prove that we were using the density, you know, had
the density in other lots, I think that that’s the key, and I know we have. So I think that that’s just
something I can work out with Staff, between now and the preliminary, and if I can’t, I’ll address that
at the preliminary.
MR. BREWER-But, Matt, if you put these lots as shown, it’s a moot point to say that no more
subdivision could be done because they’re not big enough.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, but I’m saying that if you have a nine acre lot that I've created so you
can’t subdivide it again, but yet the density is used up because it’s in a five acre zone, I have four
acres in excess, to make up for a lot across the street that’s lacking for one acre.
MR. BREWER-Why not make six lots?
MR. VOLLARO-Combine Lot One and Two.
MR. STEVES-Combine One and Two and only have six lots? I just don’t think it’s, you know, for
economic reasons have as many as we can. We're allowed by Code to have, I believe, nine lots.
MR. BREWER-In my mind, and I’m only speaking for myself, this is not clustering to me. I mean,
it’s a weak case. Maybe by language in the Ordinance you can do it, but clustering, to me, is taking a
piece of property, using a small portion of it, and develop the small portion of the property.
MR. STEVES-And that’s correct, just as we had done on the subdivision up on the mountain for
Gereau.
MR. BREWER-I would vote no on this.
MR. STEVES-And we did basically the same thing. The development areas will be confined to a
building envelope, and there’ll be a clearing plan. This is also in front of the APA, and I don’t want
to make a large issue of it now. We’ll address that as we go on. I’ll talk it over with Staff, and if we
have to, we’ll either merge that into one lot or seek a variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-So basically your whole idea is to like take Lot Four, and so to speak swap like an
acre out of that to make your density requirements on Lot 2.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. BREWER-And One.
MR. MAC EWAN-And One. Okay. I’m middle of the road right now. I’m not sold either way.
MR. RINGER-Matt, you mentioned Gereau. I thought Gereau tried to cluster and we said no, and
then you went back and?
MR. STEVES-No, I said it was similar to what we were proposing there. That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-We rejected Gereau.
MR. STEVES-There we didn’t have to lose a number of lots. We just adjusted the size. Here, I’m
limited that if I have to go to five acres, I have to lose a lot on that side of the road. That’s the
bottom line.
MR. RINGER-But our reason for not allowing clustering was similar to what Tim is asking for right
here.
MR. STEVES-Right, and I just think that’s an issue we can work. That’s not a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll give you the opportunity to sit down with Staff and try to iron it out.
MR. BREWER-But ultimately we make the decision.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-You got it.
MR. BREWER-Not Staff. I’m just making a point.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have to sell them. They have to convince us.
MR. STEVES-We’ll work on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just had one comment. In the RR-5A zone, in that it buts up against this Land
Conservation-10 zone, it seems to me that we really ought to spot in there the house itself, where the
house might go, and where the septic might go, because I've got the feeling that this Land
Conservation area here is probably not suitable at all to development.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So are you going to do all your development north of that line?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not north.
MR. STEVES-It’s actually going to be west of that line.
MR. VOLLARO-West of the line, yes.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. It’ll all be detailed out in the preliminary.
MR. VOLLARO-That was my only comment on that.
MR. STEVES-The specific, you know, proposed house and septic locations, well locations, driveway,
clearing limits, will be all detailed out in the preliminary application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have no questions after that.
MR. PALING-We had a problem with the acreage total, but you’re not telling, you’re not saying
there’s any total acreage, but you’re confirming that the size of the lot as shown is correct?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. PALING-Okay. Why do you show Lot 7 and the one you make part of Lot 7, why do you
show it, why don’t you show it as one lot?
MR. STEVES-I will. I just wanted to demonstrate to the Staff and to the Board that it was two
separate tax parcels.
MR. PALING-Okay. No other questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Staff, anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Your mission is to convince them to convince us, and don’t forget when
you make application, any waivers that you’re going to request in a letter, please.
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 8-99 TYPE II LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. OWNER: OSCAP, LTD.
RECOMMENDATION ONLY ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1499 STATE ROUTE 9
PROPOSED TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE FOR LEHMAN TRIKES, INC.
APPLICANT PROPOSES A DISPLAY AREA FOR 3 WHEEL CONVERSIONS FOR
MOTORCYCLES AT THE DEXTER SHOE LOCATION DURING AMERICADE. PER
§ 160-8A(2) – ALL APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATION AS A TRANSIENT MERCHANT
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW
BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-97, 15-98 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.48 ACRES SECTION: 160-
8A(2)
TERRY ROBBINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-99, Lehman Trikes, Inc., Meeting Date: April 20, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes a temporary use of the Dexter Shoes parking area.
The site would be used to operate a motorcycle demonstration display. The proposed use on the
property meets the Transient Merchant Operations criteria, Chapter 160 Section 160-8. Staff Notes:
The applicant has had previous Planning and Town Board approval for the same transient operation.
The Board’s previous concern about internal traffic circulation conflict was addressed with cones
surrounding the display area. The applicant has supplied a parking plan and on site traffic circulation
lay out. The existing parking is sufficient for the temporary use and the Dexter shoe store. There are
no specific pedestrian traffic controls, but the parking area is large enough that vehicular traffic and
pedestrian traffic conflicts will be at a minimum. The temporary use does not appear to hinder
emergency vehicle access or existing safety issues. This is a temporary use with no anticipated
impacts on the stormwater facilities. Landscaping is not part of the review on a transient merchant
application. There are no anticipated impacts on areas susceptible to flooding or erosion.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this transient merchant operation. The
application will then be forwarded back to the Town Board for final approval.”
MRS. MOORE-Warren County review has No County Impact. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. ROBBINS-Good evening. My name is Terry Robbins. I manage the Dexter Shoe Outlet, and
I’m here for Lehman Trikes, tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is this, our third, fourth year we’ve been doing this?
MR. ROBBINS-It’s the third one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some people watch for the robins to come back. I watch for Americade to come
through to know when it’s spring. Nothing’s really changed from the previous year. This is still the
same delineated area?
MR. ROBBINS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems pretty easy.
MR. ROBBINS-Basically just a demonstration area coned off, and no rides in the parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The coned off area will still be the 50 foot by 50 foot?
MR. ROBBINS-Yes, down at the southern end of the parking lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BREWER-It’s pretty straightforward.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a recommendation?
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-99 LEHMAN TRIKES,
INC., Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
As per written motion.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 8-99, Lehman Trikes, Inc. for a
Transient Merchant license for 3 wheel conversions for motorcycles at the Dexter Shoe location
during Americade; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/map
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/19/99 – Town Bd. resolution referring application to Planning Bd.
2. 4/20/99 - Staff Notes
3. 4/14/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd.
4. 4/13/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
5. 4/8/99 - Meeting Notice
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to recommend approval
of Site Plan No. 8-99 for Lehman Trikes, Inc..
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. ROBBINS-Okay, thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MARK RYAN OWNER: HAROLD
KIRKPATRICK ZONE: WR-1A, APA, CEA LOCATION: ROCKHURST APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO BUILD A CRIB DOCK WITH A SUNDECK AND TO REMOVE AN
EXISTING DOCK. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR COVERED DOCKS PER
SECTION 179-16. LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION WARREN CO. PLANNING:
4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16E(2)
MARK RYAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-99, Mark Ryan, Meeting Date: April 20, 1999 “Description of
Project: The applicant proposes to construct a boathouse with a sundeck. The project is in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-60 and 179-16. Staff Notes: A covered
boathouse with a sun deck is compatible with a residential use on the Lake, however, this property
has a unique layout. As identified on the plan submitted, there are existing moorings and marina
docks surrounding this parcel. The area is subject to boat congestion from the adjacent marina’s
docks and moorings. The owner’s boat would have to maneuver through these obstacles and the
shoreline to access the boathouse safely. Staff is uncertain if a boat can maneuver safely through the
boat traffic associated with adjacent docks and moorings. The Warren County Planning Board and
the Lake George Park Commission have reviewed the proposed project. The applicant submitted
new information on 4/16/99 (attached) based on the recommendation from the Warren County
Planning Board. Recommendation: Staff recommends the owner provide information on the
accessibility to the boathouse. If the project is approved, Staff would recommend the following be
made part of the resolution; that the applicant obtain the necessary Lake George Park Commission
Permits and that the final plans should identify bank erosion control measures.”
MRS. MOORE-The Warren County comments, County Board Recommendation: “Approve with
the condition that no land bridges be associated with this project.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. RYAN-Hi. My name is Mark Ryan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Ryan?
MR. RYAN-Yes. We want to build a crib dock at the location, and remove an existing dock. The
Lake George Park Commission has approved it, pending the removal of two moorings that are
associated with an adjacent commercial marina. The removal of the two moorings would basically
mean we’d have a clear way from the east directly into the dock, except for the one mooring that we
would maintain. The County asked not to have a land bridge. So we re-submitted drawings to show
the stairs, instead of going from the cover to the land, to go down to the dock itself directly.
MR. BREWER-They typically turn those down anyway, right, no matter what? Doesn’t the County
automatically turn those down?
MR. MAC EWAN-Historically they do.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. RYAN-In this case, the original stairs were an “L” shape to go off the side of the dock, and
then turn, and it would have been the 40 inch by 6 foot piece of land that would have been covered
by the stairs, but they consider that a land bridge. So we’ve modified the plan to put it onto the dock
itself. So it would be a straight set of stairs right to the.
MR. MAC EWAN-So basically your dock, you’ve turned it from a 60 degree angle to like a 45, or
whatever, 90, I should say.
MR. RYAN-That’s right, and in doing so, we actually got a little bit better than the 20 foot setbacks
on the side.
MR. MAC EWAN-The two moorings that the County was worried about?
MR. RYAN-The Lake George Park Commission.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Park Commission.
MR. RYAN-The land owner owns three pieces of property there.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is the lands of Kirkpatrick?
MR. RYAN-That’s right, Dr. Kirkpatrick, and he has 10 moorings in his commercial permit, three of
which, they existed, I guess, in the 30’s and 40’s. They’re not even permitted, but they’re allowed.
He has three which exist in front of this property, physically, and they approved the new dock
construction with removal of the existing dock, and the removal of two of the commercial moorings.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
He has the option of moving them into his own property, and his two other pieces of property, but
their permit was only if we removed the two from this property.
MR. VOLLARO-So this property gets one mooring, is what it amounts to?
MR. RYAN-That’s correct. In turning the dock to face the east, it also gives it a straight clear view
out to the main part of the water, and Mr. DeMarco, who is the north owner of the commercial
marina, and I discussed this. Now I’m going to be parallel to his dock, in a sense. So all boat traffic
will be moving parallel also. The original plan would have been perpendicular to his docks, and the
newer plan is parallel.
MR. BREWER-How wide is this dock?
MR. RYAN-One finger is five feet wide.
MR. VOLLARO-One is eight.
MR. RYAN-One is eight, and one is seven and a quarter. We could go wider there to balance it out,
but I just didn’t really want to crowd that side of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re limited to 700 square feet on the dock, and I notice you’ve got 695 and a
quarter. So I calculated it out, and that little trapezoidal piece at the end here is what makes up your,
the 32 square feet.
MR. RYAN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-How did you calculate that? You just divided it in half, it looks like.
MR. RYAN-Well, when we did it on the computer, it basically made a rectangle sections of all pieces
of the dock, and there is a mistake on the drawing. You see where it says eight by eight by one half
to come out to the thirty-two?
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. RYAN-We had to narrow the eight and knock it down to seven and a quarter. So if we actually
did the seven and a quarter by the.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how you got 695 and a quarter?
MR. RYAN-Well, yes, it would actually be smaller than that, if we did the seven and a quarter by the
eight.
MR. VOLLARO-The only reason I’m questioning that is you’re right on the edge of 700. You’re
close, and I know from your calculations that something had to be done with that trapezoidal piece.
You did that on a computer by?
MR. RYAN-We did three rectangles and then took the portion of it, graded out, and it came back to
subtracting it out, just as a calculation, but the drawing does have a mistake, and it would make a
smaller number. If you did the, it says, eight by eight times one half. You could consider that was a
square, but since we had to narrow the back part of the finger, that’s really now seven and a quarter.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RYAN-So it would be seven and a quarter by a half, if you want to consider that small little
corner a square, by cutting it in half, or do it triangularly.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the computer would have given you the right amount of square footage of
that trapezoid, wouldn’t it? Not that I want to belabor the issue. It’s just that you’re so tight on it, I
want to make sure you’re not over, but I don’t think you are, just looking at it.
MR. RYAN-Yes. What happened was, the night of the, which was just last week, in the interest of
time, getting the drawings up here to be submitted with the modification, that’s kind of a hand drawn
thing, and I was thinking that was an eight foot wide finger, and it’s actually a seven and a quarter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, just a question for Staff. Do you know what the building
inspector’s steps are for inspecting these things? I mean, like a house, you look at the footers, then
you look at the foundation. I mean, in this case, do you look at the, these are going to be rock cribs
you’re going to put in there, I’m assuming?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. RYAN-Yes, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-The rock cribs, where does the building inspector look at whether he’s within
that 700 square foot, after the fact?
MRS. MOORE-That’s not something I’m aware of, how they inspect it.
MR. RYAN-Would that be Mr. Hatin?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. RYAN-All right. When I spoke to Mr. Hatin about that, because the concrete wall that’s
depicted as perfectly straight, actually right about where the dock is, it has a crack in it, and I said, we
just want a clear the top of that. We're not going to attach anything to that, and we don’t want to
have a piece of concrete sticking out, and so somebody would trip over it. How critical are you
going to be on where the line is? And he said, basically, I measure the whole length of the piers, and
the width of them, and write it down and come out with a number. I mean, that’s how he explained
it to me. So I said, does that mean I could have one or two boards just kind of a little bit longer
there, and he said, I have to measure them. So he said he physically measures them, but that was
after the fact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. The concern is that, where Bob’s coming from, hovering close to that 700
square foot, if something happens and your contractor comes out to 710 foot or 720 foot, what do
we do at that point? I mean, do you have to now go seek a variance? I mean, what’s the control
mechanism to prevent that from happening?
MR. VOSS-I would assume that the control mechanism would be that the building inspector
wouldn’t issue the permit, or he would issue a rescind order on the permit or have the work
corrected. That’s typically what happens.
MR. MAC EWAN-When he applies for his building permit, is he going to do another drawing, or is
this drawing going to be acceptable for a building permit?
MR. VOSS-That I can’t answer. We’d have to talk to Mr. Hatin about that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that anybody could build from these drawings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have another set of drawings that you’re going to submit for your
building permit?
MR. RYAN-When I talked to Mr. Hatin, he said he needed something, obviously, better than this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. He would use this for setbacks and such like that, but as far as actually
dimensioning off each leg of your dock, and the height actually, which Bob is the expert in, in heights
of sun decks.
MR. VOLLARO-Fourteen inch, fourteen feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-We always save that question and let him answer it. He’s the expert. Okay. Just
as long as we have a handle on that. I just don’t want to see you end up building a dock that ends up
becoming too big and creates problems for everyone. Okay. The floor is yours.
MR. PALING-All right. I’ll ask that question. It’s unclear in your print. I assume there should be a
line across here, 14 foot to the top uppermost part of the railing on the deck, to mean high water?
MR. BREWER-He’s got it on the small one, Bob.
MR. PALING-It’s still unclear, though. There should be a line drawn across. It’s just an arrow
hanging in the air.
MR. VOLLARO-I put the line on my drawing.
MR. PALING-My next question has to do with the print. You issued a print and then issued
another print without a revision date or anything on it. So it’s kind of hard to tell the two apart.
MR. MAC EWAN-The top print’s the one you want.
MR. PALING-I know. You have, one thing I see, in the original print, you’re going to remove a
dock. In the second print, you’re not going to remove a dock.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. RYAN-The latest permit or dock is.
MR. VOLLARO-March 8 was on both prints, I think, is what Bob is saying.
th
MR. PALING-They’re both dated March 8.
th
MR. RYAN-I brought up 10 copies of the large print, dated 3/31/99.
MR. PALING-I don’t have that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either.
MR. RYAN-So that addresses that.
MR. PALING-What are the changes between the March 8 print and what you’re using now for
th
your new print? What are the changes that you make? I see the dock removed.
MR. RYAN-Well, the dock says to be removed on both.
MR. PALING-Okay. It doesn’t say it on the most recent print.
MR. RYAN-Okay. That is per the Lake George Park Commission and it should say that on the
latest print.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at a drawing that you’ve got submitted, and you have written in there,
dock repaired, Mark Ryan, 4/14/99. That’s the most recent drawing we should be dealing with,
correct?
MR. RYAN-That’s correct, right, and that’s the one I submitted 10 copies of in the large size.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that something we got tonight?
MR. MAC EWAN-Look up at the top. It’s right above the Lake George stamp. See the Lake
George stamp, where it says Lake George.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, dock repaired, Mark Ryan, 4/14/99, okay.
MR. PALING-That’s my question. What other changes are there besides the dock removal, and you
say that’s been restored?
MR. RYAN-No, the dock to be removed should be on both drawings.
MR. PALING-One is not on the one that’s supposed to be.
MR. RYAN-Which is the 4/14.
MR. PALING-Any other changes?
MR. RYAN-Well, the dock was turned from facing north to facing east. The dock fingers are
different in width to accommodate the stairs, and since the dock is turned, it’s further away from the
setbacks than the original, the ones were actually touching the setbacks. So, it’s further away. The
crib placements are slightly different. They still accommodate the eight foot depth, and then the
elevation view shows the stairs in a different position.
MR. PALING-All right. I guess it’s okay. The prints are a little hard to follow. That’s all I have.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the only thing is where Staff talked about it’s uncertain if a boat can
maneuver safely through, I also, while we were there, parts of that dock have about a foot of water.
It seems to me if you get up that close to that concrete, you’re in some pretty shallow water for an
outboard there. That’s just a thought I had.
MR. RYAN-Right. We really didn’t plan on docking a boat on the, I guess that would be the south
side. It would kind of be our swim/play area. We really plan on putting the boat under the cover
itself. We only have small boats.
MR. VOLLARO-Even so, fooling around with outboards, I know you’re going to have to raise it to
get into that depth, and then you’ll be subject to wind or whatever, when you don’t have a (lost
word) on.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. RYAN-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
come up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, and he’s got a Short Form with this application.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-99, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Timothy Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MARK RYAN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
4. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-
significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-A question for Staff. Are you satisfied with the responses for boat traffic now
that he’s turned the boathouse, facing it due east?
MRS. MOORE-I can’t guarantee that he can get a boat in or out of there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Only he and his insurance agent are going to know for sure.
MRS. MOORE-There you go. That addresses my concern, then.
MR. BREWER-The only other thing, Craig, that I would suggest is that we get a better drawing to
put on file before he gets a building permit, or whatever.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going to have to have one to get a building permit.
MR. BREWER-I understand that, details for the dock, but I think we should have a clearer drawing,
without all the, he’s written on it and then copied it, and some stuff is crossed out. Maybe we should
have a clearer print of exactly what he’s going to do, and how it’s going to sit.
MR. VOLLARO-You want that kind of a statement in the motion?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. RYAN-I didn’t submit anything that was crossed out.
MR. BREWER-No. On one map that we have, you have, you’ve got figures on it, and then on the
other map, they’re unclear maybe I should say, not crossed off.
MR. RYAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-But if you go from one map to the other, they’re not exactly the same.
MR. RYAN-I understand.
MR. BREWER-The most current map that we have maybe should be cleaned up I guess is what my
point is.
MR. PALING-If there’s going to be a revision, it should be in the revision block, not lost up in the
middle of the print.
MR. BREWER-Right, because you have to search for everything.
MR. RYAN-Okay. So submit that to?
MR. BREWER-To Staff.
MR. RYAN-To Staff, okay.
MR. BREWER-Just so we have it on file, in case there’s any other comment or concern, we know
exactly what’s going on.
MR. RYAN-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. BREWER-That’s my only concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-99 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
As written by Staff, with the additional comments that a new drawing, a clear drawing be supplied for
the dock with a date placed in the revision block to indicate that it is the latest drawing. An
additional comment would be that the applicant obtain the necessary Lake George Park Commission
permits, and that final plans should identify bank erosion and control measures.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 9-99, Mark Ryan, to build a crib
dock with a sundeck, and to remove an existing dock; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/30/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/attached drawings
2. Map S-1 dated 3/8/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 3/16/99 – M. Gallagher (LGPC) from C. Brown (Qu. Code Compliance)
2. 4/7/99 - H. Kirkpatrick from M. Gallagher (LGPC)
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
4. 4/13/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
5. 4/8/99 - Meeting Notice
6. 4/20/99 - Staff
7. 4/14/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd.
8. 4/16/99 - Planning Office from M. Ryan, letter and revised drawings per Warren Co. Planning
Bd. resolution
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
9-99 for Mark Ryan.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand what we’re looking for in this drawing? We just want you to,
I guess for lack of a better phrase, freshen it up so that it’s clearer to us what we’re looking at, so that
the dimensions are delineated clearer, so that Staff has something to follow through the building
process.
MR. RYAN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. RYAN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN 10-99 TYPE II PAUL S. CHAMBERS OWNER: STORYTOWN USA, INC.
ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 499 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
UTILIZE AN EXISTING BUILDING TO OPERATE A HEARTH PRODUCTS STORE.
RETAIL BUSINESS IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE PC ZONE AND
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. BEAUTIFICATION
COMM: 4/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 72-6-27.2 LOT
SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION: 179-22
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-99, Paul S. Chambers, Meeting Date: April 20, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building to operate a retail
business, selling fire/chimney associated items. This is a compatible use with the area and complies
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
with the Highway Commercial zoning designation. Staff Notes: The structure is located on 0.24
acre parcel and has access to Route 9 via a shared curb-cut with the Alpenhaus Motel. The building
is pre-existing and the use is compatible with the uses allowed in the HC-1A zoning. The applicant
has demonstrated adequate room for parking under the parking schedule. The Board has the
discretion to omit paved spaces in favor of green area. This green area would not be used in the
permeability requirements but will be reserved for future parking if needed. The proposed planting
plan was accepted by the Beautification Committee with additional recommendations (see resolution
attached). There are no other foreseeable impacts of this project on stormwater, traffic circulation,
or emergency vehicle access. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed site
plan. The site lay out is adequately designed for the proposed use.”
MRS. MOORE-Warren County had “No County Impact”. I’ll read the Beautification Committee
comments. “1. Committee recommends any exterior dumpster be placed on site be appropriately
screened by fencing and plantings which are maintained. 2. Committee recommends plantings beds
be slightly bermed and a mixture of low bushes and perennials. Trees on side of building next to
Alpenhaus Motel be either bush pine or 6 ft. minimum height trees.” That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-So actually the Beautification Committee wasn’t really too specific about where
they wanted to put things or exactly how many of them to put.
MR. STEVES-I think maybe I could address that for you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Identify yourself for the record.
MR. STEVES-My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. I represent Mr. Chambers in
this application. They were referring to the plan that’s up in front of you on the Board. As far as the
number and location of trees, we have no problem as far as conforming to the recommendations of
the Beautification Committee on raising the beds up. That’s standard practice that way, and to
provide, the trees on the north end would be the evergreen type, with a minimum of six foot in
height. We have no problem with both of those recommendations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have a copy of this latest plan?
MR. STEVES-Yes, they do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go on with the rest of your presentation.
MR. STEVES-Okay. As stated, the applicant proposes to use this as it exists. We just wanted to
prove and show to the Board that if, to conform to the zoning if additional parking was required,
that we could conform to the green space requirements, and we can. I believe it’s at about 30.8%, if
we put in all the parking that is required by the zone, which would be 10 parking spaces, with the
handicapped, and that’s about it. They want to use it as it exists. There’s ample parking for his use at
this time. He installs fireplaces in new builds. A client would come to him from the contractor, say
please go down and see Mr. Chambers at this showroom, he’ll have six or seven different fireplaces,
inserts or whatever set up on display. You pick it. They go install it. It’s not a high volume, high
traffic kind of thing. It should be ample the way it is, but we wanted to be able to show you that if,
like we say, if we had to conform, that the ability is there.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty simple.
MR. STEVES-And I did ask for a waiver for the stormwater report, since we’re not changing any
non-permeable area, and that’s about it. Unless you have any questions.
MR. BREWER-No, I think it’s a good use. I’d rather see it filled and doing something than sitting
vacant.
MR. VOLLARO-Site plan development data, do you have that?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I do. It’s right on the bottom right hand corner of that map.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m talking about the math associated with that Site Development Data.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I get 69% and you get 31. I guess we’ve got to resolve that.
MR. STEVES-Okay, as far as what exists now?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-No. The way this Site Development Data is put out, the total non-permeable area
that you’ve supplied here is 7,213 square feet.
MR. STEVES-Okay, that’s on the application.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, against the parcel area of 10,454. When I divide those numbers, I get 69.
Somehow or other somebody got 31, and I just want to make sure that we know which one is which.
You might want to take a look at what I have here. It might help you out.
MR. STEVES-You’re talking as far as what’s proposed. I have 30.8%, which is 31%.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you come here and take a look at, this is, the total non-permeable area was
supplied at 4,120, and that all adds up. The proposed addition is 3,113. You add those two together,
you get 7,213. You divide that number by the 10,000 square feet, and I get 69%. Now either that, or
these numbers are wrong.
MR. STEVES-The numbers must be wrong. I have the correct numbers on the map.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s one of the things that I continually grapple with, here, is that every time
I review some of these things, I find out the numbers don’t add up for some reason.
MR. STEVES-I do apologize for that. I did not fill out the application.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, and I’m not accusing you of anything.
MR. STEVES-And I want to clarify to the Board. So, if I may.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to make sure when an application comes before this Board, that it’s darn
close to correct.
MR. STEVES-I got involved with this about a week ago. The site statistics from me doing actual
work on the property, locating the building, dimensioning everything up, existing conditions, building
area is 1,440 square feet, of 13.8% of the property. Parking and walks as exists are 3,310 square feet,
or 31.6%, and green area is 5,714 square feet, or 54.6%, existing.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, and I assume that’s correct?
MR. STEVES-That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t question that, but the site development data that’s with this application
ought to match that.
MR. STEVES-I will get the copies back, or make new ones, crossing out what the applicant had
provided before he hired me, and insert the ones that are correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you a new hire on this job?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Where do those other numbers come from?
MR. VOLLARO-It comes from the applicant, I would guess.
WHITNEY RUSSELL
MR. RUSSELL-My name is Whitney Russell. I work with Mr. Chambers. There was an original
application submitted with the drawing, because we had not secured anyone to represent us in that
case, and we wanted to meet the deadline for the meeting. When Matt got involved, he looked at the
site, and came up with a better layout that fit better, and so he changed it to the drawing that you
have now. So, the old information is just that. It’s old information. The new things that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we just got the new information tonight, and it’s very hard, when you’re
trying to review a drawing like this, sir, to find out on the night of the meeting that we get new
information which we haven’t had a chance to analyze. That’s part of this Board’s problem. I’m sure
everybody on the Board feels that way. I speak for myself. I don’t know how the other members
feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s something we’ve talked about many times.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. STEVES-I heartily agree, but the point, coming back to, is we’re not proposing any change, and
I think that’s the key issue here, but I have shown you that if we had to abide, we can, without
needing any variances, and I do apologize for any confusion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you work out the numbers?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did they work out?
MRS. MOORE-His numbers, yes, on the map that’s, on the drawing.
MR. MAC EWAN-The drawing is correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’ll ask you to revise this data sheet.
MR. STEVES-Certainly.
MR. MAC EWAN-And resubmit it to Staff, please.
MR. STEVES-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA necessary.
MR. SCHACHNER-I have a question about the application that might more properly be part of the
public hearing than any legal counsel comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like me to re-open the public hearing?
MR. SCHACHNER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I will re-open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. SCHACHNER-The question I would ask, I would direct the question to the Board because I
think that’s the appropriate way to do this, would be whether the Board intends to inquire of the
applicant as to how this application relates to a similar pending application in Lake George, whether
this is an addition to that or instead of that, if the Board is interested in that.
MR. VOLLARO-There is a similar one? I wasn’t aware of what you said.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s my understanding, and I know one of the things the Board sometimes
likes to know is how real a proposal is, or whether it’s just sort of traded off.
MR. BREWER-You mean that one that was proposed in the residential neighborhood or something?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-That’s the gist I got of the newspaper, or whatever.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t know much about it. I just read something in the newspaper
about what sounded like a similar application.
MR. BREWER-Is that the same as this?
MR. RUSSELL-It is the same use, by the same owner, but one has absolutely nothing to do with the
other one. Different town, different building.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. BREWER-It could lead you to believe that he couldn’t do it up there, whatever, and he’s
coming down here.
MR. RUSSELL-Our intention, at this point, is to have a store in both locations. The one in Lake
George will probably take quite a while to clear up where we are right now, if you’ve been reading
the paper. This one we intend to open and maintain opened just another location.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’re mutually exclusive?
MR. RUSSELL-Absolutely exclusive.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With that being said, we’ll close the public hearing again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-99 PAUL S. CHAMBERS, Introduced by
Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
As written by Staff, with the condition that the information provided on Drawing S-1 be transferred
to the application data sheet, so that they match, dated April 12, 1999.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 10-99, Paul S. Chambers to utilize
building to operate a Health Products store.; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/2 maps, Map of Lands of Meadow Run Dev. revised 3/31/99 showing existing
and proposed.
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/20/99 - Staff Notes
2. 4/12/99 – Beautification Comm. resolution
3. 4/14/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
4. 4/13/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
5. 4/12/99 - S-1 revised 4/12/99
6. 4/8/99 - Meeting Notice
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
10-99 for Paul S. Chambers.
2. The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
Duly adopted this 20 day of April 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. RUSSELL-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED EVERGREEN BANK OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION:
CORNER OF QUAKER RD. & EVERTS AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE A 12.84 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 11.21 ACRES (LOT 1), 1.00
ACRES (LOT 2), AND 0.63 ACRES (LOT 3). CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 4-98, AV 15-1999
TAX MAP NO. 108-1-27, 28, 31, 32, 33.1, 33.2, 34, 35 LOT SIZE: 12.84 +/- ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1999 – Preliminary & Final Stage, Evergreen Bank, Meeting
Date: April 20, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision.
Sketch review was performed at the March 23, 1999 meeting. The Board encouraged the applicant
to proceed to the preliminary and final stages of subdivision review. They suggested the applicant
demonstrate interconnection between parcels. Staff Notes: The applicant has addressed Staff
comments and the Planning Board’s comments. Staff recommends subdivision approval for both
preliminary and final and recommends copies of the reciprocal easements with the adjacent parcels
be provided. The final plans should clearly identify: the curb-cuts to be utilized by each parcel; the
elimination of unused curb-cuts; the shared connections between parcels”
MRS. MOORE-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Matt Steves. Preliminarily, since we
started this process, Jim Cullinan, who is with us tonight, the owner of Hewitt’s Garden Centers,
Inc., has purchased the property from Evergreen Bank. So, the approval should be in the name of
Jim Cullinan instead of Evergreen Bank. The closing took place on the 31 of March.
st
MR. VOLLARO-So we have a new owner?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does this reflect with the application?
MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, I don’t see any issue with modifying it, with the new owner of it as
being under Hewitt’s Garden Center, with the inclusion that it was previously under Evergreen Bank.
Because if you want to include those in the same statement, I think that would cover both bases.
MR. LAPPER-Our position, our feeling is just that the application would run with the land, and he
would take over the pending subdivision. We’ve been before you, conceptually, and it was always the
intention that it would be the Hewitt’s Garden Center as the primary use, and the closing just took
place before we got the planning process done. We’ve met with the Staff on a number of occasions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before you get going too deep, now that he’s back, can I ask him?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-The application is for subdivision for Evergreen Bank. Since the application was
given to Staff, Mr. Cullinan has closed on the property, and he’ll want, if we approve this thing, to
have it approved as him being the owner of the parcel, instead of Evergreen. Am I understanding
that correctly? How does that fit in with the application that was given to Staff?
MR. SCHACHNER-Is the only thing different who should be the property owner/applicant, or are
there other features of the application that should be different?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, just who the owner/applicant is.
MR. SCHACHNER-Then the answer is that, technically, we should not be approving, if you intend
to approve, or if you anticipate possibly approving this application, an application that’s not
submitted by an owner or designated agent. That is usually a problem that is fairly easily solved by
having the owner designate someone as agent.
MR. LAPPER-And the owner is here.
MR. BREWER-Evergreen Bank?
MR. LAPPER-No, the owner is now Jim Cullinan.
MR. BREWER-So he can just change this application tonight?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we have a form, as I recall, by which an owner can designate an agent to
seek an approval on behalf of the owner, and what I’m understanding, if I’m understanding this
correctly, is that has not happened here, partially because there’s been a transition of ownership, but I
also think I’m understanding that the original applicant was Evergreen Bank, at the time was the
owner of the property, and since that time there has been a transfer of ownership to a new person or
entity, but that as luck would have it, the new person or entity is physically present here, and if that’s
true then what I’m saying is that the new owner can designate whomever the new owner wants as the
agent to seek that approval. I think the form should be filled out.
MR. VOLLARO-And the agent to seek that approval is Mr. Lapper, is that correct?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s whomever the owner picks.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-But Mr. Lapper could be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have one of those forms with you, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have a blank one.
MR. LAPPER-We can just take the same form, and he could sign under Evergreen, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you comfortable with that?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t even care if the paperwork is done right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a housekeeping issue. I just want to be square on that, that’s all, before we
got too deep in it.
MR. LAPPER-Since Jim’s here, and his main office is in Saratoga County, it would probably be most
convenient to just do it right now, in front of Laura, and take care of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You can go on with your presentation, then. Now that we’ve got that out
of the way.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. When we were here last, one of the comments that the Board made was to
show the interconnection between the sites, and we discussed that with Jim, and that’s now been
taken care of, and that was changed on the subdivision plan. Beyond that, as we discussed last time,
we see this subdivision as a positive change for the site. The elimination of curb cuts, the increase in
green space along Quaker Road, taking a site which is primarily pavement, now, and softening it up
with a lot of plantings, what we have on the board is really most relevant to the site plan, which is the
next item on the agenda, but that is a drawing of what the Wilton site looks like, which is almost
identical to what we have here, in terms of how the new greenhouses attach to the building and just
how that all lines up. It’s hard to visualize from the site plan.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. BREWER-Are you actually going to put that many trees, or a similar amount, on the plan?
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the plant material?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we should be very careful and separate site plan from subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets stick with just subdivision.
MR. BREWER-I don’t think it has relevance to either one. I’m just asking if that’s what they’re
going to do.
MR. LAPPER-And Jim’s indicating that that is. Matt can just walk you through the subdivision, if
you’d like.
MR. STEVES-Good evening, again. It’s really pretty simple. It’s a three lot subdivision. One would
be, Lot Three would be an existing lot that would be on the most easterly bounds of the property, on
Quaker Road, and Lot Two would be the one acre parcel, two lot subdivision, I’m sorry, boundary
line adjustment for Lot Three. It was an existing lot, so the rest of the property, because that was a
lot on its own. They just adjusted the boundary line to make it a larger lot. The two lots, Lot One
being the 11.21 acre parcel, and Lot Two being the 1 acre parcel, which was the old body shop, and
the larger parcel incorporates the old showroom.
MR. BREWER-So this is a two lot subdivision? Lot Three was a lot of its own before?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-We made it bigger and more conforming, but it was already an existing tax map
parcel.
MR. BREWER-So it was already a separate lot? It was two pieces of land before?
MR. LAPPER-There were actually nine parcels here to begin with, and we’re going to end up with
three, but after consulting with the Planning Staff, we did a boundary adjustment instead of
subdivision, because that building was already on its own tax map parcel.
MR. STEVES-If you take Lot Three, the line of Lot Three, where it shows it as 31.2 feet along
Quaker Road, where the dog leg is, if you extended that straight back, it would nick the corner of the
building, and that was the original lot line for that parcel. So we increased the size of the parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-So Lot One will now incorporate the building that Hewitt’s will occupy. That
whole thing will become Lot One, is that what you’re saying?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And it’s all HC-1A?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Show me where you left the room for interconnect between parcels.
MR. STEVES-It’s shown on the site plan, the two site plans that were developed, both of them
simultaneously, and that’s detailed out on the site plan, but it’s approximately in this location here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So when we look at the site plan, we’ll see that, right?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-What about the elimination of unused curb cuts?
MR. STEVES-There are currently three curb cuts on Quaker Road, and we are going to utilize the
one that is the most easterly for the two smaller lots. It is being relocated just to be centered on the
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
two lots, just slid to the west, and the center one, which is going to be utilized as it is and
reconfigured slightly, and then the one that’s in front of the old showroom is to be eliminated.
MR. VOLLARO-Eliminated. Okay.
MR. STEVES-But on the subdivision, that shows the current conditions. On the site plan, that’s
addressed.
MR. LAPPER-That’s going to be eliminated and the pavement removed, and topsoil and grass.
MR. VOLLARO-So basically we have two curb cuts working here. One will take care of the whole
Hewitt’s property, and the other one will be co-shared by Lot Two and Lot Three.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, as it currently is.
MR. LAPPER-Also on Everts Ave. right now, that whole area is pavement or gravel. So there’s
access. It’s just a very open area for vehicles, and that’s going to be controlled with the designated
curb cut on Everts, and the left of that will be closed.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a crushed stone drive right off Everts, now, according to my.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, from the property line actually all the way out, just about to Quaker Road,
it’s all open. So you could drive through there anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, that’s true.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so.
MR. BREWER-I’m totally confused. I never knew that that GMC building, what used to be the
GMC building, was a separate lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was discussed when we did the re-zoning petition.
MR. BREWER-I wasn’t here.
MR. MAC EWAN-There you go.
MR. BREWER-Well, I can’t be everywhere at once, Craig, like you.
MR. MAC EWAN-So just be once everywhere.
MR. BREWER-I just didn’t realize it. I thought we were coming in here tonight and there was going
to be three lots.
MR. LAPPER-When we first met with Planning Staff, with Chris Round, we had anticipated doing it
that way, and when we looked at it, everyone realized that the simpler way to do it was a boundary
adjustment.
MR. VOLLARO-That seems simple to me.
MR. LAPPER-We essentially doubled the size of that and moved the boundary line from underneath
a corner of the building, so we improved that lot.
MR. BREWER-Was it a separate lot back here also?
MR. STEVES-Yes. This was a lot here, and it actually, this building, it scaled in there, but it actually
hit the corner of the building on Lot Three, and there’s two lots there.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up
and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Short or Long? We have a Long Form submitted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever is with the application. Do what came with the application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We're going to be doing the Long Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 3-1999, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Timothy Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
EVERGREEN BANK, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
4. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-
significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1999
EVERGREEN BANK/JAMES T. CULLINAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
In accordance with the Preliminary Subdivision written by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 3-1999 to
subdivide a 12.84 acre parcel into 3 lots of 11.21 ac., 1.00 ac., and 0.63 acres; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Preliminary Stage application w/map S-1 dated 2/22/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
1. 4/8/99 - Meeting Date
2. 4/20/99 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary
Stage for Subdivision No. 3-1999.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. VOLLARO-Should we go straight into Final?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Wait a minute. We’ll open up the Final Stage. Is there anything that we
need to add to this? I don’t think we need to add anything to this, do we?
MRS. MOORE-I would just, I know he’s going to include information on curb cuts and
interconnection in the site plan, but because it’s subdivision, I would include that in the subdivision,
about eliminating those curb cuts. I’d like to see those on the plan for the subdivision and the site
plan as well. Because we’re always concerned about access in subdivisions. So, this way you’re
addressing it.
MR. STEVES-That’s fine. I can address that on a note in the plan, before it’s brought back for
signature. That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make it part of the motion for Final.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1999 EVERGREEN
BANK/JAMES T. CULLINAN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
With the provision that the subdivision plans be brought up to date with regard to access to Quaker
Road, and the three Staff comments will be complied with, we’re eliminating the curb cut on Quaker
Road, and we’re going to show the interconnection between parcels on the subdivision plan
submitted, and eliminate the unused curb cuts.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 3-1999 to subdivide a
12.84 acre parcel into 3 lots of 11.21 ac., 1.00 ac., and 0.63 acres; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Preliminary Stage application w/map S-1 dated 2/22/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/8/99 - Meeting Date
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
2. 4/20/99 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary
Stage for Subdivision No. 3-1999.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark
MR. VOLLARO-Before we go any further, I’d like to ask Mark a question. When is it mandatory
that Long Forms be used, Mark? How do we determine? Is it the applicant’s prerogative, either or,
to do that, or do they use a Long Form because?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I don’t know why the applicant used the Long Form in this case, and I
don’t know if they are required to or not, but the short answer to your question, Bob, is that the
SEQRA Regulations list types of actions that are what are called Type I Actions, and they also list
types of actions that are Type II Actions. Type II Actions don’t require any SEQRA review. Type I
Actions require the Long Form. If you’re neither, you’re what’s called an Unlisted Action. Unlisted
Action can proceed with either. Most Unlisted Action applicants produce Short Forms because
they’re shorter. Some Unlisted applicants produce Long Forms. Sometimes Staff thinks that an
Unlisted Action is of enough potential significance so that Staff asks for a Long Form.
MR. VOLLARO-So the Type I is the driver?
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-99 TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES T. CULLINAN c/o HEWITT’S
GARDEN CENTERS, INC. OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION S.E.
CORNER OF QUAKER RD. & EVERTS AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONVERSION OF FORMER QUEENSBURY MOTORS DEALERSHIP INTO A
GARDEN CENTER. RETAIL BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL
GREENHOUSE/NURSERY ARE TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USES IN THE HC
ZONE AND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SUB. 3-1999, AV 15-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/12/99
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-31, 21, 33.1, 34, 38, 27, 28 LOT
SIZE: 11.22 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-99, James T. Cullinan c/o Hewitt’s Garden Centers, Inc.,
Meeting Date: April 20, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to utilize an
existing building, construct attached greenhouses, and put a material storage bin on an 11.21 acre
parcel. The proposed use meets the requirements of the Highway Commercial Zone. Staff Notes:
The applicant met with Staff prior to submission to review site layout, traffic access/circulation, and
landscaping. The applicant’s plans have satisfied Staff’s comments. Garden Stores are characterized
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
with outside storage of plantings materials. The storage of materials will be placed on the property
facing Quaker Road, providing a “green area look”. The applicant’s parking plan meets the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including number and interconnection to adjacent sites. The
applicant is encouraged to contact the Fire Department to formulate a response plan to the site due
to the amount and type of materials on site. The plans have been reviewed by Rist Frost and the
Beautification Committee. See attached notes. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of
the proposed site plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost’s letter.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want the most recent Rist-Frost?
MR. MAC EWAN-I have an April 13 letter in my packet.
th
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s the one.
MR. LAPPER-We addressed the April 13 letter with an additional submission, and then there’s a
th
new letter reviewing the submission.
MR. BREWER-It’s the one we got tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-The one we got tonight?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-This is dated April 20. “We have reviewed Nace Engineering’s Map No. 47272-
th
D1 – Site Details dated April 16, 1999, submitted in response to our comment letter dated April 13,
1999. The additional details are acceptable, however we would recommend that the site plan show
existing water, sewer, and any other utilities. Also, there was no mention as to whether any new site
lighting was proposed.” Warren County, Warren County approved the application. Beautification
Committee comments, “ 1. Committee recommends plantings added on Quaker Road and Everts
Avenue to screen chain link fence of a mix of low planting and trees such as birch or maple. 2.
Committee recommends any exterior dumpster placed on site be appropriately screened by fencing
and plantings which are maintained.” That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s pretty safe to assume you’re not going to use plastic flowers?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, even though that was their comment. We didn’t think that was necessary.
MR. BREWER-That’s on every one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a comment. Before the meeting, Mr. Steves and I were discussing submittals
of information at the night of a meeting, and it’s the Board’s position that we would like to refrain
from that in the future. Just so you know.
MR. LAPPER-What happened here is we were responding to the Town Engineer. We just got a
letter from the Town Engineer two days ago, and so we responded to them. They had asked for
some additional construction detail, mostly what the drywell looked like. So we submitted that really
in response to their comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m only relaying the Board’s feelings. Just for the future.
MR. LAPPER-I just don’t know how that could change, because the engineering, unless the
engineering review is going to be moved up.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, either. It’s frustrating. Anyway.
MR. STEVES-We do realize the frustration of the Board, and I just wanted to let you know that
there were a couple of technical issues that really didn’t affect the overall, you know, the detail of the
site plan. As far as like existing utilities, we’re not proposing any new utility lines, but that is still a
requirement and a recommendation of your reviewing engineer. I did get that information back from
Mike Shaw about two days ago, and I've incorporated it into the other plan.
MR. BREWER-Is that not a requirement when you first submit the application?
MR. STEVES-Until such time as I can find out where it is, that’s correct.
MR. BREWER-I don’t know. I’m asking.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. STEVES-It depends on the use, and we weren’t proposing any new utilities. I think that’s kind
of a cloudy issue there, but to answer, probably, yes, it should have been.
MR. LAPPER-Because we weren’t changing anything, we didn’t show it. So Matt dealt with Mike
Shaw, and now it’s shown on the revised subdivision plan.
MR. STEVES-There was a comment that Rist-Frost brought up, it should be shown. It wasn’t
stated that it had to be shown. That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I guess one of the problems I have with this is I like to review these things and
know that I've completely reviewed and understand, when I come to sit in this chair, what I’m doing.
I don’t like to be floating around. I really hate that. When I haven’t read the Rist-Frost letter, and I
don’t know what the additional details that were acceptable are. I like to have a total package that I
can relate to.
MR. LAPPER-The way to do that is for us, then, to start with the April 13 letter which has six
th
items, and then we can just go through what we submitted and show you how we got to Rist-Frost’s
second letter, saying it was acceptable.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. It’s up to the rest of the Board, but I’d certainly like to get lead
through that, myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. We're rolling right along rather smoothly.
MR. BREWER-Do you want to go to the April 13 letter?
th
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just go ahead and start your presentation, and jump in with that anywhere you
want.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I guess I’d want to start off the presentation, generally, just to talk about the
site and the improvements that we’re going to make, and Jim is here, and he will address the Board
and answer questions also. He’s the best person to talk about the operation of the site. We're using
the Wilton site as an example, because it just happens to lay out nearly identical to the site that we
have here. This is Route 50 in Wilton. The greenhouses are exactly the same location as the
building. One difference is that because this was the automobile dealership, the front is more
attractive with glass than what we have here, and you don’t have the bump out, but if you consider
this entrance way here as Everts Ave., this as Quaker Road, and this as the main site entrance from
Quaker Road, it works as a loop, where you enter Quaker Road or exit Quaker, but you can just loop
through to Everts, which works pretty nicely, and by controlling the traffic, so that there’s only one
curb cut on to Everts now, everything’s just a lot safer than what it was, and the same way by
eliminating the curb cut that used to be in front of the dealership building, and making this a strip of
grass, it’s just going to look much more attractive. When you look at the site plan, you can see the
enclosed area where the plant material is stored. The same relation to the building, parking, you
enter through the new greenhouses, which is approximately 5,000 square feet, Jim, the greenhouse,
5800 square feet. That’s going to be a significant, impressive change to the building, to add. The
greenhouse is very nice looking, and that’s going to be a good improvement, along with the.
MR. PALING-Jon, excuse me. What’s the feet on Quaker Road, what’s the footage between the
front of the building and the road?
MR. LAPPER-On the road.
MR. VOLLARO-One hundred feet. I just laid it out with a ruler. It’s 100 foot on the map.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. That sounds, from the edge of pavement is what you’re asking, from the
building to the edge of pavement?
MR. PALING-Make it to the edge of where you will terminate the display of materials, you’re
building where you terminate display of materials.
MR. STEVES-Approximately 54 feet.
MR. PALING-That seems a lot of trees to put in that distance.
MR. STEVES-Well, that pictorial shows something other than (lost word) describing was similar to
this, but the fact of the matter is, on Quaker Road where the property line is, it’s only 54 feet in front
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
of the building on Quaker Road. So that the display area would most likely be behind the property
line.
MR. LAPPER-The display area will also be smaller than what we have here. This is more than 50
feet in Wilton.
MR. PALING-The only material that is going to be there are the planting material? Nothing else is
going to be there, in front of the building?
MR. LAPPER-Well, no. We’ve also planted, the site plan shows in front of the fence there will be
plantings.
MR. PALING-No. I’m talking about storage, whatever you want to call it, warehousing.
MR. LAPPER-You mean that there will only be plant materials there?
MR. PALING-Yes.
JIM CULLINAN
MR. CULLINAN-That’s correct.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. BREWER-And those are going to be for sale?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, nursery stock.
MR. BREWER-There’s trees and shrubs.
MR. LAPPER-And flowers, actually, the flowers are in the back. Why don’t you just walk them
through.
MR. CULLINAN-Good evening. I’m Jim Cullinan. Yes, the front, as you noticed already, I think
this one is about 84 feet in the Wilton store. So you’re going to be 54 feet, as they pointed out there.
It’s going to be a little bit shallower, but in the front, yes, all we’re going to have it nursery stock
there. That will be there, will be arriving right about now, next year in early April. It’ll go through
somewhere about October 15. We clear out whatever is there, and then from that point on it will
th
really be empty until nursery stock comes in again. So that’s strictly going to be above the ground
shrubbery that’s going to be out there. Now back here, as you see, it’s going to be similar. We're
proposing it be similar at this store as it is back here. Inside these greenhouses here, the first one will
be the entranceway. That will be kind of houseplants, if you will, year round plants. The other ones
will be what we call annual houses, which are pretty much just all annuals, perennials, petunias, that
kind of thing. There is also you see on the site plan there around behind it, just as it is here, a fenced
in area that’s also going to be seasonally, with annual plants in May, June, and July.
MR. BREWER-Will that front area, once you clear that out in October, just a thought, is that going
to be an area where you might sell Christmas Trees?
MR. CULLINAN-Yes, that’s a good point, yes, that’s what I would like to do there, sell Christmas
Trees there at that point.
MR. BREWER-So there’ll be traffic in and out of there. I mean, it’ll be controlled, but there’ll still
be something there that’s green, something nice to see.
MR. CULLINAN-Yes, there will be Christmas Trees. The only time, really, it’s going to be clean,
bare empty is January, February, and March.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-On the site plan now we show the 27 foot connection, which is not a proposed
connection but it’s an actual connection, and that will come up when we’re back next week for the
Northway Car Care site next door. It’s exactly the same.
MR. BREWER-How many feet?
MR. LAPPER-Twenty-seven.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s conflicting drawings on that 27 feet.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. BREWER-I’m showing 12.
MR. LAPPER-It was 12, and the planning staff asked us to increase that.
MR. VOLLARO-So the drawing with 12 is out.
MR. BREWER-All right. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the date on this is received 4/8/99. I assume that’s the latest drawing. Is
that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-seven foot common drive.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t need the conflicting data, then.
MR. LAPPER-And then along Everts you can see what we did. Well, first of all, in addition to
removing the pavement up front where the other curb cut was. The pavement is going to be
removed between the two sites. There’s going to be a 13 foot wide island that will be planted
between the Hewitt site and the Northway Car Care site, and along the back as well, with the
exception of where the loading bins are.
MR. MAC EWAN-How wide did you say that was?
MR. LAPPER-It’s five feet on the other side of the line, and eight feet on this side of the line, for a
total of 13 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, because this drawing, if I’m reading it right, says 10.
MR. LAPPER-This says four foot and four foot, four foot green space and four foot swale.
MR. BREWER-But we’re not showing the other side.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. BREWER-And we’re going to see that next week.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. BREWER-Who’s going to maintain that?
MR. LAPPER-Jim, Hewitt’s.
MR. BREWER-Both sides, or just your side?
MR. LAPPER-He’ll enter into an agreement with the people next door to do it, but Hewitt’s has a
crew that maintains all of their sites, that just goes around from one site to the other to maintain it.
You can’t sell plant materials without having a well maintained site.
MR. BREWER-Understood, but you’re going to maintain Darren’s?
MR. LAPPER-Along this strip between the two sites, where the plantings will be in the middle,
they’ll be maintained by Hewitt’s.
MR. BREWER-All right. So the other side is just going to be a berm, so to speak?
MR. LAPPER-No. The plants are really on the line, so that there’s a wider area of green, so that
there’s a full five feet on the other side of the line, and the plants will be, you know.
MR. BREWER-So it’ll be grass going up to a bed?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re saying that’s 13 feet wide?
MR. LAPPER-In total, eight plus five.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Where am I missing the five?
MR. BREWER-Because that’s going to be on the site plan next week.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Which I do have with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. That’s fine. All right. Now I’m with the program.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to approve a different site plan next week?
MR. MAC EWAN-The one for the.
MR. LAPPER-The other subdivision lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry we keep throwing a monkey wrench in your presentation here.
MR. LAPPER-That’s your job. It’s no problem, and the area where the greenhouse and the
sidewalk, that whole area is now pavement, and that’s going to be taken out and cleaned up as well,
that whole area on the side of the building. So it’s really going to be a modernizing of this facility,
cleaning it up, adding a lot of green, from what’s there now, and controlling the traffic.
MR. STEVES-As far as the Rist-Frost letter, you want to go through that.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Can I ask one more question before we get into that? What’s the parking
requirement? Do you think you’re going to need all?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. During May, June, and July, all these spaces will be needed. A substantial
amount of parking is being taken out from what’s there now. Now it’s all pavement, but Jim does
feel, and he knows from having eight other facilities, that this is the number of spots.
MR. BREWER-What is the requirement, though?
MR. LAPPER-The reason why we didn’t show that is because it’s grandfathered because we have it
existing paved now. So there may be more spaces than what would be required.
MR. BREWER-Do you have any idea what the requirement would be for a store this size? Do you
have to show the requirement for parking?
MRS. MOORE-He’s met it. I just don’t have the numbers calculated to give to you as data.
MR. BREWER-Is it close?
MRS. MOORE-As far as I know it is. I know we’ve calculated everything. I just don’t have those
numbers for you.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you planning to go through the April 13 letter just quickly?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-See, I don’t see that the drywells on Number One, I don’t, I’m looking for them
but I haven’t found them.
MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as the proposed additional drywells as outlined as Number One on the
letter from Rist-Frost, April 13, I don’t have that here. Tom Nace, the engineer that developed the
th
plan that’s here in front of me for the details for the rest of the comments has sketched them on the
site plan, but I don’t have a copy of that. I will make sure that this site plan, that that is incorporated.
MR. LAPPER-What that does is that’s for the roof drain. Right now the roof drain is located in the
area where the greenhouse is going to be constructed, and the drywell is made not only to catch what
come off the roof but also what comes off the roof of the greenhouse, and that’s what the detail is.
So it’s next door to the building and the greenhouse.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Does that tie into the Rist-Frost letter of April 20, as we have received
th
Nace Engineer’s map number?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what this refers to, the fact that the drywells are on?
MR. STEVES-He also had them placed on this map, and then he gave a detail of 47272-D1.
MR. VOLLARO-So somebody has a site plan we haven’t seen.
MR. LAPPER-No. Here’s the answer. It says three drywells are to be field located along east side of
new greenhouse where best suited to intercept roof drains from greenhouses and rear of existing
building.
MR. PALING-They’re on here, too?
MR. STEVES-Yes. There’s a sketch that Tom had done, that he placed them on.
MR. BREWER-Where is that?
MR. VOLLARO-I've got that, but I. I understand that’s the detail drawing of the drywell, but I can’t
find them spotted on.
MR. LAPPER-And the reason is because of the note that I just read.
MR. STEVES-This is a sketch from Tom with the stormwater plan that I couldn’t find a copy of, but
you have it in your packet, and it shows the three, where the roof drain should be placed on the east
side there.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re really stretching this here.
MR. STEVES-It’s a draft in the letter and the stormwater plan, the stormwater plan, a map is made
part of that.
MR. VOLLARO-The drainage plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist-Frost has reviewed all this?
MR. STEVES-Yes, they have.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Signed off on it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it says. Okay. I’m not going to pursue that any further. It looks like a
maze.
MR. BREWER-Do we have the drawing with the sketch?
MRS. MOORE-Tim, they’re in your application. If you go through the application, there is a
stormwater report, probably the last page of that stormwater report is a map.
MR. STEVES-As far as going on to Number Two, is any site lighting proposed? We're going to use
what exists on the site, no new is proposed. Construction details for the proposed site work,
drywells, that’s what’s on the detail sheet submitted by Nace Engineering. The site plan should have
a note indicating that all work will conform to New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and
Sediment Control, which also is on the detail sheet from Nace Engineering, and the width of the
parking spaces should be indicated as being nine feet wide minimum. We recommend that five
handicapped accessible spaces be provided. As I said, that’s detailed out on Tom Nace’s detail sheet,
D-1, and the site plan should show existing water and sewer and other utilities.
MR. VOLLARO-Matt, what I have a concern with, we just said that we were going to have a 27 foot
wide, and the detail map that Nace supplies has still got the 12 foot.
MR. STEVES-That’s for the drainage report.
MR. VOLLARO-Only.
MR. LAPPER-That was done a month ago.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-I've got to tell you, fellows, I don’t know how the other Board members feel, but,
boy, I don’t think this is very good work. That’s my opinion, and I’ll say it in the clear.
MR. STEVES-The drainage report.
MR. VOLLARO-Matt, I understand what you’re saying, and I know what you’re saying. It’s just that
I have a real problem reviewing this in my own mind, and being satisfied that I understand, again,
how everything locks together. That’s just my opinion. I don’t know if any of the other members of
the Board see it much more clearly than I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I see the confusing aspect of it. I’m comfortable with what they’re telling us.
I’m comfortable with making, this become part of the record so we have a way of tracking this down,
but my feelings are, in the future, I want to see stuff days ahead of time, not the night of.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but, Craig, the thing that Bob is saying, and I would agree, that we’re looking at
four different pieces of paper when everything should be on one piece of paper. This isn’t the only
application tonight that this has happened. This should all be on one sheet. I don’t know. It’s
frustrating.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, we need to just explain it from the applicant’s viewpoint. This is sort of an
iterative process that changes. We were here last time with our initial proposal, when we talked
about Sketch Plan, and we talked about the site. At that point, the Chairman was adamant that he
wanted to show the connection. So that was one change that we had already made our submission,
but that was one change that had to happen, and we did make that change. Then we met with the
Staff, and the Staff made a number of good comments, and we made some changes to accommodate
their wishes, and then we submitted to the Town Engineer or the Planning Department submitted to
the Engineer for the Engineer’s review, and we got comments from him. So from our perspective,
we’ve been making changes to make the plan better, to address people’s, the different reviewer’s
concerns, but it does mean that there’s different pieces of paper. There’s the stormwater
management report. I mean, another way to do it would have been to submit nothing in advance
and to just sit here tonight and to say, we agree. We will do that. We will do that. We will do that,
and then your approval would say it’s conditioned upon submitting a revised plan that shows all the
stuff.
MR. BREWER-Not necessarily.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s one other way.
MR. BREWER-I think that’s unfair to say that.
MR. VOLLARO-You could have taken a look at this data yourself, completed it, and come back a
week from now.
MR. STEVES-And I agree to a certain point, but as Jon has just stated, we are bound by the fact that
when we get this information back also, and the minor differences on the stormwater report, Rist-
Frost’s comment did not address any changes to be made in the stormwater report. Therefore, we
addressed the other changes that needed to be made, and maybe inadvertently, but it wasn’t
necessary to change the stormwater report. That width of the drive does not change the stormwater
report whatsoever.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, one more comment, and then I’ll stop. On the site plan development data,
I've got the same problem I had on the previous application. It’s incomplete. The thing that we
really want to know is the percent non-permeable. That’s what this site development data is all
about, and it’s blank. It’s not a completed form.
MR. LAPPER-Well, in this case, we have a previously developed site. So that we have 11 and a half
acres of land, most of which is, the lots in the back where the two residences are, and the area that
runs, that dog leg piece, that’s all part of this. So that we have a previous developed site, previously
developed site, where we’re making it more conforming. We're making it more green.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this data was submitted with this site plan for review.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And it’s an incomplete piece of data. That’s all I can say about it. The numbers
don’t add up, and there’s blanks.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. LAPPER-The blanks were what we determined wasn’t applicable to this application, which you
may disagree with.
MR. VOLLARO-I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s what I’m going to do, so that we’re very clear on the Board’s
position on this, when we do our agenda meeting for May. The request from the Board will be that
the application is going to come complete from now on. I’m not talking about this one. I’m talking
about applications in general. We're no longer going to see things put on the table the night of a
meeting, or else we’ll table it. Okay. Just so we can stay on top of things. I think that’s reasonable
for everyone. It’s reasonable for the applicant. It’s reasonable for the Board, and I think we’ve also
got to look harder at what are we going to deem as complete as far as data, and applications. Maybe
we can hash that out when we have our agenda meeting.
MR. BREWER-Didn’t we used to, and I’m just throwing this out. We used to have an application
come in. It would go to Rist-Frost. That Friday, the comments, how come Rist-Frost doesn’t come
here anymore? So that a lot of this could be taken care of. Rist-Frost used to be at the meetings, and
he would give the applicant comments. We would get them on Friday, the answer to the comments,
and then Rist-Frost would be here, and if there was an additional comment, it could be taken care of
that night. Is there a reason they don’t come anymore? Is it because of money, or what’s the reason?
MRS. MOORE-We can look into it. I don’t have an answer for you right now.
MR. BREWER-Yes, I would like an answer, because if it’s stalling an applicant, and it’s frustrating
us, I mean, we might as well not be here. That’s my own opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make a phone call tomorrow. I have my suspicions as to why it was stopped,
but rather than say it, I’ll investigate myself and find out.
MR. STEVES-And we know it’s confusing. We're not trying to make it that way, but we’re in the
same boat as you’re in.
MR. BREWER-Understood.
MR. STEVES-We get the information. What we’re trying to do is give, answer all the questions that
we possibly can for the Board, so that we don’t walk in here and you say, have you addressed these
comments by Rist-Frost, and we say, know, we haven’t, and we’re trying to say, yes, we have. We
know it’s kind of late.
MR. MAC EWAN-We're just trying to avoid sloppy work and things, you know, slipping through the
cracks.
MR. BREWER-Yes, because this is similar to the last application, that we’re going to have an
approval that says, okay, take stuff off of this sheet, off of this sheet, off of that sheet, and put it all
on one sheet. How do we know everything’s going to be there? I mean, I trust you, but.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you can also make that an expressed condition of approval, don’t forget.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you can make that an expressed condition so that Staff or whomever you
select, has to approve, or you can table it or you can do any number of things.
MR. BREWER-Or we could say, lets get it all together tonight, have it ready for next Tuesday.
MR. LAPPER-In this particular case, we would ask that you don’t do that, only because, which we
hadn’t discussed before, but Jim’s season, having nothing to do with the Board or the Town, the
season for this type of an operation is right now, is April, May.
MR. BREWER-When is he going to open?
MR. LAPPER-He expects, the greenhouse has been delivered, and they have a crew tomorrow
morning to start ripping out pavement and pouring concrete to do the foundation for the
greenhouse. So it’s extremely important, if he loses a week, it makes a big difference. They want to
be open before Mother’s Day, to have the greenhouse built and have the site, and get the CO by
Mother’s Day.
MR. BREWER-He’s going to open Mother’s Day weekend? Well, I mean, that doesn’t effect you
guys going ahead with your stuff, your construction.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. LAPPER-No, but if we don’t get the site plan, if you ask us to come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Excuse me, it does.
MR. BREWER-Craig, they’ve been working there since when?
MR. LAPPER-No, there’s a big distinction. What’s been going on now are interior that don’t require
site plan. There’s been demolition going on, interior, and some removal of trash and stuff on the
outside, but they haven’t done anything that would require this Board’s approval, because that would
be inappropriate before site plan. So they haven’t. So they’ve got the crew ready to start tomorrow
morning ripping out pavement.
MR. MAC EWAN-I.E. Newton’s Auto, a few years ago. I’m saying that you’re saying that what’s
preventing them from going forward, the fact that they don’t have an approval is preventing them
from going forward.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I just saw all the work going on. I didn’t realize that.
MR. LAPPER-Sure, and we feel confident.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the information that’s being presented tonight certainly doesn’t, in my
mind, deem that we have to table this thing for one more week. I’m satisfied that the information,
working with Staff, working with the applicant, can all be put together onto one drawing so that it
can be submitted, so that they can get their building permit.
MR. RINGER-I agree.
MR. SCHACHNER-You haven’t opened your public hearing yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s true.
MR. SCHACHNER-So lets not go too far out on a limb before we.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m not going out on a limb. We're discussing the completion of the
application right now.
MR. BREWER-Lets make a list of what we think ought to be on one drawing, get the drawing
together. Can we at least look at it next week? I mean, if we give you an approval with a condition?
I still would like to see the drawing.
MR. LAPPER-We could submit it. If you want to see everything on one drawing, we could do that
for tomorrow. I mean, we could submit that to Planning Staff tomorrow. I will be back next week
with the adjacent.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, just a thought, how is that going to affect the other applications on this
piece of property next week? Are they, you’re going to come in next week with six sheets?
MR. LAPPER-It’s all been taken care of with Rist-Frost. I mean, because there’s an extra week in
the program.
MR. STEVES-That one’s on one sheet, one large site plan sheet with just the.
MR. BREWER-And everything’s correct?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I've got a couple of questions. Is there any landscaping, other than what’s
proposed out in the right-of-way?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have it right here by your entrance, but is there going to be like any
streetscaping?
MR. LAPPER-You have another sheet, a purple sheet, you know, blueprint sheet, that’s blue.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought it was going to be an easy question.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. LAPPER-That right there, what Tim has, details additional plantings.
MR. VOLLARO-What does this do? It’s also plantings. I put Quaker Road on here to make sure I
knew what I was talking about.
MR. STEVES-I believe that’s the same one. Just somebody used a black line copier instead of a blue
line copier. That’s the same thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Now let me go back to my question, please. Are you proposing any
streetscaping plantings?
MR. LAPPER-Where?
MR. MAC EWAN-Along this area right here.
MR. LAPPER-In front of the fence, there’s a two foot area. The fence is moved two foot off the
property line, and there’s a bed that’s proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s going to be in the bed? I mean, you guys have gone to the Beautification,
you’ve gotten approvals from them?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is this what the Beautification has approved?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, what you have right there.
MR. MAC EWAN-My question is, are you going to put any trees along in here?
MR. LAPPER-Would you like to see trees along in there?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would. I mean, that’s something the Town’s been striving to do for years.
MR. BREWER-Along, where, Craig, along the front?
MR. MAC EWAN-Along this area right in here.
MR. LAPPER-Along Quaker Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something the Town’s been, we’ve been striving, through every time we’ve
had a commercial site come up, we’ve been trying to get them to plant some streetscaping.
MR. BREWER-How far back from the road are you suggesting?
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re a long ways from the road.
MR. LAPPER-There’s about 50 feet from the property line to the road. So we’re comfortable that
we could get approval from Warren County.
MR. BREWER-So, is it going to appear as a landscape or tree scape, or is it going to appear as trees
in front of their building, though?
MR. LAPPER-It’ll appear as a streetscape.
MR. BREWER-It will?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think so.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m trying to accomplish in my own mind is like what we did in front of
Taco Bell, Blockbuster, up there through Toys “R” Us, where we’ve been trying to get, that’s the
effect that I’m looking for. I don’t know if you guys are. I mean, every opportunity we’ve had a
commercial application come in front of us, I think we’ve been striving to do it for the last few years.
MR. LAPPER-Jim is in the business of making sites look good, and that’s not his property, but we
can approach Warren County, and there’s enough room. They’re not going to be widening Quaker
Road to seven lanes. So they will most likely give us approval for that, and Jim would be agreeable to
planting some trees in that area, some street trees.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have to narrow it down to quantities, before we leave here.
MR. LAPPER-We wouldn’t want to block his view.
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind I’m not looking for 20 of them or anything like that. I’m looking for
something to just add some beauty down through the corridor.
MR. CULLINAN-I would suggest we use something like Clumb Birch and do four to six, preferably
spaced out.
MR. BREWER-How far of a distance is that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty feet apart.
MR. BREWER-How many feet?
MR. STEVES-Well, 350 is the entire width of the property, minus.
MR. LAPPER-We're talking just up to the curb cuts.
MR. STEVES-So, you’d be talking approximately 275 feet.
MR. BREWER-Six trees.
MR. LAPPER-We couldn’t plant anything near the corner, because of the visibility issue.
MR. STEVES-Site distance issues. So you’re probably looking at about 200 foot range.
MR. BREWER-Thirty feet apart.
MR. STEVES-That would be six.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, I’m going to interject. This is reviewed by Warren County. So they may have
either additional stipulations, or they may require more or less, so just to be aware of that. You
wanted to put a number of trees to be planted in that right-of-way. It hasn’t been reviewed by
Warren County. It has to be reviewed by Warren County.
MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t mean the Warren County Planning Board.
MRS. MOORE-No, I mean, Warren County DPW. I’m sorry. I’ll be more specific.
MR. LAPPER-Because they own the land.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, lets try putting a number on it, pending approval by Warren County.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s totally acceptable to us. That’s fine.
MR. BREWER-I would say, Craig, let him make the decision as to how many. I mean, if he’s saying
six, and he’s in the business.
MR. MAC EWAN-For enforcement purposes, it’s better for us to come up with a number, so we
have something to go by.
MR. VOSS-Yes. Craig, I might just add that if the Board is comfortable with, instead of trying to
nail down a species and number at this level right now, you could condition your approval upon
adequate street trees being planted per Warren County DPW’s recommendations, per the applicant’s
suggestions, and let Staff approve it at that level, thus ensuring that the condition is met, that the
trees are there, and adequate and meet all the other criteria.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine by me. Is that okay with everybody else? No rebuttals. Trash
storage. Where are you going to have your dumpsters? I didn’t see anything on the drawing and
that’s why I was asking.
MR. LAPPER-The dumpster will be inside of the fence in the back, behind the building.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Located directly behind the building, so it will be enclosed, as well? Okay. So
now listen, when you get your drawing, you’re going to put everything on the one drawing.
MR. STEVES-I have a list of, show the entrance, common entrance, which is already on there, show
the utilities on the site plan, show the drywells on the site plan, and put in some kind of a noting that
we will contact Warren County about placing street trees. Is that correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-Locate the dumpster and the fence around the dumpster.
MR. STEVES-You’re one ahead of me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Has anybody else got anything else?
MR. BREWER-Only to say that I think it’s going to be a nice building, and I like what they did along
Everts Avenue, and with the chain link fence to control the traffic. I think you’ve done a great job.
Even though we had some difficulties.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we just want you, you’re sort of in the process of changing your procedure for
the better. We wouldn’t want you to think that it’s this applicant or this application. I mean, we feel
that we’re sort of caught up in a time when things are changing, and we’ve tried to be responsive to
everybody, and we wouldn’t want that to take away from the fact that this is going to be a major
clean up of a site that needs improvement, and we appreciate that you are letting us go.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, are you re-paving, or are you just going to re-stripe what’s
there?
MR. CULLINAN-There’s going to be touch-up re-paving. There’s some damage to the pavement.
Basically it’s going to be to sealcoat and stripe what’s there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just curious. Okay. On that note, we’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I have two written ones. It says, “Dear Planning Board: I have a prior commitment,
and unfortunately cannot attend the Planning Board meeting scheduled for tonight. I would like,
however, to offer my concern regarding the application by the above named corporation. My only
significant concern regarding the proposal as named above, is regarding the traffic. I hope the
Planning Board is aware that the corner of Quaker Road and Everts Avenue is the site of numerous
accidents over the last number of years. It is a potentially dangerous corner, as you have a small road
(Everts Avenue) leading into a major multilane road (Quaker Road). I would hate to see a poorly
thought out traffic plan for this new business and location cause an increase in the accidents at this
corner. Thought must be given as to traffic in and out of the property. A significant amount of
traffic pouring onto Everts Avenue would disrupt the street. And, Everts Avenue has a history of
not being the smoothest, pot hole free road from end to end. I defer my concerns to the good
judgement of the Planning Board of Queensbury concerning the traffic issue that I have voiced. I
would assume, that this concern is also an issue for the residents of Everts Avenue. There is a good
amount of traffic already on this road, not to mention the number of children that play and get on
the school bus each day. I do not know if a traffic light is financially reasonable, but now is the time
to cover all concerns. Thank you for the chance to air my concern. I hope this issue will be
discussed and dealt with accordingly. It is always a pleasure to see a new business come to our
Town. We welcome any new business that respects our community and its’ residents concerns.
Respectfully, Dr. Syd Hochman 119 Everts Avenue” This is a second letter, “Board Members:
This letter is in regard to the Hewitt’s Garden Center that is to be placed on the S.E. corner of
Quaker Road and Everts Avenue. We are expressing our concern over any lighting that may be
placed on the Garden Center property. We feel that the lighting should be strictly on site. Light
splash, especially during the months of November thru May, could be a problem for us and our
neighbors. As of now, the lighting at Nemer Motors can be seen at our residences. Thank you for
your time and concern. Sincerely, John & Sharon Moynihan”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
MR. LAPPER-What’s proposed is to use what’s there right now, but Jim feels that what’s there right
now may not all be necessary. So he may be reducing what’s there, but he’s not going to be
increasing it, what’s been there for all these years.
MR. PALING-How about at Christmas Tree time, will there be any changes to lighting then?
MR. LAPPER-Most likely you would have lights.
MR. CULLINAN-What I would probably like to do at Christmas Tree time, I think the lighting
that’s there is probably about double what I need, except for right in front of the store, I would
probably like to put up the open lightbulbs around the Christmas Tree lot, that pretty well signifies
Christmas Trees for sale there, all around this area. It’s not really so much, I think the lighting is
adequate. Some of those open bulbs on a string, like everybody does pretty much in Christmas Tree
lots, kind of says, again, that there’s Christmas Trees there, more than provides lighting.
MR. PALING-Would that be along Quaker or along Everts, both?
MR. CULLINAN-Quaker only.
MR. BREWER-Quaker.
MR. PALING-Quaker only.
MR. BREWER-What about hours of operation?
MR. CULLINAN-Hours of operation? We pretty much are with daylight. We're very rarely open
when the sun is not out. We start, we’re open 9 to 5, all January, February, and March. We’ve just
started this past weekend, we are open 9 to 8, six days a week, 9 to 6 on Sundays, and that comes
right with daylight savings every year. We're pretty much not open too often, like I say, when it’s
dark out. The exception to that is we’re open until eight o’clock during the month of December for
the Christmas season, and there is about the only time when we’ll really use outdoor lighting.
MR. BREWER-So April through September?
MR. CULLINAN-Yes, April through September, we go into shorter hours, again, and close at six
until October, and then right about Thanksgiving through the Christmas season we go back to eight
o’clock in the evening.
MR. BREWER-So no more or less than anybody else.
MR. RINGER-Better than most.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-99, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Timothy Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JAMES T. CULLINAN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
4. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning
Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-
significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-99 JAMES T. CULLINAN, Introduced by
Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
Hewitt’s Garden Center, Inc. As per the prepared motion, with the condition of location of drywells,
location of existing utilities, location of proposed street trees, per Warren County and Staff for
numbers, quantities and types, and the location of dumpster will all be shown on one map, and
delineate the common drive. That the string of Christmas Tree lights be along Quaker Road only.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 11-99, James T. Cullinan, c/o
Hewitt’s Garden Center to convert the former Qu. Motors dealership into a garden center; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application, Stormwater Man. Report
2.
Maps – S-1 dated 2/22/99 – Map titled Hewitt’s Garden Center
P-1 dated 3/99 - Proposed Landscaping
Map titled Hewitt’s Garden Center – rec’d 4/8/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
4/20/99 - Staff Notes
2.
4/12/99 – Beautification Comm. resolution
3.
4/14/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
4.
4/13/99 - Rist Frost comments
5.
4/13/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
6.
4/8/99 - Meeting Notice
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
11-99 for James T. Cullinan, c/o Hewitt’s Garden Center, Inc. .
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MR. BREWER-To be submitted when? You want to submit it by, when, next Friday? Say Friday,
can you do it by Friday?
MR. LAPPER-Well, he would like to be in the ground tomorrow. So you’re giving him a conditional
approval?
MR. BREWER-Conditional approval that those items are submitted by, you tell me when you can do
it.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, the point here is that if the applicant wishes to be able to actually
commence construction of this project tomorrow, then the conditions of a conditional approval will
have to be fulfilled prior to that happening. What I think the applicant is indicating is that this is of
sufficient importance to the applicant, so that whatever conditions along the lines that we’re talking
about, by way of consolidating this information onto one appropriate site plan document, this Board
intends to impose, I believe the applicant is indicating that they are going to do that tomorrow.
MR. STEVES-I will submit by two o’clock tomorrow afternoon, to the Planning Staff.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to clarify. You don’t really need to put a time deadline on when
these things will be submitted. The point is that until they’re submitted and accepted by whomever
is administering this, which I assume is Staff, the approval remains contingent and cannot be acted
upon. If they submit this stuff tomorrow morning at eight o’clock, and if Staff says at 8:05, yes, it
meets the condition, then it can be signed off on and their contingent approval will have been
fulfilled. If they don’t submit it until a month from tomorrow, then they won’t have fulfilled it until
a month from tomorrow.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understood you, Mark.
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/20/99)
42