1999-06-22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
TIMOTHY BREWER
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
GEORGE STARK
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROBERT PALING
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get going, there’s three items on the agenda that are going to be tabled
tonight. The first item is Site Plan No. 27-99 Decker & Company, Inc. for the Getty Petroleum
on the corner of 149 and Route 9L. We're tabling that, but we’re going to open up the public
hearing and leave it open.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-99 TYPE II DECKER & COMPANY, INC. OWNER: GETTY
PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: INTERSECTION
RT. 149 & 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING, GAS/DIESEL
CANOPIES AND SUBSTANTIAL SITE WORK FOR THE GETTY GAS STATION.
GASOLINE STATION IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE HC ZONE
AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 30-1999, SV 48-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/7/99 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION:
179-23
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-And the next item is Sandra Combs for Subdivision 9-1999. We are tabling
that as well. We're not going to open up the public hearing because she’s going to have to re-
advertise on that, right?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the third item is Site Plan No. 28-99 Calvary Assembly of God. That
also is being tabled tonight, and I’m not going to open up the public hearing on that one, only
because we feel that it’s going to have a lot of public interest. We’ll want to re-advertise that so
everyone’s totally notified on that. With that being said, lets move right along with the rest of the
agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 26-99 TYPE II WILLIAM & PENNY BLACK OWNER: SAME
ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: #13 FIELDING LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING COVERED BOATHOUSE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK. COVERED
DOCKS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL PER SECTION
179-16. LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-1999
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 12-1-12 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-
60
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-99, William & Penny Black, Meeting Date: June 22, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and construct an
open sided boathouse with a sundeck. The project is located in the waterfront zone and is within a
critical environmental area. The applicant has applied for an area variance for setback relief (AV 47-
1999, see attached resolution). Site Plan review and approval is required for a covered dock. Staff
Notes: The proposed project meets the code requirements for height and square footage for
construction. The proposed project is located in an area that is currently congested with homes,
boathouses, sundecks, and docks. There are no anticipated impacts on the neighborhood.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.”
MRS. MOORE-The County recommendation is “Approve with condition that stairs terminate on
the dock”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. I am Joe Roulier. I am representing Mr. William Black.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little about the project, Joe?
MR. ROULIER-Okay. I’ll tell you two things. First of all, the existing boathouse is a peaked
boathouse, approximately 16 and a half feet wide by 35 feet long. The proposal is to keep the
identical footprint, and actually take the peaked boathouse and put it down to a flat sundeck type of
boathouse. There’s no change in the overall, except for the height, which will be changed in terms of
the peak versus the rail. There is no significant change in the structure. We will be using the
identical footprint. Nothing has changed, either on the width or the length. Warren County asked us
not to have the stairs going down to the land, and we have agreed to have the stairs go from the
surface of the sundeck down to the dock itself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. From the mean high-water mark, the overall height is 12’6”?
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. BREWER-That is the mean high-water mark on this? That’s what I was trying to figure out. I
didn’t know if that was the elevation from the bottom of the deck, or is that from the water?
MR. ROULIER-Well, it’s difficult, this time, to come up with the actual setting of the water. It’s
determined up at Roger’s Rock, but in general, it runs about 12 to 14 inches below the surface of the
deck, okay, and that’s what that line represents.
MR. BREWER-So, 11’6”, all right, I see it here, 11’6” and a foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be on the elevation there, Tim, on the left-hand side, see the 12’6” from
the mean high-water line?
MR. BREWER-I was looking at the other map.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Joe?
MR. ROULIER-To be perfectly honest with you, we’re not asking anything that’s un-typical of the
area. There’s a boathouse to the west of it, and there was a boathouse to the east of it, both of them
of similar construction with the sundeck and the rail around the perimeter area that we’re not asking
for anything that’s un-typical of the area, and, to be perfectly honest with you, if you went up and
you looked at the structure that’s there, versus the structure that we will be building, it would be a
significant improvement to the neighborhood, but I think the most important aspect of it is not only
the visual aesthetic aspect of it, but the fact that it actually enhances the view of Mr. Black up the
lake, and it doesn’t encumber either Mr. Van Schaick to the west or the Sherry’s to the right. Any
other neighbors that are in that particular area of the Bay, unless you were to stand on an occasional
roof to the west, actually don’t even see it. As you come further up, of course, into Sandy Bay or
heading out onto Cleverdale, people in that area can certainly look back and see it, but aesthetically
and visually, it would be a major improvement to the people immediately adjacent to Mr. Black’s
property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-On the drawing, I noticed that the stairs do terminate at the dock. I’m wondering
why the County said approve with the condition that stairs terminate on the dock? My drawing
seems to show that your stairs do terminate on the dock, and I’m just questioning why Warren
County made that statement, since I can’t see it terminating any other place on the drawing.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. ROULIER-Okay. I was asked a similar question. Do you have the survey map that we
provided?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. ROULIER-When the elevations were initially drawn, they were drawn by an architect on Mr.
Black’s staff, and they indicated that the stairs were coming down to the surface of the dock.
Subsequent to those drawings, and per a conversation with Mr. Black, he indicated to me that he
wanted the stairs going from the surface of the boathouse down to the actual shore of the property,
because there’s a slight embankment of approximately five feet, and he thought it would be easier to
go from the shore up to the top of the surface. Because of the, for the lack of a better term, hang up
regarding Warren County, we have agreed to keep the stairs from the surface down to the surface of
the crib dock itself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Historically, Warren County turns them down, anything that goes from the roof
of a boathouse onto the land, they always want the stairs to go right down onto the dock surface.
MR. BREWER-I don’t remember ever, ever finding out why they did that. They just have always
done that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I don’t know why.
MR. ROULIER-To be honest with you, they’ve never provided, at least to me, a reasonable
explanation of that, and I know that in other instances where we’ve had relatively steep
embankments, and we’ve actually needed ramps, on grade ramps to the surface of it, they’ve even
said that they won’t accept anything like that, but the reason, the logic behind it has never been
provided to me.
MR. BREWER-We have approved them, and overridden them, too. That doesn’t necessarily mean
that that is the way it is, cast in stone, but that’s neither here nor there.
MR. ROULIER-They refer to it as a land bridge, and I really can’t provide the explanation to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been historical for as long as I've been on this Board. I don’t ever recall them
approving one. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-This drawing seems to reflect that these stairs go from the rooftop to the dock, and
not to the land.
MR. ROULIER-And that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s correct. So as far as I’m concerned, this drawing reflects, that’s what
this drawing reflects. So if this drawing was submitted after their comment is immaterial to me. The
drawing reflect what we want, though, as far as Warren County is concerned. So I’m happy with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to open up the public hearing on this application. If anyone
wants to come up and comment on this application, either for or against, you’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I have a written comment. It says “It’s okay with me”, and this is from Harley
Austin.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ROULIER-May I make another comment regarding that issue, of the comments? Mr. Van
Schaick, the neighbor to the west for the variance portion of this wrote in and said that he had no
objection to it. On the east side, Mrs. Sherry Kearns wrote in, and she said that she had no
objection, and there was also another gentleman, a Mr. Moore, I cannot tell you exactly where his
property is in that area, but he also wrote in and indicated that he had no objection, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-It appears that he’s right next door.
MR. ROULIER-It may be two removed from the Kearns.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. VOLLARO-That probably forms some of the basis for the variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals anyway, the variances.
MR. ROULIER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-If no one wants to come up and comment, we’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-99 WILLIAM & PENNY BLACK,
Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
As per prepared resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 26-99 to construct an open sided
boathouse with sundeck; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application & Maps – Elevations and Stair locations, Replacement, S-1 dated 3/11/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/22/99 - Staff Notes
2.
6/16/99 – ZBA resolution
3.
6/15/99 – Notice of Public Hearing
4.
6/9/99 - Warren Co. Planning
5.
6/4/99 - LGPC Notice of complete application
6.
6/3/99 - Meeting notice letter
7.
6/16/99 - Rec’d. from H. Austin – response to public hearing notice
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/22/99 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.
26-99 for William & Penny Black.
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 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Joe.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE PZ 2-99 TYPE: UNLISTED
RECOMMENDATION ONLY FOREST ENTERPRISES, INC. OWNER: RICHARD
SANDERSPREE CURRENT ZONING: EXPIRED QUAKER RIDGE/PUD
PROPOSED ZONING: SR-1A/MOBILE HOME OVERLAY APPLICANT PROPOSES
EXTENSION OF MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT. CROSS REFERENCE:
EARLTOWN PUD TOWN BD. REVIEW: RES. 164.99 OF 5/3/99 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 109-4-4 LOT SIZE: 54.45 ACRES
FRANK DE SANTIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Zone Change PZ2-99, Forest Enterprises, Inc., Meeting Date: June
22, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to rezone a parcel of land associated
with the Earltown PUD. The rezone is for an extension of the mobile home overlay district. The
underlying zoning of the parcel is Suburban Residential-One Acre (SR-1A). Staff Notes: The
proposed project is to operate a 154-unit mobile home park. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan
indicates this area is to be utilized for industrial purposes. The area has not been developed as either
residential or industrial because the area is part of a Planned Unit Development that has not been
acted upon.” And I have received a comment from them. “The County DPW is in the process of
reviewing the proposal in relation to the Warren County Airport. Recommendation: Staff does
not recommend a change of zone because it is not consistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
RICHARD SANDERSPREE
MR. SANDERSPREE-Good evening. My name is Richard Sanderspree. This is Frank DeSantis.
MR. DE SANTIS-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you. As Mr. Sanderspree said, my name is Frank DeSantis. I’m here on
behalf of the applicant. This is a petition to seek to have a single parcel, tax map parcel, incorporated
into the mobile home overlay district. I would take issue with one thing the Staff said, and I’m a little
bit surprised at it because we were here with Staff at a prior meeting, and Staff made a statement, at
that time, with Counsel’s opinion, that the PUD is no longer active.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. DE SANTIS-So I don’t know how the Staff could say this was part of the PUD. So I don’t
think that’s the case, and I would want that noted for the record. The PUD doesn’t exist, and Mr.
Schachner agreed with that last month. I've handed out to the Board, and I have a couple of extra
copies for the public, a summary of essentially what I’m going to say, because we don’t have a
stenographer and I know there’s going to be a great many comments made tonight and I want this
made part of the record.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s being recorded.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay, but this would cover the spots I miss, Mr. Chairman. Basically, as I've said,
this is a single tax map parcel, consisting of 54.45 acres. It lies on the westerly side of County Line
Road, and is adjoined on the north by the Warren County airport, and on the west and south by
other lands owned by the applicant. The site is currently vacant. It is clear, for the most part, with
some wooded areas along County Line Road and to the west and south. It is encumbered by a
navigation easement running from the airport, due to its proximity, which easement varies in its
height restrictions, but in no case could a home, which could meet the current zoning, be built to the
extent which the zoning would allow, which is 40 feet in this zone. It’s currently zoned Suburban
Residential One Acre, within which that zone, as you’re familiar, only allows one permitted use,
which is single family dwellings. The soils on the site are shallow and depth to bedrock is limited.
The wastewater systems upon this site for single family residences would, we believe of necessity
have to be of the raised mound type. I've attached to the submission a comparison report which was
prepared by C.T. Male, of the area necessary to support, they chose a minimal single family
subdivision of 28 lots on 55 acres, and compared that to the request for the 154, at total build-out,
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
mobile homes, and looked at both stormwater and wastewater. The wastewater is almost equal in its
impact, and the stormwater is somewhat higher with the 28 lots. If you move the subdivision
numbers up in the lower 40’s, about 42 it breaks even, the impact is the same. The reason for that,
basically, is because of the number of bedrooms in a mobile home versus what they use as a typical
four bedroom house, and the area that you need to support the raised mound systems. The plan, as
presented, would be phased into five separate phases of 30 lots each, approximately, each being
supported by its own wastewater and stormwater retention area. The proposed layout meets the
requirements of the mobile home ordinance, mobile home park ordinance, excuse me, which is on
the Town books and meets their setback from County Line Road of a 100 foot buffer before
anything could be built, and a 50 foot wide road for that distance, and then right-of-ways which
narrow down to 30 feet in width. The mention by Staff of the designation in the Master Plan of this
area as Light Industrial we’re aware of, but the very same limitations, site limitations which exist and
impact on single family home use would also impact, and we believe even to a greater degree, the
Light Industrial use, the height restrictions and the inability to essentially create a foundation that
would carry a great deal of weight on these shallow soils. Plus the fact that you have a limiting factor
in wastewater disposal on site. Additionally, following that through, the applicant looked at this
property, in the development sense of as zoned, and was also looking for something that provided
future flexibility. I mentioned that in my submission, and if this property were to be developed, even
with one single family residence and a parcel sold in fee simple absolute to that owner, and one
house were built, the ability of this property to act, more or less, as a transition zone from the
residential nature on the other side of County Line Road, and what the Town looks at as a Light
Industrial Zone, in the heart of this property, would be lost, in our opinion. A mobile home park, by
its legal nature of creating tenancies for the individuals in the park, provides some flexibility as to
future development internally, in that everyone is there on a one year lease, and if, in fact, it became
feasible or necessary or desirable to change the use of the property in some way, a legal avenue to do
so would exist, which would not exist if this were developed as a single family residential subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you elaborate on that? How do you figure?
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, the way I figure is that if an entity, the owner of the park, created a mobile
home park, the State law requires that everyone in a mobile home park be offered a one-year lease on
their lot. At that point in time, if at some point in the future the owner of the property decided to
terminate the use of the property as a mobile home park, he would have to follow the requirements
of State and Local law, if it applied, and provide everyone with adequate notice, but once the legal
requirements were met, the use of the property as a mobile home park could cease. That would
allow the property to be used in some other manner. I would submit, if the property were sold to
individuals, and they owned it in fee simple, the only way that could end is if someone bought it from
them, or if the property were taken in a condemnation proceeding. That avenue would not exist, I
believe, any other way, and that’s the flexibility that I’m referring to.
MR. MAC EWAN-But if we made a recommendation, and if it was followed through that it would
become a zone change, and now it becomes a mobile home overlay district.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s not a zone change. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, what happens is the
zoning remains the same. The property is included within the overlay district, and the overlay district
allows the property’s use as a mobile home park, and that park is as a result of an application to the
Town Board, again subject to a Site Plan Review by this Board, should the Town rezone the
property, to grant a license to the applicant. That license is for one year at a time. The applicant
comes back and the license is annually renewed.
MR. BREWER-To who? Who does the applicant come back to?
MR. DE SANTIS-The applicant would be whoever operates the mobile home park.
MR. BREWER-Understood, but who does he come to?
MR. DE SANTIS-To the Town Board.
MR. BREWER-Every year a mobile home has to come and renew their?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, sir. He has to come and file an application for a license, and that license is
renewable annually, and there’s a annual fee.
MR. BREWER-Is there a public hearing or such thing?
MR. DE SANTIS-For the license renewal?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t believe so, other than the fact that it’s on the agenda of the Town Board,
and is, of necessity, a public matter. I don’t believe there’s a separate scheduled public hearing.
There is a separate section of the Town law, Article II, Mobile Home Park, which deals with the
licenses and the issuances and the fees and so on. I have a copy here, and in that way, this area is
regulated by the Town continually. If there are some problems, the Town can refuse to renew the
license.
MR. BREWER-And in that instance, what happens if they refuse to? All those people have to
vacate?
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, probably, I don’t think that’s the case, but what would happen is the
applicant would have to come into compliance, or the Town could take enforcement measures which
are set out in the Ordinance.
MR. BREWER-Couldn’t the Town do that anyway, regardless of whether it’s a mobile home or a
home or whatever it is?
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t think they could do that on a single-family home dweller, unless they were
breaking some criminal code or something. I mean, I don’t want to pass on every situation possible,
but people don’t need a license to live in a single family home.
MR. BREWER-I understand that, but I’m saying if, for instance, someone lives in a home and
they’re not in compliance with the Town regulations, the Town can go after those people and use
enforcement. I don’t think any different than they can in a mobile home.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, without going into it, I wish I could give you a simple answer, but there’s,
well, you have an entity.
MR. BREWER-You might want to stick to it, because you’re saying that’s something somewhat of a
hammer the Town can hold over the head of the applicant.
MR. DE SANTIS-Absolutely. They have a license that they can refuse to renew.
MR. BREWER-And then what happens if they don’t renew it? Do the people have to leave?
MR. DE SANTIS-There are penalties in here, and as I said, if you’ll give me a second, I can refer
you, Chapter and Verse, to what’s here. There’s an inspection and enforcement provision. It’s
Section 113-21, for the record, of the Town Ordinance, that states that agents of the Town’s
Building and Code Enforcement Department and inspectors can, at any reasonable time, and
whenever they deem necessary to protect the public health and interest, to have access to the park,
and the owners, agents or operators are responsible for providing them access, and they have to
make an inspection every second year, and to investigate any complaints made, and to request that
the Town Attorney take appropriate legal action in all violations. Violators of the article are guilty of
a violation punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 or imprisonment for a term not to exceed 15 days
on each violation. So there’s actually a criminal enforcement provision in this Statute.
MR. BREWER-I see what you’re getting at.
MR. DE SANTIS-I agree that certainly the Building and Code Department can go out and inspect
other complaints or situations, but not always is there this degree of.
MR. BREWER-They’re unlike those rules.
MR. DE SANTIS-And I just have to refer to this. This happens to be the Town law, and anybody
who obtains a mobile home park license must comply with this statute.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Understood.
MR. VOLLARO-By your words it seems to intimate to me that you’re trying to paint the picture that
this is kind of a one year deal, renewable at the end of the year, every year. I’m just trying to
understand where you’re coming from. You get a mobile park and you get 150 some odd units in,
and at the end of the year, you reapply. You reapply for a license, is that correct?
MR. DE SANTIS-The owner or the operator of the park is required to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s required to do that, but that seems to me like almost a mechanical procedure.
You come in, and the mobile home park is not going to go away. Once it’s there, it’s there.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-I would agree with you that if there aren’t any violations or any complaints, it is
probably most likely mechanical.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and even if there is a violation, those violations are corrected. They’re
negotiated back and forth with the Board, or whatever happens, and being that there’s no public
hearing, or at least we don’t know whether there is, this application probably goes to Staff, and
maybe this Board will never see it.
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t think this Board would see it again.
MR. BREWER-No, we don’t see it.
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t mean to mislead you there. The Town Board provides the licensing. So
the application is made to the Town Board.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay. I don’t think you’d see it again, as a Board.
MR. VOLLARO-I know we wouldn’t. That’s a problem for me.
MR. DE SANTIS-What I was really implying was if at some point in the future that the applicant, or
the owner of the park, desired to change the use of the property, by abiding by the law and
terminating the leases, he could change the use of the property. That’s what I was referring to. The
one-year period is that the State law requires that the lease by not less than one year on a mobile
home lot.
MR. VOLLARO-In your opinion, what are the probabilities of that happening, that you terminate
the whole thing and it would all go away?
MR. DE SANTIS-I’m not able to give you percentages or numbers. I think it would be directly
related to the interest in the market and developing the property as sought by the Master Plan. I
would say that to you directly. If there’s a Light Industrial market out there that develops and comes
to light, then the probability increases. If it never comes to light, or it’s the same as it is today, the
probability is very low, and that’s my opinion only.
MR. BREWER-That were are specific rules that apply to a mobile home where there aren’t that
apply to a single family home.
MR. DE SANTIS-I think if you had 25 lots in there, you’d never be able to terminate the
subdivision, as a practical matter, without buying all the homes.
MR. VOLLARO-What he’s really saying, in my mind, is he’s got 155 houses in there, and I, as an
industrial developer, come to him and say, hey, this is really prime industrial property. I’m interested
in it. You’re at the end of your year. We can negotiate that you terminate that, you give your people
the one-year thing, and they’re out of here and I’m going to buy it from you.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, I’ll give you a more likely scenario. If you’re looking for one that’s more
likely. They don’t come and buy this property. They want to buy the property adjacent, which is far
more developable than this site, because of limitations, and they say, I don’t really want the 150
people coming to my site plan review public hearing and objecting.
MR. VOLLARO-To being tossed out. Effectively, that’s what you’re saying.
MR. DE SANTIS-And that’s as straight as I can tell you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know what I hear you saying? I hear that you’re coming in to us tonight
with a mobile home park for 150 sites, but yet.
MR. DE SANTIS-If it’s fully developed, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But yet your really not. In other words, instead of telling me all the reasons
why this is a good proposal and why it will work.
MR. DE SANTIS-I haven’t gotten to that yet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you really caught me off guard. In other words, you kind of digressed
from the whole purpose of why you’re here. Now you’re saying that well maybe I’ll sell it. Well, why
did you even buy this land? Why don’t you buy the land next door and sell it to somebody?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-We already own the land next door.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then sell it to somebody that wants to buy it, put in light industrial, to
put in something light industrial.
MR. DE SANTIS-There’s just not any interest for that use.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, but what I hear is, okay, we’re going to put 150 families in here, and
then all of a sudden we’ve got something better, so we’re just going to get rid of them.
MR. BREWER-I don’t hear that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it could happen.
MR. DE SANTIS-Absolutely. So why put anything on it now?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, because, quite candidly, that property has been part of master plans
characterizing it as it has been in the most recent master plan, since the mid 1980’s, and that market
doesn’t exist as we speak. This other market exists as we speak, and as I said to this gentleman, Mr.
Vollaro, that the probability of this changing is very low, unless that market develops. I mean, and if
it’s another 10 years, as it has been, or 15 years, since the first master plan came out and said, this
would make a great light industrial site, then this would be a use for the next 10 or 15 years, and
that’s only if someone comes along and wants this property. This property, as it exists, has severe
developmental limitations, in a physical sense.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could you give me a description?
MR. DE SANTIS-It doesn’t have much depth to bedrock. Foundations would need to be blasted
into the soil to be built. You cannot build a building very tall, because of the adjacency of the
airport. Forty feet is in the zone, but due to the aviation easement, depending on where you are on
the lot, the angle increases. You can build a taller building farther away, and a shorter building closer.
What we have here with a mobile home park, by the nature of that use, you don’t have foundations,
and you have single story structures.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d have the same thing with industrial development. You’d have a foundation,
single story structures, and very little septic to deal with. Right now you’ve got 155 septic tanks.
MR. DE SANTIS-You need foundations because most of your, or many, not all, many of your light
industrial uses are of a warehouse nature.
MR. VOLLARO-Just like a typical Butler Building would go on a slab.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, the slab wouldn’t necessarily support, what you have in a warehouse use
today, at least the market that we’re aware of, you have a high rack system. If you look at the
warehouses that are being built, and developed that we read in our local newspaper, they are not
single story structures, I would submit to you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, this doesn’t have to be a warehouse, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-To touch on what Mr. Vollaro said here regarding your 150 some odd trailer
units and septic systems, I think you said 15 to 30 of them would share a system, is that how that
would work?
MR. DE SANTIS-What you have, Mr. Chairman, is that the way the design is, is that 30 units would
share one septic disposal area, and that’s set out in this addendum, and what, C.T. Male has done the
design, and what we’re talking about is a wastewater disposal system, in this concept plan, that
services 30 units. It’s a raised mound system, due to the necessity on the soils, each of the areas
would have a 50% reserve area, and would come on line as the site was developed, as the demand
was developed.
MR. MAC EWAN-I want to interrupt you just for a second. As far as this addendum goes, or this
guide that you’ve given us tonight, I’m, personally, not going to take any of that under consideration,
because we haven’t had our consulting engineers had an opportunity to review those figures, which I
think is only fair and reasonable.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. DE SANTIS-I would not ask you to take them for rote. I’m just saying that, you’re asking me
what the concept is. At this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would the sewers be served by this, I mean, what kind of septic
arrangement would it be for these trailers?
MR. DE SANTIS-I guess I don’t understand your question. Each individual trailer would be piped
to the sewage disposal area, in groups of 30, which is a raised mound system.
MR. BREWER-So, in effect, they have their own sewer system.
MR. DE SANTIS-And that area is going to be controlled and operated by the park operator. I’m
trying to anticipate what your question is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, now you, before, were talking about there were single family residential,
you were talking, I think you said in the neighborhood of, what was it, 28 homes to be put in there,
roughly?
MR. DE SANTIS-On this he showed 28 homes as a minimal sort of subdivision. Each home would
require an 8100 square foot sewage disposal area of a raised mound type, for his calculation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay. Any other questions before I go on? Addressing just what the Chairman
said, both the stormwater and wastewater areas, because they’re controlled by the park operator, are
under the control of one entity, who is in charge of staying on top of the situation, and if there’s a
problem there’s one person to touch, that you know who to deal with, and that falls back into the
regulatory scheme of a mobile home park that I just described. Additionally, this Ordinance which I
have referred to requires that, should the area be made part of a mobile home overlay district, then
the applicant needs to apply for a license, and as part of this application, he has to submit an
environmental assessment. That’s required by the Town Ordinance, and that application, as I said,
must be referred, again by this Ordinance, back to this Board for its review, and that’s where the
technical data would be presented and analyzed by the Town’s professionals, and that process would
be addressed. I mentioned the annual licensing and review. Additionally, before this application
would be submitted as an application, if it were in the zone, the property would be entirely delineated
by the jurisdictional authorities of the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, with an eye to their jurisdictional wetlands. We've had
C.T. Male look at it. They don’t see any. If these folks see some, we’d have to address it. Again, the
stormwater control system which I haven’t mentioned, again, is designed to take care of all runoff on
the site. I would just state that it’s a matter of calculation, but even with a build-out of 154 units, and
all the roads, you’ve got basically 87% of the site is untouched, is green space. We're talking about
13% of the site being “developed” or made an impervious surface. That’s at total build-out.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s of the 54 acres?
MR. DE SANTIS-Of the 54 acres, right, we’re talking 13%, if you add up all the mobile homes, all
the driveways, all the roads, that’s what it is. Obviously, the sanitary sewage disposal system has to
meet the Town standards, Department of Environmental Conservation standards and the
Department of Health requirements. Because you’re going to need a SPDES Permit because you’re
disturbing more than five acres and you’ve got a discharge in excess of their gallon per day limit.
Again, both of these systems are going to be operated by one legal entity and subject to the annual
review of the Town. I've attached, as Exhibit A, mentioned the green space. Part of the application,
with the application itself, and there’s no sense in doing this at this point because it’s not part of the
zone, and you can’t even make an application, but you’d have a complete traffic study of its impact
on County Line Road, and County Line Road’s ability to handle it. Conceptually, the entrance has
been set up so that, in a location we believe has the best possible sight lines in both directions, and
has a two lane to the right sort of entrance way to minimize crossing the highway, and if you have
any other questions, the development would be, as I said, phased. We're talking about, essentially
opening up 30 lots at a time.
MR. RINGER-Have you done any market research on the need for a trailer park?
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes, sir.
MR. RINGER-What did you find?
MR. DE SANTIS-We found there is a need. I would just point out that what you have in the Town
of Queensbury, and this is just a historical fact, is that this Ordinance that I keep referring to was
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
adopted in February of 1986. It created your mobile home overlay district. There has not been one
addition to that district in the past 13 and a half years. It’s the same as it was then.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would tell me just the opposite, isn’t a need.
MR. DE SANTIS-Well, it would tell me that in fact the people that are in the business have all the
business there is. By that I mean, there is no other alternative for anybody other than to go into the
parks that exist.
MR. MAC EWAN-If I was in that business, and I wanted to increase my business and make my
business more valuable and make more income for myself, I’d approach the Town Board by either
increasing what I already have to make it a larger zone, or looking to put one in in some other part of
the Town.
MR. DE SANTIS-There’s one other alternative that I would suggest to is you raise the lot rent, and
that does exactly what you’re saying, if that’s your goal.
MR. RINGER-What’s the occupancy of the trailer parks that are?
MR. DE SANTIS-Those figures, I’m not privy to those. They’re all private entities. I don’t know.
MR. SANDERSPREE-Between the two larger ones, I believe there’s approximately, if I remember
correctly, there’s approximately 300 sites, I believe. If you drive through them, you’ll see that there’s
perhaps maybe six, ten spaces.
MR. RINGER-Six vacant out of three hundred you’re saying?
MR. SANDERSPREE-Six, ten, somewhere in that neighborhood.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask Staff a question. How far has County DPW gone with their
investigations at the Warren County Airport?
MRS. MOORE-They did provide a comment. Do you want me to read that into the record?
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets hold it off until we open up the public hearing. Anything else? Any
questions from up here on the Board?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do the mobile home parks that are already in existence in the Town have to
renew their license every year?
MR. SANDERSPREE-Yes.
MR. DE SANTIS-All of the parks, as far as I, I don’t know if they are or they aren’t. I mean, I
haven’t investigated that, but this Ordinance says that the parks, and you need to be of a certain size
to come in, under the umbrella of the Ordinance. We're not talking about every mobile home.
We're talking about parks which require a certain acreage, and a certain number of homes. So, yes, I
think there are a great many smaller parks that probably aren’t subject to this Ordinance.
MR. RINGER-How many parks are there in Queensbury?
MR. DE SANTIS-I don’t have an exact count. There’s about seven, what I would call large ones,
and there’s one on the easterly side of the Northway, and that’s the one that is the Lake George RV
Park above 149.
MR. RINGER-How about the one on Montray Road, or Sweet Road there, there’s a little park.
MR. DE SANTIS-That’s what I meant by a larger one. I’m not talking about every.
MR. BREWER-I don’t think there’s more than a dozen in there.
MR. DE SANTIS-Yes. I think there’s less than 10 homes in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? Gentlemen, could we ask you
to give up the table for a few minutes, and we’ll open the public hearing. If anyone wishes to come
up and comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so. The only thing we’d ask you to do is
please identify yourself for the record, and any questions you have, you can direct them right here
toward the Board, and we’ll try to get them answered for you.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BARB FRENYEA
MRS. FRENYEA- My name is Barb Frenyea, and I’m a resident of Queensbury Avenue, not County
Line Road. That was corrected years ago. So I don’t know what, I think he’s talking about
Queensbury Avenue, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s correct.
MRS. FRENYEA-Okay. I wondered if either of these gentlemen planned on living in a trailer park,
or if they want their privacy and their neighborhood to be intact as they bought their property to be.
We built our house 14 years ago, and at the time when I approached the Town of Queensbury, we
were in the middle of leaving a four bedroom ranch and building a large four bedroom colonial, and
we sold our house so fast we needed a place to store things. You don’t know what I went through in
order to enable us to build a storage barn of some nature, and I was like, do you really think we’re
going to put up a $300,000 home and have an eyesore of a storage shed? I mean, what I went
through for that was ridiculous, and now they’re going to, almost directly across the street from us,
put a trailer park of numerous homes. I've been teaching 27 years. I've experienced some great
moments with children that have been trailer dwellers, but I could probably count, on both my
hands, the number of children that were in stable households with double income, double parents,
genetic parents, okay, not people that are rotating in and out. A lot of them I've wanted to take
home with me because I didn’t like the lifestyle they were being put in, and I’m sorry those, I mean, I
know some people really will upkeep their trailers maybe, but I don’t want to take the risk and have
to look at that, and if they think that they’re going to put this up and maybe some day have violations
and have to vacate, we’ve already depreciated the neighborhood by changing the looks of the area.
What are we going to do then? It’s like the guy, when I was growing up, that cut down the trees so
the Montcalm sign could be seen from the Northway. What are they going to make Alfred put them
back up? He wasn’t Johnny Appleseed. Once the trees were gone, he has a sign full view from the
Northway. What’s done is done and you can’t undo a situation of this nature. I thought it was a
zoning issue, not a, what’s the terminology you’re using instead of zoning?
MR. MAC EWAN-An overlay zone.
MRS. FRENYEA-Okay. If this is the situation that we’re going to be thrown at, we don’t have
numbers, because we’re separated by acreage, but we have some very strong feelings on what we
want on that street and what we don’t. Right now it’s been a problem with the speed limit. Like I
said, we’ve lived there 14 years and there have been over 10 accidents in front of our house on the
curb, due to the speed. We’ve had a report, and we’ve had problems with 911 getting them to come
to the rescue of people involved. I can’t tell you the number of people that have been in the gully in
front of our house. It’s just been ridiculous with the speed and the traffic that has changed. We used
to be able to let our kids cross the road to get the mail. I’m taking my life in my hands if I want to
get the mail. I have to be fast and furious. It’s already a very overpopulated area compared to the
way it was 15 years ago when we initiated building on the property, and I really hope you consider
the voices of the people that are dwellers now, not look ahead at the people that are going to be in
and out in 365 day turnaround, perhaps. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else?
LAWRENCE LEMERY
MR. LEMERY-My name is Lawrence Lemery. I live at 218 Queensbury Avenue. When I first
moved up there, 24 years ago, I could get out of my driveway. I’m right across from where they
want to put the park. Now I can’t even get out of my driveway with my car. I've almost gotten hit
four or five times, and people have been knocking, I've lost 11 mailboxes in 24 years, and they want
to put a trailer park across from me? The lights are going to be shining right in my place and my
neighbor’s, and I don’t think we need a trailer park. If they want a trailer park, let them put it in their
front yard, not our front yard. That’s all I've got to say. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
CHARLIE NASSIVERA
MR. NASSIVERA-Charlie Nassivera, County Line Road, or Queensbury Avenue, whatever. Has the
airport’s division of the FAA been notified, to your knowledge?
MR. MAC EWAN-The FAA?
MR. NASSIVERA-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but the Warren County has been notified of this application, and they’re
researching it.
MR. NASSIVERA-This is, the 50 acres, is that in the flight path?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-A portion of it is.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s six-tenths of a mile from the end of the north/south runway.
MR. NASSIVERA-Okay. I think somebody should call airports. I’m guessing, but there may be 150
dwellings a little unusual that close to the end of the runway. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, and
for my personal viewpoint, 155 units on less than 10 acres, 13% of 54 acres is roughly 10 something,
right? I can’t do that in my head, but that’s crowded too much, in my estimation, and also I agree
with Mrs. Frenyea and Mr. Lemery about the traffic situation and so on, but the condensing of that
many trailers on less than 10 acres, I think, is objectionable. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Thank you.
SUSAN BAYER
MRS. BAYER-I’m Susan Bayer. I live at 224 Queensbury Avenue, and I’d also like to register the
same complaint about the traffic. The SPCA, a few years ago, tried to build a building not too far up
the road and were turned down because of possible traffic increases. One hundred and fifty-five
residents, probably two cars each, school buses, with an entrance on a hill, around a curve, where
there is an average of two accidents every year, in front of the Frenyea’s house, our house, I call 911,
they say, hello Mrs. Bayer, how are you tonight. That’s our objection.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much.
RON MONTESI
MR. MONTESI-Mr. Chairman, I’ll have an answer for you. The Warren County Airport Committee
meets Tuesday. I co-chair that Committee. I’m Ron Montesi, County Supervisor, and I’ll get that
information to you and I think your Staff has an opinion, briefly, of Warren County’s comment, but
we’ll have an FAA ruling for you. The only other comment I can make to you is that we, too,
Warren/Washington County, are in the industrial development, as you know, and one of the biggest
detriments to that is not the market. It’s our inability to provide sewers for that property that is
zoned Light Industrial, and in the case of the property along County Line Road, adjacent to each
residence, there is no sewer. There’s, we’re wrestling with expanding that sewer treatment plant
down at the industrial park, and there’s a proposed plan right now, with some funding coming from
the State, to expand that sewer line right up County Line Road. That may make a big difference in
what that land’s ultimate use is, in terms of light industrial zoned. I do have some concerns about
putting 155 houses that close to the end of a runway, and I don’t know whether it meets FAA
Regulations or not, but it’s just a concern about maybe seeing an airplane go wayward in that
particular area. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Thank you.
GARY BRUNNELL
MR. BRUNNELL-Gary Brunnell, 2334 Queensbury Avenue. I've got a couple of concerns. One’s
traffic, of course. It happens to be the only 55 mile an hour or plus in the area. Quaker Road is 45.
The people that take our road are people that want to get to work in a hurry, because they can go
from Dix Avenue up to our road and go to any place in Queensbury, Lake George, wherever they
want, at 60, 70 miles an hour, plus, we have water tankers that come by, and I've seen, I don’t know
how many times, water spilling out of them on their front wheels or over the double solid lines. My
wife can attest to that. They’re going to really hurt somebody sometime. There’s no speed limit
there, for these tractor trailers, and if anybody wants to sit in my driveway, and go out and get my
paper in the morning, God bless them, and also, if you built some sort of road across from Whity
Lemery’s, and they’re cooking down through there, you’re going to get dead people, and plus, I’d
kind of like to know where, there’s wetlands down in there. Where do these septics and all these
come into play with the wetlands? Because as I remember before, they couldn’t build down in there
because they’ve got 900 acres all the way over to Ridge Road, or something like that. You could not
build golf courses and all that because I think 800 acres were, or maybe 700, who knows, but that is
Class A Wetlands. The septics, if they ever leak or anything, then you’re telling me, or these people
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
are telling me, a year down the road they’re going to build all these things. Then they’re going to
cancel them, move everybody out, put something else in there. What is this? Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome, thank you. Anyone else?
MRS SKELLIE
MRS. SKELLIE-Good evening. I’m Mrs. Skellie, and I live across the street from Barb Frenyea.
Last year there were three people that went off the road. One took the pole down. One hit my
porch and was buried in the snow, and there was another car that turned over there. I work at the
Glens Falls Hospital, and on my way home, I have to sit at the corner of Dix Avenue and Quaker
Road, on Queensbury Avenue for four lights in order to get to my home. The traffic is bad, really
bad, and I would like to comment on the gentleman’s, I’m very angry and I’m trying to keep my
temper, I’m appalled that he would tell 125 people or 154 people that they have homes and then
when he gets a better bargain, throw them out, and I think it’s very bad.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
SUE NASSIVERA
MRS. NASSIVERA-My name is Sue Nassivera, and I live at 148 Queensbury Avenue. I, too, am
concerned about the traffic on that road. I’m a runner and a bicyclist. I have to get in my car in
order to run or ride my bike because I cannot do it on my road. There are no shoulders. There’s too
much traffic. In addition to the water tankers, that go seven days a week from six a.m. to eleven-
thirty at night, there are all kinds of tractor trailers from the Industrial Park, and there have been
several accidents on that road. I also am concerned about what this will do to the tax base of the
Town of Queensbury. I think we need to consider that these 155 trailers are basically renters who
pay no taxes in the Town of Queensbury, no property, no school taxes. So where is that additional
funding going to come from, other than from the taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury? Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. The first question I’ll ask is how long ago was this taken?
STAN RYMKEWICZ
MR. RYMKEWICZ-You probably don’t remember me. My name is Stan Rymkewicz. I live at 300
Queensbury Avenue. That picture is of an airplane that landed on our farm north of the airport in
that “V” that you’re talking about the air rights. We were involved with the northern part of the “V”.
That was one airplane that just went up and just came right down, just crossed Hicks Road into our
cornfield. Luckily that guy wasn’t killed. I have a picture here of three Wells children that were killed
in 1991 on our property. The airplane went up, turned around, and hit another plane. This plane
went to the left and down on our property. Three kids were killed and one pilot. The other plane
went on the other side of County Line Road, and those two people were burned up and eventually
died. You have to consider an airplane crash. My bosses’ son was killed in New York three years
ago, where two planes came together and came down on a factory, and he was burned up and it took
90 minutes to get him out. So, it’s one big thing to consider is an airplane crash, an airplane fire, on
top of, well, even 10 mobile homes with people in them or kids in them. So I just wanted to bring
that to your attention.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-John Strough. I just downloaded, there’s 130 pages from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, the National Technical Information Service, in reference to aviation noise effects, and
I’m not going to belabor the highly technical information, and I think you can guess the bottom line,
is that they do not recommend that we locate residential areas near airports, that, ultimately, they’re
going to be a problem. Most specifically, they address the noise in this particular article. Just to give
you an example, rustling leaves is 20 dba, and a jetliner is 115. There’s the spectrum. Generally
speaking anything around an airport it does exceed 80, and they recommend that anything above 75,
that a residential area not be located in that area, and HUD also has a note in there. I’ll read this to
you. It’s a short paragraph. It says, “Both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Veteran’s Administration have issued noise regulations. The purpose of the HUD Regulations is
to protect individuals from noise in their communities, and places of residence. Basically, HUD
policy states that HUD assistance is prohibited for projects with unacceptable noise exposure levels
above 75 dB, and it discouraged for projects with normally unacceptable noise exposures”. So, like I
said, there’s 130 pages reinforcing this basic premise, and that is, residential areas and airports don’t
mix. Thank you.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. John, could I ask that you leave that with Staff, and make it part of
the record, please? Can we do that?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN CAFFRY
MR. CAFFRY-For the record, I’m John Caffry. I’m representing the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition. I
appeared here last month when the same applicant was in front of you for their proposed subdivision
over on Ridge Road, and I have some of the same concerns on behalf of my clients about this same
proposal. Those include the segmentation of the review of the re-planting or re-development of the
900 acre Earltown property that’s now owned by Forest Enterprises, which is basically a lot of the
same people, and first they came here a month ago on the Ridge Road subdivision, and I brought up
the issue of segmentation of whatever other projects might be floating around out there, whatever
else they may have planned, and they did not mention to me, I don’t know about to you, certainly
not during the meeting, that they were also proposing this trailer park. I think it’s abundantly clear
now that they’re trying to piecemeal the environmental review of their development plans, and that
it’s incumbent on the Town, at some level for one of the Town agencies involved to become a lead
agency and require them to do a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the entire property,
and to put all their cards on the table and if they don’t have a firm plan yet to do it on a conceptual
basis, that’s what Generic Impact Statements are for. That way you can address the wetlands issues
in a comprehensive fashion. You can address the traffic issues in a comprehensive fashion. If they
come in with a traffic study on just this trailer park, and then a year later they come in with another
development down the street, where they have more property, the first traffic study is basically going
to mean nothing. They ought to be doing this on a build-out basis so you can look at the maximum
impact that their entire re-development may have, and I think that piecemealing this in this fashion is
quite clearly contrary to SEQRA. We just recently had a segmentation case around here where the
County Sewer project for Lake George was put on hold by the courts because the County segmented
the review. They didn’t look at the Hague portion and the Bolton portion and the Queensbury
portion altogether, and the court put the whole thing on hold, said go back and do it all over again
and do it right this time, and that’s what we think this applicant should do. Mr. DeSantis mentioned
the Army Corps of Engineers delineation process. He didn’t mention that in connection with Ridge
Road, and I raised it at that time. I think it makes no sense to be rezoning property until you know
whether or not it can be developed. A lot of this piece here is a hill. Chances are there isn’t that
much wetlands on it, but until they have done the wetlands delineation for their entire holdings,
under the Army Corps of Engineers’ rules, there’s really no point in the Town approving anything
there until you know what they can do. They had this problem down by Quaker Road probably 15
years ago now, 13 years ago. The Town approved the commercial subdivision where the Sportline
Honda is now, and all those gazebos from the garden place, and it was outside the DEC wetlands,
and nobody opposed it, including myself and other people in the Big Cedar Swamp Coalition. We
said, it’s outside the DEC Wetlands. It’s probably not a wetlands problem. Well, lo and behold
when Sportline Honda went to go in there, and the Army Corps delineation was done, it turned out
that much of that part of the property was a wetlands under the Army Corps of Engineers’, and it
was a real mess, as Mr. Lapper, who is here, can attest to, since represented the Honda people. So,
why this applicant is trying to go forward and get approvals of any sort, until they’ve done a Corps
delineation, I have no idea, but I would ask the Town to require that, and I know Mr. Rymkewicz,
when he sold part of the farm he just discussed previously, the applicant there was Crayford & Higgs,
and the Town required them to get an Army Corps delineation before this Board would approve the
subdivision, and we think, again, that ought to be required by the Town, even before you issue a
recommendation on this thing, you ought to require them to get that delineation done. Beyond the
issue that apply across the entire property, there are a number of concerns about this particular
project, some of which have already been mentioned. It’s clearly contrary to the new master plan.
You like to think that the people who work so long and hard on the master plan knew what they
were doing when they said this should be Light Industrial and not Single Family Residential. Mr.
DeSantis said, well, nobody’s come and offered to buy it for Light Industrial all these years. Well, it’s
been zoned residential. Why would they? If the master plan process and the rezoning that the
Town’s going to undertake on the master plan process leads to industrial zoning, then maybe they’ll
find someone interested there. You may still have traffic problems and all, but if you want to look at
consistency with your master plan, this project clearly is not. In 1991, the Airport had a master plan
done, and from the maps in there, and I don’t quite understand the legal ramifications of all of them,
but this property is under what is called either a runway protection zone or an approach zone or
something like that, under the airport master plan, and it’s clearly in the flight path, as one
approaches that north/south runway, and I think before this Board, again, does anything, there
ought to be some definitive decisions made as to what legal restrictions apply, aside from this height
easement that already applies there. On the drawings that you have before you, you’ll notice there’s
only one area of the property, I think it’s the northwest corner, that they show as being mapped as a
DEC wetland. Where the Army Corps boundary is remains to be seen, but the wetlands are basically
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
to the west of this property, and what you see on their plan there is a lot of stormwater basins right
there, a lot of wastewater discharge basins right there. The wastewater they said will be raised mound
systems. Assuming they work, there may or may not be an impact to the wetlands, unless and until
they fail, but the stormwater basins all have a discharge point. If the soils are as shallow as they say,
they’re not going to, the stormwater is not going to recharge to the groundwater in those basins, and
before anybody, again, recommends anything, we ought to know where that water is going out of
those stormwater basins, whether they plan on dumping it in the wetland or what are they going to
do with it? I also, from looking at the Earltown Environmental Impact Statement and plans at that
time, Earltown, when it was the developer, most of this site they proposed to put into golf courses.
Only the extreme fringes of it, were they going to have any development, and my recollection is, I
didn’t have time to read the whole six volumes of the thing and find the answer, but my recollection
is that Earltown did that because of the concern for potential conflicts with the airport, and they did
not want to be building houses under the flight path of the airport. One problem you run into, even
if it doesn’t violate any rules, the noise is going to bother the people who live there. Whether they’re
in single family homes, whether they’re in trailers, the noise is going to bother them, and there’s
going to be complaints, and then if the airport ever wants to expand or the airport level of operations
ever increases, there’s going to be complaints from people living there. That’s one reason why
residential development is discouraged around airports is so that you don’t get those kinds of
conflicts in use. If you have 150 people living there, and there is some proposal to increase traffic at
the airport, you might get 150 people at a hearing objecting, and I don’t think the County, or
anybody else, would really want to run into that kind of problem, if they’re proposing to expand the
airport. Mr. DeSantis talked about the shallow depth to bedrock and all the problems that (lost
words) for septic systems. Well, with all these mobile homes, they all have to have a pipe coming out
of the mobile home leading to the wastewater disposal system, which is going to have to be a raised
mound system. We don’t even know, at this point, if there’s enough soil there to bury the pipes deep
enough so they don’t freeze. This is a very sketchy application. There’s no detail here, and I don’t
see how they can expect this Board to make a recommendation without giving you that level of detail
to answer these questions. With regard to the height of industrial buildings, I think if you go over to
the existing industrial park buildings, some of them are pretty tall. Some of them are more one story
types of things, and I assume that if this were to become industrial, the height limitations would be
taken into account, but that doesn’t mean you can’t build industrial there, and as Mr. Montesi said,
there’s the possibility that if light industrial were to go in there, there’s a possibility that they’d put
sewers in in one of two ways. Another thing that Mr. DeSantis was saying, well, we’re going to do all
these traffic studies later, after you rezone it. That’s a clear example of segmentation. If you’re going
to rezone in order to facilitate a particular project, you have to do your SEQRA hard look at the time
of the rezoning. You can’t rezone it and say, we’ll look at all that stuff at the permit stage. I just won
a case in court down in Dutchess County where a Board did exactly that thing and we had to go to
court, and we got overturned and they’re going to have to go back and do it all over again. It’s very
clearly something that you can’t allow applicants to only give you the information after the rezoning.
It has to be done at the time of the rezoning. In conclusion, we’d like to ask that the Board either
recommend denial of this application or else table it until such time as the applicant has come
forward with the proper degree of information to address all these concerns. I don’t think they can
expect this Board or the Town Board to take action on this application, given the sketchy level of
information they’ve provided so far. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. MONTESI-Ron Montesi. I guess there’s something to be learned here tonight. I will promise
the folks, Wednesday I have a Sheriff’s meeting. We will have some radar patrols for the next week
or two on that road. If you’re a resident, be warned. This happened a few years ago on Garrison
Road. All the neighbors asked to slow it down, and five of the eight people we caught the first
morning were residents. So, I don’t want to make an enemy of you, but lets try that, and the second
thing is perhaps that speed limit ought to be looked at at 45. It is a County road. So that does all
into our jurisdiction. The last point that John Caffry made, and I was on the opposite side of the
table when that was happening. I was a member of the Planning Board when Earltown was coming
through, or trying to come through. The mitigation that has to go on with the Army Corps of
Engineers, I spent two years on the Warren County Economic Development Board, the IDA, in
developing an industrial park of 110 acres. We’ve already mitigated 30 of those acres, and that’s just
with the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Conservation, Land Conservation, is still
looking at their jurisdictional needs. So that’s a very, very important step to have to start out in the
beginning. I don’t know. I didn’t think that on 160 acres I’d have to give up 60 for mitigation, but
who knows what this 54 acres may bring, and I think those are the orderly steps we should be taking.
Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
STEVE STEADMAN
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. STEADMAN-I’m Steve Steadman, and I live on County Line Road almost 20 years, and I’m
pleased to meet my neighbors tonight who I haven’t seen in 20 years. It’s that kind of road, and I,
too, am a survivor of the road crossing, and I’m trying to, when I first heard this, I’m trying to
imagine 150 to 200 more cars going by my house every morning. It’s already pathetic. The speed
limit on that road is 55 miles an hour 10 feet from the Dix Avenue stop sign. It doesn’t decrease
anywhere, and I have two young kids, and I’m really concerned about an increase in traffic. One of
the hot air balloon photos that what’s his name takes, my home is in that picture, and when you see
the balloons and land, and what’s not there is that, in the photo, and I’m in no mood to see that. It’s
my understanding, Frank, PUD or whatever it was, is, had it zoned as Light Industrial on land that
you couldn’t do light industrial because the building would sink, and they’re proposing this tonight?
From what I understood. Plus, I thought I heard the airport said, no, or not a good idea earlier, and
Mrs. LaBombard asked for the positive things we need to hear as residents, as to why we should
think this is a good idea, and to the golf course, I had my clubs shined ready to do Earltown, but it
didn’t happen. So, I am 100% opposed to this whole plan. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Thank you. Anyone else?
WILLIAM MANN
MR. MANN-My name is William Mann. I’m at 162 Queensbury Avenue, and all my neighbors have
been up here before me, and they’ve put it more eloquently, probably, than I can, and I agree with
everything they’ve said, but I just wanted to come up and go on record as being opposed to this, too.
Right from the word “traffic”, to anything that’s been said about, to me, that looks like an awful
crowded little buildings on 55 acres, myself, and I can’t, and I notice it’s all right out along the road,
where you should be able to see most of it, and I can’t see, I can’t follow their proposal for sewage at
all. If there’s not enough dirt on top of the rock to put anything else, how can you put that stuff
there? I guess that’s all I've got to say, but I agree with everything that’s been said before me. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? You have comments from Warren
County?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. This is addressed to Laura Moore “Dear Laura E. Moore, Assistant
Planner: Warren County would like to express their concerns with the proposed zoning change on
the West Side of County Line Road. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires all airport
sponsors to comply with and meet the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). FAR Part 77 establishes
standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace. The attached Runway 1 Approach Plan
and Profile show the Forest Enterprises, Inc. parcel proposed for re-zoning outlined in pink. Within
this parcel Warren County has an existing tree clearing easement, which is outlined in green. The
limit of runway protection zone also falls within the Forest Enterprises parcel this is outlined in blue.
Guidelines for land use adjacent to an airport are strongly influenced by FAR Part 77. Particularly
under runway approaches are buildings, towers, terrain, trees, etc. undesirable and no structure
should be allowed within the runway protection zone for safety reasons. Due to the proximity of
this parcel to Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport we feel the requested zoning change could conflict
with the Airport Master Plan and could potentially become a safety issue. Thank you for allowing
our comments. Respectfully yours, Lisa A. Penistan Assistant Engineer WARREN COUNTY
DPW”
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming by that there’s a map there that says what the tree cutting is? Does
anyone else want to come up and speak?
MRS. MOORE-I’ll just make a note. John Caffry submitted other information. Do you want that
read into the record? You had letters addressed to Mr. MacEwan on June 2, and you had a letter
nd
addressed to Wayne LaMothe?
MR. CAFFRY-No, I addressed all that stuff.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. DeSantis, could I get you to come back up here. Are you aware of this
correspondence from Warren County regarding the easement that they have on that parcel?
MR. DE SANTIS-I am not. The first I've heard of it is right now, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that I
be allowed to have a copy of it.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything else that you wanted to add to your presentation?
MR. DE SANTIS-I tried to make a note of what everybody said. I would just also ask that,
Supervisor Montesi made reference to an opinion that he was going to seek from the FAA, and if
that opinion is made available to this Board, I would ask this Board to ask Staff to provide the
applicant with a copy, and just as a generic statement, we certainly have tried to take into
consideration everything that everyone has said. Some of the matters that were raised are within the
applicant’s control, and some of them, obviously, are not, concerning the speed limits and the traffic
and items such as that. As I said, this is a rezoning in the sense that it’s a request to be included in a
zone that allows us to make an application. It is a different animal than the standard sort of rezoning
request where this happens right at that point. So I can understand some of the request to have all of
the information here all with a big ribbon on it, at this point in time, but given the nature of the
overlay district, and the Ordinance that’s behind it, it’s a little bit of the chicken and the egg.
Certainly, some of the requests, or all of the requests and the end result are legitimate, and the
information should and will be provided, but given the nature, as I said, of the way this scheme is set
up with an overlay zone, it seems a bit premature to the applicant at this time, but certainly we will
do what we can to satisfy the Board’s questions, given the nature of the scheme, the regulatory
scheme that exists.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Just one. Has the applicant done any investigation with the FAA at all?
MR. DE SANTIS-We have prior information from the FAA. We have not done any current
investigation with them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I've talked to them pretty extensively, and.
MR. DE SANTIS-The existence of, these easements have existed for quite a while.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not easements I’m talking about. There’s an off airport development
requirement, and it’s Form 7460-1, which requires anybody who’s going to develop anywhere near an
airport to fill that out, and that goes out to the airport development office down in Garden City,
New York. Ron, you were talking about that. I used to be in this racket at one time. So I called
some people that I know, and that 7460-1 definitely applies because of the distance south of the
runway, is six-tenths of a mile, and the form number is 7460-1, and I can give you the names of the
people and the telephone numbers and their locations, if you want.
MR. DE SANTIS-We were aware of the six-tenths of a mile. I wasn’t able to quote you the form
number, but we have not contacted them with the idea of the development. Again, as I said, if we
were coming here with a site plan application, that’s what you’d have.
MR. BREWER-No way do I want to make any kind of a decision tonight. I want to absorb what we
have, receive all the other information, and come back.
MR. RINGER-I agree with that.
MR. DE SANTIS-I would just like, if I could get copies of what’s been presented, and certainly I
would ask that we be allowed to comment on that once we’ve seen it. There’s some items here
tonight that we haven’t seen, and I’ll present that to the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-What other items would you be looking for that we didn’t get tonight?
MR. BREWER-I would want to look at the stuff that Mr. DeSantis gave us tonight. We're going to
check on information from Warren County. I want to receive that information and look at it before
I even entertain thinking about making a decision or a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. RINGER-I’d like to see that Airport Master Plan that John Caffry was talking about.
MR. SCHACHNER-You also have, I believe, the applicant’s counsel saying that he believes that
believes that they have not been provided with copies of some of the information that you all have
been provided with, and he wants copies of it and wants an opportunity to respond, which is an
extremely fair, reasonable request, and, as a matter of law, he’s entitled to these documents.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what I’m going to do is change my mind here, and leave the public
hearing open, instead of closing it.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave that open for the next time. Are you taking down what we’re looking
for here, Laura? The Airport Master Plan, Mr. DeSantis would like copies of this Warren County
Department of Public Works memo to you, and this delineation that they’ve made on the tax map
regarding the easements that the airport has for right-of-ways.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BREWER-I would make a suggestion that any correspondence that we’re going to have, as a
practice, I would like them a certain date before the meeting, so that we don’t come into a meeting
where there’s opposition to a project, and everybody starts handing us things, like so many times has
happened.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I agree with you.
MR. BREWER-If anybody’s going to send anything in, I would like to have it in plenty of time to
read and digest and have with us at the night of the meeting and not get letters and all that the night
of the meeting because then it just delays everything again.
MR. DE SANTIS-Point well taken.
MR. BREWER-Not necessarily you.
MR. DE SANTIS-No, we’re guilty of it. We got the stuff from the engineer late, and we didn’t
submit it early enough.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about that we do this. We table this application until our August the 17
th
meeting, and any correspondence that the public would want or opposing counsel would want to
submit, be submitted to Staff no later than August the 6, by end of business. That’ll give them a full
th
week to review and get the packets available to Planning Board members for review as well.
Reasonable?
MR. DE SANTIS-It’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. DE SANTIS-You said August 6, correct?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-August 6 as a deadline for submission.
th
MRS. MOORE-He’s supposed to submit information to this Board by?
MR. MAC EWAN-We're going to table this application to our first regular meeting in August, which
is August the 17. We're going to give him, opposing counsel, any of the public who wants to
th
submit any kind of information to until August the 6.
th
MR. BREWER-Don’t we usually have our packets by then, though, Craig? Why not do it normal
like we do, the last Wednesday of the month for a zillion years?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I was going to say, the last Wednesday of the month, which is July 28.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, then. Okay. We're all in agreement on that, then?
MR. DE SANTIS-So the submission date is July 28. The meeting is August 17.
thth
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. DE SANTIS-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. With that, we’ll make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE P2-99 FOREST
ENTERPRISES, INC., Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MR. DE SANTIS-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-99 TYPE: UNLISTED DUNHAM’S BAY BOAT & BEACH CLUB
OWNER: JOHN, JR. & KATHLEEN SALVADOR ZONE: WR-1A, CEA, APA
LOCATION: 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A HANDICAP AND EMERGENCY ACCESS FACILITY FOR LAUNCHING OF
WATERCRAFT. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 4-1-11 LOT SIZE: 3.0 ACRES SECTION 179-60
JOHN & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-99, Dunham’s Bay Boat & Beach Club, Meeting Date: June 22,
1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a boat launch structure for
handicap and emergency access. The Code requires site plan review and approval for hard surfacing
within 50 feet of the shoreline, Section 179-60 of the Code. Staff Notes: The applicant currently
launches watercraft from an unimproved area along the beach. The launch will be utilized by patrons
of the Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club. In addition, the launch will be open to the public for
handicap accessibility and emergency access. The Lake George Park Commission is reviewing the
application, no comments have been received. Recommendation: Staff would recommend
approval of the proposed launch with the condition the use and the construction is in compliance
with the Lake George Park Commission and other regulatory agencies.”
MRS. MOORE-The County has approved their recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only other thing I’d like you to read in is the letter from the applicant, May
24. Do both of them, would you please? The May 7 one and the May 24 one.
ththth
MRS. MOORE-I’ll start with the May 7 one. This is “Dear Chris: As mentioned previously, we are
th
intent on building a handicapped and emergency services access facility on our waterfront property
abutting Dunham Bay. The attached sketch shows the proposed location and its relationship to the
means of ingress and egress. This facility will be located wholly on Tax Parcel 4-1-11, which is
presently located in a WR-1A Zone, as well as one of the Town’s Vestal Regulation zones. In
addition, the proposed project location will be within the Lake George Park Commission’s CEA on
Lake George. None of the proposed construction will infringe upon any part of the public lands,
and all construction and land disturbances will be south of the present seawall location and therefore
above the shoreline. As such, the proposed project will not be within the APA’s recent established
zone of the Deep Water Marsh on Dunham Bay. The navigable waters of the United States and
those of New York State are well beyond the project location, and finally, there will be no wetlands
disturbance or impact within the project site. The design envisioned will not create a new vessel
berthing space. In fact, approximately 12 ft. of vessel berthing space along the seawall will be
eliminated. This handicapped and emergency access facility will represent an improvement of our
“unimproved launch area” as defined by the Lake George Park Commission. This area is frequently
used by our local fire and emergency medical services. As a public service, we intend to allow public
access for emergency uses on a year round basis. We have often spoken of a dry hydrant installation,
which we are trying to coordinate with the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company. As for any
other non-emergency uses for which such a facility could be utilized, all other uses will be limited to
the boat handling operations of Dunham’s Bay Lodge, Dunham’s Bay Boat & Beach Club, and their
members and guests exclusively. Recognizing that this might be categorized as an expansion of a
nonconforming use, please advise those design, use and area perimeters which will be determinative
in assessing whether or not a building permit can be issued without Board review.”
MR. MAC EWAN-The next letter I’d ask you to read in, so we can maybe do this in order here, is
the one from Craig Brown, Code Compliance Officer, the 12.
th
MRS. MOORE-May 12?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-It says, “Dear Mr. Salvador: In response to the inquiry you registered with this
office, concerning the above-referenced project, I have reviewed the information you supplied and
would offer the following: Based on the information supplied, a phone conversation on May 10,
1999, and an office visit on May 11, 1999, the nature of this project appears to be the development
of a hard-surfaced access facility, a portion of which is within 50 feet of the shoreline of Lake
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
George. This type of activity requires that the project be reviewed by the Planning Board via Site
Plan Review. The submission deadline for items to be considered for the June 1999 Planning Board
agenda is Wednesday, May 26, 1999. Should you have any questions or comments, please, do not
hesitate to contact this office.”
MR. MAC EWAN-And lastly.
MRS. MOORE-May 24. This is to Chris Round, “Attached is a cross-referenced sketch showing
th
the materials and arrangement thereof for our proposed Handicap and Emergency Access facility. It
is intended that this system will be installed between the Rt. 9L R.O.W. and the MHW mark of 320.2
MSL. As you can see, there will be no run-off from this access way, and below 320.2 MSL we intend
to lay precast concrete slabs to a depth of about 317 to 318 ft. MSL. Please advise whether or not
you feel this approach will necessitate some form of Site Plan Review. If so, we would like to be
considered for the June calendar of the Planning Board. Your earliest reply would be much
appreciated.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. I’m John Salvador, and I’m here tonight with my wife Kathleen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project?
MR. SALVADOR-First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, just as a point of order, a few corrections on
some of the documentation before you tonight. Tonight’s schedule shows us as “Applicant proposes
construction of a handicapped and emergency access facility for launching of watercraft”. It is not
solely for the purpose of launching watercraft. In fact, the launching of watercraft is a minor use
here. The principal use is for handicapped and emergency uses. The principal use is handicapped
and emergency uses. “Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Planning Board review
and approval”. The cross-section sketch we submitted, what we have tried to do is eliminate all hard
surfacing, and that’s the sketch that is before you tonight. So, the location of the project is 18
Dunham Bay Road. That is the address of the parcel of land that you’re talking about 4-1-11.
They’ve noted here 2999 State Route 9L. That is our personal mailing address.
MR. MAC EWAN-So noted.
MR. SALVADOR-It also shows here that Section 179-16 is what we’re talking about. I think that’s a
typo error.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. SALVADOR-It should be 179-60.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. SALVADOR-Laura, you read in the Staff comments, with regard to the public use of this
facility. Could you re-read that, please?
MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that you’re looking for, John?
MR. SALVADOR-In Staff notes there was mention of the use, and that there was public use
involved, open to the public.
MRS. MOORE-It says “In addition, the launch will be open to the public for handicap accessibility
and emergency access.”
MR. SALVADOR-Only emergency access. Not handicap. The handicap access is strictly our
registered guests and our members of the Boat & Beach Club. It will not be a public handicap
facility. It will be a public emergency use facility. It is now. I mean, our facility is used all the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we could basically just say, we’ll scratch off the phrase “open to the public”,
and just re-phrase it “In addition, the launch will be for handicap accessibility and emergency access”.
Fair enough?
MR. SALVADOR-If the word “public” has significance.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-I took it out.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. Warren County’s letter said something about the project having
a positive County Impact. Did you read that?
MRS. MOORE-Those are comments that are made previous.
MR. SALVADOR-In the minutes of the County, maybe I should introduce them. They’re in the
minutes of the County meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it something different than what they’ve made in their recommendations?
MR. SALVADOR-It’s significant that they, I’m quoting from the minutes of the County Planning
Board meeting. “C. York made a motion to approve the proposed site plan to provide hardened
surfaces on the beach for the location of an emergency and handicapped access.” Now they’re
approving hardened surfaces. We didn’t even ask for it. “C. York further stated that he considered
this project to have a good County impact.” They all voted in favor. Since this has a good County
impact, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, do we need just then may be one less than a majority to have
an approval here? Since No County Impact is a simple majority.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you asking me to do here?
MR. SALVADOR-Think about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I did. No.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. We are proposing to improve the present handicap and emergency access
facility now being operated by Dunham Bay Boat & Beach Club on Queensbury Tax Parcel 4-1-11.
The sole purpose of this project is to provide an up to standard handicap and emergency access
facility as required by Federal law. The primary use of these facilities has always been, and will
continue to be, for the dues paying members of the Dunham’s Bay Boat & Beach Club. Because of
reciprocal agreements between the sister operations, the same handicap and emergency access
facilities will continue to be available to the registered guests of Dunham’s Bay Lodge. Although part
of the existing use may be considered nonconforming, that is handicap access, we are required by
Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the American’s with Disabilities
Act of 1990, to provide individuals with disabilities, both physical as well as mental, the right to
participate in and enjoy the goods, services, privileges, benefits, accommodations, and a workplace as
is offered and available to the general public. Types of accommodations and workplaces included,
those for the purposes of exercise and recreation. That is our business. Note that the workplace
must be barrier free. This is of primary concern. Members and guests come and go. An employee is
at a place of work with much greater regularity. The other part of this use may also be considered
nonconforming, that is emergency access. However, even that our Zoning Ordinance does not
address the circumstances under which emergency facilities can be permitted in a residential zone.
Our facilities have been used repeatedly for the transfer of injured boat passengers, picnickers and
campers from watercraft using the navigable waterway of Lake George as well as the floodwaters
above our land to access emergency vehicles for transport to the Glens Falls Hospital. The
floodwaters of Lake George have been used to draft firewater for firefighting use. On an annual
basis, our waterfront property is used by the Queensbury Volunteers for ice rescue qualification and
practice. This improved facility will afford unassisted access to our water sports facilities on Lake
George at Dunham Bay. Those handicapped guests vacationing at Dunham Bay Lodge, and any
handicap recreation boaters who are members of the Dunham’s Bay Boat & Beach Club, will be able
to enjoy unassisted access for swimming and boating. As required by law, this facility will be fitted
for operation and maintenance by personnel who may be in our employ who are classified as
handicapped or disabled in any physical or mental capacity, even year round. The improvements
being proposed should not result in an expansion of a nonconforming use in this Waterfront One-
Acre Zone. That is, if in fact, such handicap and emergency facilities constitute a nonconforming
use. The membership of Dunham’s Bay Boat & Beach Club is capped by the number of boat slips
we are permitted in accordance with our DEC permit to operate a marina, Permit No. 50-81-
0071MA. The capacity of our lodging facility is regulated as a nonconforming use within the Town’s
Zoning Ordinance, and is regulated as a temporary residence by the New York State Department of
Health. In addition, we are planning to adapt this facility for the emergency services needs of not
only the two operations mentioned previously, but on a no cost basis for the public at large. Sort of
a community service project. In this regard, we intend to install a dry hydrant, similar to the one
which was installed on Pickle Hill Road more than a few years ago, and more recently, the one
installed on Tee Hill and Moon Roads. The proximity of a dry hydrant closer to the high density
areas of Assembly Point, Cleverdale and Rockhurst would better facilitate response time in the event
of an emergency requiring unusual quantities of water. As you know, the exercise and recreation and
accommodations industry, and particularly those in the resort recreation business, has, since the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, recognized that furnishing accessibility to
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
some 40 million Americans who are reported to have permanent disabilities, is necessary. Our
bathing beach area, regulated by New York State Department of Health, became a regulated entity
within the Lake George Park Commission’s sphere of influence, with their promulgation of
6NYCRR Part 645-2.1E, and I quote “Boat Launch means a place or facility, including beaches,
ramps, dock structures, derricks, railways, hoists, trailers, and other devices from which or by which
vessels are put or placed into or removed from the waters of Lake George, but shall not include such
facilities, devices and structures used exclusively as a part of a residential or association dock by the
owners or the owner’s family.” This launch area was first registered with the Lake George Park
Commission in 1990. It was part of our recreation uses registration. I have here a map that
photocopy of the section you have before you was taken from. There may be some question about
the orientation of where everything is, but what you have in front of you is simply a photocopy of
this section of that map. So if you’re interested in seeing how that lays out with the total of the
southern end of Dunham Bay, it’s on this map.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we understand where your proposed action is.
MR. SALVADOR-I think we’ve satisfied the concern that everyone has about hard surfacing. Our
sketch there has been laid out. Practical every drop of water that will fall on this 12 foot wide
accessway will either be diverted to or percolate right into the ground below, and that’s why we came
up with that design, to just preclude any hard-surfacing, and still be substantial enough to support the
traffic and wheelchair access that we’d be looking for.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s delineated on this cross-section?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, that’s the cross-section.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. STARK-What’s the material, John?
MR. SALVADOR-Wood, and that’s bridge decking, the grading where the wheels go down, the
emergency vehicle track for the bridge decking through which rain will just percolate.
MR. STARK-What’s the length?
MR. SALVADOR-I think it’s probably 100.
MR. VOLLARO-I scaled it, 115.
MR. SALVADOR-115, length.
MR. STARK-115, 12 foot wide.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MRS. SALVADOR-Not right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? You’re welcome to come up and identify yourself for the record, if you would, please,
and make your comments directed toward the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I have two letters.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is dated June 18, and this is addressed to Mr. Round. “This firm
th
represents Frank J. Parillo, an adjoining neighbor to the Applicant, the Dunham’s Bay Boat and
Beach Club. I am writing on behalf to object to the Salvador’s application to construct a
Handicapped and Emergency Launch facility for watercraft. Please note the following comments for
the record of your June 22, 1999 meeting: 1. Under the terms of the Draft Class A Marina Permit
(Permit No. 5234-24-26) (the “Permit), issued by The Lake George Park Commission (“LGPC”) for
this property, the applicant’s ability to operate a launch is severely limited, a copy of this permit is
attached for your reference. Moreover, such an expanded facility would qualify as a “Boat Launch”
under the LGPC regulations and would therefore require the Applicant to obtain an amendment to
its Permit. It is my understanding that no such application has been made at this time. 2.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
Specifically, the LGPC has limited the scope of the facilities operation of the Applicant as follows: a.
The Applicant is prohibited from operating a Quick Launch at this location as defined in 6 NYCRR
§645-2.1(bf). (See Schedule A, Condition 7, page 5 of the Permit). b. The “launch” at the facility is
not open to the general public (see Schedule A, Condition 7, page 5, Schedule A). c. The Permit
does not permit operation of a “Boat Launch” as defined in 6 NYCRR §645-2.1(e). d. Rather,
Applicant’s ability to launch and retrieve vessels has been specifically limited by the LGPC to “each
registered guest” and “each berthing customer” which may only launch and retrieve a vessel during
their stay at the facility by the LGPC. The definition of “Registered Guest” (6 NYCRR § 645-2.1
(bf) further limits the utilization of this launch area to only those persons “who pay a fee and actually
stay overnight at the facility”. 3. The LGPC’s strict limitation of the Applicants’ use of their beach
area for launching and retrieving vessels by “each registered guest” and “each berthing guest” only
during the term of their stay, evidences the LGPC’s intent to limit the use of the beach area for
launches and is contrary to the application submitted by the Salvadors. Further, the limited scope of
operation for he launch as set forth by the LGPC belies the authority of the Salvadors to expand the
capabilities of this launch through the installation of a paved launch capable of handling a greater
volume of vessels than contemplated by the LGPC when the Permit was issued. 4. Due to the
limited usage of the launch allowed by the LGPC, the expanded capability of the improved launch is
unnecessary and susceptible of abuse as a non-permitted boat launch. Accordingly, we request that
the Salvador’s application be denied as contrary to the terms and intent of the Draft LGPC Marina
Permit for this facility. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, SHANLEY,
SWEENEY, REILLY & ALLEN, P.C. Mark T. Sweeney” Then I have a fax from June 22,
nd
addressed to Mr. Round, this is, again, from Mark Sweeney. It says “As you are aware, this firm
represents Frank J. Parillo, an adjoining neighbor to the Applicant, the Dunham’s Bay Boat and
Beach Club. I am writing to supplement Mr. Parillo’s objections to the Salvador’s application to
construct a “Handicapped and Emergency Access” launch facility for watercraft. Please note the
following comments for the record of your June 22, 1999 meeting: 1. Construction and operation of
a commercial-type boat launch at this location is contrary to the letter and intent of the Waterfront
Residential Zones (Queensbury Code § 179-60). a. As the Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club is a
commercial enterprise within the WR-1A zone the Salvadors hereby seek to improperly expand a
non-conforming use without obtaining a variance per Queensbury Code § 179-79(D). b. In the
event that the facility operates pursuant to a previously obtained use variance, this modification and
expansion would require the Salvadors to obtain the necessary modification thereof from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. 2. Upon information and belief, no proper application as been submitted by the
Salvadors per Queensbury Code § 179-34 thereby denying the Planning Board, the general public,
and adjoining landowners in particular, the ability to analyze potential significant environmental
impacts the commercial-type boat launch would entail. a. In particular, the Applicant has failed to
provide any supporting data despite the obligation to do so (Queensbury Code § 179-34 and § 179-
38). b. No information has been provided concerning (Queensbury Code § 179-38): i. whether the
use complies with the requirements of the WR-1A zone; ii. Whether it would follow the intent of the
district regulations or the Town’s new Comprehensive Land Use Plan; iii. Traffic, circulation and
access (see Item #4 below); iv. Whether the commercial-type boat launch would have an impact
upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources
of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide the necessary
services. v. Site plan information; vi. Location, sufficiency and arrangement of off-street parking;
vii. Pedestrian/bicycle access; viii. Stormwater drainage facilities; ix. Water supply and sewage
disposal; x. Landscaping; xi. Fire and emergency access; xii. Impact of structure on potential
flooding. 3. Upon information and belief, no Environmental Assessment Form has been filed as
required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). SEQRA must be fully
complied with before any approval may be given. 4. Based upon the crude sketch submitted by the
Salvadors, this boat launch will be accessed directly from NYS Route 9L. Accordingly, traffic
impacts must be evaluated and NYS Department of Transportation Highway Permit will be required.
Most significantly, it appears likely that it will be necessary for the handicapped and emergency boat
launchers to use the travel lanes of Route 9L adjacent to this ramp. This represents an extremely
dangerous condition on a blind curve. However, the applicant has failed to provide sufficiently
detailed plans to evaluate these impacts at this time. 5. This project should be classified as a Class B
Regional Project (Queensbury Code § 179-114) and be closely reviewed to ensure the objectives and
guidelines set forth for Regional Projects (Queensbury Code § 179-115) are furthered before this
project receive any approvals. Specifically, the construction of this commercial-type launch would be
directly contrary to the following objectives and guidelines: a. Surface Waters: The addition of hard
surfacing for this boat launch will alter the existing, natural drainage and run-off pattern for this area
and may introduce contaminated run-off directly into the waters of Lake George contrary to the
objectives set forth in Queensbury Code § 179-115(C). b. Shoreline Alteration: The paving of a
natural beach area to construct a commercial-type boat launch would defeat the objective of the
Code to “maintain or enhance the existing physical, biological and aesthetic characteristics of the
shoreline” and thwart the guidance to “minimize construction or the development of any kind near
or on the shorelines” in Queensbury Code § 179-115(E). c. Aesthetics: A paved or hard surface
boat launch would eliminate the natural existing shoreline of Lake George possibly damaging scenic
vistas and degrading the natural aesthetic beauty of this area contrary to the objectives set forth in
Queensbury Code § 179-115(N). 6. Operation of a boat launch as defined in the Lake George Park
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
Commission (“LGPC”) regulations (6 NYCRR § 645-2.1(e)) may require approval of the LGPC and
a new or modified Class A Marina Permit to be obtained by the Salvadors. We urge the Planning
Board that any approval of the application at this time would be premature due to the Applicant’s
failure to obtain all other required permits and approvals for this commercial-type boat launch. At
minimum, any determination should be conditioned upon the issuance of all necessary permits
approvals by NYSDOT, LGPC, or the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals or any other
regulatory body having jurisdiction over this project. Accordingly, we request that the Salvadors’
application be denied as (a) contrary to the express requirements of the WR-1A zone, (b) an illegal
expansion of a non-conforming use without a variance or variance modification, (c) lacking other
required permits and approvals and (d) as contrary to the objectives and guidelines for regional
projects under the Queensbury Code. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours,
SHANLEY, SWEENEY, REILLY, & ALLEN, P.C. Mark T. Sweeney”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, your opinion of that letter.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess my opinion of that letter is it raises a whole variety of issues that seem
to deal with State agency involvement, and I believe the Staff recommendation on this is for approval
with the condition of compliance with the Lake George Park Commission permit requirements.
That would seem to be the agency principally referenced by the letter from Mr. Parillo’s counsel. I
don’t think that’s a bad recommendation at all from Staff. In fact, I think that’s a sound
recommendation. I did not, as far as the other concerns addressed in that letter relative to the goals
and objectives of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, I think the Board is familiar with those goals
and objectives. I think you can deal with those concerns if you believe they’re valid concerns, but my
own opinion is that most of that speaks to the issue of State agency jurisdiction, especially the Lake
George Park Commission, and that’s not really our concern, other than if you want to condition any
approval, if that’s where you’re headed, on compliance with the Lake George Park Commission
permit requirements. That’s a perfectly appropriate recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-The only question I have is that that letter that’s written continually refers to a boat
launch. It sounds like that what we’re dealing with is not a boat launch. That whole letter couches
itself in those terms of boat launch, and that’s not what this is, as I understand it.
MR. BREWER-That is the intent of what Mr. Salvador is going to do. That’s what I took from it.
MR. VOLLARO-That that letter indicates the intent of what he plans to do?
MR. BREWER-I guess.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean this gentleman feels that what he’s doing is building a boat launch? Is
that what you’re saying?
MR. BREWER-I guess. I mean, that’s what I took from it.
MRS. SALVADOR-He knows what’s in his head.
MR. SALVADOR-With regard to the two letters, I would only comment that there’s reference made
here to a Lake George Park Commission permit that’s pending. We have withdrawn that application.
That application does not exist. It has been withdrawn, before the Lake George Park Commission .
We are operating our marina under a DEC permit granted to us to do the things we do there. That
permit was granted in 1982. It’s still valid. No one has told us it’s invalid.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does this application require Lake George Park Commission approval?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know the answer to that, but I will tell you that I believe, as is often the
case, when you cannot necessarily take the applicant at their word for something, they may believe
certain statements to be true. That doesn’t make them true. I believe that the issue that Mr. Salvador
has just referred to, which is whether or not continued operation of his commercial, Class A Marina
requires Lake George Park Commission approval is subject to dispute. I believe that the State
agency, the Lake George Park Commission, does not agree with his contention that he does not
require their permission or approval. I still think that the Staff recommendation is appropriate. If
you’re heading in this direction, you could certainly take the Staff recommendation, which I believe is
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
for approval conditioned on compliance with the Lake George Park Commission permitting
requirements. You could add the phrase “if any”, in which case if Mr. Salvador is correct and there is
no requirement of Lake George Park Commission permit here, then your approval condition would
be fulfilled, but I will tell you that I’m quite certain that the Lake George Park Commission believes
that there is a Class A Marina operating, that it does require their approval, and that it’s a violation of
State law to not have that approval. In other words, the State agency in question, the Lake George
Park Commission, does not agree with the Salvadors’ contention that they can lawfully continue to
operate this Marina under their DEC permit, issued in 1982. That’s my understanding.
MR. SALVADOR-And we have not disputed that.
MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t dispute that, meaning you acknowledge that you need a Lake George
Park Commission permit? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SALVADOR-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-I thought you just finished saying you don’t need a Lake George Park
Commission permit?
MR. SALVADOR-No. I said we withdrew our application.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I thought you also said that you are allowed to, and if I misunderstood, I’d
appreciate a clarification here, I thought I heard you say into that microphone that it is your belief
that you are allowed to continue to operate your Marina under your 1982 DEC permit, and that you
do not need the permission of the Lake George Park Commission. Did I hear you say that?
MR. SALVADOR-We are presently operating under a DEC permit, okay. That’s what we’re doing
now. There is a dispute, that is correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what I said.
MR. SALVADOR-But it’s not over the fact that we don’t need a Class A Marina Permit. It’s over
the fact that the level of uses that they think we are entitled to, that’s the dispute.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Fine. That clarification, for the purposes of your jurisdiction, is
completely irrelevant. My point stands, which is there is a dispute between the Salvadors and the
Lake George Park Commission, as to whether, and/or what type, of Class A Marina permit they
need from that Agency. None of this, in my opinion, has very much to do with the application
before us. I would reiterate that the Staff recommendation seems very logical and very rationale and
very appropriate, and I think that’s one way you can go on this if you like.
MR. SALVADOR-May I continue?
MR. MAC EWAN-We're going to do a SEQRA Short Form.
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to rebut these two letters that are on the record. There are serious
errors in here, and I would just like the record to show that we understand this. Firstly, with regard
to the Lake George Park Commission, they were noticed of this application. They have had an
opportunity to participate at this hearing, and I don’t see them here. I don’t know if they came in,
but I don’t see them here. So let the record show that to this date, they have not responded. This
letter before us refers to a launch, and it is not a launch. It could be used for that, for our guests, as
our launch facility is used at the present time. We presently launch boats, and I have photographs
here I can show you. We presently launch boats. It is classified as an unimproved launch area.
That’s what it is. This letter talks about, the applicant is prohibited from operating a Quick Launch.
We have made no claim that we’re operating a Quick Launch, absolutely no claim that we’re in the
Quick Launch business. The launch at this facility is not open to the general public. Our facility is a
commercial operation. There’s no way we can deny the public services. That’s what we’re permitted
to do. We give those services to people who register with us, and who pay their fees to be on our
premises. That is commercial activity. We have permits to do it. We are licensed to do it, and that’s
what we do. We operate within those permits. That we’re not open to the general public is a
misnomer. We certainly are. People call us from all over the world. That’s the general public. The
permit does not permit operation of a boat launch. The permit allows us to operate a bathing beach
which they term to be a boat launch. That their definition, not ours. The applicant’s ability to
launch and retrieve vessels has been specifically limited by the Lake George Park Commission to
each registered guest and each berthing customer. We agree. We agree. I said that in my
presentation. There’s talk, in Paragraph 3, about a paved launch. This launch ramp will not be
paved. There is no paving in that cross section of sketch. Is that clear? That’s understood? No
paving. The second letter, construction and operation of a commercial type boat launch at this
location. Again, we are a commercial activity. Whether it’s a commercial launch by somebody’s
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
definition, I don’t know, but we are in the business, commercial activity. Dunham’s Bay Boat and
Beach Club is a commercial enterprise within. Exactly, but we happen to be a nonconforming use,
but that’s our plight. We don’t know, operates pursuant to a previously obtained Use Variance. I
don’t know which variance they’re referring to. I don’t know of any on this tax parcel. We’ve been a
pre-existing, nonconforming use. We’ve had to get a couple of site plans for handicap access, by the
way, but that’s all. Again, talk of commercial. We are commercial. No information has been
provided concerning Queensbury Code, whether the use complies with the requirements. It’s a
nonconforming use. We understand that. Every aspect of it. It’s a residential zone. Whether it
would follow the intent and the strict regulations of the Town’s Comprehensive Use Plan. I think
the Town’s Comprehensive Use Plan, and by the way, I served on the Committee, recommends that
Marinas be permitted, either an overlay zone or something else, but that’s in the Comprehensive Use
Plan, just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Whether a commercial-type boat launch would have any
impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, or recreation open space
resources. There will be no more use than there already is now. There just cannot be anymore use
than we already have. It’ll just be more convenient. It’ll be up to standard for the handicapped
people, and believe me, we have these guests. My wife can tell you what we have to go through to
accommodate them.
MRS. SALVADOR-We have four people in the house right now in wheelchairs.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s got to be barrier free. Location, sufficiency, and arrangement of off-street
parking. We have that. We have all of our off-street, there’s no problem parking or driving on 9L.
I've never heard of any in front of our place. Our guests don’t have to park on a highway. At least
there’s no record of it. Pedestrian and bicycle access. Pedestrians, if they come to us as pedestrians,
as guests, then they’re pedestrians. If not, there’s no pedestrian access. Bicycles. If they come to us
with a bicycle and they register with their bicycle, fine. Then they’re entitled to use the facilities.
Storm drainage facilities. I think we’ve precluded that by the cross section design. That was the
whole purpose of that cross section was to take care of the storm drainage. In fact, I would hope we
could improve on it. I don’t know if you’ve visited the site, but that road sheet drains right into that
valley there. I mean, it just sheet drains in there. We’ll improve that. So, there’ll be less runoff to
the lake. Water supply and sewage disposal. We're licensed. The public water supply meets the
Health Department Codes. There’ll be no more intensity of use there. Sewage disposal, we’ve got
our permits. No problem there. Landscaping, we’ll take care of the landscaping. We’ve never been
guilty of not doing that. Fire and emergency access. That’s what the whole thing is about. Impact
of structure on potential flooding. It’s above the floodplain. The flood zone is at 322. Most of this
will be above it. There’s talk here about a blind curve on Route 9L. It’s wide open. There’s no blind
curve there. Surface waters. In addition to the hard surfacing of this boat launch, which it is not, it
will alter the existing natural drainage and runoff pattern. As I've mentioned, the runoff from Route
9L, we intend to improve on that. Shoreline alteration, the paving of a natural beach. I’ll tell you
something, this beach is not natural. This beach is not natural. In fact, the shoreline along the
southern end of Dunham Bay has been altered over the years like you can’t imagine, and there’s very
little of it natural. Aesthetics, the paved and hard surface boat launch will eliminate the natural
existing shoreline. There is no natural existing shoreline on the southern end of Dunham Bay, and
we urge the Planning Board that any approval of the application at this time would be premature due
to the applicant’s failure to obtain all other required permits. I think it’s a question of first things
first, and that’s why we’re here. We will get the permits we need to do this. We won’t step forward
without the proper permits. So it’s a question of first things first, and I think it’s appropriate that we
be here. This is a Planning Board. It’s a conceptual thing we’re talking about, and that’s what we’re
seeking approval for. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Lets do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 25-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Timothy Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DUNHAM’S BAY BOAT & BEACH CLUB, 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:
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
1.
No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2.
The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4.
An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion.
MR. STARK-Bob? Excuse me. Ask Mark for the exact wording on that, if any.
MR. VOLLARO-I think I have it. I’ll use the Staff recommendation. You wanted to add on “if
any”.
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I didn’t say I wanted you to add that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It could just be as written in the motion that Staff has. It’s Item 6.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Any permits required be applied.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, she’s got it down, issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and
continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval requirements.
MR. SCHACHNER-No. That doesn’t cover Lake George Park Commission, though.
MR. VOLLARO-It says, Staff would recommend approval of the proposed launch with the
condition that the use and construction is in compliance with the Lake George Park Commission and
other regulatory agencies, if any. The “if any” is kind of what I got from.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, you don’t even need to add the “if any”. The Staff recommendation, the
way it’s written, is in compliance with the regulations of the Lake George Park Commission and
other agencies, and just leave it at that.
MR. VOLLARO-Then we’ll do it that way.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-99 DUNHAM’S BAY BOAT & BEACH
CLUB, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
In accordance with the provision as written by Staff, and in addition, with the condition that the use
and the construction is in compliance with the Lake George Park Commission and regulatory
agencies, and that I would ask that a dimension drawing should be supplied prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 25-99 for construction of a
Handicap and Emergency Access facility for launching of watercraft ; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/26/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/22/99 - Staff Notes
2.
6/18/99 - Public comment representing F. Parillo
3.
6/15/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
4.
6/9/99 - Warren Co. Planning Board
5.
6/7/99 - Fax to M. White, Lake George Park Commission
6.
6/3/99 - Meeting notice letter
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/22/99 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.
25-99 – Dunham’s Bay Boat & Beach Club.
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 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
MR. VOLLARO-And, John, I’m going to add just one more thing, that I would ask that a dimension
drawing should be supplied prior to the issuance of a building permit.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s required for a building permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I’m just making that part of the motion.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s part of the building permit application.
MR. VOLLARO-I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-We're just getting it on the record, that’s all.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 15-99 JOHN STAALESEN
RON RUCINSKI & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-99, John Staalesen, Meeting Date: June 22, 1999 “Project
Description: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing dwelling. The project
is located on Glen Lake in a critical environmental area. The project is subject to review and
approval by the Planning Board. The application received an area variance for setback relief. Staff
Notes: The application was tabled at the June 3, 1999 meeting. The Board requested the applicant
respond to Rist Frost comments of May 21, 1999. The applicant has supplied an updated map with a
stormwater report. The plans have been forwarded to Rist Frost for comment.”
MRS. MOORE-Rist-Frost comments of June 18. “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed the
th
updated site plans, Nace Engineering’s letter and fax dated June 17, 1999 submitted in response to
our comment letter dated May 21, 1999. The additional details and information are acceptable and
we have no other comments at this time.” That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff’s recommendations from last week still hold for demolishing the old
camp?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, John Staalesen, and Ron Rucinski.
Because the engineering issue is now satisfied to Rist-Frost’s satisfaction, we’re here to address the
issue that was discussed about the possible removal of the existing camp. I guess I’d like to start out
and just explain why this is so important to the Staalesen’s that the Board not ultimately vote to
require that to be removed. To begin with, what this Board is not aware of is that the subject of
setbacks and view shed from the lake and what would be removed from the site was discussed over a
number of meetings with the Zoning Board, before agreement is reached, which resulted in the
variance that you have before you which enabled the Staalesens to come before this Board. When
the application was first made for an Area Variance to add an addition to the camp building, the
addition was proposed to be considerably closer to the lake than what is presently before this Board.
As a result of negotiations, if you will, with the Zoning Board, the compromise was that the entire
building is now within the building setback, under the Code, with the exception of a very narrow
hallway that does nothing other than to connect the existing camp building with the new portion of
the house. So this was the absolute minimum variance that you could have, because all you have
that’s going to be constructed within the setback is just this hallway. What also wasn’t discussed at
the last Planning Board meeting was that there is an existing bunk house that’s on the site which is
next to, on the east side of the site, next to the neighbor to the east, which is currently on the site and
currently being utilized, and will be during the construction period, but as part of this project, and
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, that bunk house building will be completely demolished.
So in terms of the impact from the lake, as to what’s right there now and what is grandfathered, that
building will be removed. You were also concerned, at the last meeting, about what the neighbors
thought, and the neighbor to the east appeared at the Zoning Board meeting and is here tonight to
make comments before the Board in the public hearing, and I think you’ll find that she’s very
supportive of the proposed changes to improve this parcel. We also didn’t have photos of the parcel
last time, and now we do from various distances, and I think you can see, the building that we’re
talking about, which we’re hoping that this Board will allow the Staalesens to remain intact, is located
behind the stone wall in the center of the photo, underneath the trees, and because all of those trees
will remain, certainly from the first distance, which is how people on a boat would view this parcel,
you can’t see it. From the second, in Photo Number Two, when you’re getting closer, the camp itself
is still behind the wall, and the building that you see to the right of that is the bunk house, which is
going to be removed. So really, because of the location of the trees and the size of this, it’s really not
visible from the lake until you get to the third photo, which is right up there 50, 75 feet from shore,
and even in that photo, the building to the left is the camp portion which will be renovated, refaced
and remain, and most of what you see here is the building to the right, which is the bunk house
which again is going to be removed. Finally on this issue, I just want to point out that in terms of the
Staalesen’s purchasing the site, this camp, the view from this camp is lovely, and this was really part
of why they wanted to buy this site and to improve it. This is an eight-tenths of an acre parcel. It’s a
relatively large parcel for Glen Lake, and the fact that they had this grandfathered, pre-existing camp
that was not right on the lake, but certainly close enough so that you could really enjoy being on the
lake, that was an important part of why they spent the money to buy this parcel. So we’d just request
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
that the Board take those all into consideration. The septic is going to be in compliance. The home
that’s going to be built, while it’s a nice sized home, it’s buffered from the lake with the trees, and it’s
within the setback, but allowing them to keep that camp building and renovate it and make it part of
this is a really important part of what they see as their primary residence.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How many bathrooms are in that additional camp, the camp building?
MR. LAPPER-One.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One, and how many in the new house?
MR. VOLLARO-Two.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the bathrooms, they’re all going to be on the same septic system, which
is the new one?
MR. RUCINSKI-It’s the new one, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and I know I asked you this the last time. Is that parking area macadam
or crushed stone?
MR. RUCINSKI-Crushed stone.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. I just wanted to double check.
MR. RUCINSKI-Well, I say crushed stone or gravel.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, or gravel.
MR. RUCINSKI-It will not be macadam.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think everything is fine, personally. I think they’ve done a beautiful job, a
real professional job on that site, but I’d like to hear some other comments, but if the neighbor to the
east is in favor, it’s good.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at the ZBA approval of the variance, it says, “Specifically, the
applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot setback”, that’s because that front porch is 12
foot from the water.
MR. LAPPER-No. It’s for the hallway, that connection. That’s what the relief, that is being built
within the setback, just that little hallway. The camp is grandfathered.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RUCINSKI-The 12 feet of relief, sir, is on this side.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It just happened to be coincidence that this Board should set 12 feet from
that.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a coincidence.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the other thing I have is this is about a 1200 square foot facility here,
the original camp, and on to that you’re adding 4,000 square feet. It just seems like an awful lot of
addition on a real small building.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t think you can look at it that way, Bob, only because if you look at the
building footprint, which is what’s outlined in blue, this parcel, the eight-tenths of an acre, in terms
of what you could build with the permeability and the green space requirements, and again, this is a
one story house, just because of a health situation of Mrs. Staalesen. So you could build a two-story
house on that same footprint, or you could build a much larger footprint on that lot and still be in
compliance with the Town Code. This just happened to have a very tiny camp. So it’s just hard to
compare it to what was there, to the size of the camp, but the fact that someone wants to come and
build a lovely house in Town that meets the requirements, you know, in terms of the density
requirements, I don’t think that it’s too big of a house for that eight-tenths of an acre lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is not in the Adirondack Park, is it?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. LAPPER-No, fortunately.
MR. STARK-Remember last year we approved Wayne Kellogg’s house, for like 4,000 or 4,500
square feet on a lot smaller than this, and that’s up now almost running. I don’t think he’s in it yet,
as a matter of fact.
MR. BREWER-I talked to him a couple of weeks ago about it. It is not done yet. Real close.
MR. STARK-I mean, I think this is a bigger piece of property, myself.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I’m not saying this is a deal breaker. I just wanted to try to get a feeling
of why we were adding 4,000 square feet.
MR. BREWER-I think, in my mind, 4,000 feet is what they want to live in, and they want to utilize
what’s there, is the bottom line. I mean, if the land was vacant, they probably would build a 4,000
square foot house, and not build something to that effect, I’m sure. They just don’t want to tear
down what’s there, and I think that’s what it boils down to.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-In reference to the June 16 letter from you, Mr. Staalesen, is your intent, your
th
intent is to utilize this addition in this new, the new project as a year round residence?
MR. STAALESEN-Yes, it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How many times a year do you have up to 20, 25 family members coming
for weekends?
MR. STAALESEN-We do get the kids and the families a lot in the summertime, Thanksgiving,
Christmas, special holidays.
MR. MAC EWAN-Were you utilizing the 500 square foot camp year round as well?
MR. STAALESEN-No, we have not been. We did have the camp heated through the winter and
kept the water on, but we would go up there once in a while.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I guess the next question I have is directed toward Staff. What is the
reasoning that Staff feels that the original camp be taken down?
MRS. MOORE-Because the Board has an opportunity, in this Section of the Code, to review
nonconforming structures, and I pointed out last time in Section 179-60.
MR. MAC EWAN-Specifically, where are you?
MRS. MOORE-179-79, sorry. It’s Letter F. It says, “Site Plan approval by the Planning Board…”
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know this same type of situation happened to us on Lake George, but
again, we’re in a different jurisdiction, where our neighbor had two acres, and there was a house
already on the property, and he put up a 3500 square foot home, but the other house was boarded
up, and all the plumbing was taken out of it. So if they needed to use it for bedrooms, they could
conceivably sleep there, but then they have to go into the main house for the bathroom facilities, but
the house they built was big enough that they didn’t need to use the other place, but they just use it
now for storage, but of course now we’re under the APA and we’re under the Lake George
jurisdiction, but it’s not unlike this, but I can’t see tearing down a structure that’s viable.
MRS. MOORE-I’m just pointing it out for the Board to be aware that they do have the review of
nonconforming structures.
MR. LAPPER-Could you read the Section that you refer to?
MR. VOLLARO-179-79, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The thing that seems to hit me
when I read that is it says “No enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the
Gross Floor Area of such single family dwelling or mobile home immediately prior to
commencement of the first enlargement or rebuilding.”
MR. LAPPER-When I read that, what I think that means is that you can’t have a nonconforming
expansion by more than 50%. Because you certainly can, most of what’s being proposed here is
conforming with the exception of the hallway, and the hallway is certainly less than 50% of the size
of the camp.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it says “A nonconforming structure or use of a structure containing a
nonconforming use may be contained and maintained in reasonable repair, but may not be enlarged
or extended as of the date of this Chapter becomes law, except as follows:” And then that’s where it
gets into no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50% of the Gross Floor Area.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but a variance was granted by the Zoning Board to allow this expansion. So
that’s done. I mean, in terms of what’s permitted now, the variance allows what is on.
MR. VOLLARO-And they refer to 179-79 in their motion, you’re right. “Therefore relief for an
expansion of a nonconforming structure is requested. The allowable 50% expansion of the existing
camp would be 435 square feet. The applicant is requesting 3,342 square foot of relief from the
50%….”
MR. LAPPER-I don’t interpret it the way that they did, but that resolution is broad enough to cover,
this is now zoned, as of right, in terms of the variance granted by the Zoning Board, but if we were
to take a step back, the camp is grandfathered and can stay. If the variance was denied, the camp
building can stay, and the house, with the exception of the hallway, the house is conforming. So the
only thing you’d have there sounds like what Cathy’s describing where you’d have to go outside.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d sever the hallway.
MR. LAPPER-You’d sever the hallway, which would make it less usable, but that could be done
without any issue because it’s grandfathered and because the rest of the whole house is complying,
and the hallway itself, or if you want to interpret the 50%, that’s all subject to the variance which was
granted. So as a matter of right, now, that is permitted.
MR. RINGER-Do you agree with that, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure if I understand it. It’s true that the variance was granted, and the
Zoning Board did indicate that the 3,342 square foot addition could be built, because they would
allow the 12 foot, or whatever the number of feet of variance is for that hallway, but I’m not sure if
I’m understanding the applicant’s contention here, but if the contention is that the camp is existing
and grandfathered, and therefore, the camp gets to stay, and that even without the connection of the
hall, a single family residence of 3,000 some odd feet could be built on the property, I don’t believe
that’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Why?
MR. SCHACHNER-The reason I don’t believe that’s correct is because I believe the Zoning
Ordinance precludes having two single-family residences on one lot. Does it not?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-And some of the applicant’s team agrees with that. So, to that extent, I’m not
suggesting, it’s up to you how you feel about the application in light of the Staff recommendation,
but you should not be swayed by an applicant’s contention that if they wanted to, they could keep the
camp and build the house without connecting them. That’s not true.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Well, I was arguing that by analogy anyway. You would agree that the variance
does grant the applicant the right to build what’s there now, in terms of the nonconformity.
MR. SCHACHNER-When you say, “what’s there now”, you mean?
MR. LAPPER-What’s proposed.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes I mean, I don’t think it’s important whether I agree with that or not, but I
do.
MR. MAC EWAN-The variance by the ZBA doesn’t mean that it’s granted. It means it has to be
with site plan review. So it’s not a given that you can automatically have it.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-We're here for site plan review, but in terms of the site plan and the location of
buildings, I think that asking the applicant to remove a structure that they purchased that has been
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
there historically, that’s a pretty big deal to ask somebody to remove a structure that’s in perfectly
good shape and just could use some cosmetic changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s also a pretty big deal to get a variance from 3,000 feet, too, over 3,000
square feet.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, this Board doesn’t need to be concerned with the magnitude of the
variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s true.
MR. SCHACHNER-But, this Board certainly can be concerned with the magnitude of what’s being
built on the project site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-But if you were going to say that this lot can’t support, I mean, if this were an 8,000
square foot house, lets say, and you had a problem because you thought that this was just out of scale
with the lot, I could understand that, but the fact that someone wants to come in and build a nice
sized lot on an eight-tenths of an acre parcel, I mean, I don’t think that that is a negative impact on
Glen Lake, where you’ve got lots of little camps and trailers. I mean, this is someone making an
investment in a permanent, year round home. I think that’s a positive.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think a fair statement to make though, Jon, is that Glen Lake isn’t surrounded
by a lot of little camps and trailers. Glen Lake slowly over the last few years has been having a lot of
projects like this come in front of our Planning Board, where people are taking seasonal camps and
turning them into year round homes, and we have to take these kind of things into consideration.
MR. LAPPER-No question, but a lot of those have not been on eight-tenths of an acre parcels.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, on the positive side, the whole septic system has been upgraded.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would be nice if that happened to all the other little places on the lake.
MR. LAPPER-And there’s no variance, no Board of Health issue here. This septic system
completely conforms.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RUCINSKI-If I might just add to that, the Floor Area Ratio as proposed on that plan is
12.71%. Your Ordinance would permit 22%, which would permit a residence in the neighborhood
of 8,000 square feet on that lot.
MR. BREWER-And all you’re asking for is a measly 35, right?
MR. RUCINSKI-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add, gentlemen? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Please come up and
identify yourself for the record.
BETTY SPADERO
MRS. SPADERO-I’m Betty Spadero, 374 Glen Lake Road, adjacent to, next door to the applicant of
this project. I've been a resident since we built in 1978. However, my husband and I had use of the
cottage which you are talking about, and location of the area now being discussed for over 20 years.
I've been acquainted with this lake since the 1930’s, and right now I hate to hear that we have just
little, I don’t think there’s a trailer, well, maybe there might be one, but there are not many trailers
there now, and there are very few little camps there. Our aim was to have a very neat, well kept,
attractive cottage, and landscaping by our home. Now, I’m in favor of the plans you have been
studying, as I know this structure will be well-built, including excellent drainage and landscaping, and
by studying the plans, one can determine that it would be a great credit for the lake to have this home
constructed on this site. If you’ve been in a boat and gone around this lake, you can see that there
are very, very huge homes located, and I have pictures, if you would like to see these pictures, of our
lake. Would you like to have these pictures to be seen?
MR. MAC EWAN-If you want to pass them around, that’s fine.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MRS. SPADERO-All right. Here they are. There’s 35 of them. The architect has fully explained the
reason for its size, for the convenience of Mrs. Staalesen, who is handicapped. With the garage
added makes the area seem larger to you. Now with my garage many feet away from my cottage, it’s
very difficult for me, in the winter time, and that is because the Board, when we came to the Board,
made up put our garage where it’s located today, and so I’m suffering through this by myself. As for
the location, I've taken pictures, which I've given you. Mostly all are close to the waterfront, and I've
brought snapshots. Now, let’s see, lake people want to enjoy looking out upon the lake as they sit
and relax. So, you mentioned the question of why they have not used the cottage. They’ve not
owned this cottage very long, probably about hardly a year, and plus during that time, Mrs. Staalesen
has had a very important, difficult operation, and probably it hasn’t been on their mind to stay up
here constantly. I hope that you will vote in favor of this project, as it will mean very friendly
neighbors for me, and an attractive structure in our St. Mary’s Bay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Any other comments?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Questions, comments?
MR. STARK-After reviewing some of the pictures, this camp, this house looks like a camp compared
to some of those houses that are up on Glen Lake, and I don’t think we ought to make him take
down the four or five or six hundred square foot structure, or whatever the heck it is at all. It’s a
perfectly good structure.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ditto.
MR. RINGER-It’s going to be a nice building, no question about it, but whenever we have an
opportunity to get a nonconforming, I just have trouble with it, but I don’t have anything else to say.
MR. BREWER-I've got nothing to say. I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-99 JOHN STAALESEN, Introduced by
Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
That everything concurs with all the Rist-Frost engineering recommendations, and as written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a 3626+/- sq. ft. addition and placement of a new
septic system to an existing year round camp to create a single family residence; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received April 1999, consists of the following:
1.
Application with Map, SP-1 dated 3/31/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
5/24/99 - Staff Notes
2.
5/19/99 - ZBA resolution
3.
5/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
4.
5/7/99 - Meeting notice
5.
4/30/99 - Revised, Map SP-1
6.
4/27/99 - Staff Notes
7.
4/26/99 - Fax to R. Rucinski – staff notes
8.
4/20/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
9.
4/21/99 - ZBA resolution – Tabled
10.
4/8/99 - Meeting Notice
11.
5/21/99 - Rist Frost comments
12.
5/23/99 - Public Hearing comment from R. & S. Gilbert
13.
6/3/99 - Staff Notes
14.
5/26/99 - ZBA resolution
15.
6/22/99 - Staff Notes
16.
6/18/99 - Rist Frost comments
17.
6/17/99 - Fax to T. Center (R/F) from T. Nace
18.
6/17/99 - Nace Eng. To C. Round – response to R/F review letter dated 5/21/99
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
19.
6/2/99 - L. Moore from R. Rucinski – revised site data
20.
5/28/99 - C. Round to W. Levandowski – revised info.
21.
5/25/99 - Rec’d. – Revised maps SP-1, SP-2 dated 5/24/99
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/24/99 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.
15-99, John Staalesen.
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 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. STAALESEN-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-99 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-99, Jeffrey Schwartz, Meeting Date: June 22, 1999 “Description
of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan. The intent is to reposition the
structure for future expansion. Staff Notes: The proposed location of the building will allow for
four sided fire access. The proposed project still meets the zoning requirements of the light
industrial zone. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the modification to the site
plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Does everybody understand what happened here? He moved it for fire access,
just relocated it because of the 50 foot required around the building.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 23-99, JEFFREY SCHWARTZ,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
In accordance with the resolution provided by Staff. There is no significant change to the original
SEQRA findings.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a second modification to Site Plan No. 23-99; and
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/1/99, consists of the following:
1. 6/18/99 – Peter J. Brown to L. Moore – letter and copies of revised plan
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/22/99 – Staff Notes
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
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to the second
modification to Site Plan No. 23-99 for Jeffrey Schwartz.
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 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling
SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT
KEITH FERRARO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-98, Ferraro Entertainment, Meeting Date: June 22, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan. Staff Notes:
The applicant has provided a letter explaining the change with the existing approved maps. The
applicant has shown a significant increase in the plantings on the site including on the inside of the
track. They have increased the impermeable surface near the kiddie track. The change in impervious
surface still meets the code requirements for the parcel. Recommendation: Staff recommends
approval of the site plan.”
MRS. MOORE-I’ll read his letter into the record. This is to the Queensbury Board members, in
reference to changes to landscaping plans "Please be advised we made changes to the landscaping
plans as approved by the Planning Board and the Beautification Committee for the following
reasons. The basic change to the plan was the removal of trees. This decision was made by our go-
cart design engineer located in Chicago, Illinois. At this direction, no trees should be located close to
the track as they would drop debris onto the track and their growth would eventually undermine the
track surface. The plan, minus the trees, was presented to Diane Meyer of Meads Nursery. With her
12 years experience in landscaping design, she determined that, as approved, the plan was not as
aesthetically pleasing as it could be. The plan was then revised from 72 to 580 plantings, neither
figure includes annuals, in an effort to give the desired visual effect. The six-foot wide gravel path
back to the repair shed was replaced with a concrete surface at the recommendation of our go-cart
manufacturer who said the stone path would ruin the drive mechanisms of the carts. We simply
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
added concrete, 12 feet wide by 70 feet wide along the kiddie track to allow us to place picnic tables
on the surface. We feel this will result in a cleaner picnic area. This represents an increase in our
impervious area by .55 percent. We felt these changes were insignificant and would only enhance the
entire project. Keith Ferraro” I also have a note from Craig Brown, our Code Compliance Officer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, read that one in, too, please.
MRS. MOORE-This is in regard to the site plan modification “I would like to offer the following
comments and observations. After several inquiries or complaints from neighboring property
owners regarding the noise from the above referenced site, apparently the new modernized facility is
imposing an unwanted noise burden on the nearby community. An argument could be made that the
larger, more substantial plantings originally considered and approved may have had a moderate to
substantial impact on lessening the sound of the track, at least in an easterly direction. While the
applicant’s desire not to plant these larger trees for fear of future complications, such as track debris
and potential root damage, the original intent of the plantings should not be lost. Acoustics as well
as aesthetics should be considered when reviewing this modification. While the Town does not
currently enforce a noise ordinance, reasonable consideration should be given to the noise levels
generated by this facility.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. FERRARO-Good evening. My name is Keith Ferraro, here from Ferraro Entertainment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. Can you tell us a little bit about your modification?
MR. FERRARO-We were not really aware of the damage the track surface has done to the trees as
well until we started removing the old ones. We were going to try and have them lumbered, since a
lot of them are oak trees and they’re pretty large. However, all the inside surfaces down the center
were all rotten. So after seeing that, that’s when the point came into being about the trees, and that
was a question I asked the engineer in Chicago, who of course had never been to our establishment,
and he said that he didn’t recommend putting any trees anywhere near the track area, not just for that
purpose, but it would undermine as we listed in there, and also the old plans had all of the plantings
matched in the front, which might provide, I guess some kind of more of a buffer from the street,
and Diane, she took a look at it and she said, I think we can make it look better. So we did make it
look better, and normally when you do things, when you make changes, you try and save money, but
at this point, we invested almost three times the amount into the landscaping that we had anticipated.
We’ll address the concrete next. In the back you can see the concrete. We have a picture of that
near the kiddie track, which we place the picnic tables on. The permeable rate there, percentage still
stayed at 37%. So that really didn’t change. So we didn’t think it was a big deal to put the concrete
there so we could put the picnic tables on, just to keep the area clean. With the address of the noise
complaints, we have heard from two of our neighbors. One of them was at 23 Twicwood Drive, and
I believe you, through our investigation, she is located behind Sutton’s design store, which is much
closer to Mr. Ermiger than to us. She just moved in last October, so I don’t think she’s really aware
of how either track sounds at this point. There was another person at 10 Twicwood Drive, and also
he is, it’s somewhat complicated because his neighbor on Montray Road did remove a lot of trees as
well over the winter to improve his property. Nonetheless, yesterday we searched out, through our
go-cart manufacturer, to purchase a quieter muffler system. So those have been ordered and be here
within two weeks and be installed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good deal. That’s a very positive step. I guess my only comment that I have at
this point is looking at the ambitious landscaping plan that you have done is maybe go one step
farther on top of your getting these newer muffler systems is doing some streetscaping with larger
trees. Everything you’ve got is low shrubs, ground cover type stuff, and maybe by replacing, it
certainly is not going to happen overnight, but by replacing some of the trees that were cut down,
they’ll have an opportunity to grow, act as a noise buffer in itself.
MR. FERRARO-So to plant some more along the street, then?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m thinking, and I don’t know what the rest of the Board feels.
MR. RINGER-You mean along Route 9?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, along Route 9, just along Route 9.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The salt factor.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s far enough away. That wouldn’t be a factor. The other thought that I’m
thinking of, and we did this with Ermiger’s site plan, is the pressure treated noise barrier. Doesn’t
he have that along?
MR. STARK-He never put it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-He never put that up? We made that part of a motion thought, didn’t we,
George?
MR. STARK-No, we had an informal agreement with them, remember, about putting the plywood
up along the fencing, and it never materialized.
MR. FERRARO-Sir, one of the complications with that might be the fact that Twicwood is located
actually above us. So, I’m hoping that this muffler system, it’s been used elsewhere with great
success, and I’m hoping it will take care of the problems here as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much does it cut the decibels down over what you’re currently using?
MR. FERRARO-The exact numbers I don’t have with me tonight.
MR. RINGER-You don’t have an exact, did they give you an estimate?
MR. FERRARO-I’m going to estimate four or five, but that was, statistics doesn’t always mean a lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Four or five dB down is a lot. I think that’s, decibels are graded logarithmically,
and that’s, four or five is a considerable reduction.
MR. FERRARO-And again, that was a guess on my part.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do these muffler systems come from the same company you purchased the go-
carts from?
MR. FERRARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because your original engine technical data that you supplied with your original
application showed four different style mufflers that were available on these go-carts, and the
particular one that you said you were getting was called a silent muffler, silent AC, and its decibel
rating output was 88 and 76 at the low end. They show nothing, unless something’s come out
different from what the original application was, they show nothing as another alternative to a
different mufflering system to bring it down less than that.
MR. FERRARO-This is not a Honda product. It’s an alternative muffler source, which our
manufacturer has out sourced on their own and used it with success elsewhere.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are they down draft mufflers or up?
MR. FERRARO-Down draft? I don’t understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do they point down versus pointing up or straight out?
MR. FERRARO-I don’t know. The ones we have now do point down as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. How many go-carts do you run at a time?
MR. FERRARO-Up to 25.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how many go-carts do you have in your fleet?
MR. FERRARO-Twenty-five.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re running them all a once?
MR. FERRARO-Possibly. It doesn’t often happen that way, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Not having definitive data on the amount of decibel reduction, if any at all, I would
kind of go along with the Chairman’s view that at least some reasonably good-sized trees be planted
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
along Route 9 to try to soften the sound transmission across 9 and up the hill and so on. I think that
would be, because I don’t have enough to go on, if you say four or five dB, that happens to be a
significant reduction, but I don’t have any data to hang my hat on that one, but I do think that some
trees for sound attenuation along Route 9 would be a good idea, and some reasonably good-sized
trees that would help disperse the sound or at least absorb it, attenuate it.
MR. FERRARO-Now as far as trees being planted along Route 9 goes, how far away?
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got plenty of setback there so that I don’t think you, effectively, would be
in the State right-of-way, that you’ve got enough space there in your green space area there to plant
trees in there. The question is what type and how many.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I’m thinking, what type? What would hold up? You won’t
have to worry about it in the wintertime. So they could be deciduous trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Chuck just recently supplied us with a whole bunch of information
regarding streetscaping and what kind of trees do what kind of service.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, you’re right. I did kind of peruse through it.
MRS. MOORE-Would you like Staff to review that with him?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that would be appropriate.
MRS. MOORE-Staff review and approve streetscape.
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the vast area that you’ve got there, I would think that a minimum of
eight to ten trees.
MR. FERRARO-If we can quantify that with them, then I’d appreciate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. I don’t have that problem.
MR. STARK-Just a general comment. My son’s lived in Twicwood for the last seven years, 31 on
the backside, and you can hear the go-carts, and I’m sure he’ll be very happy that you’re putting
another muffler system on. I mean, it doesn’t bother him, but he can hear it once in a while, and
what you did in the front, I think, looks very nice.
MR. FERRARO-Thank you.
MR. STARK-The whole operation looks very nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask a legal question. What can we do to kind of set something here that we
have an opportunity to re-visit this application, this applicant and this site plan, should this
mufflering system not be adequate? What kind of mechanisms could we put in place that he would
agree to before he leaves here tonight, that if we continue to get complaints regarding noise coming
from the go-carts, and that if it isn’t working out, that maybe we can have him come in and we can
think of something like a pressure treated barrier or something like that?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the answer is that noise is specifically something that, as a Planning Board
and exercising your site plan review authority, you’re allowed to consider. Now, here we have an
operation that’s already been approved. It’s back before us seeking modification of certain elements
of the site plan approval. If you wish, you could re-visit one of the other elements, keeping in mind
that the applicant always has the right to withdraw the application. If your re-visitation of some
other element is not to the applicant’s liking, the applicant can stay put with where he is, so to speak.
So you don’t have as much leverage, if you will, on these issues as if it was a new application for a
non-existing operation. You said, in your question you asked what could we do to re-visit this issue
that the applicant would agree with before he leaves here tonight. The answer to that is, anything
that you and the applicant agree with is fine. The tougher question is what to do if an applicant is
not willing to agree to some re-visitation of an issue. The noise, and it is a difficult area. The noise
area, in my opinion, is best regulated with tangible, actual, numerical threshold limitations. Because
you can’t enforce too loud, annoying, you can’t enforce based on number of neighbor complaints or
things like that. The only way to do anything that’s enforceable, if push comes to shove, is come up
with actual decibel limitations, structured around different hours. I don’t mean only one number.
You can have different hours. You can have different mitigation features incorporated, but, you
know, again, I’m not going to give you an answer you want, and I’m being long-winded here, but
noise is something you’re allowed to look at in site plan review. When you’ve got a modification
request, the modification request does not specifically relate to noise, in part. You can still look at
noise in that request, keeping in mind that if you do so in a manner that the applicant is not willing to
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
live with, the applicant can just say, never mind my modification request. I’m going to stay with
where I’m at now.
MR. MAC EWAN-But he can’t in this case because he’s not in compliance.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Well, he could, and then he could come into compliance with his
previous approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true.
MR. SCHACHNER-He could do what it takes to come into compliance with his previous approval.
MR. STARK-He’s here for a modification for the concrete and the permeable area and like that.
He’s addressing the noise on his own. He knew there were a couple of complaints made by some
people in the neighborhood. He’s addressing that. He’s showing himself to be a very responsible
business owner in the Town. You can’t say that about half the business owners in this Town, and
you know that. He’s spending I don’t know how much money for this new muffler system for his 25
cars. That’s being pretty responsible, I think. Now you want to hold him to some standard that ,
and then he could come into compliance with his previous approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true.
MR. SCHACHNER-He could do what it takes to come into compliance with his previous approval.
MR. STARK-He’s here for a modification for the concrete and the permeable area and like that.
He’s addressing the noise on his own. He knew there were a couple of complaints made by some
people in the neighborhood. He’s addressing that. He’s showing himself to be a very responsible
business owner in the Town. You can’t say that about half the business owners in this Town, and
you know that. He’s spending I don’t know how much money for this new muffler system for his 25
cars. That’s being pretty responsible, I think. Now you want to hold him to some standard that
you’re coming up with. If he says the decibels will drop from four to five, we have no reason to
doubt him. We’ll wait until he gets the muffler system on. If it’s not quiet enough, I’m sure he’ll still
have complaints, or the Town will have complaints. Ermiger had a million complaints. What did he
do? He could care less. He didn’t address one solid complaint that we had, or that the Town
received. Here’s a pretty responsible applicant doing this on his own. The Town didn’t make him
do this, and he’s asking for a little modification because he paved some concrete, and it improves his
property and he landscaped the place pretty nice, I think, in the front, and you’re busting his chops,
plain and simple.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, I’m not busting anybody’s chops.
MR. STARK-Yes, you are.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry that you feel that way.
MR. STARK-Well, I do feel that way, Craig.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think you’re busting anybody’s chops. You’re trying to get some information.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all I’m trying to do.
MR. RINGER-But I don’t have an answer to what we can do, and he’s done a super job here, and I
wish we could come up with something for noise, but I don’t know. I hate to put something out
there that he can’t conform to.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, all I’m trying to do is look at the big picture and where we’ve been with
other applications, where this has been a problem, and I’m just trying to see if there is some sort of
way, and I certainly hope that his muffler system is going to be adequate, the new system. I’m
certainly hopeful that what streetscaping we’re able to get you to work with is going to cut down the
noise level more, but I’m always concerned about thing down the road, and this is part of the
planning process. If we just walk away from this now, and say that, you know, okay, everything’s
going to be addressed, I want to know what kind of vehicles we have in place to be able to look at
things down the road as things develop, because we don’t honestly know how well or how adequate
this new muffler system is going to do. Hopefully, it is going to be better than what you have, and
the complaints will go away, but one never knows. That’s why I’m looking at all available options,
George, and that’s all I was doing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think that the money you’re spending, obviously, is going to be an
improvement. I don’t want to get into this moot discussion. I don’t want to even think about
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
getting into decibels. That has been my pet peeve for the five years that I've been on this Board, and
it is something that just goes round and round, and tonight is not, at this hour and with no data in
front of us, and setting up our own standards, I don’t want to get into it. I think we should just let
you improve your system, and with the money you’re putting into it, if it’s not acceptable, you can go
back to the company that you bought it from. I’m sure they’ve given you some kind of a warranty.
MR. FERRARO-Right. If it’s not acceptable, we can look for another alternative.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as the applicant is agreeable to go back and take a look at some of the
streetscaping with Staff, I really don’t have a problem. I kind of have to lean with Cathy here. Doing
the dB analysis is not easy. You’ve got an ambient noise level you’ve got to look at first, then you’ve
got to find out whether or not, in his frequency spectrum that I know where you’re coming from, but
I've also had a little experience in it. You’re going to have to look at what frequency he’s got, and
you’re going to have to scan that frequency over the ambient noise. It’s not an easy thing to come up
with.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that, maybe my fellow Board members misunderstood me, where I
was going with this. I wasn’t looking to engage in a whole engineering study about noise levels or
anything like that. All I’m trying to look at it what kind of options are available to us down the road
if things don’t work out. That’s all I’m looking at.
MR. STARK-Queensbury doesn’t have a noise Ordinance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We can’t say right now, if he puts new mufflers on those cars, and that he
gets one other complaint, that we’ve got to go back and say to him, okay, you better upgrade them
again. I mean, I don’t think that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not trying to make a huge issue out of this. All I asked was a simple question
about what kind.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But as soon as we put it in the motion, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t put anything in the motion, Cathy. I’m not even bringing anything up.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just looking for ideas. That’s all I’m looking for. I’m not looking for
something to nail this guy down to any kind of, you know, anymore.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Maybe that’s something we should have a workshop on sometime, about this,
because it’s going to come up again. We know that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sooner than you think.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. You’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up? There’s no public hearing on
this, only because it’s a modification. We don’t generally do public hearings, but if you want to come
up and make a comment, I’d be more than happy to listen. I’ll never turn down anyone who wants
to speak.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-John Strough. The web site that I gave Laura, and most of the 130 pages, does
deal with the effects of decibel levels on people, and like Mr. Vollaro had pointed out, there are other
factors involved. There’s a distance factor, there’s a buffering factor. There’s ambient noise factors
that also have to come into play, and I, too, have heard from these neighbors, and I would be happy,
if the applicant didn’t mind, that you re-visit (lost words) the applicant has agreed to put these new
mufflers on, and I know, I agree with Cathy that there should be some kind of public discussion on,
can we start setting or try and have some guidelines as far as noise levels and how they adversely
effect adjacent people, but if the applicant is willing to agree, as he has already stated he is willing to
do, and he is going to do anyhow to put these mufflers on, just to add that to the motion, because I
think if we did that in the first place, because I remember this discussion before, where you people
had talked about the quieter muffler system that he was going to install, but I don’t think it was ever
read into a motion or anything, so he’s not, he doesn’t have to abide by it, and I think by the tone of
the applicant, that he’d be willing to get this read into the motion, since he’s willing to do it anyway,
and I think it would make me, and I think it would make the residents happy, and we’ll have to leave
it at that for now.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks, John. Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. STARK-I’ll make a motion to approve the modification of Site Plan No. 34-98 for Skateland,
Route 9, the modification will have no existing impact on the original Environmental Impact
Statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all you’re putting in it?
MR. STARK-I’m not putting in anything else. I’m not putting it in the motion.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I’m going to suggest that the motion somehow be re-worded, since there
was no Environmental Impact Statement.
MRS. MOORE-The first statement that’s in your prepared resolution is, there is no significant
change to the SEQRA findings.
MR. STARK-There was no original Environmental Impact Statement? This was a Type II?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. There was an Environmental Assessment Form, but there was no
Environmental Impact Statement, a big difference.
MR. STARK-Not for this. I’m talking about the original one.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand. There’s not been an Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. VOLLARO-No, there’s no EIS. George, what he wants you to say is there’s no significant
change in the SEQRA findings. I think that’s what.
MR. STARK-That’s what I meant to say. Okay. I said Environmental Impact Statement. I was
talking about SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-So your motion says nothing, then, about wanting to add new, quieter mufflers,
or about him working with Staff and doing some streetscaping?
MR. STARK-He said he would. He ordered the mufflers. What’s he going to order them and not
put them on?
MR. RINGER-Why don’t you just make it part of your motion, and the trees, or that he’s going to
work with Staff.
MR. STARK-If you want to make a motion to that effect, you go right ahead. I am not putting it in.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 34-98 FERRARO
ENTERTAINMENT/SKATELAND, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Craig MacEwan:
As per Staff notes, and there’s no significant change in the SEQRA findings, and with the additions
that the applicant work with Staff to place trees along the Route 9 corridor, and that he install the
new quieter mufflers that he has on order.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification request to Site Plan No. 34-98 and
dated 6/15/99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/15/99, consists of the following:
1. 6/15/99 – Letter to Board Members from K. Ferraro
2. Map S1 dated 7/30/98 – Drainage and Landscape plan and drawing of changes to landscape
plan.
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/22/99 - Staff Notes
2.
6/21/99 – C. Brown to C. MacEwan
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
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/22/99)
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 the
modification request to Site Plan No. 34-98 for Ferraro Entertainment.
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 22 day of June, 1999, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. FERRARO-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a nice project. I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
44