1999-07-20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT PALING
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
TIMOTHY BREWER
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
May 18, 1999: NONE
May 24, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 18 AND MAY 24, Introduced by
THTH
Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
RESOLUTION:
SITE PLAN NO. 25-99 JOHN SALVADOR/DUNHAMS BAY BOAT & BEACH CLUB
REQUESTING REVISED RESOLUTION
JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Salvador is proposing a revised resolution. What I’ll read is the existing
resolution, and then I’ll read a revised resolution. Existing, “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 provisions 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. Duly adopted this 22 day of June,
nd
1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr.
Brewer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling” The revised resolution reads as
follows: “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 provisions 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. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 25-99 for construction of
a Handicap and Emergency Access facility for lake access; and”, and Mr. Salvador has also indicated
that he may modify that further, in regard to the word “lake”.
MR. MAC EWAN-Simple and straightforward.
MR. BREWER-Why are we changing all this?
MR. SALVADOR-I’m John Salvador, and my wife Kathleen is here with me. It came to our
attention, after we received the resolution that you passed at the last meeting, approving this facility,
that the wording of it was really, in effect, was a serious restriction on the use of the facility, in that
you had inserted the words “the launching of watercraft”, at the end of the resolution.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-Where?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s been stricken. You see the second “Whereas”, at the bottom of the
page? Emergency Access facility for launching of watercraft. Did you receive a copy of this letter
that I sent to you, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Have the Board members?
MR. MAC EWAN-They should be in the packets. Were they in the packets?
MRS. MOORE-I’m uncertain of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just the long and short of it, though, John, is just that you don’t want to restrict
access to just watercraft. You want to be able to utilize it in the wintertime, too, as well? Correct?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Take a moment to read the letter, and I think it’ll answer most of your
questions.
MR. BREWER-What is the facility for? Is it for launch boats or whatever?
MR. SALVADOR-All sorts of vehicles, devices that handicap or emergency services might require.
MR. BREWER-Why can’t we just put access facility for launching, period?
MR. SALVADOR-A vehicle could use this to simply draft water from the lake. It wouldn’t launch.
MR. BREWER-I think we’re getting into semantics. I mean, we’re making a mountain out of a
molehill.
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, but you have to cover everything in this Town. Believe me, and if you
don’t have it that you could put some kind of a vehicle down there to draw water from for a fire or
something, they’re going to say, whoa, you can’t do that, that’s not what that area.
MR. BREWER-Who do you think in their right mind would ever say that?
MRS. SALVADOR-Do you live in Queensbury?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from any of the Board members?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question, on the next to last page, on Description. I’m assuming
that these are the types of things that these are ideas or examples of what?
MR. SALVADOR-Exactly.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what’s this Para Sail, balloon, offering of Para Sailing rides, type balloon?
Wouldn’t that go under a different category?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, the reason I attached this was to show, on the second, the last page there,
you’ll see the sort of things that we might be using this area for, okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and that’s just what I thought, too. Except when I see the para sailing
and balloon. It doesn’t look to me like that would go under those sampling of lake water through
construction equipment for dock repair and boat repair and assembly.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, we registered all of those activities with the Park Commission, in 1990. We
were required to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s part of your Park Commission application?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. SALVADOR-That just gives you an idea of the kind of traffic that might pass over this facility.
MR. BREWER-I’m just confused. We're trying to cover everything? Why don’t we just say, you can
launch anything you want? Is that what you want?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we said that when we said Handicap and Emergency Access Facility. It’s
access. Now the Staff has added, for lake access. You see it there? I would simply change that to
water access.
MR. BREWER-Why are you writing our motion, though? That’s what’s confusing me, John. I don’t
have a problem giving you your access, but when you come in with a four page or a three page thing
of everything that could be launched, and you give us an example, if somebody wants to take water
from there, I don’t think we’re going to prohibit that. That’s not our intention. It’s almost like
you’re running scared. I don’t understand.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, we certainly don’t want to have any problems as we go down the road with
other regulatory agencies, okay. This is what we’re applying for, and you are here to pass judgement
on the degree to which this is a.
MR. BREWER-No, I guess what I’m saying, though, when you came in with your application, you
didn’t come in with all this stuff.
MR. SALVADOR-No, I didn’t. I didn’t have to because I said it’s a handicap and emergency access
facility. Staff added the words “for launching of watercraft”. Okay. I did not put that on our
SEQRA report, and the County didn’t, either. My point is, if it’s for the launching of watercraft, it’s
a serious restriction on the use of the facility.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I understand that.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Now they’ve inserted, “for lake access”. I’m saying a better word is
“water” access. Because that, technically, is not the lake, where we will be accessing.
MR. MAC EWAN-We won’t go down that way. We’ll leave it as it is, I think. I mean, for lake
access, I think that would be fine, and have my support.
MR. BREWER-Lake access.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. SALVADOR-I did not request that that sentence about the dimension drawing, that it be
stricken. That is not my, I think it’s redundant, but if you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, to get a building permit, you would need a dimension drawing. So, in that
sense, it is redundant.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 25-99 FOR DUNHAMS
BAY BOAT AND BEACH CLUB, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
In accordance with the way the modification is made, for lake access is still correct. The Planning
Board has determined, also, that there is no change in the site plan modification and further finds
that there is no sufficient change to the original SEQRA findings. We’re revising the original motion
to delete the phrase that dimension drawings should be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit, and also we’re taking out the phrase “For launching of watercraft”, and replacing that “For
lake access”, as per 7/20/99 revised resolution.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Paling
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 71-96, 33-94 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME
ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION REQUEST IS
FOR SITE WORK REGRADING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-1998, SUB. 14-1994, SP
33-94 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7.16 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-60
WILLIAM NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 71-96, 33-94, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan to perform
substantial site work including grading and filling of the property for future use. Previous approvals
included Site Plan 33-94 (10/27/94) for a storage building, Site Plan 71-96 (11/26/96) for a courier
business, and Subdivision 14-1994 (1/17/95) for two lots. The modification to the site requires
review and approval by the Planning Board. Staff Notes: The application for modification had
been previously tabled from the August 1998 Planning Board meeting requesting additional
information and for the applicant to obtain an area variance to fill within the buffer. The applicant
has provided a drawing and a letter to address Staff’s letter of December 1998. The comments and
responses are listed below. (Information will be verified upon a site visit.) Clearly identify the ZBA’s
conditions of approval. Response: Information provided on a drawing dated revised 6/11/99. Identify both
existing and proposed locations of excavating/processed materials, indicating type of material.
Response: Letter indicates all materials have been moved out of the buffer. Show existing and proposed
locations of material incidental to the operation of business (storage trailer, scrap metal,
cinderblocks). Response: Applicant indicates the drawing identifies all materials on property. Identify business
equipment storage including employee and customer parking. Response: The drawing identifies fifty
designated parking spaces on site. Show existing and proposed locations of proposed or existing mining
activities on the property. Response: The applicant has indicated there are no mining activities on site. Show
and locate all soil erosion control measures to be used per the ZBA conditioned approval. Response:
The drawing identifies a silt fence at the toe of the slope. Show and locate soil erosion control methods to be
used for stock piled materials, also indicate maintenance schedule. Response: The stockpiled material is
constantly changing and will be handled at times with staked bales of hay. Provide a stormwater management
and grading plan for the entire site. Response: The applicant’s letter indicates all stormwater is to be handled on
site, and the drawing indicates arrows for stormwater flow direction. Provide information on site maintenance
in regard to noise, dust, and screening. Response: The letter indicates the existing vegetation and topography
provided screening from the road. The applicant has addressed Staff’s concerns about grading and filling
of the property. The applicant has been made aware the disturbance of the area may require a
NYSDEC permit as noted in a letter dated August 20, 1998 from the NYSDEC. Staff
Recommendations: Staff would recommend an updated survey be provided identifying the current
contour lines, the drawing submitted is from October of 1998. In addition, the Staff would
recommend the applicant provide a timeframe for completion of the project, and upon completion
an “as built” survey be provided to the Community Development Department.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. NEALON-My name is William Nealon. I’m an attorney representing Glenn Batease.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think before we get into any further discussions, I've asked our Code
Enforcement Officer, Craig Brown, to come in tonight to give us a history of the site, for some of
the Board members, just to refresh everyone’s memory, and I’m going to turn it over to him and let
him bring us right up to speed where things are, through the last year or so.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Basically, this project started in May of 1998. An inquiry was made about the
activities on the property. I made several inspections of the property and determined that the
activities weren’t consistent with what the existing approvals were for, basically a small area to be
filled to construct a warehouse building and some ancillary parking for. Since that time, the nature of
activities have grown to include filling, material processing, storage of some sorts of discarded debris.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with these photos, but there’s some photographs here you can take
a look at. Through several inspections, as I said, requests to comply with buffer zone requirements,
stockpiling and storage of materials, filling, grading requests, we ended up in a legal action, basically
to have Mr. Batease at least come in and talk to us and submit application to have the project
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
reviewed by the Board. Eventually got through that process and I think that’s kind of where we are
tonight. That’s the one page version of the issues, but hopefully you’ll be able to dig them all up
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-This goes back, though, to our August 1998, right, meeting where we had him
come in and then it was tabled? Is that not correct?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we’ve not had him in since then until tonight.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how many trips have you made to Town Court regarding this application?
MR. BROWN-Two or three probably.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two or three, and what’s been the outcome of each one of those?
MR. BROWN-We’ve had more dates scheduled. They were adjourned with the contemplation of
dismissal, if the applicant would come in and submit application. Several were missed or applications
weren’t complete when they were submitted. So, in an effort to work with the applicant to get a
project that can be reviewed, have enough information for the Board to look at, they were
continuously adjourned, and ultimately he’s got something together that I think you guys can look at.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
MR. BROWN-Unless you have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where to begin?
MR. NEALON-Well, we would be happy to respond to the Board’s inquiries. I think, let me first
say, that this was initially a site that had some significant topographical issues. There was a large
ravine that cut across the middle of the site. As the Board’s aware, a number of years ago the site
and the adjoining site, owned by Seeley Machine, was zoned as Light Industrial, and so to enable that
utilization to be had in a practical fashion, there needed to be some leveling and filling of the
topographical deficits, shall we call them, of the property. Issues were raised by Mr. Brown and his
Staff regarding the nature of the slope that would be created by the filling. We’ve endeavored to
address those, with the assistance of Van Dusen and Steves, and have left with Mr. Brown and the
Board the revised slope plan. Glenn has endeavored to keep the water flows that strike that slope as
much in the property as possible, the silt fences and so on, and he has recently installed a berm as
well, up slope of the silt fence. I think it’s fair to say that a parcel of this size, and in this location, has
a variety of issues which we cannot project, in terms of what’s going to happen with the Northway
and what sort of ultimate development is appropriate for the site. We can indicate that in order to
make the best utilization, both for the Town and for Mr. Batease, a grading and regrading of this site
was necessary. So that’s where we are today. We’ve certainly been appreciative of Mr. Brown’s and
his Staff’s assistance in working with us here. It is a difficult issue to put a time table on, because we
never know, or Glenn never knows, exactly when fill is going to be available, nor what quantities that
might be, but we’ve endeavored to provide to the Board a reasonable drawing showing what is there
on the site, and the anticipated slopes that are to result in the final configuration. I know Staff has
requested a current topographical analysis of the site. Each such survey of the site costs upwards of
$1500 to $3,000, and it’s virtually cost prohibitive to come in every time with what’s going to happen
when the, or what the current status of the site is, when in three weeks it could be completely, well
not completely, but significantly changed, because of fill. So we ask the Board’s indulgence there.
We will provide, once the slopes are filled in accordance with the plans that have been laid out before
the Board, with an as configured, as opposed to as built, drawing, but it’s a little difficult for us to do
that incremental basis because of the cost factors that are involved.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no doubt it’s a difficult situation right now, and speaking for myself, and
I’m sure that you’ll hear some of my fellow Board members echo my sentiments, this has been a very
frustrating, enduring issue for us, and our concerns are that we want to see compliance with what has
been issued previously. We’d like to see the site cleaned up, and I think that we need to put some
sort of firm plans together tonight that’s going to ensure that that’s going to happen.
MR. NEALON-Well, I’m not sure, Mr. MacEwan, exactly what you mean by having the site cleaned
up. There are materials being processed there, and I don’t want to be argumentative, but it is an
industrial site.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-But are all those things, I don’t know, you can’t really call it mining because you’re
not pulling it from there. Maybe you are, I don’t know. Like there’s piles of stone, sand, is that stuff
you’re selling or is it just stuff that you’ve put there. You’re not using it for fill? And then there’s
wood chips.
MR. NEALON-The wood chips are gone.
MR. BREWER-Okay, they’re gone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Were they there today?
MR. BROWN-I don’t remember.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-I mean, as I remember, and I want you to be able to use your property, Glenn, but it
seems like every time we have an appearance of this property, we get things all straightened out, and
then nothing goes right again until we get you back in here to do it all over again. I mean, like I have
a pet peeve about the brook down at the bottom. It’s not even on the map anymore. Maybe it
wasn’t on your property, but it just seems to have disappeared. We had great discussion at length
about protecting the water, the brook down at the bottom, and here it’s not even on the map
anymore. It’s almost like, the hell with it, it’s filled in, it’s gone.
MR. NEALON-I’m not sure which map you’re.
MR. BREWER-No, I’m not saying you filled it in or who did.
MR. NEALON-The stream does not lie on Mr. Batease’s property, and it is shown on the map.
MR. BREWER-Right. I don’t see it. I’m innocent of saying I don’t see it on this map, and like I
said, I don’t know if it was on Glenn’s property or not. I don’t know if it’s filled in. I didn’t go
down there, on the bottom.
MR. NEALON-Are you looking at this?
MR. BREWER-I don’t see it on here.
MR. NEALON-The stream is right down on the bottom. It’s not on Mr. Batease’s property.
MR. BREWER-I’m blind. I’m sorry. I apologize. I thought there was one section down in here
where there was hay bales or a berm or something. I guess that’s just, just the section I was talking
about.
MR. NEALON-I am not a qualified person to indicate whether what appears in that 50 foot arch
that’s shown at the bottom of, on the eastern boundary of Mr. Batease’s property constitutes a
stream or a weep or whatever. So we’ve set aside that area as one we’re trying to prohibit or
minimize any disturbance. There is not a stream as you or I might customarily refer to one.
MR. BREWER-I know what you’re saying. I know what it was. I don’t know. It’s tough because
you want to be able to use your property, and you should have a right to use your property, but like
Craig said, so many things are going on, and I understand the business you’re in, that that’s just the
way it is, but I don’t know what the answer is. The buffer, was that invaded? Was there
conversation about that?
MR. BROWN-That’s what the variance was for.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. BROWN-To be able to fill within the buffer to the property line, with the exception of that 50-
foot setback from that stream, year round flow, whatever it’s classified as.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we still maintaining that?
MR. BROWN-Currently? Today? It looks as though there’s been some fill placed in there and some
re-grading done. I haven’t been out. I had a conversation with Glenn this afternoon that he had
performed some site work in that area to either re-grade it or remove the fill in that 50 foot area. I
didn’t get a chance to go back out, but hopefully it’ll be something we can have delineated and be
able to monitor in the future.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you done grading and site work in that 50-foot area?
GLENN BATEASE
MR. BATEASE-I put a berm before the silt fence for extra protection, so there wouldn’t be any
water runoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that was within the 50 foot area?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Tim had asked before you had moved the wood chip pile and the topsoil pile and the
cobblestone pile. Tim asked, is that going to come back again. Now, you moved it now, whether
they going to come back, or are you selling that stuff, or?
MR. BATEASE-In my excavation business. I bring material in. We process it and take it away. If
it’s fill brought in, if it’s good material, instead of pushing it over the bank, I reuse it.
MR. RINGER-So we’ll continually have these piles all around the place?
MR. NEALON-Well, we’ve tried not to have them all around the place.
MR. RINGER-But they were all around the place.
MR. NEALON-At one time they were more widely separated I guess.
MR. RINGER-I just get the feeling that you say, all right, now because Craig has come and said,
clean this up, you’ve cleaned them up and moved them, but I just feel, from past history, they’re
going to be back again.
MR. NEALON-As I understood it, and I certainly don’t want to put words in Mr. Brown’s mouth,
the concern was that, at one point, one or more of those piles may have intruded a little bit into the
buffer area. They’ve been moved out of the buffer area. Again, the site is an industrial site, and in
the ideal scope of things, in time, there will be, in all likelihood, commercial/industrial development
there which will have buildings in lieu of piles, but right now, Mr. Batease uses it in connection with
his excavating business, and that’s what’s going on.
MR. RINGER-And we can get no timeframe as to the time period you’re talking about?
MR. NEALON-Well, if you were able to tell us that someone was going to walk in the door with a
proposal on such and such a date, to develop the site and afford us with the funding necessary to do
so, we could give you a timetable.
MR. RINGER-I’m thinking more of filling the site all in and getting that portion completed, then I
don’t think you’re going to sell the site until you get it completely leveled off so it is usable.
MR. NEALON-It’s approaching that, at this time, in terms of some of the grades having been
established in the immediate vicinity of the building, and it’s, in all likelihood, not going to change,
but we cannot tell you what fill is going to be available to us at a particular time because it is not fill
that we go out and purchase. It is fill that is a consequence of even the Town of Queensbury’s
highway projects and the State of New York’s highway projects and other developer’s projects that
become available.
MR. RINGER-When we were there looking at the site, some of the stuff that had been dumped
down were logs and pieces of tree stumps and things like that. That’s not the type of fill you’re
putting in there, right?
MR. NEALON-I saw a log chunk.
MR. RINGER-Well, I saw some like this, but I saw several of them.
MR. NEALON-Again, by enlarge, that is not what is to be dumped there. We don’t have a
policeman there if somebody who has permission to dump comes in and there’s a log on. We don’t
know that that, necessarily, goes in.
MR. RINGER-One I probably wouldn’t have noticed, but there were several.
MR. NEALON-That is not the type of fill that we solicit and request in that area.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-While we’re on the subject of fill, how could you ever build on this? Is that
allowable? I have no idea. Say you continued to fill the rest of the property like that, with this
material, could you build on that?
MR. NEALON-That is the slope that is shown. There would be no filling in that area.
MR. BREWER-I understand that, that this would come back, but that being a cut out of a picture of
what’s there, could you build on that type of fill without it being compacted, or do you have to
compact it or not?
MR. BATEASE-I would imagine eventually you could build on it, after it settles. It’s all good fill
that’s going in there.
MR. BREWER-Right. How do you measure that, though? Is there a measure you take?
MR. BATEASE-A compactor’s (lost word) and what not.
MR. BREWER-But it would have to be tested, do you think? In other words, say that you had a
portion that you had filled with that type of material, somebody came in to you and said, I want you
to build me a building, and I’ll lease it, could you build on it tomorrow?
MR. BATEASE-I don’t know that answer. I’d have to check.
MR. BREWER-Okay, then I guess my point would be, at that point, how would we determine if he
could or couldn’t? Would there ever be a reason to check the stability of it?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think, knowing the history of the parcel and there’s obviously going to be
some site plan resolutions and comments that would, once it comes in for a building permit, a
potential building, the Building Department would have that knowledge and they could request some
soil testing or boring or compaction test. If it’s 20 years down the road, chances are, it’s probably
going to be settled by then.
MR. BREWER-Fine.
MR. BROWN-But if it’s within the fairly near future, it’s probably something that would be
investigated before you could build on it.
MR. VOLLARO-I've got some questions. I guess the question I’m having is I’m here to approve a
site plan, a site plan that’s in flux, so I really can’t bring it into focus, and I don’t know how much
value I can place on this piece of paper in front of me. That’s one of the problems I’m having in
trying to make a determination, up or down, on this application. What I will tell you is, and this is
referring, Mr. Nealon, to your letter of June 13, 1999, and we’re talking here about seeding and
planting of the slope will be dictated by the completion of the final grade of the slope itself. Now, if
I start to put some of your words against the variance words, which I've done, I find out, in the last
page of the variance, for example, it says that the re-vegetation should take place as soon as possible
after the time that the toe of the slope reaches the property line, and your statement is directly
incongruent with that statement.
MR. NEALON-I don’t believe it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I do.
MR. NEALON-Because the toe of the slope, the slope as specified is a two on one slope.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what the slope is, sir.
MR. NEALON-When that slope is configured and reaches the property line as a two on one slope,
then we can begin the re-vegetation of it to propose to re-vegetate and then fill over that which has
been re-vegetated, with all due respect, doesn’t seem to me to be a very economical use of one’s time
and effort.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just ask a quick question on that subject. Are you at a two to one slope
now?
MR. NEALON-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you at?
MR. NEALON-I’m not sure, as we speak, what it is right now, because it’s not fully filled.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BROWN-It’s going to be in the neighborhood of one on one or one and a half to one. It’s
pretty steep right now. I mean, if you measure a distance from the top to the bottom, and then
divide by the contours, change in elevation, you get a percent slope.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The next thing I have, and I’m still hanging on that first part, but then when
we get down to your second page, or Page Two at the top, and we talk about, these are not yet
known, further site review will be sought when such development/construction is in hand. Now,
right after this application, we’re going to have to do a SEQRA review here, and the SEQRA review,
to my mind, talks about cumulative effects, and we’re only being given one portion of this program
here, and I don’t know, when we get to SEQRA, what the mitigation of that particular line in
SEQRA is going to be, when really we have a project that’s constantly in flux. What I’m really
looking for here is at least a conceptual final configuration, because I can’t focus on this job unless
I've got something that I can focus on in the final. You understand what I mean by the SEQRA
thing. It’s called segmentation, you give us a little at a time. Every time you come in it’s a little more.
SEQRA says that’s a no no.
MR. NEALON-Yes, I understand that, but I think the reality of this site, in this economy, makes it
literally and figuratively impossible for us to tell you that, yes, we’re going to put a building in this
location, and it’s going to have a road that goes in this location. We have no way of knowing that,
any more than we have a current way of predicting what is going to happen.
MR. VOLLARO-When I said conceptual, that’s what I mean. Conceptually, how would you
concede this of looking, downstream, when this site plan comes to final rest? In your best hopes and
dreams, what would this site look like? That’s what I’m looking for, a conceptual analysis. It doesn’t
have to be cast in stone, but other than that, I don’t see how I can even make a decision on, unless I
get some firmness.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the direction we would need to be going with this is to have some sort of
closure, if you will, as to where the final grades of this parcel is going to end up. I mean, what you’re
suggesting is just, we’ll just keep you up to date and we’ll just keep coming in every once in a while,
and kind of keep you up to date where we are in filling, and I’m not about to sit up here and grant an
approval based on that. I mean, no other application’s ever been in front of this Board where we’ve
done that, and I certainly wouldn’t think we’d do it tonight.
MR. NEALON-The filling on the southern end of the property, as set forth in this survey that’s been
provided to the Board, is an as finally configured rendition. Now, the upper portion is substantially
as it was when Mother Nature left it, that is the northern portion of the site. That block that’s in the
middle, where you see the gravel pile indicated, has been filled over the course of time. We would
not anticipate that there would be substantial, in the way of changes to that generally level area, as it
is. The major focus on the filling operation at this point in time is in the southern portion, which is
set forth with the re-contoured lines laid out on the survey map as prepared by Van Dusen and
Steves. That what I’m telling you is that the northern portion of the site, they have some minor
changes, based on what somebody wants to build there. It would be wild speculation on my part to
say that it’s going to look in this particular configuration, when we don’t know what the best use of
that site would be.
MR. MAC EWAN-One could always come in, in the future, and ask for a modification. We have
done it before, and we’ll do it in the future.
MR. NEALON-That’s, I suppose, true.
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to get some direction here. We cannot continue to go on the way we’re
going on. It’s not in the best interest of anyone.
MR. NEALON-Well, I think the primary concern, as I understood it, was that configuration that this
site would have, in essentially the southern 60% of the site, that was, as I understood my
conversations with Staff, the area that had the greatest concern. That’s what we have endeavored to
address as completely as we can.
MR. BREWER-Didn’t you have one time when you came in, I can’t remember when it was, but
maybe when it was when you first built your building, Glenn. You had your building placed on here,
and I think there were two others, one over here and one down here, and you had some sort of a
road so you could get to all three buildings. Didn't you have a map of that at one time? As a
conceptual drawing that you might do at one time? I’m almost sure you did.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I think Tim’s right.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-That’s basically what we’re looking for. I mean, I’m almost willing to bet that you
had a map in here one night, with your building placed, another building over here, and I don’t
remember exactly where, and then another one here, and you had marked on it future use or
whatever. I don’t remember the terms.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tim, I think you’re right.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, Tim, he does have drawings on this other plan, but they’re not to scale, and it
depends on future buildings as they’re listed, but you’re looking at permeability and stuff like that,
according to what site plan. These were not to scale.
MR. BREWER-No, I understand that, but what we’re looking for is a conceptual drawing as to what
he wants. That fits that criteria.
MR. BATEASE-I was told that I should leave those buildings out on this. I said, well, if I’m going
in, I ought to put that I want to build them here, here, here, here, here. They advised me, when you
want to put a building up, go for it then. Don’t clutter up the paper with a lot of buildings.
MR. BREWER-That’s fine, but if you put on the map.
MR. BATEASE-I mean, eventually, it would be nice to have the whole thing.
MR. BREWER-That’s what you want to do, and what my anticipation is, if you put those buildings
where you want that grade to be when you finish up doing this piece of property.
MR. BATEASE-Right here where this is. This is where I want to be at right here. This is my end
result right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is your end result, what elevation?
MR. BATEASE-Right here on your sheet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which one, 370?
MR. BATEASE-370. I want the back of the property five-foot higher than the road, so I don’t have
any water runoff toward the back of the property. I want it toward the road, and I’m going to put
catch basins in the proper area. Higher in the back, running toward the road, so there’s not going to
be any water problem. It shows you the grades right here of what I want to do.
MR. BREWER-I see the 370. Where is it five foot higher in the back?
MR. BATEASE-370 in the back, and we’ve got 364, 366.
MR. BREWER-All right. So you’re not going to go any further than that 370?
MR. BATEASE-No.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-370, Tim, is what’s in the variance. The variance says he must stop at 370. That’s
what the variance, that’s how it’s written.
MR. BREWER-Well, if that’s where he wants to end up, and it’s on here, then he could take this
map, place future, I mean, we’re the ones approving it, not Staff. We're asking you to show us what
you want. Show us what you want to do. That’s all we’re asking you to do, and do it.
MR. BATEASE-Well, I’d like to have the whole thing one huge building, if I could. I mean, but I
don’t know what’s going on. It would be nice if a hotel would take up the whole seven and a half
acres, or put in 20 small 15,000 square foot buildings. That is just.
MR. BREWER-I understand. We can’t hold you to exactly what you’re going to build. It’s like a
Sketch Plan with a subdivision.
MR. BATEASE-I’m guessing. Sure you’d like to do this. You’d like to do that. I have no idea what
type of businesses we could put in there. I know what I’d like to have, but.
MR. NEALON-I think that the problem we’re all trying to grapple with, and I understand the
Board’s desire to have as complete a picture as possible. The economics of that particular site, and
the resources that are currently available to Mr. Batease, who runs an excavating business, are not the
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
same as those which might be available if, I don’t know, if Premier Parks came in and said, we want
to do something.
MR. VOLLARO-Bad example.
MR. NEALON-Well, I don’t want to get into that, because I don’t know what they’ve been doing,
but an entity with essentially unlimited resources is not before you. We have very limited resources,
and we can only do what those resources will permit. Right now, resources will permit us to attempt
to complete the fill, and we have to wait. It would be wild speculation for us, and I understand Mr.
Vollaro’s concern about the SEQRA, but I can’t give you anything that would have any validity in
terms of, this is where we want to put a building or these are the final configuration of buildings. We
don’t have the resources. We don’t have someone who has come in expressing an interest to lease
the property and to build. That would be the rankest form of speculation for us to say, we want
buildings here and here.
MR. BREWER-What do we do?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the main concern that I have is not so much necessarily where a proposed
building may or may not be located. It’s the continuing fill and encroaching on that property line,
encroaching into the neighboring brook area, encroaching into the buffer zone. We just seem to
keep going and going, and going and going.
MR. NEALON-The fill, the slope as configured, the toe of the slope will approach the property line.
That’s what’s always been contemplated in the area shown on the map, and there is fill there. There’s
going to be fill there.
MR. VOLLARO-On Page Three at the top, you say, but I respectfully submit to you that because of
the permeable nature of the site. I don’t know how you determine that the site, at any given time, is
permeable or not permeable, based on the state of flux that the site is in, and it says an engineered
stormwater management plan does not seem necessary, added to what Mother Nature has already
been doing on the site. This will, of course, change as when new and interior (lost word) buildings
are proposed, but I still think that we need some assurance as to what the stormwater management
on this site is, other than saying, because we’re in a state of flux, we can’t give you that either. (lost
word) sit in judgment on a site plan, and the thing is like, you know, constantly in motion, with
respect to things that are normally supplied with site plans. So I just don’t know how you put that
statement in. I know why you put it in.
MR. NEALON-Well, the entire stormwater issue, if a site is covered with asphalt, with concrete,
with buildings, you have a clearer issue of what do we do with the stormwater that is flowing off
these clearly impermeable surfaces. Right now I've got dirt and rocks over there. Those are not the
sort of impermeable surfaces that I generally would associate with drainage ditches and the like.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we even include such things as gravel surfaces, as impermeable surfaces when
this Board reviews surfaces, gravel surfaces are considered impermeable, for example.
MR. NEALON-Well, I don’t even have any graveled surfaces, of any consequence there, that are
other than as shown on the drives.
MR. VOLLARO-I think at the end of your statement, you say something about modification of the
currently proposed site will be sought, and then you say, an engineer’s letter can be available before
the July Board meeting if required. I might ask Staff, have we asked them to provide that letter from
an engineer that would tend to comment on this situation?
MRS. MOORE-We haven’t asked for that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think I would, but that’s Staff’s prerogative. That’s it for now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Most of my questions have been answered, but I’d like to bring this to your
attention, that for the five years or so that I've been on this Board, I've visited this site many times,
and I know that where we were standing, right at the precipice, used to be one big hole the last time,
and I know that you’ve filled in quite a bit over the past few years, and my main concern is, when I
see the silt fence, and I know that the stream is on the other side, and I know that there’s a buffer
zone, but I’m concerned about how much control you have when something goes head over, you
know, just goes dumps over the edge of that cliff, you know, to start filling in. It’s hard for me to
think that there’s never going to be a mistake made where the fill and everything is just going to keep
going on, you know, beyond the part where it’s supposed to go, and that silt fence seems to
vulnerable that all you need is a couple of big boulders, and it’s going to just knock it right over.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. NEALON-Well, I think Mr. Batease has tried to address that in berming in front of the silt
fence. Obviously, I can’t project whether someone is going to offer to deposit there boulders of the
size you’re describing. That has not, as I understand it, been characteristic of the fill that’s been
placed there in the past. Could it be that some rock went over the property line or beyond where it
was contemplated? I suppose there is an outside possibility. Certainly, that’s not our intention here.
We're not in the business of trying to complicate our own lives, and certainly something like that
would.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, and I know that it’s hard for you to project when this is going to be
completed, but I was just there the other day, and it seems to me like it’s going fast. I mean that’s the
way I perceive it. I mean, time goes by quickly.
MR. NEALON-It’s been in the process of being filled, since 1994. So it’s been a long time in getting
to where it is right now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Bob makes a good point. It is constantly changing, and it is terribly
hard to approve something today that may look differently in the fall.
MR. NEALON-Well, the plan that you have before you is intended as a finished grade, once the
filling is complete.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that.
MR. NEALON-And I say that, in particular, for that portion of the grading that’s laid out in the
southern two thirds of the property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bill, would you just explain to me that half circle at the bottom of the plan?
MR. NEALON-That is the best that the surveyor was able to establish, in terms of this 50 foot,
don’t touch anything within so many feet of the stream.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because there’s a part of the stream that originates there, too.
MR. NEALON-There is something that is wet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, we had discussed that years ago, right.
MR. NEALON-I don’t know what it is, from time to time it’s wet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, one other thing. It seems like this is something that many applicants,
lately, are coming in with, maybe not many, but a couple here and there. How can you be in business
and trying really hard to fill this area in, and not have any idea in your mind what you want to put
there down the line? I mean, you’ve got to have contemplated something. I guess the point is, I feel
like we’re being eluded sometimes, when applicants come in and we ask them just for a little answer.
Give us a hint. I mean, you must have a hint.
MR. NEALON-I would invite you, I suppose, to contemplate, if the site were to be developed as a
trucking terminal type of a facility. It’s close by to the Northway, in a situation like that, there would
be an advantage to having the northern end of the site be, essentially, at a higher level than the
bottom. So that goods could come in and out more easily. A two-story structure might go there.
Whether or not a trucking or other industrial type of facility is appropriate on that site, if and when
the Northway exit changes, and may or may not come up along what is now Big Boom Road or not,
I don’t know, but if that relocation of the Northway exit comes to pass, to have an industrial site on
that location may not make any sense. So I’m not, nor is Glenn, trying to elude or dodge a direct
answer, but I think the realities of that site in that location at this time are such that, what might be
good today, if the Northway re-engineering in fact takes place, may not be good tomorrow, and for
us to tell you that, certainly, we want to do this, and we’re only going to look in a time horizon that’s
a year, eighteen months out.
MR. BREWER-Well, the Northway is five years away.
MR. NEALON-That’s not realistic. I don’t know what the timeframe of the Northway is.
MR. BREWER-That’s what the engineer said, five years away, from happening. So we’ve got five
years to.
MR. NEALON-If there are firm plans that that’s where it’s going to go. I don’t know, nor does
Glenn, have any information about what is really DOT’s ultimate objective.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-I don’t think they know.
MR. NEALON-We would probably have some other interests being expressed in that site which
may guide us in what we would come to this Board seeking to be able to do.
MR. BREWER-Have you thought about contacting DOT?
MR. NEALON-Actually, we’ve been more focused on trying to finish what we needed to do here.
MR. BREWER-That would be part of, if you could get an answer from them, that they say, hey,
we’re going to reconfigure Big Boom Road, it might work perfect for you.
MR. NEALON-It’s part of the equation. It’s certainly not all of the equation.
MR. BREWER-No, I mean, because if they came in and did that, you haven’t got it filled, so things
have to work out at the same time, but it probably couldn’t hurt to call them.
MR. NEALON-Certainly take that under advisement.
MR. PALING-I've got several questions. What it seems that you’re trying to tell us is that you want
to keep improving this lot, so that some day when you have a customer or customers that would be
able to utilize it, you’re ready to move ahead with it.
MR. NEALON-That’s correct.
MR. PALING-So if you went too far, you’d have to go back and subtract something.
MR. NEALON-Undo, yes.
MR. PALING-And I don’t see why you can’t come up with a configuration of this lot, minimum if
you will, and stop there and don’t do anymore.
MR. NEALON-I’m not sure exactly that I follow you.
MR. PALING-Well, you said that you wanted to keep improving this lot, so that some day it’s
attractive to somebody to put a building on.
MR. NEALON-Okay. Well, that’s basically what we have done on the southern two thirds of this
lot.
MR. PALING-But you want to keep going, if I understand you right. You don’t want to stop at the
grading you’re doing here.
MR. NEALON-No. What you see here is the end product.
MR. PALING-All right. Well, you can stop when this is done.
MR. NEALON-As to that portion of the lot.
MR. PALING-How about the whole lot?
MR. NEALON-The whole of the lot, I think there might be some minor changes up on the north
end, just to smooth things out, but I don’t know what those would be at this point.
MR. PALING-That’s what I’m trying to say, that I’d like to see that, and let you do that and stop,
and don’t do anything else, but let me pass on to some other questions. I’m a little surprised that you
would put us in a position that you’re trying to, with some of the things you’re saying in regard to
trees, and these will be planted various times, as trees of appropriate size become available to Mr.
Batease. So if they never became available, he wouldn’t have to plant them.
MR. NEALON-Well, actually, that was, I don’t want to throw in Mr. Brown here, but the
suggestion, in the course of our discussions with Staff, was a recognition that trees, as opposed to
little bushes, would have to be placed there on the site. The reality of Mr. Batease’s business is that
oftentimes those types of trees become available, and when the finished grade is, according to the
plan finished, which we hope won’t be very long, but when it is finished, we will install those trees.
MR. PALING-What trees?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. NEALON-We’ve had some suggestions from the Soil and Water Conservation Service in regard
to those trees.
MR. PALING-That’s something we can’t act on. Now, you’re running a business off of this land
right now, right?
MR. BATEASE-Yes.
MR. PALING-But you’re not mining.
MR. BATEASE-No.
MR. PALING-But you are processing, and what you’re processing is not necessarily from this land.
MR. BATEASE-Correct.
MR. NEALON-It is not from this land.
MR. PALING-Now, that’s outside of the zoning allowed on this property. Processing is not
allowed.
MR. NEALON-That I can’t speak to.
MR. MAC EWAN-While Robert’s looking that up, could I ask you, Laura, could you pull out the
applications for his site plan 71-96 and 33-94, and if you could just read to me and refresh my
memory as to what is the project description on both of those applications.
MR. PALING-If you want to take a look, you’re in Light Industrial 1-A. To do what you’re doing,
you’ve got to move over to Heavy Industry zone, that allows sand and gravel processing, that type of
thing. I don’t see anywhere what you’re doing is permitted.
MR. BREWER-Is that right, Craig?
MR. BROWN-It’s difficult, I think, to characterize all uses to fit in all zone classifications. Is this use
consistent with uses that are allowed in this zone? I think so. If you look at the purpose, it allows
for highway oriented and research businesses, appropriately located, from which they receive their
materials and dispense their products. So is this a material staging, processing site? Yes, they’re not
doing any mining and processing materials from the site. They’re receiving materials, doing their
manufacturing, processing, and then dispensing the products. So I think it would be consistent with
other uses that are allowed in the zone. I think heavy industry, to answer your question, is geared
toward, you know, asphalt plant, a batch plant, some chemical.
MR. BREWER-Batch plants are allowed in Light Industrial, aren’t they?
MR. BROWN-No, heavy industry.
MR. BREWER-Isn’t there a batch plant across the street?
MR. BROWN-That’s probably something that’s pre-existing, nonconforming use.
MR. BREWER-I don’t know if I agree with you.
MR. PALING-If you’re sure of yourself on that, fine, but that’s not the way it is when you read it.
I’m not going to make an issue of it, but it is written this way.
MR. BROWN-Right. I don’t have anything in writing from the Administrator’s determination, but
the Zoning Administrator and I did discuss it previously, and the question was raised, is this an
allowable use, and Chris didn’t seem to have a problem with being able to it as an allowable use in
the zone.
MR. NEALON-That same type of operation is going on, as I understand it right across the street as
well, the processing of vegetative material, stumps and other such things. This is not a primary focus
of this project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have more questions, Bob?
MR. PALING-No, that’s all I have.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have those files in front of me, but 33-94 was for a storage building, as well
as other buildings on the property, which in regard to, it was Batease and Seeley’s property.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was before the subdivision.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-And then the lot was subdivided. So the only thing remaining on the parcel that
Glenn Batease owned was the storage building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is now what the courier service is using. Is that not correct?
MRS. MOORE-They’re using a portion of it, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-A portion of it? Okay. What’s 71-96?
MRS. MOORE-Is for the courier business to be allowed, a review for the courier business in that
building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does he need site plan approval to do the processing, the gravel and stuff
and assorted other things, wood chips on his property?
MRS. MOORE-You may want to consider that. When I did my research on the project, I didn’t find
any mention that he was utilizing the storage building for processing materials, but my assumption is
that he’s been running his business out of that site every since he obtained the property. If that’s not
correct, then that’s one thing. I also have the memo if you want me to read that in.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we need to research that a little bit. Can we?
MRS. MOORE-For what?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I want it clear in my mind. 33-94 was the original site plan to have Seeley’s
machine works and his storage building?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then the subdivision took place?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then site plan 71-96 came along, and that was for him to operate a courier
business out of a portion of the building that he retained on his parcel. Is that not correct?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where did this processing of the gravel and wood chips and sand and everything
else come in?
MRS. MOORE-He’s always owned the building. I’m assuming that he always, when the approvals
came through for 33-94, he was still running, he was running that business anyway.
MR. NEALON-There’s no materials that are processed interior to the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-No one’s saying interior to the building. We're talking about on the site. I would
like you to research that, so that we have clarification as to what was approved.
MR. BREWER-He never came in for that, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I want to understand, and I’m understanding right now that that’s
part of a site plan approval to be able to do that in a Light Industrial zone. Is that not correct?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Should you be reviewing whether he can or cannot process material on the site and
make it part of the site plan? Yes, absolutely.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s what I wanted to be clear on. Okay. I've got a couple of questions
for Staff. I guess that one was just answered. The only other question I have is what is the status on
the August 20, 1998 DEC permit or requiring or maybe needing one or whatever?
MRS. MOORE-That’s up to the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s up to the applicant. Okay. I guess the big question to you, Mr. Brown, is
what are your recommendations?
MR. BROWN-Do you want to continue the public hearing?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we don’t have one scheduled tonight, but I forgot about the memo. I’d like
that read into the record.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is to Craig MacEwan from Craig Brown, dated July 20. “In reference
th
to the above project, a site inspection today revealed several issues needing attention. I met Mr.
Batease on the site this morning and we discussed items that needed to be addressed, regardless of
what approvals are or are not granted in the future. At this visit, we discussed the need to relocate all
of the items stored in the buffer zone area to a compliant location. Hopefully an area can be
mutually agreed upon, both acceptable to Mr. Batease and acceptable to the Board. Also, we
discussed the need to properly install and maintain the erosion control measures on the site,
including silt fences, berms, detention or retention areas, all of which may be necessary to control the
stormwater created on this site. We had a discussion relating to the year round flow running from
his property toward the river and how a 50-foot setback must be maintained from it. Several
recommendations could be made for this site in an effort to both allow for development and at the
same time protect adjoining properties and the community from negative impacts that may be
created from this type of activity. At this time, the major component of this project is the placement
of fill on the site. In an effort to control where fill may be placed, while being in compliance with the
recent variance approval, an accurate field demarcation of where the top of the allowable 2 on 1
slope would be, as well as the 50 foot stream setback may be considered. This delineation would
allow for a couple of items to be easily addressed. First, the limits of allowable filling would be easily
discernable. Secondly, areas requiring grading to control the stormwater and direct it to the center of
the site, rather than allowing runoff toward the river, could be identified. As noted on the applicant’s
site plan, the “existing” contours are based on fieldwork performed in October of 1998. Significant
changes in these “existing” contours have taken place in the subsequent nine months. While the
issue of whether or not the fill has been placed properly is a compliance issue, a condition requiring
accurate field representation of allowable fill limits would certainly aid in enforcement of any
approvals if granted. Additionally, a condition of approval requiring the applicant to gain all other
necessary approvals may be considered. This property is zoned Light Industrial One Acre. The
proposed modification to an existing site plan is a use which appears to be somewhat necessary and
consistent with this zoning. It seems as though this property may be able to support this type of
activity. Relevant questions may be; on what scale can the neighboring properties, community and
environment be protected?” And I’ll just note, there was a stop work order issued back in June of
’98, I believe. So that the Board’s aware of that.
MR. BREWER-Did the work stop?
MR. VOLLARO-You asked did the work stop, and the answer was no?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you respond to that?
MR. NEALON-We’ve been working with Staff in an effort to identify those issues that were of the
greatest concern. The matter was one that was, as I understand it, to provide this Board with an
appropriate plan regarding that fill, and basically the issues of the litigated or unlitigated stuff were
held in abeyance. That’s where we left it. The Town of Queensbury and others build after that time.
MR. MAC EWAN-The frustrating part about all this is that I hear you saying your willingness to
want to work with Staff and with this Board and stuff, but it seems like it’s taken the Town three
trips to court to try to get you in here to try to work with things, and to me, that doesn’t show any
sense of someone wanting to work try to work with this Board or with the Staff to try to resolve the
problems we have on this site.
MR. NEALON-Well, Mr. MacEwan, I’m not going to argue with you on the matter.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s probably because I’m right. Right?
MR. NEALON-I’m not going to argue with you.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A question I've got for you, Craig, is that you kind of gave me some ideas
about what you thought the Town could do to ensure that the slopes, the grades are met, and how
we can achieve those goals. Can you kind of fill everybody in on what your ideas are on that?
MR. BROWN-I think maybe just to clarify, not to, by any means, suggest how to review this, but I
think three of the major issues would be the buffer zone. The materials that are in there were
decided at the variance hearing, meeting. They need to be removed from the buffer zone. All the
materials that are stored, vehicles, materials to be processed, stockpiled, whatever, need to be
removed, and I think to determine a mutually agreeable location on the property to store these items
of discarded debris, abandoned vehicles.
MR. BREWER-Is storage of that type of material allowed?
MR. BROWN-I think it’s consistent with this use. There are certain, you know, items that Mr.
Batease is going to use throughout his, you know, excavating business.
MR. BREWER-I just don’t want to have him place items on his property, and then have you go back
out there and say he can’t store those items.
MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think that’s a problem, and if it becomes a problem, that would be a
compliance issue that I would have to deal with in that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just so I’m clear on this, the ZBA variance said that certain materials had to be
removed from the buffer area?
MR. BROWN-The only thing that could be placed in the buffer area was fill.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are there things in the buffer area now that are in violation of the ZBA variance?
MR. BROWN-It appears to me, from my visit this morning, that there were certain items that were
still within 50 feet of the property line which would be within the buffer, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did the ZBA give him a timeframe to remove that stuff?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BROWN-In an effort to have him only move it once, it was my hope that at this meeting
everybody would agree on where MR. MAC EWAN-Did the ZBA give him a timeframe to remove
that stuff?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BROWN-In an effort to have him only move it once, it was my hope that at this meeting
everybody would agree on where you want to see it and where he wants to put it, and have
everything moved at one time. A lot of the stuff has been moved. A lot of the vehicles, truck bodies,
material and stuff has been moved. There were some items that were there, and some stockpiles of
fire wood or discarded steel, those type of things that, you know, is not as bad as it was. I guess the
second issue that you’re going to want to look at would be the stormwater that’s created on the site.
The grading that’s there right now allows for the water to run toward the stream, which leads to the
river, which everybody wants to keep an eye on. The proposal that’s on the site plan allows for the
water to be maintained on site. Whether you think it’s a sufficient plan or whether you’d want a
stormwater management plan or however you want to deal with it, I think that’s the second major
issue, and the other one would be soil erosion, how the bank is to be stabilized in order to prevent
any erosion from the site to the stream. The stormwater would help that. If you’re going to keep it
on site, you’d have less chance of any breakout of stormwater from a downpour that would cause
that sort of problem. I think a way to do that would be, in the field, determine basically where this
top 370 contour line is, determine what elevation it’s at right now, and say, if it’s 10 feet from where
he’s filled, everybody’s been to the site, I’m assuming. If it’s 10 feet from where he’s filled, it’s time
to stop at that point and start grading the two on one slope. If it’s 10 feet over the slope, you know
that he’s got that much more to fill at the 370 elevation before it’s time to start the two on one slope.
MR. BREWER-So the first thing he has to do is identify where the 370 is going to be?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BROWN-I would think that would be the easiest way to make sure that this plan is conformed
with. It’s difficult, in that the contours have changed dramatically since this map was prepared.
Where the fill is right now may be in violation of this grading plan. It’s difficult to tell.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what you have to do there is shoot those things and put stakes in at 370.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, that’s relatively simple to do at this stage of the game.
MR. BROWN-Right, and also delineate where that 50 foot setback is from that, what the DEC
classified as a year round flow that exits the site. That’s a major priority that needs to be.
MR. BREWER-So we can get those things done and come back with the stuff that you wanted
researched also, right? By next month?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to have one more thing done, and I think it concerns the permeable nature
of the site. If all you say, Craig, is correct, and we stop at the 370 line. We get our 2 to 1 slope down
to the toe, and then we look at the rest of this site, in terms of back filling it, smoothing it out and
doing all the stuff that we’re going to do to make it a relatively level site, if that’s what I understand
wants to be done. We could postulate what that’s going to be. A good engineer would take a look at
the current situation on that site now, getting it filled off flat, and he would then be able to talk about
what the permeability was and whether a stormwater management plan would be required at the
future date or not, based on what materials are in there now. He would know that, and he could
postulate what’s going to be in there, and he could create, even though the plan doesn’t show that, he
could create a permeable level, and then he could talk then about what his stormwater runoff is likely
to be. So I’d like to see that put in here, and this would sort of tie it in a little bit as to what the
future looks like. Because until I get something that stabilizes this drawing, and that I can answer,
really, a thing that says, long term, short term and cumulative effects or others not identified in C1
through C5, I've got to be able to answer that in 20 minutes or so, and I’m not going to be able to.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think, I don’t want to argue either side of the application, but this application
is directed toward the filling of the site, to prepare it for who knows what, and I have to, I guess,
agree with the applicant. To speculate what’s there is, I mean, I think what you’re looking for is a
reasonable projection of what’s going to be on the property. I don’t think they have that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just interject this one thought here. Both these site plans that we
corresponded to tonight never said anything about future development of that parcel.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Never talked about another building, proposed building or any other business
going in there.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I don’t think we should be talking about it tonight either. We're talking about
him filling this thing to the extent that he is. What other future plans he may have for putting up a
building I don’t think is germane to what we’re doing tonight.
MR. BROWN-I think if he decides to put another building on the property, well, then that’s a
different view of the property. At that point he could say, okay, now come in with your industrial
park plan, or come in with the four buildings that you may put up after this one. I think that’s the
time you can address parking and stormwater and lighting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which one of these site plans did the original filling come out of?
MRS. MOORE-33-94 and the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Out of the subdivision.
MRS. MOORE-But 33-94 was first.
MR. BROWN-And that basically envisioned a small area to be filled, kind of where it says “asphalt
drive” over toward gravel pile.
MR. MAC EWAN-So at this point we filled way beyond where it was originally delineated where you
were going to fill. So this is the problem that we have. This is a continually evolving.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nightmare.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think what happened here, that when he got his variance, the Zoning Board
of Appeals really put the limit when they put it at 370. They said 370. That was it, and then you had
to go 2 on 1.
MR. BREWER-At that time, he was past the point of his fill mark then. That was the reason he
went to get the variance. Because he was beyond.
MR. VOLLARO-The problem was at the toe of the slope at that time, I believe. I believe the
problem was at the toe where he was beginning to encroach on the toe.
MR. BROWN-In the buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-And the Zoning Board of Appeals said, what we want you to do is maintain the 2
on 1 from the toe up to a 370 position, and then you have your position, and from that top, then you
start to fill. I’m beginning to get a clearer picture of what the end game would look like here, and I
don’t think it’s a difficult thing to project, and as a matter of fact, I guess the engineer said he would
come up and do that if required, and I’m sure that if he was going to write a letter, he’d have to do it
on projection. You couldn’t do it on the existing site condition today. He’d have to project
something in order to write something that made some sense, and all you want is asking for that to
be done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re going to need to delineate exactly where the 370 is, all right, from
some common starting point, building corner or something like that. Is that what you’re going to
do?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I would say delineate where the 2 on 1 slope starts. It starts in various locations.
If you say 370, if you go a little further to the south, the top of the slope starts at like 366. So if you
do the top of the slope, and I think that demarcation in the 50-foot could be part of your approval, if
you consider any.
MR. BREWER-It’s not approval until he comes back that it’s done.
MR. VOLLARO-We could continue a 370 line, though, Craig. I mean, we don’t have to dip into the
other line. You can shoot all those lines at 370. You’ll get a kind of a.
MR. BROWN-Well, I’m just looking at the proposed final grading plan, here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the thing is, I’m looking at the variance motion where it says that the slope
within the buffer will be planted as well as screening at the beginning of the buffer zone, at the 370
foot elevation marking. That’s what the variance says. It’s very specific. It’s not cloudy or hard to
understand. 370 is the mark that they said in the variance, unless somebody wants to vary the
variance.
MR. BROWN-I think that, from what you just read, addresses where to start the planting, right. It
doesn’t really address where the level of the fill is.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it says the slope within the buffer zone will be planted as well as screening in
the beginning of the buffer zone at the 370-foot mark, which definitely should be the highest of that
slope.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I didn’t hear the highest of the slope part the first time.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on their page one of three of the variance.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we looking for a stormwater management plan as well?
MR. BREWER-No, I’m not.
MR. VOLLARO-I am.
MR. RINGER-I’d like to see something addressing stormwater.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think we should.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. PALING-We’ve got to have something to address runoff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s really what I’m talking about, Bob, is some addressing the potential
runoff on that site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re going to be looking for that as well.
MR. NEALON-Just so I’m clear in what the Board is seeking, are you asking for a letter from an
engineer, upon his review of the site, and some reasonable estimation of what might occur into the
future, or are you asking for something that shows some physical facility there as a stormwater
catchment area or? As I said before, the site is essentially a site that is not at final configuration, and
does not contemplate a final plan at this point. So I’m really at a loss as to just what you mean by,
when you speak of the stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-But we are at that point where you require a final plan, because you have no
other application in front of this Board for any other development of that site. So we’re at a point
now where we’re requiring the final plan.
MR. BREWER-To maintain the stormwater on site is what we’re looking for. The runoff, Craig
said, is going off site.
MR. BROWN-Currently it is.
MR. BREWER-Currently. So what we want to know is how you’re going to maintain stormwater on
site.
MR. BROWN-Based on these contours of this plan, not for some industrial park down the road, but
just this plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s the application that’s in front of us.
MR. BREWER-That’s in the Ordinance, that you have to maintain stormwater on site.
MR. NEALON-All right. I’ll take that up with Craig.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’ve got the answer in your own letter. You say a modification of the
currently proposed site plan will be sought, modification will be sought. In that event, and they were
talking, and more formal stormwater management arrangements will likely be required and proposed.
An engineer’s letter can be available before the July Board meeting. I think you were taking that into
consideration when you wrote these words, it seems to me.
MR. NEALON-As and when such an extensive development, if there ever be one.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not what we’re talking about. We're talking about the existing site plan
that you had approval for from 1996, Site Plan 71-96.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the forcing function here is going to be that if you get an engineer to do this,
he’s going to have to make a projection. There’s no way he can do a stormwater management plan
on the site in flux. He just can’t do it. He’s got to have a site with stability before he can make the
plan. So what will come back is a site that’s relatively stable, a downstream projection of what I have
in front of me. Because he’s got some parameters set up. He’s got a 370 requirement. He’s got a 2
on 1 slope. He’s got a clean toe of the slope at the buffer. He’s got a lot of parameters that he can
make a projection on. It seems to me.
MR. NEALON-Well, we’ll take it up with Staff, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s there to take up? We're asking for it. That’s what we expect.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re not going to get your approval from the Staff. You’re going to get the
approval from the Board.
MR. NEALON-We understand that.
MR. BREWER-That’s part of the problem. We say something here, and you go to Staff, and we
don’t know anything about it. You come back, and you don’t have what we want. You’ve got what
Staff wants.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, Staff’s been supporting this Board in this endeavor from Day One.
MR. BREWER-I’m not saying they haven’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff also realizes that if the applicant, or any applicant, approached them about
doing something different from what this Board has asked for, the Staff would direct the applicant to
come back to this Board for clarification or (lost word) for clarification. So that’s what we’re looking
for, right? We're looking for the stormwater management plan, and we’re looking for you, somehow,
to sit down and work out with them how you’re going to delineate where this 370 contour starts, so
that they can start their 2 on 1 slope.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that delineation is, unless everyone would like to see it in the field before
you make a decision, I think that would be more geared toward compliance with the plan. If you
approve this plan, if then they can mark it in the field, then I can go out and say, this is right. This is
wrong. Unless you need to see it before you approve it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to see it before I put a vote on it.
MR. RINGER-I’d like to go with Craig, when Craig is there, and show us exactly what, all the
recommendations he’s made in his letter, and point them out to us. It’s good to have the pictures,
but if we’re right there with him, I think we can understand it, exactly what he’s asking.
MR. PALING-I think the Board should see it.
MR. RINGER-That’s what I just said. I think we should go as a Board, with Craig, so he can show
us. For me it would be easier to understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the mean time, you can work with the applicant to establish what you want to
get. Is there anything else that we need before we table this thing?
MR. BREWER-When is all this going to happen?
MR. MAC EWAN-Table you until the first meeting of next month?
MR. NEALON-We’ll do our best to comply, and we’ll let the Board know if we need some
additional time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So be it.
MR. PALING-I’d just like to make a comment that I don’t think there’s anything that we’re going to
do in this specific regard that could be taken as approval to your letter. Because there’s a lot of stuff
in there that I think we still have issue with, and we are dealing with pretty specific issues with these
other things here, we haven’t really covered.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. Okay.
MR. NEALON-Very well.
MR. BROWN-Just a question. Do you want to cover them, in case you want additional information
other than the stormwater?
MR. PALING-I’m not sure we can, because they’re saying such things as before, trees will be planted
at various time of appropriate size as they become available. I couldn’t act on that in any way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, maybe what we ought to do is have them come back, next month, add it to
your list, guys, come back with a bonafide landscaping plan that delineates what kind of trees, how
many trees, caliper size, something we can act on.
MR. BREWER-To be put where?
MR. MAC EWAN-On that slope. That’s what the ZBA’s asking for in their variance.
MR. NEALON-I’m not sure we will have all that information for you in a month. We’ll do our best.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, just refresh my memory one more time, Staff. Is the Stop Work Order in
effect?
MR. BROWN-Yes, the Stop Work Order is still in effect.
MR. MAC EWAN-We expect no more filling will go on, then, until we get this resolved?
MR. NEALON-I would ask the Board to lift that Order. We are simply unable to come even close
to being able to do what you are asking us to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Nealon, I can only tell you that from my personal position here on this
Board, you won’t get my support on that because this has been a mad chase for well over two years,
and to lift that. I mean, you’ve been in violation of it now. You’ve continued violating the Stop
Work Order, and I don’t think we’re even empowered to lift it. I think that has to come from the
courts.
MR. BREWER-We can’t do that. We didn’t put the Stop Work Order on you. I don’t know how
we could.
MR. NEALON-Very well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think this is a serious matter where you just need to get going so you can
comply so we can get your site plan approved, so you can get on with your business. Okay. Thank
you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC OWNER: D & C MANAGEMENT
ASSOC., INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 43 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SLEEP INN
HOTEL WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 57-1999, SP 32-99
TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2 LOT SIZE: 7.03 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1999 Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Everest Enterprises, LLC,
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.03
acre parcel into two lots, Lot #1 – 2.9 acres and Lot #2 – 4.23 acres. The application was tabled at
the June 24, 1999 meeting because certified mail receipts were not sent. Staff Notes: The applicant
has addressed all remaining issues about the subdivision, please refer to the Record of Phone
Conversation of July 14, 1999. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read Marilyn’s comment now?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. This would be a good opportunity to do it.
MRS. MOORE-This is from Marilyn VanDyke, the Town Historian. It says “Dear Board Members:
I am writing in response to the D & C Management Associates, Inc. application to subdivide a tax
map 71-2-2 into a two lot subdivision. On the proposed Lot #2, I would ask that you please note
the existence of the historic Blind Rock site, just off the curve on Montray Road. Blind Rock as a
legendary history as a stopping place midway between Fort Edward and Lake George. That travelers
were often waylaid here it is difficult to prove from firsthand accounts. However, there are many
references to the site in history and in land records to show it to be of historic significance. Many
people in the Town have requested that the site be preserved and noted for its importance on or near
the Old Military Road. A few years ago, I presented the idea of creating a pocket park at the site to
preserve the rock and to note its importance in the community’s history. Such a park, if so
dedicated, would be a good way to present, to the public and to the tourists to the area, this
important landmark. As the land parcel is being subdivided, this would be a good time to consider
the Blind Rock site.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Does she, in her little narrative or any attached information, kind of define about
how large an area that is? Size wise?
MRS. MOORE-No, but that’s something I could look into.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-We almost got lost in the woods looking for it.
MR. RINGER-Yes. We looked for it. We couldn’t find it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. LOYOLA-I’m Peter Loyola with Continental Landscape Architecture.
JAY KAPOOR
MR. KAPOOR-I’m Jay Kapoor. I’m the Project Manager on the project.
DAVE KAPOOR
MR. KAPOOR-Dave Kapoor of D & C Management.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you familiar with the Town Historian’s narrative on the Blind Rock?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. We had a number of correspondence, I guess when the Ponderosa was built,
way back when, regarding Blind Rock, and I dug through all those files and folders, and all that
information, the articles that were written, and basically went to the State Register to see if there was
any significance, anything that was in the database that was remotely related to the Blind Rock, and
there was nothing there.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I guess it would probably be more so of local legend, I guess that would be
the phrase to use, than something that would be in the State Archives.
MR. LOYOLA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know that’s something that the Town Historian has wanted to preserve or to try
to enact some sort of program for preserving that park. Are there any thoughts that
MR. LOYOLA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know that’s something that the Town Historian has wanted to preserve or to try
to enact some sort of program for preserving that park. Are there any thoughts that you would want
to partake in such a program to help preserve that in some way?
MR. LOYOLA-I would think that maybe in the future we might think about it. We still have one
more parcel to develop back there, and I think at that time we would maybe address it. In
conjunction with the Sleep Inn project, though, we feel we’re just so far removed from the Blind
Rock that we don’t want to really commit to anything at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-You do have plans, then, to develop that last parcel?
MR. LOYOLA-In the future. There hasn’t been anything planned in terms of what we’re going to
do with it, but I know that maybe Dave or Jay can elaborate a little bit more, but just in our
discussions, at this time, because it’s so far removed from the Sleep Inn, we don’t feel that we’d like o
address that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just on a related issue, while we were wandering out in the woods looking
for Blind Rock, which we actually never found, in the back corner of the Ponderosa property, high
up on the bank, I noticed about, it must have been an eight or ten inch PVC pipe, stuck out probably
about eight, fifteen inches or so. What is that, and it was running. I don’t know if it was just
stormwater coming out of it or what it was. Do you know what it is?
MR. J. KAPOOR-Stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is stormwater? Could you check into that? Isn’t stormwater supposed to be
kept on site?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’ll check into it. I wasn’t aware of it until now.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you find the rock, let us know.
MR. D. KAPOOR-I've been looking for it ever since I bought the land.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s supposedly pretty big, but somehow we all missed it when we were
there. I think we pretty much cleared up everything we were looking to accomplish with the
subdivision on this, right? Are there any outstanding issues on it, Laura?
MR. BREWER-It’s not going to A/GFTC? Just for the.
MR. VOLLARO-Didn’t we ask at the last meeting that a subdivision drawing, separate from the site
plan drawing, be provided?
MR. MAC EWAN-She’s got one.
MR. VOLLARO-She’s got one. Okay. Good enough.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we do have that. Is there anything that you gentlemen wanted to add?
MR. LOYOLA-No, with regard to the subdivision, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any comments from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Not on the subdivision, no. I don’t have anything.
MR. PALING-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone from the public want to comment to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. I just wanted to comment that, yes, I've talked to
Marilyn VanDyke about Blind Rock. She has a folder about this thick, in references, history of
photostated pages of Blind Rock, and anytime you want to locate Blind Rock, you can just ask me. I
know where it is exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you do me a favor? Point to approximately where it is on the map so we
can see if we were in the right area or not.
MR. STROUGH-It’s right here.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s basically right at the bottom of the hill.
MR. STROUGH-As soon as you make your approach into the Montray Road, you’re going downhill,
just as you’re going into the turn, you’ll notice a clearing where you can pull your car up.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s where we were.
MR. STROUGH-If you walk straight in, toward the Ponderosa, you can’t miss it.
MR. RINGER-We did.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did.
MR. VOLLARO-How big is it?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s big. I mean, I've looked at the photocopies that Marilyn has in the file, and
it’s large.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not as big as it once was, I mean, when I was a kid, and there was a State
marker out on Route 9, by the way, identifying that as Blind Rock, and the local schools used to have
field trips that went specifically to Blind Rock. So, you know, historically, locally, that rock is pretty
significant. You can even see it used as an identifying point on Eighteenth Century maps, and the
early surveyors in this Town, if you go back to the old references, the surveyors, actually they were
called fencers in those days, used Blind Rock as a point that everyone recognized and knew about to
establish many of the boundaries in that area. So, the place does have, you know, a lot of historical
significance, and I have a folder that matches the size of Marilyn’s. One of these days we’re going to
get together and put the two folders together, but like I said, it did, at one time, have a State marker
out on Route 9. What’s happened, as far as the State records have lost track of it or what. I’m not
sure, and during Steve Borgos’ era, there was going to be another State marker put there, and I don’t
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
what happened to that plan, but there was an effort in that direction to put another State marker out
on Route 9 identifying it, and I know I've talked to Betty Liddle, and putting that as one of the sites
to be seen on the Heritage Trail. So the sooner that we could secure that site for the Town and the
Town’s history, the better, and if you ever want to know any of the old stories about Blind Rock, I
can share many of those with you and keep you entertained, I’m sure, and if you would like to locate
Blind Rock, with the owner’s permission, I’ll take you there, but it is a significant site, and I would be
happier if the owner at least acknowledge it’s historical importance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How big is it, John?
MR. STROUGH-It’s probably, it’s about as big as this table, and it’s about as high, but now, with the
fill being brought in for the Ponderosa parking lot, a lot of that’s washed down. So the Rock, which
used to be standing about this high off the ground, is only about a foot off the ground now. It’s
being covered up. People have been there digging it out, some of the locals, not me, but in an effort
to try and keep it above ground, so it is visible and stays visible, but at one time, it used to be about
this high off of the ground, and it’s a big boulder that’s been cleaved down the middle, as you can
see, and there’s all kinds of stories of what that cleavage was used for. Entertaining. One of the
reasons why they say it’s called Blind Rock is because the Native Americans at that time used that site
as a somewhat sacred site, to blind their victims, both the Europeans that were coming here at the
time, and the other unfriendly or enemy Native Americans.
MR. D. KAPOOR-They’d take their eyes out.
MR. STROUGH-They would burn their eyes out, and then they would let the victims go, and they
would allow the victims to go to give the young boy, the scouts, an opportunity, if you will, to
practice their tracking. Because they would release their victim, and then a day later, the scouts
would be allowed to go and find the victim. Of course a victim who’s been blinded would leave a
pretty obvious trail, you know, broken twigs, overturned leaves, etc., that would be easy for a scout
learning how to track to see the obvious signs that someone’s been through the area, and once they
found the victim, the scouts were told to return to camp, because there usually was about three good
days of scouting practice here before the victims succumbed, usually of dehydration, but I could go
on for hours.
MR. D. KAPOOR-Do we want to tell this to our children, that Indians were so cruel, take their eyes
out. I think you’re scaring them.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that should be entertained into the venue tonight.
MR. STROUGH-But there are other tales to be told, but if you want to know why it’s called Blind
Rock, that’s one of the tales that persist. Another one is, that it’s called Blind Rock because it was
located at the crossroads of Military Road and the Old Blind Rock Road. The Old Blind Rock Road
would go to Fort Ann, in the east, and in the west, we don’t know exactly where it ended up, but the
old maps do delineate the crossroads there. Now, if you’re going to ambush somebody, you double
your chances if you do it at a crossroad. So that used to be the point at which there were frequent
ambushes, and since the area was covered up with secondary growth, whoever was doing the
ambushing would be able to hide near that crossroad area and so some people say that’s why it might
be called Blind Rock, but like I said, between Marilyn and I, we have quite a bit of history relating to
that Rock, and a lot of stories, and I could spend hours sharing them with you, but it is significant to
this community.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks, John.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. BREWER-For the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the subdivision.
MRS. MOORE-This is an EAF form, and you’re supposed to take into account all actions that
proceed on this project. So you are taking into account the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-1999, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Timothy Brewer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1.
No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2.
The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4.
An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion?
MR. BREWER-Do we have our receipts?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right there. I saw them.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, we have those.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1999
EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
As prepared by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 10-1999; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/99, consists of the following:
1.
Preliminary Stage application w/maps CLA-1, CLA-2, CLA-3, dated 5/26/99 Maps 25425U1,
25425D1 dated 4/26/99, Stormwater Management Report dated 5/99, Phase 1A Archeological
Sensitivity Assessment dated 5/99.
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/24/99 - Staff Notes
2.
6/16/99 – ZBA resolution
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
3.
6/18/99 – Rist Frost comments
4.
6/24/99 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Moore & P. Loyola
5.
6/3/99 - Meeting notice
6.
6/2/99 - Transmittal of Phase IA Archeological Assessment
7.
5/18/99 - Staff Notes – Discussion Item
8.
5/26/99 - C. Round from P. Loyola
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Preliminary
Stage for Subdivision No. 10-1999.
2.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion for Final?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1999 EVEREST
ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Larry Ringer:
As prepared by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 10-1999; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/99, consists of the following:
1. Preliminary Stage application w/maps CLA-1, CLA-2, CLA-3, dated 5/26/99 Maps 25425U1,
25425D1 dated 4/26/99, Stormwater Management Report dated 5/99, Phase 1A Archeological
Sensitivity Assessment dated 5/99.
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 6/24/99 - Staff Notes
2. 6/16/99 – ZBA resolution
3. 6/18/99 – Rist Frost comments
4. 6/24/99 - Record of Phone Conversation between L. Moore & P. Loyola
5. 6/3/99 - Meeting notice
6. 6/2/99 - Transmittal of Phase IA Archeological Assessment
7. 5/18/99 - Staff Notes – Discussion Item
8. 5/26/99 - C. Round from P. Loyola
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
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 Final Stage for
Subdivision No. 10-1999.
2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
3. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 32-99 TYPE: UNLISTED EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC OWNER:
D & C MANAGEMENT ASSOC., INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 43 STATE ROUTE
9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 82 UNIT SLEEP INN HOTEL
AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. HOTEL IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN
THE HC ZONE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 10-1999, AV 57-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 6/7/99
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/99 TAX MAP NO. 71-2-2 LOT SIZE: 7.03 ACRES
SECTION: 179-23
PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-99, Everest Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
“Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to locate a Sleep Inn Hotel on Lot #1
of Subdivision 10-1999. The application was tabled at the June 24, 1999 for comment from
A/GFTC. Staff Notes: The A/GFTC provided comment about access management for the area.
The applicant addressed the A/GFTC comments per a Record of Phone Conversation of July 14,
1999. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan.”
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read A/GFTC comments, or do you just want me to read the
phone conversation?
MR. MAC EWAN-Just the phone conversation is fine, I think.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll just go to number two of the phone conversation. It says, “Any questions
or concerns w/AGFTC comments. *Still waiting for NYSDOT comments, but would like to have
right and left turns access on Route 9.”
MR. BREWER-Can I ask a question about comment number two from A/GFTC? I understand
what they want to do. What was the outcome of their conversation? Did we have a conversation
with them?
MRS. MOORE-With who?
MR. BREWER-In other words, does the Transportation Council want to stand hard on this?
MRS. MOORE-They’re providing comment.
MR. RINGER-The second part said the alternative was what the applicant had drawn up, was
acceptable.
MR. BREWER-Because we talked about that when we were here last month about that, right? I
guess I was the only one. I’m just curious about how everybody else feels about it.
MR. VOLLARO-It says right turn only movements for vehicles. This is number two.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-Of the Transportation Council letter. I know we raised this before we even sent it to
them, and I think that’s the reason we sent it to them, was about the right turns.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t see, given the amount of potential development.
MR. BREWER-What about potential future development?
MR. VOLLARO-I, personally, had a problem with the wording of this thing. It’s a little ambiguous
to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you hung up on?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what they talk about, “the proposal’s access features, which include site
access/egress from Rte. 9 allowing right-turn only movements for exiting vehicles”, and this site plan
talks about left and rights. I think that the applicant would like to have both a left and a right on that
primary ingress/egress.
MR. LOYOLA-No, our is a right, I’m sorry, Peter Loyola with Continental Landscape Architecture.
Our proposal, from the beginning, has realized that a left-hand turn out of our parcel is probably not
going to be a good idea. So we’ve built the median in the access to require that no left-hand turn be
allowed outside or off the parcel, as an egress. It’s a left in and a right in, and it’s a right out only. So
no left hand turn out, and we will provide the proper signage with that. I’m not sure if, Laura, you
received the fax that I sent, comments. We did, in the meantime, receive a comment from DOT.
They had approved it, and I can give you this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Peter, will you go over that one more time, please, on the entrance,
ingress/egress? You said coming out it’s a right turn only?
MR. LOYOLA-Right hand turn only.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it’s a right turn in, heading north?
MR. LOYOLA-Left and right in, so. Southbound would be allowable as a left-hand turn in, and
northbound would be a right in.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’s two ins and an out. This is a left in and a right out. That’s got to have a
separation.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a double wide right there. So for people who want to head south on
Route 9, they’re going to cut through the Ponderosa parking lot and catch the light. Is the parking
lot going to be delineated for that, so that people know that or signage or something that they know?
MR. LOYOLA-We're going to have an exit here, and also there’ll be a sign at Sweet Road, if anybody
wants to head northbound and avoid any of the Route 9, just as a right out. So they’ll be clearly
marked.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. PALING-I've got my age-old question. I see that there’s a comment from DOT. Is there any
traffic comment?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to hear the letter from New York State DOT? Okay. This is to,
“Dear Mr. Loyola: We conceptually approve the location and layout of the proposed no left out
driveway as shown on the plan submitted with the July 7, 1999 letter. We also concur with the
proposed site connection through the Ponderosa site to the Wal-Mart signal. Your final plan should
be submitted with your completed highway work permit application to Mr. Frank K. of the Warren
County residence for processing.” And this is from William Logan, Regional Traffic Engineer.
MR. PALING-Okay. That wasn’t my question. Volume of traffic was raised. I raised the question
last time, and asked for a comment on it.
MRS. MOORE-You asked for a comment from Staff? I’m not aware of the comment. I was not
made aware.
MR. PALING-Through Staff to DOT, or to, not to DOT.
MR. BREWER-The Transportation Council, wasn’t it.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. RINGER-Yes, the Transportation Council. They gave you an answer, Bob, or they didn’t give
you an answer, but they have an answer in there.
MR. BREWER-No impact.
MR. RINGER-No impact, yes, well, it would be minor it says.
MR. BREWER-Remember we talked, cumulatively, about from 9 and 254 all the way up through.
MR. PALING-We don’t let anything like this through without comment from the people that should
know, because some day we’re going to break the camel’s back out there, and they should know
about it. This isn’t going to be the one to do it, I guess, but it’s going to aggravate it. So if Staff is
satisfied that you’ve been to the people who know this, and have commented that there’s no major
effect, then, fine, lets move ahead.
MR. RINGER-The Transportation Council said, in their letter, that although the amount of new
traffic that will be generated by this 82 unit motel is relatively small, NYSDOT needs to be informed
and given the opportunity to comment”, which they’ve done.
MR. PALING-And are they informed, and did they comment?
MR. RINGER-They commented, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-She just read you their comments.
MR. BREWER-The only comment was about the driveway, though, wasn’t it?
MR. PALING-Yes, that’s the one that she read to me. I was asking for a comment on the volume.
MR. MAC EWAN-The A/GFTC, it says right here, “Most of the traffic problems with the project
area relate to the large number of existing curb cuts located on the west side of Rte. 9. Although this
proposal will not help to improve that situation, it’s not likely to make matters significantly worse
either. It does, however, point to the need for an adopted access management plan for this corridor
that will help consolidate some of the existing curb cuts and set standards for new ones.” So with
that, I guess I would ask, they’re offering to somehow initiate a management plan, but who’s actually
going to take the action and the lead to follow through on that plan? Is it going to be this
organization? Or are they just identifying the ones that should be implemented here, and who’s left
to implement it is anyone’s guess?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. They’re identifying the one that needs to be implemented. Through rumor
mill, I believe they’re working on something from after The Great Escape up to the intersection of
Quaker and 9.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the whole corridor then. Okay. So efforts are underway, then, to try to.
MRS. MOORE-As far as I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s good. Anything else.
MR. PALING-Enough attention brought to it, that’s all I want to accomplish.
MR. MAC EWAN-The ball is rolling.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good. Fine.
MR. VOLLARO-There was a note that a curb cut at Sweet Road will require approval from
Queensbury Highway Department. Did they come up with anything on that?
MRS. MOORE-On Sweet Road? I don’t think they’ve applied for their curb cut on Sweet.
MR. LOYOLA-No, we haven’t applied for the curb cut. We realize we do need one, though.
MR. BREWER-They’d probably get this approval, and then go for that.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see a stormwater management plan, I didn’t have it in my batch. Is there
one?
MRS. MOORE-There is a stormwater management plan. There wasn’t enough provided for the
entire Board to review.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Why does that happen so often? Not necessarily with this.
MRS. MOORE-This was a miscommunication in our error.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a couple of other letters that have not, like when we addressed the site
plan, as far as a motion is concerned, I haven’t seen a couple of these things. There’s the 6/24 Rist-
Frost comments that I couldn’t find. I've got the 18.
th
MRS. MOORE-6/24. Do you want me to read this into the record?
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you, please?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. 6/24, this is from Rist-Frost. It says “Dear Mr. Round: We have reviewed
the supplemental information and details, dated June 24, 1999, submitted in response to our
comment letter dated June 18, 1999. The additional information and details are acceptable, subject
to the submission of calculations demonstrating: 1. The proposed 50-year storm flow should be less
than or equal to the existing site 50-year storm flow. 2. The dry well storm management system shall
meet the requirements for the 50 year storm conditions.”
MR. VOLLARO-And did they? In other words, they submitted a stormwater management plan for
the 50-year?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, an updated one.
MR. VOLLARO-An updated one, and the updated one is in response to the Rist-Frost letter?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and there’s a couple of other things that are not listed on the motion thing.
One is, Number 16, shouldn’t there be the 6/28 from Scott Sopczyk to yourself?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right there. It’s Item 13.
MR. VOLLARO-This is 6/28. That’s 6/25.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re two different documents, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I had written a letter to Scott asking him to review the comment, to review the Sleep
Inn. So the 6/28 one is not in there.
MR. VOLLARO-And then I guess the last one is your Tele Con from Moore to Loyola, dated
7/14/99, that should also be part of it, included in the motion.
MRS. MOORE-That should be also added.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add, gentlemen?
MR. LOYOLA-No.
MR. BREWER-We are going to have a new map with the parking delineated, or eliminated, or do we
have it? Those four or five spots that were up in the front? Remember we talked about those?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because we’re pulling those out, but I recall that there were in excess of what
they needed now?
MR. BREWER-Yes, there was enough parking, but I just wanted to delineate it all.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to revise your site plan to eliminate those five parking spaces. Is
that correct? That was going to be a drive through there.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. There wasn’t a clear definition as to whether or not, I think I got here late, and
I wasn’t sure exactly what was resolved on that.
MR. BREWER-I think you agreed to eliminate them, because I have it scratched out on the map.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so do I.
MR. BREWER-All you have to do is when you submit the new map, or the final map, eliminate
those five spaces up.
MR. LOYOLA-Now the purpose of that was?
MR. RINGER-As you were backing out, there was a problem.
MR. BREWER-Right by the interconnection, people backing out, people coming through potentially
could cause an accident, right by the entrance and exit.
MR. LOYOLA-Okay. Yes.
MR. BREWER-You had enough spaces.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, we have plenty of spaces. I just, I guess I wasn’t sure what the lot. Okay, yes,
that’s not a problem. We’ll change that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-That was the only other thing I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. J. KAPOOR-Right next to that parcel is the exact same line of parking, all the way down to the
traffic light. So if you take out those five spots, it’s not going to remedy the pulling in and out of that
turning lane, because there’s people parking all along the front of the Ponderosa property.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re not talking about the turning lane. They’re talking about the
interconnector that’s just to the right of those five spots.
MR. BREWER-It’s right behind it. You’ve got people coming through this, people parked here.
MR. J. KAPOOR-We have parking here in the exact same fashion as is right here.
MR. BREWER-Two wrongs don’t make a right.
MR. J. KAPOOR-Right. So if you’re going to do that, in essence you’re saying take all of these out
of the.
MR. BREWER-We have no control over that.
MR. J. KAPOOR-That’s what I’m saying. The whole reason to have parking up here was to, I think
I brought this point up before, was to have the appearance, sometimes, of the Hotel being full
because you want to have parking in the front. It gives the impression that it’s busy.
MR. BREWER-You’ve got 45 spaces in the front. What we’re talking about is you’ve got the
interconnection right here. You’ve got an entrance right here, five spots right here. You’re going to
have people backing out, people coming through, people coming in, people coming out.
MR. J. KAPOOR-What I’m saying is that that’s going to happen in this section anyway.
MR. BREWER-We have no control over that.
MR. J. KAPOOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So those five will be eliminated.
MR. LOYOLA-Five spaces will be eliminated.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, what’s the story on the traffic light, is that a go, that traffic light? That
doesn’t have to be removed from here? Because it’s not hanging yet, but I do see a pole there.
MR. D. KAPOOR-Yes.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, I can change that to “proposed” traffic light, if you’d like, but that’s definitely
in. The poles are in.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s coming. I think it will be in before fall.
MR. VOLLARO-I do, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. If anyone wants to
comment on this application, you’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t need to do a SEQRA because we’ve already done it. So does someone
want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-99 EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
In accordance with the proposal and the resolution drafted by Staff, and in addition to that, the
elimination of the five parking spots on drawing dated May 26, 1999. In addition to the above, we
want to discuss the proposed primary ingress/egress, that there’ll be a right turn out, a left turn in,
and a right turn in; right turn north, left turn coming south on Route 9, and right turn only going
north on Route 9, right in.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 32-99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 5/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application w/maps CLA-1, CLA-2, CLA-3 dated 5/26/99 Maps 25425UI, 25425-D1, dated
4/26/99, Stormwater Management Report dated 5/99, Phase 1A Archeological Sensitivity
Assessment dated 5/99.
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
6/24/99 - Staff Notes
2.
6/3/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd.
3.
5/28/99 - Record of Meeting – L. Moore and P. Loyola (agent)
4.
6/17/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
5.
6/7/99 - Beautification Comm. comments
6.
6/2/99 - Transmittal of additional Stormwater Man. Report
7.
6/2/99 - Transmittal of items delivered to Rist-Frost
8.
5/17/99 - Fax of Agenda and Staff notes to P. Loyola
9.
5/18/99 - Rendering of Sleep Inn
10.
5/18/99 - North Elevation
11.
6/18/99 - Rist Frost comments
12.
7/7/99 - Meeting notice letter
13.
6/25/99 - S. Sopczyk from L. Moore
14.
6/24/99 - Rist Frost comments
15.
6/24/99 - P. Loyola to T. Center of Rist-Frost
16.
6/28/99 - L. Moore from S. Sopczyk
17.
7/14/99 - telephone conversation between L. Moore and P. Loyola
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 6/24/99 and 7/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
32-99, Everest Enterprises.
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. LOYOLA-Thank you, sirs, and ma’am.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 35-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL P. BARBER OWNER: DANIEL
LOMBARD ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1477 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A
SEASONAL PRODUCE BUSINESS A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. SEASONAL
PRODUCE BUSINESS IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE. WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 35-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-
7, 179-23
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-99, Michael P. Barber, Meeting Date: July 20, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to operate a seasonal produce stand on a portion
of the Market Place site. The proposed use requires site plan review and approval. Staff Notes:
The applicant proposes to sell produce from a “hay-wagon” that measures approximately 70 sq. ft.
The applicant will utilize a 400 sq. ft. area of the parcel to display the wagon and other produce. The
business will be operated seasonally as defined by the code, operation for fewer than nine (9) months
of the year. The proposed business appears to be compatible with the existing business in regards to
internal traffic circulation. The proposed use will utilize four parking spaces for customers to the
north of the building. The code does not identify specific setbacks for the proposed use, Staff has
requested the applicant maintain a ten foot setback from the property lines. Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here representing the applicant? No? Well, I think it’s pretty cut and
dry.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-The only thing we should make note of is the 10-foot setback.
MR. MAC EWAN-This doesn’t fall under a Type II?
MRS. MOORE-I called it Unlisted because it’s not listed in Type II, you know, it’s not listed in that
set of actions in Type II. It’s a different use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Lets do a SEQRA.
MRS. MOORE-Did you open the public hearing?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DONALD WHITE
MR. WHITE-Donald White. I’m a neighbor south, Small World Shoppes. I’d just like to go over
where this wagon is going to be located.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is going to be located in the southwest corner of the Market Place parcel,
adjacent to their most southern entrance to the site.
MR. WHITE-I object to that one. I believe it should be on the north side. The south entrance is a
common entrance shared with my property. I’d like to know what the setbacks are going to be from
the common driveway.
MRS. MOORE-The drawing that I have here proposes the vegetable stand be at the north side, and
the small gift world shop is at the south, it appears to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize. I did it backwards, I apologize.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. WHITE-We have a shared entrance.
MRS. MOORE-Would you like to see the picture?
MR. WHITE-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. They’re proposing here.
MR. WHITE-My concern was its location. I did not want anything new to the common driveway, as
I’m not sure what the setbacks are, since it’s an easement driveway that the State now owns.
MR. BREWER-There are no setbacks.
MR. WHITE-For the easements?
MR. BREWER-That was a concern of Staff’s, that there weren’t setbacks, and she suggested that we,
where did you say something about 10 feet. The Code does not identify specific setbacks for the
proposed use. Staff has requested the applicant maintain a 10-foot setback from the property line.
That’s in our Staff Notes. So there really isn’t anything that pertains to a setback for that use.
MR. WHITE-I would just like to make another comment. Across the street we have a temporary
tent for the season, for my business. Next door at Basket Barn there’s three soda machines out on
the sidewalks, and then the produce stand. It seems to me we’re kind of making this a tacky looking
area, and I don’t know if this is all within the Codes. I have no objections to temporary structures
for special events. It looks like this produce stand may run for nine months. I don’t know, and I
don’t know if it’s in your jurisdiction here or not, but it seems that every time I turn around there’s
another so called temporary building put up for a function with X amount of months to operate, and
I don’t think this is quite appropriate along this particular strip.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are some of the other uses that you’re seeing pop up in your vicinity?
MR. WHITE-Well, I have across the street a tent, which is probably one of the owners of the
business. I don’t know, but I notice three soda machines sitting down along the sidewalk, and it gets
to be kind of tacky looking. I don’t know who the soda machines belong to. It looks like they just
popped up recently, on the west side of the road. I don’t know who they belong to, but I can’t
believe we’re going to go down this road, with this kind of program.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’re talking about that tent across the street that sells those tapes and
CD’s?
MR. WHITE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. WHITE-So I have a tent across the street, and I’m going to have a produce to the north, and
the next property line down we have soda machines.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. BREWER-The soda machines are where?
MR. WHITE-On the property line bordering with Basket Barn, and the Hotel next to them.
MR. BREWER-They’re on the sidewalk?
MR. WHITE-Well, off the sidewalk, but I’m sure they’re on State land, because the State has
probably three feet beyond the sidewalks. I don’t know who put them in there or who authorized
them or anything, but it starts to look pretty tacky.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we ask that Code Enforcement take a look into that, and also as well with
the tent operation across the street?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, we’ll do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t recall giving a site plan approval for either transient merchant or seasonal
operation for that. So we’ll look into both of them.
MR. WHITE-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just want to put this on the record, as far as saying what is tacky. That
purple and turquoise building is probably the tackiest thing I've ever seen along that strip, that is just
north of you.
MR. WHITE-I agree, and it should be viewed as a sign, to come under Sign Ordinances.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know how that ever.
MR. WHITE-I don’t know, it’s not my building, but it’s not very good.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I guess you can paint your structure any color you want.
MR. WHITE-But if we’re trying to create a certain imagine up through here, this does not fit the
module. So I think some of this has to be looked into, and I don’t know if this is the group or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We just got the wheels rolling.
MR. WHITE-Gotcha. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DAVID KENNY
MR. KENNY-David Kenny, Town of Queensbury. I’m a partner in the property across the street.
The tent that he’s talking about is being run by the CD guy. He rents a store in the mall. He rents
next to Reebok. So he’s a permanent tenant. He has a tent out front that he uses. I've told him that
will not be there next year if I have any power over it at all, but he’s got a lease. It’s not in the lease
that he can’t. I don’t think it’s in the Town Ordinance that he can’t. I will not renew the lease under
those conditions next year, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe he would require site plan review, but we’ll look into it.
MR. KENNY-I don’t believe the Town requires you, as long as you’re a paying tenant, you know,
you’re a permanent tenant, you’ve got space in the mall. I know, because we’ve had tent sales. Dress
Barn’s always had one in front of the Log Jam. I think the Town does allow tent sales, as long as it’s
a tenant, year round tenant, it’s not a transient tenant.
MR. BREWER-But a tent sale is how long? Isn’t it for a period of time or something?
MR. KENNY-He does it on weekends, but I don’t know that it’s in the Code.
MR. BREWER-It’s perpetual.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff’s going to look into that one.
MR. KENNY-So, as far as they soda machines there, they just did pop up, and they’re between the
French Mountain Motel and the Basketville. I’m sure one of the vendors got permission from one
of the land owners there, but soda machines are for commission. I don’t know if there’s an
ordinance against them either. There probably should be. It should be looked at. Because
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
eventually these soda companies, Pepsi and Coke, are banging each other’s throats getting soda
machines wherever they can put them, and with the sidewalks going in now, I guess they feel, you
know, it’s a good place to put them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: 2.
Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources, or community or
neighborhood character?”
MR. VOLLARO-I've got a question about the aesthetics and neighborhood character. Really, should
it be there? I mean, based on what I've heard here, and I think the gentleman had a point when he
talked about site pollution, if you will. I don’t know.
MR. PALING-If the turquoise building and the soda machine can exist, I don’t know why.
MR. VOLLARO-But how far do we go with that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is like a hay-wagon, natural like a little more.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got hay on it, wheels. Nostalgic farming.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know, but I know where you’re coming from.
MR. BREWER-It’s temporary.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 35-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Paling:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MICHAEL BARBER, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4.
An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we entertain a motion, what’s his length of time he wants to operate this
stand?
MR. VOLLARO-Nine months, it says.
MRS. MOORE-It says seasonal.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s seasonal?
MRS. MOORE-Seasonal is nine months or less.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nine months or less, and when did he start operation of this thing?
MRS. MOORE-When does he want to start operation?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-I do not know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the time clock we put on these seasonal vegetable stands that we’ve done
in the past?
MRS. MOORE-No, we’ve never done it. It’s defined in the Ordinance as a seasonal produce stand,
and it has a definite timeframe of less than months.
MR. MAC EWAN-Of less than nine months, okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that means nine months from when he.
MR. MAC EWAN-Day of approval.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll read it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Day of approval, or any nine months out of the year?
MRS. MOORE-It’s specific.
MR. BREWER-It’s probably going to be just like the rest of the stands.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read from the Code? It says “Seasonal Use – A use which
occupies, continually, a building or site for fewer than nine months of the year”.
MR. MAC EWAN-So if we grant approval tonight, the clock starts ticking with today’s date, for nine
months.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s generally not how that type of provision is interpreted. Generally, that
provision is interpreted as a particular nine month period, usually defined by an applicant, you know,
from Date A to Date B, not more than nine months.
MR. MAC EWAN-But he hasn’t defined it. That’s why I’m asking.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that, and if you feel that you wish to, you certainly have the
authority to do that. It’s a little difficult without an applicant present to know what works here, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Real difficult. Do we want to put a timeframe on it?
MR. SCHACHNER-You can also not issue a decision tonight and wait to hear, and get the applicant
here.
MR. BREWER-Have him here next week. It’s not that big of an issue that we couldn’t resolve it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s only going to amount to a couple of weeks.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Somebody put a motion up.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-99 MICHAEL P. BARBER,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
As per Staff Notes, with the addition that Staff comments, that the applicant maintain a 10 foot
setback from the property lines.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 35-99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/30/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application with drawing
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
7/20/99 - Staff Notes
2.
7/14/99 – Warren Co. Planning
3.
7/7/99 - Meeting Notice Letter
4.
7/13/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No.
35-99 Michael Barber.
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1999 SKETCH PLAN STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GARRY L. &
SHIRLEY A. NELSON OWNERS: SAME ZONE: LC-10A, APA LOCATION: WEST
OF THUNDERBIRD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 27.65 ACRE
PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 11.3 ACRES AND 16.35 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 85-1-24.1
LOT SIZE: 27.65 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
GARRY NELSON, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled for Sketch Plan.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll make a comment ahead of time. The applicant has made me aware that this
project may not be in the APA, and we’ll go back and look at that again.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1999 - Sketch Plan Stage, Garry L. & Shirley A. Nelson,
Meeting Date: July 20, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes a two lot
subdivision of a 27.65 parcel in the Land Conservation 10 Acre (LC-10A) zone. Subdivisions require
Planning Board review and approval. Staff Notes: The applicant met with Staff prior to submission
to review access and lot layout. The site contains some topographic constraints, this appears to be
the best layout for the subdivision. The applicant’s design meets the zoning requirements for the
LC-10A zone. The proposed access to the new parcel will follow a natural valley. The applicant has
indicated the slope of the new driveway will be in excess of 10%. The applicant was made aware that
drawings indicating the grade of the driveway would be necessary for the preliminary subdivision
review. As a note: Site Plan review is required according to Section 179-65 for the proposed
construction of a private driveway on a slope of 10% or more. Recommendation: Staff would
recommend the project be referred to preliminary stage. Staff would also recommend contacting the
Town Highway Dept. to discuss the driveway grade.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. NELSON-Good evening. Garry Nelson.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project, Mr. Nelson.
MR. NELSON-Yes. I own the parcel stated, 27.65 acres, and I’m desirous of selling a portion of it
to a friend, and the maps indicate the portion that I would be selling and the reason it’s that size is
because, by Code, I have to maintain certain average width of the property, and since it’s such an
unusual shape, I kind of had to do it that way. I would have preferred to sell just 10 acres, by zoning,
but it won’t work. I can’t get the average width, and the driveway location, as indicated on that map,
it’s kind of conceptual, because pending a survey, they would put it where it should actually be.
That’s kind of a Sketch Plan. I didn’t want to get into the survey aspect of the project until it’s been
kind of approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-So your proposed driveway could move one direction or the other somewhat.
MR. NELSON-The starting point on Thunderbird Drive would not move, but the ending of it, it
would probably shift a little bit to the north, because it is an existing old farm road up through there,
and it was not very straight. It goes along a stone wall.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-You refer to that as a driveway. That’s actually going to be a parcel that’s going to be
his land. That’s not going to be an easement.
MR. NELSON-Well, it’s going to be whatever, I guess, you folks tell me it needs to be.
MR. RINGER-You say an easement in your letter.
MR. NELSON-I think I indicated deed or easement, whatever is necessary. It doesn’t matter to us.
MR. BREWER-It has to be part of that parcel, doesn’t it?
MR. RINGER-It has to be part of that parcel, because he has to have road frontage.
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. RINGER-If he doesn’t have road frontage, then.
MR. NELSON-Then it’ll be deeded, and I’ll just own two separate pieces myself.
MR. BREWER-Now, does that make it a three lot subdivision?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. BREWER-That’s split right down the center of it.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MRS. MOORE-He wants to make.
MR. NELSON-That wouldn’t be a subdivision. Both sides would be my property.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. NELSON-It would be just land hooked, because.
MRS. MOORE-I understand, but it’s land hooked. He’s not creating a.
MR. BREWER-How is it land hooked?
MRS. MOORE-Across the driveway. If you see, he’s drawn a land hook.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what that little “Z” is there for. That’s a land hook symbol.
MR. BREWER-All right.
MR. NELSON-I would own both sides of the driveway. He would own the driveway and the
balance of the property.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. PALING-How wide is that driveway?
MR. NELSON-It’ll be by Code. I believe I need to have 40-foot frontage on Thunderbird Drive, by
Code. I believe it’s 40 feet, and that will be the width. Obviously, you don’t need that much for a
driveway. Whatever Code says.
MR. BREWER-That’s an illustration of the perfect flag lot.
MRS. MOORE-That’s why I had this come to Sketch Plan and not go right into Preliminary, was
because of the shape of the lot.
MR. BREWER-There really isn’t a lot of any other ways he could do it.
MR. NELSON-Believe me, if we could keep it at 10 acres, I would do that. I’d either retain 17.
MR. BREWER-We're talking about the configuration of the lot.
MR. NELSON-Yes. I don’t know how else you can do it.
MR. VOLLARO-If you wanted to stay with 10 acres, why don’t you apply for a variance for 10 acres,
and make your plan even simpler?
MR. MAC EWAN-How would it make it simpler? He’s still got a long driveway.
MR. NELSON-You’re still going to have the long driveway, and, see, when I bought that property,
my long range plan was to subdivide it. Because it was three acre zoning then. When 10 acre zoning
came into effect, I did not dispute it, because I felt that was the proper thing for that area, to go into
10 acres, but I didn’t understand the restraints of the width of the 10 acres, because I would rather
retain 10 for myself, or excuse me, 17 and sell 10, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-In walking your parcel here, and trying to utilize an old farming road to make
access to that back parcel, is it easier, maybe, to design a driveway that would run along your
northern property line?
MR. NELSON-No, because that is a high esker. The property that borders me on that side is the
City of Glens Falls. You’ll notice there’s reservoir there. That is a very high esker, and, I mean, it’s
like this, and in the bottom is a drainage, and then the old roadway, and that’s the only place you
could go, without doing some serious major works.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are the concerns that Staff has with the Highway Department?
MRS. MOORE-Because they are the ones that issue the curb cut permit for a driveway. They may
be able to provide some information or guidelines.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. NELSON-That wouldn’t be a problem, because I sold the five acres that’s marked off on that
side in 1985, I think it was, to Rick Hartman, and he has a much steeper driveway there than he’d be
putting in.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the direction of the slope on that driveway, that 10 degree slope?
MR. NELSON-As you’re looking up the driveway, on your map, on your right, it’s very, very steep,
on your left, I mean, down on the bottom is a little brook, and then the old roadway, and then it kind
of goes up a bank to where my house is, at that little square. It’s on your right, on the City side, it’s
very, very steep. That’s a genuine esker, and their reservoir’s on the other side, and the boundary line
goes right down the top of that esker. That’s why it’s so strangely shaped.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? Okay. I guess we can concur with Staff and move you on
toward Preliminary. In between your application preliminary work with Laura to get in contact with
the Highway Department regarding their input to this thing.
MR. NELSON-I will. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Thank you.
MR. NELSON-Thanks.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1999 SKETCH PLAN STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM E.
THREW OWNER: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF BIG BAY
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 24.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO A TEN
LOT INDUSTRIAL PARK. TAX MAP NO. 137-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 24.71 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing at this Sketch Plan Stage.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 12-1999 – Sketch Plan, William E. Threw, Meeting Date: July 20,
1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel into ten parcels. The
lots will be utilized for an industrial park. Staff Notes: Staff would recommend combining Lot 6
and Lot 7 into one lot of 4.7 acres and Lot 8 and Lot 9 into one lot of 4.88 acres. This may assist in
location of a building, septic and water more efficiently for the industrial park.”
MR. MAC EWAN-They want to combine four lots into two, then.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors.
I represent Mr. Threw and Mr. D’Ambrosio on this location. This site is located on the west side of
Big Bay Road, just north of the lands currently owned by Pro Craft. It’s the land owned by Matt
D’Ambrosio. As stated, it’s a proposed Light Industrial Park, just a cul de sac straight back in. We
have no adversity to combining lots, as the Staff has recommended. It’s just a Sketch Plan at this
point. Most industrial clients would probably come in two lots at a clip anyway. Just as they have
done in the industrial park near the airport, but once in a while you do have a smaller light industrial
use, such as like the AASCKO fence people that did a similar project in Queensbury on Big Boom
Road. So that’s the reason that we try to keep them on a two acre lot, but typically they will be, you
know, a larger client would come in and probably buy two at a time. So as far as combining the two
end ones, or the two in the corner as you suggested at the end of the cul de sac, we’d have no
problem with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The parcel that is not delineated on your map, that’s right where the north
arrow is, is that?
MR. STEVES-That’s the lands currently owned by Pro Craft.
MR. MAC EWAN-Pro Craft, okay.
MR. STEVES-This is, like I say, at conceptual stage. It meets all the criteria as far as length of road,
size of lots, but to move forward for preliminary, we’d have all the topography and the soils. It’s
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
very flat and very sandy, but we’ll continue on for preliminary, with any other questions the Board
may have.
MR. BREWER-Do you have any potential tenants?
MR. STEVES-No. They hope a lot, but none that I know of, at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Okay. With the recommendation, we’ll combine those four into
two at the end of the cul de sac and proceed to preliminary?
MR. STEVES-Certainly.
MR. BREWER-Six and seven and eight and nine? Why?
MRS. MOORE-Because there’s no septic, location of septic, building and obtaining water from that
area, corner lots just pose problems with location, to me. That’s just a personal observation. A lot
of people come in and they say they want a setback from, the septic has to be 10 feet from.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just the restraints for building back there.
MR. STEVES-Right, and we understand that, but what I say, with the industrial clients, typically they
use a larger space anyway, but typically, industrial clients with Town water, you’re not going to have a
worry of too much of a septic system out there. You’re talking, probably, like a warehouse or
something along those lines. So your septic placement isn’t really a huge concern by our standpoint,
but we have no problem with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll see you at Preliminary, then.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1999 SKETCH PLAN STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BRB GROUP
OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK
ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES A 14 LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP
NO. 60-7-1.1 LOT SIZE: 35.12 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TOM NACE & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled for Sketch.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1999 – Sketch Plan Stage, BRB Group, Meeting Date: July 20,
1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to subdivide a parcel into 14 lots. Staff
Notes: Staff is concerned with the access and construction on lots #9, #7, #6, and #5 – Access to
these lots may cause a traffic conflict on Blind Rock Road. Staff would recommend an internal link
to parcels #9, #7, #6, and #5. The topography shown on these lots appear to need substantial fill
and grading for construction. Staff would recommend a detailed grading and fill plan for these lots.”
MRS. MOORE-And I’ll just make a note to the client that Lisa Penistan from Warren County has
requested to review the application as well. So, they’re in the process.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening, gentlemen.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineer and Matt Steves of Van
Dusen and Steves, and Mike O’Connor representing himself. I guess, first thing is to say that we do
realize, I think everybody’s familiar with the site, and we do realize that the topography in here is a
little contorted, existing topography, and in light of that, we did provide an overall grading plan,
which shows, you know, quite frankly, some fairly extensive grading. Staff had concerns regarding
the access off Blind Rock Road, and indicated Warren County Highway also has concerns. After
receiving those, I went out and specifically drove and walked the site lines along here, and they’re
right, and I didn’t adequately show it in this grading plan. I will revise it for preliminary, but if you’ve
been out there, as you come around the curve, and up in front of the first, or just before you get to
the first entrance into Rich Schermerhorn’s project, there is quite a hummock right along the road,
and that bank here along the road inhibits site distance, not only for somebody who would be
coming out of a driveway on one of these lots, but actually inhibits site distance for decision making
process of people driving along Blind Rock Road. It’s something, I think, that if we re-grade these
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
sites, we can eliminate a lot of the existing problem. So we’ll work with Warren County Highway, so
maybe we can alleviate some of their concerns there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lots 5, 6, and 7, Tom, would all have ingress/egress onto Blind Rock Road?
MR. NACE-Well, what we’re talking about, and I think we can do, is that Lots 8 and 9, of course,
would access on the internal road. Lot 7 and 6 we would combine access, and bring a common
access out that those two lots would share, and then Lot 5, we would have access on the east side of
that lot, but we will have to work out site lines and site distances before preliminary, to make sure
that we have adequate site distance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that would be your worst case scenario, I would think.
MR. NACE-Yes. Lot 5 is the worst. I think by taking this hummock out and by doing some
clearing up to our property line, along the frontage, we can get adequate site distance, and also
actually improve an existing condition that’s rather bad.
MR. VOLLARO-What about Staff’s comment on the linkage, is that feasible?
MR. NACE-Well, because of the wetland that comes in here on Lot 7, fairly deep into the lot, if we
were to do internal, some sort of an internal access through here, it might be difficult. We could look
at internal access, maybe, for Lot 5 off of 6 and 7. It’s certainly something we can consider, but we
have some work to do for preliminary, and we realize that.
MR. BREWER-A service road wouldn’t work?
MR. NACE-A service road? That’s what I was saying. I don’t think, if you had a service road
coming off of the internal road, because of the location of this wetland in here, that you would end
up, you know, having that road so far out toward Blind Rock that you would eliminate the usefulness
of that lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, that slope looks to me, just roughly, it looks like it drops about 12 feet in
about 35 feet.
MR. NACE-That’s about right. Yes, one on three is what we tried to grade it at, and that’s a
maintainable slope. Actually, some of the slopes out there existing now, if you look, are pretty steep.
It’s rather contorted topography, and I’m not quite sure what caused that originally.
MR. MAC EWAN-The intent, obviously, is professional offices of one kind or another in there
eventually?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s BRB? There’s three words for you.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s a group of people who bought that corner and the opposite corner from
Glens Falls Insurance, maybe 15 years ago or 10 years ago, and this is what we have left of it, of the
parcel that we bought, and actually, we have that, we have three other parcels up the road, but they
are zoned differently.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this basically for residential, Mike, is that what you’re looking for?
MR. O’CONNOR-No. In order to, there is a significant amount of grading that’s going to be done,
and we’d like to do some nice improvements to it. In order to justify that, we’re going to have to sell
it for commercial purposes, for offices.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-There is permitted multi-family in there, but I think we’re going to out price it.
People have looked at it for multi-family, and we just simply won’t sell it on what they think they
need to buy at for that purpose. We’ve got some stuff we’d like to do, and we really haven’t figured
all of it out.
MR. VOLLARO-That Lot 4 back there with all of that wetland, that’ll just?
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. O’CONNOR-There’s enough buildable area that you can do it, and the rest will just remain
forever wild, and maybe that’s something that we may end up doing with somebody if somebody has
some interest in it. That wetland feeds from the other side of Blind Rock Road, down through the
Newton property, through our property and around back of those other lots that we have and goes
down and crosses Bay Road, I think, down past the horse farm entrance, but nobody’s ever. Who
was the fellow that was the building inspector for the Town for a while? He once tried to stock that
stream with Trout. He put a little dam in the back of his house, Ferguson I think it was. He has that
little green house there. I used to fish in that stream. We used to go into Glen Lake, right next to
the Newton house, next to the pond, and the 1950’s that used to be the way you got into most of
Glen Lake, before they put the road in by the Country Club, and there used to be some fish in that
stream, but I don’t know what there is now.
MR. BREWER-Where does that go to?
MR. O’CONNOR-It eventually goes down to Halfway Brook. It goes down, crosses Bay Road, goes
through Guido Passarelli’s property, or goes through the Golf Course, not actually through Guido
Passarelli’s property, I guess.
MR. NACE-It goes down in front of John Hugh’s place, through Guido’s, and in behind the back of
the, through the Golf Course and Girl Scout. It’s Old Maid’s Brook, or a part of Old Maid’s Brook.
MR. O’CONNOR-On Bay Road, I would anticipate some type of set aside. We haven’t got it on the
map, and try and establish some type of area that we would have a pull off for a bus stop, with
maybe interconnecting easements back into the back lots, if anybody’s going to go into any of the
professional offices there by bus, and we’re going to try and make it a little bit different than a cookie
cutter type operation.
MR. BREWER-What are the foundations?
MR. O’CONNOR-There was an old farm there. That was the Fowler farm. So I think that that’s
the barn and the house.
MR. BREWER-Any significance as far as history or whatever?
MR. MAC EWAN-At one time there was an organization, I don’t remember who it was, used to
raise Pheasants in there.
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. They kept some of the old cages and they had Pheasants, they used to let
them go with a string on them, and when they got ready to shoot, they pulled the string and the
Pheasants went up in the air and they shot them. That’s how they used to do it. Dr. Hogan and a
whole group of people out of Hudson Falls used to use it. I think Continental used to let them do it,
when Continental owned it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I hate to see that piece go, it’s pretty up there, but it happens.
MR. O’CONNOR-They’re pretty good-sized lots.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you’ll do a good job of it.
MR. O’CONNOR-Some of the other ones down the road have done a nice job with their frontage,
and we’ll try to do the same thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, gentlemen, you’re all set.
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 36-99 TYPE: UNLISTED MAYNARD BAKER OWNER: SAME
ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: LAFAYETTE STREET, BETWEEN ROUTE 9 AND
QUAKER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING POLE BARN AND
CONCRETE SLAB AT THE FORMER WOODBURY’S LOCATION AND REPLACE
WITH A 4,138 SQ. FT. FUNERAL HOME WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE
WORK. BEAUTIFICATION COMM: 7/12/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/14/99
TAX MAP NO. 104-1-35.2, 21, 30 LOT SIZE: 1.20 AC., 0.98 AC., 0.67 AC. SECTION: 179-
22
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
JIM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-99, Maynard Baker, Meeting Date: July 20, 1999 “Description
of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a Funeral Home in Plaza Commercial-One Acre
one. The site was used by Moore’s Lumber Company and utilized to store Moore’s products. Site
Plan review and approval is required for the proposed project. Staff Notes: The applicant met with
staff prior to submission to review site layout, access, landscaping, and parking. The applicant has
complied with the site plan review requirements. The applicant proposes substantial site work that
includes increasing the green area and providing a designated parking area. The applicant has met
with the Beautification Committee and their comments are consistent with the applicant’s plans.
Recommendation: Staff would recommend relocating the parking behind the building.”
MRS. MOORE-I can read in Rist-Frost’s comments. This is addressed on July 19, 1999. “Dear Mr.
Round: We have reviewed the revised site details drawing dated July 16, 1999, submitted in response
to our comment letter dated July 16, 1999 and have no further comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Good evening.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. My name is Jim Hutchins. I’m an engineer representing Maynard
Baker. Maynard had intended on being here tonight, but he’s had a death in the immediate family,
and he’s attending the service today.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, the floor is yours. Can you tell us about the project?
MR. HUTCHINS-The part that we’re talking about is located on what I consider the east side of
Lafayette Street. It’s just north of the existing Bank parcel. That was a misunderstanding when we
met with the Beautification Committee. They were a little concerned, or excuse me, Warren County
Planning. They were concerned that we were talking the other side, but I want to make it clear, it is o
the Bank side of Lafayette Street. It was used previously for Moore’s, and I suppose before that for
Woodbury’s for lumber storage. There is an existing pole barn, concrete slab, and a shed on the
property. We're proposing to remove the slab, the pole barn. The shed will remain untouched.
What we’re proposing to construct is nominally a 48 by 84-foot funeral home. We will be providing
parking. I think there’s 50 or 60 spaces noted. We computed parking in a couple of different
methods, and as suggested by Staff, we exceed the parking required in either case. We’re proposing
municipal water, municipal sewer, and we’re providing stormwater landscape and the overall site
plan. Questions?
MR. BREWER-Why all the parking in the front? It’s not like you’re trying to impress people with a
busy place.
MR. HUTCHINS-No. We discussed that with Staff, prior to completing the application, and
Maynard was adamant. He would like to see the building in the rear. He would like, basically, to be
in the background. He doesn’t want it to dominate the site. He just doesn’t want it to look like a
roadside stand or a hot dog.
MR. BREWER-I’m sure with the elevations you’ve provided it’s going to be a nice looking building,
but it sure would look nice on that street if it were closer to the road and the parking in the back and
some landscaping, it would kind of soften it up, in my own opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-I share that opinion.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve tried to provide you landscaping. I think we have. We think we’ve
softened it up.
MR. BREWER-Yes, I understand that, but what you’re going to see is, when you drive down there,
is big parking lot, if you don’t have services, hopefully you’re going to have services, but when you
don’t, you’re just going to see a big empty piece of black top, with a building in the back.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we additionally have agreed to berm it, for the Beautification Committee.
They suggested that. We have screening in the front. I don’t know what more I can tell you about,
but Maynard just feels that that’s the place the building should be, in this type of establishment.
MR. BREWER-I disagree with him.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m just kind of curious as to your position. How does having the
building in the rear of the lot soften the aesthetics of the building when it’s going to be, hopefully,
filled with cars in front of it, that are anything but soft to view?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, this is how he explained it to me. We did discuss it some way. He doesn’t
want the nature of a business to be dominating on the lot. He wants it to be in the back. He doesn’t
want it to be the most obvious thing on the street front.
MR. MAC EWAN-But considering the design of his building, I think it’s going to be aesthetically
pleasing, unless he plans on having big neon signs saying, you know, funeral home here or
something.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, we’re not planning that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t understand how that would be obtrusive to that, a design like that, on the
front of the road I think would be very pleasing.
MR. BREWER-I think so, too. I mean, it’s a beautiful building. I just don’t, it’s just my own
personal opinion.
MR. RINGER-I’m having trouble with why he wants the building in the back, too, but no questions.
The only reason he gave you was because he wanted the building back there because?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the impression I got, and we didn’t discuss the underlying thoughts, but the
nature of the business, I don’t think he wants it right on the street front. I don’t think he wants the
building as obvious as it would be close to the street. He wants to subdue the, I guess the nature of
the business, and I think the other thing he mentioned, it doesn’t appear to be, from what I know of
some of Queensbury, it doesn’t appear to be incongruous with the rest of the way the Queensbury
commercial places are laid out.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but whenever this Board has an opportunity to try to entertain something
that’s going to be a little more pleasing, more aesthetic, and that would be a plus to the community,
we certainly try to make those endeavors.
MR. HUTCHINS-I understand.
MR. VOLLARO-I've just got one slight comment. You’re at 4,138 square foot of house here, it’s 84
by 48?
MR. HUTCHINS-84’8” by.
MR. VOLLARO-Whatever it is, it turns out to be 413824. I’m just looking at your site development
data, and I think you’ve got some wrong numbers in there.
MR. HUTCHINS-This is on a certain form?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just go to a thing called “Site Development Data”.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, Page 3 of 7, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Page 3 of 7. You’ve got 6735 for the total square. The existing square footage of
your building footprints, I assume, are the things you’re going to take down. Is that correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but if you recall, we did say, I did say a shed was remaining. So I think the
existing includes the pole barn and the shed, where the proposed, I believe, includes the funeral
home and the shed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So your 6735 includes those two buildings?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you see, this is where I disagree with you guys, as far as telling the guy
where to put his building. He’s the undertaker. He’s been in the business, and I could see that if I
wanted to use his services, I wouldn’t like to be right on top of the main drag. I think he’s got a
point where he’s putting it, and I think that he can put some good plantings in there with a parking
lot and I think it will be fine. Other than that, I think it’s great that that land’s going to be used.
MR. PALING-I agree with Cathy. I think we’ve got to be very careful about stepping in front of a
business and saying you’ve got to put your cars out back, and for their own reasons, they do what
they like to make the lot look good, and for us to say something like that, having just let how many
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
through, to put their parking out front, and we haven’t said anything to them. I think it should be
the applicant’s option.
MR. BREWER-Just to defend my position, I said it with the motel. I said it with K-Mart. I said it
with CVS. My own opinion, it gives a more pleasing look, to my eye, not necessarily anybody else’s,
that when you drive down a road, you don’t see anything but blacktop, and that was my point. I’m
not saying he doesn’t have a right to do it. I’m just saying, to drive down every side street or every
street in the Town of Queensbury and see nothing but blacktop is not appealing to me.
MR. RINGER-I can see where a retail establishment, why you’d want parking out front, to give the
impression that you’re doing business and stuff, but with this type of business, I don’t see the need
for a parking lot in the front of the place.
MR. BREWER-And that’s our job.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, if you were running a funeral for a member of your family, I don’t think
you’d want to be right on the main, and another thing is, you know, you all have your chance. You
can use your own money and put something up and put your parking lot in the back.
MR. BREWER-Cathy, we’re planning.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’m just annoyed, because here this guy, I mean, who are we to tell him
where.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not something you should get annoyed about.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Drop it. I’m sorry.
MR. BREWER-No, why should we drop it? That’s what we’re supposed to be doing.
MR. RINGER-We're offering some ideas I think, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that here, all of a sudden, we’re authorities on funeral homes. I mean,
I've known this operation for 30 years, and I’m not going to tell him how to set up his funeral home.
MR. BREWER-There’s funeral homes right on the Main Street in Warrensburg for 30 years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry. I did not mean to come down on you so hard and express my
opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you another question. Do you have a landscaping plan?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it’s part of the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s on there is your landscaping plan?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, as modified by the Beautification Committee.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does the Beautification Committee put some sort of spec sheet or planting
schedule together?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want me to read it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, as long as we have something that’s definitive, caliper size and the whole
nine yards?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Assuming, and I’m not making that assumption, but for purposes of discussion,
you’ve got two 175 watt metal halide fixtures here that design lighting loads of less than one foot
candle.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that sufficient amount of lighting for all those lots? Because I see those as the
only two until you get to building lighting in the back?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-It is a low level. It’s designed to be a relatively low level, but I talked to Maynard,
and I think it’s adequate for how he envisions the need. There’s a, and I think you’ve probably
spotted it. There’s a wall mounted light on the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see them, front and back, both.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, well, the back’s basically for security. The front is, overlooks the sidewalk
area.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the coverage envelope of those lights? A lot of times you see those, you
can buy them at different coverage envelopes, based on how the light is installed. They show you a
coverage envelope on the ground. Low is essentially a light (lost word).
MR. HUTCHINS-Right. I don’t know that I have that data with me, and I’m not sure.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m saying is assuming that the site plan stays the way it is, these front lots
would be very, in the evening if you’ve got evening service or people coming to visit at night, there’s
not much coverage on those front parking spaces that are parallel to Lafayette, at least having a
feeling for one foot candle, it’s not much.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not a lot, but like I say, we feel it’s adequate. If it proves to be totally
inadequate, I assume we can come back and ask for more, but Maynard did stress that to me, he did
not want to over light the place, and there is also, I think, some lighting existing along Lafayette
Street presently, some street lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-There is, but it’s not much.
MR. MAC EWAN-How tall is the building going to be?
MR. HUTCHINS-I think the first floor is, excuse me the first floor, I meant where the roof line is, is
10 feet, and it looks like the pitch on the roof is probably another 10 feet, 20 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re looking at 20 to 24 feet, maximum?
MR. HUTCHINS-I would say so, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How come your drawing says maximum building height is 50 feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-Where did I say that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Under “Zoning Data”
MRS. MOORE-That’s the limit in the zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s required in the zone? That’s not for his building, then. Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jim, would you explain to me what kind of a roof that is at the top? What is
that depicting? I just can’t visualize it. It’s not a.
MR. HUTCHINS-What I think it is, Cathy, and I’m not terribly familiar with it. I think I've got
another view, other than yours. You have this one, right?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Here, you’re looking at the end, okay. This is your sloped roof on the end,
here, and then up in here, this is this little part a little higher.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I thought. Okay. I've got you.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one other thing I wanted to ask. The proposed 150 PVC and water service
and CATV, which is the cable television?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. VOLLARO-Electrical and telephone in the same trench, I’m not familiar with your codes here,
electrical codes, but I know that that’s generally not a good idea to package all that stuff in one
because of interference between them. It depends. That’s what we’ve got to ask.
MR. MAC EWAN-My house is done that way.
MR. VOLLARO-Everything all in one?
MR. MAC EWAN-It works pretty good.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s my understanding it’s common practice, above the water line or off to one
side, but essentially in the same excavation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In my prior experience, that wasn’t allowed, but that’s okay. If it’s allowed
here, it’s fine, but I think Bob’s got a point, so long as it’s all shielded. Because normally when you
get electrical and telephone together, you get a lot of cross talk, if you’re not well insulated. It just
happened to be something I picked up off the drawing. If it’s code, it’s code. If it works, it works.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from anyone on the Board? I’ll open up the public hearing. Any
comments from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I have one letter from the public.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-It says, “Dear Planning Board: I am the owner of the lots designated as 104-1-20,
22, and 23. These properties front on Glendale Drive, and are presently used for commercial as well
as residential purposes. The road ends at the property line with Mr. Baker’s property. When
Woodbury’s purchased this adjoining lot from me for use as a parking and storage access from Glen
Street by way of Glendale Drive, it was an issue. It was agreed that this access would not be used
due to safety concerns attributable to potential increased traffic and the closeness of the existing
structures to the right-of-way. The plans approved by the Planning Board contain such a condition.
I am very interested in maintaining the status quo with respect to this access issue. I have tenants
whose safety and well being must be considered. The long-standing limited use of Glendale Drive
has lead to expectations of limited traffic with no through vehicles, a dead end. I ask the Board to
take my concerns under advisement.” And this is Meta Murray.
MR. BREWER-Is that by where the green houses are?
MRS. MOORE-It’s over here. It’s to the east of the back of the building.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, then this is the part that we’re talking about. Our access is over here. Mr.
Baker also owns this parcel, and Woodbury also owned it, but we’re only, this is by a separate deed,
this parcel. Right, Laura?
MR. PALING-Well, I don’t see any interference.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the person that wrote the letter didn’t know that, though, and their
concerns were that there could be potential. Okay. Is that it? Okay. We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. PALING-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. MAC EWAN-I just closed it. I wrote it. Did I not say it? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 36-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MAYNARD BAKER, 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,
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3.
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of
Queensbury.
4.
An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining
whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect
and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and
sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. VOLLARO-Before the motion, I’d just like to ask, there’s a letter from Round to Rist-Frost, I
haven’t seen that, dated 7/9? Is that in my packet?
MRS. MOORE-Round to Rist-Frost? That’s a comment for Rist-Frost to review the project. That’s
a standard letter.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then I had asked whether Rist-Frost had reviewed the stormwater
report?
MRS. MOORE-Rist reviewed the stormwater report.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-99 MAYNARD BAKER, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
In accordance with the resolution provided by Staff. In addition to the resolution written by Staff,
I’d like to make sure we enter the Committee for Community Beautification letter dated July 12,
1999. That the applicant comply with the Beautification Committee’s planting plan, and the addition
of a three foot berm in the front of the building, parallel to Lafayette Street on the property side, a
berm to be a minimum of two feet high, a maximum of three feet high by one hundred and seventy
(170) feet long. That this motion is conditioned upon, and the approval is conditioned upon the
Community Beautification letter of July 12.
th
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 36-99; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 6/30/99, consists of the following:
1.
6/30/99 – Application w/drainage report dated 6/99
2.
Map F-441 dated 12/18/89
3.
Map 99-019 – Sheet 1 – Site, Utility, & Landscape Plan dated 6/30/99/ Sheet 2 – Grading,
Stormwater and Erosion Control dated 6/30/99/ Sheet 3 – Details dated 6/30/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
1.
2/10/99 – Letter to M. Baker from C. Round
2.
7/20/99 - Staff Notes
3.
7/14/99 - Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
4.
7/12/99 - Beautification Comm.
5.
7/7/99 - Meeting Notice Letter
6.
7/9/99 - C. Round to Rist Frost
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 7/20/99 concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1.
The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to Approve Site Plan No.
36-99 for Maynard Baker.
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
MRS. MOORE-Can you include in there that the planting plans are to be upheld by the
Beautification Committee, as part of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Beautification Committee has specked out a planting schedule, right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that planting schedule is not in here? It’s not in this site plan?
MRS. MOORE-The letter from the Beautification Committee is what I want them to be upheld to.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and is that in this resolution?
MRS. MOORE-You should make it a condition of this resolution. In addition, he mentions a berm,
and that is not in the Beautification Committee comments, and I just would like to know how high
they suggested. So that we can include that comment in the resolution.
MR. HUTCHINS-What we talked about was three feet, Laura, a maximum of three feet.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, and that would be at the front of the property?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, except the gate, except the access, obviously.
MRS. MOORE-Except the access. So I’d like that included in the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-In addition to the resolution written by Staff, I’d like to make sure we enter the
Committee for Community Beautification letter dated July 12, 1999, and the addition of a berm, a
three foot berm, in the front of the building, in the front of the, that’s along Lafayette Street?
MRS. MOORE-Correct, and the maximum height should be three feet, not.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. A three foot berm, parallel to Lafayette Street, on the property side.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-How long is this berm supposed to be?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m trying to determine.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we have the Beautification Committee’s planting schedule is the schedule
that will be administered for this site plan. Right, is that what we’ve got in there?
MR. SCHACHNER-Somebody should be adding that as a proposed condition of approval. Mr.
Vollaro’s motion thus far, as I understood it, indicated that we would enter the Beautification
Committee letter into the record. That would not be sufficient. I think it should be very clear that
you’re, that if this is what you desire, and I think it’s a good idea, that your proposed resolution of
approval includes an expressed condition that the applicant comply with the Beautification
Committee’s planting plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well said. Just that way, and what’s the length on this berm?
MRS. MOORE-Approximately 170 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-A berm that’s paralleling Lafayette Street, in the front portion of the parcel, three
feet high by 175 feet long.
MR. BREWER-A maximum of three feet high.
MR. MAC EWAN-A maximum of three feet high.
MRS. MOORE-And that’s 170, not 175.
MR. MAC EWAN-170 feet, then.
MR. SCHACHNER-Is that all clearly part of somebody’s motion for approval?
MR MAC EWAN-A question for you, before we look for a second. So if he makes his berm only
eight inches high, that’s okay with Staff, then?
MR. BREWER-That’s the way we said it, a maximum of three feet high.
MRS. MOORE-Unless you feel otherwise. I would like to see a berm there.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think the Chairman’s point is well taken, though. That also means a one
inch high berm would fulfill the condition, and my guess is that’s not what we’re talking about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lets refine that to say a berm three feet high by 170 feet long. That seems to be
standard that we’ve used all over Town. We did it with Aldi’s. We’ve got them over at Lowe’s.
They’re three feet tall. It’s not that tall, only about that tall.
MR. BREWER-Go look at Hewitt’s. That’s not three feet. I’ll betcha that’s not a foot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where’s the berm at Hewitt’s?
MR. BREWER-Between Hewitt’s and Northway Car Care. We had them put a berm in there, or
they offered to put a berm in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that was definitive as being a berm.
MRS. MOORE-That’s a drainage swale. That’s not a berm.
MR. BREWER-They were going to put a planted berm there, is what they did.
MR. SCHACHNER-It wasn’t a condition of approval though, was it?
MRS. MOORE-I’ll look at that. I’m uncertain about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, just trying to get something down so it’s black and white.
MR. BREWER-That’s fine, if that’s what he wants.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think we should have it too low.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MR. HUTCHINS-If you want to say something like, at least two foot six, between two foot six and
three foot high, or say three feet high. I think Maynard can accept that. I mentioned a maximum of
three feet. That was my recollection from what the Beautification Committee said.
MR. MAC EWAN-We aim to please in this late hour. The berm to be a minimum of two feet high,
a maximum of three feet high, 170 feet long. How’s that? Now can we have a second.
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have to make a condition, that this motion is conditioned upon, and the
approval is conditioned upon the Community Beautification letter of July 12, or have we already
th
said that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Put that in. It’s already in.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now do we have a second?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second it.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two things left on the agenda. Could I ask you to read into the record Chuck’s
memo? Do you have a copy of it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record.
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to Planning Board Members, dated July 20, 1999, termination of
employment is the subject, “As some of you may already know by now, my last day with the Town is
this Friday, 7/23/99. I have decided to further my planning career by accepting an offer with a
private engineering consulting firm in the Albany area. However, I would like to take this
opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to each of you for the warm and supportive way in
which I was received by the Board and to just say that it was a pleasure to get to know and work with
each of you over these past seven months. Queensbury is a wonderful place to live and work, and
your continued efforts and vigilance will ensure it’s vibrancy for years to come. I am sure that many
of the programs and efforts now underway to support and promote your planning efforts will
continue. I believe that it is Chris Round’s intention to fill my position as quickly as possible, thus
reducing the burden on existing Staff. In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank each of you,
and I wish you well in your future planning endeavors.”
MR. MAC EWAN-With that being said, we’re going to miss him. The only other things left on the
agenda tonight is we, now that George has resigned, he was Vice Chairman of the Board, we need to
nominate and elect a new Vice Chairman. So if someone wants to put a nomination up, I’d love to
hear an entertainment on it.
MOTION TO NOMINATE FOR ELECTION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN LARRY
RINGER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
Duly adopted this 20 day of July, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Ringer
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When are they going to replace George?
MR. MAC EWAN-We're working on that. So I guess you’re duly appointed. Congratulations.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I make a comment regarding this letter from Mark Hoffman, regarding
the Indian Ridge that we just received? I mean, did you see this letter?
MRS. MOORE-I haven’t seen that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Who is it addressed to?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s addressed to the Town Board, Town Supervisor, Planning Board,
Director of Department of Community Development, Town Attorney, care of the Town of
Queensbury Clerk.
MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the date?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-July 5.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. I've seen it. I have it.
MR. VOLLARO-You have it. I read it, and I talked to Mark about it last night a little bit.
MR. RINGER-Are you making a comment for the record?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no. I would like you to make a comment about it. In other words, he’s
listing some of the changes and some of the differences. It says here, the following are some of the
substantive differences with the prior proposed PUD agreement, and I just wanted to know the
significance of this letter.
MR. SCHACHNER-The significance of the letter is not much, in terms of this Board. The letter
was written by Mr. Hoffman in reference to a document that’s called a Planned Unit Development
Agreement, which is the final step in implementation of a Planned Unit Development. It’s a formal
legal document that is, in fact, a contract, if you will, that’s signed by the Town Board and by the
applicant. The Town Board has decided that it’s not going to sign this Planned Unit Development
Agreement for the Indian Ridge project until after that project has been to this Planning Board for
site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-Mark, in reading the definition of a PUD. I’m not sure, in my mind, that the way
that is currently constructed fully meets the definition of a PUD.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a typical, I will say, in that typically Planned Unit Developments are
mixed use type things, and this, essentially, is not a mixed use. It’s essentially a residential use.
MR. VOLLARO-It almost looks to me like a garden variety subdivision.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s an interesting point. You could call it that. The fact is, it’s been
proposed as a Planned Unit Development, and the Town Board has reviewed it as a Planned Unit
Development, and they don’t seem uncomfortable with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who’s going to be the lead agency?
MR. VOLLARO-This Board would have to approve it as that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes and no, Bob. You have to approve, your jurisdiction on the Planned
Unit Development is site plan review, okay. You don’t get to make the determination of whether it’s
a valid Planned Unit Development. You do site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but if they say it is, it is. In a sense that’s what you’re saying.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not if they say it is, it is, but this Board does not have the authority to say it’s
not.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not, okay, I understand that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mark, when it comes back to us, is it for a recommendation, or are we?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, you actually do site plan review.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we weren’t originally the lead agency for.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re still not the lead agency, for SEQRA purposes, but, a Planned Unit
Development is a tool of zoning. It’s a re-zoning, if you will, and the Town Board approved the
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
Planned Unit Development zoning, along with a zone change, I might add, back in August of 1996.
That approval was challenged, initially successfully, but ultimately unsuccessfully, because courts
decided that the Town Board adequately and properly fulfilled its responsibilities in reviewing the
Planned Unit Development. So the Planned Unit Development approval that the Town Board
issued in August of 1996 is valid. Shortly after that was issued, some time that fall, I’m going to say,
there was a time when the applicant came before this Board, this Planning Board, and started the site
plan review process. For reasons that I am not privy to, nor are they relevant, the applicant then
immediately terminated that process and decided not to go forward with this Board and the site plan
review. Now the applicant, evidently, I don’t know that they’ve made any formal application, but at
some point in the near future, as I understand it, the applicant will be submitting its site plan review
application to this Board for your review and consideration. You are not the SEQRA lead agency.
The SEQRA review has been done, but you’re not just a recommending authority. You are a
binding authority in site plan review, just as you are in other site plan reviews.
MR. BREWER-So it’s like starting all over again, actually, because it’s different.
MR. PALING-No SEQRA.
MR. BREWER-We never did a SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-We didn’t do it the first time, either.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is Cracker Barrel coming up, definitely, in August?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the Town Board, at its meeting last night, indicated a likelihood that if
documentation was in order, that the Town Board might consider the Cracker Barrel re-zoning
application at its first August meeting, which is on August 2. I also believe that there’s some
nd
chance that some of the documentation may not exist in time for that, and there may be an
announcement that the Cracker Barrel re-zoning application may not be considered until the second
August meeting, which would be August 16, but I do believe it’s substantially likely that that will
th
occur, that the consideration will occur some time in August, at either one of those two meetings.
MR. VOLLARO-Mark, I’d like to ask a question, and I don’t know whether it would involve just the
Planning Board, because it involves something that took place last night. I’m sure you know what
I’m talking about.
MR. SCHACHNER-I have no idea what you’re talking about.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the comment Betty Monahan made concerning.
MR. SCHACHNER-Now I know what you’re talking about.
MR. BREWER-What comment did she make?
MR. VOLLARO-I heard it. Some of the members here weren’t here when she made that. You
know what my comments were when I got up to the podium on it. I’d just like you to speak to it for
a minute. I mean, it infringed on the fact that, or it implied, that this Board was short on doing its
job. That’s the way I read it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think the comment implied that. I think the comment said that.
Explicitly.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m being kind.
MR. SCHACHNER-And what is it you want from me?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who made the comment?
MR. MAC EWAN-Betty Monahan.
MR. VOLLARO-Just your impression, that’s it. What’s your impression on it? Where are we, as a
Board?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think that’s an appropriate question to ask me. My job is to provide you
with legal advice, and I do that, and I think that, generally speaking, you follow my advice, and you
generally speaking act in a lawful manner. I think the comment that was made, and I think in fairness
to the other Board members, I think we’re having this conversation with some people in the dark,
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/20/99)
here. The comment, last night’s Town Board meeting was somewhat, the open forum portion of last
night’s Town Board meeting, was somewhat dominated by commentors who were upset by the level
of noise in the Town of Queensbury, and in particular, coming from The Great Escape and the go
kart facility on Route 9, and most of the commentors, but not all, live in the Twicwood area. There
was substantial discussion, literally, for over an hour, about noise in the Town of Queensbury, with
many commentors suggesting the Town Board consider enactment of a noise ordinance, and other
commentors talking about the role that the Planning Board has in doing site plan review on
regulating noise. The particular commentor Mr. Vollaro refers to basically said, as I recall, that she
thought that the Planning Board wasn’t doing its job in seeing to it that noisy things were prevented
or appropriately regulated. Is that a fair summary?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a fair summary.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the comment that was made. I have my own personal opinions about
that, which I’m happy to share with any of the Board members on an individual basis, any time you
like, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask me that question on the record, while we’re still in our
open, public meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. BREWER-I don’t think I care about what she thinks. That’s my opinion, on the record.
MR. PALING-I've got a comment for Staff. I've run into trouble I guess three times now. When
I’m reviewing an application, and it states it’s zoned for certain things, I go to the book, and I find in
some cases, an occasional case, that the use we’re talking about is not a specified permitted use within
that ordinance. Now, when we come to the meeting, twice now, planning staff has said, that’s right.
The book doesn’t allow it, but in this case, it ought to be okay, maybe that’s not a good word, but in
this case, it ought to be okay, and it happened again tonight, and I think that if there’s going to be
disagreement, where the book says it isn’t, and you say it is, then we ought to have comment in
advance of that, and not get caught commenting otherwise.
MRS. MOORE-Bob, I think you can’t pigeon hole everything into what a listed use is, and that’s
how we reviewed it today, when you brought up that comment. I reviewed it with Chris and Craig,
and we went through what a sand and gravel processing unit meant, and that was more of a higher,
you know, a heavy industrial use, where it had, I guess, a washing machine, etc., things that were
associated with high business flow of processing those materials. Mr. Batease’s project is not a high
flow, processing material business. He is in excavator. That is his primary function.
MR. PALING-Then all I ask, Laura, is that that comment be made, when you start your part of the
meeting, in comments, I’d ask that you make that comment and avoid all of this being brought up. It
wasn’t brought up, and I brought it up again because I felt it should be, and then if you’re going to
do that, I’d be very careful that that’s the way it is, and I’d like to see you comment beforehand.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
57