1999-05-18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 18, 1999
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
GEORGE STARK
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT PALING
MEMBERS ABSENT
TIMOTHY BREWER
SENIOR PLANNER-CHUCK VOSS
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 16, 1999: NONE
March 23, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 1999 AND MARCH 23, 1999,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
RESOLUTIONS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-98 UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION APPLICANT
RECEIVED APPROVAL TO PLACE A 608 SQ. FT. PORTABLE TRAILER ON SITE
FOR TEMPORARY OFFICE STRUCTURE. SEE LETTER OF 4/21/99 REQUESTING
A ONE YEAR EXTENSION. PROJECT APPROVED TO 6/30/99.
PATRICK BENNETT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-98, United Cerebral Palsy Association, Meeting Date: May 18,
1999 “Description of Project: Applicant proposes a one-year extension of an approved site plan.
The proposed project is to continue locating a temporary office structure on the property. The
structure is utilized as office space until an addition can be constructed to the school. Staff Notes:
Staff has spoken with the applicant in regards to the length of the extension and future construction
plans. The applicant has indicated construction plans are being prepared and there are no plans for
future extensions. Recommendation: Staff would recommend granting an extension to the site
plan. Staff would suggest the applicant meet with Staff to review the school expansion plans.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. BENNETT-Good evening. I’m Patrick Bennett, Director of Finance, Prospect Child & Family
Center, also United Cerebral Palsy Association of Tri Counties. We are working with Richard Jones
for a building expansion, which would eliminate the need for the rental trailer at this time, and if
everything goes as planned, we should begin building at the beginning of next spring. When that
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
building project begins, we will have to give up the trailer because it’s on the site where we’re going
to be building primarily, but that’ll serve our needs. What it’s being used for is our itinerant
therapists, such as physical therapist, speech therapist who are serving the children of
Warren/Washington Counties at their homes, and other school sites, are using that as an office to
come in to fill out their paperwork, different things of that nature, and it’s working very well for us
for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your intent is to submit an application for Site Plan Review for the new building
project?
MR. BENNETT-Definitely. That would all be turned over to Richard Jones for that plan on that,
anything involving the new building site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MR. PALING-Just the last sentence of your report. They really don’t have an option as to whether
they do or don’t come to the Planning Board for that expansion, do they?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. PALING-Well, then you’ve got to come in. Yes. Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 36-98
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ASSOCIATION, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for
its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
Until June 30, 2000. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a letter dated 4/21/99
requesting a one year extension to June 30, 2000 of the approved site plan for a portable office trailer
on site for use as a temporary office; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/21/99, consists of the following:
1. Letter from H. Patrick Bennett
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/18/99 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered;
and
1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve extension
request for Site Plan No. 36-98 for United Cerebral Palsy Association.
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.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Bennett.
MR. BENNETT-Thank you very much.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, do you want to put in there determination of non-significance?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you’re right.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in
the Site Plan modification. It’s not actually a modification. It’s just granting an extension. Why
would we have to do a determination of non-significance on an extension?
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Why don’t we just make it as per Staff thing, and it’s got it in there already.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, he said according to the written resolution.
MR. RINGER-He didn’t, but if he did, then it’s already in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We're all set.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 14-99 TYPE II MAY SUPPLY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A,
C.E.A., APA LOCATION: HONEYSUCKLE LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 30 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLING AND A NEW
SEPTIC SYSTEM. ENLARGEMENT OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A
CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD SEPTIC VAR. (5/99), AV 17-
1999 BUILDING PERMIT – 98-633 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP
NO. 8-5-11 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
DENNIS DUVALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on April 27 was left open.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-99, May Supply, Meeting Date: May 18, 1999 “Description of
Project: The application for construction of an addition was tabled at last month’s Planning Board
meeting. The Board requested the site development data be clarified. Staff Notes: Staff met with
the applicant to review submitted information. The information clarifies the site development data.
Staff has no additional concerns. Recommendations: Staff would recommend approval of the site
plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-We note that he has an Area Variance in here, too.
MR. DUVALL-My name is Dennis Duvall, and I’m May Supply’s agent.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we got everything ironed out, I think. Staff is satisfied with the re-
workings of the drawing, dimensioning?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Data development sheet and so on and so forth?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t agree with the site development data at all. If you take a look at it, the
percent non-permeable is 20,875. That doesn’t sound like a percentage, and when they talked about
paved gravel and other hard surfaces was 2250, and then they have the proposed addition is 0, but I
get a total number of square feet for paved gravel and other hard surfaces of 2130. I couldn’t figure
where that came from.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at the 20,875? Is that what you’re looking at, in total?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at the 20,875, and that’s normally in a percentage, you know,
when you talk about percent non-permeable. So I corrected the thing, and it’s, if you add up the
total square footage of 2,044, and what should be 2250, the porch is 126. It comes out to 4420, and
not 4300. The rest of it looks okay. I don’t know why you left that 120 foot out, square foot.
MR. STARK-Bob, did you figure the percent?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 17.55.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comments? Do you understand where he’s coming from?
MRS. MOORE-No, I do not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you look at the building footprint, I’m on site development data.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you add those two numbers together, 1360 and 684, you get 2,044. Okay.
That’s correct. Accessory structures, doesn’t get carried over. The paved gravel or other hard
surfaces is 2250, with, he’s got proposed addition of those as zero, but he comes up with a total
square footage of 2130, and you carry those across. The 126 is carried over correctly. The 810 is a
good number, but the 4300, if you add up 2044, 2250, and 126, you’ll get 4420, and the reason for
that is simple. He, for some reason or other, the 2130, instead of carrying the 2250 over to the last
column, he has 2130, and I couldn’t figure out where that came from.
MR. DUVALL-Excuse me. It’s because part of the driveway area is going to be removed, for the
addition, and I couldn’t show on here that it was being deleted. So I just showed it as being 2130
instead of 2250.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll buy that. If you couldn’t do that, you couldn’t do it. Then the only
thing that I see there is the percent non-permeable is not 20,875. It’s really 17.55 percent. That’s
what that should be. So that this form is correct, for the record.
MR. MAC EWAN-What does Staff come up with for permeability?
MRS. MOORE-Seventeen percent, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-On the drawing, the large scale drawing that’s colored, the one that’s in color, yes,
that’s exactly 12 foot, that’s the size of your extension, at least I get that?
MR. DUVALL-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that correct?
MR. DUVALL-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then on some of the drawings that you’ve submitted, it looks like the
house itself is set back 17 feet. That’s what’s on the drawing anyway, and the 12 foot extension gives
you a five foot setback and not a seven. Now I know that the Zoning Board of Appeals gave you
seven feet, but I see it as five.
MR. DUVALL-The measurements may, on paper, may vary from the field measurements.
MR. VOLLARO-By two feet?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. DUVALL-But there is, on this diagram here, this surveyor’s stake is in place, and I've measured
over their map.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you referring to the surveyor’s lead pipe found right there near the shed?
MR. DUVALL-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one you used to measure from?
MR. DUVALL-Yes, that’s what I measured from.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, unfortunately, we haven’t done field measurements. I go by what I see here,
and there’s not going to be a problem with this, for me, but I just want to make sure that when
something is prepared for the Board that it’s reasonably correct, and that’s all I have on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PALING-There were a couple of things that weren’t clear to me on this. You’re putting in a
brand new septic system?
MR. DUVALL-Mrs. Supply is doing that, yes.
MR. PALING-Okay, but it is brand new and it is approved for this size house, with the additional
two bedrooms?
MR. DUVALL-That is correct.
MR. PALING-Why is the Town Board approving the variance, in place of the ZBA?
MR. MAC EWAN-The Town Board acts as the Board of Health when they do septic variances.
MR. PALING-They’re acting as the Board of Health in this situation.
MR. MAC EWAN-In all situations regarding septic variances.
MR. PALING-Is for the Town Board. Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Is that it? Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. DUVALL-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We left the public hearing open. So if anyone wants to comment regarding this
application, you’re welcome to do so. Come on up and identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. STARK-There’s a prepared motion, just as written?
MR. MAC EWAN-Or amended as you see fit.
MR. STARK-Bob, did you want to include the five feet instead of the seven feet, or something?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. No.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-99 MAY SUPPLY, Introduced by George
Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
As written.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 14-99, May Supply for addition to
existing dwelling and a new septic system; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/maps
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/14/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution – NCI
2. Revised Plans from original dated 4/99
3. 4/21/99 – Zoning Board resolution
4. 4/27/99 - Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/27/99 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.
14-99 for May Supply.
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 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, good luck.
MR. DUVALL-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-99 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY HOWARD OWNER: J.
HOWARD UNDER CONTRACT TO KAREN WITTE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION:
WEST SIDE BAY RD., ACROSS FROM MAIN ENTRANCE TO ACC APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING.
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IS A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE IN THE MR ZONE
AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 95-1990, SP 32-91, AV 19-1999 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/12/99
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/14/99 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-4.3 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES
SECTION: 179-18
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY HOWARD, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing on April 27 was left open.
th
STAFF INPUT
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-99, Jeffrey Howard, Meeting Date: May 18, 1999 “Description
of Project: This application for an office building on Bay Road was tabled pending Zoning Board of
Appeals resolution. The Zoning Board approved the application. Staff Notes: The applicant has
addressed all site constraints. Recommendation: Staff would recommend granting site plan
approval.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you read in the memo from Daniel Seaman, from ACC.
MRS. MOORE-“I am Daniel B Seaman, Director of Facilities at Adirondack Community College. I
would like to include the following question in the Public Hearing/Comment session to be held
today at 7 PM. Will your development across from the main entrance to Adirondack Community
College impact the traffic control signal currently owned and maintained by the College? If you plan
to incorporate it into your plans to enter or exit your facility, then we must discuss issues relative to
its ownership and maintenance. Thank you.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and Jeffrey Howard. Okay. I guess the only
real comment is the access into the Adirondack Community College, and I actually went out and
measured the distance from the driveway to the center of the traffic light or the center of the
driveway coming out Adirondack to our driveway, is about 350 feet. So that is an ample distance.
We are back, in this portion of the road, opposite our driveway, we’re well back beyond where the
turn lane is, where the taper, the taper is narrowing down, at this point. So, no, there should not be
any traffic interference.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not at 350 feet. Anything else to add?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? Any comments from Staff. We’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment regarding this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 12-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Stark:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JEFFREY HOWARD, 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.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
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 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-One quick question for you. On your stormwater management report, Page
Two, it says it was prepared when you were with Haanen Engineering on April 24, 1999, for the
Witte Site Plan?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is this the same building size footprint as the original.
MR. NACE-Everything about the site is exactly the same. We have not changed anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a different applicant?
MR. NACE-Different applicant, same footprint, same building, same location, same driveway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Your landscaping plan/schedule that you call it on this drawing is the one
you’ll be utilizing?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you go to Beautification?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you did. Okay. Do we have a resolution or something from them regarding
this application? I didn’t see it in my packet.
MR. RINGER-Yes, it’s there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just as long as it’s referenced. Okay. Does someone want to make a
motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-99 JEFFREY HOWARD, Introduced by
Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
As written in the resolution.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 12-99, Jeffrey Howard for
construction of a 900 sq. ft. office building; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 3/31/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/Stormwater Man. Report
2. Maps – 47271-1 (Layout & Utilities) – dated 3/31/99
47271-2 (Grading, Drainage & Landscaping) – dated 3/31/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/27/99 - Staff Notes
2. 4/13/99 – Rist Frost comments
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
3. 4/12/99 – Beautification Comm. comments
4. 4/14/99 – Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution
5. 4/21/99 – ZBA resolution, staff notes
6. 5/18/99 – Staff Notes
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/27/99 and 5/18/99 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.
12-99 Jeffrey Howard.
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 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck, Jeff.
MR. HOWARD-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 18-99 AMERICAN LEGEND OWNER: CHERYL & DAVID
KENNY/KENNY-BROCK PARTNERSHIP ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: REEBOK
OUTLET CENTER APPLICANT PROPOSES A TRANSIENT MERCHANT
OPERATION, SALE OF MOTORCYCLE CARGO TRAILERS, IN A PORTION OF
THE PARKING LOT IN THE REEBOK OUTLET CENTER (KENNY-BROCK
PARTNERSHIP) DURING AMERICADE. CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BD. MTG. –
5/3/99, 5/17/99 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-33.2 LOT
SIZE: N/A SECTION: 160-8A(2)
LISA SCHRYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 18-99, American Legend, Meeting Date: May 18, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes a transient merchant operation to display
motorcycle trailers during Americade. The display area will be located on the west side of the
planters at the “Reebok Outlet”. The display area will measure about 30 ft. by 80 ft. and requires
approximately three parking spaces. Staff Notes: The applicant has addressed site location, display
area, and pedestrian/vehicle circulation. The display area will be marked with cones, with the activity
occurring between the roadside and the planters, pedestrian/vehicle conflicts will be at a minimum.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application.”
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MRS. MOORE-There was No County Impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record.
MS. SCHRYER-Good evening. My name’s Lisa Schryer. I’m an Associate with Rehm and Stafford,
and I’m here on behalf of American Legend Motorcycle Trailers.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you tell us a little bit about your project, or your request?
MS. SCHRYER-As was stated, American Legend is just requesting a transient merchant permit to
sell motorcycle trailers during the Americade week. They will probably have about five or six trailers
there on site, otherwise they’ll just be taking orders for additional trailers.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MS. SCHYRER-If there are any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t sound like it’s taking up a lot of space. Questions? Staff? I’ll open up
the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-99 AMERICAN LEGEND, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
In accordance with the resolution as submitted by Staff.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 18-99 American Legend for
transient merchant operation during Americade; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/28/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/drawings
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/18/99 - Staff Notes
2. 4/30/99 – L. Moore from J. Parkhill
3. 5/3/99 - Memo to C. Round from L. Moore
4. 5/3/99 - Town Bd. resolution 156.99
5. 5/7/99 - Meeting notice
6. 5/11/99 – Notice of Public Hearing
Whereas, a public hearing was held on May 18, 1999 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.
18-99 American Legend.
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.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5. The conditions shall be noted on the map.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MS. SCHRYER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 24-99 TYPE: UNLISTED PAMELA DEGROFF & LESLEY CORLEW
OWNER: STEWART’S ICE CREAM ZONE: NC-10 LOCATION: 347 AVIATION
ROAD, STEWART’S ICE CREAM APPLICANT PROPOSES A BEAUTY SHOP IN AN
EXISTING SPACE IN THE STEWART’S ICE CREAM BUILDING. BEAUTY SHOP IS
A TYPE II SITE PLAN REVIEW USE AND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 34-86, 40-86, 17-93, 50-93, 20-94 TAX MAP
NO. 78-1-8.62 LOT SIZE: 1.037 ACRES SECTION: 179-25
PAMELA DE GROFF & JENNIFER HOWARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-99, Pamela DeGroff & Lesley Corlew, Meeting Date: May 18,
1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to use a portion of an existing structure
(Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop) to operate a Hair Salon. Site Plan review is required for a Hair Salon in
the Neighborhood Commercial zone. The application meets the requirements of Article V, Site Plan
Review. Staff Notes: The applicant and property owners have discussed the site and use with Staff.
The applicant has supplied adequate information addressing access, available parking, and usage.
The proposed use appears to be compatible with the existing uses at the site. Staff Comment: The
drawing submitted does not correspond with the drawings approved for Site Plan 20-94. Site Plan
20-94 was approved with the condition that 20 lilac bushes were to be located on the west side of the
building (resolution attached). The submitted drawing and the existing site conditions show an
intermix of plantings. Staff finds the existing landscaping adequate, however, would request the
owners of the property revise their site plan map for this application. Staff would also suggest the
applicant confirm with Staff prior to any site enhancements of the property in the future. Staff
would request the property owner’s revised plan show the following: landscaping, type and number;
structures, footprint sq. ft. and gross leasable floor area; outside storage and dumpster location;
parking, proposed and existing; sign location; stormwater drainage areas Recommendation: Staff
recommends approval of the site plan application with the condition the property owner submit a
revised site plan.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Your last sentence under “Staff Comment” said “Staff would also suggest
that the applicant confirm with Staff prior to any site enhancements of their property in the future.”
Should that not be the owner?
MRS. MOORE-The owner.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you read into the record, too, the April 19 letter from Stewart’s,
th
please.
MRS. MOORE-It says “To Whom It May Concern: Stewart’s Ice Cream Co. has had a vacancy at
the rental unit adjacent to our shop at 347 Aviation Rd. since February, 1998. We have now signed a
lease with a retail business currently located in Queensbury. The new proposed use will be a hair
salon. The tenant will be leasing 1337 square feet with the remaining portion to still be used as a
district office. The office has two people that are there on a daily basis. Attached is the current
interior layout showing the only construction to take place on the part of Stewart’s is the additional
of a wall. There will be no work taking place on the exterior of the building or premises. Also
attached is the as built from 1994 when approximately 15 parking spaces were added. Our engineer
has found the current septic sufficient for the above use. However, if necessary additional drywells
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
can be added to increase the disposal amount. I will be attending the May meeting with the Tenant.
Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have prior to the meeting so I can answer
them at that time. Sincerely, Jennifer L. Howard, Real Estate Coordinator”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Is that?
MR. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MS. DE GROFF-Pamela DeGroff, co-owner of Adonis Hair Design.
MS. HOWARD-And I’m Jennifer Howard, here on behalf of Stewart’s Ice Cream.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re going to basically remodel the existing office area to a beauty salon
area?
MS. DE GROFF-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff satisfied with the concerns that we had with the prior site plan approval,
that there was some questions of what was accomplished, what was not accomplished?
MRS. MOORE-I had a discussion with Jennifer Howard today, and she is willing to submit an as
built set of plans of currently what exists out there, and I’ll leave it at the discretion of the Board, if
they feel that they can make an approval conditional upon that.
MS. HOWARD-I did visit the site today, before my time this was, but I did my best account, and
what is on the plan, obvious, is not what’s there. The only discrepancies I have were two parking
spots that were stated to exist that do not, and the shrubs, the lilac bushes which are not lilac bushes,
and those were the only changes I was going to make. Other than the freestanding sign, the drywells,
and the stormwater drainage areas, we did verify, do existing, and they are aware, they’re stated on
the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where are the two parking spots that?
MS. HOWARD-Sixteen and seventeen, that are almost next to the office, adjacent to the existing
office on the site plan are not there. There’s 15 spots on that side, and they think there’s 17.
Physically counting them today, there are 15.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you feel the site is adequate for parking for this kind of a business?
MS. HOWARD-I do after discussing with Pamela how many people she has. She does have a list,
on a daily basis, of how many customers and how many employees she has. If need be, we do have
the availability to add those two along with the other three, which would be 38, 39, and 40, that are
not developed, that were for future.
MR. RINGER-Where would they be?
MS. HOWARD-They’re on, if you’re looking on the site plan, on the right side, in front of the two
trees, they’re the shaded area, 38, 39, and 40.
MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt just for a second. The submitted plans that you submitted to
them are different than what you have in your hand.
MS. HOWARD-They don’t have it?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MS. HOWARD-I thought you had it, or they had it. I’m sorry.
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why does she have different plans than what we have?
MRS. MOORE-Why? The plans that they submitted are from a drawing that they did previous. We
do not have record of it. I had given them a copy of a site plan approval, 20-94.
MS. HOWARD-And that’s what I’m using.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. MOORE-That’s what she’s using.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m trying to kick in my memory banks here. I recall, and I don’t know who was
on the Board at the time, several years ago, we had something going on up there, and I don’t
remember exactly what it was, but it was another applicant who was going to occupy this same spot,
but there were some discrepancies in what was originally approved for the Stewart’s site plan.
MS. HOWARD-Was not what was built, right. So then they had to, it was my understanding that
Marianne M. from Stewart’s appeared before the Board in ’93, which carried over to ’94, and this is
the plan that was approved, and this is the plan that was supposed to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was the plan that was approved by who?
MS. HOWARD-By the Board.
MS. HOWARD-As I recall, no one ever came back in. That’s what I’m trying to get to. Did anyone
ever come back in front of the Board? Because we had, it was carried over a couple of meetings, and
we had a couple of different representatives from Stewart’s, over the course of two or three
meetings.
MS. HOWARD-I have a June 28 approval of ’94.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Of ’94?
MS. HOWARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s right in your packet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just trying to get clear what had to be corrected, versus what wasn’t
corrected, that we’re all on the same page here with this thing. How many clients do you expect a
day?
MS. DE GROFF-We average anywhere from 25 to 40, more so toward the weekend, and that’s an
11 hour period.
MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-five to forty, and most of that’s on a weekend, more toward the weekend
Thursday, Friday.
MS. DE GROFF-On any day there’s 25 clients, approximately, and that’s in 11 hours.
MR. RINGER-Does Stewart’s have any idea how many of their parking spots are used during the
day?
MS. HOWARD-No. All I can tell you is after speaking to the store, we obviously checked with the
store, and being the district office is there, ask them before we sign a lease, if they have any
comments regarding their parking, whether or not it would be overflowing, and their comments were
positive, that never have they come out and seen any, on any given day, and seen all the spots filled
up with a need for more.
MR. RINGER-No, but many times, I live in the area myself, and I frequent that store on occasion,
particularly for gas, and quite often, the front of the store is filled with the parking. Is there a way
that could be designated where the employees of Stewart’s, the two district managers that may be
there, and the employees of the beauty shop would be parking, to the rear all the time?
MS. HOWARD-Yes. They park in the rear. The district office people, usually there’s two of them
parked on the last two spots on their side, and the employees park in the last spot.
MR. RINGER-That would be 15 and 16?
MS. HOWARD-Yes, and then the employees usually park on the other side.
MR. RINGER-Thirty-four and thirty-three, on the map we’re looking at?
MS. HOWARD-It would be on the plan you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you said parking space 16 doesn’t exist.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MS. HOWARD-On his plan it does, but, see, we’re dealing with two different plans. Laura’s got the
plan she gave me.
MRS. MOORE-This is the plan she’s referring to.
MR. RINGER-It’s not that much different than ours. Handicapped parking, you’ve got that one
spot to the right. Now with the addition of the beauty parlor, you’re going to get quite a bit of
traffic. Wouldn’t it be logical to put another handicapped spot to the side of the beauty shop?
MS. HOWARD-We could do that. I mean, that’s certainly not a problem.
MR. RINGER-I would think you would want to do that, and I think Staff would probably like to
have something like that, too. Wouldn’t you, Laura? I mean, the way it is now, the handicapped
ramp is way over to the right, where the Stewart’s Shop is, as a matter of fact at the very end. So for
someone to come in to the beauty shop, that required a wheelchair or something, would have to
come up there, come all the way across, and then into the beauty shop. I would think that if 17 is
going to be open, which shows on our map, 17 and possibly 18, I don’t know how many they would
need for the handicapped.
MRS. MOORE-Right. I don’t know, off the top of my head, but I believe for 25 it’s one required
handicapped spot.
MR. RINGER-Well, they’ve got 34. So they would need two?
MRS. LAURA-I believe. I don’t know, off the top of my head.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I’d like to see that, I think we’d like to see something like that, and put over
there by the beauty shop.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Larry?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In the Stewart’s letter, it says our engineer has found the current septic
sufficient for the above use. Is there a statement in here by him?
MS. HOWARD-I have his report in front of me. which he has not stamped yet, that he sent to me
today.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason I ask that question is that considering the plan change in use, you had a
drycleaner in there before?
MS. HOWARD-Yes, strictly a drop off.
MR. VOLLARO-Strictly a drop off.
MS. HOWARD-They did not dryclean on premises.
MR. VOLLARO-It effected no load on that septic system at that time?
MS. HOWARD-Basically.
MR. VOLLARO-But now, with the added water use and so on, where is the leach field located? I
assume, on my drawing, that the septic is right behind?
MS. HOWARD-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there a leach field, or just wells?
MS. HOWARD-Just wells.
MR. VOLLARO-Just wells, no leach field. See, I’m just looking for an engineer’s statement that the
added water use, it’s going to be a considerable amount of load, now, on that septic system, versus
what was there before, with washing hair, etc., etc. So I just wanted to make sure that that septic
tank is going to handle that.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MS. HOWARD-What I've got, I do have that I can read you is his, it is a two page statement. I’ll
read you the pertinent part, and I will forward that, but it wasn’t stamped. So I didn’t want to submit
it. He’s got on here, “The Stewart’s Shop and office space presently have an existing septic system
that handles flows of 504 gallons per day of sanitary effluent. The existing system consists of one
1,000 gallon septic tank with two drywells, and the total flows from the building will be 904 gallons
per day. The present septic tank size should be verified in the field, and if necessary, an additional
1,000 gallon tank will be installed”. And then he has how he figured out his computations. He used
the book for hair salons and also one washing machine, which she will have in there, to do towels
and what not. He did include that, also.
MR. MAC EWAN-So, according to his letter, he still needs to verify what size tank they actually
have?
MS. HOWARD-Correct. There’s no reason to think that the 1,000 isn’t in the ground, but as an
engineer, obviously, he wants to be sure that that’s what’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that 1,000 gallon tank, if it is a 1,000 gallon, you’re going to be feeding it
almost it’s total capacity in a single day. So the drywells, in effect, have to be capable of handling
almost that amount. Because you’re going to be exchanging water in that septic tank almost on a
daily basis.
MS. HOWARD-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So, I don’t know. I’d certainly have to see that engineering, you know, I’d like to
see him stamp that, to make sure that he’s, I have some concerns with that, personally. You’ve got
six stations in that new.
MS. HOWARD-I think we need to clarify how many people are on at once.
MS. DE GROFF-Yes. At any given time, there’s two to three stylists on.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the number that’s pertinent is the amount of, it talks about the final amount
in terms of 900 and some odd gallons per day.
MS. HOWARD-Right. Maximum capacity is 904.
MR. VOLLARO-So she’s almost at the capacity of a septic tank to change the water in that tank
once a day. That means the drywells have to be capable of handling that load.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have any comment that they want to throw in at this time?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it would be reasonable to request that, from the engineer that it’s
stamped, to verify that it can handle that flow. It might even actually be worthwhile to refer that,
also, to Rist-Frost, and have them look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the engineering statement said that, if needed, he would add a conditional
tank as well. Is that some of the words in his?
MS. HOWARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-My concerns, at this point, is that they’re not sure exactly what the tank is out
there.
MR. STARK-Craig, being built in 1994, most likely it’s, they didn’t make less than a 1,000 gallon tank
back then, but it still should go to Rist-Frost and why don’t you table it for a week and then get his
answer by next week? I mean, he could surely give you an answer by next week. That’s not too
much of a.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s where I actually was heading with it. Have you got anything else?
MR. STARK-Well, most likely it’s a 1,000 gallon tank. They didn’t make less than a 1,000 gallon
tank, and the soil up there is very highly permeable, but let Levandowski sign off on it, though.
MR. PALING-Parking spaces 29 through about 37 are not paved, are they?
MS. HOWARD-Yes, they are. There’s nine spaces.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. PALING-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have anything, except that I think you should let the engineer sign off
on it.
MR. STARK-That’s not an imposition.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s not. Anything else that you wanted to add? I think what I’d like to do is
open up the public hearing. If anybody wants to come up and comment regarding this application,
you’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD JONES
MR. JONES-Good evening. My name is Richard Jones, and I have the office next door to the
Stewart’s store. I’d like to read into the record a letter from my wife, who is the property owner. She
owns the property both on the west side of Stewart’s and behind Stewart’s as well. “Town of
Queensbury Planning Board Members: I currently own the property to the rear and west of the
existing Stewart’s Ice Cream at 347 Aviation Road. In reviewing the proposed site plan review
application, I have several concerns. At times there is a shortage of parking for the current tenants,
the Stewart’s Ice Cream Shop/Gas Station and the Stewart’s Conference Center”, that is not strictly
an office. That is actually a conference center that, on Monday’s, is totally packed with cars, “at the
rear of the building. With the addition of this type of tenant, the parking problem will only become
more critical. To help alleviate this problem, the reserve parking spaces as proposed along the east
property line in 1994 should be provided.” Those are the three parking spaces that they said were in
reserve. “Can the existing septic system handle the additional load created by this type of tenant?
The design standards require 170 gallons per day for each hair dressing station” of which there are
six in the building, “and the existing system, which is currently located under the paved area at the
rear of the building, should be reviewed for adequacy.” There is currently only one drywell, an eight
foot diameter drywell, behind that, and I have a copy of the existing site plan from the 1994 site plan
review. “Conformance to all site issues as agreed to during Stewart’s site plan review in June of
1994, namely; Maintenance of all landscaping and plantings. Several have died and have not been
replaced on both the rear and west property lines. Without the large white pines in place at the rear
of the property, vehicles drive from the rear parking lot at Stewart’s and then across my property to
Manor Drive” They actually exit across the backside of the property. “Maintenance of the
stormwater drainage system. Several of the black top curbs along the west property line have been
damaged by plowing and have not been repaired thus allowing drainage from the parking lot to spill
onto my property. Snow is stockpiled on the existing paved drainage swale at the rear of the
property in the buffer zone thus restricting the proper flow of storm water to the retention area. To
maintain adequate parking spaces and proper drainage, the snow should not be stockpiled in the
buffer zone and should be removed from the site during severe winter months. I appreciate the
consideration of my comments and position regarding the Town review of this site plan application.
Sincerely, Barbara Jones 339 Aviation Road Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. MAC EWAN-A quick question for you. Have you addressed your concerns with cars driving
across your back parcel with anybody from Stewart’s?
MR. JONES-We had, originally, and that’s when they added all of the plantings along the two
property lines. The original site plan application in 1993 and ’94 was for an addition of two spaces to
the Stewart’s store. They were looking to purchase property to the east side. It was discovered at
that time that basically the site plan, the way it was laid out, was not what had been approved, I
believe, in ’91 or ’90. They had actually added that conference center to the backside of the
Stewart’s. So the building was larger. None of the setbacks were in conformance. They actually had
paved onto our property on the west side, and all of the drainage was just spilling into the west side
and basically dumping in our side yard. We had a major drainage problem at our building at 339
Aviation Road, because of that, and most of them had been addressed, but they basically need to
address those items and keep them maintained, because it’s a continuing problem, and if it’s not
maintained, we continue to have water in the side yard, and vehicles driving through.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I think for the time being I’ll leave the public hearing open. I
guess my first concern is the utilization of the rear office. Can you tell us what that’s used for?
MS. HOWARD-Currently, right now, it’s a district office, and that district has approximately 22
stores in it. They hold their meetings there on Monday. With the obvious addition of the hair salon,
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
they’ve been renting property at the Ramada, on a weekly basis. That will not be the meeting place.
As I stated, there’s two employees there full time, that are there all the time, but the meetings no
longer, since two weeks ago. We’ve been renting a room at the Ramada on every Monday. I mean,
it’s obvious you can’t have all those people parking in there with the hair salon and the store.
MR. RINGER-Were you aware of the problem he has with people going through onto Manor
Drive?
MS. HOWARD-I’m not aware of any of those issues. I've been with Stewart’s for five years, and
I've never had anything like that brought to my attention, from the store, the district office, and
they’re usually very good when they’re there. I mean, I can certainly address some of them. The
only thing I’m not clear is where people are cutting through.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would appear that they would be cutting through, it would be the northwest
corner?
MR. JONES-No, back by the dumpster.
MR. MAC EWAN-Back by the dumpster on that side?
MS. HOWARD-Now, they’re exiting on your property where, that’s where I’m not clear.
MR. JONES-They’re driving right across the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right straight through his property, he’s saying, right onto Manor Drive. It’s
right somewhere in the vicinity of where the pole is, the utility pole.
MS. HOWARD-I was back there today. There’s a walkway, but you can’t put a car back there.
MR. JONES-Yes, you can.
MS. HOWARD-Can you, because I walked through it. I had to duck under the trees to find the iron
point.
MR. STARK-Why doesn’t the representative from Stewart’s meet with Mr. Jones, and he can point
out exactly what the problems are, by next Tuesday, or next Monday, I should say, then she’ll know
exactly what he’s talking about. I’m sure Mr. Jones would be happy to point out the problems.
MS HOWARD-Yes. I would certainly wish to address them if they’re a problem. I wish I knew
about them previous, but I am aware of the dead trees, which the snowplow gentleman was
supposed to take care of, which he didn’t. I guess he was piling snow there.
MR. PALING-Is Stewart’s willing to commit to the lesser usage of that meeting room back there,
that it’ll just be used for an office and not an assembly or meeting place?
MS. HOWARD-Yes. We need to do that for our tenant. I mean, she wouldn’t have any parking.
MR. PALING-Yes, but are you willing to commit to us that you won’t use it beyond being an office?
MS. HOWARD-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, George?
MR. STARK-Just my recommendation that they meet and Mr. and Mrs. Jones can point out the
problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, anything?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, nothing beyond what I've said already on the septic system. Somebody did say
that that septic is under macadam? Is that septic system covered over with macadam in any way?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MS. HOWARD-I believe it is.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-It is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, then, if he wants to verify the size of it, he’s got to get down through the
macadam to do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, we’re planning on tabling this?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s my recommendation. I’d like to see this tabled. I’d like to have you
submit to Staff your engineering report, verifying what size septic, and that the septic system you
currently have on site will be adequately able to serve the beauty salon. I’d like that reviewed by Rist-
Frost, if we could, please. Maybe in the meantime, you can get together with Mr. Jones and see if a
remedy can’t be worked out to deter people from driving through your parcel onto his parcel to
Manor Drive, and I’ll be honest with you, my concerns here with this site is the utilization of that
rear office, as Mr. Paling was saying, for your weekly meetings, considering the high volume of
potential business that she’s going to have with the beauty salon, and demonstrating that you’re going
to have adequate parking on the site to handle all of that. I don’t know how many more parking
spots you can squeeze out of that site.
MS. HOWARD-We can get five more, right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’ll need to submit a revised drawing to Staff, showing that.
MS. HOWARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And any kind of additional buffering or whatever you’re going to do to work with
Mr. Jones in his parcel to deter the driving, and when you get those to Staff, those adequately
addressed, then we can put you on for the very next meeting, which would either be, depending
upon how quickly you turn things around and give Staff time to review them, we have a number of
meetings coming up over the course of the next few weeks.
MS. HOWARD-All right.
MR. RINGER-When you do your revised site plan, include those extra handicapped spots by the?
MS. HOWARD-Yes. I’m going to have them pick which one we think would be best to suit her.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many more handicapped spots do they require for this?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have that number off the top of my head.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You will review that with them?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. On that note, we’ll table it. Okay.
MS. HOWARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MS. HOWARD-Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Are you going to do a formal tabling?
MR. MAC EWAN-We just did.
MRS. MOORE-A vote?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s tabled.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We left that public hearing open, too.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-99 TYPE: UNLISTED STAN GANNON/TOP OF THE WORLD
AUTO BODY OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 619 QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD RENTAL CAR BUSINESS TO EXISTING AUTO
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
BODY SHOP, SHARE AN EXISTING OFFICE AND ADD FENCING TO SECURE
REAR PARKING AREA. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1-86, SP 22-92, SP 34-90,
SP 52-95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-4 LOT SIZE: 3.508
ACRES SECTION: 179-23
STAN GANNON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 19-99, Stan Gannon/Top of the World Auto Body, Meeting Date:
May 18, 1999 “Description of Project: The applicant proposes to operate a vehicle rental business
in conjunction with an auto body repair service. In addition, the applicant will be constructing a
fence to the north side of the building. Planning Board review and approval is required for new auto
related uses and construction of a fence in the Highway Commercial zone. Staff Notes: The
applicant met with Staff prior to submission to review the proposal. The applicant has indicated
rentals will be for vehicles only, not U-Hauls or related trucking rentals. The site has adequate
parking as calculated – 5,731 sq. ft. of gross floor area which requires 29 spaces, 36 are identified.
The site appears adequate to accommodate auto body repair and vehicle rentals. The fence as shown
and described will discriminate unnecessary vehicle traffic to the rear of the building.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted.”
MRS. MOORE-And there was No County Impact.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. GANNON-I’m Stan Gannon from Top of the World Auto Body.
SHARON FAULKNER
MS. FAULKNER-I’m Sharon Faulkner from Premier Car Rental, a division of Budget Rent A Car.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about the project?
MR. GANNON-Well, basically, we just want to have on-site rentals because it just goes hand in
hand with our business. We’ve actually had a request from the insurance company that it would
make things go smoother for their clients if they could kind of do a one stop shopping thing, and so
we hooked up with Premier here, and they seem to be interested in going hand in hand with us on
that, and basically, that’s it. We plan on just starting out with our own customers, and seeing how
that works, and then, if it catches on, of course, we’ll be doing, also the general public, anyone who
wants to rent a car can come in and do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just automobiles?
MR. GANNON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many do you expect that you’ll have on site at any given time?
MR. GANNON-Well, hopefully not too many. Hopefully they’re all on the road being rented, but I
would say a maximum of 10, and I would be parking those in the rear of the building, and not out
front. I would just park the ones on the front who are going to be getting picked up or delivered,
stuff like that, but they would just stay out back. They wouldn’t be out in the front.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-They would be parked where you have that 14 additional cars, is that what you’re
saying?
MR. GANNON-Yes, in the back of the building.
MR. RINGER-That’s not paved or anything. In the winter you’re going to plow that out?
MR. GANNON-Yes.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. RINGER-And it’s all crushed stone?
MR. GANNON-Yes. We don’t see that much problem. We’ve done that for quite a few years. Just
don’t rake it out of the grass.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a little problem with this. So I went up there this afternoon and I talked with
the gentleman that’s in front of us, and I noticed that, I thought it was a holding tank that he had
there for septic, but it’s not. The septic tank is right in here. My question was, the Town water line
went right by the septic tank, but he said that water line has now been moved. I no longer have a
problem with it, but this drawing is not an accurate depiction of what’s on the site. The water line
has been moved, where you see “Town water”. The holding tanks are actually tanks that re-deposits
water in from the wash bays, and there’s two of those, and in the middle of that, there’s a septic tank.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are you satisfied with that, then?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t see any problem with it.
MR. PALING-Would you describe the fence to me and the purpose for it, please.
MR. GANNON-Right now, we have a driveway that goes around the back of the building, and we
park all the wrecked cars back there. So, we have a lot of people just driving back there, and looking
at the cars, and things like that, and we’re starting to end up with some things missing. So we wanted
to put a gate and a six foot chain link fence, like a brown colored fence, just back to the, there’s like a
drainage hole there, and just to keep the traffic from going back and forth.
MR. PALING-A chain link fence, what, an eight foot fence with a gate on it?
MR. GANNON-Six foot, with, yes, it’s a 20 foot gate that would fold against part of the building,
and then the other one would fold straight out on the side of it, yes.
MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment regarding this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 19-99, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Paling:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
STAN GANNON/TOP OF THE WORLD AUTO BODY, 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
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
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 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to put a motion up?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-99 STAN GANNON/TOP OF THE
WORLD AUTO BODY, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Stark:
As written.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 19-99 to add Rental Car Business to
existing Auto Body Shop, share an existing office and add fencing to secure rear parking area; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/26/99, consists of the following:
1. Application w/drawings and survey dated 6/1/90
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/18/99 - Staff Notes
2. 5/11/99 - Notice of public hearing
3. 5/7/99 - Meeting notice letter
Whereas, a public hearing was held on May 18, 1999 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.
19-99 for Stan Gannon/Top of the World Auto Body.
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.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. GANNON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a side note, your business place up there is one of the nicest, most
attractive, well kept auto related business places I see in Queensbury and more people should follow
your lead.
MR. GANNON-Thank you very much.
MS. FAULKNER-We're going to keep it that way. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 20-99 TYPE II PIZZAGATES, INC. OWNER: HERBERT
SHEINBERG ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: PIZZA HUT, 863 ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 12’ X 60’ DINING ROOM AND BACK ROOM ADDITION AND
RELOCATION OF CURB CUT. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 21-1999,
VAR. 391, SP 1-82, VAR. 404, VAR 390 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/10/99 WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 5/12/99 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION
179-23
RICHARD JONES & MIKE PARK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-99, Pizzagates, Inc., Meeting Date: May 18, 1999 “Description
of Project: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing restaurant and perform
substantial site work. The applicant has received an area variance approval from the ZBA for
setback relief. New construction in the Highway Commercial zone requires site plan review and
approval. Staff Notes: The applicant’s proposed project would enhance the area with additional
green space and possibly less traffic control. The applicant has requested a waiver from the
stormwater report, but has provided information that indicates the current stormwater system is
adequate for the site. The applicant has addressed all site issues. Recommendation: Staff
recommends approval of the site plan and granting the requested waivers.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a letter from them in here, requesting the waivers, you can read into
the record?
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see one.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t, either.
MRS. MOORE-In the application, Page 7 of 7, he signed waiver request.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could you read in, also, to the record, Rist-Frost’s letter, March 13, it
th
looks like?
MRS. MOORE-It’s addressed to Mr. Round. “We have reviewed the documents forwarded with the
above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. We have no objection to the
request for a waiver of the submission requirement for a stormwater management plan. The drawing
should clearly require that the re-paving and new paving drain to the existing drainage structures
without creating ponding at low spots. 2. A note should be added to the drawings that all work shall
comply with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control as printed by the
Empire State Chapter Soil and Water Conservation Society. 3. The entrance modifications are
subject to the approval of the New York State Department of Transportation. 4. The site plan
should show the existing utilities (water, sewer, gas, etc.). Are the catch basins just dry wells or are
there interconnecting pipes? If so, they should be shown.” Do you want Beautification and County?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, please.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. MOORE-Okay. County, was “No County Impact”. Beautification, “Applicant proposes a 12’
x 60’ dining room and back room addition and relocation of a curb cut. They are tearing down Long
John Silver and widening driveway. Planting grass on remaining land behind parking. Put shrubs in
front of building and planting annuals in front of building. Professional landscaper. Hostas and
lillies along with annuals. Dumpster will be enclosed in back of building.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. My name is Richard Jones. I’m the architect representing Pizzagates,
and this is Mike Park, from Pizzagates. Basically, we’re proposing an addition to the existing Pizza
Hut on the north side of the site. The addition will be approximately 720 square feet and run across
the south side of the existing building. As part of the project, we’re looking to re-align the parking
and re-align the entry out onto Route 9. We’ve been working with the New York State DOT, Mark
Kennedy, in regard to that, and we have a letter from him. I’m not sure if you’ve gotten a copy of
that or not. Basically, the site where we have the two buildings right now, the fish restaurant will be
coming down. That will be demolished as part of the project. The existing area where that currently
sits will be turned into green space. We're looking at utilizing that as some of our sheet drainage off
of our existing paved area. As I said, we’re going to re-align the parking, so that we have a straight
shot of parking down in front of the building, with our handicapped spaces, and then a straight shot
of parking on the south side as well. As part of the project, we’re also redoing the parking in the
back, and technically re-paving all areas. New paving areas will be receiving the pavement details, as
indicated on the drawings. The other areas, the existing paved areas, will be receiving a new top coat.
Everything will be pitching to the existing catch basin system. In regard to the Rist-Frost comments,
had sent a letter back to Bill Levandowski at Rist-Frost, addressing those comments, and I did
receive a letter back from him, via fax, and basically it indicates that he is, at this point, satisfactory
with all of my comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-How long ago was that done?
MR. JONES-That was May 17.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-That was yesterday. Okay.
MR. JONES-In regard to the DOT, we had originally sent Mark Kennedy a copy of the site plan
indicating the realigned drive onto Route 9. He had gotten back to us with a request for additional
information in regard to the storm drainage, as it currently exists along that entry onto Route 9. We
did provide that to him, and I did receive a letter today from Mr. Kennedy, indicating, I believe, three
conditions, and I’ll read this at this point. This is addressed to Jorge Correa in my office. “Dear Mr.
Correa: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed relocation of the Pizza Hut drive and approve
the location of the proposed drive. The layout must be revised to conform to the enclosed sketch
which is the Department’s standard. The existing drywell locations do not provide drainage for the
relocated drive. A catch basin must be provided on the south edge of the drive near the right-of-way
line. If you have any questions on this, please call Mark Kennedy of this office.” We did reply to
Mr. Kennedy’s letter, and we did fax that to him. We did fax a copy in to the Planning Office as
well, and I have copies of the revised site plan, which I can submit to the Planning Office. Basically,
we’ve revised the entry drive, indicating the radius changes that he had indicated and requested,
which will now conform to the DOT standards. Basically, he was looking for a 34 foot radius on
both sides. The drive currently is not perpendicular to the road. It is offset at a slight angle. So the
radius to the north side is going to be set back a little bit further, giving us a little bit more flexibility,
I think, with the turning radius there. We’ve also indicated a new catch basin at the south edge of the
drive, and we’ve included that on the schedule as part of the drawing and we’ve also included a detail
for review. We feel we have complied with those, and as I said, we did fax that down to Mark
Kennedy today.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’re drawings have not been revised at this point?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they have? Does Staff have copies of those?
MR. JONES-No. We just did these today.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have copies of what he’s referring to from Mark Kennedy and the DOT?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. MOORE-I do not have letters from Mark Kennedy. I do have letters that he sent to Bill
Levandowski and letters that he sent to Mark Kennedy. I do not have any response from the DOT
yet. He seems to have it. Are you waiting for another letter from Mark Kennedy, or is this?
MR. JONES-No. I think that what he was indicating is that it would be approved, basically, in its
relocation, and he was looking for those items to be included. I believe he copied the local DOT
representative on there for Warren County.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. JONES-We would be making our application to him for the revised permit anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the correspondence that you did with Bill Levandowski, that you did
yesterday, are revisions to, basically, what he’s stamping off on, saying he’s okay with. It has nothing
to do with the DOT curb cuts or anything?
MR. JONES-No. Basically, we were responding to his comments, regarding the size of the existing
drainage structures. We had gone out on the site and actually measured up and sized all of those.
We had taken depths on each one of the structures. We were looking for interconnecting piping.
There is none between the catch basins and drywells. We were adding notes to the drawings in
regard to the compliance with New York State Guidelines for Erosion Control/Sediment Control.
We’d indicated that we had been in contact with Mark Kennedy at DOT, and it had been indicated
to us that we would be receiving an approval of the relocation by today’s meeting, which we did
receive, and basically Bill Levandowski was looking for us to add indications for all of the existing
underground utilities, which we did add to that site plan.
MR. PALING-(Lost words) had Staff seen in regard to the Levandowski letter, his original letter,
which they’re referring to having answered, having gotten approval from Levandowski. I’m not too
comfortable with that, unless you verify that this happened.
MRS. MOORE-We received information from Mr. Jones on 5/17, showing the new drawings that
he sent to Bill Levandowski. So we have them in our hands, that we have reviewed, and then we’ve
received Bill Levandowski’s comment, dated May 17, in regard to what Jones submitted to him.
th
MR. PALING-Do you want to read that?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. This is addressed to Mr. Round “Richard E. Jones Associates’ letter of May
14, 1999, along with the drawing revisions satisfactorily addresses all of our comments in our review
letter of May 13, 1999.”
MR. MAC EWAN-So really I guess the only outstanding thing here is DOT’s reconfiguration of
their entrance.
MR. PALING-Well, I was going to ask if they’d summarize the difference between the print up there
and what I've got in front of me, so we have an accurate idea of what all the changes were.
MR. JONES-I’ll give you the revised one from today, as well. I have multiple copies of that. The
drawing that you have in front of you, basically, when you look at the clouded area out toward the
Route 9 area, this is the area where we’re revising the radiuses, on both the north and south side of
our relocated entry. Originally, we had 20 feet on the radius on the north side, which was basically
just a copy of what the original radius was. Mr. Kennedy wanted us to increase that to 34, which we
have done, and on the south side, we had a radius of 30 feet, which basically mimicked the original.
Again, he wanted us to increase that to 34 feet, which we have also done. You’ll see, right in the
middle of the cloud, you’ll see a new catch basin. It says “Catch Basin No. 5”, and that is the new
one that we have added. Mr. Kennedy was looking at us to control runoff against that south curb of
what we’re calling the revised entry location, so that we can control runoff that would go out into
Route 9. Currently, the existing parking area is higher than the grades on Route 9, and they’re
running down hill to the south. Up in the upper corner is the detail for that drywell.
MR. PALING-You refer to the destruction of the Long John Silver’s.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. PALING-Is that something new that we didn’t know about?
MR. JONES-No. That’s always been indicated on the plans. That was a part of our presentation to
the Zoning Board as well, when we were granted the variance.
MR. STARK-Craig, I have a question for Mr. Jones.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. STARK-Mr. Jones, the entrance, as it exists right now, is what width?
MR. JONES-It is 24 feet.
MR. STARK-So you’re increasing it one foot?
MR. JONES-It should be 24.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re both 24. I get 24 on the 120.
MR. JONES-I believe the new one is 24 as well.
MR. STARK-Pulling in there sometimes, that seems like a narrow entrance to me. Why couldn’t you
make your entrance wider, or is that Kennedy’s recommendation?
MR. JONES-His recommendation is that we conform to conform to his standards. He wants the
radiuses to be 34 feet, which is going to help with the turning radius from the north side. Currently,
that turning radius is only 20 feet on the north side. I think that’s going to help greatly on that side.
The width of the entry itself, he is looking at 24 feet on that, which is what we’re complying with.
MR. STARK-Is that a standard, the 24 feet?
MR. JONES-I believe DOT standard for the entrance is 24, unless it’s a divided entry, which we
don’t really want to do.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m going to have to ask you to help me out on something. On your site
development data, you’re adding 720 square feet with this new addition.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And in order to get the percent nonpermeable, the way I read the data here, you’ve
taken away 7,835 feet. How did you do that?
MR. JONES-We deleted both driveway area and building. We tore down the other building, with
sidewalks and everything else. The building to the south side, that’s the fish.
MR. VOLLARO-This is the existing Lighthouse building to be removed?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s part of the 7,835?
MR. JONES-Yes. That’s part of it, as well as driveway changes and we’ve deleted a bunch of
walkways.
MR. VOLLARO-See, when I did my review, I didn’t have this drawing. So I was like blind with
respect to trying to analyze this stuff. Okay. I understand what you’ve done. You’ve answered my
question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A question for the Board. Do they feel that the changes to DOT is
significant that you want to push this on for further development, or are you satisfied with what
we’ve got?
MR. STARK-You have the letter from Kennedy, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff feels comfortable with everything? As far as the last minute changes and
recommendations from DOT? You do not have any correspondence from DOT, right, regarding
this?
MRS. MOORE-We have the one that we’ve received tonight. This is the first time I've seen this.
MR. STARK-Craig, I have a question from Staff. Maybe you can answer it. The Top of the World,
that was only a minor project. This one here is a decent project, and it’s Type II. Why wouldn’t this
require a SEQRA when the other one didn’t?
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to ask the SEQRA guy.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. STARK-Laura, why would Top of the World require a SEQRA, which is a very minor project, I
think, and Pizzagates, which is a substantial project, be a Type II?
MRS. MOORE-For a Type II, I don’t know if you have your book, but for this, expansion involving
less than 4,000 square feet, it’s considered a Type II.
MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as documentation to support the changes from Department of
Transportation, what you have and what was given to you tonight, are you satisfied that’s what you’re
looking for?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to come up and
comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JODIE MERRITHEW
MRS. MERRITHEW-My name’s Jodie Merrithew. I live at 17 Greenway Drive. I live directly
behind Pizza Hut and Ray Supply. My major concerns are, last year a house was broken into. You
can check with Investigator Vanness, and what they do, in the summer time, is come and scope out
our area, hop the fence. Somebody’s sitting over on Route 9 in either Pizza Hut parking lot or over
in Ray Supply, rob our houses, jump the fence, and they’re gone, and they can’t catch them. The
gentleman who was just caught with the baseball cap, who stole from a woman $30,000, he’s the one
who robbed our house two doors down, because I happened to be awake when he put the stuff up
against our bedroom window and scared the bejeebers out of me, and I kind of scared him. So he
robbed the house two doors down. You can check with Vanness. He’ll tell you that, registered
report. In the summer time, the amount of traffic they get, at 11 o’clock at night, when your children
are asleep, and you really don’t want to put on the air, or close up the windows, because our windows
face the back part, the screaming and the hollering of people who don’t put their children to bed at a
regular time, at 11 o’clock at night, is kind of annoying. The other thing you can check with the
police department is the children who are doing the skateboarding with Ray Supply and Pizza Hut.
I've called the police repeatedly because they bring their cars in, blare their music and ride their
skateboards. I don’t care that they ride their skateboards on private property, over in somebody
else’s yard, and from what I understand from the gentleman who owns Ray Supply, he has
complained many times about the children trespassing on his property and the police will not do
anything about it. The thing is, we’re directly behind it. Ray Supply’s barn is only 50, well, 45 feet
from our property line. So, Ray Supply’s parking lot is right there, perfect for all the noise and the
havoc. Pizza Hut stays open until 11 o’clock at night, and already on Glen Street, riding up Glen
Street, Upper Glen Street, it smells like China Town now. So it’s going to even be more pleasant
expanding that and also putting in the nice old Cracker Barrel on the other end. So, my opinion is, I,
as a homeowner, can you alleviate a little bit of the stress of the noise and the sounds past the closing
times. At least get the police to patrol through there, to stop this. It’s annoying, as a homeowner.
Our property is appraised by you guys at the Town of Queensbury, excuse me, not you, as $94,000.
The banks will only appraise it at $81,000, and the school is making us pay at $94,000, and it’s getting
frustrating. We're making ends meet. I had a child, in November, be diagnosed with Arnold
Scharee, malformation of the brain. I had a husband have a heart attack in January. It’s getting
frustrating. We're trying to make ends meet up there, and you guys are closing us out. If you want
the property, buy it from us. Honestly. We’ll sell it, but can we stop a little bit? Can we stop for a
while, expanding and polluting the area? It’s a gorgeous area. I mean, a moose, last September,
walked in front of our porch. That was the coolest thing in the world, but it’s getting tiring. I
couldn’t come and fight for a couple of other things, because of personal things going on with the
family, but if you’re going to expand these places, could you at least have them patrolled by the
police? So they’re not cutting through our yards, destroying our gardens, pulling our swingsets
down? Name it, they’re doing it. And these are patrons of the, the litter. The litter. My God,
McDonald’s from Wal-Mart, alone, and we’re picking it up. We're going over and picking it up for
us. None of it’s being controlled. None of it’s being taken care of, all the promises, yes, you’re going
to put this business in, but you’re doing nothing for the homeowners there, who are upkeeping it.
Come and drive up. I’ll let you stay and afternoon, an evening in our back yard. Especially on a
weekend, and hear what goes on in our back yard. It’s frustrating. I have young children. I've got a
5, a 3, and a 1 year old.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you, what kind of a fence is between your property and Pizza Hut’s?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. MERRITHEW-Our own chain link fence with the buffer of what we’re allowed, where we
have to come in on our own property, there is no buffer. Ray Supply, all the wooded area that was
there, in the four years we’ve been there, has been starting to be taken down. We hear chainsaws
running, cutting down the woods. I don’t know if it’s coming from the Pizza Hut side. I don’t know
if it’s coming from Ray Supply’s side. We measured the barn from our property line to the barn. We
went through a lot of Poison Ivy. My husband is not happy with me this evening because I made
him do this, but there’s nothing buffering us from all this noise, the public, people abusing their
property, cutting through our property. Our home has been attempted to be robbed. The house
two doors down was robbed, and that’s because, from what Mr. Vanness told us, they come through,
what they do is they get sidetracked because none of the streets are marked correctly up by the lights.
They’re all marked in the road, and people think there’s a quick getaway to cross over through our
complex, and what they do is then they see our home. Our outside looks great. We have three boys.
The inside isn’t so beautiful, but what they’re doing is they’re scouting us out, and they know they
can park a car at the businesses behind us, rob us, hop the fence, and go because there’s nothing
stopping them, other than a stupid chain link fence, and it’s frustrating. We’ve worked hard. We
really have. I’m a 37 year old woman. We’ve earned what we have, and it’s all being taken, because
people are coming through. We're considered the fast-food Mecca of the world. They’re passing
through. They’re stopping through. You’ve got a lot of people who you don’t know who is coming
through, what they want, what they’re looking for, and it’s tiring. It’s tiring, and all I’m waiting for is
our property to get damaged and have the police still say to us, well, that’s your fault for where you
live. Somebody said to me, well, why did you choose that. I said, I’m sorry, that’s what we could
afford, and it was beautiful, and it is beautiful, and it’s a nice area, but people have got to also work
with us, too. We understand they want to make a profit, and we want to have a good life. I’m sorry,
we’re set there for 30 years. You’re not going to lose us unless you come in and buy it for a good
amount of money. I have nothing else to say. I understand what everybody wants to do, and I
understand the businesses, but you guys have got to help us out a little bit in that complex. You’ve
really, really got to help us. You’ve either got to build retaining walls, but not obstruct the view of
the mountains. When the leaves fall off the trees, if you come in our house and look out, we can see
Vermont and Massachusettes mountains, but the access of people going to rob us, and then the
through traffic. We're at the dead end. There’s a sign in front of our house that says “Dead End”.
Do you know, I've got to run out and save my children from cars speeding down the road to park to
go shopping in Wal-Mart, that aren’t even residents of our area? Because they don’t want to deal
with the traffic and go around. I don’t know what else to do. We’ve got a house on a dead end road,
on a half acre of land, knowing that there were businesses behind us. We knew this, but we need a
little help in securing our home. Already, the property value has dropped immensely. From, our
house was appraised at $94,000 by the Town of Queensbury, and the banks will only appraise it at
$81,000. That’s sad, and I’m paying taxes, school taxes, on a $94,000 home, not on an $81,000
home. It’s getting very frustrating. We have traffic coming through. We're at a dead end street. We
have traffic coming through to get to the businesses all around us. Because people are too damn lazy
to drive around and deal with the traffic. That’s not fair to my children. If I wanted that, I would
have bought a house on Route 9 in South Glens Falls, which is just as easy. I mean, their lives are
just as much in jeopardy. All I’m asking from the business people in the Town of Queensbury, for
us who own homes up there, could you help us a little bit? Could you help us a little bit? When our
homes are being broken into, like I asked Mr. Vanness, what would that gentleman have done,
apparently he was very brazen. He comes through the front doors. He tried coming through our
bedroom window, which was right over our head where we were sitting, and he listens for the
television to be on, thinking we’re asleep, but when he smashed the window, and it got me all upset, I
said, what would have happened if he came in and he found no money. He goes, well, we haven’t
had that happen yet. Well, in our house, there is no money. What if my three year old woke up and
raided the refrigerator like he does every night and approached this guy? So, where we’re sitting,
we’re dead ducks, and all I’m asking is you guys, and the business people all around us, to help us a
little bit. Back off a little bit or put up something to give us at least our peace and quiet. That’s all
we ask. That’s all I’m asking. Can you guys work with us on that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you located directly behind the Pizza Hut?
MRS. MERRITHEW-Dot’s directly behind. I’m the house right next door to her, and Lockwood’s
are the house at the very end. I’m in between Ray Supply and Pizza Hut.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Jodie, have you ever brought this to the Town Board’s attention?
MRS. MERRITHEW-To be honest with you, with three young boys, a husband and just buying a
house three years ago, no, ma’am, I have not.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I think you should go, give them.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. MERRITHEW-When I came about the Cracker Barrel, that was brought up three times by
me. I couldn’t make the last meeting because my husband had a heart attack. It’s been a medical
fiasco in our home. I've got to work. I've got to support the family, too. It’s not like. I’m sorry,
we’re not these rich people who are living up in Bedford Close and things. I have to work. I don’t
have time. My husband’s home going chaotic right now, I’m sure, with three boys. I help get the
dinner ready and everything. I brought this to the Board’s attention. Two times I've come to this
desk, on the Cracker Barrel. I don’t care that you guys bring all these restaurants in. It’s smelling like
China Town now when you go down Glen Street, but can you give us, who that’s all we could afford.
We looked at over 150 homes, from Saratoga to Lake George, and this was what was right, and we
wanted our kids in a good school system, and Queensbury’s grand.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jodie, as far as, you know, the security and the police patrolling, I mean, are
they up there often?
MRS. MERRITHEW-They come off and on because of the elderly, and because Dot next door, her
son’s a dispatcher for the place, we see them a little bit more than usual. Probably more than most
neighborhoods, but we don’t see them. I’m up at 4:30 in the morning. You don’t see the cops
coming through at 4:30 in the morning. You hear the kids. At 4:30 one morning, I called the police.
You can check the records. There were a bunch of kids, you know the path way going into Wal-Mart
right there. They were sitting there partying. I called the police. It took 20 minutes. They came in
the Wal-Mart side, because of course they don’t want them breaking in there.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Now there were kids partying at 4:30 in the morning. I’m assuming on a
weekend or in the summertime.
MRS. MERRITHEW-No, it was, because the only time I get up at 4:30 in the morning is to go to
work.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, that’s true, and so there were kids partying there, like sitting around
with a bonfire, drinking beer type of party?
MRS. MERRITHEW-No bonfire, but sitting there drinking and yelling and laughing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they were not neighborhood kids?
MRS. MERRITHEW-No, they were not, and the police came around the Wal-Mart side. Then they
ran, and of course you can hide in our neighborhood. It’s very easy.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, there’s a lot of hiding places in a lot of neighborhoods in this Town. So,
I mean, don’t think that the hiding places are just in your neighborhood.
MRS. MERRITHEW-Right. I agree with that.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Kids find hiding places no matter where.
MRS. MERRITHEW-I was young once. I really was, and I know that, but I've called the police.
You can check all the records.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, now back to what we have in front of us here. I've gotten your
concern, but then you give us something that, a suggestion.
MRS. MERRITHEW-I’m asking you people for a suggestion, because, like I said, I came up twice
about the Cracker Barrel situation, and about our situation where we lived and the house being
broken into. This is on record. I've spoken about it. Because I came, that week, and told them
about our house being broken into, and they caught the gentleman, the little gentleman with the
baseball cap.
MRS. LABOMBARD-All right, but I guess what I’m asking is, and help me out here, is that we’re
not proposing anything that doesn’t already exist. All we’re doing here is to add about, we have a
building here that’s been there for years.
MRS. MERRITHEW-Right, but he’s increasing business.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay, but in increasing the business, you’ve also have gotten rid of that one
business, the old fish store there.
MRS. MERRITHEW-That hasn’t been there in three, four years.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Right.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. MERRITHEW-Correct.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And the site plan, I know you’ve looked at it, has kind of been, it’s been
changed, but it seems like there’s a lot of things about it that have been changed for the better, to
make it more viable and make it more workable.
MRS. MERRITHEW-How about a sound wall, something there, but won’t obstruct the view we
have, as I say, when the trees come down.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, wait a second. When you go down to New Jersey and you go along I-
287 or you go, even to Albany, when you cross over 787 to go back down around Route 90, those
are those big walls, but now wait a second, you can’t have everything. I mean, if those walls are built,
you can’t take them down to see the, I mean, they’re solid.
MRS. MERRITHEW-I didn’t say to put up a wall such as that. That’s a retaining wall put up by
DOT regulations that is a certain certification.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but what I’m saying is that you want some kind of a wall, but you also
want a wall that won’t obstruct your view. Where are you going to get a wall like that?
MRS. MERRITHEW-The Wal-Mart fence that’s there, coming straight across.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MRS. MERRITHEW-I’m flustered. I’m sorry.
MR. RINGER-I understand what you’re saying. We heard many issues on the Cracker Barrel and
other areas, and this neighborhood is getting squeezed.
MRS. MERRITHEW-Yes, it is.
MR. RINGER-But we’re looking at this particular application, as an expansion of an existing
business. We want, certainly, to help the neighborhood as best we can, and all of your comments are
appreciated. However, I’m having difficulty associating it with this particular application.
MRS. MERRITHEW-You’re saying that one business, we’ve got the Cracker Barrel, now, going up.
We’ve got Pizza Hut. We’ve got Ray Supply. Ray Supply has expanded quite a bit, and Ray Supply,
with the kids going through his parking lot, and he has complained to the police repeatedly about his
trespassing on his land, and he said the police won’t even help him out, and they’re cutting through
our property. When the police show up, and destroying our garden and everything else, wait a
second. What do you mean the Pizza Hut, the Pizza Hut is here. Those kids are seeing this. I don’t
know if they’re locals or not. I have not a clue. They could be from Hudson Falls. They could be
from Lake George. Whoever’s, that whole vicinity right there, we’re getting the back lash of those
businesses, and Pizza Hut to say they’re all by themselves and nobody’s bothering, or Ray Supply and
say nobody’s bothering, that’s not fair. That’s not fair to us. I guess I’m addressing a whole public
issue here. I apologize for using this, but this is the only time I had off from taking care of a family
and working and everything, to come and address this. I apologize. I don’t have time, I want to be
part of my community. I’m the one that runs the mega garage sale for us every fall, from neighbor to
neighbor, meet them all, collect the money. I mean, I do make time for things, but there’s one thing
some of these businesses around us have to take responsibility for, and it needs to be addressed, and
I’m sorry, when your home is being violated, when you’re wide awake, and they’re coming through
your door because they’ve got easy access to Route 9, there’s a problem. I’m probably wrong, but
this is the way I feel, and I might be using Pizza Hut as the example, but I feel this needs to be
addressed. Pizza Hut is now expanding. So they’re going to add more business. They’re going to
have more people coming in. Prime Time season is summer. Summer you have a lot of transits and
tourists. Some of them are good tourists. Some of them are bad tourists. Some are looking for
something. Some are not. Same as up at the Million Dollar Half Mile. Heck, they don’t even claim
the people who steal from them. We’ve got the same thing going on around us. We’ve got a Wal-
Mart. We’ve got fast-food businesses. Easy access to a getaway. I really, for us homeowners, would
really like something addressed for us. That’s all I’m saying, and I have no solutions. I've made a
couple, and they’ve been, maybe not the proper ones, but I’m asking you guys for a little help with
the business owners. Sorry, I can’t move. I cannot sell our house right now. We cannot up and
move. We don’t have the money. My husband had a heart attack. I’m working. He just went back
to work. It’s not an easy process. If I could get out, I would, but we can’t. So we’ve got to make the
best of it. So I’m asking you guys, can you compromise a little bit, and can we all work together on
this? Instead of fighting each other, homeowner versus a business. Why can’t we make it work?
There’s got to be a solution. There’s got to be. That’s all I’m asking. I’m not asking for a resolution
right this moment, but honestly, I’m sorry, we can’t move.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jodie, I think you’ve made your point very well, and I appreciate everything
you’ve had to say, and I think we all do here, and this has been a long haul. It’s been tough, and I
understand that you’re not targeting the Pizza Hut. They just happen to be here tonight, and they
happen to be the night that you’re able to come and speak your peace, but I know, what you’ve said
is on the record. It’s going to be read by other people, the Town Board, I’m talking about, and I
hope that something can be done.
MRS. MERRITHEW-I appreciate that. That’s all I’m addressing. I’m sorry I have nowhere else to
go.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you came and that’s what we’re here for.
MRS. MERRITHEW-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, she raises some good concerns.
MR. JONES-For the record, Pizza Hut has not been cutting any trees in their buffer zone. I have
some pictures, some panoramics that were taken approximately two weeks ago, which I’ll share with
the Board, and I think you’ll get an idea of how dense the plantings are in the buffer zone behind this
site.
MR. PARK-I also want to say I've been the Manager there for 11 years, and I've never cut any trees
down in any of that rear, any trees down at all from that location, or had anybody else cut any trees
down. I think there’s, between her property and our parking lot, I had Mr. Jones check, I think
there’s a 20 foot elevation change, you know, from the parking lot to up to where her grade is. It’s a
20 foot elevation. If you go back there, she talks about the skateboarders, what happens is that Ray
Supply, if any of you have been to Ray Supply, when you first pull in on that south entrance toward
my Pizza Hut, they have that like ramp graded there. It’s made out of macadam, and it lends itself I
guess the skateboarders, because I called the police on numerous occasions. They’ve always
responded and kicked them out of there. I've never had any, you know, time, but I have seen them
down there. That site lends itself, I could see where the people would, you know, pull in behind Ray
Supply when they’re closed, because it’s at the same elevation as this woman’s property, and could
pull back there and not be seen, whereas the Pizza Hut where it’s all lighted, we’re aware when
people are pulling in and out of the parking lot.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I think like she said, she didn’t target you or your establishment. You
just happened to be the ones, you know, kind of coincidental.
MR. MAC EWAN-The retaining wall on the north side of your parcel, right there next to the
building, what’s that, eight foot?
MR. PARK-It’s between six and eight feet, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Between six and eight feet.
MR. RINGER-And there’s a 20 foot elevation that continues on from?
MR. PARK-Actually, that one that they’re talking about on the Ray Supply side, I think is higher.
MR. JONES-Yes, it’s actually higher. It’s anywhere from 10 to 12 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-That retaining wall.
MR. JONES-Yes, on the north side.
MR. PARK-So if you drive in the back of that lot, in back of our Pizza Hut, with the idea to try to go
up into that residential area, I mean, you’ve got anywhere from a 4 to 5 foot retaining wall, and then
there’s a steep incline which has totally been overgrown, because it’s never been, like I say, I've been
there 11 years and I've never cut anything, other than a few branches that were, you know,
obstructing the parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll throw out a reasonable offering here, see if we can’t maybe help the neighbors
and do something that would benefit everyone all the way around. Your retaining wall on the north
side of the parcel I think is pretty obvious, unless you’re a professional rock climber, you’d have
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
difficulty scaling the thing. The retaining wall out back, though, what’s the potential maybe we could
put something, a fence along that entire back portion of the property?
MR. JONES-We could along that area, but if you look at the drawing SP-2 that I gave you, with the
revised entry on it, you’ll see the grade changes in the back are extremely steep right behind that
retaining wall. It’s like a one on two in that area. It’s very steep, and if you look, the average grade in
the center of the parking lot is around 440. The top of the embankment is anywhere from 458 to
460.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you increasing the height of that retaining wall?
MR. JONES-No, we’re not.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not.
MR. JONES-We're not doing anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re just putting a dozer up on top and going to re-do that, and you’re
actually taking out some trees there then?
MR. JONES-No, no. We're not doing anything beyond that retaining wall. All we’re doing is the re-
paving of the parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re saying that the contours that are there now are existing?
MR. JONES-Those are existing contours, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, okay. There’s really nothing different than what’s in the photograph here,
then.
MR. JONES-No, and you can see how dense that is in the photograph, and they’re all evergreens.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, dense could go a couple of ways. I mean, her point of view, density
could offer being able to be hidden from view.
MR. JONES-But it is a buffer zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-True, and it’s more difficult if the police were coming through looking for
somebody, to see them out there. An opportunity to deter that is maybe by asking you to put up a
fence, whether it be a chain link fence or something on the back of your property that’s not
obtrusive, but it’s also added as an extra security measure. I think that’s a reasonable request, don’t
you guys?
MR. PARK-Okay, sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Craig, are you asking for the property line or for, on top of that existing concrete
wall?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think it would be, ideal would be right along the existing retaining wall.
MR. PARK-Just to the backside of it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, just off the retaining wall. Instead of going up in the woods and putting one
up, put one right there.
MR. JONES-Yes, we don’t want to go into the buffer zone. We want to stay right behind the
retaining wall.
MR. MAC EWAN-An eight foot chain link fence, you know, like the ones you see around a
commercial pool or something.
MR. STARK-That’s fine. Okay. So here’s the west retaining wall, okay, and you put a fence there,
all you would have to do is go around the south, well, north would be hard because.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’d have to bring it around the corner a little bit, so that it would be
coming down along the south side somewhat, but, you know, what it is, if a crime was to take place,
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
a potential crime looking to take place, it’s more difficult for them to use this parcel to make good on
their crime spree. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. STARK-Fine. I know what you’re saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think this is a way to maybe help the neighbors a little bit. It’s also a way
to show that we can be responsive to their concerns. Okay.
MR. PARK-So, just to clarify, where do you want the fence then, on the north side toward the Ray
Supply, right there where the?
MR. MAC EWAN-From the start of your, this is just me, now. I don’t know where the rest of the
Board is going with this, but my idea is to start right with that retaining wall that’s that tall.
MR. JONES-Where it abuts the high one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, where it abuts the high one, come straight down your back property line,
and bring it around the corner somewhat, so that it comes into the area here where the old Long
John Silver’s property used to be.
MR. JONES-How far down that south retaining wall?
MR. MAC EWAN-Does this Ordinance allow you to put a fence right to the property line, in
Queensbury? Maybe if you came, you know, an idea Bob just suggested is kind of like swing it
maybe at a 45 degree angle and come to the property line. Do you understand what we’re saying?
MR. JONES-Once we hit the end of that low retaining wall, coming diagonally?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Do a 45 from that corner.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I was just going to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Roughly in the area where you’ve got your 449 contour.
MR. JONES-Yes, here’s a picture of that south retaining wall. That’s probably in the neighborhood
of six to seven feet high.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good. That would make a nice deterrent.
MRS. MOORE-Doing that 45, you’re asking them to probably remove any vegetation in that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what we’re looking at here. We're trying to determine what
vegetation is there. The retaining wall height, if you were facing the existing Long John Silver’s
Restaurant, and it would be the retaining wall that would be to the west side, what’s the rough height
on that?
MR. PARK-In the very corner, I guess in the southwest corner there, it’s probably only about three
feet there and it goes up to like four or five feet toward the Long John Silver’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Toward the Long John Silver’s. Okay. All right. There we go. I know it’s
asking a lot, but if you came down that side there, to about the equivalent of your, like your 437
contour, where it crosses the retaining wall.
MR. PARK-Just about the backside of our building, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, roughly, if you came down, that would be your southern retaining wall
property line. So it would be kind of like an “L” shaped fencing. Is the Board with me on that?
MR. RINGER-I’m not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s what we’re talking about doing.
MR. RINGER-I know what you’re saying, but I’m not necessarily in favor of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. RINGER-I don’t understand the reason, where an eight foot fence on top of a six foot wall, it
isn’t going to look that good. It isn’t going to offer that much protection, only to the spot where
Pizza Hut is.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that a chain link fence is going to be obtrusive or not.
MR. RINGER-If we put it up there, then it should go all the way down Route 9. I feel for these
people in that area, certainly. They’ve got problems, and I just don’t think that a fence is the answer
to the problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not as if you’re going to be seeing that fence from the road.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think the fence is an answer to the problem. There’s a lot of problems there,
and I don’t think a fence is going to fix them.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You’re right. It’s not the only answer. It might be a vehicle toward a solution.
Maybe there’ll never be a complete solution to the problem.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think there will.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But I think that, like Jodie said, we could at least give a gesture, and not turn a
deaf ear.
MR. PARK-The thing is, too, I think if you drive there and look at both sites, the Ray Supply and
our Pizza Hut site, that, you know, the Ray Supply site is graded, you know, their parking lot and
their whole facility, is graded right up to their level, and it’s not lighted at night, because they close, I
think, at five o’clock or I think six o’clock at night. So it’s completely dark over there. It does lend
itself very well. You have two entrances, and so on and so forth, but when you come over here, I
mean, you’ve got, this guy’s got to scale the wall, and climb up this steep embankment, which has
overgrown over the years. It’s very, very dense.
MR. RINGER-It would be harder for them to get out of your property than it is to Ray Supply.
MR. PARK-And we’re going to make it more of a deterrent there, when they can just drive over
there. What I’m saying is when we’re lighted, we’re open. It doesn’t lend itself well to, you know, to
want to park there and walk up and walk into the neighborhood when they can pull next door easier.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought Ray Supply had two mercury vapor lights going all night long?
MR. PARK-Yes, they do on the front, but what I’m saying is that they have the two entrances, and
you can pull up, you know, they have basically like a U-Shaped thing that goes around the building
where they service their stereo installs and so on.
MR. RINGER-I guess what I’m saying is, I agree with Jodie and her concerns and everything.
However, I don’t think doing a little token thing is really doing what the Board should do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t consider it a token thing. I mean, I’m open to suggestions. What do you
think we should do?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-One of our purposes is to look out for the safety and the well being, and
we’ve done that through other types of physical things, like making sure we had the correct number
of curb cuts, making sure that there’s a, if new developments have gone in or whatever, that the
neighborhoods are safe and the traffic is flowing good, and children aren’t going to be able to get the
buses.
MR. RINGER-I agree with you 100%, Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So this is just another.
MR. RINGER-If this were a new building. This is just a little addition on.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But again, the new addition is going to bring more people, more strangers,
some good with intentions, and some with bad.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t think it’s strangers that are breaking into the neighborhood, and again, I
don’t really know if that’s an issue for this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-What suggestions do you have?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. RINGER-I wish I had some. I mean, we’ve been hearing this for a long time, and there’s
definitely problems over there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, here we’ve got a client that’s willing to do a fence, somebody that’s
come in front of us that’s willing to do this, and he’s not fighting us, and yet we’re saying that it’s not
going to look good?
MR. RINGER-And be effective. If I could say, hey, we’re going to put this fence up, and it’s really
going to stop this traffic going into that neighborhood, I would agree.
MR. STARK-It would stop them from Pizza Hut.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It would stop them from Pizza Hut.
MR. RINGER-We're putting a fence along Pizza Hut. We're not putting a fence any place else.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And maybe Ray Supply will see that and maybe they’ll.
MR. RINGER-Now we’re getting into emotion. I don’t know if we should.
MR. VOSS-Maybe a different perspective on this would be to require a six foot chain link fence
along the rear property line, inside the vegetation line. It’s been done very effectively, and a good
example is what DOT’s doing along the Northway. They commonly hide chain link fences back into
the tree lines. Any fence company will tell you they can do it with minimal disturbance. It hides the
chain link fence into the vegetation zone, puts it back along the rear property lines. In this case, it
might create a good precedent, in the event Ray Supply, to the north, or the property adjoining to the
south eventually comes before this Board for another development proposal. If you can continue
the fence line right along the rear property lines, further buffering, and prohibiting people from
running back and forth through those properties. Just a thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a good idea.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s a good thought.
MR. VOLLARO-The other thing that I can see, and I understand Larry’s problem. I think what
you’ve got to do is look at a cooperative effort between some of those businesses, and it may not be
for us to do, but it could be a recommendation from this Board to the Town Board, to really look
into that seriously.
MR. RINGER-I agree.
MR. VOLLARO-I think somebody’s got to sit down and look at the contiguous problem here. I just
don’t want to focus on a piece of it. I think Larry’s got a point. You can’t just.
MR. MAC EWAN-True, but you have to start somewhere.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and this is as good a start.
MR. PALING-Craig, I don’t think we should require Pizza Hut to put a fence up, because I think
what we’re doing is we’re doing police work. Before we have a curb cut or anything like that, we’re
going to go through DOT, and if we’re going to do something like this, I agree with Larry, and I
agree with, I think, where Bob is going. Somebody better look at the total picture and not just say we
put up a chain link fence, therefore we’re helping to stop crime. I don’t buy that at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know, necessarily, that we’re going to stop crime with it, but it will help as
a.
MR. PALING-Well, I think you’re reacting to the emotion of the thing, and not being practical
about asking one isolated account to put a fence up, with the rest of the world open on either side of
them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think I am being practical about it. I mean, we look at, you know, the
impact that that neighborhood’s had, with all the development that’s gone all around it, and potential
development that’s going around it. I mean, we’ve done things, in recent years, with McDonald’s,
with Kentucky Fried Chicken, with Fazoli’s Restaurant.
MR. PALING-To prevent crime?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no, no.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-To ensure the safety of the people. I can’t believe it. I think that the fact that
we, that this neighborhood has been getting the sharp end of the stick for the past two years, and
here we’ve got a way to mitigate, just a little teeny bit, but you know.
MR. PALING-How do you know that?
MRS. LABOMBARD-How do I know that?
MR. PALING-Yes. How do you know it’s going to be effective at all?
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, you know, Bob, the fact that we listened and tried to help, even if we
don’t help, but the fact that we tried to, you know, maybe the constituents and the people out there
would like to say, you know, maybe somebody is listening to us. I can’t believe it. I am shocked.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. Would Pizza Hut like to take the lead, for example, you
happen to be here tonight. Would you like to take the lead to see with your other fellow business
people along Route 9 there, whether or not there’s a way for you to mitigate this problem,
collectively, as opposed to just yourself. Would Pizza Hut, would the Corporation be willing to do
that?
MR. PARK-Well, first of all, we don’t represent the Corporation.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I’m sure you’d have to go, I mean, as soon as you start to dump,
I just looked at 241 foot of chain link fence, somebody’s going to be talking to you about the
expense. I mean, there’s no question about that. So you’ve got to bring this thing forward, as a good
member of the community, and see whether you can tie the other businesses together. I don’t know
how that will work out, or whether we just make a recommendation to the Town Board, that, A, this
be done, and start it right off now, with this piece, but it’s got to be contiguous, a couple of pieces up
and down.
MR. STARK-Well, I think, they’re willing to put the fence up. Put the fence up along the south side,
along the west side. Somebody should get a hold of Jodie, maybe a few representatives from the
neighborhood, go talk to George Goetz at Ray Supply, you know, voice their concerns, say, these
guys are putting up a fence, can you put up a fence on your property line, up as far as Wal-Mart, and
I don’t know anything about the back of Alpin House, you know, the grade or anything back there,
but maybe even talk to him. Although that place is for sale now, and let the representatives of the
neighborhood talk to Ray Supply, George Goetz.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re trying to keep the Town out of this.
MR. STARK-I mean, they’re willing to put the fence up, great, and I think it would help from that
parking lot. There’s no way you’re going to get from that parking lot up on that hill, but you could
go around it, by going up the grade at, that’s my opinion anyway, but I think the fence is a fine idea.
It can’t hurt.
MR. PARK-What I’d just like to say, you know, like I said, I've run the restaurant for 11 years, and
looking at the site, I just, I disagree with the fact that if I was a criminal, or someone looking to do
this type of thing, that Ray Supply would lend itself ten times more accessible than my site, if you
went out and looked. You’re going by what we’re saying and I think that this lady has a very valid
point, and a concern, but just looking at the different sites, I think ours lends itself as non-desirable
for someone to, you know, it’s more of a deterrent, you know, we’re fully lighted, all night, and with
the retaining wall and the thick vegetation, and the elevation, you know, I guess, like you say, if you’re
going to get Ray Supply and the other businesses there all consent to put a fence up, I think, there
would be no question that we would want to do that as well, but I just think that if we, like you say,
I’m going to have to put up with why I just approved 275 feet of fence or something, for a site that,
you know, they’re going to look at me like, how could anybody even get up that hill. Do you know
what I’m saying?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you what, a 20 year old in good shape could scale that like that. I
mean, I was one once.
MR. PARK-I don’t say that. If somebody’s running from the police, they’re going to get down that
hill.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. You’ve heard that we’ve got a little split here. So you fell right
into the point where you’re going to take advantage of our little split of opinion on the Board. So
you’re right. You’ve got a wall there. You could say, my site isn’t as accessible as the other two sites.
There is no way in the world that, after we walk out of here tonight, that we’re going to continue on
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
and get Ray Supply to put up a fence, or anybody else to put up a fence, and the little thing we had
going about 20 minutes ago, until a couple of members on this Board found all the ways that it
wouldn’t work, has just died, and with that, I just feel like going home right now. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-The point we have to remember here is that we can only deal with applications
that are right in front of this Board at this given moment. We can’t say that we we’re going to
request you to put up a chain link fence in the back parcel, and we’ll send off a letter to Ray Supply
an Alpin House and tell them do the same. What we’re looking for is making the first step here. The
first step is a positive step toward doing something to help people who are residential areas.
MR. STARK-I would think this would be very advantageous to you, with that neighborhood, the fact
that you did something voluntarily, you know, it is kind of voluntarily, and that we did our part, good
neighbor and all this stuff and everything, and I think they would really support you.
MR. JONES-I don’t think we’re trying to skirt the issue of the fence at all, and as we sit here, to us,
the best location for the fence is behind the retaining wall, not up at the top of the hill.
MR. STARK-No, no. I agree. Here’s the wall and a foot behind it or something like that.
MR. JONES-I mean, if we put the fence down at the retaining wall, it’s probably going to be longer
than the one at the property line, and the one at the property line is not going to protect anything.
They’ll be able to go around the ends.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would agree with you on that point, and you may not necessarily even have to
have, you know, we can work out the details here, but you may not necessarily have to have an eight
foot fence. I mean, with a four and five foot retaining wall, you may be able to get by with a four
foot fence or a five foot fence.
MR. STARK-A fence on the Northway is very, very hard to scale.
MR. JONES-Yes, I think it’s only four foot high, too.
MR. STARK-I’m talking the one behind my place is like six foot, and I have a very, very hard time
getting over it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you getting over it for?
MR. STARK-I don’t get over it. Believe me I don’t get over it. I would view this as you guys being
very good, responsible neighbors and taking the lead in this. How can anybody fault that? It’s
impossible to fault it. I think they would really support you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I closed the public hearing, but I’ll let you make a comment if you want to come
up here to the mic.
BRAD PATCH
MR. PATCH-My name’s Brad Patch. I live on the south side. There is, or there was, when the Pizza
Hut was built, a six foot chain link, al the way around that property. It’s still there. People don’t
climb that one too easy. It goes up the south and across the west. Now, I don’t think there’s one
behind the Pizza Hut, to divide it from Ray Supply. You’re talking putting another fence in there.
What good’s that going to do? An eight foot on top of a six foot?
MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t think it’s going to do any good?
MR. PATCH-No.
MR. STARK-There’s a fence there now?
MR. PATCH-Yes, it’s a six foot fence now. Pizza Hut put in, it’s right on the property line, on the
south side, which would be, and there’s one that goes all the way behind up toward Jodie’s house, but
it only goes as far as the property that Pizza Hut owns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PATCH-And I think that ends right in (lost word) back yard, and Pizza Hut did put that fence
in when they built it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s only along the western portion of their property line?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. PATCH-It’s on the west and the side.
MR. MAC EWAN-The west and the south.
MR. PARK-So it basically looks like right from the Long John Silver’s up to the property and over to
George Goetz’s Ray Supply, edge of the property there.
MR. PATCH-It’s already got a six foot chain link fence, and putting an eight foot in front of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t aware there was a fence up in the woods, so all this bantering we just did
for the last 25 minutes was a waste of time.
MR. PATCH-In a way.
MR. STARK-Craig, does Jodie know there’s a fence back there? She must. We don’t know there’s a
fence there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. We closed the public hearing. So does someone want to put
a motion up? Anymore discussion on this? No? Thanks for that input, by the way. I appreciate it.
Does someone want to put a motion up?
MR. STARK-Should we include anything about Kennedy’s letter, or as written, or what do you want
to do?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, what should we do regarding the DOT?
MRS. MOORE-You need to add that date. I’ll give you a date. The date of, we received it today,
5/18. It was dated, and it’s addressed to George Correa. It’s a letter dated May 17, 1999.
MR. MAC EWAN-All we need to do is reference the letter from DOT.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, to Richard Jones and Associates’, from DOT.
MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to make reference to that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, all we want to do is just reference that letter.
MRS. MOORE-You can also reference that we’ve received a survey that’s dated March 15, 1999. It
shows that fence. So that’s in the file.
MR. MAC EWAN-March 15?
th
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. Something else to add would be to verify the integrity of the existing
fence, make sure it’s still at whatever rate it was at, I mean, whether it’s still up or not.
MR. SCHACHNER-A condition really would be, what’s the goal here?
MR. MAC EWAN-No goal, as far as I’m concerned, right now. I mean, had I known that there was
a fence already on the backside of this property, we wouldn’t have gone through all that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Fine.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-99 PIZZAGATES, INC., Introduced by
George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
For their proposed addition, make reference to the letter of 5/18, concerning entrance, and
referencing the survey drawing 3/19/99.
Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan No. 20-99 to add a 12’ x 60’ dining
room and back room addition and relocation of curb cut; and
Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/26/99, consists of the following:
1.
Application w/maps SP-1, SP-2 dated 3/19/99
Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation:
1.
5/18/99 - Staff Notes
2.
5/11/99 - Notice of Public Hearing
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
3.
5/7/99 - Meeting notice letter
4.
5/7/99 - L. Moore from R. Jones re: stormwater info.
5.
5/10/99 - Beautification Comm. resolution
6.
5/13/99 - Rist Frost comments
Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/18/99 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.
20-99 for PizzaGates, Inc.
2.
The applicant shall present three (3) copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning
Administrator for his signature.
3.
The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the resolution.
4.
The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution.
5.
The conditions shall be noted on the map.
6.
The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process.
Duly adopted this 18 day of May, 1999, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. I’m sorry for the delay.
MR. PARK-Thank you.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. TYPE: EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC OWNER: D & C
MANAGEMENT ASSOC., INC. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 43 STATE ROUTE 9
DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY PER APPLICANT REQUEST. APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEVELOPMENT OF 82 UNIT SLEEP INN HOTEL AND PARKING. TAX MAP NO.
71-2-2
PETER LOYOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And this is only a discussion item, because the applicant has requested it, and
there is no public hearing.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Discussion Item, Everest Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: May 18, 1999
“Description of Project: The applicant proposes to construct a hotel on a vacant parcel adjacent to
the Ponderosa Restaurant and Gambles Bakery. The proposal is presented for discussion only. Staff
Notes: The following items for this project should be addressed: Subdivision application,
Stormwater report, Traffic report, Architectural rendering, Long Environmental Assessment Form,
Traffic Issues (Signage for traffic circulation (“no left turns”, etc.), Interconnection consideration
with Gambles Bakery, Gambles Bakery curb clean-up, Interconnection with adjacent properties, Fire
and EMS access), Fire hydrant locations, Landscape list, Water and Sewer connection Staff
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
Recommendations: Staff would encourage the project be submitted for site plan review with the
above issues addressed.”
MR. STARK-Gentlemen, would you like to identify yourselves, please.
MR. LOYOLA-My name’s Peter Loyola with Continental Landscape Architecture and Planning, and
I have with me Jay Kapoor who is the principal partner with Everest Enterprises, and Dave Kapoor
who is the owner with D & C Management.
MR. STARK-Would you like to walk us through your proposed project?
MR. LOYOLA-Sure. I realize that we have a lot of information that we need to still submit for site
plan review. We're planning on submitting a stormwater grading and drainage plan at the end of this
month for the June submittal. I read through, yesterday, some of the Staff Notes that included a
subdivision application. That’s really the first part of our proposal, that we’re hoping we could do
simultaneously with the Site Plan Review. We're proposing to subdivide the entire 7.13 acres into
two lots, primarily for the development of this 82 unit Sleep Inn Hotel. The parcels would be
divided into 2.9 acres, and 4.23 acres respectively. We're basically proposing 93 parking areas, and
just in going through the Staff Notes, we do have an architectural rendering that I’d like to pass out
to everyone, and maybe, Jay, you could do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-In my absence, you do realize this is a discussion only, and anything that takes
place tonight is not any kind of consensus for approval or anything like that?
MR. LOYOLA-Right. We just wanted to get it out on the table, just to kind of open it up for
discussion. I have been in touch with Mark Kennedy from DOT. We’ve worked out a number of
different alternatives and met with him, as I say, about three weeks ago, just to determine where the
best entrance would be to the site on Route 9, understanding that I know a lot of construction is
going on just north of us, with regard to a new traffic signal being put in on Sweet Road, and
sidewalks and curb improvements. Our proposal, we’re looking at trying to keep the access in
between the light at the Ponderosa and the light at Sweet Road, the proposed light at Sweet Road,
that will be built, I believe, this summer, will be in place, as centrally located as possible. We're
proposing to have a right out only, no left hand turn. We are asking that the Planning Board take a
look at a left-hand turn into the site, as well as a right turn into the site from the primary access.
We're also proposing a secondary access along Sweet Road for service and basically fire access, if
need be, just as a secondary access. At the request of the Staff, we realize that the interconnections
between the parking areas at Ponderosa and our proposed Sleep Inn are important. We are planning
on putting an interconnection at the front of the lot. So there would be access through the
Ponderosa lot to the light for left-hand turn. We feel that circulation, with the entranceway the way
it is, that would meet the safety requirements I think DOT would require. We're not firm on that.
As I say, it was just an initial preliminary meeting with Mark Kennedy, but really those are some of
the issues that I think I’d like to have some comments on today.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a question for you. The proposed subdivision that you’re talking about
doing, the parcel that’s the rear parcel that abuts Montray Road, how do you gain access to that? Is
that access off Montray Road?
MR. LOYOLA-Off of Montray Road, correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is the rear setback 50 foot talking about there?
MR. LOYOLA-Actually, that 50 foot rear with the subdivision should actually probably occur here,
but that 50 foot is between residential because there’s Montray Road, 50 foot setback requirement
from commercial.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s referencing your buffer, then?
MR. LOYOLA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LOYOLA-But we do have total road frontage along Montray Road on this back parcel,
completely accessible.
MR. STARK-What about the elevation? I thought we had a limit of 25 feet?
MR. MAC EWAN-Good question.
MR. RINGER-There’s an existing traffic light at Sweet Road already?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. LOYOLA-Well, they’re putting it in.
MR. RINGER-Okay, because I don’t remember it there.
MR. LOYOLA-No. They have the poles up, and apparently the light is going to be strung this
summer. So I have with me a Xeroxed copy that Mark Kennedy gave me. I don’t have enough to
pass around, but I can kind of show you some of the improvements that they’re making.
MR. STARK-Laura, I didn’t think we had three stories in Queensbury, allowed.
MRS. MOORE-We have a height limit. I don’t know.
MR. STARK-The height limit is, what, 25, isn’t it?
MR. LOYOLA-I believe it’s 40.
MR. STARK-I think you’re over that.
MRS. MOORE-The maximum building height is 40.
MR. MAC EWAN-Forty foot, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Forty.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ll be applying for a variance on your height?
MR. LOYOLA-We have, on the main structure of the building, we’re complying with that roofline,
the main roofline, if you can see, is 40. The peak itself, we’re going to be applying for a variance.
You can see the height of that. It’s 45 feet at the gable, and then with the roof structure, we would
probably be around 50, 55 feet, with the tower.
MR. STARK-What would happen if you didn’t get the variance? You would have to eliminate that
then.
MR. LOYOLA-The tower, correct.
MR. STARK-Is this elevated? Are you going to have elevators in here?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this an establishment that serves breakfast?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, a continental breakfast.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this a franchise of Comfort?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes.
JAY KAPOOR
MR. KAPOOR-Actually, it’s a franchise of Choice Hotels. Comfort Inn is one of the (lost word)
they have. Roadway is another one.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will this have like a workout gym inside?
MR. LOYOLA-And a swimming pool.
MR. KAPOOR-An indoor pool, yes, and a meeting room.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I was wondering where that was, if there was a meeting room, this right
here, right here in the back. Right there?
MR. LOYOLA-Actually, I think this is going to be the pool and the meeting room is going to be
right next door.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right there, I've got you.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. LOYOLA-And the gym, we’re going to change a couple of things around. We're going to have
a glass wall from the gym overlooking the pool.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then right here would be the, there’s the main office, or the main lobby,
and then, like, is this the little breakfast room here?
MR. LOYOLA-No, actually, that would be in the back here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In the back, gotcha.
MR. LOYOLA-Just continental breakfast.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I understand.
MR. LOYOLA-Nothing major.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask Staff a question. Laura, on the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback, it’s
only on Bay Road that it’s specified that that’ll be absolutely clear. Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. PALING-Did I understand you correctly that you were talking about an interconnection with
Ponderosa?
MR. LOYOLA-Right, just open up.
MR. PALING-Because this only says Gambles. So, can we say that it’s both Gambles and
Ponderosa you’re looking at?
MR. RINGER-Ponderosa’s on the plan.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, the Ponderosa’s on the plan, and the Staff made a comment that Gambles
Bakery, there be an interconnection consideration with Gambles Bakery, and that’s one of the things
I wanted to clarify tonight, was right now, we share, there’s an existing driveway to an existing single
family residence. It’s an apartment. They share a curb cut and a little bit of parking space with
Gambles Bakery, and I noticed on here that the Gambles Bakery curb clean up was a comment that
was made. I know DOT, in their proposal for their project, they were going to put in a new curb
and actually widen out this section of Route 9, putting in a sidewalk just on the opposite side of
Weeks Road, and apparently that’s slated for construction, I think they’re already doing it. So the
curb cut would be cleaned up. We were proposing just to eliminate the gravel driveway that goes
back to the house. We would be tearing down the building and all the accessory structures, and
basically just leave the macadam where it is. So as far as cleaning that curb cut up, I don’t think we
really had in mind anything in addition to that, just eliminating the gravel drive to the back. As far as
the interconnection, really, I’d like to get a clarification, if you meant traffic or just pedestrian. One
of the things I should mention is that with the continental breakfast, being at the Sleep Inn, the
owners are proposing to go to Gambles for their baked goods, for the continental breakfast. So I
think that Gambles would be more than happy to provide any baked goods for the hotel, obviously,
but as far as the interconnection, I think we could provide a pedestrian interconnection, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-We're looking for vehicle.
MR. LOYOLA-You’re looking for vehicle?
MR. MAC EWAN-Vehicle, yes, that’s what the Ordinance calls for.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, my question is, is it just another uncontrolled access? My feeling, with any
access onto Route 9, is that we control it as best we can, and this is kind of a tight, I understand the
whole concept between, by interconnecting parking lots is just to create internal traffic, rather than
add on to Route 9, but I think in this case, it’s so easy, for someone that’s parked here, to get to
Gambles Bakery anyway, because of the close proximity, that I think by adding a vehicular access,
you’d be promoting more traffic to get out onto Route 9. That’s just my feeling, and again, I’m open
to any insight into that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think interconnection between commercial properties in the Town of
Queensbury is something this Board really strives to accomplish with site plans. We just did one last
month, right, with Hewitt’s, where we had interconnection between three adjoining parcels. It’s
something that we really strive for and whenever possible, we like to see it become part of the plan.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. LOYOLA-Is that something the Board would recommend? Because as I said, access is there.
We can just keep it open. It fits right in line with our access, but again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Me, personally, I’d be looking for the interconnection on both sides, both
Ponderosa and Gambles.
MR. LOYOLA-The main concern that we have is that, obviously, that corridor is very busy, traffic
wise. If we have uncontrolled, different accesses, people coming out onto Route 9, is that going to
create a safety concern for our guests and the residents of the Town? We're trying to control the way
people come into the lot here and exit it so we don’t create an accident in front of the property.
Most of the people that are going to use that access, I think, are people that are just going to pull into
Gambles Bakery and pull out again. There’s a little bit of a liability concern. There isn’t, I don’t
believe, a formal easement. It’s kind of a shared access at this point.
MR. PALING-You’re saying that Gambles doesn’t use that for parking now, but it is just a shared,
an opening?
MR. LOYOLA-Well, as I say, I don’t think cars can permanently park in front, because that would
block the access to the apartment building, but in actuality what happens, when people want to pull
in, just for take out, they’ll pull in and they’ll kind of use that whole area. That’s my observation in
just being there, and we don’t actually want people shooting out of our parking lot, any which way
they feel, if they can, like, lets just cut through Gambles Bakery to get out quicker. It’s just going to
create problems, especially in the summer time. If we can control the way they exit, even if we could
get them to come out onto Sweet Road and use the traffic light to get onto 9, that would probably be
a safer exit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m worried about dumping traffic on Sweet Road, too.
MR. LOYOLA-Again, it’s kind of a safety control issue, that I would be open for discussion. It’s
there now. We can keep it open, but my feeling is that just to control that. In meeting with Mark, he
was pretty adamant, originally, I had one alternative that aligned my entrance with Weeks Road, and
he was saying just even with the additional light, promoting any left hand turn, there’s just not
enough distance between the light and the proposed access, when it was aligned with Weeks Road,
that would provide any safe left hand turn into our property, so that’s why I moved it back, closer to
the middle of the distance, splitting the distances between the two traffic signals. I have
approximately 380 feet between the traffic signal to the north, and from the south it’s about 220 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is that the two main ingress/egress to your property would
be, one would be in the front, where it says “Primary Ingress/Egress”, and the secondary in the back.
MR. LOYOLA-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s how you view the traffic getting on and off your site.
MR. LOYOLA-Correct, and then as a tertiary access, there would be some through traffic through
the Ponderosa lot, I’m sure, being controlled by the traffic light for left hand turns out. In fact, that’s
what we would really promote, but anybody that, my feeling is that anybody that wants to travel
south back over to the exit, would most likely cut through the Ponderosa lot and access it from the
traffic signal. So that’s a very safe, controlled entrance point onto Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-So, you’re saying that proposed internal parking connector on the Ponderosa side is
a vehicular connection?
MR. LOYOLA-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-The one that’s on the Bakery side is, in your mind at least, is a pedestrian
connection?
MR. LOYOLA-Correct.
MR. STARK-Craig, I would be more inclined to go with that, rather than a vehicular one on the
north side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-I makes sense.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. STARK-People are just going to be driving through Gambles parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it makes sense.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that makes sense.
MR. STARK-I mean it’s great to have interconnections, but in this case, I don’t think.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I agree with you. In this case it seems to work better the way they’ve proposed
it to me, anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else that you wanted to add?
MR. LOYOLA-No, I think that’s it with regard to Gambles.
MR. VOLLARO-Just one question. Are you buying and tearing down that building next to
Gambles, that sort of apartment building? That’s going away.
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. All the structures on the site would be taken down.
MR. MAC EWAN-When do you propose making a formal application?
MR. LOYOLA-We're hoping to have all the information in for the 26, for the June meeting. So at
th
that time, we can schedule a public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Pending approvals and such like that, or anticipated approvals, you’d be starting
construction this summer?
MR. LOYOLA-Right. This fall actually.
MR. PALING-What type of traffic report/study are you going to have?
MR. LOYOLA-Well, my feeling was that we were hoping to get that waived, just because there’s
been so many traffic studies on this just singular corridor alone. I think we could work really closely
with Mark Kennedy, and come up with something that is acceptable to him. I’m not exactly sure if
he would require a traffic report, and again, it’s a comment that I had that, obviously, if we don’t
have to, I don’t want to study the whole entire area. I know Wal-Mart has studied the area when the
Wal-Mart was put in, and DOT has made their improvements and obviously studied the area with
the traffic light.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been in contact with Scott Sopczyk from the Adirondack/Glens Falls
Transportation Council?
MR. LOYOLA-No. Actually, I think I called them first and they said talk to Mark Kennedy, because
of the project going on with DOT. I have that in my Rolodex, and I think I tried to call him initially,
and he said talk to the project manager on the improvements that are being conducted just north of
us.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the architectural style of the building? I mean, is it stucco?
MR. LOYOLA-Stucco. Yes, it would be a, I believe, cream color stucco building with a green roof/
MR. VOLLARO-This is the same as all the Sleep Inns are going down South on 95? Okay.
MR. RINGER-You have 93 parking places and you’ve got 84 units. That seems like not enough
parking spots, if you have a conference room in addition to that. You’re going to bring people into
the conference room.
MR. LOYOLA-Right. The requirement was for 82. We added another 12 on to it. We're expecting
at least 12 to 15 employees, and that overflow would be for.
MR. RINGER-If you filled up, you’ve got 84 units, and you filled up, that’s 84 cars, and then you’ve
got your employees, and then if you have something going in your conference room, is 93 enough
parking spots?
MR. KAPOOR-In our feasibility study, what we came up with is about probably 90% of the use of
our meeting room is going to be people that are staying at the Hotel, and just having a conference
(lost words).
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MR. RINGER-I guess what I’m asking, with an 84 unit motel, 93 parking spots is the norm? That’s
the normal ratio?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes. The size of this Comfort Inn, it’s a very efficient type of operation. They have,
after 11 o’clock they actually have automatic tellers, and a manager isn’t really even on site, and
anybody that wants to enter the building would put their credit card in and be issued a room key,
essentially. So it’s all automated. Any emergencies or any calls are routed to an on-call service
person. So, the operation has become very, very automated, and as I can say, Jay’s going to be
running it. He’s going to have a computer system at his home so that he doesn’t have to be there 24
hours a day, but will have access to anybody that has any needs, emergency needs.
MR. VOLLARO-How many units will you have?
MR. LOYOLA-Eighty-two.
MR. VOLLARO-Eighty-two. Okay. So you have, effectively, 11 spares, out of the 93. What’s your
occupancy rate, roughly, in percentage?
MR. KAPOOR-Between 60 and 70% during the year, hopefully we’ll be increasing that, but that’s
what the feasibility study showed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re saying that there won’t be anybody at the desk when you drive in?
MR. KAPOOR-After 11 o’clock, right.
MR. LOYOLA-They don’t take American Express. No, I think they do.
MR. KAPOOR-It will be very interesting, because when you’re supposed to leave, you’ve got to
leave. Your card won’t be any good after that. If you want to come for another day, you have to
come to the counter and reactivate it. Very State of the Art. It will be very different than what you
are used to in this area.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there is a system like that at a Sleep Inn down at Greensboro, in the
Carolina’s some place. We stopped there once, and I got in late and I had to use the thing and get a
ticket and the whole nine yards.
MR. LOYOLA-It worked okay, though?
MR. VOLLARO-It worked good for me. I was half asleep, but it worked.
MR. PALING-Laura, do you agree with the parking space, with the numbers?
MRS. MOORE-With the calculations? Yes. I calculated.
MR. PALING-It seems like a heck of a squeeze.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s tight. They have 11 spare spaces there. How many employees do you have?
MR. LOYOLA-Twelve to fifteen.
MR. VOLLARO-So you only have 11 spare spaces, over and above the 82 units.
MR. LOYOLA-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So Bob’s right, it’s tight.
MR. MAC EWAN-The thing you have to consider is they’ve got ample room on the site to add
more parking spaces if they need them.
MR. STARK-Bob, employees are there in the morning, early afternoon. Most of your people would
not check in until early afternoon, evening. Employees are gone. So, I mean, you’re not going to
really be that tight, as tight as you think.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just thinking about, if they get really tight, if they start parking at Ponderosa.
MR. PALING-I think we ought to have a discussion about the traffic. There’s another piece of this
big puzzle going into place, and another little bit of traffic going in place, and we have others, we
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
know a big one that’s coming up further north, and are we going to stop here and try to figure the
whole thing out, or let another piece in?
MR. VOLLARO-Good point. We’ve been wrestling with that right along.
MR. PALING-We’ve been wrestling with this now for quite a while, and I don’t know the exact
answer, but I think we’ve just got to pause and discuss what we want to do, because next month or
the month after there’ll be other pieces coming in, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of correspondence do we have from DOT regarding a traffic light at
Sweet Road? Is it a definite that it’s going in? Proposed next five years, one year?
MRS. MOORE-I haven’t been in contact with them. So maybe someone else in the office has.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we research that?
MR. LOYOLA-Yes, and I do, well, I do have, just this. Here’s Sweet Road, and they’re proposing
the curb cuts, and actually I don’t even know if it shows it on this plan, but there’s actually, it’s built
right now, a pole, and a pole on this side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we can have Staff research that, find out if there’s something in the works
for us. In my mind, if DOT is making those interchange upgrades, and if they are putting a traffic
light in there at Sweet Road, I would think that this application, in my mind right now, just looking at
it cursory, what we have in front of us, wouldn’t pose that much of an impact on that section of
road.
MR. PALING-Okay. Now lets just say that that big amusement park, The Great Escape, is going to
come in with one in a while, is that another piece we can let go on that basis?
MR. MAC EWAN-My response to that would be that the meeting we had with them last month, in
the Supervisor’s Conference Room, is that they are already correlating with the Transportation
Council, and they are undertaking traffic studies and counts at the beginning of June, or end of June
for the entire summer up there, corridor counts.
MR. PALING-So there’s a traffic study.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re doing it.
MR. STARK-They’re addressing their problems pretty good.
MR. PALING-Shouldn’t we have a traffic study here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering the fact that, in my opinion, I don’t know, how long ago did we do
Wal-Mart? That was, what, ’95 we did Wal-Mart, ’94, ’95, ’95 I’ll guess. I don’t think the traffic, to
do another traffic study in this, I mean, maybe they could do some counts or something like that,
which isn’t that difficult a task, maybe update what we already have from the Wal-Mart traffic counts,
or Wal-Mart traffic study that was done some four years ago.
MR. PALING-How do you intend to advertise the Hotel, in so far as on road anywhere type of
advertising, whether you’re on an interstate or whether you’re on (lost words)?
MR. KAPOOR-First of all, we’re going to, you know the signs (lost word) signs on the Northway.
We're going to do that. At this time, there’s no plans for one of those big billboards that you see on
the side of the Northway or anything like that, but besides that, none. I mean, we’re not going to
have signs on Route 9 or anything like that.
MR. PALING-You might not get on the one on Interstate 87. From what I understand there’s a
line. I don’t know.
MR. KAPOOR-Yes, we talked to them. It goes based on proximity to the Northway. So there are
four lodgings on there right now, and there is one, actually, three of them are closer and one of them
is not. That’s the Welcome Inn, which is actually on the other side of Sweet Road going north, and
we might be able to bump them out, just because of the proximity. So that’s what we’re hoping.
MR. PALING-I’m not comfortable with anything that generates traffic, and there may be questions
when we come to it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know that there’s some finite number out there that says Route 9 stops
when that number is hit.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So what are we going to just do, say this is it? We're never going to include
anything else anymore in the Town of Queensbury because it’s going to generate traffic? I think it’s
not up to us to find that traffic solution. There’s other people that have those words after the titles
of their names.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be the Planning Board?
MR. VOLLARO-I think unfortunately the Planning Board has a big role to play in that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have the Number One role in that whole issue. Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think we do have the Number One role in that issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, we do.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then you’re missing the point.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re here for.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s our duty to build roads and increase roads and make roads wider?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. It’s our duty to address traffic concerns and such that we’re doing site plan.
MRS. LABOMBARD-I know that, but we can address the traffic concerns, and we can tell the
people, and they can say, all they have to do is go up and down Route 9 for themselves to see it,
Craig, but we’re not the ones that are passing the laws, and appropriating the money.
MR. LOYOLA-Just one other question. There was a note here from the Staff, fire and EMS access.
I guess I was wondering what that.
MRS. MOORE-You can give me a call, but you can contact, I think the service that provides EMS
would be West Glens Falls or Empire. My concern is a couple of things, the height of your canopy
for EMS access, things like that.
MR. LOYOLA-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-That’s what I’m looking for.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got West for your EMS and Queensbury Central for your fire.
MR. LOYOLA-And then as far as fire locations, I can just kind of point those out. That’s not really
going to be a problem. We have a fire hydrant at the intersection of Sweet Road and Route 9, a fire
hydrant at the corner of Sweet Road and Montray Road, one at the back portion of the site out on
Montray Road, and then we have a fire hydrant that’s just at the Wal-Mart entrance, just south of us.
So I don’t believe there’s any real problem.
MRS. MOORE-It’s 500 feet for a line.
MR. RINGER-They’re across the street, they’d have to shut Route 9 down for a fire.
MRS. MOORE-Right. Just to let you know, it’s 500 foot for a line. You can talk with Kip Grant,
who’s our Fire Marshal, and he can assist us with additional information.
MR. MAC EWAN-Talk to him quickly, because he won’t be much longer. He’s retiring. On one
last final note, you have an ambitious landscaping plan, and get together with the Queensbury
Beautification Committee, and we’ll see you hopefully next month sometime.
MR. KAPOOR-Okay. This is what we’ve hired him for, because that’s his specialty.
MR. MAC EWAN-There you go.
MR. KAPOOR-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Anything else? I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MR. VOLLARO-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/18/99)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47