2000-05-16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 16, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT PALING
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALAN ABBOTT
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 21, 2000: NONE
March 23, 2000: NONE
March 28, 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 23, AND 28, Introduced by
Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
DISCUSSION:
WARREN ROSENTHAL – WARREN COUNTY REGIONAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
WARREN ROSENTHAL, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, Warren.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Hi. Good evening, everybody. Thank you for letting me come before you
today. I wanted to spend just a few minutes giving you our perspective on economic development
and planning in the Town. Let me start out by saying that I’ve been here just a little over a year. I
was brought in to kind of revised our program and take it in a new direction. I think we’ve come a
long way over the last few months. We’ve been spending a lot of time trying to bring the different
disparate organizations together so that they would work in a coherent fashion. So we’ve been doing
what I call a lot of institutional building. We’ve been also working on how product development, in
this case, in this business, product development is essentially sites, and I guess you could also say
people. Your interest, obviously, is land use in the Town, and the overall development patterns.
What you have before you is a letter that I’ve just sent and should have been received today by the
Town, which I believe clearly states our position regarding any particular or pending, actually, I’m not
even sure if it’s an official zoning request, but even something that was discussed informally, and we
feel very strongly, as you can see in the letter, that we give very careful consideration to any rezoning
of property that’s Light Industrial in the Town of Queensbury, given the very small supply that we
currently have, and you can see, you can read the letter on your own. I’m not going to read it at this
point, but you can see, basically, that a very, very small percentage of the County is currently zoned
Light Industrial. Of that percentage, roughly only 400 acres is actually vacant and available, and of
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
that, of course, there are other constraints which might prevent the use of some of those lands. It
could be wetlands. It could be any number of reasons. As you’re probably all aware, about 80% of
the land area of the County is in the Adirondack Park. So except for the hamlets, you’re really
precluded from doing any industrial development of any significance. That essentially leaves lower
Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls. The City of Glens Falls, of course, is constrained by its
boundaries, and essentially the only development that could occur there would be re-development of
selective sites. So the opportunity to do what I call industrial development or office development of
any magnitude would have to occur, essentially, in lower Queensbury, but even there, there are sever
constraints, and one of the most obvious ones is lack of sewer in most of Queensbury, as you well
know, and in this business, not having central sewer is a major impediment. So my message
essentially is this, that, as a community, we need to have balanced growth. From a fiscal standpoint, I
think it’s critical. Right now, the scales have really been tipped very much toward, in my view,
toward residential and commercial development, retail commercial, particularly with residential, and
again, you can look at some of the numbers in here that we’ve put in here that talk about the kind of
tax revenues that one would typically collect from an average household, versus what it costs to send
a student through the school system here in Queensbury. The fact of the matter is that, by in large,
most residential development doesn’t pay its own way. It’s a net cost to the Town. So what we’re
advocating, essentially, is balanced growth in the community, balanced between commercial,
residential and industrial/office. Again, if any development of any significance is going to occur in
the County of Warren, it’s going to occur in Queensbury, and if we don’t preserve those areas that
would be best served for that purpose, then they are likely to be lost, and lost for a very long time.
So that’s essentially my message. I’d like to kind of open it up to discussion. I’d like to get your view
on it, but we’re actively, right now, trying to look at potential sites for industrial development in the
community. We’re also looking at some land that, in fact, may not be currently zoned industrial, but
possibly could be rezoned, based on the Master Plan, but again, the quantity is extremely limited.
Again, 400 acres is really almost nothing when you’re looking out 10, 20, 30 years, in developing
inventory, and you compare that, let’s say, to the County of Saratoga which, potentially, could have
an inventory of thousands and thousands of acres. Again, the key is, in my view, to achieve some
level of balance, and right now we’re tipped way to one end. So if there’s anybody.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Warren, I’d like to ask one question. Have you discussed sewers with Dennis
at all, or with the Town Board at all?
MR. ROSENTHAL-Yes. We’ve been in extensive discussions with the Town, with the City,
regarding sewer allocation pricing, the whole gamut, absolutely critical.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because right now my understanding is that there’s three places where the
Town Board is focusing right now, is Exit 18, Route 9 and a little dinky thing called Baybridge, which
I represent as the President of their Association.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Actually, there’s one more, and that’s the one that would run from the IDA
Park at the Airport, to connect to Glens Falls through Queensbury Avenue.
MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know where sewers are on the priority list of things to get done in the
Town, but I think you’re absolutely correct. It’s got to be almost Number One.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Again, I mean, from our perspective, if a site doesn’t have central water, sewer,
gas, fiber optics, I mean, honestly, if you don’t have all those components in place, or very close to
the site in question, you’re not in the game. It’s as simple as that. I mean, there’s just too many
choices out there for people to make, and that’s not even leveling the playing field. That’s just to get
in the game. I mean, then there’s a whole series of other factors that obviously come into play in
making a site location decision, but that’s the bare bones minimum to be competitive.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Telergy presentation that you and I attended some months back made
that very evident.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Now, of course, we are working toward trying to get Veterans Field shovel
ready, and we’re making some headway there. We met, again, a couple of weeks ago, and we have
decided to see if we can’t phase that, so that we can get at least the first 10 acres ready to go in the
next couple of months. What’s amazing, think about this, now. This is an amazing statistic. Other
than the property that the County owns down on Warren Street, which is zoned Heavy Industrial, so
we’ll put that aside for a moment. That’s really for a different type of use. The only property, right
now, in the County of Warren, that has, that’s zoned Light Industrial, has water, sewer, gas, and
electric, I’m not even sure it has fiber, is a four acre parcel that’s owned by the City in Glens Falls
Technical Park. Now think about that. It’s a pretty scary thought. Now there are other sites that
have everything but, you know, most of them are missing the essential sewer. That’s obviously
what’s not there. A lot of them have the essentially water, they have the gas. They have electric. A
lot of them don’t have the fiber. That’s not necessarily there either, but, I mean, that’s an amazing
statistic when you think of the size of the County of Warren, and you think about, you know, what.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. VOLLARO-The fiber is doable, really doable pretty easily. Fiber is not as much of an obstacle
as sewer. So sewer has really got to be, I think.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Yes. There’s a obviously a cost to putting in fiber, and it’s subject to, you know,
it’s a business decision like any other decision. Whoever’s putting it in has to get some kind of return
on their money, but presumably in Queensbury, lower Queensbury, there’s enough density that you
could justify extending the fiber. Now Bell Atlantic already has a pretty extensive fiber network in
the City, and of course Telergy has their backbone there, and then K-Tech is talking about putting in
a switch in the City, in serving the area as well, but, yes, sewer is really the critical issue. It’s obviously
it’s very time consuming to accomplish. It’s very expensive, and so, you know, that’s something that
we need to tackle as soon as possible.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you, would you generally be involved with what goes on with our Planning
Board here? When we receive here in Town offices, a recommendation for a zone change, do you
usually get notified of that impending petition?
MR. ROSENTHAL-I try to, I don’t know if I get official notification. I try to keep in regular
contact with Chris and the Staff. So I’m usually aware of what’s happening, but I don’t know if I
actually get an official notice.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Maybe we can work with the Planning Department and have you put on a
notification list that just, you know, for your information, of any parcel that would be coming
through that’s zoned Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial that’s up for petition for zone change for
something else.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Did any of you have any thoughts on this particular situation, any comments?
I’m just curious whether you had any.
MR. RINGER-We haven’t had a chance to read it, yet.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Well, it has to do with it’s about 90 acres that, it’s three parcels combined. It’s
the Van Dusen Trust, D’Ambrosio and the Combs property. They’re basically all contiguous.
They’re off of Luzerne Road, and when you combine them, I want to say it’s roughly somewhere
between 80 and 90 acres. It actually represents probably the, I would say it might be the second
largest contiguous tract of Light Industrially zoned lands.
MR. VOLLARO-What do they want to do with it, Warren? What’s the proposed rezoning?
MR. ROSENTHAL-Well, the original proposal actually was to rezone the entire parcel to residential,
and put in 150 homes.
MR. VOLLARO-Does the school know about that? I mean, are they aware of that?
MR. ROSENTHAL-Well, Bob, let me actually talk about that for a second. I want to get back to the
school issue, but I’m glad you brought that up, because I wanted to make that point, but then we
talked with them and they kind of came back with an alternate proposal, which basically said that
they would just ask for a rezoning of the back portion that abuts Sherman Avenue, with an entrance
from Sherman, and they would leave the rest of the acres zoned industrial. Now, I presented that
concept to our Board, okay, and I our Board rejected that. They felt that, at this point, given the
extremely limited amount of industrially zoned land that we have to work with, that we had to take a
stand, and that our position is unequivocal that we will not endorse or advocate any rezoning of any
industrially zoned property in the Town of Queensbury at this time, and we advocate essentially no
net loss, and the even the problem with the concept of no net loss is that there’s certain areas that are
obviously superior to others. So if you trade off, let’s say, an area that’s clearly better, and you say
you’re going to zone industrial over here, it may not be apples to apples, even though it may be
zoned Light Industrial. So that’s also an issue. Now, you had a point about the school system.
We’ve been trying to engage, I’ve been trying to engage the school board in this discussion, because
who’s going to have the greatest impact on this? It’s obviously the school system. Most of the taxes
that we pay obviously go to the school, and obviously who will have the greatest impact will result
obviously from homes that are built that will have children of school age, and again, you can see the
numbers. We collect about $2,000 on average from a household in Queensbury, and it costs about
$7300 to educate people. Obviously, it’s made up by other means, other sources of revenue and the
State and State aid, but you can see that’s a huge gap. I mean, it’s over a $5,000 difference, and that’s
just one student. Of course if you have, you know, two or three students, that you obviously can do
the math and you can see that the gap is enormous. So we think that the school system should really
be an advocate here for this. I mean, in my mind it would make a lot of sense that they would take a
look at this and say, you know, it’s a direct cost to us, we think that balanced growth makes sense.
We’re already, our facilities are already taxed to the limit. We’re going to have to expand them soon.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
Obviously, we just had to build a new school a couple of years ago, but they’re now looking at having
to expand the High School. What’s happening essentially is that Queensbury’s becoming a bedroom
community to Saratoga, and to the Capital District. I mean, I can understand why people are doing
that. It’s a great place to live. It’s a good quality of life. Good school system. You can’t fault
anybody for doing that, but what we can fault them ourselves if we don’t plan for our future.
MR. PALING-I guess I do have one comment. I don’t question anything you’ve said about the
priority of the sewer being Number One, but that’s a Glens Falls Sewer we’re talking about, and
unless the negotiators think outside of the box that they’re in, we’re never going to get anywhere, and
that sewer system of Glens Falls is way under capacity of utilization, and it just sits there, and this is
crazy if we’re forced into some kind of sewer plan development, with that sitting more than 50%
idle.
MR. ROSENTHAL-What I’ve been trying to do is act, essentially, as a mediator to try to get the two
sides together, and to try to get them to move forward, and like you say, to think more outside of the
box, think more creatively, not just think the way we’ve always thought, you know, us versus them.
What are you getting and we’re not getting? Rather than thinking, their mindset’s been win/lose, in
my view, rather than win/win, and I’m trying to get everybody to get to win/win. It benefits them
because, as you say, it’s an under utilized system. It’s additional revenue, potentially, in their coffers,
and frankly, the City owns Veterans Field. I mean, that’s land that’s in their own account that they
will serve with their own system, and frankly there’s nothing precluding the City from buying other,
they could control other lands, and develop it in the same fashion, and receive a benefit from both
avenues, from the sale of the land as well as from serving it with their sewer system.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Warren, how were your suggestions received by the School Board? I know
Dr. LaManto has been very ill.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Yes. That’s been, I mean, I met with Dr. LaManto months and months ago,
before he became ill. I have had one meeting with the Executive Committee of the School Board,
and I’ve been trying to arrange a meeting with the full Board, but so far without any success.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The irony of this is I was talking to someone a couple of weeks ago who was
retiring from the faculty of Queensbury and she’s on the Historical Committee in Queensbury, and
all this antagonism, you could say, or I hate to use the word animosity, goes back way to the early
50’s when Queensbury wanted to start their School, with the City of Glens Falls, and now you’re
right, because our taxes are going up 3.92%, not 4, like was quoted in the Post Star. I don’t know
what the difference of eight hundredths will mean, but that doesn’t sound like much, but when some
of the people in Town are already paying residentially, you know, a lot of money, because the taxes
have gone up so much over the past eight years, that small percentage amounts to a lot of dollars,
and you’re right, it is a real disparity as far as the tax basis in this Town, but every time somebody
wants to come in to put up some kind of a business or an industry, boy, are they met with a lot of
opposition, even in the places that are zoned appropriately.
MR. ROSENTHAL-And you bring up an important point, that a lot of the industrially zoned land,
especially around Exit 18, is encroached upon by residential.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. ROSENTHAL-I mean, it’s right on top of it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the Hudson River.
MR. ROSENTHAL-So, you’re right. That’s an important point. Very little of it is separated from, I
think it was separated from residential areas, especially on the west side of Town, but of course that’s
a prime area because it’s right off the interchange.
MR. VOLLARO-But even though they’re butting tight, I think planning would say that, okay, we put
extraordinary large buffers in, do something to buffer out those two parcels, so that they don’t
interact with one another adversarily.
MR. ROSENTHAL-And that was what was actually put forth by Clute in this case. He was going to
advocate for a large buffer, but again, because of the extraordinary circumstances, we felt that we had
to take a very strong stance.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking on the Light Industrial properties that exist, if they begin to buffer or
they are butting up against residential, then from a planning point of view, we ought to make sure we
get substantial buffers between them. This thing with Clute is a whole other thing, where he’s trying
to, in a sense, proposing to put residential in a light industrial zone, and what you’re really saying is
we don’t have that to give away, period.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. ROSENTHAL-I mean, essentially, it’s a policy decision that, you know, we have to make. We
should know all the facts and look at it and evaluate it carefully before we make any rash decision.
MR. RINGER-I agree with a lot of the stuff that Warren has said, but I think we have to look at
each one as they come before us individually. We can’t take a group like you’ve presented here and
say, hey, don’t do anymore. I think as each request comes before us, we have to look at it, and if
you’re notified, you can come in and bring us up to date and stuff on what’s going on with you
people, but I think it is important to keep as much as industrial property as we can. I wouldn’t say
we have to look at every one of them and say no. I think we have to look at each one on its own
merit.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Yes. You always have to be reasonable, obviously, but our concern is that it’s
very easy to get into a situation where once you open a door, you know, allow a rezoning, then you’re
likely to attract other applicants who will come in and make the same request, naturally. Because
you’re going to see a tremendous amount of pressure around Exit 18 to rezone from either industrial
to residential or industrial to commercial, and we’re already seeing instances where landowners are
holding out for a commercial rezoning. They’re pricing their property, essentially, as if it was zoned
commercial, okay, and it’s already starting to happen, and as the project for Exit 18 moves forward, I
know it’s a painfully slow process from my perspective, I’m sure from everybody else’s perspective.
It’s like pulling teeth, but then again it seems like everything falls into that category, but as that
project moves forward, you’re going to see more and more of that happening. More and more
people that have land over there are going to hold out for rezoning to commercial. Because they’re
going to figure, you know, hey, now we’ve got something really valuable, and obviously land per acre,
the value per acre for commercially zoned retail is substantially greater than industrial, and it can
easily snowball, and before you know it, most of the land has been rezoned, and it’s gone.
MR. RINGER-Using your scenario, though, commercial property, in regards to school tax, wouldn’t
it generate about the same thing, the difference would be jobs?
MR. ROSENTHAL-That’s right. Then it comes down to job opportunity. It comes down to quality
of jobs. Retail, well, retail jobs versus office or industrial jobs. I mean, obviously there are
exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking, if you look at the average salaries of office jobs or
industrial jobs versus retail, there’s no comparison.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Warren, let me ask a question. On Veterans Field, you mentioned that a little
bit ago, and we’re going to be coming up with that pretty soon, and that looks like that’s probably in
the mix for Queensbury. What do you see in the way of, for lack of a better word, for marketing that
property to light industrial folks? Here we’re going to be putting together a fairly extensive industrial
park, if you want to call it that, with approximately eight large size parcels. What’s being done there?
I mean, is there a task force that says, hey, let’s go out and find out who we’re going to bring in here?
A real serious effort to go out and get people in? We’re competing, not just within New York State,
Warren, you’re competing with the United States, and possibly offshore. If I was in the business of
making widgets, I’d be in Mexico. That’s part of the problem that we’ve got here.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Well, to answer your question, Bob, we’ve done some limited marketing, and
mostly just to sort of test the waters. We haven’t done any real full scale marketing . That’s
something that we’re basically in the process right now of accomplishing. So we’re going to be
putting together a marketing plan. Actually, for the entire County. It won’t just be for this particular
location, and we will have target industries, and we will go after them. As you pointed out,
competition is intense. No guarantees.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got the greatest competitors sitting just south of us in Roy McDonald. I
mean, the guy goes out and he does it himself.
MR. ROSENTHAL-See, the key to this business is two fold. It’s preparing yourself, okay, doing all
your homework up front. Basically, getting yourself ready and open for business. Okay. Then it’s
establishing your credibility. So once we can get a few under our belt, and we can show that we are
credible, and that people can come to us and rely on us, e.g. Saratoga, okay. I mean, that’s what
they’ve done. They spent 10 years preparing themselves. You talk to (lost word) my counterpart,
he’ll tell you, it took him 10 years before he had his first major success, and all that time what he was
doing was preparing the community. Okay, and then he got a few under his belt. He established his
credibility, as somebody who can deliver as promised, and then that started to open up the doors
more and more, and then, it’s snowballs. That’s something that we’ve never done. I mean, that’s
something that we need to do. If we’re going to be a serious player in this economic development
game, then we’ve got to develop the product first. We’ve got to get out and market it and try to reel
a few in, get a few projects under our belt, establish our credibility. We’re now in the game. The
timing is.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take a piece out of Larry’s book here just a few minutes ago, and I understand
where he’s coming from. As an applicant comes before us, and if you take a look at the history of
the way the Planning Board, even before I got on board, there’s very little that we turn down, in
terms of recommending zone changes. Because there’s no basis a lot of times for saying no. What
this has to be is a Queensbury policy has to be established other than at this Board. Mr. Chairman, I
don’t know if you’d agree with that or not, but that’s how I see it. I don’t think this Board.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Yes. I mean, ultimately, that’s a Town Board decision, as far as rezoning, and
you’re right, it’s somewhat of a dilemma, okay, because you can argue both sides. An applicant could
come in and say where is the demand, okay, as industrially zoned property, and you could say, all
right, there may not be an immediate demand, especially if all the infrastructure isn’t to the site, okay.
So really what we’re talking about here is a longer term view. I mean, we’re talking about creating an
inventory that’s going to be sufficient, you know, that will be a sufficient supply that’s going to last us
for a few decades. Again, since we’re bumped right up against the Adirondack Park, it’s not like we
can just look at other alternatives. If it’s going to happen any place, it’s really going to happen right
here in the lower Queensbury, and that’s about it. So, again, so it’s a struggle between short term
maximization versus long term gain, and you’re right. Somebody like Clute could come in and argue,
hey, look, the property’s been zoned light industrial for 20 years, where’s the buyer today? And you
would say, and rightly so, you would have to agree with him. I don’t have somebody to buy the
property today, Larry. There’s nobody there. You could also argue that the property isn’t ready to
be marketed for light industrial purposes because there’s no sewer there. You need more road
improvements north south to connect to Corinth Road. How do you get to it? You know the
problem with the north/south connection there. So, you know, you could argue this around and
around and around, but most of them, like you say, Bob, it becomes a policy decision. If, in fact, we
want to have that balanced growth, then we have to make some hard decisions. We may have to
make some short term sacrifices to get some long term gain. That’s, ultimately, what it might come
down to.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask the attorney. Is there, in Town law, is there the ability for the
Town, certainly not this Board, but the Town Board, to project this type of thought with respect to
retention of the existing industrial sites, or what could be marketed as industrial sites?
MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m not sure I’m following what you mean by retention of the existing
industrial sites? I mean, zoning, to begin with, is a discretionary, legislative action by the legislative
body, the elected body of the Town Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine.
MR. SCHACHNER-If the Town Board, and I’m speaking generically now, of this Town or any
other Town, wants to adopt a legislative policy of either preserving light industrially zoned areas or
creating more light industrially zoned areas, the Town Board certainly has the discretion to do that.
Am I answering your question?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you have.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I mean any Town Board has that discretion. It’s purely discretionary,
and as Warren says, it’s a discretionary legislative policy type decision.
MR. ROSENTHAL-We think that there are some opportunities on the east side of Town for some
potential re-zonings to light industrial, and that’s something that we are exploring, and I think if you
look in your Master Plan, it actually indicates some of the areas that are currently zoned residential as
more suitable, potentially, for industrial purposes. So really essentially what it amounts to is Exit 18
and Queensbury Avenue and those surrounding areas. I mean, for all practical purposes, that’s what
it comes down to. Because if you take a map out and see what else is available, it’s just maybe some
scattered parcels hither and yon, but probably 80% of it would be in those two locations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. In closing, let me just throw a couple of thoughts
at you. We’ll talk with Chris and make sure that you’re put on a mailing notice so that you’re aware
of any petitions for zone change that come in from light industrial to whatever, so that you can at
least have an opportunity to have your say on it. Have you approached the Town Board regarding,
basically, what we’ve talked about tonight, and how was that received? Just out of curiosity.
MR. ROSENTHAL-It’s one of those situations where I think, you know, intellectually, you can
understand it and it makes perfect sense, but then, as Larry pointed out, when it comes down to the
individual decision for a particular location.
MR. MAC EWAN-And Larry’s absolutely right. I’m the first person to stand up and tell you that
I’m all for preserving what industrial land we have left in the Town, but then it becomes an issue,
because so many parcels are scattered throughout the Town in varying sizes. We have some parcels
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
that are less than an acre in size and in some cases less than a half acre in size of light industrial you
couldn’t develop to make thimbles.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Right, and honestly, Craig, if that’s the case, you might have to rezone it
something else, because it has no value. I mean, frankly, anything less than five acres is probably not
even worth spending the time with. The key is large contiguous tracts. I mean, the smaller it is, the
more difficult it is to justify.
MR. MAC EWAN-I certainly would advocate for the Town to create more industrial land. That
would probably be a very difficult agenda to complete. It really would.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Again, I think the key is to get, is to be able to communicate to our constituents
what the implications are. If we go down this path, this is going to be the likely result for our
community. If we go down this path, this is what it might look like, and to be able to articulate that,
and maybe even be able to show it. I don’t know if you could show it in map form or you have to
show it, I guess it would be a combination of map and numbers of some sort. To be able to convey
that message clearly that we have a decision to make. We have a choice to make, and frankly, I think
we’re at a critical juncture right now, because we are going to be under tremendous pressure. There’s
a tremendous demand right now, for example, for a commercial retail, as you know, and that’s not
going to abate for a while, and obviously, of course retail follows residential growth. If you have
strong residential growth, that commercial retail growth is going to follow. So we’re at a juncture
right now. To me, the next 24 months is the window. It’s going to determine what direction this
community is going to go in, and it’s going to be a combination of preserving the industrial land and
controlling it, and getting the sewer to where it needs to go, and if we, however, if we give in, in
other words, if we’re successful, let’s say, in getting the sewer, and then we give in and we allow the
rezoning, then the opportunity is lost. So the two have to go hand in hand.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very, very much.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Thank you very much for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-And have a good evening.
MR. ROSENTHAL-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 TYPE: UNLISTED BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A
PROVISIONS OWNER: SAME AGENT: FRANK LEO ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION:
62 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,330 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING BUSINESS. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL WILL RESOLVE
NON-COMPLIANCE ISSUES. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A GRAVELED
PARKING AREA, GREEN AREA AND PLANTERS. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN CR
ZONES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 24-1992, AV 29-1992, UV 14-1994, AV 15-1994, UV 18-
1997, AV 19-1997, SP 22-97, AV 83-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/8/99 TAX MAP
NO. 130-1-21, 134-6-2 LOT SIZE: 1.70 ACRES, 0.49 ACRES SECTION: 179-24
FRANK LEO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to recuse myself from this application and turn it over to Larry.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-99, Ben Aronson/Double A Provisions, Meeting Date: May 16,
2000 “Staff Notes: Applicant requests approval of a 3,300 square foot expansion to an existing
building. The applicant received a Use Variance, Area Variance and a site plan approval in 1997 for
the construction of the proposed addition. The applicant had an agreement with a property owner to
the south and east to utilize the property for the expansion. The applicant was not able to obtain the
property to the north that resulted in the applicant applying for and receiving an Area Variance for
permeability and buffer requirements in 1999. The applicant was able to obtain the property to the
east for use of the expansion and increased parking area. The applicant has submitted a revised plan
that addressed the zoning board requirements of the Area Variance that include landscaping and
fencing. The site does appear to be well kept and in conformance with the zone.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan as submitted with the following
conditions: 1. A north arrow is put on the site plan 2. The applicant consolidates parcels 131-1-21
and 134-6-2 prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.”
MRS. MOORE-And I am aware that they’re in the process of doing that, and I guess I also today
provided a note to the file in regards to clarification to my Staff Notes, and it is 3,300 square foot of
gravel parking area in front of the existing business where the office area is labeled, and the only
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
other recommendation I have is Staff would recommend the proposed landscaping be installed and
maintained by a professional landscaper and would also recommend existing landscaping be
maintained in the same fashion.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Could you identify yourself for the record?
MR. LEO-My name is Frank Leo, and I’m a representative for Double A.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tell us a little bit about your project, Frank, please.
MR. LEO-Well, we want to put a couple of additional parking spaces out in front and install some
planter boxes, some berms, and some shrubbery. That’s about it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s start with the Board. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a couple of questions. I’m just trying to get it into my mind the fact that
this new lot, 130-1-21 is the tax parcel, is being coupled with, that’s, Corinth Road goes right through
both of those parcels. Is that correct, according to my diagram here?
MRS. MOORE-The parcel that’s 1.70 acres, that he has, that’s been advertised, is a parcel that has a
road running through it, or a street running right through it.
MR. RINGER-That’s Corinth Road, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s Corinth Road.
MR. RINGER-The other parcel is across the street from him.
MRS. MOORE-It’s an existing parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-So what we’re doing is coupling that parcel with this parcel, in order to get the 30%
permeability requirement for where he’s working now, is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the last piece of data that came in?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want the applicant to know, first of all, I’m a little bit concerned that
we’re doing that and they’re not contiguous, but if you say that that’s not a problem, that’s not a
problem for me. What I want to make sure the applicant understands is that these pieces will be
coupled together, and future development now goes against the 59,396 square feet, for purposes of
permeability.
MRS. MOORE-No, it goes against the 95,396.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the total parcel, so that he knows that development on that parcel across the
way is now limited to the 41% he’s already consumed.
MR. LEO-You want to put the one across the street included?
MRS. MOORE-That parcel across the street is already within the, it’s already part of the 1.70 acres.
The parcel I’m discussing is the parcel to the east, which is parcel 134-6-2.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-What you see that has a link with an arrow, that I’ve supplied you in the drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s 130-1-21.
MRS. MOORE-That’s an existing parcel that was created a while back, during a consolidation, and
that is 1.70 acres as total.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s linked now?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re just talking about 134-6-2. That happens to be a contiguous
parcel.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the total acreage of those three combined. Is that the 95?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, that’s the 95,000.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So those three pieces now total 95,396?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-When you Aronson was before the Board before, there was a lot of talk about the
planters and keeping up the stuff, and nothing had been done for a period of time, and it really
became a disarray there.
MR. LEO-We never got that far in the project, because the parcel to the south that we were
supposed to get, there was some conflict with that, and we didn’t wind up with that parcel, and we
had to go through rezoning and everything else again, and the parcel in front, they won’t let us do
anything until we do this here, and once we get this okayed, then we can continue where we left off.
MR. RINGER-When you had the planter there, it was the understanding that you would be
maintaining it and stuff.
MR. LEO-Well, according to this one that we’re doing now, that planter that is coming out of there
is going to be made bigger.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. PALING-On one note that we have here, it’s called a 3300 square foot expansion to an existing
building, and the other letter it’s called a parking area, expand their parking area by 3300 square feet.
Which are we talking about?
MRS. MOORE-It’s expansion of the gravel, the parking area. That’s why I provided you a note
called clarification of May 16 Staff Notes.
th
MR. PALING-Why you did what?
MRS. MOORE-I provided you with a clarification of my Staff Notes, and it’s for a 3,300 square foot
graveled parking area.
MR. RINGER-That came today, Bob.
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay, and the setbacks on this. We’re looking at two feet existing and
proposed. Is there a variance on that, or is that grandfathered in?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has applied for a variance and received that variance.
MR. PALING-How can you get such a narrow buffer setback to 2.1 feet?
MR. RINGER-That’s up to them.
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, that’s the Zoning Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a ZBA issue.
MRS. MOORE-The Zoning Board handled that issue.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s, nonetheless, a good question.
MR. RINGER-But it isn’t anything that we, it’s another Board. We don’t have any control or
authority over.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand 100%. You’re absolutely right.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. PALING-I guess I’m not too comfortable with so many kind of doubts in my mind about this,
and evidently a change in print. You have on here new planters, and you have one in existence on
the property near the corner. What’s happened to that one? It’s got a tree in there.
MR. LEO-Right, it has a tree in the middle.
MR. PALING-Yes. What’s happened? It’s not on the plans.
MR. LEO-It’s in the corner of the plan where it says shrubs and grass. That’s the corner you’re
talking about. That’s the one with the tree in it.
MR. PALING-There’s a large tree there, and I don’t see the tree here.
MR. LEO-Well, it’s not drawn in there, but the tree’s staying there. That planter’s going to get made
bigger.
MR. PALING-Yes, well, you have a very bad record of compliance. Any time we’ve talked to you
about trees and shrubs and lawn, maybe they’ve been put in but they’ve never been maintained. Are
you saying yes or no?
MR. LEO-I’m not saying anything.
MR. PALING-Okay. I guess I don’t understand your reaction, then.
MR. LEO-I really don’t know how to explain that one. The one in the corner, he usually keeps up
there. Like I said, the rest of it, we’re trying to get done now, and everything’s still all torn up from
before.
MR. PALING-Okay. I may have more questions later.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one other question I wanted to ask Staff. This drawing that you
gave us, which obviously comes after the first drawing that we looked at, the larger drawing that
Cathy has before her now. What we’re really talking about is this drawing which shows the 3,300
square feet of stone. Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is the drawing we should be looking at, and not the one.
MRS. MOORE-No, negative. This is, the maps that I provided you are in conjunction with the map
that he’s provided you.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’ve got to relate these two to each other?
MRS. MOORE-Right. Because on the maps that I’ve provided you, they do not have all the
indications that he’s provided on his plan. So please use them in conjunction together. Don’t
separate them out.
MR. VOLLARO-So when the motion is made, we’re going to have to make a motion to include
both this document or this drawing plus the unmarked document that he has. That document, that
drawing has no name plate on it. It has no identification. If I gave this drawing to anybody here,
they wouldn’t know what it was.
MR. SCHACHNER-You should do something about that.
MRS. MOORE-I agree.
MR. VOLLARO-How would we identify it in the motion?
MR. SCHACHNER-You should do something about that is what we’re saying. However you want
to identify that document, have the applicant identify it, identify it yourselves, write on it, do
whatever you want, but do something to identify that document. We agree with you, is what Staff
and I are saying.
MR. RINGER-If it comes to a motion to approve it, then we can do that, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine, as long as it’s identifiable in the future, because right now we’re
trying to integrate two separate drawing.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-Three, actually. We’re trying to figure out which from.
MR. VOLLARO-And, you know, that’s it for now.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now I’ll open up the public hearing. Would anyone from the public like to
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
RANDY WINSLOW
MR. WINSLOW-Randy Winslow, 60 Main Street, Queensbury. I live just to the east of this
property, and I would like to know where this crushed stone parking lot is going. Is that going to the
east of the building?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to the north of the building.
MR. WINSLOW-Then it’s across the street.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. WINSLOW-No, but it’s coming toward my house, basically, correct.
MR. LEO-The blacktop that’s next to your fence there?
MR. WINSLOW-Yes, that little foot and a half of blacktop there, yes.
MR. LEO-That’s going to be 15 feet.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay, and that’s going to be blacktop?
MR. LEO-Then there’s going to be a berm.
MR. WINSLOW-It’s not going to be blacktop. It’s going to be dirt.
MR. LEO-Just this one spot.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay. It’s going to be dirt, and it’s going to come under the fence and onto my
lawn.
MR. RINGER-Randy, would you address your questions to the Board, and, Frank, why don’t you
put that up on the Board, your drawing up on the board. Okay. So ask your question, and we’ll get
him to answer your question for you.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay. What I am concerned with, about this whole project, for the last, since
they’ve torn the property down at I think it was 62 Main Street. They’ve torn the house down to get
their room to build their building that they’ve built. I have been sweeping dirt every time it rained
out of my driveway. My cars are covered because his guys drive up and down when they’re not
supposed to. I was promised they would not use the fire lane as a road, and I have at least three to
five cars a day come down this fire lane. I don’t know if it’s neighbors just using it as a cut through,
but they’re coming around the back of his building and up past my house. He’s constructed a five
foot privacy fence along the side of my driveway, right on the property line.
MR. RINGER-That’s that stockade fence?
MR. WINSLOW-Stockade fence right on the driveway, which this winter, because the sun in the
afternoon couldn’t get in my driveway, I had to chop four inches of ice all winter long every time it
snowed, because it wouldn’t melt in the sun. I’m just wondering when this madness is going to end.
I have been under madness since this whole project began, since he started his first addition. I’ve got
pictures of what that looked like when I bought my home four years ago. I went and I paid every
dime I had in the world, bought a home, had a beautiful lawn with flowers, birdhouses, trees, fruit,
fruit trees, everything out there, cherry trees, apple trees, gorgeous. You know what’s out there now?
Crabgrass and weeds, and a six foot stockade fence that encloses my whole yard. Because they own
on both sides of my property now. I’ve been turned into a prison.
MR. RINGER-Randy, when that washes, you’re talking about the rain washes.
MR. WINSLOW-It washes down from the side of his building, it washes the whole thing, it comes
right underneath the fence and right across my blacktop.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-That’s from their last construction that they did?
MR. WINSLOW-That’s from when they removed the house and have never planted grass seed or
made any attempt to put a hale bale barrier or anything to keep the erosion from corroding into my
yard. At the end of my driveway on their land is a big mosquito field. It’s a big puddle every time it
rains off the corner. It’s just a huge, big mud hole.
MR. VOLLARO-How much of that water is coming over on your?
MR. WINSLOW-It all goes right directly across the end of my driveway, and down across and then
down into the next neighbors.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s supposed to retain all surface water on his property.
MR. WINSLOW-Well, it doesn’t.
MR. RINGER-Laura, can we get the information on that, when we approved that?
MRS. MOORE-You approved it in 1997, the addition.
MR. RINGER-Well, I’ll finish the hearing, but I think maybe we might want to see what we
approved and stuff on that.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. WINSLOW-And also the roof on the addition that he has constructed in the back, from 2:30 in
the afternoon to about when the sun goes down, I can’t go in my back yard because the sun comes
off it so hard it’ll blind you. It’s a big chrome plated roof, big, shiny galvanized steel. I mean, I’ve
had nothing but headaches from this whole thing. I’d like to show the Board some pictures of when
I first got there.
MR. RINGER-If you’re going to show them to us, Randy, I’d like to keep them so we have them for
the record.
MR. WINSLOW-Okay. That would be fine.
MR. RINGER-Randy, point out your property, where it would be from that map, if you would.
MR. WINSLOW-I’m to the east on Corinth Road of this property. Right to this edge of the
property, is where I am. I’m at 60 Main Street.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Did you have anything else, Randy?
MR. WINSLOW-The property across the street is also a big gravel parking lot.
MR. RINGER-You’re talking about the Corinth, the property across the street?
MR. WINSLOW-The piece that he’s trying to add on here is also a gravel parking lot at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the one directly across from him on Corinth?
MR. WINSLOW-Yes, it is. That is a gravel parking lot that houses all of his employee’s cars. I’m
just concerned that my land’s going to just, my value of my land that’s already like really lost a lot of
value, I spent everything I had to have this place because I thought it was going to be a nice little
neighborhood.
MR. VOLLARO-When you say that he owns property on both sides of you?
MR. WINSLOW-He obtained the house on the easterly side of me, so that he could put the people
that used to live in the house that he tore down for his addition, in there to live for the rest of their
lives, because they have a life lease on the building, is how I understand it. It was like, I moved in,
and all of a sudden there was turmoil. I bought the house from an estate, and I guess I’ve just about
covered what I have to cover.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. WINSLOW-Thank you very much for your time.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else?
MRS. MOORE-Larry, I do have public comment.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-This is from Geoffrey Burke, regarding Ben Aronson, Double A Provision, “If
approval is given for this expansion, it is requested that the parking surface be black top and not
gravel due to the dust and dirt that effects the area. Secondly, that any business traffic would enter
and exit at Main Street, not using the linkage of 2 Street and River Street for commercial purposes.
nd
River Street is a residential neighborhood with a number of children and senior citizens. The turn at
2 Street and River St. is not acceptable for volume traffic or large vehicles. We would kindly ask
nd
consideration of these concerns in approving Mr. Aronson’s request for expansion. Sincerely,
Geoffrey Burke” Second letter is from Connie Fish, “Please be advised that we have no objections
to Mr. Aronson’s plans to upgrade and improve his business/property. In fact we welcome any
improvements to the neighborhood. Mr. Aronson’s trucks use our street (Newcomb Street) regularly
and we have had some problems in the past with trucks speeding down our narrow road. However,
after speaking to Mr. Aronson regarding this situation, most of his drivers are using more care while
navigating our street. This leads us to believe that he is a responsible business owner. We truly
appreciate his efforts and concerns in this matter. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Mr.
Aronson all the best in his business ventures. Thank you! Connie L. Fish 6 Newcomb Street
Queensbury, NY 12804”
MR. RINGER-What’s the address, Fish’s address?
MRS. MOORE-Six Newcomb Street.
MR. RINGER-That would be on the Corinth Road, then, that would be across the street.
MRS. MOORE-Across the street.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. You heard some of the comments. The black top versus the gravel. What are
the possibilities of?
MR. LEO-Which area, the 3300 square foot area that we’re going to re-do? That area you’re talking
about?
MR. RINGER-Okay. That’s going to be black top.
MR. LEO-That area we could probably black top with no problem.
MR. RINGER-Across the street?
MR. LEO-I can’t say anything about that.
MR. RINGER-This water runoff that Mr. Winslow was talking about.
MR. LEO-We’ll do what we want to do there, okay. We’re going to black top 15 feet off his fence,
which is a fire access road. Then I have a berm going in there. So any water that comes down that
yard now is going to stop right there, you know, it’s not going to go into his yard anymore.
MR. RINGER- It is going in his yard now?
MR. LEO-There is some of it going into his yard, because that lot is just flat, and whatever water
comes down Main Street and off the other parking, just wash it down through, but we sort of put a
stop on it, until we got all the okays. So we could do it once and be done with it.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but you said you were here before in ’97 you were here when they put the
addition on? Was there any talk about the stormwater management or how that was going to be
handled?
MR. LEO-Everything sort of changed since that 1997 addition, because we were supposed to have
more property in the back, which gave us more green area, but we didn’t wind up with the piece of
property to the south of us. So that sort of changed all our area for permeability. Okay, and that’s
why we had to change the back yard into a green area.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-You got an approval with the possibility that you may be getting additional land? We
gave you approval with that possibility?
MR. LEO-Well, I guess we had the land, and the person who owned it backed out of the deal, after
everything was said and done and the building was up, is what the problem was. It was nothing we
had control of at the time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, let’s see if we’ve got anymore questions from the Board.
MR. PALING-Well, I think that we ought to require this applicant to give us the kind of information
that we ask everyone to give, a consolidated, complete print, a list of plantings, stormwater runoff
plan and then whatever is or is not going to be black topped. That’s only what we ask of anyone,
and I don’t see it here in understandable form.
MR. RINGER-I certainly agree with you. Bob. Anything else?
MR. PALING-No, I don’t think so.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with Bob. I’m a little confused and I just need to have everything in
front of me.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And with the plantings, it’s now spring. When do you project everything to
be completed, the construction to be completed?
MR. LEO-It all depends on when we can get the okay from the Board.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know, pending that.
MR. LEO-Within the next month it should be done.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, it’s a month long project?
MR. LEO-More or less, yes. We already contacted a landscaper.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and have you gone to the Beautification Committee?
MR. LEO-We’ve gone to Beautification. They’re okay with this.
MR. VOLLARO-The thing that I would want to see is some sort of stormwater management report,
something that let’s us know or me know or the rest of the Board know that the water generated on
that lot stays on that lot, either through drywells, an absorption field, a pond or whatever you want to
do, but having water go off the property onto somebody else’s land is, first of all, we usually don’t
allow anybody to do that. Water’s got to be retained on your own property when you develop it.
MR. LEO-Most of the water, I think, that goes into Randy’s yard comes from the road. It just runs
down the road off the side of the road and into his yard. It’s not really being generated off our yard.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine, but we don’t know that. I don’t know that, as a Board member. I
don’t know, maybe the other Board members do, but I would like to see something in a stormwater
report that says you’ve done the things on that piece of property, retained the water on that property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The issue of the shiny roof, what can you do about that?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know what we can do about that, because we aren’t looking at a plan to put a
building, we’re looking at a plan for the parking lot. If he painted that, I don’t know. Okay. Let’s
ask Staff. Cathy brought up the question of the roof. Is there something we could do to say?
MRS. MOORE-You can request something of the applicant, but it’s still, well, I don’t know, I don’t
know what type of roof it is, and things like that. You may ask the applicant to ask the owner if
there’s a possibility of changing the roof color, and if he can’t, then he should be able to provide you
with an explanation of why.
MR. RINGER-It looks like we’re going to table this. Perhaps Staff could get up and take a look at
that, too, and see, you know, we’ve heard from the public comment, and see if that does become a
problem.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, we have deliberated so much with projects with the lighting,
to make sure that we have the proper lumination and it doesn’t obstruct people’s vision and hinder
their tranquility and peace in their back yard, well, to me, this is kind of analogous to that, only, you
know.
MR. LEO-All it is is a galvanized roof on a 60 by 100 building. There was no way of me knowing
which way the sun was going to hit it and what kind of glare would come off it. It’s not pointed at
him.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I understand that.
MR. RINGER-I think maybe we should let Staff take a look at that with those thoughts in mind and
maybe Staff could come up with some idea. I mean, we’re not looking at a new building. We’re
looking at a parking lot, and the building’s already there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that, but.
MR. PALING-I’ll shed a little light on that. I don’t think there is anything that covers reflection or
glare. I’m going to bring this up to the Steering Committee, which I’m a part of, in the re-write of
the Ordinance, because we do have vibration, odor and noise, and I think we ought to put the sweep
of lights, and I think we ought to put something in there about reflection and glare and day time
conditions.
MR. RINGER-But we don’t have anything in there now, Bob?
MR. PALING-Not that I know of, no. I have one other question, if I could. What did the
Beautification Committee approve?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good question.
MR. LEO-The type of shrubbery that we were going to put in the planter boxes, and around the
berm.
MR. PALING-We’ve asked for a list, but it’s kind of, if this were what they were looking at, I’d be
mystified. We should have that clarified, what they’ve approved.
MR. RINGER-Okay. What I’m looking at is tabling this thing, and asking them to come back with a
new print, showing us exactly what he’s going to do there, showing the plantings and stuff, a
stormwater management report, and more information on blacktop, that that’s going to be black
topped, and if we table this, when would you be able to get this?
MR. LEO-I’ll call him tomorrow and see what he wants to do.
MR. RINGER-When would have to have that for next month’s meeting, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-May 31 is our deadline.
st
MR. LEO-It’s possible. I’ll come see her tomorrow and see exactly what I need, and I’ll call Mr.
Aronson and see how fast I can get him to do stuff. He’s out of town for the next three weeks, but I
can get a hold of him.
MR. RINGER-Well, would you like us to table it then? Let’s see, when is our first and second
meeting in June?
MRS. MOORE-Why don’t you table it for a meeting, a Planning Board meeting in June.
MR. RINGER-Since I left the public hearing open, I’ve got to be probably more specific on the date,
don’t I, Laura?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the 20 and the 27 would be our meetings.
thth
MRS. MOORE-Well, because sometimes we have to juggle the agendas, it would be better, I think, if
you tabled it to a meeting in June, and indicate that the deadline application is May 31 for
st
information to be submitted for the June agenda.
MR. RINGER-If I table it that way, with the public hearing still open, how would we notify the
public that it’s going to be the first meeting in June or the second meeting in June?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MRS. MOORE-We don’t notify the public again.
MR. RINGER-I know, but normally if I leave a public hearing open, and we table something, we
give them a date as to when we’re going to?
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. You’re welcome to do so.
MR. RINGER-I would rather give, since we have some comment, I would rather put a date on there.
So I would look for the last meeting in June, the 27.
th
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. RINGER-So we’ll table this.
MRS. MOORE-Before you make your motion, why don’t you, the Board discuss the list of items
that you’re going to table him for. I’ve made a list, and maybe I can just briefly review it with you,
before you make the motion.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-I have, Number One, Staff to review the roof glare, and report back to the Board
with information as to can the color be changed. Number Two, the applicant is to provide a revised
plan that identifies the entire property, the plantings to be installed, the existing plantings, and
Number Three, the applicant provide a stormwater information about the site, and my question to
the Board is whether they want a report or whether they want a statement from an engineer that may
indicate that the plan as presented maintains stormwater on site.
MR. VOLLARO-The second.
MR. RINGER-I would definitely look toward the second, also.
MRS. MOORE-Just a statement.
MR. RINGER-From an engineer.
MRS. MOORE-From an engineer.
MR. VOLLARO-That says that the water on that site will be retained on that site, and if it can’t, then
he has to propose either drywells or whatever mitigation he wants to propose to retain the water on
the site.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Was there anything else that I missed?
MR. RINGER-I’d also like, I think we should get the minutes of the meeting for the 1997, when we
approved the last.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don’t know whether that’s something that you want in your motion, but, I
was just trying to, that’s not a problem to do. I can do that as part of Staff Notes.
MR. RINGER-I think we should have them.
MR. PALING-Dimensions of the black top.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, noted on the plan.
MR. PALING-Right.
MRS. RYBA-I just wanted to make one clarification, which is, rather than say Staff looking at the
color of the roof, that we say that we look at how to mitigate the glare.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-I was thinking along those lines myself, rather than to say color, to see what could be
done. If that does present a problem, or Staff feels it’s a problem, how it may be mitigated. Okay.
I’ll make that motion. I need a second, then.
MR. METIVIER-I’ll second it.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A
PROVISIONS, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony
Metivier:
Until the last meeting in June, June 27, for Staff to review the roof glare, and report back to the
th
Board with information as to how to mitigate the glare, the applicant is to provide a revised plan that
identifies the entire property, the plantings to be installed, the existing plantings, and the applicant
provide a stormwater information about the site, a statement from an engineer that may indicate that
the plan as presented maintains stormwater on site, and dimensions of the blacktop noted on the
plans.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott, Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You may want to get together with Laura to see exactly what you need to do. Okay?
MR. LEO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1999 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED GARRY & SHIRLEY NELSON OWNER: SAME ZONE: LC-10A
LOCATION: WEST OF THUNDERBIRD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE A 25.65 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 15.16 AC. AND 10.39
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 85-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: 25.65 +/- ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
GARRY NELSON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Subdivision No. 11-1999, Final Stage, Garry & Shirley Nelson, Meeting Date: May 16,
2000 “Staff Notes: The application for a two lot subdivision was tabled at the April 25, 2000
meeting. The Board requested the following information: 1. A note to be added to the final plans in
regards to erosion and sediment control; 2. Another note to be added to the final plans in regards to
a deeded right of way; and 3. To provide a driveway profile to be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The
applicant has supplied a driveway profile and notes added to the final plat. Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the two lot subdivision as submitted.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. NELSON-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. NELSON-Garry Nelson, 38 Thunderbird Drive, Queensbury, NY.
MR. MAC EWAN-And it looks like everything is in order.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-No? What are we missing?
MR. RINGER-The Fire Chief.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. VOLLARO-The Fire Chief. We need the Fire Marshal, I guess, or the Fire Chief, our Fire
Marshal has put a letter in to say due to the fact I’m unfamiliar with the specific angle of approach
and angle of departure requirements of fire apparatus which respond to this area, etc., etc. So he’s
passed this on to Chief Richard Jones of Queensbury Central Fire for a response, and we don’t have
that response yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff have any comments to that?
MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that the Chief has discussed it with the applicant, and maybe
you would like to hear from the applicant about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you been contacted by Queensbury Central?
MR. NELSON-No. I contacted Dick Jones, and I told him what it was all about, and he did not get
back to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-He did not get back to you?
MR. NELSON-No, sir. Something that might be helpful. I kind of took a reading on Thunderbird
Drive. It’s about a 16% slope, as compared to where my driveway, or this driveway here will be,
average out at 11, and the ingress and egress onto Thunderbird, it’s almost a straight shot, because
Thunderbird has a real hook in it, and this driveway will go right straight at that hook.
MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, what we were looking for was just basically an approval from local fire
companies that the apparatus will adequately get up the driveway, the proposed drive. Is that where
we are on that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? Well, I guess I would propose that we move this thing
with the condition of approval that it adequately serves fire apparatus, that you get this sign off from
Queensbury Central prior to your subdivision plat being signed. Does it sound doable? Does
someone want to introduce a motion?
MR. NELSON-Can I say one more thing? Does it matter that there’s a fire hydrant right at the foot
of Thunderbird Drive?
MR. RINGER-Well, we’re going to get water there. The problem is getting the trucks up there.
That’s the problem is getting the trucks up there.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s about an 1100 foot run.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was our concern. Larry, you’re a volunteer fireman.
MR. RINGER-Normally, we hook up at the hydrant and run a truck up to the scene and relay from
the hydrant up, pumping off the hydrant with the truck, but getting that truck up there, or even
putting the tower up, our ladder up there is something that Dick should take a look at, to make sure
that we can get up there and do the necessary turns and stuff that we may have to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you guys responded to calls in the past of a similar type terrain?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Difficult for you to access or not difficult?
MR. RINGER-Well, it depends on the time of year, of course. In the winter time, you’re not going
to get up there probably. You may not get up there. I won’t say you won’t get up there. You may
not get up there. We’ve had cases where we’ve had a fatality because we couldn’t get a truck up, over
on, off West Mountain Road, about 20 years ago. It’s just something that Dick would have to
determine if he feels that, you know, I don’t anticipate you’re going to have a real problem, but it’s
something that I think we should make sure before we approve it. We can put the trucks most
anywhere, if we can get them up there. We’d have to back them out because we can’t turn them
around. Dick would want to look at the width. He would want to look at the height, what trees and
stuff might be there, I’m sure.
MR. NELSON-But none of that’s finished. I mean, this is all in the proposal stage. There is an old
roadway. It’s kind of an old farm road.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-He’d have to make some decisions based on the print that he’s looking at, and the
topography of the land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-I think Staff has a suggestion that we may be able to submit a letter to Chief Jones
requesting a response, and if no response is given, then it’s considered that it’s an acceptable
driveway, in regard to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not looking for that, no.
MR. SCHACHNER-From my standpoint, I don’t recommend that sort of default provision, for our
own Fire Company. I mean, I don’t see any reason, I mean, I’m not familiar with any Fire Company
in Queensbury ever refusing to respond to a request from the Planning Board for input. I don’t
know. Is that where you’re coming from, that you’ve had some difficulty with this Fire Company?
MRS. MOORE-No, I’m not explaining that at all. It’s that we did give a timeframe of response, and
we didn’t receive a response yet.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So you have had difficulty with the Fire Company getting them to
respond to inquiry, is what you’re saying.
MRS. MOORE-This one.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d feel more comfortable having something that’s formal from the Fire
Company, they’re saying it’s not a problem or it is a problem, prior to the plat being signed.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Yes. That sounds to me like a pretty straightforward approach.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, then?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1999 GARRY &
SHIRLEY NELSON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 11-1999 Garry & Shirley
Nelson to subdivide a 25.65 +/- acre parcel into two lots of 15.16 acres and 10.39 acres, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 3/13/00 consists of the following:
1. Application w/three drawings and map dated 1/31/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/25/00 - Staff Notes
2. 4/05/00 - Meeting Notice
3. 4/14/00 - PB from M. Travis - Dep. Highway Superintendent
4. 7/20/99 - PB minutes from Sketch Plan review
5. Undated - Drawing showing house, septic and well location
6. 5/2/00 - C. Jones from L. Moore – request for review
7. 4/26/00 - L. Moore from G. Nelson – slope info., request for % of slope to be added to points
along road
8. 5/10/00 - Rec’d. revised map
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 4/25/00 concerning the above project (certified mail
receipts received); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered,
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA negative declaration; and/or if the application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved based on the resolution prepared by Staff
2. To add to that, that based on an agreement from Queensbury Central Fire Company, that fire
apparatus can negotiate an 11% grade, and
3. Prior to signing the plat there be notification from the Fire Company that that can be done.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED BYRON AND JUDY RIST OWNER: SAME ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION:
CORNER OF BAY AND ELLSWORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A
16.14 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 6.00 ACRES AND 10.14 ACRES. CROSS
REFERENCE: SB 8-1999 TAX MAP NO. 28-1-16 LOT SIZE: 16.14 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on April 27 has been left open and there is one
th
tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2000, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Byron and Judy Rist,
Meeting Date: May 16, 2000 “Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision in the
Rural Residential-Three Acre zone. The six acre parcel will be accessed from Ellsworth Road and
the 10.14 acre parcel will be accessed from Bay Road. The proposed lots are in excess of the zoning
requirements and the plans show proposed locations of the house septic, well and drive area. Staff
has requested information on the perc tests, driveway slope, and future intentions of the property.
The perc tests are forthcoming. The driveway slope will not exceed 10%; it will range from 8% to
8.5%. The applicant’s agent has suggested to the applicant that there be no further subdivision due
to steep areas and the location of intermittent streams. The Comprehensive Plan indicates this area
(Neighborhood 2) should remain rural in nature and preserve the scenic views to and from Lake
George and other vistas. Recommendations: Staff recommends: 1. That sketch plan be waived;
and 2. Preliminary and final approval of the two lot subdivision with the condition that there be no
further subdivision and that a note be added to the final plat stating that.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Any County on this?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. STEVES-Certainly. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves, and with me is the
owner, Byron Rist. As Staff has noted, this is a two lot subdivision. This property was before the
Board a couple of years ago for the same, for a two lot subdivision for the land north and south of
Ellsworth Road, and now we’re taking the larger parcel, on the north side of Ellsworth Road and
along Bay Road on the west side, and breaking it into two lots, because of the constraints of the
property. There is ample room for the two lots, but it would be very difficult to create more than
that, and the client would like to retain the rural atmosphere, and we have no problem. I’ll let the
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
client speak on his behalf for that. As far as I know, as agent, we have no problem in leaving it as a
two lot and putting that note on the map, and as far as the driveway, yes, it ranges between eight and
eight and a half at the steepest portion, which is well within the range of the driveway, and as far as
the deep test, the perc test information, Tom Nace, who is in the audience with us tonight, did do
both, or actually my crew did the perc test and Tom did the deep tests, and there was no problem as
far as the soils or percolation rate on the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions?
MR. METIVIER-Will these proposed houses be coming out on Ellsworth or on Bay?
MR. STEVES-One on Ellsworth and one on Bay.
MR. METIVIER-I just noticed that they’re on an incline there, coming over, when you’re coming
out of Ellsworth. So how far up would the second driveway be?
MR. STEVES-As you can see on the plan, the second driveway is at least 200 feet or so up north
from Ellsworth Road.
MR. METIVIER-So you’re up more toward the crest of that hill?
MR. STEVES-Yes. So you can see in both directions.
MR. METIVIER-You can see in both directions?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. My only concern would be there wouldn’t be enough, if a car was coming
over the hill.
MR. STEVES-No, you can see in both directions. You can see the contours as they sweep onto the
road there. There’s a location where you can see in both directions, and I believe there’s an existing
road there now. It’s right where the existing logging road, a road was there.
MR. RINGER-This is the second one in a row that we’ve had that the driveway is just out of sight.
The reason you put the house way back there is because of the contour of the land?
MR. STEVES-Yes, and there’s no question, if you look at the front, with the severity of the grade in
the front, that legend stuff in there, and the acceptable soils and level area for the house, that’s the
best location for it, and that’s the reason for it. Now as far as the driveways that link, yes, to get up
to the house site, no question, that’s where it has to go, but as far as the grade, no, you’re well within
the confines of the 10%.
MR. VOLLARO-Defining the 10% slope there, we’re looking at about it looks to me like roughly a
60 foot rise. Am I about right with that?
MR. STEVES-I think you’re, I believe it’s around the 50 range.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’ll fall well under 10%, as long as that distance is.
MR. STEVES-I ran a profile, and like I said, it’s about, the maximum grade is eight and a half.
MR. VOLLARO-How about, there’s some information on perc tests, requested information on perc
tests. I didn’t see it in here, or am I missing it? Has the perc test come through?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Did it?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. RINGER-But we haven’t got it.
MR. STEVES-Mr. Nace will come up, and he has that information in his file.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. He has it. We don’t have it here.
MR. STEVES-No. We have it now, and surprise the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-And why are we getting it now?
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-Good question. We will make sure it’s on the final plat. The perc tests were about a
minute and a half. There were three of them done, and the test pits, these two lots, the one to the
south was good soils down to 72 inches. The northernmost one was reasonable soil down to 30
inches. So that’ll require just what they call a shallow absorption trench system, which is a standard
system.
MR. VOLLARO-Before the final plats are signed, it’ll be on?
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-He has a Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 1-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
BYRON & JUDY RIST, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2000 BYRON
& JUDY RIST, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage Subdivision No. 1-2000
Byron & Judy Rist to subdivide a 16.14 ac. parcel into two lots of 6.00 acres and 10.14 acres, (Tax
Map No. 28-1-16.1/Cross Reference Sub. 8-1999), and;
WHEREAS, the application received 3/29/00 consists of the following:
1. Letter requesting waiver from Sketch, Preliminary & Final Stage application w/map S-1 dated
3/21/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/27/00 Staff Notes
2. 4/27/00 S. Rist from L. Moore – prel. Stg. Ap. Notification info
3. 4/06/00 Meeting Notice
4. 5/04/00 Meeting Notice
5. 5/5/00 L. Moore from M. Ryba regarding further subdiv. and slope concerns
6. 5/9/00 Reference Info from CLUP – Sect. 4, Neighborhoods, Issues & Recommendations
regarding Hillside development
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 5/16/00 concerning the above project (certified mail
receipts received); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved as written in the prepared resolution with the following conditions:
a. Sketch Plan be waived,
b. Preliminary approval of a two lot subdivision with the condition that there be no further
subdivision and that a note to that effect be added to the final plat, and
c. The perc tests as read to the Board becomes part of the file, and the profile of the slope to
be on the final plat, of that eight to ten percent degree slope.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, do you want to introduce the Final?
MR. PALING-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2000 BYRON & JUDY
RIST, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage Subdivision No. 1-2000 Byron &
Judy Rist to subdivide a 16.14 ac. parcel into two lots of 6.00 acres and 10.14 acres, (Tax Map No.
28-1-16.1/Cross Reference Sub. 8-1999), and;
WHEREAS, the application received 3/29/00 consists of the following:
1. Letter requesting waiver from Sketch, Preliminary & Final Stage application w/map S-1 dated
3/21/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 4/27/00 Staff Notes
2. 4/27/00 S. Rist from L. Moore – prel. Stg. Ap. Notification info
3. 4/06/00 Meeting Notice
4. 5/04/00 Meeting Notice
5. 5/5/00 L. Moore from M. Ryba regarding further subdiv. and slope concerns
6. 5/9/00 Reference Info from CLUP – Sect. 4, Neighborhoods, Issues & Recommendations
regarding Hillside development
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 5/16/00 concerning the above project (certified mail
receipts received); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved as written in the prepared resolution with the following conditions:
a. Sketch Plan be waived,
b. Final approval of a two lot subdivision with the condition that there be no further
subdivision and that a note to that effect be added to the final plat, and
c. The perc tests as read to the Board becomes part of the file, and the profile of the slope to
be on the final plat, of that eight to ten percent degree slope.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC.
OWNER: SAME AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG
BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS PARK ITH
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,2000 SQ. FT. SELF STORAGE BUILDING. SITE
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE NEW GRAVELED ACCESS DRIVE. NEW USES IN LI
ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 62-89, SB 4-1997, SP 23-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/00 TAX
MAP NO. 137-2-4.1, 4.3 LOT SIZE: 5.07 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-26
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 30-2000, Exit 18 Business Park, Inc., Meeting Date: May 16, 2000
“Staff Notes: The applicant proposes a 6,200 +/- square foot self storage building. The self storage
building is part of a self storage complex located on two adjoining parcels. The complex consists of
three self storage units on parcel 137-2-4.3 and one self storage building on parcel 137-2-4.1 both
owned by Douglas Mabey. They range in size from 3,900 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Drives
are shared. It is not clear how one would enter the area to the proposed unit from the adjoining
parcel. The Exit 18 Business Park was proposed by site plan in July of 1997 (SP 23-97); a self storage
unit measuring 200’ x 50’ and a 24,000 square foot warehouse addition. The proposal received a
permit extension in July of 1998 to August 31, 1999. The extension and the site plan has since
expired causing new site plan review. This proposed self storage building is smaller than the 1997
proposal. The layout is similar to other self storage units in Queensbury. The applicant has
indicated there are no plans at this time to add additional self storage buildings. The access drive
paths and the self storage buildings can be seen from the Northway and are also visible from Big
Boom Road. The self storage buildings are fenced and have access gates for moving of items.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the site plan with the following conditions: 1.
Revised plans identifying the entire self storage complex, showing drive paths to the proposed
storage area, and showing how the site is fenced and gated: and 2. Additional landscaping to be
added to the rear property line for screening from the Northway.”
MRS. MOORE-And Mr. Nace has provided us with an updated plan that addresses Staff concerns.
That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to quickly do the C.T. Male comments?
MRS. MOORE-This was received on May 16, 2000, addressed to Mr. Round, “Dear Mr. Round: We
are in receipt of a revised Preliminary Plan and the Storm Water Management Plan for the above
referenced project. The resubmittal consists of 13 pages of information that was received by fax at
our office. The resubmittal contains a letter addressed to yourself dated May 15, 2000, excerpts from
the revised plans, excerpts from a map that covers the adjoining property and a revised Stormwater
Management Report dated May 15, 2000. The information contained in the resubmittal addresses all
of the comments that we made in our comment letter dated May 11, 2000. We have no further
comments at this time.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, representing the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. NACE-The floor is mine, okay. We are proposing a new self-storage building on the site. As
Laura pointed out in her Staff Notes, this self-storage building had been part of a previous approval
that was never built. The size of it has actually been reduced a little bit from the previous proposal.
Staff had comments and also Warren County Planning Board had comments regarding the visibility
from the Northway. In reaction to that, we have provided a revised plan that shows some arborvitae
planted along the rear. If you look at it from the Northway, it’s, I don’t know why, but for some
reason somebody has cleared out, on the Northway property, cleared the under story away from the
existing trees that are adjacent to this property. So it’s not the high height that we need to fill in. It’s
we need to keep something that will have some down low screening to it. The existing, along the
existing buildings, there’s, well, let me point that out, along the back of the existing building, which is
here, at this point, there’s really fairly minimal room to do anything. There’s a drive, a necessary
drive there for access to the building, and there’s really not any room on the applicant’s property to
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
do any screening there. We came down where there was a little more width and put in arborvitae
there, and then we screened the entire section behind the proposed building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. NACE-That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, as far as our Ordinances go, can you have an access within
this 30 foot setback area? What is the definition of your 30 foot setback area?
MR. NACE-It’s building setback.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just for building setback, there’s nothing over there that says you can’t
have access right close up to the property line?
MR. NACE-I think the only places you can’t have parking or, well, I don’t think there’s anywhere
that excludes a driveway going through a setback, but in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, you’re
excluded from having parking within that setback.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the first building, existing building, do you know how that came to be?
How long has that thing been there?
MR. NACE-I have no idea. By the looks of the building, it’s been there quite a while. I don’t know,
did you discover anything in your research?
MRS. MOORE-No, I did not.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of one of those mushrooms in the night time things that popped up?
MR. NACE-I have no idea, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On the small drawing, the 1991 drawing, I think it’s 1991, from Leon Steves,
I think you make mention in here somewhere, and I was looking for it, that you had sketched out a
road path?
MR. NACE-Well, I tried to simply sketch out where it’s paved and where there’s gravel. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see where you’re at.
MR. NACE-Okay. In essence, when you get back behind the self storage buildings, this is all gravel
in here. It provides access to both of these buildings and to both of these buildings along behind
here. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I was looking for something that looked like an access road or something like that.
MR. NACE-There’s really, if you’ve been out to the site, once you get back into the building area, it’s
sort of free access anywhere.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, all around. There’s a thing in the Staff notes that says the applicant has
indicated there are no plans at this time to add additional self storage buildings. Is that statement
something we should know something about, or is the applicant going to build any more on that
property?
MR. NACE-Staff asked me if there were any immediate plans for additional, coming back in a year
or something with additional units.
MR. VOLLARO-So he doesn’t know.
MR. NACE-Exactly. It’s a large property.
MR. VOLLARO-I just was wondering how important that statement really is.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. I mean, if he changes his mind and wants to propose
something, we could require site plan approval.
MR. NACE-I think some of that may have been generated, you know, we’re scaling down
considerably from the previous proposal.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I just wanted to make sure Staff didn’t want something put in the motion
that eliminated that, and I didn’t see any need for that. So that answers my question there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I think that’s it for me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see that you’re taking out that existing fence to build the building, but you’re
still going to leave that electric gate up.
MR. NACE-We’re actually moving it a little bit, but, yes, we’re removing the existing fence that
would interfere with where the building is going to be, and then we’re putting in a new fence to
control access.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I looked at that gate. Has anybody ever been locked in there?
MR. NACE-I don’t think so.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was kind of scary.
MR. NACE-I’m not sure that they ever use it, to tell you the truth. I’ve never seen it closed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Bob?
MR. PALING-What is the height of the building?
MR. NACE-It would be the same as the existing. I asked the owner that question. If I remember
right, it’s not very high. It’s like 10 feet, 10 and a half feet.
MR. PALING-I thought it was taller, and I wondered how you stored things.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. PALING-So it’s around 10 feet.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. PALING-That’s the only question I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any chance of getting you to put up more arborvitae than just 12?
MR. NACE-Like I just said, it’s difficult behind the existing building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Heading north.
MR. NACE-Behind the proposed building?
MR. MAC EWAN-Picking up right at the end of your row and continuing north along the property
line.
MR. NACE-Yes. I’m sure we could put in another half a dozen.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about another dozen?
MR. NACE-Half a dozen. I should have started with three.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I know it would go great strides in improving the visibility from the
Northway, getting an arborvitae buffer up there, and I know I, personally, have had numerous
comments, not necessarily negative, but comments.
MR. NACE-Sure. Well, with the disturbance on that lot just to the north, that becomes very visible.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would go a long way in community spirit.
MR. NACE-How does the rest of the Board feel?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m never one to answer very well on arborvitaes or plantings or things like that.
Whatever.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. PALING-I would ask how wide are they at maturity? If we required that, are you going to have
the trees jamming one another and they don’t live?
MR. NACE-Well, no. What Craig is saying would go on to the Northway.
MR. VOLLARO-He wants to keep going.
MR. NACE-Arborvitae, one of the reasons I used it, it’s fairly narrow, okay. It’s not like a, and it
keeps vegetation down low. We originally were thinking white pine, but white pine, in 10 years,
would be up fairly high and you’d have to trim the vegetation down low. So it wouldn’t spread out
into the drive areas, but if you’re talking about covering the whole back of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m not looking to go that far up. I’m just looking to make it, you know, if
you put another 12 it’s not going to take you all the way to your property line. Another 12 would
probably take you about where you’ve got, just about to where you’ve got that 30 foot setback note.
MR. NACE-Yes, okay. The owner will probably yell and scream, but what the hell, why not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want
to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. It’s the Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 30-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2000 EXIT 18 BUSINESS PARK, INC.,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan 30-2000, Exit 18 Business Park, Inc.
for expansion of the business park with construction of a 6,2000 sq. ft. self storage building. Site
improvements include new graveled access drive, (Tax Map No. 137-4.1, 4.3) and;
WHEREAS, the application received 4/26/00 consists of the following:
1. Application Stormwater Management Report revised 4/26/00 and map 47303, sheet 1 of 1 dated
4/24/00
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/16/00 Staff Notes
2. 5/10/00 Warren Co. Planning Board
3. 5/9/00 Notice of Public Hearing
4. 5/9/00 Fax to T. Nace from L. Moore – Follow to Note to File of 5/2/00
5. 5/4/00 Meeting Notice
6. Undated Cross Reference Info re: BP
7. 5/2/00 Note To File – L. Moore
8. 8/21/97 Map – C3 from SP 23-97 (Landscaping Ideas) – Reference Material
9. 8/24/89 Map titled Site & Landscape Plan from SP 62-89 file – Reference Material
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 5/16/00 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);
WHEREAS, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if the application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the following additions:
a. To add to the documentation the 5/15 letter from Nace to C. Round re: SP 30-2000, also a
drawing No. 473303 dated 5/15/00,
b. A letter from C.T. Male Assoc. dated 5/15/00,
c. A stormwater management report that replaces the original stormwater management report
by Mr. Nace dated 5/15/00, and
d. The quantity of plantings changes from 12 to 24 new arborvitae trees, as noted on the
drawing, that they continue along the westerly property line, in a northerly direction.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, and thank you for your community spirit.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED FLR PARTNERSHIP OWNER: SAME
AGENT: R. MARK LEVACK ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 53-55 LUZERNE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A 29,528 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING AS A
WAREHOUSE FOR STORAGE OF PAPER FOR ENCORE. NO EXTERIOR OR
INTERNAL ALTERATIONS ARE PROPOSED. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
MARK LEVACK & FRED ALEXY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-2000, FLR Partnership, Meeting Date: May 16, 2000 “ The
applicant proposes to utilize an existing 29,528 square foot building for storage of paper. This is an
allowed use in the light industrial zone with site plan review and approval. There are no exterior or
interior changes proposed to the building or site. The warehouse facility anticipates 1-2 employees
and will operate from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. as needed. The building will be used for storage of paper and
may not be needed on a daily basis. The delivery vehicles will be semi-trucks and will deliver one
load daily if needed. The site access is a continuous open curb cut (340 ft.) that would benefit from a
more defined curb cut. Trucks can access the building from both the west and east side. The
applicant has indicated that trucks exit to the east. Since the facility is not used on a frequent basis,
there are no anticipated truck traffic conflicts. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of
the site plan as submitted with the following conditions: 1. That the road frontage curb cut be
reduced by placing landscaping boxes starting at the southeastern building corner and drive area, and
then running parallel along the property line with the front of the building until meeting the area
opposite the “new planter”, thereby increasing safety and aesthetics; and 2. That any of the following
changes come back before the Planning Board for site plan review and approval: a. Number of
employees b. Hours of operation c. Truck or other vehicular trips d. Use of the site”
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you go back to number one again and go over that, so I understand it. I
don’t fully understand what you’re talking about.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Number One about the road frontage curb cut.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t understand that, either.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. I have to open up the drawing. If you notice in front of the building,
there’s an area that says parking, and it doesn’t have spaces in it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s the area we’re talking about.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what are you looking to have accomplished there?
MRS. MOORE-Landscaping boxes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How close to the road are you looking for those things? Are you looking for that
parking area to be discontinued as a parking area? Is that what you’re looking for?
MRS. RYBA-Since I wrote that, I’ll comment on it. It’s all one open curb cut, along that entire
stretch there. So to increase the safety, rather than asking to dig up any black top, if you could
perhaps put landscaping box there, maybe knee height, two, two and a half feet high.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, where’s there? That’s what I don’t understand.
MRS. RYBA-All right. Along the property line, where it says parking, along Luzerne Road, P-1, Site
Plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a Town right of way.
MRS. RYBA-Of course not within the Town right of way, but within the property line.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How much room is there?
MR. MAC EWAN-The only reason why I’m kind of questioning this is because I drive by that site
every day.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-And knowing the history of the site past, with previous manufacturing operations
that have been in there, if you were to put some sort of planter along in there, it would really prohibit
good vehicle movement and parking in that assigned parking area. I mean, it’s not striped or
anything, but if you put planter boxes in there, that were on their property line that were off,
obviously out of the Town right of way, that you couldn’t park cars in there and back them out of
there without hitting those planter boxes.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Right now they do not have the number of employees that would warrant using
that parking area, and by not asking for, it’s a type of suggestion where it could be removed, should
the need arise. It’s not something that we’re asking to be bolted down. We’re not asking for gravel
to come up or blacktop to come up. So it is a suggestion to reduce that curb cut, since the parking
isn’t needed at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I have noticed, though, in the past couple of weeks, is tractor trailers
parked in there, which would be parallel to the road.
MRS. RYBA-If they’re loading in the back, why are they in the front?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question. Okay. Thanks. Good evening, gentlemen. Would you
identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. ALEXY-Good evening. I’m Fred Alexy. I’m one of the partners of FLR Partnership, and
accompanying me is Mark Levack, who represents us as a real estate agent. Did you want to take
over and make a comment about it, Mark?
MR. LEVACK-Sure. Good evening, members of the Planning Board. We’re here tonight asking for
forgiveness, as much as permission. The tenant that is currently in the property is Encore Paper
Company. They’re using the building as a somewhat dead storage, post consumer recycled bales of
storage. We had a short window of opportunity to put this deal together with Encore. They needed
space immediately. They were under dire pressure from the warehouse that had burned, and the
whole inventory of the market of warehousing had dried up, so to speak, and they were really
pressured to go in. So we opted to take our chances, knowing that their tenancy and their occupancy
was still subject to site plan approval, and they went in and, we put them in and they went in under
that understanding because of the timing that was involved with the deal. However, before doing
that, we had an opportunity to meet with and discuss this with the Town of Queensbury’s Planning
Department. We met with Dave Hatin. We met with Chris Jones.
MR. MAC EWAN-You met with them prior to Encore going in there?
MR. LEVACK-Absolutely. We took a position that we wanted to go through this as though we had
just received site plan approval, what would the Building Department require of us to put them in
there, and so far Fred has probably put about $2,000 into upgrading the lighting, upgrading the
emergency lighting, changing latch door handles, you know, essentially doing what it would take to
get acceptance from the Town of Queensbury’s Planning Department.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the Town gave their blessing to you?
MR. LEVACK-No. The Town did not give us their blessing. We went into it saying, we recognize
that their occupancy is still subject to this Town Planning Board’s approval or denial, but because of
the timing, because of the serious nature of Encore needing space, and because this tenant didn’t,
this landlord didn’t want to lose that tenant, we did go forward to put them in there. So I don’t think
there’s any mystery, but I wanted to give you a little background as to, you know, we weren’t callous.
Well, we didn’t put a commercial restaurant into somebody’s neighborhood. We put a warehouse
tenant into a warehouse. So we knew it was certainly a conforming use. The property has had a
history as a manufacturing facility. After Fred and his partners sold the company to Charlie Barber,
Charlie moved it across Town. Fred and his partners retained ownership in that particular building.
Fred has been seeking to sell the property with his partners, but in lieu of the sale, we’ve been renting
the property, and we had, as past tenants in there, we had Finch Pruyn paper company was using the
building, and almost an identical use, and they operated their auxiliary warehouse there very
successfully for the timeframe that they were there. After Finch Pruyn moved out, we put White
Bear Manufacturing in there, and White Bear was certainly using the property in a much more
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
intensive fashion than is being used today, as a manufacturing facility with the vehicular, you know,
more vehicular ingress/egress, more cars. They had more manufacturers there. So that certainly was
a higher utilization of the property than is being used under Encore today. Practically speaking, we
would ask that, we’re not seeking to make any modifications to the exterior of the building. We’re
not seeking to make any modifications to the interior of the building, and right now the building is
operating on a much less intensive fashion, certainly than it would as a manufacturing facility, and
that it really works fine the way it is right now, and the problem we have with imposing some planter
boxes is really two or three fold. One would be that if they were there in the winter time, the plows
would inevitably destroy them and bust them up. I don’t believe there’s ever been an accident of
anybody pulling out of that parking lot. Because it does have a long curb cut. It is a shallow parking
area, but because it does have a longer curb cut, it enables anybody that’s parked in that area to more
or less traverse the site to a point that they want to get out at, and it just seems to work, but from a
practical standpoint, the building is really not being utilized, and that area is not being utilized for
parking today. We do have CRT construction in the small office, and I think they have two day
employees, and the partners come and go, and all of the parking that they require is pretty much
utilized at the wider end of the lot. There is really no access to the building from that front area
that’s being proposed to be blocked off, if you will, with the planter. So there really, from a practical
standpoint, there isn’t a need for it, and we would ask you to be open and receptive on that, but
before we, I guess impose this maybe somewhat minor hardship on this applicant, I’d like to just
point out a couple of pictures I’d like you to take a minute to look at. The history of this property
has been one of evolution, and Fred and his partners, I think, should be given a medal for what
they’ve done to the facility over the life of the property, and what you’ll see in those pictures is that
they’ve really taken a super eyesore, a contaminated property, and they’ve been able to reconstruct
the property into a very handsome facility, all at considerable expense, and to their credit it looks, I
think, probably as nice as any manufacturing facility on the market today. So I think you have a very
conscientious owner here. He’s been very prudent and very diligent in his upkeep of the property,
even through some tenants that haven’t been the tidiest housekeepers. So I’d just submit to your
good judgement on what should be done with this, but practically speaking it isn’t being used.
MR. MAC EWAN-This construction company you just referred to, they have an office that would
be on the easterly side?
MR. LEVACK-It’s a detached freestanding office.
MR. MAC EWAN-That little first trailer, is that theirs, is that where you’re talking about, that little
field office trailer? I thought that was ENCON’s or somebody that was in there.
MR. LEVACK-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where is this tenant located in your building?
MR. ALEXY-They would be on the west end of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-At the west end of the property.
MR. ALEXY-In the freestanding building in the block building.
MR. RINGER-That’s that 2600 square foot building?
MR. LEVACK-Correct.
MR. ALEXY-Yes.
MR. PALING-There’s a connection between that and.
MR. ALEXY-That’s a walkway.
MR. RINGER-Yes, walkway.
MR. PALING-That’s a walkway.
MR. MAC EWAN-This CRT construction, they’re in where the trailer manufacturing used to be, in
that building? Is that where they are?
MR. ALEXY-No. They’re in the adjoining building. They’re in the small building, in the separate
building, and it’s not easily talked about until you look at the photographs.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The building that you’re referring to that they’re in is the one that used to
be the engineering offices and the accounting offices?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. ALEXY-That’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now I’m with the program.
MR. ALEXY-I’d like to make one other comment about the suggestions being made from a
cosmetic standpoint. That if we were to do anything from a cosmetic standpoint, such as the
plantings and that sort of thing, it would be an additional burden for us to maintain that, because
we’ve historically made mention and complained about the problems that we’ve had there in that
location being a low point in the spring, and any particular persistent rainfall we’ll get an awful lot of
water there that will lay there for a long time, particularly in the spring when there’s a lot of spring
melt of snow and so on, and puddles will last there for days. The passing traffic is generally going at
a fairly good rate, and go through that puddle, and they displace all the water along with the sand and
the salt, up on the area that we’re talking about, and if we were to put planters in there, all they would
do would be to be filled with the sand and the water that these cars have traveled through, and it
would be up to us to maintain that and keep it clean. So the easiest thing we find, in order to deal
with that, is to, once a year, hire a professional sweeper to come in and sweep that up, and it is thick.
It’ll go to about two or three inches thick of sand that’s thrown up the entire length of our property.
So it would be an additional maintenance burden for us, and I would just as soon have it maintained.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How long has this CRT construction been occupying that other building?
MR. ALEXY-Five or six months. Something on that line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does that require site plan review as well, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s two businesses you currently have operating in the building without site
plan approval.
MR. ALEXY-We wish it were one, but we just, we’ll be happy with the two.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions?
MR. VOLLARO-I happen to agree with, I have a note on here, it says who maintains the planters? I
have a general problem with planters being maintained in any event on almost every site that I see.
There’s planter boxes but nothing in them but dirt. They look worse than having nothing there, in
my opinion. Other than that, I don’t think I have any other questions on this site. It’s a pretty
straightforward use of an existing facility.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t want to get hung up on those planters, either. I think it’s a great site
and it’s fine with me.
MR. METIVIER-This is just temporary anyway, isn’t it?
MR. LEVACK-Yes. I think we’ll clearly be back here if we’re able to locate some ideal
manufacturing company that wants to make a product in there, and we’ll be back in front of you,
seeking to address a better larger parking lot in the rear to accommodate any additional parking that
may be required when we changed tenants.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have any questions on it, although I would like to make sure that we stipulate
that there’ll be no storage of trailers in the back of the building. It seems like quite often we’ll
approve something like this, and then three months later there’ll be eight trailers behind there
because they’ve filled the building up there and now they’re putting trailers out there to store the
paper in.
MR. ALEXY-We know of no plans, we certainly don’t have any plans.
MR. RINGER-Well, I’m sure you don’t, but I think if I would approve it, I’d like to make a
stipulation, because it happens so often that a warehouse will start and then all of a sudden they’ll fill
the warehouse and they’ll be putting trailers back there filled with paper.
MR. ALEXY-There is one storage bin back there now behind the office building that’s tucked in
near the landfill, that CRT uses for construction, equipment storage. It’s a container that they use
back there. That’s the only thing that I know of.
MR. RINGER-And that’s fine, and the plan’s fine with me. It’s just that I would like to see that
stipulation, because I’ve seen it happen where we’ll approve a warehouse, and then the warehouse
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
will become filled, and then all of a sudden you’ll see 48 foot trailers out in the back, use them for
storage. So I’d just like to have that in our approval, that there’s no storage of trailers back there.
MR. LEVACK-Can I ask you to keep open to the possibilities, I’d certainly suggest that storing them
in the front of the building, and I had heard mention here this evening that someone said they saw a
trailer out in front of the building. They’re not supposed to be in front of the building, but if you
look at the site plan, there’s seven acres there, and it’s all cleared all the way to the dump. You have a
waste transfer station on one side. You have an old landfill in the rear. You have a PCB
encapsulated tomb on one side, and you have a cemetery across the street. So we do enjoy
somewhat of a protected area with this particular site, and I do know that, in the business of storing
paper, from time to time, they have a back log or a bottleneck, if you will, from the time the box
trailer gets dropped to the time it gets delivered. So I wouldn’t want to constrain the operation too
substantially by not allowing them to put box trailers there, but I think that, clearly there’s a point
that it becomes more than what was bargained for, and that there probably should be something said
on that, but it really is part of the process of putting stuff into a warehouse, and if they’re prevented
from doing that, and everything were only to be kept inside, then I think they’d not only have a
problem with this location, but probably every other location that they’re in as well. So I guess I’m
just asking that you keep open to the fact that these trailers do come and go, but they aren’t, I don’t
think it’s their intention to line these trailers up and make it a trailer storage yard, as much as a
transfer yard.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think it’s their intention either, Mark. I’m just saying that, from my own
experience, I know that when you get a warehouse, and particularly a paper warehouse, you get over
production, or whatever the case may be, and all of a sudden the warehouse becomes filled, and then
there’s no other place to put them, and you do have the facilities there, the land, for the trailers to go,
and it just seemed like a logical place to put them, and I wouldn’t want to see that happen without at
least coming back for an approval on it. So I would like to, and I’m only one person, but I’m just
saying that I think we should have some kind of a stipulation. We might say not more than two
trailers. That way if one trailer comes in and there is a problem with them loading it, it can be loaded
the next day.
MR. MAC EWAN-We kind of had this same kind of discussion with the AMG facility on Dix
Avenue, and on a regular basis, they’re parking empty trailers in front of the office building.
MR. LEVACK-We have a problem with that, as well, and we’ve addressed that with PACTIV, and
they’re working, we’re going to be back to you shortly on an improved lower graded tier, that puts
everything on the back of the site, as a drop area, but right now the landlord has a problem with
them parking in front. They do not have that area leased. They do not have access to that area, and
they are putting them there simply because they don’t have any place else to put them, but that is
definitely being addressed right now, and it shouldn’t be very long before that problem is solved.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. One question from me. Did you put the deal together for CRT
construction to go over there as well?
MR. LEVACK-We put CRT in there, yes.
MR. ALEXY-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. RYBA-I have a couple of questions. You had mentioned that you have other sites or other
operations where the trailers are stored. How many trailers are usually stored at the other
operations? Are they comparable to this one?
MR. LEVACK-No. Those are, I think they must have, over there right now, you’re talking about the
276 Dix Avenue facility?
MRS. RYBA-You mentioned other facilities. I don’t know which ones you meant.
MR. LEVACK-Yes. That I’d be happy to talk to you about another time, but that has nothing to do
with this application.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MRS. RYBA-Okay. I thought it might because you were referencing trailers, and I was just trying to.
MR. LEVACK-Two different tenants, two different properties.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. LEVACK-Two different deals. They have no relationship to one another. The only
relationship that they have is that there’s trailers associated with warehouses, and they have a
tendency, they can get out of hand, as Larry had mentioned, and it needs to be quantified, and it
needs to be controlled, or else you have a Dix Avenue scenario that we’re having to deal with right
now.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. The second question has to do with the parking area in the front. I know that
you were concerned about the aesthetics, but I had also mentioned the safety issue. I was thinking
about the ability for vehicles of backing up, and I don’t believe they’re allowed to back up onto the
road. Also, at some point, trucks will be coming up Pine Street and coming over to the Veterans
Park proposed Industrial Park. So I was just curious if you had any ideas on how to make that front
parking area a little bit more safe.
MR. LEVACK-Well, right now, it’s not.
MR. ALEXY-It’s not used. It’s not historically been used as parking because it’s impractical. To
gain access to the plant area, as the photograph shows, it’s more convenient for the occupants of the
building to park in the back of the building, with the exception of the office for the CRT
construction, which most people say from a parking standpoint, but the back of the building is more
practical from that standpoint. So keeping it free of cars in the front hasn’t been a problem,
historically, with White Bear, who had a number of employees, upwards of 40 people I guess at their
highest point, and there were no cars parked, save one abandoned car that we had to have removed
with a wrecker, but that was the only one that I know of. So I don’t think you’d have a problem with
that.
MRS. RYBA-I’m wondering if maybe the word “parking” should just be removed from the site plan,
then, if no one’s parking there anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Food for thought. Okay. Anything else? We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 31-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
FLR PARTNERSHIP, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please?
MR. RINGER-I’ll make a motion to Approve Site Plan No. 31-2000 for FLR Partnership, as per
resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions. One, that the conditions set forth in the
recommendations by Staff in their Staff Notes, recommendations One and Two. No, excuse me, we
decided against the boxes. I’m sorry. Recommendation Two in Staff Notes, and also that there be
no permanent storage of tractor trailers on the premises.
MR. MAC EWAN-Define “permanent”.
MR. RINGER-Well, I would think that Code Enforcement would have to determine what
permanent was. I mean permanent, to me, would be more than one or two days, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think if you want to put a condition like that in there, we’re better off putting a
quantity, not a length.
MR. RINGER-No more than two trailers be allowed on the site at the same time, but I think that’s
too restrictive, to tell you the truth.
MR. LEVACK-I think it may be.
MR. RINGER-But I think we’ve got to have something in there, and I really believe that what I said
will happen if we don’t put something in there, that warehouse will become filled, and there’s so
much room there that we will have trailers back there,
MR. PALING-How about limiting them to the rear of the building?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m concerned, I guess, about the remaining proposed condition number two,
which says that any of the following changes come back before the Planning Board for site plan
review and approval, and then lists four changes. I’m not sure I understand the validity, and most
importantly the enforceability and practicality of that condition. I haven’t heard a specific number o
employees right now, but whatever the number of employees is.
MR. VOLLARO-One to two.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If this condition means that if, next week, there becomes three
employees, this application has to come back before the Planning Board. If that’s your intent, that’s
fine, but I’d be surprised if that’s your intent. Similarly, although I’ve heard some general discussion
about trucks or vehicular trips, and hours of operation, again, I’m concerned that, you know,
conditions of course have to be literally construed and literally applied, and I’m not sure that your
intent is really as restrictive as that would be construed if it were challenged. Does my comment or
question make sense?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-So I think that bears some thought, and I think it fits a little bit within what
Larry’s talking about right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m with you and I’m in agreement with you.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and it kind of fits with Larry’s concern about the tractor trailers, also. I
think you need to figure out what it is you’re seeking to regulate or restrict and define that in a
reasonable and an enforceable manner.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the second half is what I’m concerned always about is the enforceability of
some of these things. I mean, we can put them in these motions, but I find enforceability to be a
problem, at least I’ve seemed to determine that from the past.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, naturally, from my end, I’m sensitive to that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. PALING-Well, Larry, is your question with that what it does to the aesthetics?
MR. RINGER-My concern is aesthetics, right, but I just don’t, I think they should come back. They
should use the building for storage of paper. If they want to use the back lot for the storage of paper
and tractor trailers, we should look at it, and that’s why I think we should have some kind of a
restriction as to the number of trailers that can be on the premises.
MR. PALING-If the trailers were on site, out of site, like at the rear of the building, I wouldn’t have
any objection.
MR. RINGER-Well, my problem with that, Bob, is when I’ve seen that in the past, the trailers that
are put there are junk type trailers, old rusted out boxes, and they really become deteriorated, and
they become infested with rodents and what not. Even though it’s in the back and out of sight, I still
think it should be something that we should be able to regulate, and that’s only my opinion, and I’ll
back off on the motion, certainly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where you’re going with this, then, is you don’t want to see trailers utilized as an
extension of storage, and maybe the motion should reflect that trailers on the premises must be
licensed and roadworthy trailers, because most that end up being used for a storage type trailer like
you’re referring to, i.e. somebody over on the other side of Town who does that, yes, are not
roadworthy trailers. I’m still talking farther west, where I’m thinking of a place that does that.
MR. RINGER-Yes, well, I’m thinking of the same place you are, but I’ve seen a lot of other places
that run into the same thing, and I was just trying to avoid it. That makes sense to me, roadworthy
or licensed.
MR. PALING-You don’t want them out front.
MR. RINGER-Well, they wouldn’t store them out front anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-But if you don’t specify, they could end up out front. So why don’t you give your
motion a whack again.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s try it again. I’d like to make a motion to Approve Site Plan No. 31-2000
for FLR Partnership with the resolution as prepared by Staff, eliminating Staff’s recommendations
but including the following conditions. One, the hours of operation shall be nine a.m. to five p.m.,
any change of the use of the site would automatically come back before us, wouldn’t it, Laura?
That’s one of your recommendations, but any use would automatically. So why would we put it in
there?
MRS. MOORE-It’s just an enforcement issue. We’ve had light industrial properties come in after
the fact. That’s why it’s in there. So it’s not an after the fact thought. It just reiterates to applicants I
light industrials that they have to come back for site plan review.
MR. RINGER-But they have to anyway. So I don’t see why putting something in twice, or having a
rule and then having to put it down someplace else.
MRS. MOORE-It’s a recommendation.
MR. RINGER-So I’ll say hours of operation, nine a.m. to five p.m. and that all trailers on the
premises shall be licensed and roadworthy.
MR. VOLLARO-And parked in the rear of the building.
MR. RINGER-And parked in the rear of the building.
MRS. MOORE-I’d like the plan revised to indicate that the Encore storage space is the 26,912
square foot, and that CRT is the 2,616 square feet, and that’s up to the Board if that CRT comes in
for site plan review.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think that we should make that part of the motion, because they’re in
violation already. They have to come in for site plan approval. I mean, they’re operating. If we put
that in our motion, are we granting them approval?
MRS. MOORE-No, you’re not.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-No. You’re just putting it on the public record is what you’re doing.
MRS. MOORE-That’s why I asked, I want the plan to be revised, but that second note that they
come in for a site plan review is up to the Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-That who comes in for site plan review, that other tenant?
MR. RINGER-Yes, that has not been here for site plan approval.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand. I’m just trying to figure out the propriety of making a condition
of approval of this operation that some other business come in for site plan approval. I’m not sure I
see the relationship there.
MR. RINGER-That’s what I was questioning.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m all for doing anything that encourages or forces the other user to come in
for site plan approval or review, I should say, I’m just not sure it’s appropriate to do that as part of a
motion on this property.
MR. VOLLARO-Well I think Mark knows that we want the second tenant to come in for site plan
review.
MR. RINGER-I really don’t feel that I need to put that in.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you do, either.
MR. RINGER-So what I’ve got on the motion is hours of operation, nine to five, that all trailers on
the premises be licensed and roadworthy, there be no storage of trailers on the premises.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m going to probably go back on something I just said. Marilyn has pointed
out to me that the other business is this, and I should have realized this is what you’re talking about.
It’s that other office that’s connected by the walkway to the same premises, and therefore it has
impact on the parking, the traffic, the ingress, the egress, the everything else. So I guess I think it is
appropriate for the Board to be concerned about the lack of site plan approval on this other
business, and if you want to condition this approval on that tenant being here within a certain
amount of time for site plan review, I don’t have any problem with that. I mean, I think Staff’s right.
I think this is integrally related to this project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s add the condition that CRT construction company submit an application by
May 31 to be on our June agenda.
st
MR. SCHACHNER-And if you all are making that a condition of this approval, that means that this
site plan is not approved until and unless that happens, I mean, finally, the condition is not fulfilled
until and unless that happens.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-And any operation prior to then would be in violation.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, your last comment, Mark, is anything prior to that would be in violation.
Are we saying that these gentlemen are in violation now?
MR. SCHACHNER-We don’t have to say it. I think they said it themselves.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in a sense we’re condoning that operation by doing this.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let’s remember that the Planning Board is not the enforcement arm, okay.
So you’re not really condoning. You are approving, if you take the action that you are contemplating
taking, you are conditionally approving an application for a use that unfortunately is already taking
place. The fact that it’s already taking place, which is news to me tonight, but the applicant’s been
pretty up front about that at least, is at best unfortunate, and at worst is subject to enforcement, not
by the Planning Board.
MR. PALING-Larry, nine to five, isn’t that impractical for them? Shouldn’t that say seven to six, or
something like that?
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. RINGER-I came up with the nine to five, Bob, because it was in the Staff Notes.
MR. PALING-Okay, but that seems, for this kind of an operation, it seems to restrictive. I would
think they start trucks rolling before nine o’clock.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you looking for?
MR. PALING-I would say something like seven to six.
MR. RINGER-That’s certainly okay with me. I didn’t want something rolling in there at night, but I
can change that to, seven to six is fine with me, Bob, if you think that’s more.
MR. PALING-That’s more practical.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2000 FLR PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by
Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 31-2000, FLR Partnership to
utilize a 29,528 sq. ft. building as a warehouse for storage of paper for Encore. No exterior or
internal alterations are proposed, Tax Map No. 118-1-4, 5.1, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 3/31/00 consists of the following:
1. Application w/map P-1 revised 3/12/99
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 5/16/00 Staff Notes
2. 5/10/00 Warren Co. Planning Board
3. 5/9/00 Notice of Public Hearing
4. 5/4/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on 5/16/00 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, if applicable, the plans submitted are prepared in accordance with Chapter 136 (Sewers
& Sewage Disposal) of the Town Ordinance and the New York State Department of Health; 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 the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
The applicant is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved with the following conditions:
a. That the hours of delivery be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
b. That all tractor trailers on the site be licensed and roadworthy
c. That a Site Plan Application from CRT has to be submitted to the Planning Office by May
31, 2000, and
d. All trucks or trailers be parked in the rear of the building.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. PALING-Idle rigs should be to the rear of the building. Just add that, that parked rigs should
be in the rear of the building.
MR. RINGER-And also a condition should be that all trucks be parked and idling at the rear of the
building, trucks parked or idle in the rear of the building.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MRS. MOORE-With the idling issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-He means trucks coming in to drop off trailers, pick up trailers.
MRS. MOORE-But you recognize someone’s going to read this resolution and just say trucks are to
be parked in the rear is fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Parked with their engines on or parked with their engines off.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Remove the word “idle”.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re parked, period.
MR. MAC EWAN-The motion is so amended to say that all truck trailer vehicles be parked or stored
in the rear portion of the parcel.
Duly adopted this 16 day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbott
MR. MAC EWAN-This is the fourth application in as many months that you’ve put in front of this
Board, and these comments are not directed to Mr. Alexy or anybody else you’ve represented in
front of this Board, but this is the fourth time in as many months you’ve come in with an application
for an applicant who’s already occupying the premises.
MR. LEVACK-I don’t think it’s the fourth in as many months.
MR. MAC EWAN-I will cite one to you.
MR. LEVACK-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-AMG, Dix Avenue. You were in here in February. Turner Machine, Corinth
Road, you were in here in March. Tonight.
MR. LEVACK-Turner was, but AMG wasn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-The AMG on Dix Avenue you did for PACTIV, you were in here in February,
and then tonight, and then we find tonight CRT construction. That’s four by my book. That’s four
too many.
MR. LEVACK-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Board expects all applicants and their agents to follow the same procedures
that everyone else follows to make an application to the Board. You gave pretty much the same
scenario. Well, it was a deal we had to put through real quick. It was an emergency thing. We
needed to occupy the space. It has the same tune I don’t think that we’re going to look for favorably
in the future. If you want to practice in front of this Board, we would ask that you to follow the
procedures that everyone else is expected to follow.
MR. LEVACK-I agree. Can I give you my thoughts on that?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s no comment to make, because quite frankly what you’ve done is not
acceptable. Okay.
MR. LEVACK-Well, I’d like to make a comment on that. You’ve made a comment that said that my
behavior is unacceptable. I’d like to respond.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can comment all you want, it’s not going to change my opinion.
MR. LEVACK-Okay, that’s your opinion. My opinion is that the business timetable doesn’t always
necessarily coincide with this Board’s timetable, and we do not scoff at the process when we put
these deals together because that window of opportunity is only so finite. Those deals are made
because these property owners have mortgages to pay, and the deal doesn’t wait. We go to the
Town, we handle the process. We’re not putting commercial restaurants in people’s neighborhoods.
We’re putting warehouse tenants into warehouses, and while I can appreciate the Board wanting to
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
have, you know, the package beforehand and have the say before hand, you have the right to deny
this after the fact. Your control is still unquestionable. But I want to comment that the Town of
Queensbury has a reputation for being a pro-business friendly community, and by working with an
applicant after the fact is pro-business friendly. The deal has a certain window, and that window is
gone in a matter of a day or a matter of a week, and I don’t feel that we need to make great excuses
for bringing a proper deal to a proper site after the fact. It’s something that we can talk about at
greater length under another.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing to talk about. Quite frankly, these Ordinances are what we go
by. I will tell you, you are the only person that I’ve ever heard say that you’re under a time crunch
deal. There are a lot of developers who come in here and do it in an orderly fashion.
MR. LEVACK-No question.
MR. MAC EWAN-And goes through the process like everyone’s expected to do. Just bear in mind,
next time things might not go the way you’d like them to.
MR. LEVACK-That may well be, but I’d like you to keep in mind as well that the deal does not
always have the same timeframe, and the deals were made, we live with the consequences, but we
didn’t scoff at the process. We met with the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-I will refer to this book again, Mr. Levack. Nowhere in there does it say anything
about a deal, timelines, deadlines or anything like that.
MR. LEVACK-You want to be 100% technical, I’ll agree with you 1,000 percent. I agree with you
1,000 percent.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then we’ll expect the next application you’ll have in front of us, that someone’s
not already occupying the building.
MR. LEVACK-Fair statement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are we in agreement on that?
MR. LEVACK-We’re in agreement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’d like to support the Planning Board Chairman’s comments, only to the effect
that, although this Board is not legally empowered to be the enforcer, I’m extremely distressed to
hear this recitation, as the Town’s Counsel, I’m extremely distressed to hear this recitation of
repeated blatant, flagrant, scoff law violations of the Town Zoning Ordinance and Site Plan Review
provisions, and I guess I’m going to say to the Planning Board as a whole, if you, you should bear in
mind that you certainly could, if you wish, at any time, pass any sort of resolution of
recommendation for enforcement action. You don’t have the right to be the police, but you do have
the opportunity, any time you wish, to pass a resolution recommending enforcement in certain ways,
and that resolution would be taken to the Town Board, and to us as Town Counsel, as well as the
Planning/Zoning and Code Enforcement Staff, and, you know, you do carry some weight. You’re
not completely non influential here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-And, you know, for what it’s worth, and I’ll state this on the record, there are a
number of occasions, both in Queensbury and elsewhere, where we have shut down businesses that
have done essentially what the applicant claims there are valid reasons to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. You’re all set.
MR. LEVACK-I appreciate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Bob, did you want to address the Board?
MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Two items. One of them I want to clarify the situation that we talked
about regarding septic systems and bedrooms being the criteria, versus area of the building being the
criteria. This really isn’t within the authority of this Board, but we can request the septic system be
examined, especially in the case of an addition to the house. In all WR zones, they apply area in
addition to the number of bedrooms when there’s any kind of a modification, and that’s where the
confusion came in, I think was the one that talked to me about it on the Town Board said it applies
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
to all zones, it doesn’t. It only applies to WR zones, and they look at bedrooms and they look at
area, and that’s in Section 136, which we don’t have.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the Wastewater Ordinance, 136.
MR. PALING-Right. So we can do what we said we were going to do at the other meeting, and
that’s to just make sure that someone is checking the system, that we can request that the building or
the inspection department be notified that there is a modification of this septic system, and then it’s
up to them to bring them into compliance, whatever route they take.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-It just goes without saying, that’s also part of the routine. Any approvals that we
would give would immediately go back to Building and Codes for a building permit or the
modification, additions, renovations, whatever, and then at that point it kicks in to determine
whether their septic is adequate or needs to be upgraded.
MR. PALING-It’s a good, clean system, and I hope that clarifies it, because we got a little mixed up.
Now the second thing I want to talk about, again, is septic, and this is to do with septic tanks and
new construction in subdivisions. I have a print here, which I’ll pass down the line, and you’ll see the
little tank out in front of the houses with the lines coming to it. This has lead us to think in this
subdivision, which is where I live, that that’s where the septic tank is located. No way. The location
of the tanks in that print have no relationship to where they’re put in, and my house it shows it, if
you face the house, these are duplex townhouses, on the left hand side of my driveway. It’s on the
right hand side of my neighbor’s driveway, which has got to be 40 feet away. It shows my neighbor’s
tank in the front of the house, it isn’t. It’s in the rear. Now, the builders right now or contractors
are not required to show the exact location of septic systems. They can show it like it is on that
print, meaning that a septic system could be put in this way on that land. Whether it isn’t has
nothing to do with it. What I want to do is either individually or the resolution from this Board, to
ask the Town Board to make it a requirement that the exact location of septic tanks be on as built
prints from the contractor when the subdivision is finished. Now this is, if we do it the way I’m
suggesting it originally, it’s passed back to the homeowner, but it’s passed back to the homeowner
now in a very expensive way. My neighbor who I told you it’s not in the front it’s in the rear, to get
down to his septic tank, they’ve got to bring a back hoe in. They’re going down to it and putting
caps on, so they’re easy to pump out.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, bringing them up to grade.
MR. PALING-Yes, yes, but it is a very, very expensive thing which could be done a lot less
expensive if it were done in new construction and noted on the print so you know where it is, and
people say, well, watch where the snow melts. Yes, you try it. It doesn’t work that way. Some you
may locate that way, but I’ll guarantee the deep ones, like they bring the back hoe in, you can’t hand
dig it. You’ve got to put a back hoe in to do that, and that’s a lousy expense, unnecessary, for the
individual homeowner to bear.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good point, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. PALING-And if this Board would agree to it, I’d like to make a request to the Town Board
that that be incorporated into the requirements into a builder, that they locate, in new construction
subdivisions, they locate the septic tank exactly where it is located.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re asking, then, that as the subdivision plats are completed, and we sign off
on them, on a subdivision, at the end of the build out of that subdivision, you’re asking them to
submit another drawing that indicates where each property home has its septic system located?
MR. PALING-I believe at the end of the building, they have to submit an as built for certain things.
I think it can be included in that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not a subdivision plat. I don’t think there is an as built, but what happens, the
way the system works now, is that as each lot is sold off, and a house plan is established, when they
come in to get the building permit to build the house, the setbacks are indicated on an individual plot
plan for the house, as well as the septic location, and the water line location and the utility location.
So it’s documented already. How it happens, though, with a townhouse development, I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-I might be able to shed just a little light on this. The Offering Plan that we have,
Bob lives in the same sort of community that I do. The Offering Plan clearly stipulates that the
contractor is obligated to turn over to the Homeowners Association a set of updated as builts. We
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
have those, that locates all the infrastructure, water, sewer lines, septic, because you’ve got a, if you
take a birds-eye view of a lot of these places, it’s laced with underground water pipe, sewer pipe, and
septic systems. So we have a set of complete as builts. Now those as builts, as builts are an
interesting thing. Craig says you sign off on a set of drawings and that’s where it’s going to be. Well,
during the construction, you’ll find out that the contractor looked at that and said, I’m going to put it
over here. It’s a better location. He’s got to update his drawings, and when you get as builts, they’re
normally marked up. They’re marked up drawings, but they give you the actual location of your tank
and your drain plug, your clean out.
MR. PALING-We don’t have that, and I don’t think most places do.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, Valente gave us that. Now, he didn’t until we went to McCormack and
got it. It was there, but you have to go searching for it.
MR. RINGER-This would only apply to townhouses or apartment buildings?
MR. VOLLARO-No, this would apply to a regular house.
MR. RINGER-But a house, you would have that when you submitted your print for your house, for
your building permit, you’d have to have your septic.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it may not be where the drawing says.
MR. PALING-I think it should apply to all new construction, whether it’s townhouse, single family.
MR. VOLLARO-See, that’s the definition of as built.
MRS. RYBA-My understanding is that anything that comes under building code, you have to have
the drawings there so that the Code Enforcement Officer can give you a Certificate of Compliance.
So I’m not really sure I understand.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s very true. Let me give you a short scenario. He’s looking at the drawing.
It’s signed off by the builder. It’s stamped. It has all of the trappings of a drawing that it’s supposed
to have. When you go to find the septic tank, lo and behold, it isn’t there, because when the builder
went and put it in, he didn’t follow this drawing. He put it in 10 feet over here. When he does that,
he’s got to update that drawing. So that when you get an as built, it’s as built.
MR. SCHACHNER-But aren’t people saying that requirement exists already?
MR. VOLLARO-To my knowledge, it does. Whether you ever get a drawing from your builder or
not, as an individual homeowner, is up to you.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a different issue. Nobody’s talking about that. We’re talking about filing
it with the Town. I mean, the fact that your particular HOA Offering Plan has that requirement is all
well and good, but there’s no requirement of New York State law that every HOA Offering Plan
have that in there. I think our collective thought is, people sitting on this side of the room, is to the
extent, I mean, there’s already a requirement, we think, that, as one of you, I think Craig said once
the home is actually built, and this, I think, is what Marilyn is saying also, as builts do get prepared, in
order to get their Certificate of Compliance, Certificate of Occupancy. So those as builts, if they’re
genuine as builts, they show the right location. The problem is that as builts are being found that are
not genuine, and that’s a problem that is not a legislative problem. Again, that’s an enforcement
problem. My own reaction, this is just me. Not everybody sitting here, is I don’t understand what
this whole debate at all has to do with Planning Boards.
MR. MAC EWAN-What Bob, I think, is striving to get here is to have this incorporated somewhere
along in our Subdivision Regulations.
MR. SCHACHNER-But you’re never going to see it?
MR. PALING-Okay, but I’m not sure that makes any difference, but what I’m saying is that I think
it’s practical that this be a real law and it be enforced, and we’re just sending a recommendation to
the Town Board that it be done, and what maybe I’d like to do is to come in to the office and go
with one of you to the Building Department and use my subdivision as an example, and show me the
as built, because I didn’t do it personally, but one of the guys in the subdivision did, and he came
back empty handed. He said there is no such thing, and he had to take the individual prints and go
around and try to do it himself. So I’d like to re-prove it an then I’d like to make it a
recommendation to the Town Board from the Planning Board. I think it holds a little bit more
power, is the only reason I’m saying that.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you research this and find out what exists, and then pen a resolution
that you’d want to propose, and we’ll go that route.
MR. PALING-Okay. I’ll come in. I’ll go with Marilyn or Laura, whoever.
MR. VOLLARO-Maybe I can shed just a little bit of light, when we went to look for our as builts
here, in Town Hall, we got the same, they don’t exist here. We don’t have them. They’re not here.
So we finally went to the builder, because he owed us that under the Offering Plan, but we got it
from McCormack, who was the surveyor that did all the work and kept track of where everything
was, under the ground and so on.
MR. PALING-We went to the builder originally, and he didn’t have one.
MR. VOLLARO-He didn’t have that? Well, then I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to follow through on that avenue, then?
MR. PALING-I’ll be back.
MR. VOLLARO-I have one. On the upcoming site plan for Nigro, which is due this Thursday, Sear
Brown came through with some report that was done by a Ph.D P.E. on some of the test pits that
we had asked to have done, and I looked at the data on those pits. Now I’m not a license. So
understand that, but I did my own math on that, and took a look at where the bottom of those
footings would be. I would like to see, because Mr. Palumbo who practices before us is not an
engineer, Sear Brown is not an engineering company, to my mind, they’re a planning company. I
haven’t seen any engineering comment from Sear Brown on this at all, and I would like to see an
engineer take a look and tell us whether or not those footings, at those depths, will support the load
properly. There’s no engineering comment anywhere that the way that’s being done will support the
load. The other side of the coin is we could state, the building shall be no higher than X, no matter
what you’ve got to do, no matter what you run into. We don’t care whether you’ve got to move
heaven and earth. Don’t come back here and raise that building above X, and then that kind of
leaves the whole problem of whether the building can be supported by various sands, silts, whatever.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just, maybe to follow up on that. I was reading Palumbo’s letter today, and he
talked about everything but those test pits.
MRS. MOORE-He didn’t have that information in his hand.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he can’t comment on it, though, Laura. He’s not a licensed professional
engineer. That’s my thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has he submitted anything since then, since he’s had it in his hands?
MRS. MOORE-No, but I did refer the information to the last reviewing engineering agency, which
was Rist Frost.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you gotten any comments back from them yet?
MRS. MOORE-I sent it today. I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rist Frost was going to follow through on anything that was an open item with
us.
MRS. MOORE-But I want to get back to Bob Vollaro’s question. You said your question would be
the footings at the depth, can the footings at that depth support the building structure?
MR. VOLLARO-Right. The math goes something like this. That operation back there is nearly
table top flat, at about an elevation of 215. When they did their test pits, they found water at roughly
210. Now if you take a look at, you have to have four foot footings for frost. That’s going to
subtract from 215. You’re going to be at 211, and that’s very, very close to the table, and I just don’t
see how they’re going to support the big slab, which is two and a half foot thick slab on almost water.
Now maybe they can do it, you know. Maybe some engineer’s got a real good way of doing that.
I’m not a civil or a mechanical either.
MR. RINGER-Would Rist-Frost sign off on something like that?
MRS. MOORE-What I’d like to do is pose that question to Sear Brown, because that’s, to me that
appears more of an applicant question versus our engineering.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think Laura’s comment is very appropriate. I mean, Sear Brown is an
engineering firm, just so you know. Frank Palumbo is not an engineer.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right, but Sear Brown has never put before us an engineering analysis of that
type.
MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s what you’re asking for.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I think Staff’s comment is very appropriate. I think the applicant should
be asked to provide that information, and then the Town’s Consulting Engineer would be reviewing
it. It’s not incumbent upon Rist-Frost to do that design work.
MR. MAC EWAN-That makes sense.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think that makes a lot of sense. As a matter of practicality, is that going to
happen between now and Thursday night at 7 o’clock?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. That’s the question I’m asking.
MR. RINGER-It’ll only happen if Laura gets a hold of Sear Brown and gets their comments and gets
(lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to take some analysis. That’s not going to be an off the top of the head
snapshot.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think those are both very appropriate comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I have a couple of things. This I asked years and years ago, and the
18 wheeler storage trailers made it come back into my mind. There’s a lot on Corinth Road, upper
Corinth Road, that has two monster storage trailers on it, and it’s a residential lot and the storage
trailers are things that would go on 18 wheelers, way in the back yard.
MR. MAC EWAN-I see the perpetual garage/yard sales person up there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s also a perpetual garage sale person up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s a pre-existing, nonconforming use that’s been an enforcement action about
four times over, and they can’t do anything about it. That’s, to my knowledge.
MR. RINGER-The trailers?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know about those trailers?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. He has a perpetual garage sale.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the person that has them?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that’s why he has them, to store his garage sale stuff in them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, that’s my understanding.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wow. They are just incredible. Just check that out some time, and the
second thing is. I was informed by the Wilkisons that they are doing a completely different site plan
on their place on Glen Lake, and that they went to you, and I said, gee, Chuck, I said you better
double check that, get it in writing. They have a completely different footprint. They have
completely different beautiful, gorgeous plans, and I would like to know why we spent all that time,
and then what happened was when they finally got, when Tom Nace checked it out, then they got a
real builder, he said, this foundation is totally inadequate. It’s not going to work, and so he said, we
can’t use it. So they literally destroyed it and are doing a completely different house and they’re one
of my very close friends, and I said to them, are you sure that Chris Round okayed this? God, yes. I
brought the plans up to him, everything. I said, well, good, I’m happy.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-If they’re starting from scratch, they’ve got to meet setback requirements now,
waterfront setback requirements.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they said that it was okay because they had already gotten a variance on
the property, and because they had the variance, then anything now would go, as long as the setbacks
were okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-So what is your question?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-My question is, why can they do that, after we spent all that time deliberating
it and listening to all the comments and then what we approved is nowhere near what they’re
building?
MR. RINGER-But you only heard their side. You might want to ask Chris what he did. I mean,
rather than for us to decide what Chris told them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, no, no. That’s why I’d like you to just check that out, and they said that
Chris okayed everything. I said, good, get it in writing please.
MR. METIVIER-I’ll add to that. Maschewski, the one that we approved, the addition on Assembly
Point. When they tore that house down, they were going to keep the floor, and come to find out the
floor was rotten. So they were told by Dave to take the floor up, just leave the foundation, and when
they took the floor up, the foundation crumbled. So they have to start from scratch, but they have to
go in front of the Zoning Board tomorrow night, because the foundation crumbled. They have to
start from scratch.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But why do they have to go in front of the Zoning Board?
MR. METIVIER-Apparently, because, I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve got setback problems.
MR. RINGER-And it might not be in the same footprint.
MR. METIVIER-It’s the same footprint. It’s the exact same.
MR. VOLLARO-But it’s new construction. It’s new construction. That’s part of the problem.
These pre-existing buildings, a lot of people are doing that. I’ve seen a lot of them on the lake. All
they’re going to do is add a top, a second floor, all of a sudden, the building comes down. The
foundation’s no good. They start from scratch, and they want to have all the setbacks on the pre-
existing, and it can’t be done, and they’re doing it all the time.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There’s a definite pattern. I agree.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it’s not just here. It’s all over the United States. It’s on all valuable
property, especially in Florida. Tearing everything down.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got one for you. Cool Beans II, Quaker Road. I drove by there tonight and
there’s no building there. Did we approve that thing saying that they were going to renovate that
building, or did we approve that thing saying they could start from scratch?
MR. VOLLARO-It was renovation, I believe.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll have to look. I don’t know, off the top of my head.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, just one of those FYI things. There’s no building there. It’s gone.
MR. RINGER-They tore Leonard’s Insurance Agency down, too. We didn’t approve that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just one more final note. On applications, can we strive to have the very basics
on the applications for them to be complete? North arrow, scale, title block.
MRS. RYBA-I think in the new zoning regulations that the request is going to be that professionals
submit the site plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, in all fairness, we don’t know how soon that’s going to get done. This
was something I tried to address during agenda meetings last fall, and I sat down with Staff and Pam
was part of it, and we joggled around the application, so that the important information that’s a must
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/17/00)
be is part of the application and it’s at the top of that list. Other things, as you go farther down the
list, is under the discretion of Staff, whether you need to have it or you don’t need to have it, but the
very basics we do need to have, and what predicated that was the guy who was building the log home
up on Glen Lake that had four different drawings he had scotch taped together. Remember that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what predicated that whole scenario happening, and I’ve seen a couple of
applications come in that have slipped under the wire. So can we maybe, you know, take a little
closer look as applications come in to insure that they’re going to do it? If not, bounce them.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we had that same situation tonight on Double A. We had two drawings we
were trying to integrate.
MR. RINGER-Three drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-Three, and it’s difficult to do, to integrate these drawings mentally up here without
seeing them as one drawing. Because we’re really approving what’s on the drawings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Let’s adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47