2000-09-26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we jump into our regular agenda, just two quick items. I have a note from
Chris Round that we have a vacancy on the Steering Committee for the Zoning Ordinance. I’m
looking for a volunteer. They meet once about every six weeks, Chris?
MR. ROUND-Yes. We’re at the tail end of that, and I know Bob Paling has been representing the
Planning Board, and Craig had been as a member of that. So Bob has been in his place. I know
several of you are familiar with the process. We’re at the tail end of the process, but we didn’t want
to deny you the opportunity to participate as we close that out.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at probably two or three more meetings?
MR. ROUND-Probably about three meetings.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking for a volunteer. Does someone want to volunteer before I appoint?
Don’t everybody jump at once. Congratulations, Mr. Strough. You’re on. Three more meetings.
That’s how you get it done. Next item. This is from Craig Brown regarding the Garden
Time/Barrett Auto Sales notice of violation. They have a pending site plan that’s in front of the
Board. They’ve done an extensive fill and grading over there, and where does that stand?
MR. ROUND-A Stop Work Order was issued. A Notice of Violation was issued. They were given
until Friday to remove display materials, and so Friday coming up we’ll issue a summons if the
situation hasn’t been corrected.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. With that, let’s jump right into our agenda, please.
OLD BUSINESS:
PZ 1-2000 MODEL SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISION CITY OF GLENS FALLS/VETERANS
FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK OWNER: CITY OF GLENS FALLS AGENT: CHAZEN
COMPANIES CURRENT ZONE: LI-1A, SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: LI-1A/VF
LOCATION: SHERMAN AVE./VETERANS RD./LUZERNE RD. A PROPOSED
FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (GEIS) HAS BEEN
PREPARED FOR TOWN BOARD REVIEW. THE PLANNING BOARD IS
REVIEWING THE MODEL SITE PLAN PROPOSAL FOR REZONING AND
SUBDIVISION. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ADDRESSING TRAFFIC
GENERATION, LIGHTING, NOISE SMOKE/ODORS AND OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE “MODEL SITE
PLAN”. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 116-1-7, 8 118-1-7.1 LOT
SIZE: 46.57 ACRES
STUART MESINGER & DIANNE BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing which was a joint meeting with our Town Board, was
back on February 15, 2000.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll turn it over to you. Sure. Stu Mesinger is here from Chazen
Companies, and Dianne Barber from the City of Glens Falls. The City of Glens Falls and the
Queensbury Economic Development Corporation are partners in the project. A proposed Final EIS
has been prepared. The last time the Planning Board has seen the project was at a discussion session
that was, a discussion item at the March 28, 2000 meeting, and the last items that were outstanding at
that time, or our main concern to the Planning Board, were building design and aesthetics. The
Town Board is the Lead Agency for SEQRA review for the project, and they will be making a
determination, establishing findings for the project, and what we’re looking for the Planning Board
to do is provide a recommendation on the rezoning, and any other information, as you review that
model site plan, that would be incorporated into the zoning district or into the comments on the
EIS. I mean, Stu can summarize what the Final EIS contains, and where the project is at, and I’d be
happy to jump in at any time.
MR. MESINGER-That’s, Chris. Yes, and I’ll be brief. I don’t know how much you had a chance to
read upon the EIS. We were a while in getting the Final EIS to you, mainly because we went
through two or three iterations on traffic and stormwater during this whole thing. The traffic plan
has changed somewhat in terms of the intersections that are proposed for reconstruction down the
line. Basically, the first phase of the project doesn’t need anything, in terms of traffic improvements.
We’re proposing to use Pine Street as a truck entrance to the project. That’s based on discussions
with the Town’s consultants. We’re proposing, in future phases, lights at Pine and Main, lights at
Richardson and Main, a light a Sherman and Southwestern. Depending on the levels of traffic, there
might ultimately be a left turn off of Luzerne into the site. There may ultimately, again, depending
on the levels of traffic, be a need to reconstruction Veterans Road. It’s hard, in a process like this, to
know when those improvements or even if those improvements are going to be needed, because so
much depends on the actual trip generation characteristics of the uses, and so what we’ve been
talking with Chris about is, in the Findings Statement with the Town, is setting up some kind of
monitoring mechanism, whereby, whether it’s the Town or the City or the Town and the City jointly,
monitor the levels of traffic that are coming from the project as it’s developed, as well as the
background levels on the effected roadways, and using that as a determinant of when the
improvement is needed. At the same time, those discussions would probably result, I think they’d
have to result in the Town and City deciding who’s going to pay for them. So that’s something that
you folks don’t necessarily have to reach, except to understand that there’s got to be a finding made,
and I think the Town Board would be the appropriate people to make that finding, unless for some
reason you wanted to hop in, that development gets phased and there’s a monitoring mechanism for
traffic, and John, as we were talking before the meeting, you’ve expressed a concern, and as I sat
there and I thought about it, that’s exactly the concern Chris has expressed, and if you want to add to
what I’ve just said, in terms of the mechanism. I’ll pause here before talking about stormwater.
MR. ROUND-Right, as a representative of the Town, that’s one of the Town’s major concerns is
quantification of the traffic impacts and assessing the responsibility for mitigation, and conceptually,
Town representatives, the Town Supervisor and various Board members have indicated their
participation in the project, and that would be to fund some of those traffic improvements. So
before this process is done, those responsibilities will be assigned as a part of the findings statement.
I don’t know, if you read the Executive Summary on the Final EIS, there are changes from what the
original site plan that you reviewed was in February and March, in that there is proposed, as part of
the subdivision plan, that a service type road, or road that’s parallel to Veterans Road at the west side
of the site, be constructed, and that that be the primary access point for the commercial, or industrial
traffic, not necessarily employee traffic. Curb cuts have been consolidated. There has been a
reduction in driveways. The stormwater, and I don’t want to jump into the stormwater, but we had
asked, at the draft stage, that we look at Western and Sherman Avenue. That’s been a problematic
intersection to date, in that we were concerned that this project would increase the traffic pressures at
that intersection. It included additional analysis and concluded that a signal warrant’s probably going
to be met as this project is constructed. We have also had great concern about how this project
interacts with the Main Street, Exit 18 project that’s being conducted by the County, and how this
Floor Area was accounted for within the build out of the, that was planned as part of planning the
Main Street improvements. That’s a lot to say right there, and it was contemplated, but it was, you
know, it’s all due to phasing, and when are these improvements going to be required and so that’s
back to the monitoring mechanism, how do we monitor this traffic growth as a result of this project,
and who is responsible for providing the fixes for the particular intersections? So, we’re still working
on that, and we will come to a favorable conclusion on that, or else the project won’t move forward.
So, I think that’s a given. It’s just a matter of putting details on paper.
MR. MESINGER-And just hopefully understand how the process works with the Findings
Statement. The Town Board is the Lead Agency. They will accept the, or issue the FEIS, and they’ll
write a Findings Statement, and so those, the details on the monitoring and who pays have to be
worked out as part of that. A couple of other things. Chris started to talk about the stormwater.
The major change to the stormwater, if you recall from the last project we were proposing basically
to use drywells on the majority of the site and detain it inside the site, and run a portion of it back to
the wetland on the back of the site, and for a variety of reasons, we’ve decided not to do that. We’re
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
going to go ahead with a pipe system for the top most six lots, and take it down Veterans Road, to
the system at Sherman Avenue, which I think will make the neighbors happy who came to the public
hearing and talked about that. There’ll also be a smaller system which runs down the south side of
Veterans Road onto Luzerne and then back internal to the site where we’ll build a detention basin,
prior to discharging to the wetland, and that’s really for quality as well as for holding a volume of
stormwater. So there’s some, a couple of changes there. The other concern that the Board had was
the appearance of the buildings, and we struggled mightily with that. Dianne went out one day and
took pictures of all of our sort of industrial buildings in the area, and we looked at them all and we
scratched our head and said, you know, there’s not a pattern here. We have some very, very high end
buildings, like on Pruyn’s Island. You have some Butler type buildings, and you have Butler type
buildings with flat roofs and Butler type buildings with peaked roofs, and you have buildings with
brick fronts and buildings without bricks and everything in between, and so we really kind of said,
you know, that we didn’t think that we could reduce this to a style that was going to anticipate
everything that might come down the line. So I went and did some research and tried to look where
I could find building standards for industrial buildings, and I didn’t come up with much. What you
see in the document is a product of an industrial site planning handbook, and it’s fairly limited, and I
don’t know if when you looked at it you said, yes, that’s what we want, or that’s not enough. I have a
couple of thoughts. One is that you could reserve to yourself that review in the future. I’m not sure
how the City would feel about that because it kind of makes the site not shovel ready, in some
respects, if they still have to come to the Planning Board and talk about what the buildings look like.
Another possibility is that, as Chris has mentioned, the Town and City are going to form a joint
mechanism to look at traffic and administration of some of the details of this project, and that might
be a function that goes over to them as well, that as part of, when an application comes in, there’s
some kind of internal review process that if it’s not, if it doesn’t meet some minimum standard it
comes back to you guys, but my goal is to make the site, and the City’s goal is to make the site as
ready for development as it can be, and I think we’re on the verge of doing that, and so I’m a little
reluctant to get held up in the appearance piece, but you’ll tell me whether I need to be a little less
reluctant, I guess, in the next few moments. That’s sort of the main summary. The City is hopeful,
the City and Town are hopeful to move forward with construction of the first phase, which are the
lots at the corner of Richardson Veterans, in the near future. The process from here is that you need
to make a recommendation up to the Town Board on the rezoning, okay, and then they will issue the
document. There will be a Findings Statement, and after the document is issued, you guys can make
your own findings, if you wish. You don’t have to, but you can, and then you’ll be free to act on the
subdivision. We’ve talked a little bit what we want to do with the model site plan, whether that’s
something that we act on or it becomes part of the Findings. I think it’s a Finding, as how I look at
it, that you find that future projects conform to the model site plans that you have in front of me, but
I’m certainly open to thoughts or discussion from anybody on that as well. So that’s the presentation
part.
MR. MAC EWAN-Dianne, anything you wanted to add?
MRS. BARBER-Not at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you. Any questions?
MR. METIVIER-I guess my biggest concern has to do with the traffic, and at this point Stuart just
basically stated that we just don’t know what will happen, and I just want to make sure that there’s a
plan in place that, as he stated, if we need to address it at a future date, we’ll be able to. I don’t even
know where to begin with it, because you just don’t know what’s going to happen.
MR. MESINGER-Well, here’s, I think, I mean, it’s fairly clear in my mind what needs to happen, and
let me summarize it. The first two buildings don’t have an impact, is what the study says, that you
can build the first couple of buildings in there, and it amounts to, I think, about 100,000 square feet,
and it doesn’t trigger anything, and so my suggestion is when the findings are made, you have
100,000 that’s free, and it doesn’t, I mean, it’s as if anybody wanted to build a 100,000 square foot
out there. They did you traffic study, said you didn’t have to do anything, you’re done. So, that’s
one finding. The second finding is that it’s recognized that future phases, based on the trip
generation rates, are going to result in the need for traffic improvements. So we’re going to set up a
monitoring mechanism, and it’ll be fairly technical. It’ll be keyed to the actual volumes of cars going
through intersections, and when a use triggers those levels, the improvement is needed. The hard
part that the Town and the City have to figure out is what part of that goes to the use in Veterans
Field, and presuming the modern mechanism needs to look at what’s going on from other
development and other background growth, and figure out who’s going to pay for it, and I think
that’s a discussion for them to have and for them to decide on in the Finding.
MR. METIVIER-Why did you decide that some of the area is going to be sewer and the rest will be
tapped back into the wetland? What’s the reasoning behind that?
MR. MESINGER-You mean the stormwater?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. METIVIER-The stormwater.
MR. MESINGER-Initially because we thought that we would be able to handle it all with onsite
drywells, and when Rist-Frost got their hands on it, they were not happy with that way of doing it,
and we went through a couple of iterations, and I think my engineers, with all due respect, probably
don’t agree with them, but in the interest of moving it forward, we agreed to do it the way they
wanted to do it. There’s a cost associated with that, unfortunately, but that’s about the best answer I
can give you.
MR. METIVIER-And do they feel as though the system on Sherman will be able to adequately
handle it?
MR. MESINGER-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-For now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Well, traffic was my concern, my biggest concern also with this, and reading your
Executive Summary and then going through all the data, it didn’t seem like, even with the mitigation,
you eliminated the problems of the traffic.
MR. MESINGER-In what way specifically?
MR. RINGER-It didn’t seem like it would work out. They still became D’s and F’s.
MR. MESINGER-The numbers are what they are. I can’t, I mean, I can’t magically change them.
MR. RINGER-It just didn’t seem like it was going to work, with the traffic, with the mitigation that
you suggested there. The other question on stormwater, that stormwater, that’s the pipe that goes is
the canal on the river, that you’re going to run this stormwater to up on Sherman Avenue?
MR. MESINGER-I don’t know where the Sherman Avenue pipe ultimately goes to.
MR. RINGER-If it is that one, that’s also the one that the School that they’re just hooking up to to
drain that property up there, that drains down from Broad Acres.
MR. MESINGER-Right. That should be the same one, yes.
MR. RINGER-Are you sure that that’s going to handle all that additional?
MR. MESINGER-They were supposed to look. I can certainly ask them again, if they’d look at that.
MR. RINGER-I mean, they’re going to put a load on there when they’ve cleared all that land that
they have for the School District, and now you’re going to put another load on there besides.
MR. MESINGER-Right. Well, the School’s not paving much up there. So I’m not certain there’s
going to be a lot of runoff from that. I mean, I can certainly, you know, ask.
MR. RINGER-It seems like something we should look into, I mean, it seems like a big impact.
MR. ROUND-Larry, maybe I can offer some insight on this. The City of Glens Falls is tying into
the system at Grant Avenue Extension that is tying into the Western Avenue line, and this is tying in
at another location. Eventually, the discharge is all the same. It all ends up going to the canal.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but it all goes into one line. Is it going to cross Sherman and into Carlton Court
and James Court, and Moreau Street, and it eventually all goes into one line. I don’t know how big
that line is. I’m sure it’s pretty big but we’re putting a lot of water in there, or a lot more water than
is currently going in there now. I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got some things. In looking at the reviews that were done by Rist-Frost
and Creighton Manning and Glens Falls Traffic, all of those reviews were done and they’re in what I
call the skinny book, and they were done around February 14 and March and February. They were
th
done on the leading edge of the Year 2000, and I don’t see any comments from them in here, other
than your answer to their questions. I’ve seen that, and I was a little bit concerned that they haven’t
had a shot at the final.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MESINGER-No, they’ve actually had several shots at it, and there’s a whole series of
correspondence between them and us that resulted in the two fat volumes that you have in front of
you. It’s not in the skinny volume, Bob, because it’s not a part of the SEQRA record, the hearing
record. So they were subsequent technical review letters that were outside of the SEQRA comment
period that we took and responded to, and I think Chris will confirm that at the end of the day, both
Creighton Manning and Rist-Frost are satisfied with the results of the fat volume. As I say, that’s
why it took so long to get the fat volumes to you.
MR. ROUND-We do have correspondence from Creighton Manning indicating that the traffic
analysis addresses their concerns. There is a letter in the file to that, and I don’t know if I have it
here in my hands, and the same thing with Rist-Frost and the stormwater management.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they’ve had a shot at this final?
MR. ROUND-Yes, they have, and that’s something that maybe we can incorporate somehow, either
by reference, or, I don’t know what the proper mechanism is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just going to read something. In reviewing, this was an interesting
review job. I mean, you succeeded in snowing me pretty much, I guess. While the general overall
conclusion made in the Executive Summary in Appendix D, it says “The proposed Vet’s Field would
not have a significant impact upon traffic”, and then we go to Page 23 of that document, and it says,
“The basic mitigation is modified signal timing in all way stops”, and then you get into two little “I’s”
and “5”, in the thin book, and it says, “there’s a need for off site traffic improvements, perhaps, one
through seven, and if necessary, construction will be by Queensbury”. And I looked at this and I
said, well, you know, I wasn’t sure. I had some of the same concerns that Larry did, and the same
concerns, and we haven’t chatted with each other either, while I was up here, but I have some
concerns about the fact that there’s, appears to be somewhat of a dichotomy there, as to which way
we’re going to go, and I recognize that you don’t know yet, but there is a potential impact for
Queensbury here, since they’re going to pick up all these one through seven, what I call heavy
mitigations as opposed to just doing the signal and the stops.
MR. MESINGER-Well, and I guess the point I’ve been trying to make is that may or may not be so,
depending on the outcome of the discussions between the City and the Town, as to exactly that set
of issues. There’s infrastructure that has to get built, and the City may build some of it, may pay for
some of it. There may be future traffic improvements. Clearly, it’s not fair for the Town, if they end
up with $500,000 worth of traffic improvements and the City (lost words). I think the negotiation
that has to happen, and Chris has been closer to this than I have, is how do we equitably share the
cost, if, in fact, it comes to that? And how do you account for other traffic that’s not Veterans Field
traffic in that forum.
MR. VOLLARO-In Appendix A, under Area Requirements, this is just, remove the thing that says
max building height, it’s in there twice.
MR. MESINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-You acknowledge that, that it was in there. Now, I’ve got, independently, the same
concerns as Larry does, and one of it says, what data was used to determine the present condition of
drainage systems on Luzerne and Sherman. When we were doing the athletic field here, I think Mr.
Nace had some concerns at that point as to what the condition, not that they were there, but what
was the condition of those drainage systems? Were they capable? And I don’t see anything in here
that talked about the fact that we looked into those systems and made sure that they were capable of,
and Larry brings out a good point. Those systems are going to take a double hit.
MR. MESINGER-It is a good point. I wish I had an answer for you, but you caught me with that
one. I will simply call my engineer in the morning, see what discussion’s he’s had with the City about
that, on both of those points, both capacity and condition, and get back to you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Since the new proposed zoning law is not in place. I mean, I’ve submitted
my comments on it to Chris and so on, but I notice in this, when we talk about this, we talk about 70
dba and 63 dba at the sites. That’s a direct extraction from the proposed zoning law, it seems to me.
MR. MESINGER-Well, actually from an earlier draft, now. It’s not in the current.
MR. VOLLARO-And I’ve been looking at some other cities, like San Diego, and how they do theirs,
and I put my notification of that into Chris, so he has that. I’d like just to explain something to me,
under the preparation of plans, it says, “Persons possessing the appropriate educational exemption”,
what does that mean?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MESINGER-If you, you’d have to be a licensed professional to prepare a set of plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that I understand.
MR. MESINGER-Except that if you were a surveyor before the licensing requirement came in, you
are said to possess the, you are exempted from the license, and so you have a.
MR. VOLLARO-How many of those folks are there? Do we have a lot or a few?
MR. MESINGER-We have a lot of surveyors.
MR. VOLLARO-That could qualify under this exemption?
MR. MESINGER-Yes. Most of the older surveyors in Town qualify under that exemption.
MR. VOLLARO-On Appendix D, just so you know, Figure One is incorrect. The site does not go
north of Sherman Avenue.
MR. MESINGER-You read it carefully, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-I know. My wife says the same thing. I spend too much time on it. I think I have
a question for Counsel here. The model site plan has been revised, Mark, from the previous
approved plan in the Draft GEIS. In Staff notes, at the very, very end, it says, “The Planning Board
may then entertain approval of the subdivision, and the model site plan”. Now, going back to your
5/1/00 memo, where you talk about the differentiation of when we take Lead SEQRA status and
when we don’t. Do you remember that memorandum of yours?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, but if you tell me it exists, I believe you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you really said there was that the Planning Board could take Lead
Agency, provided they had site plan to follow. If there was no site plan review, then the Town Board
took the Lead Agency. I should have brought the memo with me. It’s on my desk. I forgot.
MR. ROUND-I think you’re talking about re-zoning, combined re-zoning and site plan?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-In the context of this project, or in general?
MR. VOLLARO-No, no, it was in general. It was back in May.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I remember. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-It was back in May. I wonder. Does the fact that we’ve got a modified site plan
here, should we be doing a model site plan review on this project, or is it considered that we’ve
already done that once, and the fact that the site plan has been modified, the model site plan, we
don’t have to do that? I have a question in my mind about that.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure I’m understanding your question, but let’s see if we can sift
through it. First of all, as far as the memo you refer to, correct me if I’m wrong, but that was about
which Board, under what circumstances, would fulfill the roll of SEQRA Lead Agency?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. It was a general memorandum. It wasn’t specific.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I’m not sure that that’s germane, and I didn’t understand your question,
to relate to that issue, in that here we know the Town Board is the SEQRA Lead Agency, and I don’t
think we’re disputing that.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the second part then, after you talked about the memo, and again, I’m not
sure how that would fit in, but the second thing you talked about, as I understood it, was whether,
having once discussed approving of a model site plan, that model site plan now having undergone
certain amount of change and modification, should this Board look at that again, in the context of re-
approving, if you will, a model site plan? And I think the clear answer would be yes. That’s part of
your, in fact that’s probably the most significant part of your role here, understanding that as Stu and
Chris have said, you’re involved in a step by step process. Right now the step involved, I believe, is
the recommendation on the re-zoning, but the whole purpose of, or one of the purposes of the
Planning Board’s involvement in this entire exercise is to approve the model site plan. In fact, that’s
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
essentially the action that we’re talking about this Board taking, and if that model site plan has been
modified, which I think it has, then it’s appropriate for this Board to look at that and to ultimately,
hopefully, approve it.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s an action for tonight’s meeting?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not an action for tonight’s meeting. That’s your ultimate action.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, that, I agree.
MR. SCHACHNER-Tonight, the most you can do tonight is approve or, I’m sorry, recommend
approval of rezoning.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Thank you. One last thing, on the model site plan, since we’ve
moved from Richardson Street over to Pine Street, as being the principal truck route now, I think on
the drawing itself you should show where Pine Street is. You have it there, but, it’s there but you’ve
really got to look for it to know that it’s Pine Street. So I’d label that on the model site plan, and with
that, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bob mentioned the only thing that stuck out with me, was the Pine Street
turn off, and I just think it should be on the record that when a project like this, down the line when
it’s built out, I know that cost is a factor but, and this isn’t really relevant to our site plan, but I just
want it to be on the record that I don’t know if the new highway that’s proposed on Corinth Road
and down through Main Street is going to, with three lanes, is really going to meet the needs of what
this whole project could be 10 years from now, or 15 years now, and maybe we should go with wider
highway and look at the Luzerne Road access, too. I just wanted that on the record. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to bring that up, too. I don’t want to dwell on the same issues, and,
certainly, no one appreciates the project as much as I do on the Board, having worked in economic
development for so long, but it’s just kind of some of my sort of gut feelings when I read through
the final generic EIS. I had concerns about traffic also, and quite frankly, one of the things that kind
of stuck out was that, on a lot of the comments about traffic, I didn’t feel that there was really back
up documentation, specifically the comments about where the site traffic would be generated from,
because I know that, you know, you could do models based on population, based on workforce, to
where the employee traffic is likely to come from, and I just thought that there could have been
better documentation on that specific issue, and it would probably impact the level of service ratings
at some of those various intersections. I don’t know that to be the case. All of the other projects
that we have reviewed talk about a two percent annual increase in traffic, and this one was only .5%,
and I read in the impact statement why that number was used, but it just seemed inconsistent with
some of the other projects that we’ve reviewed in the past couple of months, and that’s partly where
my comment’s coming from on the documentation. Where, in other projects we have had very hard
and fast documentation on a specific issue, and I guess I just wanted to comment, finally, on the
building appearance issue. I know that, and Marilyn would be familiar with this, also. In the State of
Vermont it’s very common to have what they call an umbrella permit, which is really, in concept, the
same thing we’re trying to do here with the generic environmental impact statement. I wish I had
some samples to give you, but I don’t, but I do know that there are samples out there, specific to the
building appearance. I thought it was kind of weak, and it really could use a lot more.
MR. MESINGER-Yes. I think I apologized for it in my speech. I’m not thrilled with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I might not have brought it up if you hadn’t, and then I guess my final
comment is on the internal access road, and when I first looked at that, my gut feeling was, here’s a
lot of really expensive infrastructure that’s really not going to alleviate traffic off the main roads, and
I wasn’t on the Board when the site plan was first discussed, and I think, in a lot of situations, those
internal access roads are necessary, but that was just my gut feeling on this one.
MR. MESINGER-Yes. Understand that that road is, it’s an internal access road, but really the way it
works is it gets built by the lot owners, as part of their individual lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-Contribution to the project.
MR. MESINGER-Yes So it’s not, I hear what you’re saying about expensive infrastructure, but it
doesn’t fall to either the Town or the City. It’s really a private drive. It’s interconnected by the lot
owners.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the expectation about how much traffic would actually use those internal
roads?
MR. MESINGER-It entirely depends, I think, on the use characteristics of what goes in there, and in
my opinion, if you ended up with somebody who was a significant truck traffic generator, it would be
a God send. Because it would keep traffic off Veterans Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. MESINGER-If you end up with, you know, machine shops and the like that aren’t generating
trucks, it won’t be used.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, very thorough job, nice job, Stu, and I think it does just what an
impact statement’s supposed to do. It identifies the potential problems, but, you know, and I love
the concept, I support the concept of this high tech park, and I do want to see it work, but the
Achilles Heel I think is this traffic situation, just to echo what everyone else has said. I mean, we
have a traffic analysis based at .5% growth rate, when most of the traffic studies that have come
before us has been a 2% growth rate, which is pretty much standard for the Town of Queensbury.
This particular area, once we see a reconstruction of the Corinth Road corridor, as you might call it,
may experience more than a 2% growth rate. So let’s get back to that half a percent growth rate.
Even at the half a percent growth rate, and with some of the proposed mitigation measures, the
traffic lights, the stop signs, the turning lanes, etc., and you look at Table II, Level of Service, not
only do some of them have problems now, but even after those proposed mitigation measures are
implemented, they’re still less than satisfactory, and that’s at a .5% growth rate. So what I’m getting
at, I think it’s obvious, is that if the growth rate exceeds a half a percent, then we’re going to have
some very unhappy highways around here. We’re going to have some very unhappy intersections,
and that’s the Achilles Heel with this Veterans Park, is the access to it. Now I think an idea to toy
with and maybe pursue is one that Chris had mentioned, and you had mentioned, was a north/south
connector, going parallel to the Northway, and just east of the Northway, as was in the newspaper
the other day. Okay. That would seem to really mitigate the problems that concern me right now.
The additional traffic light on Main Street is not needed. The truck traffic going through residential
streets, Richardson, Pine, is less than desirable. A north/south connector seems to mitigate all that.
So, if we went the route of a north/south connector down the road, then it would seem to
necessitate possibly internal changes in the plan as proposed, for example, the common access road,
the internal connecting road, which comes out on Sherman, it might be more appropriate to bring
that up closer to the connector road, so that truck traffic has a more direct access, rather than wrap
around over to Sherman and then in?
MR. MESINGER-No, it accesses on the other end, on Luzerne. You would still have that, if I
understand the connector correctly, it would connect Main to Luzerne.
MR. STROUGH-The connector would. I’m talking about the internal road in the Veterans Park
project itself comes out on Sherman. I’m just suggesting that if that connector road were to become
a reality, then that might be better tied over to Luzerne Road where you’d have more direct access
without wrapping around the whole Park, to enter the Park from Sherman.
MR. MESINGER-No, no, but it already accesses on Luzerne. It connects from, the front access
road connects from Luzerne to Sherman. So, I mean, it’s already planned to connect onto Luzerne.
I mean, it works the same whether they come down Pine or they come down the connector.
MR. STROUGH-For some reason, I’m just remembering that internal access road coming out onto
Sherman.
MR. MESINGER-The north end does, but the south end access.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the connector road also, what I’m just saying when I looked at it, it
appeared that if it came out on the other side, the Luzerne side.
MR. MESINGER-It does. I’m saying it does.
MR. STROUGH-On the north side of it, that you wouldn’t be necessarily impacting Sherman
Avenue, if you could direct all of that over on Luzerne Road, but in any event, what I’m suggesting
as far as that, Stu, is that if the project were to go with this north/south connector road, it might
change the tone of the comprehension of the Park itself in subtle ways, possibly traffic flow, because
that wasn’t a consideration at the time, I don’t think, that this was developed.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MESINGER-I think the north/south connector’s a great idea. I hope the Town pursues it.
You don’t need it for the first phase of this project, regardless, in terms of improvements, because
there are no improvements tied in the first two lots for 100,000 square feet. So I’d hate to see us get
hung up on that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MESINGER-The top of my head, I don’t think that, the basic truck access would still work the
same way, which is that it would come down Luzerne from the west. So I’m not sure that I would
change my internal roads for my driveways. What that road does is it gets traffic off of Main Street
and onto Luzerne, and avoids using a residential street to access the Park, and those are two desirable
good things. So I’m in favor of it, but I don’t think I have to change the Park, in the event that it
comes to pass. I would suggest to you that it’s something that the Town and the City are going to
have to work out, whether it’s a real project or not. I don’t know.
MR. STROUGH-Well, some of those things could probably be worked out when it comes to site
planning. We might be able to, you could visualize this whole thing better, but let’s get back to
where I think, where I’d feel comfortable, is that, I certainly don’t want to kill the project, but I
certainly have my concerns about the proposed mitigation measures as they are. I have my concerns
about truck traffic going down residential streets. So, and I agree with you. I generally, even with
the two percent growth rate, I don’t think that the original Phase I, of 100,000 square feet, would
have a major impact on anything. So I’m a go, up to that point, but I think there should be some
kind of a mechanism that can be triggered that says, okay, now we’ve reached this point. Now we
have to take another look at this project. Have we made any progress on this north/south
connector?
MR. MESINGER-I think we’re in agreement. I mean, I think that’s what the monitoring mechanism
that we’ve been speaking about would do, and it may be, the thing is is that trip generation is based
on, you know, a book that says this is the average trip generation characteristics of an industrial use.
I looked at them and I think what we get out of this 500 or so thousand square feet of build out is
something like 780 trips. Does that number sound about right?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MESINGER-That’s a lot of trips, you know, and I’m thinking about other 500,000 square foot
uses, industrial uses, that just, intuitively, it seems like a lot. Maybe that’s what’ll happen, but I guess
I’ll say I won’t be surprised if it’s a heck of a lot less, and that’s why the need is for a monitoring
mechanism, and it may be that the monitoring mechanism says that, yes, there’s a ton of trips, and
there’s a ton of background, and we don’t want to do all these area wide improvements. We want to
pursue the north/south connector, and I think, you know, I think as long as we agree that we need to
set up that mechanism, and it gets looked at in the future, I think the City’s okay with that. Right?
And I, technically, have no problem. The details are going to have to get worked out prior to
Findings, the who monitors and what the triggers are.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you understand exactly where I’m coming from. Then, what I’m still
having a problem with is saying, I do recommend this, I don’t want to say, as it is. What should I say
then, Stu?
MR. MESINGER-No. The Final EIS is issued, and I don’t think that there’s any technical dispute,
the numbers are what they are, and in Findings, people can find that the numbers are not acceptable.
People can find that the Town Board can say, we find that there’s a potential for a traffic problem in
the future, and it’s going to require some reconstruction, and we may not want to do that, or there
may be other, we think there’s going to be other development in the corridor that, piled on top of
what happens here, it may result in radically different conditions that were analyzed in this document,
and so we find that the appropriate thing to do is set up a monitoring mechanism, and we’re going to
monitor these intersections in this fashion, and this is who’s going to monitor them, and here’s the
hard part. The Town and the City are going to have to decide who pays for what and when.
MR. STROUGH-So I guess what you’re saying, bottom line, is that when we pass our
recommendation on to the Town Board, that we express our concern over the traffic impacts, and
that we also stress that there is a need for a north/south connector road.
MR. MESINGER-I don’t have any problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you feel compelled to want to introduce a motion to make a recommendation
to the Town Board, you can put whatever you want in your motion, whatever concerns or things that
we think the Town Board should be looking at, identifying, correcting, rectifying, whatever.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. ROUND-As an involved agency, you’re responsible for preparing, either preparing your own
findings or issuing your own findings, actually. It’s an involved agency, right? And that we issue just
a single Findings Statement, rather than prepare separate Findings Statement, we can circulate a Draft
Findings that’s going to be prepared on behalf of the Town Board, share that with the Planning
Board, and the Planning Board can review that before that Findings Statement is accepted, which
would give you the ability to further articulate what you concerns are and make sure that the
monitoring mechanism meets the satisfaction of the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you looking for us to make a recommendation on this tonight, with our own
findings?
MR. ROUND-We’re looking for a recommendation for the rezoning. So that a recommendation
would be we recommend for rezoning to Veterans Field Light Industrial, or Light Industrial Veterans
Field, in accordance with the draft district description that’s included in the EIS, and then you can,
like I said, you can always pass on any other recommendations that you see fit, and if that includes
requesting that the Draft Findings Statement be circulated back to you, you can certainly include that.
MR. VOLLARO-How do these inputs go to the Town Board? In other words, are they separate
inputs from Planning Board members, or is it a collective input?
MR. ROUND-Well, it’s as with any other rezoning, the Planning Board issues a recommendation for
rezoning, as a body, as a resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That I understand, and these findings come in what fashion, what form?
MR. SCHACHNER-What form? Again, it’s acting as a body, but the conclusion of the EIS process
is the issuance of what’s called a SEQRA Findings Statement, and any agency that’s involved has to
issue a SEQRA Findings Statement before it takes any action. What Chris and Stu and I are talking
about is, although each agency is responsible for issuing a SEQR Findings Statement, there’s no
requirement that they be different from one another. So what we’re talking about suggesting is the
possibility of the Planning Board and the Town Board working together to forge one common
Findings Statement, if you will.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This would be a joint meeting of both Boards to forge such a document?
MR. SCHACHNER-There could be. We weren’t talking about that necessarily. It could be
developed as a proposed Findings Statement by Staff that both Boards could adopt with all the
inputs of the Boards. There’s no magic to whether, I mean, I don’t think we were talking about a
joint meeting.
MR. ROUND-No. I mean, we’d circulate it so that you could either provide comment that we
would then revise, or if we could have a workshop session. I mean, there’s various ways that we
could receive your input.
MR. RINGER-If a connector road was to go in, do we have any studies that says what would happen
to the rest of Richardson Street and Corinth Road, or Main Street and Western if there was a
connector road? I mean, we’re assuming if we put a connector road in it’s going to eliminate all our
problems? I mean, are we guessing at that?
MR. ROUND-I mean, I think you are to a certain extent. The 1998, or 1999 Creighton Manning
Engineering, Planning Study for the Corinth Road/Exit 18 Corridor indicated, I think, 15 to 20% of
the traffic would, on Main Street would be brought off of Main Street and used as a service road to
gain access to Luzerne Road and the other side roads. So that’s going to have a positive impact on
the other side streets, Richardson and Pine, etc., and it also indicated it would extend the program
wide for Main Street. Meaning that, instead of having to build a new expansion, 20 years from now,
maybe it’s 25 or maybe it’s 30 years. I don’t know if that answers your question, Larry. I guess are
we assuming that, it’s back to the trip distribution. It’s a big guess, as with any project, when you
don’t have a specific developer, you can’t say, 65% of my traffic’s coming from the north, 35% is
coming from the east, based on a labor, you know, market study that says this is where our
employees are coming from. We don’t have that yet because it is generic in nature, and it’s not
uncommon to not have that kind of detail as part of a Generic Impact Statement.
MR. RINGER-It just seems it’s expensive to acquire that property, to go from Corinth to Luzerne
Road, and then not have a real study of what it’s going to do, how effective it’s going to be.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. ROUND-Right. I guess, it’s going to have a benefit for Main Street. It’s certainly going to
make it a more attractive site, industrial park site, in that it does provide a more direct access, and is it
going to alleviate the need for mitigation to other intersections? I think that’s the question that
you’re asking. We don’t know it at this point, because we still don’t know what the actual
distributions are going to be, until facilities are constructed, until monitoring is conducted, as those
facilities come on line.
MR. RINGER-What’s involved in putting an exit from the Northway at Sherman Avenue or
Luzerne Road? What is, needs to be done for that or?
MR. MAC EWAN-An act of God.
MR. RINGER-Outside of an act of God, what needs to be done?
MR. ROUND-Well, during the discussions, during the Planning Study for Main Street, those
questions were asked. What about a connector, what about a new ramp on Sherman Avenue, what
about a new ramp at Luzerne Road, or another location. There’s not a need for a new ramp to solve
a problem on the Northway. Generally, they’re not going to construct new ramps to alleviate a
problem on a local highway system. That’s not the purpose of a ramp. The other answer that they
offered is that there’s already three ramps within very close proximity, and we don’t have that kind of
population density. We don’t have, it’s just not, you know, whether it’s policy or whether it’s a quick
answer for the Federal Highway Administration, they’re not going to build another multi million
dollar ramp in Queensbury in the near term or in a, you know, 10 or 20 year planning.
MR. RINGER-So the answer is, there’s no possibility whatsoever of having a?
MR. ROUND-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That brings us back to an act of God. Anything else?
MR. STROUGH-Well wasn’t there at least an idea of making the ramp go onto Big Boom Road?
MR. ROUND-That’s still being evaluated. Reconfiguration of Exit 18, that’s not a new interchange,
but that is being entertained.
MR. STROUGH-And you and I talked the other night about maybe possibly bringing the access
ramp, you know, coming from southbound traffic that wants to get off of Main Street, maybe that
could exit to this new connector road, and then we could make the coordinated intersection there.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. RINGER-It seems to me if we put a connector road in there, the ideal thing would be to make
Luzerne Road one way to the connector road, and Corinth Road one way coming the other way, and
that would eliminate all the traffic problems.
MR. ROUND-That was looked at. I don’t know, Clough Harbor’s now the engineer working for
Warren County. They are looking at reconfiguration of the ramps and whether those reconfiguration
of the ramps are necessary for the Main Street improvement project. We’ve been trying to build a
coalition of City and Town representatives to push those initiatives forward, because we think those
are very important projects, to make sure that this whole area continues to thrive in the future, and I
think any service road that is constructed between Main Street and Luzerne Road would definitely
have to work with whatever interchange improvements are made, and I think that’s the plan.
Whether we’re successful in executing that is another question.
MR. RINGER-I’m just saying if you made an interconnector road and it could handle the traffic
flow, then you don’t need the State to put another entrance or exit in off the Northway, and then you
would eliminate your traffic problems. It might not make the businesses happy on Corinth Road,
but you’d eliminate a lot of your traffic problems.
MR. ROUND-That was a very large political move to make Main Street one way, half the City of
Glens Falls, making the circulation patterns one way. They’re very difficult issues to deal with.
MR. RINGER-With it going the right way, you just have to make decisions sometimes.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Let me just touch on one, why the change in the concept of
architectural designs or uniformity?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MESINGER-Recognizing that you’re likely to get a number of different potential uses in there,
and that we don’t want to tie our hands.
MR. MAC EWAN-Even if you developed a very basic architectural plan, I mean a very basic one, so
that, I mean, I’ve been fortunate enough to travel a lot of different industrial parks around the
Northeast, and when you get over into Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire, some of the
newer industrial parks do have uniformity. I mean, there’s individuality between the businesses that
are located there, but there is a certain amount of compatibility in building design.
MR. MESINGER-Well, we went as far as we thought we could in the guidelines that we had. We
just were very, very, very, you know, given the economic climate around here and the desire to try
and attract some businesses, this made us very nervous, and so we tried to keep it just as minimal as
we possibly could.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are the minimums?
MR. MESINGER-They’re in your appendix, and I don’t have it in front of me. They’re in your
appendix that has the rezoning piece in it, and it’s just a very few sentences about architectural, no
flat roofs, and a couple of other things.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like me to read it?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. What I’m trying to drive at here is that, you know, I would hate like heck to
see all this effort put into this industrial park, to end up, in the long run, having a hodge podge of
building designs that just is not appealing, not only for the tenants who are in there, potential tenants
to move in there, but for the people who live in Queensbury and Glens Falls who will be driving by
it all the time.
MR. MESINGER-I share your sentiment. The other end of this is sort of the cold, hard economic
fact that you’re competing with other places. You’re in an area that’s having a heck of time keeping
jobs here, and if you throw another requirement at them, that, from their point of view, may cost
money or may be unnecessary or may not meet with their basic business goals, I think you run the
risk of sending them somewhere else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think there’s two sides to that issue, because we are competing with areas
like up in Essex Junction and South Burlington, which have some relatively new industrial parks up
there, and three of them that I can think of, right off the top of my head, all have uniformity in
building design. They filled up relatively quick. They filled up in five to seven years. There’s places
over in Shrewsbury Port, Mass., Concord, New Hampshire and Manchester, New Hampshire, there’s
some new parks over there. They all have the same thing, I mean, the bonus that New Hampshire’s
got no sales tax, but, you know, no income tax either, but.
MR. MESINGER-All these communities are healthier communities than we are. Every one of them
is a community that has.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but for the sake of wanting to have the effort to draw industry here, I
wouldn’t want to see us selling ourselves short by just allowing anything to be put up.
MR. MESINGER-Personally, on a personal level, obviously, I’d like it to be as attractive as you can.
I’m trying to think with the City and the Economic Development interests of the City, in terms of
not creating a requirement that’s going to put people off.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s not what I’m trying to achieve here. Maybe we can leave it at this,
explore that a little bit deeper, to see if you can come up with a very basic architectural plan that’s
going to be both affordable to developers and palatable at the same time, and make for a nice park, a
nice end product, that’s going to be a nice addition to the community.
MR. MESINGER-I will research the examples that you’ve given me tonight, because I haven’t
looked at any of those specifically, and see if I can’t come up with something.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Craig, in Appendix A, where they have building appearance, it says, “Building shall
generally be of masonry or wood construction. Butler or metal type buildings shall be allowed where
there is a front office space of masonry or wood. Flat roofs shall not be allowed”. It’s a rather short
statement on really building appearance. So if you can build on that statement, I think it would help.
MR. MAC EWAN-May I be so bold as to tell you where my thinking is? Washington County
Industrial Park. It’s not very appealing. It is a total hodge podge of different architectural designs,
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
different building size, setbacks, and it’s just like it was all an afterthought. It was all put in a cow
pasture, and no one gave it a lot of thought, and we have an opportunity here to make this thing look
really nice and be a real asset to both communities, and I think especially at one of the major
gateways coming into both Glens Falls and Queensbury, and I think we should put the effort forth.
Okay. Any other comments?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t want to bring that up, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-You know me. I always speak my mind. All right, if someone wants to introduce
a resolution, you’re welcome to.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give it a try. It may not go, but I’ll give it a try in any event.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY PZ 1-2000 CITY
OF GLENS FALLS / VETERANS FIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK TO THE PROPOSED
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL VETERANS FIELD DESIGNATION: Introduced by Robert Vollaro
who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
And the motion to recommend is based on the Planning Board participating with the Town Board in
developing findings, particularly those findings with respect to traffic.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-I just wanted to make sure that, and probably Mark could answer this best, that
that mechanism would include, would incorporate further public Planning Board input into the
traffic situation. Because Stu and I talked about Phase I being a demarcation where we were going to
re-address this traffic situation. Now, is a Findings going to make me comfortable?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I can’t answer the question of whether the Findings will make you
comfortable.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, with the process.
MR. SCHACHNER-As I understand Bob’s motion, boiling it down into fewer words, I think his
motion was to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning, with the condition that the Planning
Board have the opportunity to participate in generation of what he called Findings, what I call SEQR
Findings, but same difference, with the Town Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-And if that’s true, then your participation, his motion doesn’t specify exactly
how that participation occurs, and I’m not suggesting it should. I think, in fact, that’s very
appropriate the way he worded it, but the way that participation would occur would be, presumably,
one of the ways that we outlined earlier, either Staff prepares a Draft Findings Statement which you
then have opportunity to review and comment on and your review and comment would, in fact,
occur at a public meeting, or some sort of joint meeting or joint effort at some other type of exercise.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now do I have a second?
MR. STROUGH-Second.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. MESINGER-Thank you all.
NEW BUSINESS:
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 2-2000 DKC HOLDINGS, INC. OWNER: SAME
RECOMMENDATION AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER CURRENT ZONING: LI-1A
(16-91 AC.), SR-1A (6.22 AC.) PROPOSED ZONING: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH OF
SHERMAN AV., NO. OF LUZERNE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF
16.91 ACRES IN THE LI-1A ZONE AND 6.22 ACRES IN THE SR-1A ZONE TO SFR-20.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
CROSS REFERENCE: TOWN BOARD RES. 328.2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING:
9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20 LOT SIZE: 23.13 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-20
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. RYBA-First what I’d like to mention, there were two letters that were submitted to the
Planning Board, and I can read those into the record whenever you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, why don’t you go ahead and do it right now.
MRS. RYBA-All right. The first letter was received from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Kathy O’Brien, and she’s a Biologist with the Endangered
Species Unit, and this is in reference to the Karner blue butterfly habitat. Would you like me to read
the letter verbatim, or summarize?
MR. MAC EWAN-You know, I guess, as important as it is, it’s rather lengthy, but let’s read it in,
please.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. “We appreciate receiving the information about the DKC Holding, Inc.
proposal for development of 27 residential lots south of Sherman Avenue which was sent by Marilyn
Ryba. There is an important population of the state and federally endangered Karner blue butterfly
on the Niagara Mohawk (NiMo) power line right-of-way (prow) that runs through the property and
several patches of the food plant for the butterfly, wild blue lupine, within the property to the south
of the prow. There are several issues about development in that area that are of concern to us. 1)
We are interested in where access roads for the proposed lots would cut through the prow and how
they would affect Karner blues and their habitat. Destruction of occupied Karner blue habitat is
prohibited without both state and federal permits. Even if the roads would not take actual habitat,
there may be impacts from the drying effects of the pavement, snow and salt and deposition,
interruption of the vegetation, and changes in drainage that we would need to assess. 2) This area
supports inland pitch-pine scrub oak barrens habitat, a globally rare plant community that is in
decline from development and fire suppression. This development would probably remove all or
most of this plant community on the property, as well as destroy any opportunity for the population
to expand from the prow. It would also destroy the lupine patches on the south side of the property.
3) Residential development of the property will expose the Karner blue population to yard-waste
dumping by the residents. Dumping of yard-waste is an extremely dangerous problem to other
Karner blue populations on other parts of NiMo prows, especially just down the road from the
project site in the Oak Tree Circle development. The habitat is literally being buried under piles of
leaves, grass clippings and other waste and the existence of the population is being threatened. If this
project is allowed to go further, preservation of a substantial vegetated buffer along both sides of the
prow should be required. 4) Access roads across the prow will also facilitate dumping of inorganic
items into the prow such as couches and car parts. This also was happening in the prow at Oak Tree
Circle and necessitated installation of large barriers by NiMo. Since the land is owned by the
developer with only an easement to NiMo, such barriers should be their responsibility. Barriers
would also be needed to prevent local residents from taking yard waste into the prow from the roads.
5) An earlier iteration of development of the property by the previous landowner discussed the
possibility of transferring the prow portion of the property to a conservation entity to allow for
beneficial management for the Karner blue. Has this possibility been discussed in this proposal?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project in its early stage. As more information
about the project becomes available, we will probably have further comments. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service should also be made aware of the project and may also have comments. I would be
happy to show the developer the habitat that is of concern in the prow, although until next spring the
lupine plants will not be readily visible. I would also be happy to provide more detailed information
about the Karner blue to the Planning Board either with a slide presentation or with visits to Karner
blue population sites. If you have any questions about this endangered animal or any of our
comments, please do no hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kathy O’Brien Biologist I, Wildlife
Endangered Species Unit” And the second is from Warren County Regional Economic
Development Corporation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we’d be best to hold that one for the public hearing.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone 2-2000, DKC Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date:
September 26, 2000 “Site History:
The site was subject to a Petition for Zone Change last year, PZ-1-1999, Sandra Combs, tax parcel
93-2-20.1. The request was to rezone 23.40 acres from LI-1A/SR-1A to SR-20 so that 32 residential
lots could be provided. The Town Board did not approve the previous application since the County
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
Planning Board recommended denial due to concerns pertaining to loss of industrial land (Town
Board minutes of 9/20/99).
Site Environment:
The proposed project is split zoned with 16.91 acres in LI-1A and 6.22 acres in SR-1A (23.13 acres
total). The NIMO right-of-way runs through the property at the zone line. As per the attached map
there is Karner Blue butterfly habitat (an endangered species). This habitat is located along the
NIMO right-of-way to the eastern border of the parcel. Several lots would be impacted. The DEC
Endangered Species Unit has been advised and a request was made to provide recommendations for
species/habitat protection. Exact habitat locations are not noted on the Concept Plan.
Application:
The application has been forwarded to the Planning Board from the Town Board. The applicant has
responded to questions as outlined in the Application - Petition for Change of Zone, as submitted.
These questions are to be considered by the Planning Board. Upon consideration, the Planning Board is
to submit answers to the Town Board. The Planning Board is to make a recommendation to the Town
Board upon review of Petition. The County recommended approval as per their meeting of 9/13/00.
The applicant has provided answers to all questions except for item #8; How is the proposed compatible
with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)? The proposal is consistent
with the CLUP (see Neighborhood 12), which recommended a zoning change to allow for infill,
specifically, SR-20. The CLUP also notes that environmental impacts of a proposal on Karner Blue
habitat must also be considered, and attachments have been made showing the neighborhood and
Karner blue habitat.
Staff has included the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Neighborhood 12 section, and a 1999 Memo
from Chris Round to the Town Board in regards to the previous request for a zone change from light
industrial to residential.
Conclusions:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighborhood. Conditions may be
placed on the property upon subdivision review.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Gentlemen.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper and Matt Steves. Very simply, Matt will go through the
Neighborhood map. We think that this proposal not only is compatible with the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan recommendations, but with that whole area a very heavily residential area in the
Town, and the proposal that we’ve made is the same sized lots as most of what’s right there, part of
this is zoned industrial, and what the Warren County Regional Economic Development Corp. is
correctly concerned about the loss of industrial land in the Town, but I don’t believe that, at least the
land on Sherman Ave. is suitable for industrial development. I think you’d have a room full of
people very unhappy, all the residents there, if this were really proposed for industrial, but with that
in mind, over the course of a number of presentations to the Town Board, and to finalize the
proposal over the Spring, we started off asking that the whole parcel be rezoned to Single Family
Residential, and came back with only this subdivision of the Sherman Ave. property, leaving the rest
light industrial in the hopes that, and I’ve written to Warren County Economic Development asking
for their help in marketing the property, the 60 acres, the two-thirds of the property on the Luzerne
side for suitable Light Industrial development, to see if there’s any interest out there. So we’re really
only talking about a third of the property, which we think is compatible with the neighborhood, and
therefore appropriate and certainly compatible with the Land Use Plan. In terms of the Karner blue
butterfly habitat, we’re aware of that. The picture that Marilyn mentioned that’s in the packet on the
second to last page, shows that it’s a very, very small area, the extreme eastern part of the site. It
would affect a couple of lots that, whether the property is developed, because that area is, right now,
industrial, most of it, up to the power line. Whether it’s industrial or residential, it would still be an
issue that the habitat would have to be protected, and that’ll certainly be part of the proposal, as it
goes forward and comes back for subdivision approval before this Board, and in terms of
environmental review, with the Town Board for rezoning, but I don’t think that that’s significant,
one way or another, whether it’s residential or industrial, as long as there’s a management plan in
place, and again, it’s just a very, very small area on this parcel. Matt, why don’t you show them
exactly what we have in mind.
MR. STEVES-The property that we’re talking about is this area here. It’s just the northerly end of
the area that you see highlighted in blue on this map. It falls directly east of the Smoke Ridge
development, and Sherman Avenue, you see all the lots, Arbutus Drive, as you’re heading down
through, Howard Street, Leo, all those areas directly to the north of us here, are all the smaller lots.
As a matter of fact, most of them are along the 15,000 or under lot size. A few of them do
accommodate the 20,000 square foot zone. So as far as, we’re talking about an area that would fall
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
south of the power line, remaining about 17 acres of the 21 acre parcel, and currently the northerly
half of that is currently a different zone. It’s not in the Light Industrial zone. It is a residential zone
at this point. So it’s predominantly surrounded by residential lots. Like I said, with the Niagara
Mohawk power line cutting through about half way north/south between Sherman Avenue and this
southerly property line, and the area that it was designated as Karner blue habitat, is on the power
line, or around the power line access, or easement, on the west or easterly edge of the property, and
definitely as we go through the process, we would have DEC look at that, and flag it, mark the
habitats, so that we can accommodate the protection of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-DEC’s letter says not only is it on the NiMo right of way, but that there’s several
patches of the food plant for the butterfly within the property.
MR. STEVES-Right, and we have to have them delineate that and, you know, specifically for us to
accommodate the protection of that, which we intend to do. Now this is the concept plan talking
about the three tax parcels we were originally talking about, the two to the south to remain the Light
Industrial, and the current zone line as is depicted on here, is Light Industrial south of the north line
of the Niagara Mohawk power line, and then one acre to the north of that. So you’re looking at an
area here of approximately 17 acres, 16.91 acres.
MR. MAC EWAN-The two little pieces in the middle, you’re going around them? Down at the
bottom.
MR. STEVES-These two here?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STEVES-These two parcels are currently owned by DKC Holdings. These two were out
parcels that are currently owned by somebody else, but the property under review for zoning is just
this area on the north end. It’s a separate tax parcel from these other two larger pieces.
MR. VOLLARO-Matt, the dotted line, that’s the zone change, at the dotted line, but is that also
where the Niagara Mohawk runs as well?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That’s the northerly bounds of Niagara Mohawk’s holdings in there,
and that is, right there.
MR. RINGER-When you came before us last year, what parcel were you asking for the rezoning, the
whole thing?
MR. STEVES-It wasn’t us.
MR. RINGER-That was Combs. I think it was Sandra Combs. Yes, what was she asking for?
MR. STEVES-I believe for the same parcel that we are asking for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, nothing’s changed. The same application.
MR. LAPPER-Larry Clute has now purchased all three of those tax map parcels.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MR. STEVES-Not at this time, unless you have questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. What are those two parcels, what are those parcels zoned down below that? I
mean, I tried to find that.
MR. STEVES-Everything south of the northerly bounds of the Niagara Mohawk property is all
zoned Light Industrial.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. My concern then is, if in fact, that southerly part maintains a Light
Industrial zone, then Light Industrial zone is going to abut the residential zone.
MR. STEVES-Which it does now.
MR. STROUGH-That always leads to problems.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. LAPPER-John, we’re proposing an extra large buffer on both sides of that. We don’t know if
there’s really going to be industrial development, if anyone’s going to be interested or if the Town’s
going to be interested, in the future there, but if that did happen, certainly, you know, 100 foot on
either side, some good size or 50 foot on the residential and 100 feet on the industrial, there’s plenty
of room there to do a pretty significant buffer, if necessary.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s what I was suggesting is that when this comes back for site plan, that
I’m glad to hear that the applicant is amenable to a situation where they realize that there will be a
larger than normal buffer zone, being requested, along those property lines, should this happen.
MR. STEVES-In the concept plan, there is a dashed line along the southerly bounds of those lots
that represent a 50 foot buffer zone on the residential lots.
MR. LAPPER-We can do more than that on the industrial side where there’s plenty of land.
MR. STROUGH-And, okay, what’s this labeled on the map, my map, and that’s the one you referred
to before, the second to last page, it says “Pitched pine trails”, is that the?
MR. LAPPER-That was referred to in the letter from DEC, Kathy O’Brien, that Marilyn read.
MR. STROUGH-What is it, Jon?
MRS. RYBA-The Pitched Pine, it’s scrub oak barrens habitat, which is also a rare plant community.
So that’s something in addition to the Karner blue.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s desirable to be protected? Is that what we’re suggesting?
MRS. RYBA-Yes, and that’s habitat that’s also amendable to the growth of Lupine, which the Karner
blue feed on.
MR. LAPPER-That’s nothing that we’re proposing to develop at this point. That would be part of
the industrial, the stuff that’s left, the 60 acres of industrial.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it does go a little bit into that lot. I mean, it does show that that Pitch Pine
trails, you know, does go into the.
MR. STEVES-That’s an approximation by DEC. Do you realize that?
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, I was reading the map wrong.
MR. STEVES-But as we go forward, we’re definitely going to have to go out into the field to review
that, to mark any locations of either one of those habitats, and accommodate a buffer around those.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just kind of concerned that the developer is going to be less than happy
by the time he gets done redrawing his potential lot making ability of this lot.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if Larry loses a few lots, that’s one thing, but also these can be developed where
there would be a management plan, so there’ll be deed covenants saying, you house is here, you
backyard is here, and there’s the area where you can’t clear, and you just have to maintain it, and that
happens with Karner blue habitat a lot in Saratoga County where there’s a lot of sandy parcel like
this. It’s fairly common. You just have to provide for it in the subdivision, as a condition.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along those lines, and not to interrupt you, John, but do we know if that was,
that that sort of covenants were put in the deeds for over there in Hidden Hills?
MRS. RYBA-I didn’t investigate any deeds.
MR. MAC EWAN-You live in Hidden Hills. Do you have that in your deed?
MR. STEVES-No, but at that time, there was no, my recollection is a requirement or was the blue
Karner was not on the Endangered Species List at that time.
MR. ROUND-The habitat survey wasn’t completed until about, I think it’s about three years old,
Marilyn? It was completed as a result of the Curtis Lumber project that was constructed at Exit 18.
That was funding. So, that’s why it was completed. So it may not have been identified at that time.
MR. MAC EWAN-We got the ball rolling when we were doing Hudson Pointe. That’s when we
really started identifying there were sites around. I’m sorry, John.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. STROUGH-That’s all right. I just keep thinking that, wouldn’t it be in the developer’s best
interest to save this, because the larger the lots, the easier it is to work around your Lupine and your
Pitch Pine and everything else, but the more room you’ve got to play with, that we can design things
that will work better, but the smaller you make things, the more difficult it becomes to make it work.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess I’d say that, in this area of Town, in terms of infrastructure costs and the
character of the lots that are already there, it wouldn’t be suitable for one acre development, just in
terms of the market price of homes right there, but also, as long as these are protected, it probably
doesn’t matter if it’s a smaller lot or a bigger lot, as long as the developer knows that they have to
protect the habitat. I think it can be accomplished both ways.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had some of the same concerns as John about, I mean, I’ve been on that site.
I’ve been on the site a few years ago when I worked for the Development Corporation, and I don’t
think it has any appeal for Light Industrial use. I think the residential, proposed residential, is
consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, but I, too, am concerned about the adjacent land uses
in the event that Light Industry does go in south of this proposal, and what kinds of conflicts might
occur as a result. So I’m encouraged about your comments about the buffer zone. One of the issues
that I’m also concerned about is the impact of more single family homes on the School District, and
I think that’s part of what was alluded to in the letter that we received, you know, the costs of
supporting the School District are largely borne by residential tax payers. I’m not too concerned
about losing industrial zone as much as putting more kids into the School District. Of course, the
butterfly issue has been identified up front, and we assume will be dealt with appropriately, but I
don’t know if you had any comments about impacts on the School District?
MR. LAPPER-I guess I’d say that the developable areas in the Town are becoming fewer as the
Town gets developed, but there’s certainly going to continue to be residential development, because
it’s a nice place to live, as we all know, and the School system has a great reputation. So, I don’t see
residential development stopping, but I think that there’s just fewer and fewer areas to develop in the
Town, but that’s a valid concern, but I don’t, unless there’s going to be a moratorium on residential
development, I just see that continuing to happen.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I guess I remember the night that Mr. Rosenthal was here, a few
months back, and presented a very nice, lengthy case as to the fact that there’s also fewer and fewer
places that are zoned LI in this Town, too, and I think if you’re going to decide which ones were
most abundant, it would be the residential areas, not the LI zones. So, it’s a toughie with me.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I certainly recognize that. I’m on the QEDC, and I’m aware that that’s really
important that we have industrial land that’s suitable for development, but that’s why we changed the
project and compromised with the 60 acres, which is still a pretty significant industrial area, but this
doesn’t have sewer available. It doesn’t have transportation access to Corinth Road here, truck
access. So this is not, and it has, certainly on the northern side, there’s just an awful lot of residents
that I think would feel put out if you had industrial development all the way to Sherman. So this is a
way of keeping the Sherman side in character with the residential area, and letting the southern side
be developed industrially, hopefully, as a compromise.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, when was this, was this rezoned way back when they did it in the 80’s,
rezoned again LI, or has it always been LI?
MR. LAPPER-As far as I know, it’s been LI for a long time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then the residents know it’s been LI all these years, and I would think
that those two parcels that border on the Luzerne Road, and the other one, they’re still accessible to
main arteries in and out of Town. I don’t know, John, I know where you’re coming from, but it’s
always been LI. So I don’t think that.
MR. STEVES-Correct, it has, but not the entire site. The access to Sherman Avenue has never been
Light Industrial. It’s only the area south of the power line on that lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. If someone was going to potentially develop that as a Light Industrial site,
they’re going to access it from Luzerne Road.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’ll have a 100 foot buffer or 50 foot buffer on Sherman Avenue.
MR. STEVES-Right. I just wanted to reiterate the fact that the entire site is not Light Industrial. She
was saying it has always been Light Industrial. The northerly end of the area that attaches to
Sherman Avenue on the east and west there, north of the power line, is not Light Industrial.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, the part that’s contiguous with Sherman Avenue is.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s always been residential.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And right below the zone line, yes, I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-The other side of this is that it’s been marketed for a while Light Industrial, and it just
doesn’t seem that this is considered a Light Industrial part of the Town, and no one’s seemed
interested in it. So there’s also, just in terms of a viability issue, it just hasn’t been effective.
MR. MAC EWAN-That may not necessarily be a fair statement to make, because the viability with
any Light Industrial property we have in the Town of Queensbury is the accessibility of utilities and
water and sewer.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, and this has not great water, sewer or accessibility, and there’s no plans to
change that in the near future.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that doesn’t mean necessarily that every piece of Light Industrial property we
have in the Town, rezone it to residential because there’s no immediate burning issue plans to
develop.
MR. LAPPER-I totally agree with you, and that’s why we’re in, we’re only talking about a third of the
property, and we’re proposing to have, to work with Warren County, to see if they can market the
southern part, and see if they can do something with it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was going to say the same thing, and again, you know, you can say you’re
going to put up your 100 foot buffer, but, I’ve built three houses and I’ve moved three times, and
I’ve said it for the past six years, that’s the very same reason why I moved. You put, somebody
comes in there and they build their house, and then 15 years from now, all of a sudden, their house
isn’t the same house again, because I don’t care if you have a 100 foot buffer, it could still have some
kind of commercial business, light industrial business coming in there. So maybe this really isn’t such
a great idea anyhow. I’m thinking of the people that are going to put all their energies and their life
savings into building this house, and then their kids are 10 and 12 years old and they turn around and
the bulldozers are coming in in their backyard and they’re going, gosh darn it, I don’t want to live
here anymore. So I’m not so sure if this is the type of place to put a residential area. Because of that,
and like I say, so, it’s a tough one with me, but I’m looking down the line, and I’m trying to protect
those future people that are going to buy that land, because I’ve been in that spot before. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in reading the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and having visited this site,
and knowing that really nobody’s come forward, from an industrial point of view, at least, to grab
onto this, it seems to me that the proper thing to do with this is to rezone it. That’s my take on it.
One of the things I would say though, and the recommendation in the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan says careful consideration of traffic impacts would be needed at the time of subdivision review,
which we haven’t done any of here yet, Craig, haven’t seen any of that, and certainly some of the
comments up the line here are valid, in terms of putting commercial properties in and having the
impact on the School system, that certainly is not necessarily a Planning Board issue, and I recognize
that, because it starts to border on economics, and for some unknown reason in the past, we have to
keep our hands off that, but it plays all the time. Just to get onto your comment for a minute, on
residential development, you know, we are running out of properties, to develop. The only thing I
see is a lot of people say that property’s not developable. I’ve heard those words before. I think all
properties are developable, at a price. It costs you to develop a bad piece, and I think that’s one of
the problems we’re having. People are looking for, where can I develop, but the cost of
development becomes higher and higher and higher, as the property becomes less and less desirable,
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
but now after that little speech, I would say that I would probably look favorably upon rezoning this
property to residential.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I agree, pretty much, with what Bob said. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
suggests that this be changed to residential, and I agree, and I think it should be. I’d also like to share
that comment that Chris made and Bob made about the Schools, which we have no control over .
Since I’ve been on the Board, I think we’ve approved, I don’t know how many subdivisions,
probably 1,000 additional homes in the Town of Queensbury, and this, somewhere down the line, is
going to have an effect on the School District, and hopefully maybe the Planning Board, at a
workshop session or something, could come up with some kind of recommendations or something
for the Town Board to look into what we’re doing from a residential standpoint, and what effect
would they be having on the School Districts, but this is not the time or the place for that, and I
think that the subdivision, or the change of zone is good. That’s it, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have no problems with it. I am curious, though, as to why, and I could be
missing something here, under the Warren County Planning Board, you were approved as Single
Family Residence 10, as opposed to a 20?
MR. LAPPER-That’s got to be a typo.
MRS. RYBA-It must be a typo, because I checked to see what was submitted to them, and it
definitely was 20.
MR. METIVIER-It was a 20?
MR. LAPPER-When we discussed it at Warren County it was 20 also.
MR. METIVIER-I have no problems. I think it fits in with what’s there now, and I do have to say,
being somebody looking at a piece of property to build a house, I certainly would want to know
what’s going on behind me, and, you know, give it some thought. I guess you just hope that people
would use that, the builder, you know, would at least, never mind. I just, I guess my concern is that
you should know what’s in your surrounding prior to committing to that, and so I don’t see where
there’s an issue where a bulldozer would come in a few years and start building behind you because
it’s already zoned that way. We’re not going to do any changing, well, I would hope not, in the
future.
MR. LAPPER-It’s a disclosure issue, though, you’re right.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s also buyer beware issue, as well.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, but I mean, it’s already that way. We wouldn’t be changing the zoning for the
back parcels to Light Industrial later on because that’s what they are now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a question for Staff. In the copies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
you attached with this application tonight, I just want to be sure that I’m looking at the right parcels
with the right recommendations. I’m looking at Neighborhood 12, Page 3. I’m looking at
Recommendation 12.3. Is that in reference to these parcels of land in question?
MRS. RYBA-It’s 12.2 covers part of this parcel, and that’s the Section, it covers part of that, and then
underneath it’s blank. It’s a map you’re looking at, correct? Because I didn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m looking at the written recommendations, which is on Page 3, R12.3, it
says “The Niagara Mohawk property and the lands east of it, to the Northway, should allow Light
Industrial uses. This would provide more suitable industrial properties, potential access onto either
Luzerne or Sherman. A sizeable wooded buffer (suggested 100 feet away) along Sherman should be
included (and would be achievable), since the lots are currently wooded”.
MRS. RYBA-That is part of it, yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. And the reference that Mr. Vollaro was just making to, to 12.7, regarding.
MRS. RYBA-That shows on a map as being east of the Northway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MRS. RYBA-The 12.3 shows on the map here, it says, consider area for Light Industrial uses. Under
the recommendations, okay, under the recommendations it’s 12.3 which would be the map. This
particular parcel is along 12.2, where it says Sherman Avenue, the area west of the Niagara Mohawk
property should be residential in nature.
MR. STEVES-12.3 is the area north of Arrowhead Equipment, just west of the Northway.
MR. MAC EWAN-North of Arrowhead, west of the Northway.
MR. STEVES-All the way north to Sherman Avenue.
MR. LAPPER-That’s zoned residential, and the proposal is to make that Industrial.
MRS. RYBA-The 12.3 is on both sides of the Northway.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at that one there. Okay. That’s fine. So the recommendation
12.3, which is that one right there, they’re recommending that we retain as Light Industrial usage?
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the recommendation 12.4 is considering the Multi use, MR-5.
MR. VOLLARO-R12.2.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I’m just talking about that parcel, so I know what we have as a proposed
buffer between.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. That solved that one question. I guess the dilemma I’m having
with this is, you know, the loss of potential industrial development we have in the Town. While it
may not be a prime site or, you know, a wish list on the short list of five that you’d want to be,
nonetheless, it’s still a Light Industrial zone, and nonetheless, we don’t have that much of it left in
the Town. Top that off with the concerns that DEC has over the not one but two potential
endangered species habitats, not only the Karner blue but the Pine Barren Bluffs, that, you know,
how much intensive development can go on these parcels, and that’s what I have concerns with , and
I asked Matt, with his deed restrictions that he has living in Hidden Hills, knowing that there’s now
problems over there, even if there were deed restrictions placed on homeowners, how could one be
assured that that habitat would be, you know, guarded and protected for future generations?
MR. LAPPER-Well, with habitats, it’s only those areas that are specific to the habitats that you
protect, and if you look, you know, the map that Marilyn provided, it’s really just these two
concentrated area of whether it’s residential or industrial, you’d still have to protect them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-And in terms of industrial, I mean, personally I think that part of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and the Town’s plans to rezone the areas over by the Airport, by Queensbury Ave. is
an appropriate place for Light Industrial, because you have infrastructure available, and the Quaker
Road corridor for truck traffic, which doesn’t mean that, I think that there is suitable, what they’ve
been talking about is sort of a hi-tech type, not major league manufacturing, but some kind of a, for
this southern area, I mean, I do think that there is some appropriate that doesn’t require a lot of
truck traffic, that it could be done there, but I think that by leaving 60 acres and marketing it, we’re
trying to accommodate both.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would you ensure that any potential endangered species, whether it be
animal or vegetation, be protected if this was to turn into a housing development?
MR. LAPPER-As part of the subdivision approval process, we would have conditions that would say
that you would have, attached, which would be on the map also, a maintenance plan for these areas, a
no build zone around it, the location of the house and the septic system in these areas, it would all be
planned, as part of the approvals. So there would be conditions, like any other conditions, and I’ve
done this more in Saratoga County, but where you have these Karner blue, and this is a very small
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
area, and you just do the right thing, and Kathy O’Brien will ultimately write a letter saying thank you
for taking care of this. We are satisfied with your management plan, but that’s part of the process
with the Planning Board in subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-I hear that, and I think of two developments that I’ve been part of since I’ve
been on this Board that have, where we’ve taken an endangered area or sensitive areas. We’ve put
conditions on part of the approvals to make sure that they could be managed for future years to
come, and both have not succeeded, and one of them is Native Textiles where we fenced off in the
dunes behind there, and I know that kids have gone in there and broken down those fences and they
ride dirt bikes through there. So the habitat’s destroyed, even when it was fenced off, and Hudson
Pointe is another one where there was several sensitive areas in there that were separated away from
the development itself, but they’re being destroyed because of ATV’s and stuff. So if the mechanism
is in there, and I guess it’s not so much that I’m thinking the ATV’s and that sort of thing, is what
I’m hearing is happening over in Hidden Hills with people disposing of clippings and grass clippings
and leaves and stuff like that, which is smothering the sites. If you go and develop something like
that with a housing development, you’re going to have, you know, 20 or 30 homeowners who are
going to look some place to discarded their leaves if we don’t have our leaf pick up programs
anymore.
MR. STEVES-The other side of that coin, Craig, is that I live in Hidden Hills, and I know how that
has developed, and they weren’t even there when I first moved in because of the fact that before that
was a development, everybody drove their dirt bikes, their bikes, their four wheelers, their cars, their
trucks, their Jeeps, all through that area and up and down the pole lines, and probably destroyed
anything that was there, until such time as it became residential and then they put up barriers across it
to prevent dirt bikes, motorcycles, cars, trucks, to do that, and therefore, the area was able to come
back. It wasn’t there before that was developed. So there’s some other valid points about making it
a residential subdivision, that it kind of polices itself, because the last thing you’re going to want, if
you live there is somebody in a Jeep driving down through there in the middle of your residential
subdivision. That typically once it’s a residential subdivision, Niagara Mohawk would allow you to
put across posts and barriers that you go over to Hidden Hills, you can see them for yourself, a chain
with a large orange plastic coating on it, that stops that from happening. So I think that there is a.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t work, Matt. We have them over in our neighborhood, too, and they
go right around them.
MR. STEVES-Okay. They do not in mine. They do not go around them with a car. They
absolutely do not, and if you’re asking me if there’s ways to do it, yes, but you’re also stepping ahead
of the game, because we don’t know where these things are yet, or how substantial they’re going to
impact this, and I think that’s a point that we come across that we address at the time of the
subdivision approval, and whether or not this is subdivision or light industrial, it still has to be
protected, as John had said, and that’s absolutely what we’re going to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll disagree with you. I’m not getting in front of the program here. What I’m
thinking of is down the road, because if we put a recommendation to approve this, and it comes back
here for subdivision, and in the course of that, we find several problems in there, we start to address
them, and things could change, and people say, well, gee, you guys gave this a positive
recommendation several months ago.
MR. STEVES-I don’t mean it in the fact that you shouldn’t be looking at the concerns. It’s just that
we don’t know where these concerns lie at this time, and whether or not this is industrial or
residential, that concern still exists.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe before we move on, we should ask you to, maybe table this thing, get
together with DEC and identify exactly where these sites are, and map them, so that we know what
we’re working with, before we make a recommendation to the Town Board.
MR. LAPPER-This was already done, in 1997. So we have to update this. So I think that what Matt
said, and obviously it’s up to the Board, but I think this can go through with the rezoning, and the
issue with you is there may be fewer lots in the future when we determine what it is or what the
management plan is, but it still doesn’t effect the vast majority of the property, which can be
residentially subdivided.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-My only concern is that I don’t have a big problem with rezoning it residential, but
I think that the applicant, when he comes back in for site plan, is going to not be happy. I mean, by
the time we get done working out the NiMo right of way, by the time we get done locating where the
protection of the Karner butterfly, the protection of the scrub pine, that big buffer zone in back? I
mean, how many lots, they’ve got to be at least 20,000 square foot minimum lots, how many lots are
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
we going to end up with by the time all is said and done. I don’t know if the applicant’s going to be
particularly happy with.
MR. LAPPER-The applicant is aware of it, and if you look at the map that Staff provided, it’s really,
it’s on the borders of the property. We don’t think it’s that big a deal, in terms of the amount of
land, and if he loses a few lots, he loses a few lots.
MR. STEVES-Mr. Clute is well aware of these two situations, and he wants to go forward, and that’s
why we’re here.
MR. STROUGH-But that lot adjacent to it is light industrial. Like Cathy said, it always presents
problems. So it’s not going to be a 50 foot buffer zone, at least in my mind.
MR. LAPPER-Well, since he owns all the property, we’re proposing 50 feet on the residential, but
something much larger than that on the industrial side.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with that. I, personally, would feel like
I’d have to request more than that. That’s why I’m saying, by the time all is said and done, but, okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment
on this application? You’re welcome to do so. You can just come up and address your questions or
comments to the Board, please. No takers? Okay. We’ve got a letter to read in.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. RYBA-This was a letter from Warren Rosenthal of the Warren County Regional Economic
Development Corporation, and it was copied to the Town Clerk, the Queensbury School Board, the
Queensbury Board members, and the REDC Board members, it was addressed to Dennis Brower,
“At our most recent Executive Committee meeting, our officers were apprised of pending requests
before the town board for rezonings of parcels from light industrial to commercial or residential.
While our organization will not comment on a specific rezoning case, we want to reiterate our
position that there should be no net loss of industrially zoned property in the Town of Queensbury
(Please see our letter to you dated May 15, 2000, a copy of which is enclosed for your information).
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Warren S.
Rosenthal President” This letter was dated September 19. And then the attached letter from May
th
15, 2000, I can summarize that attachment, or it’s two pages, if you would like me to read?
MR. MAC EWAN-Summarize.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. It basically summarizes the exact square miles of zoned land, and I can, because
there is a summary here, I can relay this, “0.37 square miles of light industrial zoned land is currently
being used in a residential capacity. 0.77 square miles of light industrial zoned land is currently being
used in a commercial capacity. 0.15 square miles of light industrial zoned land is currently being used
in a light industrial capacity. 0.71 square miles of light industrial zoned land is currently vacant.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any takers on the public hearing? I’ll close it.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from the Board members? Why doesn’t
someone make a move, then, on it.
MRS. RYBA-Excuse me.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry, did you want to add something?
MRS. RYBA-I did. The actual application, petition for a change of zone, has a number of questions
which, according to Staff notes, the Planning Board needs to address in their recommendation to the
Town Board. You can either take the applicant’s information, or you can modify it. You can either
take the applicant’s information and forward that to the Town Board in the form of your
recommendation, or you can modify it or come up with your own answers to the questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for their petition to be changed, or to be corrected, I guess you
could say? Is that what you’re asking us?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MRS. RYBA-No. I’m asking you to, as part of your recommendation, to include, you need to
address those items. So if you feel that they’re adequately addressed, that’s fine, but if you want to
review them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Items One through Nine on their petition? Is that what you’re referring to?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s one question not answered on that, which is probably very germane, is,
“How is the proposed compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we just do this right now as a Board. Let’s just quickly go down
through, one through nine, we’ll hit each one and see what we’ve got, if we’ve got a majority of the
Board that feels the question is answered adequately. All right. Item One, “What need is being met
by the proposed change in zone or new zone?” And it’s said that “Twenty-seven additional
residential lots in a compatible residential area will be created while 60 acres will be available for
industrial development”. Does everyone agree with that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I agree with that.
MRS. RYBA-I would just like to make a note that this particular petition is for 23 acres, and not for
any additional acreage.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that on Question Number One, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-Yes. It says here that “60 acres will be available for industrial development”, but those
are parcels that are not part of this petition.
MR. LAPPER-Well, part and parcel of the property that Larry owns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute here now. That changes things, though. If you’re saying 60 acres,
but the 60 acres aren’t part of this petition, that are going to be withheld.
MR. LAPPER-We originally came in and asked for the whole property to be rezoned to single
family, and after meeting twice with the Town Board, we changed the request, so that it’s only the
acres to the north, with the understanding that the rest would be marketed for Light Industrial. So
I’m only saying that the rest is going to be left available for marketing for industrial. Just to address
the issue of loss of industrial land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is the Board still comfortable with that as a whole?
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to hear Marilyn’s piece one more time, limited to 23 acres, is that what you?
MRS. RYBA-Well, the actual petition, the application itself, is for, on Page One, says it’s for 23.13
acres, and the Question One notes that there’s an additional 60 acres available for industrial
development.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you want to limit this application to the 23.1?
MRS. RYBA-Well, it’s not what I want. I think the applicant said 23.13 acres, and I think Mr. Lapper
just made a clarification about the 60 acres.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Two, is everyone in agreement with Item Two?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Three?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Majority on that? Item Four?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. VOLLARO-“What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? Well
drained soils”. I don’t have any basis for the fact that they’re well drained soils. People who have
been here a long time and have played or rode or whatever on that can say that, but I can’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Item Five? Do I hear a majority saying that Item Five’s okay?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Six?
MR. RINGER-I agree with that.
MR. METIVIER-I agree with that, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Seven?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the environmental impacts.
MR. RINGER-We don’t know, but it will be addressed in site plan, or subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-It could be significant when we get down to, you know, to doing subdivision or site
plan review, one or the other. So I don’t know that I can agree with seven.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me offer to change that “Insignificant” to say “Unknown” because we really
don’t.
MR. LAPPER-To be determined, that’s fine. Unknown.
MR. MAC EWAN-I feel better with that. Unknown.
MR. RINGER-It’s insignificant to the rezoning. It may not be insignificant to subdivision, but it’s
insignificant to the request for rezoning.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. RINGER-So I think “Insignificant” is okay there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree with Larry, because you would have the same potential environmental
impacts if it were light industrial, as if it were single family residential.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The only thing is putting “To be determined” in that slot really serves to highlight,
later on, that we were considering the fact that, you know, that there are some environmental impacts
to this thing, but we weren’t sure about it at the time we did this. I’m looking for something that’s a
flag for us in the future. That’s why I would prefer to see “To be determined” in there, rather than
“Insignificant”.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m okay with either way, actually.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ve got to have it one way or the other.
MR. STROUGH-To be determined, I can live with that.
MR. RINGER-To be determined.
MR. MAC EWAN-To be determined. We’re going to change that, Marilyn.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Item Eight is left blank.
MR. RINGER-I think it fits in.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it fits in as well.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Compatible with the neighborhood recommendations.
MR. VOLLARO-Did you folks leave that out because you didn’t know what to put in, or did you
leave it out because you left it out?
MR. LAPPER-Because when I was trying to make the deadline for submission, I didn’t have a copy
of the newest plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-And Number Nine, is everyone comfortable with Number Nine?
MR. RINGER-If there’s a demand, I don’t know what it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-On what basis do you come up with the fact that there’s a demand for single
family residential in the Town of Queensbury?
MR. LAPPER-They’re selling like crazy.
MR. HUNSINGER-Only on the west side of the Northway.
MR. LAPPER-No, there’s also on the east side, but I’m only addressing the west side.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know how significant it is one way or the other.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Number Nine is in agreement. The Board’s in agreement with all items,
One through Nine, with the exception of Item Seven, which they would rather label, “To be
determined”.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. So any recommendation you make to the Town Board, in the form of
resolution, would refer to those nine items.
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE FOR
PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 2-2000 DKC HOLDINGS, INC. FROM THE
EXISTING LI-1A / SR-1A TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 20,000 SQUARE
FEET, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption seconded by Larry Ringer:
And that along with this recommendation is forwarded the application for petition of zone change.
There are nine items on that that the Planning Board has essentially agreed to, with the exception of
one, Number Seven has been changed from significant to, to be determined.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 MODIFICATION PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION:
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE
PLAN FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF AVIATION ROAD. MODIFICATION IS FOR
REMOVAL OF A WOODEN FENCE AND THE PLANTING OF A HEDGE IN FRONT
OF THE FENCE WHICH WERE CONDITIONS OF THE AREA VARIANCE AND
SITE PLAN APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 4-93, AV 22-2000, AV 54-2000 TAX
MAP NO. 82-3-1, 2/82-2-6/90-1-2.2 LOT SIZE: 3.01 AC., 1.44 AC., 1.90 AC., 0.36 AC.
SECTION: 179-20
JON LAPPER, RICHARD JONES, LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2000, Modification, Prospect Child & Family Center, Meeting
Date: September 26, 2000 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a modification to a Planning Board approved site plan. The applicant
proposes the removal of vegetation and fencing per a condition of the resolution for the Main Center
of Prospect Child and Family Center.
Project Analysis
Site Plan 10-2000 for Prospect Child and Family Center was approved on June 27, 2000 for the
construction of additions to both the school and the main center. The Main Center addition
received approval based upon additional plantings and screening be provided along a section of the
north property line. The additional screening was provided to minimize the noise impact of the
playground usage on the neighbors.
The neighbors of the Main Center contacted the applicant to request the site plan be modified. The
neighbors requested the elimination of the additional screening and landscaping on the north
property line of the Main Center. The applicant has provided a letter requesting a modification and a
copy of the neighbor’s communications.
The proposal does not change any of the following:
1. the proposed addition size, design, or location to the Main Center or School
2. conditions of additional planting and screening to the School proposal
3. vehicular or pedestrian traffic movements for either the Main Center or School
4. the stormwater management to either the Main Center or the School
Areas of Concern or Importance
The Prospect Child and Family Center modification has also been referred to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The applicant’s area variance AV54-2000 was conditionally approved provided the
applicant install the plantings and screenings at the Main Center north property line.
The Zoning Board granted a modification for the removal of the proposed fence on the North
property line of the Main Center (9/20/00, ZBA resolution attached). The proposed plantings for
the North property line of the Main Center are to be installed as originally approved
Conclusions
The modification would not require the removal of an existing vegetation line that currently borders
the Main Center north property line.”
MRS. RYBA-I do want to note that you have a, this also had to go in front of the Zoning Board, and
that was approved by resolution September 20, and that resolution was attached as part of your
th
packet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was there anything else, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-That is all.
MR. LAPPER-Very briefly, we were very pleased with the result of the Planning process. The
project got approved with a bunch of changes that made the neighbors happy. Most of the
neighbors that were interested and came to the meetings were on the south side of Aviation Road.
After we got down, Larry Gouge, who’s actually the Executive Director, was surprised, the next day,
to get a call from a couple of the neighbors on the north side saying what we said in the application,
that they didn’t want to have the fence and the significant landscape shrubbery, the shrubbery fence
in front of, that the Zoning Board had made as a condition to the Area Variance on the north side
facility, which they call the Main Center, and then the Planning Board also included it in the site plan,
and the Planning Board included it as part of the site plan approval. Last week we were at the
Zoning Board with the same request, and the Zoning Board determined that part of the reason that
the neighbors didn’t want the fence was because the fence was along the property line, and there
were some mature, deciduous trees that the neighbors felt would have to come down to put up the
fence. So the Planning Board eliminated the requirement, excuse me, the Zoning Board eliminated
the requirement in the variance of the wooden fence, and suggested that the hedge, arborvitae hedge
be relocated six feet from, five to eight feet from the property line, so that deciduous trees that are
existing now could remain. In order to have a valid approval, we need the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board to agree. So we’re not here at our request. We’re here trying to be good neighbors,
and we’re asking you, then, to consider eliminating the wooden fence, to make the neighbors happy
and to keep the arborvitae, and Dick Jones can show you on the map, if you’d like, where it is.
MR. JONES-The site plan that you’re looking at here is the original site plan, when we did not have
the fence along the backside or the arborvitae hedge. There’s an existing wire fence, now, along the
back property line, and it runs along the east property line as well. In June, when we got our
approval, basically what we were looking at was the inclusion of the wood fence along the property
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
line, adjacent to the existing wire fence, and then a double row of six foot high arborvitae planted
basically five foot on center, staggered each row, and that would basically entail from one end of the
fence to the other, approximately 245 to 50 feet. As Jon had indicated, one of the concerns that the
neighbors had was that we have some very large trees along the back property line currently. They
were concerned that with the installation of both the fence and the hedge, that we would be taking
some of those trees down. In dealing with the Zoning Board last week, they felt it was appropriate
to basically pull the arborvitae hedge to the edge of the existing large planting, and basically maintain
the hedge at that location, but do away with the fence. That’s the story.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sounds relatively easy. Chris, questions, comments?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-I have no problem with this application. I just have a question about the southern
side, though.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s not part of this, is it?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re only dealing with this side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, well, I have no problem with the proposal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. There’s a public hearing scheduled tonight. Does anyone want to come
up and comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so.
MRS. RYBA-I don’t believe there was a public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-It says September 26.
th
MRS. RYBA-I know it’s a modification, so it wasn’t necessary, but one might have been warned. Let
me check. Okay. It was, plus, there’s a public comment in the file as well.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ANNE GOBBO
MS. GOBBO-My name is Anne Gobbo. I live at Six Dorset Place. I’m the house that’s abutting the
north side. My back yard is the one that has the chain link fence that kind of overlooks the
playground. Just to explain quickly what happened, in June we came to the Zoning Board. My
husband, Rich Atkinson, was representing us, talking about the noise, and our main concern was, we
just wanted to kind of make sure they weren’t putting more classrooms in, which they weren’t. They
were putting in offices, and we talked about limiting the hours, and since then we’ve gotten to know
Larry Gouge, and he’s been very helpful. If we ever have any trouble, I’m sure we can just call him
and work it out. So we probably should have just done that to begin with, but when we were at the
Zoning Board, after we sat down and the public hearing was closed, they tried to help us out, and I
appreciate it, but it wasn’t anything any of us wanted, to put in a fence and trees, and the bushes, and
we didn’t realize that we could like raise our hand after the public speaking was over, but I wish we
had, because it would have saved everybody a lot of hassle. I appreciate the School coming back and
doing this for us, because we called them the next day, and said, we don’t want the bushes or the
fence or anything. We’re happy with the way it is. We just wanted to make sure you weren’t
enlarging the School or something, and I didn’t realize, you just don’t do that. You have a whole
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
technical undoing and we had to go back. Anyway, it so happens last week, when the Zoning Board
was going to hear the modification, Rich, who’s our spokesman, was out of town on a business trip.
So we wrote letters, which I don’t know if you have, but explaining we don’t want bushes. We don’t
want a fence, and all the neighbors signed it, and I didn’t show up because I thought, this is going to
be a two minute, slam dunk, you know, they don’t want it, we don’t want it, it’ll be no problem. So I
was sorry I didn’t go, because afterwards I found out that they were confused, well, why aren’t the
neighbors here, and what should we do, and they finally said, well, let’s put bushes and no fence. We
don’t even want the bushes, but if you can’t take away the bushes totally, my other idea that we’ve
come up with is modifying the height of the bushes. Now that you’re going to leave the trees, which
is good, but there’s trees, I have trees in my back yard, and they’ve got trees on their side, White
Pines and Scrub Pines. So we’re not really looking through altogether anyway, and the guy next to
me has a fence, a six foot high fence. So he’s not looking at it either, but, you know, hopefully I can
get rid of the bushes altogether here, because I should have done it at the Zoning Board, but if I
can’t, I’m looking to modify them. Instead of six foot tall arborvitae, see, down at our fence, we
have a view, we don’t have a view from our house, really, but when we walk down to our chain link
fence, we can look up and see West Mountain and the pretty colors, and we don’t want to lose it. It’s
not a big deal. It’s not like a huge view or anything, but it’s nice, when we’re in our back yard,
especially towards the fence, we get a nice view, and if they put up six foot bushes, we won’t see
anything anymore. So we’re hoping that, if we can’t eliminate bushes altogether, which we don’t
need, buy four foot, four and a half foot bushes, or they have something called, I called Garden
Time. They have something called a Globe Arborvitae, which is a smaller version that you kind of, I
think it only grows to five feet, but that’s, it goes egg shaped, and if you want to trim it, you can trim
it round and it’s shorter than that, but it’s a smaller shrub, or regular arborvitae spread out, like just
put them five feet apart and keep them trimmed or pruned to four and a half feet tall, or something
like that, in dispersing the trees. Like, forget the idea of all this staggering. We’ll end up with like a
tall, maybe eight foot, but they grow pretty fast if you put them in at five feet, but we’ll end up with a
tall green wall. We might as well have had a fence. It kind of blocks our view. Since they don’t want
it and we don’t want it, we’re just, that’s our main concern is we’re trying to eliminate or modify, we
should have come last week. I didn’t realize it was going to be a complication. I’m trying to think if
there’s anything else to explain. You probably have the letters in front of you. That’s pretty much
what I had to say. That’s what I’m looking for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MS. GOBBO-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
LEVI BROWN
MR. BROWN-My name is Levi Brown. I live at 37 Willow Road, and I know you’re dealing with a
very specific condition for the north side of the site plan for Prospect School, but I am approaching
you tonight because I would like, myself and some neighbors, some clarification of one of the
conditions you attached to the approval of the site plan at the meeting on June 27, and just if I
th
could read, a set of six foot stockade fence to be located congruent with a berm. The neighbor’s
impression was, and we didn’t get these minutes until weeks afterwards, that the stockade fence
would be placed on the top of the berm. Congruent, it’s a little confusing, the terminology. It could
be in conjunction with or.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would encourage you, because we don’t have that information in front of us
tonight, regarding the other side of Aviation Road. You’re talking about the new building that’s
going up, right, which will be on the south side of Aviation?
MR. BROWN-I’m talking the access road.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Well, we’re talking this parcel. We don’t have any of that information in
front of us, but I’d ask you to give either Marilyn a call tomorrow or Laura Moore in the Planning
Department, and they’ll be able to research that information and be able to clarify that for you.
MR. BROWN-Or could we get together with Prospect School and work it out ourselves? That’s
what I’m asking.
MR. RINGER-Well, you can’t make changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, if you’re looking to make changes to an approved site plan, you’d
have to follow the same course of action that the other neighbors are for the other side. If it is, right.
The best course of action I’m giving him is to call Staff tomorrow and ask them to research that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can make that word be anything you want.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. STROUGH-I just think that you’ve probably got to get everybody agreeing as to what’s going
to happen. So you’ve got to sit down and have a pow wow, but at least you open the door to that.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. Anyone else?
JC WILLIAMS
MR. WILLIAMS-I’m JC Williams, 33 Willow Road. I just want to serve in a capacity as, very briefly,
a town historian for the Planning Board. If you look back into the 60’s, the property that the
playground is on in the north side of Prospect School was donated to the School by the Central
Volunteer Fire Department. So it really is a community effort going on there, and always has been.
So that’s just a little history for you. That’s all. I think it’s good to know history.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. RYBA-Did you want the public comments read? I believe they’re the same ones that you have
in front of you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, you should read them in. It’s been our policy. I apologize. I’ll re-open the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. RYBA-Okay. I’ll do them in chronological order. One is dated September 10, 2000, from
Rich Atkinson, 6 Dorset Place, Queensbury, “Dear Members of the Board: It had been my intention
to appear in person for the Zoning Board meeting on September 20, 2000. I have just found out
that a business meeting will require my presence in New York City on both the 20 and 21 of the
thst
month, so I am using this letter to state the opinion I wanted to convey in person. I live on Dorset
Place, and my backyard adjoins the playground of the Prospect Family and Child Center’s Main
Center (on the north side of Aviation Road). I was one of the people who spoke about the noise
from the playground when your Board was considering the zoning variance for the Main Center
construction. As part of the granting of that variance, restrictions were put in requiring the school to
erect a sound barrier fence along our shared property line, with bushes planted on the School’s side
of the fence to supply additional noise buffering. I was in touch with Larrie Gouge the day after the
meeting to let him know that we were not in favor of most of the restrictions put on the variance’s
acceptance. Larrie and I have spoken numerous times since then, and the request currently before
the Board to remove the restrictions regarding the fence and the new bushes is the end result of
those discussions. Let me state it plainly: I fully support the request by Prospect Family and Child
Center to remove from the variance the restrictions requiring the new fence and bushes. I have
personally spoken to my immediate neighbors (whose property also adjoins or is close to the Main
Center playground), and we are all in agreement on this request. We appreciate that the members of
the Zoning Board were acting on behalf of what they felt was our interest in this matter. We could
see that both the members of the Zoning Board and the representatives of the School were working
hard to address our concerns. There was only one problem: with the closing of the ‘public hearing’
portion of the discussion, we felt that we had no opportunity for further input into the decision. Our
input at that point would have been to politely refuse the offer of a fence and bushes. We have
several objections to that idea. We are unhappy with how many of the existing trees on the School’s
side of the property line would have to be removed to build a fence. We like our view of the sunny
and open playground, and don’t wish to replace it with a view of the back of a stockade fence.
Finally, we don’t believe that the fence and bushes would provide an amount of noise abatement that
justifies all that we lose in order to have them. One very positive effect of this series of events is that
we have established a line of communication with the School. As I mentioned earlier, I have been on
the phone with Larrie Gouge many times to bring us to the point at which we find ourselves now.
This communication will be valuable ongoing forward, giving both sides an avenue for discussing
and resolving any issues that might arise. Had this communication come about earlier, this entire
situation might have been avoided. I hope that you will agree to relieve the Prospect Family and
Child Center of these requirements. Sincerely, Rich Atkinson” The next one is dated September
19, that’s also from Rich Atkinson, 6 Dorset Place, and it’s addressed to the Town of Queensbury
th
Planning Board, “Dear Members of the Board: It had been my intention to appear in person for the
Planning Board meeting on September 26, 2000. As was also the case with my intention to appear
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
before the Zoning Board on September 20, I have discovered that an out of town business meeting
th
prevents me from attending your meeting. As I did with the Zoning Board, I am using a letter to
state the opinion I wanted to convey in person. Since I think that my letter to the Zoning Board
stated my opinions clearly and completely, I am enclosing a copy of that letter with this one. Since
the details appear in that other letter, I will be far more concise here. Statements made by me and
statements made by my wife, Anne Gobbo, at the Zoning Board meeting of June 21, 2000 led
directly to the requirement that a fence be built and that bushes be planted as part of Prospect Family
and Child Center’s project on the north side of Aviation Road. The Zoning Board’s remedy for our
complaints about excessive noise on the playground that adjoins our backyard was to require the
fence and the bushes. We want neither the fence nor the bushes. Because the Zoning Board )(and,
for that matter, the Planning Board) has its discussion of how to address public criticism only after
the public hearing portion of the meeting is done, people who made the initial complaint are given
no input into that discussion. The requirement for the fence and the bushes is a far more drastic
remedy than anything we would have requested. Even more to the point, we actively object to
having the view from the back of our house obstructed by the presence of the back side of a wooden
barricade. We would like our backyard the way it is: no fence, no bushes. I strongly support your
approval of a site plan that does not include those two elements. Thank you. Sincerely, Rich
Atkinson”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-That is all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a resolution, please.
MR. STROUGH-I have a little problem with resolution. It seems like, from what I’m hearing, and,
Jon, maybe you can help me out with this, it seems like a lot of the neighbors are asking for removal
of both the fence and the hedge.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, if that’s what they desire, that’s fine with me.
MR. LAPPER-What happened was that the Zoning Board said that the public requested that. They
understand that, but it’s the Zoning Board’s position to make a determination, and that they still
wanted to have the hedge. So they eliminated the fence. They kept the hedge, and that’s where we
are.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the project description says the removal of vegetation and fencing. That’s
what we have in our, for Staff notes.
MR. LAPPER-Because when I applied, I applied for both, and we have to go to the Zoning Board
first.
MR. VOLLARO-And the Zoning Board already took off the fence?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like some legal clarification, Mark. I mean, the Zoning Board’s resolution
clearly indicates that there’s going to be vegetation there. We can’t override that and remove that.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-But we can make a motion to remove the fence.
MR. SCHACHNER-As long as it’s not, you can modify your previous site plan approval, so long as
nothing you do to modify it is contradictory to the ZBA, meaning the conditions of the ZBA
variance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can we suggest what kind of vegetation?
MR. SCHACHNER-As long as it’s not contradictory to the ZBA variance, sure.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did they specify?
MR. MAC EWAN-They just say, in their, their resolution says, required vegetation of trees of two to
three inches in diameter, two to five to eight feet approximately on the property line, as depicted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two to five to eight?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I don’t know what that means.
MR. SCHACHNER-Two is not a number.
MRS. RYBA-“To”.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two that are five to eight feet?
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does that make it clearer for you, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it does. Basically what you’re telling me is that we have to stick with the
modification before us, which is basically removal of the wooden fence. I mean, why should we add
anything about hedges, because the Zoning Board’s already taken care of it? It’s not an issue. So,
basically what we’re saying is that we’re making a motion, and I’ll make that motion, as a
modification to Site Plan No. 10-2000 for the Prospect Child & Family Center.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, excuse me, but in all respect for the person that doesn’t want them to
grow too high, so she can still see West Mountain, can’t we, as long as they’re from five to eight feet,
can’t we say that they put in those five feet circular arborvitae’s that kind of don’t get any taller?
MR. STROUGH-The Zoning Board says trees.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, trees, an arborvitae’s a tree. It’s a cedar tree.
MR. STROUGH-Placement of vegetation of trees two to three inches in diameter, five to eight feet
approximately, I assume that means height. I mean, I don’t think we, if I understand it, we don’t
have any jurisdiction there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But can’t we say what kind of trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-Their resolution does not give a species. It does not give a height.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s a weakness over here.
MR. MAC EWAN-It gives a diameter and it gives a spacing.
MR. STROUGH-Maybe Cathy has a suggestion. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Their original resolution may have specified it, as I recall.
MR. STROUGH-What kind of tree, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-I think so. I’m not sure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s not written down here.
MRS. RYBA-Yes. An arborvitae is a tree. It’s in the proposed zoning as a tree.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. Thank you, Marilyn.
MR. MAC EWAN-And whatever their previous resolution was, this thing superceded that, as far as
that landscaping went.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let’s be careful there. Okay. The language of the new resolution, I see
trees. It talks about the fence. It talks about the noise protection, and then it says, and approve or
accept the placement of the required vegetation of trees of two to three inches in diameter to five to
eight feet approximately on the property line. I wasn’t at the Zoning Board meeting. It’s not that
clearly written to my way of thinking. Were you at the meeting, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-No, but I have the minutes.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-It might be helpful to figure out if they were talking about a specific species or
not. From this resolution, it doesn’t appear so, but it’s not crystal clear.
MR. MAC EWAN-The fact that you just said of the required vegetation, which is the buzz word
which says that you still have to keep in the condition of the previous approval.
MR. SCHACHNER-That was exactly my concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Well, let’s just leave it at that, and make our modification to remove the
fence.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Do you want me to start over again? All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT
CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
The modification approved is removal of the wooden fence on the north side of Aviation Road for
the north side of Aviation Road. That there are no changes to the original SEQRA findings.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 68-2000 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN OWNER: GERALD &
LINDA HEWLETT AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 34
TRIANGLE PARK OFF OF DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF FIVE NEW SELF STORAGE BUILDINGS OF 2,600 SQ. FT. EACH ADJACENT TO
EXISTING BUILDINGS. NEW USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 6-1999, AV 38-1999, AV -2000
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.221 LOT SIZE: 2.62 ACRES
SECTION: 179-26
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 68-2000, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: September 26, 2000
“Project Description
The applicant proposes to add five new self storage units to existing self storage complex.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D
and E of the Town Code. The proposed addition of five self storage units to existing self storage
complex is an allowed use within the light industrial zone.
Site Overview
The five additional self-storage units will be consistent with the existing units on the site.
There will be no additional lighting or signage for the project.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
The site has access to Dix Avenue by an existing private road (parcel 110-1-1.33). The
access was approved by Area Variance 38-1999 for the project parcel (110-1-1.221) for a
landlocked parcel to have access over parcel 110.-1-1.33. The access from the private drive
to the project site is gated with a chain-link fence. The internal circulation provides access to
all four sides of each unit on the site. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency
of off-street parking and loading: the drive-aisle width of twenty feet is adequate for loading
and a traffic lane.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
The proposed project does use hook-ups to water of wastewater utilities. The applicant’s
stormwater management information was forwarded to CT Male for comment and review.
The applicant has requested a waiver from additional landscaping.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant has applied for an area variance for the location of the additional structures. The
actual Area Variance request was for 5.71 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback in the
LI-1A zone, and the applicant also requested 45 feet of relief from the 50 foot buffer zone
requirements, as per 179-72. The Zoning Board allowed four of the five structures proposed for the
site. The structure that was not allowed was replaced with an outdoor storage component of the
complex. The outdoor storage would include boats, trailers, vehicles, etc. (9/20/00 ZBA resolution
attached)
The self storage complex is fenced in with minimal landscaping along the fence line. The area is
relatively level and can be is slightly visible to Dix Avenue and Quaker Road.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the final plan include an easement notation that the parcel has access to Dix
Avenue through parcel 110.-1-1.33, and other noted Site Plans and Variances on the property, and a
location map. Staff would also encourage additional plantings along the fence.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-One of the things that was submitted to you this evening was a revised plan and a cover
letter, and I’ll get the date on that. I think it’s addressing the Zoning Board comments.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct.
MRS. RYBA-And the applicant can probably give you more information on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Hi. Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, and Tom Nace. Rich has the property under
contract, subject to approvals. The site right now, I’m sure you’ve all seen it, is somewhat unkempt.
There’s a lot of storage outside that has weeds and things growing up through it. It’s not the way
Rich would run a project. So he had Tom design the site plan for an expansion, and just to keep it
exactly what was there, in terms of the buildings lining up, they required the buffer zone variance on
the north side. Our argument for the variance was that it’s next to the Albany Ladder, sort of an
industrial use in a commercial zone, and this was sort of a commercial use in an industrial zone, but
regardless, the Zoning Board determined that there’s no need to put the building there. So the
revision, what Rich came up with, and Tom showed on the plan, was to make the four buildings that
were left that are in accordance with the setbacks, make them a little bit longer to comply with the
setbacks, and the area on the north side, that’s where the outdoor storage would go, which is just
boat trailers and such that was mentioned, but in a much neater way than what’s there now. Tom
sent this down to C.T. Male with the changes, and I guess got a letter back quickly, which was very
nice turnaround on their part, and here we are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to quickly run through your project?
RICH SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. As Jon just indicated, I’m adding four
proposed buildings, and I have indicated on here some outside vehicle storage, which there is
currently vehicles stored outside, but at the ZBA they indicated to me, they suggested that we present
this in front of site plan. At this time, I guess I don’t have anything else to say, other than I have a
lot of plans for cleaning the site up. Just so you know a little bit of the history of this, Roger Hewlett
built this project in 1983, and he was the owner of Duplex Construction. Roger, unfortunately two
years ago, passed away, and this was left to two family members. They put it up for sale, and I made
an offer on it and it’s, hopefully everything’s going to go through here shortly. The first thing I’m
going to do, just so you know, if you drive down, it’s kind of unsightly down there right now. It
looks like abandon cars, abandon trailers. There’s junk piles all over the place. Believe it or not,
there are 30 tenants that I counted that are currently paying rent for outside storage. There are some
stuff here, items that I know that I have to buy it as is and I’m going to have to get rid of. There’s an
old, looks like an old truck out back, filled with garbage, basically. So just so you understand that the
first thing I’m going to do is go in and I am going to clean everything out. It’s a 2.66 acre lot. It was,
back in 1983, the lot was cleared. There’s really no trees. The only thing on there now is just grass
and weeds that have grown up through a lot of the debris that was left out there. So my intentions
are to clean it all up, get it looking nice, and go from there.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace. Basically, what we’re doing is, after the ZBA made their
comments about the building to the north, we had originally just duplicated these with new buildings
to the side. We eliminated the building to the north, after the ZBA comments, replaced that with
some outdoor storage, and addressed some of C.T. Male’s comments. They wondered, we have a 10
foot separation between the buildings, per building code purposes. They thought it was a circulation
aisle, so we put in bollards at the edge of each building just to keep people from trying to drive
through something that’s too narrow. That’s basically it. It’s real simple.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-The pavement surface in here is proposed to be gravel. On our permeability
calculations, the pavement, the gravel pavement is considered non-permeable, as is the area for
stored vehicles considered non-permeable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-My only concern is that the relocation, first of all, it looks to me like you’ve got two
uses here, one is inside storage in the proposed storage buildings. I have no problem with that at all.
The relocated vehicle storage seems to, in both cases, the one up around the corner here that goes
around the back, they’re all within the 30 foot rear setback, and I just don’t understand how we cross
over the, and they’re within the 50 foot buffer zone as well, and within the 30 foot setback to the
west, and within the 50 foot setback to the north, and coupled with that, I see that storage, outside
storage within inside storage is kind of a mixed use of this storage facility. That’s my only concern.
The fact that the Zoning Board of Appeals took out that building, I suspect that it was because of, as
I read their, their motion, it was because it was inside the 50 foot zone, and I have a problem with
violating that zone, even with relocated vehicles, both zones, both the western and the northern.
Other than that, I don’t have any problems with this. I understand the bollards and the reasons for
those, but that’s a concern I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Nothing right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Just a few questions. Rich, do you own all this right now?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s under contract right now.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So this already exists here, and you’re buying that?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, five buildings exist.
MR. STROUGH-Have you walked around here at all?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, the whole site.
MR. STROUGH-After a rainfall, no puddling’s happening there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-A little bit of puddling at the very entrance, but I think that’s just because
of lack of maintenance. There’s like a, it needs a little crushed stone as you come in.
MR. STROUGH-All right, and access is from the private road over here? I was trying to find out
where the access is.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That was also part of the variance that was granted by the Zoning Board this spring.
MR. NACE-Access, there’s a gate, see the drive here, and the gate, that’s the access to the site.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it’s right here. Well, it seems fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I actually liked it better with the building there than the outdoor storage, but,
yes, I guess I really don’t have any problems, but I would agree. I’m not sure about putting, on the
side, the rear setback, as it’s labeled on the map, outdoor storage within the setback requirements.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, could you address Mr. Vollaro’s concerns?
MRS. RYBA-Mr. Vollaro’s concerns in reference to buffer?
MR. VOLLARO-Two things. The one, the concern is centrally located to the vehicle storage, but it
has to do with encroaching on the 50 foot buffer zone that’s to the north side of this property, and
encroaching on the 30 foot rear setback, which is to the west side of this property.
MRS. RYBA-The Zoning Board variance request was for relief from the 30 foot minimum side
setback, and for relief from the buffer zone. The original site plan showed the building. The
resolution that was granted by the Zoning Board allowed only four buildings, not five, but at the
same time, they did also grant relief for that buffer zone, allowing vehicle storage in that area.
MR. VOLLARO-And how about vehicle storage on the 30 foot rear setback, that as well?
MRS. RYBA-That’s building setback, correct, and they did say, recognize as an accessory use in Light
Industrial zone, the applicant is permitted to store useable vehicles outdoors in any location on the
property. The buffer zone, according to the Zoning Ordinance, does not allow any activity in the
buffer zone, but it doesn’t say anything in reference to the setback.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to maybe expand on that a little bit, the LI zone says that you can have, it’s a
Type II is a building supply/lumber yard or similar storage yard, and if you look under the definition
of Storage Yard, it says, “A site and/or buildings where materials, supplies or personal items are
stored”. So they can be stored outside as well as inside. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? 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.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 68-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, 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
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MR. RINGER-We have a prepared resolution. I have a concern, before. The way the ZBA came
down, he could store vehicles anywhere on his property. He can store right up to the line.
MR. LAPPER-We’re only proposing that, we’ve already chosen the section.
MR. VOLLARO-He has a very valid point in what he’s saying, though. Larry has, I think, a very
valid point.
MR. RINGER-I don’t necessarily think Rich would do this.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I do agree with you. As a matter of fact, they leave it kind of open. It
says, “Useable vehicles outdoors in any location on the property”. My intentions are, and I said this
at the ZBA, is right now it’s kind of unsightly because the entrance to this, there’s RV’s. There’s
trailers. Everything’s right in the front of the property. I think the best use is, and my intentions are
to put them where I’ve labeled them, because the City of Glens Falls has all their sand and salt piles,
their plow trucks and their chippings from trees when they do road, or maintenance on the streets on
the tree.
MR. RINGER-I don’t want to interrupt you, and I’m agreeable with your plan. I’d just like to make
our approval subject to he stores the vehicles in the map, or in the site plan itself. Can we do that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Make that a condition.
MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. The fact that the ZBA may have been over broad in granting relief,
doesn’t mean that the applicant necessarily has the right to do that because it’s subject to site plan
review. So it’s very, very appropriate. It’s an appropriate concern and it’s an appropriate condition.
MR. LAPPER-We fully expected that, and that’s what we proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-You could maybe say something like outside storage will be to a maximum of 20
vehicles where it’s delineated on the map, twenty spots, I just counted them. Do a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 68-2000 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 68-2000, Richard Schermerhorn
for construction of five new self storage buildings of 2,600 sq. ft. each adjacent to existing buildings.
New uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 110-1-1.221.
Cross Reference: SB 6-1999, AV 38-1999, AV 80 -2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 8/30/00 consists of the following:
1. As outlined in the Official File
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
1. 9/26/00 Staff Notes
9/26/00 Received at meeting – Revised Site Plan dated 9/23 and
Stormwater Man. Plan
9/21/00 CT Male Associates engineering review comment
9/20/00 ZBA resolution
9/20/00 Reference Materials from previous approval for self storage bldgs.-
LM
9/19/00 Notice of Public Hearing
9/13/00 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation – NCI
9/7/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/26/00 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 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,
THAT,
The application is approved as per the resolution as prepared by Staff, with the following
conditions:
1. That the storage of vehicles be limited to the 20 locations indicated on the site plan,
and
2. The supporting documentation should be updated for the materials that were
submitted tonight, the site plan revised September 23 and the stormwater
rd
management plan.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 72-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
CONGREGATION OF GLENS FALLS OWNER: BARBARA TEBEAU AGENT:
JONATHAN LAPPER/JIM MILLER ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 21 WEEKS ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE IN USE FROM DANCE STUDIO TO PLACE OF
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY/CHURCH WITH NO MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING OR
THE SITE. CROSS REFERENCE: VAR. 945 (9/18/84) BEAUTIFICATION COMM.:
9/11/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-14.2 LOT SIZE: 12.34
ACRES SECTION 179-23
JON LAPPER, JIM MILLER, CAROL SCHNIEDER, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 72-2000, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Glens Falls, Meeting
Date: September 26, 2000 “Project Description
The applicant proposes to utilize an existing 5,431 square foot building for a 150 person Church
facility. The applicant proposes no building or site alterations.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D
and E of the Town Code. The proposed use is an allowed use within the zone based on a zoning
determination letter dated May 11, 2000.
Site Overview
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting
and signs - the existing location of the building, utilities, and building entrance are
compatible with the parcel layout.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
The current site has a vehicular entrance at the end of Weeks Road. The entrance is
approximately 50 feet wide and the parking begins about 55 feet from the road. The
entrance is sufficient to accommodate ingress and egress of traffic. The depth of the parking
allows stacking to occur on the site if needed. The applicant has indicated there will be 150
seats within the main meeting room. The number of seats requires thirty car spaces, and the
applicant has provided 49 for the site. The number of car spaces provided is adequate for
the use. The entrance area is noted on the drawing but there is no crosswalk or drop off
area demarcation on the plans.
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
The applicant indicates on the site plan the runoff from the site drains easterly into the
woods. The applicant does not propose to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site.
The site appears is serviced by an on-site septic disposal system. The system is not shown
on the plan nor does the applicant indicate if the system needs improvement with the
Church use. The building is connected to Town water. The water connections are not
shown on the plan. The Beautification Committee recommended the existing landscaping
be trimmed and the site maintained.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the site plan include the location of the utility connection to water, location of
the septic system, septic design information, the cross walk or drop off area demarcation on the
plans, and incorporation of the Beautification Committee’s comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-There’s one other thing here that wasn’t really, I believe it shows a place for sign and
some lights. It doesn’t show any lights on the building. So you may want to ask the applicant if
there are plans for changing lighting and signage.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Before we go, churches are an allowed use in the Highway Commercial
zone?
MRS. RYBA-There was a letter written to the real estate agent from Chris Round, dated May 11,
2000, and that’s attached.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just wanted that in the record.
MRS. RYBA-And Chris Round is the Zoning Administrator.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening, again.
MR. LAPPER-Jon Lapper. With me is Carol Schneider, the President of the Congregation, and Tim
Schuler is also in the room, the Vice President, and Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. The Unitarian
Congregation has owned the building next to the Hyde Museum for a number of years. There was
an unfortunate fire earlier in the year, and that was an opportunity for them to sell the building to the
Hyde and to move to a new facility. The Dance Studio has been located at this site for a number of
years. It came on the market and they thought it was a suitable location. It’s ample parking, good
access, somewhat private location, and at this point, they’re not proposing any exterior changes to
the site, although Jim went to the Beautification Committee and could only concur that the site is
overgrown, and needs some maintenance, and that they plan to do immediately, and they’ll make
some interior changes, over time, but mostly just clean up the site at this point. Jim, do you want to
add anything at this point?
MR. MILLER-A couple of the comments, the drop off area, the entire area in the front of the
building really constitutes a drop off area. Right now the circulation comes into the site, so this
entire front area is no parking, and if you’ve seen the site, it’s pretty clear that it’s a drop off, and we
didn’t want to indicate a lot of unnecessary striping and things at the front entrance to the building,
and there’s a small planter that functions as a turnaround. So I think that drop off and arrival’s pretty
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
clear. The other question that came up about the lighting, there’s a couple of lights out in the
parking area, and I believe there’s also lights at the covered entry into the building. The existing
building, the water runs down Weeks Road. There’s a hydrant across the road. There’s, we have no
previous plans. The surveyors didn’t find any evidence, but our understanding is the water line feeds
directly in off of Weeks Road, and as far as the septic system that’s there, it’s a functioning system.
We’re in an area of Town where there’s good sand soil. The system’s buried, obviously. So we don’t
know exactly where it is. We assume it’s to the rear of the buildings. There’s two bathrooms in the
building. We assume it goes to the rear and it’s the new owner’s intent to obviously uncover that and
pump it out and make sure it’s in good working order, and we stated it’s for meetings, 150 seats.
Right now, the number of members in the Congregation is 60. So that would be a very rare
occasion, if there was some big fair or something where there were a lot of guests, you know, the
typical meeting would tend to be 60 to 80 people, and infrequently. So it’s also my understanding
that this building, at one time, was a restaurant, and so whatever the system was that was put in when
it was a restaurant is obviously still there and functioning, and so, in discussing that septic system
with our engineer, with Tom Nace, we’re dealing with a use that’s an infrequent use, and it’s also a
low water use. So, our understanding is that the system should be adequate, but it will be maintained
and confirmed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Bob, I’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask, well, first of all, one of my concerns is that this won’t take this
property off the tax rolls, as far as the School is concerned. That’s just an aside, for whatever that’s
worth, and I also have some questions. Along the interface of the, because the zone doesn’t change.
All that’s changed here is the fact that this is an allowed use now, by the Zoning Administrator’s
determination, but there is an HC-1A and an MR-5 interface. So I think there’s a 50 foot buffer
there. Is that correct?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now when you were talking about where that septic tank is, it looked like it
might, you were pointing somewhere inside that buffer zone. You don’t know where it is, is what
you’re really telling me.
MR. MILLER-Not exactly, but, you know, we do comply with the 50 foot buffer zone there now. I
believe if you look at the setbacks.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the way it is now, it does, but I’m just wondering where.
MR. MILLER-Yes. You could have, septic systems can be located in the buffer, I believe, too. So it
may be partially in that. I don’t know exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. My only thought was that the buffer zone should be delineated on the site
plan. I think it should be there, and just going along with the water line and septic location, now if
you don’t know where the septic is, it’s going to be pretty hard for you to put the tank and the field
anywhere if you don’t know where it is.
MR. MILLER-Well, that’s it, we can’t. All we can do is, you know, look at where the plumbing exits
the building and show a general area on the plans, an approximate. It’s always a problem showing
things that you don’t know where they are exactly. You put them on a plan, because 10 years from
now, somebody will take that plan and expect it to be right. So that’s why we hesitate to put things
on that we’re not sure of.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My only concern is there is that, the fact that you don’t know where it is is
one thing, but we don’t know what condition it is in either, when this thing goes to a new use. We
have no idea what that, I think the buyer takes the risk there, I suppose, is the way I see it. If it fails,
it fails.
MR. MILLER-That’s true, but in this particular situation, you know, we’ve got excellent soil
conditions. So if some improvements had to be made for the system, it’s not like we have a heavy
clay soil or don’t have enough area. So think if there was a problem, it could be fairly easily
remedied.
MR. VOLLARO-The only other question I have is, considering that we’re talking 12.2 acres of
ground here, I guess I’ve got to ask, what about the future subdivision plans for this property, is
there any, at the present time?
MR. LAPPER-This is more land than the Church needs for their use.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s obvious.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. LAPPER-And the contract with the owner provided that the owner had the right to subdivide
some land, I don’t remember, six acres, on the north side, if she wanted to, subject to approval of the
Planning Board, of course, for subdivision, but at this point there’s no plan to do anything with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-How would you gain access to it?
MR. LAPPER-It has to be aggregated to another parcel. There’s no access available from Weeks
Road.
MR. VOLLARO-And whatever the other subdivision would be would have to be within a use of the
Highway Commercial One Acre zone.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Unless you got a determination from the Zoning Administrator to change that. I
don’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, I have no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No, I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-A couple. I got kind of confused, I think probably Marilyn. On the General
Information page, the second page in.
MRS. RYBA-Is this on site plan or Staff notes?
MR. STROUGH-This is General Information page, it’s application number, and there’s nothing
there, project location, 21 Weeks Road. Tax Map ID No. 73-1-14.2, and it’s the one that has the site
development data, on the second page.
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And then there are setback requirements, and at the bottom of that page, the same
page.
MRS. RYBA-Under Setback Requirements.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, are you there, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. It says Side Yard One, which would be west. Isn’t that the front yard? And
there’s the entry.
MRS. RYBA-I believe the North arrow is pointing in this direction.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, north is to your right.
MRS. RYBA-North is to your right.
MR. STROUGH-So the front yard would be to your north. To your north and south would be side
yards. Your front yard would be to the west.
MRS. RYBA-No.
MR. LAPPER-No. You’re looking at it as if the Northway was the access, and it’s Weeks Road.
MRS. RYBA-Weeks Road is on the.
MR. STROUGH-So you look at it in general as to where the access is from the road? Because I was
looking at the setbacks, and the setbacks, aren’t they referring to the building location?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MILLER-No, it refers to your frontage on a Town road.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t understand.
MR. LAPPER-That’s how I figured it out, whether that’s right or wrong.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I was just having a problem with that. I guess, okay.
MRS. RYBA-No, that’s okay. The frontage is along Weeks Road.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t understand that. Okay. Thanks. No, the only thing that, I have no
problem with the application. It seems to be a fairly good use. The only concern I have is the
residents that are located, I’ll say in back of you, because I’m using the house, and the front entrance
as a reference. In other words, to the east of the building, that I would like to ask that no further
vegetation be removed in that area, in other words, east of the building, between the building and the
residential area.
MR. LAPPER-There is 70.7 feet, and I could envision at some point if they decided that they wanted
to do an addition, there’s no plans now, which when we looked at the site, they could have another
20 feet.
MR. STROUGH-Well, at the time they come back for the site plan, we can renegotiate.
MR. LAPPER-Right, absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-But at this time, I was just.
MR. LAPPER-There’s no plans now.
MR. STROUGH-Because you can see the residence through there. I mean, there seems to be kind
of an ample buffer. I haven’t heard from the residents one way or the other yet.
MR. LAPPER-So no removal of additional vegetation without the Planning Board approval.
MR. STROUGH-At this time, until you come back to us with some kind of other thing. There’s no
problem with that?
MR. LAPPER-That’s no problem.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then I don’t have any problem with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I just remember when that building was constructed, and it’s well built.
MR. RINGER-Do you remember it as a restaurant, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. My daughter took dancing lessons from Barbara, and I remember when
Barbara moved it up there, and I don’t ever remember a restaurant.
MR. RINGER-I don’t remember. I was just curious if Cathy did.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe they didn’t have site plan approval for a restaurant. That’s why it was
short lived.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s a very well built building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No other questions or comments from Staff? I’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON SIPP
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. Just a couple of clarifications here. This zone, HC-1 Acre,
is that what that, Highway Commercial One Acre?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. SIPP-Now, what is the property that borders this, or what property borders this on the north?
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably the property that borders it to the north, as a guess, would be the
campground.
MR. SIPP-Well, does the Drive-in Theater border this?
MR. STROUGH-The Glen Drive-in is over there.
MR. MILLER-This property line right here is the back of the apartments, and this, I believe, is
Drive-in.
MR. STROUGH-And to the north it’s the Glen Drive-in, isn’t it?
MR. SIPP-There’s a line there, in the corner of the northeast side, there’s two properties right there.
Is that property the Drive-in?
MR. STROUGH-I think so.
MR. SIPP-And the other property is the campgrounds?
MR. STROUGH-That’s further north, but.
MR. SIPP-Well, not according to that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I used to drive my ’52 Chevy through there, and it was all dirt roads, fire
roads and stuff.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but I mean, there’s two pieces of property on the north side, one small corner of the
Drive-in, and the other property which is to the west of that, closest to the Northway, is the
campgrounds?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Now, if the owner, the Unitarian Church now decides to subdivide this piece of property
and sell to one or the other of these two people that adjoin it, could this then be turned into another
zone of Highway Commercial?
MR. MAC EWAN-It is Highway Commercial. The entire parcel is Highway Commercial.
MR. SIPP-But this is one acre, right? Anything has to be one acre, can only be one acre in size or
can it be more?
MR. MAC EWAN-In theory, yes, but you also have to be able to put infrastructure in, and access
and easements and stuff. So if there was five and a half acres left, that doesn’t necessarily mean that
you would be able to get five acres of Highway Commercial out of it. The problem with that parcel
that would potentially be left over, if they wanted to pursue further subdivision of it, is how you’re
going to gain access to it.
MR. SIPP-Well, what I’m concerned with now is that the campgrounds are for sale, as far as I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the only action in front of us tonight is the site plan.
MR. SIPP-Yes, well, I just wanted to clarify. If the Drive-in was sold for a big box, could these
people sell a portion of that to that big box to, because it is zoned Highway Commercial?
MR. MAC EWAN-In theory I suppose anything’s for sale to the potential buyer.
MR. SIPP-Okay. That’s what I’d like to know. If the campground sold, which adjoins this, they
could also buy some more property, and it would still be zoned Highway Commercial.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, because all we’re doing is a site plan approval tonight, not a zone
change or anything. Okay? Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 72-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF GLENS FALLS, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion?
MR. LAPPER-Before you vote, just one quick thing. I was just informed that in terms of John’s
comment about clearing, that there’s some underbrush on the east side that might have to be cleaned
up, right along the building, just because there’s a lot of stuff close to the building. So not to take
away from the condition, but just to maybe accept a little bit of the underbrush right next to the
building.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, how about this, Jon. There be no further vegetation removal on
the east side of the property abutting the residential area except for the area immediately around the
building?
MR. LAPPER-That’s great.
MR. MAC EWAN-They can’t touch anything within a 50 foot buffer. That’s what the Ordinance
says, and as long as we get the 50 foot buffer delineated on that site plan, we’re okay.
MR. RINGER-I agree with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the long and short of that, if that building was built accidentally within a 50
foot buffer, hypothetically, then they need to go get a variance to go do what they need to do.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. LAPPER-And we have 70 feet there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s more than plenty. Okay. Would someone like to introduce a motion?
MR. STROUGH-I could make the motion, but you think it’s not necessary to put that in, Craig, is
that what you’re saying?
MR. MAC EWAN-They cannot disturb anywhere within a 50 foot buffer. It’s in the Ordinance.
There has to be a 50 foot buffer between a commercial parcel and a residential zone.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing I would like to see put on this thing is that that 50 foot buffer is
delineated on this map.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, should I also include a motion that we want confirmation of the
septic system capacity and location? I know, from Staff notes, that was a concern.
MR. MILLER-I think what we would commit to is that the system would be, you know, the tank
would be excavated and pumped out and made to operate, but we don’t, without knowing what the
design is, there’s no way to really tell how much field was installed or type of field, unless you went
out and tried to dig everything up, and so there’s really no way to actively do that, other than go
through just normal maintenance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it in a failed state now? Is the septic system in a failed state now?
MR. MILLER-No. The system has always worked fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to get a CO.
MR. MILLER-That’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Part of your CO requirements is that you’ve got to have a functional septic
system.
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So there’s a checks and balance for it.
MR. VOLLARO-When this building was built, did anybody get a set of as builts so you know what it
looked like?
MR. MILLER-It was probably back before they were doing those things, and somebody came in and
just installed the system, they approved it, then covered it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, John, go ahead with your motion.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 72-2000 UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
CONGREGATION OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No.72-2000, Unitarian Universalist
Congregation of Glens Falls proposing a change in use from Dance Studio to place of public
assembly/church with no modification of the building or the site. Tax Map No. 73-1-14.2. Cross
Reference: Var. 945, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 8/30/00 consists of the following:
1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 9/26/00 Staff Notes
9/19/00 Notice of Public Hearing
9/13/00 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation - NCI
9/11/00 Beautification Comm. recommendation – Approve w/ conditions
9/7/00 Meeting Notice
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
8/29/00 J. Lapper to C. MacEwan letter w/5/11/00 letter from C. Round
9/84 Minutes from Variance 945
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/26/00 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 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,
THAT,
The application is approved per the resolution as prepared by Staff, with the condition that a
50 foot buffer be delineated along the east side property line adjacent to the residential area.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 2000 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to put a water line in this thing, so we know where that is?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think we’re fine with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 71-2000 TYPE II EDWARD ZIBRO OWNER: ANGELA JOYCE
ZIBRO ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: SEELYE RD., NORTH #8 APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GARAGE.
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN CEA REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 83-1998,
SP 63-98, AV 77-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-7 LOT
SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
MR. MAC EWAN-Two things before we go any farther. Is there anyone here representing the
applicant for Site Plan No. 71-2000? Secondly, in my packet, I did not have any drawings, plans or
anything. Did anybody else have them?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll move that we table this.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 71-2000 EDWARD ZIBRO, Introduced by Craig
MacEwan who moved for its adoption seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
To our November agenda, because there was no one here representing the applicant.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 63-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED JEFFREY L. KELLEY OWNER: SAME
AGENT: CHARLES SCUDDER, PE ZONE: LOCATION: 87 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES A BAGEL SHOP AND RESTAURANT. NEW USES IN C R
ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 72-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 129-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-
24
JEFFREY KELLEY, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on August 24 was tabled.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 63-2000, Jeffrey L. Kelley, Meeting Date: September 26, 2000
“Project Description
The application for a 4,900 square foot restaurant was tabled at the August 24, 2000 Planning Board
meeting. The Planning Board requested the applicant provide a revised site plan showing lighting,
elevations, plantings, and to address CT Male comments.
Project Analysis
The applicant has provided revised information that was forwarded to CT Male and the
Beautification Committee for review and comment. The Beautification Committee recommended
approval of the planting plan as presented by Jim Girard.
The revised plans include survey elevations, existing and proposed contours, elevations of subsurface
stormwater absorption system, soil log and perc test information, lighting data and type, and a
planting plan. The applicant’s plans also revised the traffic flow direction. Planning Staff has
confirmed with the Building Department the septic system location is adequate for a building
without a basement.
The previous meeting indicated the building would be a Victorian style with Victorian colors. The
applicant had also indicated that the wall sign would be different than proposed. The applicant’s
landscaping plan identifies a free-standing sign located in the front in between the access points.
There was no detail provided for the free-standing sign.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The site plan indicates one customer entrance towards the rear of the building. The proposed Main
Street design guideline will encourage pedestrian traffic. The applicant may consider adding a future
building entrance towards the road side and extending a sidewalk pathway to interconnect with the
Main Street proposed sidewalk, since it is the intent of the Main Street area to be more pedestrian
oriented.
Suggestions
Planning Staff would suggest the final plans include a location map, a label for the interconnection
with a reference to Section 179-66.1 “linking of commercial…”, a label for zoning including
information about the zone “i.e. CR-15 front setback 75, a reference to the area variance granted
AV72-2000, a revised building elevation with a Victorian style, a sign detail for both the free standing
and wall sign (staff would discourage changeable word signs).”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This was tabled last month, and one of the requests in our tabling was that
the applicant supply us with an elevation, and I just kind of did an informal poll up and down the
Board and I’m getting the indication nobody’s got an elevation.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think one was supplied.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. You have it? We weren’t given it.
MR. KELLEY-I wasn’t aware that I had to have one, to be honest with you. I mean, I’ve had them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Put it up on the board, please. Okay. Are we all set with Staff notes and such?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. KELLEY-I’m Jeff Kelley, by the way. I’m the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, you chaired this meeting. Where was it left off? Actually, why don’t you
take this and run through this application.
MR. RINGER-Well, Mark, can we do that? The question was before.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wasn’t familiar with why it was tabled, and what information was gathered.
MR. SCHACHNER-But you’re going to participate?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m participating, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-And in theory the Chairman’s job is merely to run the show, and if you’re going
to participate and you’re the Chairman, you should run the show.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can still ask the same questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-You tabled it last month, Larry, for, you wanted elevations.
MR. RINGER-Elevations.
MR. KELLEY-I could tell you, or at least what I was prepared to talk about.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. KELLEY-I wasn’t aware of the elevation, but I have that. The two things that I came to
address, one, I did not have Beautification Committee approval since that last meeting. I met with
the Beautification Committee, and they did approve it. I do have colored, I guess it would be a plot
plan of that planting, which I can bring over here and I can show you, if you just want to see what
they approved. The other thing of concern was the lighting plan. I did not have a lighting plan. So
in the meantime, since that last meeting, I went to ASKSCO Electric and talked to them about the
type of building that I was proposing and the type of look of lighting that I wanted, at least along the
entrance and the exit, and it turned out it’s a Victorian lighting, basically the same as what you see in
the City of Saratoga Springs, on the main street and in Congress Park. In your packet you should
have some Xeroxed copies of the light fixture, and I can explain to you the posts and so forth. I
think the biggest thing was that the Town requirement was that it have two foot candles of light per
square foot in the parking areas, and that it’s a little small when you get into this Xeroxed thing, but
basically I can go over with you the type of light fixtures and where they are on their plot plan, and
those little numbers are the foot-candles of light at various spots all over that whole piece of
property, and I believe, you know, they have accomplished what the Town would want. There
possibly would be, well, one change and one addition that I would like to make and I’ll discuss that
with you. So, basically I was here for Beautification and lighting, that I knew of.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what was the change in modification talked about?
MR. KELLEY-In lighting?
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the change in modification as far as lighting? Is that?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is pretty much yours. So you tell us everything about your project you
want us to know.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. Well, if you look at that lighting plan there, it kind of shows all the little
numbers all over the place. To the, well, it would be to the right side of the piece of paper.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be south.
MR. KELLEY-You’ll see little circles with a dot in them, and it shows seven of those on this plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. Those particular light fixtures are the Victorian light fixture, which you should
have a copy.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-The HL 106’s?
MR. KELLEY-I don’t have that. Hold on.
MR. MAC EWAN-These right here?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-Let me go back to the front if I can.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. The entrance to this piece of property is that, it looks like a roadway coming
in on the top part of the paper. It comes from right going left into the parking lot. Those three
fixtures, I believe, are fine. They would kind of light the entrance. The three on the bottom of the
page would light the exit, and it would be a balanced appearance from the street. They show one in
the very center of what would kind of be the front yard. That would be the one I would like to
remove, the reason being we’re going to have a freestanding sign right there. The freestanding sign
would have its own lighting, and I believe that the lighting from that sign would take the place of the
lamppost. Plus, I don’t think it would look right, actually. The freestanding sign, by the way, I don’t
have a fancy, fancy picture of it, but it’s a double post type thing with, it’s a little more detailed than
this. It has moldings and would be two sided and it would have lights, I believe that are going to
hang down the top or curve around to shine light onto it, and I believe, between that and a
freestanding, excuse me, a wall sign on the front of the building, we’re anticipating, if you looked at
this elevation and the drawing, I think they’ve got Victoria’s Bagel Boutique over the window. That
is not it. My drafting guys got a little carried away with that thing. I believe what I’m going to end
up with, this will be a molding type thing, or a flat surface. We’re kind of looking with a sign now
that would tend to fit up in here, possibly take the window out and have Victoria, the woman in the
sign, okay, have her sculpture or picture, whatever, be up into the shape of that curved top. That’s
not 100%, but it’s a thought, and we thought it might look well to do it that way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I kind of like what you have.
MR. KELLEY-Well, that’s not bad either.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s beautiful. Actually, there’s probably going to be some more
gingerbread on here. We kind of drew, you know, the clapboard type things that would fan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where’s the doorway, the door to get in?
MR. KELLEY-Over on the side.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can’t see it in this picture.
MR. STROUGH-Is that the only access to that?
MR. KELLEY-Customer access. There is a proposed, well, it’s not proposed, it’s in the plan.
There’s an outside eating area on this side.
MR. STROUGH-So that will be the emergency secondary?
MR. KELLEY-Yes. There’d be an exit over here. I could show you a floor plan, if you’d like.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there any upstairs in that, second floor?
MR. KELLEY-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-For storage or anything?
MR. KELLEY-It’s a one story building. It does have a basement under.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that more vaulted ceilings inside, high ceilings?
MR. KELLEY-This inside would be flat. It comes up on an angle and goes across and back down
and then flat.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How many people will it be able to seat?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. KELLEY-It seats 90, something like that. It’s a, if you want to talk about it. It’s kind of a triple
use. The front is over here. This is the entrance side, and the rear of the building is out here, and the
exit comes along this side. The idea that we wanted to accomplish was have bagel sales and just a
counter area, come in, quickly sit down and have a coffee and a bagel type thing, and you could leave.
We wanted to have an upscale gift shop that you pass through on the way to an actual Victorian
dining room, where you’d be seated by a hostess, have waitresses, not like what we have now. I
wanted to have, it shows a partition here, but I think we’re going to try to get into a folding type of
divider, so that we could do meetings for 25, 30 people in a private setting, so to speak. I know the
Bank, different businesses look for places like that. The outside patio area was going to be out here,
through some French doors, and this is that other exit that you’re referring to. The rest of this is just
support kitchens and bagel preparation and outside coolers.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where’s the front, now?
MR. KELLEY-The front is here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, that’s what I thought.
MR. KELLEY-Yes. I mean, that’s kind of that part.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, I’ll start with you. Any questions?
MR. RINGER-No. I found my notes. What we had asked Jeff to do was come back with a lighting
plan, a survey showing elevations, the planting, and the fence around which he’s suggested he’s not
going to put the fence up now. He’s going to put trees up, but they were the reasons that we had
tabled it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions or comments?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think taking the fence down was a good idea, and, well, I really like your
architectural design. I’m wondering if this Victorian flavor will catch on and become the style of the
corridor as opposed to what they’re proposing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t get your hopes up to high to see the Hess Station go Victorian.
MR. STROUGH-We’re the Planning Board, but in any event, and there’s a lot of features in here
that you’ve incorporated into the new planning, and everything seems to work, and so you’re not
planning on having a changeable word sign.
MR. KELLEY-No.
MR. STROUGH-And the fencing is removed, which I thought was good. I like the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had nothing, just a comment about one of the other concerns that was raised
with the perc tests, and it’s now addressed in C.T. Male’s letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I’ll let Bob ask it, when we get to Bob.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we just got to you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, before I get to my main thing, I’ll just quickly clear up something. The light
poles are specified in this application at 25 feet. We’ve been trying to use 20 foot light poles, I
believe, in keeping with the new proposed zoning law, but we’ve been kind of pushing 20 foot light
poles all along, and this says 25. Just so we know that that’s what it is. The service from the water
main, according to C.T. Male letter, should be one inch copper line. I do not see that on the
drawing, and it probably ought to be a condition of approval. Now, the thing I want to get into is
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
the comment that’s made in Staff notes on the third paragraph down, under Project Analysis, where
it says, “Staff has confirmed with the Building Department that the septic system location is adequate
for a building without a basement”, and I’m going to just spend a couple of minutes here, Mr.
Chairman, going over this. I know it’s late and everybody wants to get out of here, but I want to get
this thing on the record. Our 136 Code, which is the Wastewater Code for Queensbury, talks about,
“Individual sewage disposal systems shall comply with the standards of this Article, and with the
most recent additions of the Wastewater Treatment Handbook - Individual Household Systems,
New York State Department of Health”, in Staff I’ve seen that document, and, “Institutional and
Commercial Sewage Facilities, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.” I have
a copy of that document. It’s not available in the Town Hall. It’s not available from Staff, but I have
a copy. In that copy, just so that everybody knows what it says, in our 136 Code, it says Institutional
and Commercial Sewage Facilities. This document I have is Design Standard for Wastewater
Treatment Works, dated 1988. However, it says in there, the former addition of this document was
subtitled “Institutional and Commercial Sewage Facilities” This document supercedes that, but it
states that it used to be, what we call in our Code “Institutional and Commercial Sewage Facilities”.
Now, just to read from this document, which is not for individual households, it says, “This manual
provides standards that may be used for institutional, commercial and multi home purposes.
Pursuant to Article 17 Title Seven of the Environmental Conservation Law, the following sewer
systems must be covered by a Discharge Permit issued through the State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System”, which SPDES is the acronym. “All systems discharging to surface waters”,
that’s not you, but “all systems for sewage effluent from buildings housing three or more families or
more than 10 people, having a discharge with a flow rate greater than 1,000 gallons. For these types
of facilities, DEC is responsible for plan approvals, regulatory actions, and the issuance of a SPDES
Permit.” And I don’t want to make that determination tonight, but I would ask Staff to, and I might
want to ask that this be tabled for this reason, that I’d like Staff to confer with the Building
Department that they should be applying a different standard to this, other than individual household
system standards. For example, just quickly, the household system standards say that the septic tank
shall be 10 feet from a dwelling. When Mr. Hatin looked at this he said, well, first of this is not a
dwelling, and, secondly, there’s no foundation because there’s no cellar to this. However, when you
get into this document, which I think should be the controlling document for this sewer system, it
says, minimum separation distance as a septic tank from a foundation, not a dwelling, to be 10 feet.
So, all I’m asking Staff to do is to have the Building Department use the right document to determine
the septic system installation on this application, and this document is available from New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. I can let you Xerox the front of this, or tomorrow
morning I’ll bring it in, and you can copy this and you can get a copy from, I’d let you have this, but
I’ve got to return it. That, Mr. Chairman, is all I have.
MRS. RYBA-I just want to comment that you can ask Planning Staff to investigate or do research,
but it’s really the Building Code Department that has to give the approval. We just can’t do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine. All I’m asking the Building Code Department to do is to use the correct
document. This is not a household system. Our 136 gives two documents that we should use, one is
for household systems, the other is for commercial and institutional. It should be the right one. I
really believe that and believe it strongly.
MRS. RYBA-I just don’t know how Staff can tell the Building Department what to do, or how the
Planning Board can tell the Building Department what to do, in terms of which regulations to use. I
think that might be something that has to be taken up with the Building Department supervisor.
MR. MAC EWAN-They have their procedures, regulations, ordinances, laws to follow, and in the
course of their review of any application, I’m sure that they’re using the right laws. Three quick
comments I’ve got to this. First of all, Mr. Kelley, during the course of this proposed widening of
Main Street, you’re anticipating running sewers up there. Are you going to be willing to attach to the
sewer down the road?
MR. KELLEY-That was the purpose in our design the way it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would solve any problem right there. Secondly, I don’t know that the
discharge rates are going to be more than 1,000 gallons a day.
MR. VOLLARO-He says that in his calculations, 1300 gallons.
MR. MAC EWAN-Secondly, has there been any supplements to that book that you’ve got that’s 12
years old?
MR. VOLLARO-No, there has not, not to my knowledge.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t believe the State doesn’t change things as often as they do. They change
them every six months, but anyway, I agree with Staff that, you know, I mean, the Building and
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
Codes Department, they have a review process, just like the Planning Department has as review
process, to make sure that things are going to be in compliance with the Code, and that they’re going
to meet the criteria. For whatever reason, if he’s not going to meet the criteria, he’s not going to get
a CO to move in.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can tell you this, that any discharge like this in excess of 1,000 gallons
requires a SPDES Permit. He can do what he wants, and all of that, and that’s fine with me. I’m just
trying to alert people that, you know, this application is not household, and our compliance
requirements gives two individual things that they have to do, either individual households or
institutional and commercial, and the institutional and commercial is here, and individual households
is here. It’s different. It’s just different.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get that on the record. If he goes forward with this without a
SPDES Permit, that’s his business, and I guess it’s the business of the Building Inspector.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my final comment, why is, all of a sudden, this an issue when we just did
the Fish Tails restaurant. We’ve done Applebee’s. We’ve done Denny’s, and not one of them have
you brought up this issue before.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because they were in compliance with the separation distances. That’s why.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. RINGER-Bob brought this up last month, also. So, Staff was well aware.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d encourage you to go sit down with the Building and Codes Department,
present this to them, and get their input.
MR. RINGER-Right, and they gave their input, and they said they feel that their input was correct
the way they gave it, and I appreciate Bob’s comment, but I think we could move on.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anymore questions or comments? We’ve got a public hearing
scheduled. Does anyone want to come up and comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder, I guess I missed the proposal for the light poles was 25 feet. Do
you have a problem with that being reduced to 20?
MR. KELLEY-Okay. The Victorian looking ones out in the front are 12 feet. It’s the ones in the
back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. These would be the ones in the back.
MR. KELLEY-They did the 25. My feeling as to why they chose that is maybe to get the proper
foot-candles of light. If you get it up high enough, it spreads out a little more, the diagram of how
the light flows, or whatever.
MRS. RYBA-I did want to note, and I apologize. I was absent from work for awhile, so I didn’t get
to look at this, but the lighting plan is very difficult to read, and in fact in the upper left hand corner,
which is where I might usually find information about uniformity ratios and the maximum and the
average lighting on the site, is totally indiscernible. So I couldn’t evaluate this plan.
MR. KELLEY-Would you like to look at this?
MRS. RYBA-That would be nice. I’m not sure I can evaluate, right at this moment.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would ask that you give that to her, so that she can review it, not tonight, but.
MRS. RYBA-Right. The reason I’m saying this is because in order to assess whether or not a 20 foot
pole or a 25 foot pole is usable, you really need to have a lot more specific information.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, not only that, but when he removes the one fixture from the front of the
building, these foot-candles on the ground would change.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, and I don’t see a light fixture on the building on this plan.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-The light fixtures are on the additional pages that are attached, but, you know, in
the interest of moving things along here, let’s not sit here and try to figure out.
MR. KELLEY-I think from what I understood, the Town was looking to get the two foot-candles of
light in the parking areas, where people would be moving around, and the grass in the front lawn, I
didn’t see where as if I took that out because we were going to have this freestanding sign, that it was
too big a problem, plus there’s also streetlights out there, which aren’t reflected in the drawings.
MR. MAC EWAN-And when they re-do the road, the streetlights are going to change, and they’re
going to move closer toward your building.
MR. KELLEY-So, it’s whatever you want.
MR. MAC EWAN-You wanted to remove the one pole light that would be in the southwest corner
of your parcel. This one out back? The one in the center, okay.
MR. KELLEY-Well, this one right here, in the middle of the front yard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Gotcha.
MR. KELLEY-In reality, from the looks of the building, and where the freestanding sign is, it just
doesn’t belong there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-I thought that between the lights and the freestanding sign, that probably the wall
sign that would be on the front of the building which would be lighted, I mean, it’s not like it’s dark
out there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, our hopefully soon to be adopted new Zoning Ordinance was specific to
corridors. Is there something in that Main Street corridor referring to the lighting that you know of?
MRS. RYBA-The lighting standards are general to the entire Town. However, there are some
specific recommendations for parking lots, building entrances, driveways, road approaches, that type
of thing, and there’s also some room for flexibility, in terms of type of light that would be used,
which is something I don’t know here either, whether it’s metal halide or high pressure sodium. So,
the quick answer I guess is, no, there isn’t anything specific to this district.
MR. HUNSINGER-The other issue, and I guess the reality of the situation, is that the lights that
we’re talking about are in the rear of the property, and it would be very unlikely that you could see
them from the street anyway because the building will be in the way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s a good point.
MRS. RYBA-The other thing is, of course, is you have a gas station right next door, which is very
highly lit, which tends to make anything next door to it look less intense than it really is. So, I mean,
a lot of it is some of that evaluation, when you actually see something, but my whole comment was, I
really couldn’t make any kind of analysis from this fax.
MR. KELLEY-You see the information that was on the top of that piece of paper that I gave you,
was that what you’re looking for? I know you haven’t had time to review it, but.
MRS. RYBA-Yes. That’s helpful. It doesn’t give the type of light, however, whether it’s metal halide
or high pressure sodium, and also if there are going to be changes, this would probably change as
well, in terms of the foot-candle values.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for what it’s worth, the cut sheet that he’s indicated on here indicates that
they’re 400 wattage of lamps. They’re shoebox style, but it doesn’t tell which one it is. It gives you a
choice of three, metal halide, mercury vapor, or high pressure sodium. So, it’s not delineated.
MR. KELLEY-My guess is that metal halide, only because the lamp wattage is 400. There’s only,
well, I guess it could come either way.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. You’re right. The 400 watt says that you can use only the metal halide.
So that’s the type of lights that are going to be specked.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MRS. RYBA-The proposed Ordinance does recommend high pressure sodium. However, I went to
a lighting workshop Wednesday night, at night, that actually showed everything, and I talked with
some people who are lighting sales people, and 80% of their sales in the Northeast are from metal
halide and that’s based on what a lot of municipalities are recommending, because the light is, you
see true colors and shapes and forms better.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a softer light, too, isn’t it?
MRS. RYBA-Yes. Well, yes, the white light.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 63-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JEFFREY L. KELLEY, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion?
MR. KELLEY-Can I ask a question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. KELLEY-In the very beginning, someone, I guess somebody read some minutes or whatever,
that talked about the sidewalk being extended from the building to the sidewalk in front of the
building. I will gladly do that. I know the intent of what the Town’s trying to do. I do believe that it
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
probably should be there because we don’t want them walking in the driveway, and if they’re strolling
along the sidewalk to get to the entrance. So I would gladly add that to my plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Does someone want to introduce a motion.
MR. KELLEY-Can I ask another question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. One more.
MR. KELLEY-I think you also, there was something about labeling that expressway across the back
or from property to property?
MR. MAC EWAN-To label the interconnect.
MR. KELLEY-Yes. Now I have that on my plot plan, that says future interior connecting lane, but
do you need something more than me to say that on the plans?
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn, is that acceptable?
MRS. RYBA-Laura had a section noting the Section of the Code, 179-66(1). I, personally, think just
linking of commercial is okay, as he has it, but if, I mean, this certainly makes it more clear, but it’s
up to the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s pretty well delineated on there.
MR. STROUGH-Future interior connecting lane.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re talking about.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-It’s okay like that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Any other questions?
MR. KELLEY-No. I just didn’t want to not do something somewhere down the road, and I want to
know in my own mind that it was okay.
MRS. RYBA-One thing, there is a note here with reference to the Area Variance granted, and
because there are so many variances, that might not be a bad idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-What might not be a bad idea?
MRS. RYBA-To just include the reference to the Area Variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the plot?
MRS. RYBA-On the plot.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re talking about on the plot, I think the September 21 letter from
st
C.T. Male talks to another comment related to the water service from the existing main, which is to
be a one inch copper line, and that also should be delineated on this drawing, or it can be put in,
whoever’s going to make this motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Someone make a motion.
MR. RINGER-That’s the C.T. Male’s?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, C.T. Male’s September 21, 2000.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s review the conditions first.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I have, the applicant will extend the sidewalk pathway to interconnect with the
Main Street proposed sidewalk. I have, I don’t see in the supporting documentation, I don’t see the
updated plan, and I don’t see the most recent lighting proposal. Should we add those as conditions?
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by the most recent plan, are you talking the elevations?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, this is dated September 7.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And I don’t see a September 7 plan on there.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to have those drawings that he’s got up on the easel as part of the.
MR. STROUGH-We could include the elevation drawings as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know how we’d label this lighting thing. The only date I see on it is where
it shows the illuminations.
MR. VOLLARO-If you’re going to eliminate one fixture on the foot-candles on the ground, then all
those calculations are going to change, by the way.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but only in that immediate area, Bob, and I think the sign, and the lighting on
the sign and the fact that it is not an entry area mitigates that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. On top of that you’re going to have street lighting up there, too.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to note that the numbers will change.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re going to change when they take into consideration the Hess Station.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Okay. So you’re removing that middle light pole, and that the light, I
think there was, what, four of them, four of the rear parking lot light poles, maximum light pole
height would be 20 feet.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t know we were going to make that a condition.
MR. MAC EWAN-I kind of thought we were, weren’t we?
MR. STROUGH-I thought that Marilyn pointed out that’s going to change everything back there.
MRS. RYBA-It will impact the lighting.
MR. STROUGH-This you can’t see it. So I thought that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Never mind.
MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, there’s only two pole lights back there, not four. I’m sorry, there are
four.
MR. MAC EWAN-And then you want to denote on the site plan the Area Variance approval, on the
site plan drawing.
MR. STROUGH-And delineate the water supply line on the plot plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, that’s it.
MR. STROUGH-Do you want me to try this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 63-2000 JEFFREY L. KELLEY, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 63-200, Jeffrey Kelley for a
Bagel Shop and Restaurant. New uses in CR zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax
Map No. 129-1-15. Cross Reference: AV 72-2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 7/26/00 consists of the following:
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File.
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 9/26/00 Staff Notes
9/21/00 CT Male engineering comments
9/11/00, 8/7/00 Beautification Comm. Recommendation – approved as presented
9/7/00 Meeting Notice
8/26/00 ZBA resolution
8/24/00 Planning Board resolution – tabled to 9/26
8/24/00 Staff Notes
8/24/00 CT Male engineering comments
8/23/00 M. Ryba from C. Scudder – responses to CT Male comments of
8/22/00
8/22/00 CT Male engineering comments
8/22/00 Staff, ZBA, PB Chairman from M. Ryba
8/21/00 J. Edwards from L. Moore
8/17/00 Notice of Public Hearing
8/9/00 Warren Co. Planning recommendation - approved
8/3/00 R. VanDusen from C. Round – transmittal of application for
review and comment
8/2/00 Meeting Notice
7/28/00 J. Edwards from C. Round – transmittal of application for review
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/24/00, 9/26/00 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 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,
THAT,
The application is approved as per the resolution as prepared by Staff, with the updated
supporting documentation of a site plan dated September 7, 2000, a lighting plan dated
September 5, 2000 and an elevation plan Project Number 1490 dated 7/31/00, Sheets One
and Two with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will extend the sidewalk pathway to interconnect with the
Main Street proposed sidewalk, and
2. The Area Variance granted be noted on the plot plan, and
3. The water supply line be delineated on the site plan, and
4. We recognize that the southern center lighting fixture will be removed, and
that a lighted sign will be located in that general area.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-No, and I want to qualify my no vote. I feel I’m voting no because I don’t agree
with the way Article, our Code 136 has been applied, in terms of the septic system, and I think we
should have used the Institutional and Commercial Sewage Facilities, as opposed to individual
households.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Thank you very much. I think you’re really going to set the trend
for that corridor.
MR. KELLEY-Well, I think it’s going to be pretty. We’ve got some nice colors picked out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-2000 JOHN SHINE/NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE
OWNER: TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NORTHWAY
LANE & SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 4.2 SQ. FT. OFF
PREMISES SIGN FOR NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, LLC . TAX MAP NO.: TOWN
ROW LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 140-6B(5)
LARRY CLEVELAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Off Premises Sign No. 1-2000, John Shine/Northway Self Storage, Meeting Date:
September 26, 2000 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a 4.2 square foot off premise sign as directional signage for the Northway
Self Storage. The proposed sign is located near a proposed industrial park, some residential units,
and the Northway.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be compliant with Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D
and E of the Town Code. Off Premises Directional Sign per Chapter 140-6B(5) of the Ordinance
are subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Site Overview
The proposed sign location is in a Town right-of-way. The applicant has met with the Highway
Superintendent to review the proposed location. The Highway Department and the applicant have
agreed to locate the sign in a manner to not interfere with the operations of the Highway
Department. but to facilitate locating Northway Storage. There are no issues with traffic, stormwater
or other site amenities (i.e. utilities, etc.). There’s also a letter from the County, also agreeing to that
same situation.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The sign is located near the realignment project for the proposed Veteran’s Field Light Industrial
Park.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the sign be moved when the realignment of Northway Lane occurs.”
MRS. RYBA-In terms of a summary of Staff Notes, one of the things I wanted to note was on the
cover of Staff Notes it says that this is SEQRA Type II. However, Laura has informed me that the
status is Unlisted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. CLEVELAND-My name is Larry Cleveland. I’m not John Shine who’s name is on all the
documentation you see. The explanation for that is the Northway Storage was a limited liability
company that was filed with the State of New York in January of 1998. At that time there were two
members, and there still are today, one is me and the other is John Shine. John could not be here
tonight to represent us. I try to keep my name off all public records, but I came instead. Actually, if
he’d known it was going to be 11, he probably could have been here, but he couldn’t be here for
seven o’clock, in any event. So I came to represent us on this issue. That’s why he’s not here. I
guess that’s the bad news. The good news is there are no Karner blue butterflies anywhere near
where we want to put the sign. So that is good. We’re trying to just put up a directional sign, is all
we’re doing. Our business is located at the dead end of Northway Lane. If you’re familiar with the
area, the majority of our business comes up Sherman Avenue, westbound traffic, and they miss the
turn to Northway Lane because they don’t realize it’s there. They then are stuck going up and across
the Northway and making U-turns in the area by Oak Tree Circle, which I don’t like because I live in
Hidden Hills, too. So, we want to make sure people know where we are and have a directional sign
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
right there. It’s a small sign. It’s only three feet, one foot four inch on the other side, and I’ll answer
any questions you have, but I’ve met with the Town already. Rick Missita’s going to meet with our
people, if this is approved, and be there when they actually erect it to make sure they don’t interfere
with any snow removal that he has because he plows both of those roads, and it also doesn’t effect
any line of sight for vehicle traffic coming east or west on Sherman or in or out of Northway Lane.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-So this sign is kind of temporary in nature?
MR. CLEVELAND-No, it’s a permanent sign.
MR. STROUGH-Because I see that Staff here suggests that the sign might be moved if they realign
Northway Lane. That’s a way out there possibility, isn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-She’s not responding to you.
MR. STROUGH-No.
MRS. RYBA-Well, I mean, Laura had written that suggestion. I don’t know when that’s going to
happen.
MR. STROUGH-If that happens, eminent domain will kick in.
MRS. RYBA-Right, they’d have to come back.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Well, it’s not lighted, right?
MR. CLEVELAND-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Nothing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-SEQRA?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Now do a SEQRA.
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:
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN SHINE/NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please?
MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-2000 JOHN
SHINE/NORTHWAY SELF STORAGE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
The sign has to be installed under the direction of the Town Highway Department.
Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. CLEVELAND-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry for the long wait.
MR. CLEVELAND-That’s okay. It was a lesson. It means when you’re eighth on the list, don’t
come at seven o’clock.
MR. VOLLARO-We have a habit of changing things around. You’ve got to be careful.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Do we need to keep all this stuff for Veterans Field, or are we done
with it?
MRS. RYBA-You made your resolution to forward it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we did.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not literally done with the project.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Will we be referring to this again?
MRS. RYBA-You may.
MR. STROUGH-Are we going to work with the Town Board on the findings, possibly?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s part of your motion.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s part of our motion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I want to be there.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did have one other thing on the agenda tonight was discussing, for lack of a
better phrase, agenda control, but considering the late hour, let’s do it Thursday.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I won’t be here Thursday, but that’s okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s okay. You’ve already put some input into that, right?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t know. What have I said about it?
MR. MAC EWAN-We talked about the idea of limiting 15 new items per month.
MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever. The only thing I’ll add is that I’m told by Staff that you’re leaning
toward more meetings instead of the same number of meetings and, you know, we’ll cover whatever
you want us to cover. I, myself, won’t probably be able to do more meetings, but Cathi, you know,
between us we could probably cover more meetings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what I want to get a sense, and Thursday we’ll discuss it, but I want
to get a sense from the Board, are they more comfortable with more meetings or are they
comfortable with longer meetings?
MR. VOLLARO-More meetings.
MR. RINGER-Not longer.
MR. VOLLARO-Not longer.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not longer. I die at 10 o’clock.
MR. SCHACHNER-Some Boards say neither, just so you know. Some Boards say neither.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, I didn’t give them that choice.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know, I’m not going to be here, but one thing, even when you’re
working during the day, how many of you go four hours like completely non stop, without even, not
even getting up to go to the bathroom? Well, I teach four classes in a row, but that’s just under four
hours, and that’s intense.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just put one comment in. Anything over “N”, in terms of the number of
reviews we have to do, whatever that is, 12, 15 or so, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels,
but the time you can put in, these four hours are nothing compared to reviewing 11 or 12 of these
applications.
MR. RINGER-Especially this month.
MR. VOLLARO-Especially this month.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s end the discussion there. We’ll do it Thursday night and see where
we get.
MR. STROUGH-This Gregg site plan that we got today, and now we know the location of, I’m not
going to be able to visit this site before Thursday.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/26/00)
MR. RINGER-Yes, I wasn’t too thrilled with that, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-So, I won’t be able to deal with it if it comes up.
MR. VOLLARO-What happened to Edward Zibro?
MR. MAC EWAN-He didn’t show.
MR. VOLLARO-He didn’t show. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll adjourn tonight’s meeting.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
62