2000-11-21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve kind of moved a couple of items around on our agenda tonight, because a
couple of them have come off, and one we’re going to ultimately table.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 19, 2000: NONE
September 26, 2000: NONE
September 28, 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 19, 26, AND 28, 2000, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. We’re going to skip over to New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 75-2000 SEAN GARVEY/GARVEY VOLKSWAGON OWNER: LONG
RIFLE ENTERPRISES, INC. ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 188 SPACE AUTOMOBILE STORAGE YARD WITH A 352 SQ. FT. OFFICE
BUILDING. ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 11/6/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/8/00
TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.27 LOT SIZE: 2.84 ACRE SECTION 179-26
SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 75-2000, Sean Garvey/Garvey Volkswagon, Meeting Date: November
21, 2000 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a 352 square foot office building and a 2.3+/- acre automobile storage area
to be located on Dix Avenue. The site would accommodate approximately 190 vehicles. The site
will be graded to facilitate existing and proposed drainage flow.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
Sections 179-38 A, B, C, D and E of the Town Code is the basis for project approvals by the
Planning Board. The proposed use as reviewed by staff was found to be substantially compliant with
applicable items. Details are noted below. The proposed use is an allowed use within the zone, as
per determination by the Zoning Administrator (see attached letter).
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
Site Overview
The site is near light industrial uses including a storage facility (Key-lock Self
Storage), a construction company (ladder sales) and an industrial park. The
commercial uses in the area include car dealerships, carwash, gas station, and a
lighting business. The applicant proposes six light poles at 30 feet in height with
cut-off fixtures. The light source is metal halide to be utilized with a security
camera. The applicant also proposes a 25 square foot double-sided pole sign. The
proposed building is 352 square feet to be used for security and shipment
operations.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
The site is accessed with one fifty-foot curb cut onto Dix Avenue. This is to
facilitate tractor-trailers carrying vehicles. The storage arrangement does not appear
to allow for delivery trailer stacking on site. The curb cut to the east, Barrett Drive,
is used for delivery of RV’s and display units for Garden Time and Barrett’s RV
Sales. Internal traffic controls (i.e. planted islands) are not required in the current
zoning ordinance because the use is for storage, not parking. The site is not open to
public travel or customer sales.
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
The applicant’s stormwater report was provided to CT Male for review and
comment. The storage area will be graded to promote drainage to the northwest
area of the property. There is an existing drainage swale on the property. The
applicant proposes to install a septic system to accommodate the use of the office
building. The plans do not indicate location of the septic system or the connection
to a water supply. The applicant’s landscape plan was referred to Beautification
Committee for review and comment. The committee indicated additional plants
would be recommended, including trees and a berm. The property is located in an
area where minimal flooding occurs according to FEMA maps (but outside of the
100 year flood hazard area).
Areas of Concern or Importance
The CLUP recommends this area (Neighborhood 10) contain mixed commercial and industrial
uses. To facilitate the compatibility of these uses, the Planning Board has an opportunity to
guide development in this area by requiring additional landscaping. Such landscaping would
mitigate the aesthetic and storm water impacts due to a large expanse of vehicles and
corresponding pavement. Landscaping can provide for a transition between uses, screening, and
aesthetic view of the Quaker/Dix Avenue corridor.
The proposed zoning guidelines indicate light poles should be no higher than 20 feet and certain
candle power should be utilized for different uses (pg 85). The guidelines also specify landscape
requirements for storage areas (pg 90-95). Lighting is for security purposes and not for display,
so parking lot or automobile lot standards do not apply. The average illumination level should
be indicated in addition to the illumination ratio for the site.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest:
1. The parking arrangement be revised to accommodate delivery truck stacking on site
2. The Planning Board consider shared access with Triangle Park Road which currently
accommodates delivery truck traffic. (Also, a CT Male suggestion.)
3. The applicant return to the Beautification Committee with additional landscaping details
and for a sign-off on a revised landscape plan.
4. The site plan be revised to show the size of the office building at 352 square feet. To
assure that the site functions as a storage facility, gates should be installed at access
points.”
MRS. RYBA-In addition to your Staff notes, what I distributed this evening to you was a revised site
plan, with today’s date on it, and it’s entitled “Preliminary Site and Stormwater Management Plan”,
also a letter dated November 21, 2000, to Chris Round, Director, Department of Community
Development, from Environmental Design Partnership, and that letter responded to the C.T. Male
comments from C.T. Male’s environmental review, environmental and engineering review of Mr.
Garvey’s plan. In addition, a letter, let’s see, from Dave Hatin about the proposed septic layout, and,
let’s see, excuse me, I did find, and there must have been only one copy in the notes. There is
something, and I don’t think you have this, but there is a sign off sheet from C.T. Male Associates. I
apologize for that.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-From today?
MRS. RYBA-Yes, and somebody must have slipped it in the packets, but there was only one copy,
and I’m sorry.
MR. RINGER-I got one.
MRS. RYBA-You got one?
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I see that, Larry?
MR. VOLLARO-Is that from, from who?
MR. RINGER-C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-I got a C.T. Male letter as well.
MR. RINGER-Today, from the 21?
st
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think so, where it said they were satisfied.
MRS. RYBA-All right. Okay. It’s in your packet, then. All right. I apologize. I didn’t get to go
through all of this information myself before we got here, because we did get it just today.
MR. GARVEY-If you’d like to table me, I’d be happy to go back in line and wait.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’re here. Let’s go. We’ll move it right along. Is everything else satisfied
with Staff, then?
MRS. RYBA-Well, we haven’t had a chance to look at anything. As I said, I’ve just gotten this
information, haven’t even had a chance to look at it myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. GARVEY-If I could review that letter, also, it would be of benefit to me. I don’t mind going
back in line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what we’re going to probably end up doing is still, I’m going to table this
tonight. Because Staff hasn’t had time to adequately go through it. Members of the Planning Board
have not had time to go through this new information. It was just handed to us 15 minutes ago.
Okay.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. There were nine points that C.T. Male had contention with. They’re not
major points, but they’re points that they wanted to be assured were handled for them to sign off on
the project, and they were dealt with. I’d be happy, even, to go last, if it would help, and I would be
happy to go over each point one at a time.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is our policy, Mr. Garvey, because when we get information that comes as late
as this does, it’s not fair to Board members or to Staff to sit here and try to review an application we
haven’t had a chance to review the documentation on. It’s the same policy we set forth with every
application that comes in front of us, okay. So if you want to give us a brief narrative, my intention
is to table this until next Tuesday night.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. Thank you. My name is Sean Garvey. I’m one of the owners of Garvey
Volkswagon Hyundai and Garvey KIA. Recently, the last two years, we’ve had an increase in
business, at the Volkswagon and the Hyundai store, and I don’t know if anyone on the Board has
been there recently, but we have a cramped, congested type of problem, to a point that it’s almost,
because we have so many cars on the lot, due to the volume of sales, we cannot even receive trucks
of cars. Trucks of cars have to be offloaded in front of the dealership on the main road, because
they can’t pull into the lot. Also, in the future, we might be forced by the manufacturers that we buy
cars from to expand our showrooms and change our facility, which will even take away more parking
space than we have now to work with. So, what we thought, a way to address this situation, was to
have a remote storage facility, and we wanted something that was fairly close to the dealership.
Primarily, this is a problem with the Volkswagon/Hyundai store, down at the KIA store, or the PSM
Auto Body, and we were looking for sites that were fairly close to our location, and we chose this one
here. This is, the view of the site is from Dix Avenue. To the right of the site is the rear entrance to
the Car Wash. It’s a little bit under seven acres, and we to basically make it a storage facility that was
lit and secured with cameras, and that basically sums it up. It’s a very simple project. By relocating
cars here, what we thought we’d do is have the cars delivered here and have wholesale cars that we
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
end up wholesaling, that are also picked up in the same way with the portable parking lots that you’re
familiar with. That this would be a place that would have the wholesale cars picked up and also
where new cars would be delivered. Our philosophy was that you might only need to have, I don’t
need to stock 120 Hyundai’s in one location. If you wanted to test drive an Elantra wagon and we
only had a blue one in stock, that would drive the red one would, even though red might be the color
of your choice. So, we felt that a customer would, we have a reasonable selection of cars in each car
line and each models on site then we could still sell cars satisfactorily, and if customers actually had
to see the color car that they had deposited, put a deposit on, we could drive the car up or drive the
customer down and drive them through the lot. That was our idea. I’m licensed, in New York State,
to sell cars only in two locations, and that’s at 714 Quaker Road, which is KIA, next to the PSM
Auto Body, and 483 Quaker Road. It is against the law for me to retail cars at any other place in the
State. That would jeopardize my license, all the licenses that I have. I have a license to repair cars, to
inspect cars and to sell vehicles. There are three separate licenses granted at each location by the
Department of Motor Vehicles. It was the concern of the Community Development Department
that this was a storage facility and not a retail facility, and that’s what it is, and that’s why, specifically,
auto storage is not a light industrial use, but there are many other similar uses in light industrial that
are similar to this, but different size vehicles, and so they granted this as an allowable use.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. GARVEY-There were some contentions, or nine points that C.T. Male needed addressed
before they would sign off on the project, and I was, unfortunately, out of town for a week. I had
gotten the notes on Friday of last week. I addressed them the best I could, as quick as I could, and
they have answered them. Apparently, not in time for you to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes the clock just doesn’t tick quick enough for all of us.
MR. GARVEY-I understand. That happens.
MR. MAC EWAN-And don’t feel like you’re being singled out. Because it is a policy we adopted
about a year ago, and we’ve stuck with it because it just makes the review process that much easier
for everybody involved.
MR. GARVEY-There’s many things that delayed me in presenting this in front of the Board. One of
them is because I purchased the property from the United States Government, and that’s an arduous
process. It took a week to procure clear title, and it took a week for the Town to determine if it was
an allowable use, and then I had only like three or four days to present the site plan review, and the
Department worked well with me and put up with my simplistic application, and why I’m concerned
is that the asphalt plants typically close around Thanksgiving. There’s one in Saratoga that might be
open a week later. It would be very nice if I could pave it at least, before the snow flies, and I’m just
working against time. I’m very concerned about delaying it even seven days. That might just prevent
me from doing anything this winter. Every time it snows, we take snow off over 250 cars, and it gets
tiring. So I thought having a second location would be.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re all thankful we don’t live in Buffalo tonight.
MR. GARVEY-Yes, thank goodness.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mr. Garvey, is there going to be a canopy over this?
MR. GARVEY-No. This is strictly an open storage facility.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. GARVEY-You might have two maps like this. The one that’s dated the newest addresses all
the concerns that C.T. Male had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I know you haven’t had an opportunity to review the information given to
us today, but is there any outstanding questions that anybody had from the previous material that
they would want addressed next week?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Go ahead, Larry.
MR. RINGER-I notice on your new drawing you still have the 30 foot lights.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. RINGER-And Staff comments were recommending 20 foot poles.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. GARVEY-Yes, they were.
MR. RINGER-So you still feel you need 30 foot poles?
MR. GARVEY-Well, I told Warren Electric what my lighting requirements were, and they designed
the lighting, using fissures that the Town recommended.
MR. RINGER-I just think you may have some trouble with a 30 foot pole, getting it approved. I just
wanted to mention that that might be a question that’ll come up next week, is the 30 foot poles.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. We’re in the process of redesigning a light plan that actually still had 30 foot
poles, to be honest. They were concerned with the ratio, and so we were trying to address that.
Normally, I guess my contention is that a 20 foot pole does not light as much area, especially when
you use the shoebox type lights that the Town prefers. For me to light a parking lot of this size, I
would have to probably triple the number of poles that are in there. Since it’s at the very edge of the
Town, in a, basically a nonresidential area where there are other businesses, we thought less poles
illuminating it, and also the height of the poles is where the security camera’s are going to be
mounted. It would just have a better view, and that’s why we chose that height.
MR. VOLLARO-I just might say that the 20 foot high poles that Larry’s talking about are in the
proposed zoning law that’s coming up.
MR. GARVEY-But they are not the current regulations.
MR. VOLLARO-They are not the current regulations. That’s correct, but we’ve been looking in that
direction.
MR. RINGER-Did you get Staff notes?
MR. GARVEY-Yes. They did mention to me that they would recommend 20 foot poles. At the
Volkswagon/Hyundai store, we have security cameras, and there are many different applications of
the cameras, and one of them is sweeping the lot, versus stationary cameras. From what it’s been
explained to me by the people at Ray Supply that supply the cameras, they feel with the lower poles
you cannot sweep the lot because there’s more obstructions, especially from a high point, and you
want to get as much view as possible, and that was why they felt the 30 foot poles would be better.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, did you have something?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On your site development data, that’s the sheet that really tries to come up
with the percent of non-permeable ground. Are you familiar with that?
MR. GARVEY-Yes, I’m very familiar with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I noticed that in your new site plan, you got the square footage of the
building correct, 352. You’ve changed that now, but in the site development plan, you’ve got the old
836 in there, and that’s got to be corrected.
MR. GARVEY-That is correct. I think you’ll notice on the new map it shows the proper size of the
building. It doesn’t change the non-permeable.
MR. VOLLARO-But you want to translate that size to this form, so that, when you come back,
somebody like myself doesn’t bring that up on you.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. So the building size would, of course, change, but the percentage of non-
permable membrane would remain as I have.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the building itself, on the site development data you’ve got 836 square feet.
You’re actually, your number’s going to be better with 352 square feet.
MR. GARVEY-If I could point out, actually, it won’t be, as it sits in the corner of a non-permeable
membrane area. So if I put a 50 foot building there or a two foot building, the non-permeable
membrane area of that parking area will remain the same.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but what you’ve got to do is put 352 square foot on this form, so that all the
math adds up. That’s what I look at most of the time. That’s all I have right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from other members?
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. STROUGH-Well, while we’re on that page, and you’re on the site development data page, is
that supposed to read, in “D” where is says “paved gravel or other hard surface area” 123,064?
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-123,000 square feet?
MR. GARVEY-Square feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s a good sized hunk of ground.
MR. GARVEY-It’s over two acres.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I don’t know. Are we supposed to ask questions now so he can?
MR. GARVEY-The more you ask now, the more I can prepare myself.
MR. MAC EWAN-If there something that you want to ask pertinent to the information that you’ve
already reviewed, so that if it’s something that needs to be addressed, he can do that and be all set for
Tuesday night.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I didn’t realize that.
MR. STROUGH-It’s in, I think, the Staff notes, they ask you to, how are you going to facilitate a
truck that brings these vehicles in?
MR. GARVEY-This new site plan drawing shows an outline of a truck and the size of the truck in
relation to the openings, and the trucks were designed to, the original plan was they were concerned
with the size of the trucks and this turning radius has been modified and put on the plan. They were
concerned with the traffic flow, and that was the original design, to go in a counterclockwise
direction, and the space, they were concerned if two trucks arrived at the same time, which is rare,
but I guess it has happened, they were concerned if both trucks could park here. They did not know
where the trucks were going to park, and this is over a 70 foot area, almost 70 feet here. So the
truck’s only 20 feet wide. Two trucks side to side or end to end could easily offload there.
MR. STROUGH-Are they going to be able to turn around in there?
MR. GARVEY-Actually, they don’t turn around. They’ll go around like this. That’s why these
parking areas are cut off like this. So they can negotiate these corners. This space here is over
double what I have at the current location. There’s tons of space there.
MR. STROUGH-And why is the office there?
MR. GARVEY-Well, obviously, this facility is, it’s designed to discourage the people there during the
daytime. I need someone to monitor the lot. If a car needs to be started or moved or prepared or
cleaned, I need someone there. When it snows, for example, every car will be moved in the back of
the lot, or some location. The lot will be plowed. They’ll be brushed off and moved back and
parked in the right location. Initially, I wanted to be able to wash cars there, but that was not like a
storage facility. So that was removed from the area. I need a place for a toilet, electrical outlets, an
area for the person to work there, security cameras. So I need a building.
MR. STROUGH-Would that be manned?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. It’ll be manned five days a week, possibly six days a week, but at night,
obviously, it’ll be shut down.
MR. STROUGH-And the personnel there would also be able to deter people that might be attracted
to the site to look at cars?
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely. It would not benefit me if someone looked at those during my open
hours. If someone looked at the cars after hours, it probably wouldn’t affect me, but I don’t want
them looking at cars here. I want them at either store.
MR. RINGER-Are you going to have a gate across that?
MR. GARVEY-That was one plan. I’m not sure if that’s something that is workable. We were going
to try it without it first.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. RINGER-The idea is not to allow customers in there, but if you don’t have some way to stop
them from coming in on a day you’re not closed, they would be in and out of there.
MR. GARVEY-That wouldn’t bother me at all. There’s going to be a lot of traffic in and out during
the daytimes.
MR. RINGER-But it would seem to take it out of a storage area, parking area, and make it more like
a, not necessarily a sales, but a viewing area for customers. I don’t know if Chris, when he made his
determination.
MR. GARVEY-He was very concerned that vehicle sales were not to take place there, and I
promised him that I would not do that.
MR. RINGER-And your letter says that customers won’t on the premises other, but now they may
be on the premises if they can just drive in. I’m just bringing it up as a point. We don’t have to
discuss it tonight.
MR. GARVEY-It’ll be designed in a way that they won’t easily be able to drive on, and if we did gate
the front, they wouldn’t be able to drive on, but they could still park along the road and presumably
walk on. I would not want to put like a fence, a chain link fence around it, or barbed wire or
something like that.
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t suggesting anything like that.
MR. GARVEY-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-In the previous submission, C.T. Male’s previous letter to the one that they just
supplied, it talked about transferring the lighting plan to the site plan, so that we could get an idea of
what the lumens on the ground were. I might have to ask Staff that question. Did C.T. Male drop
that suggestion?
MRS. RYBA-No, they didn’t drop it, and it should be on here, actually on the new one.
MR. VOLLARO-This is foot candle statistics I see on here, average, maximum, and min., but you
don’t get the spread across the area.
MRS. RYBA-Right, the poles are on here.
MR. VOLLARO-But if, you know, the fact that hubble gave us a lighting plan, and I looked at that,
and that lighting plan depicts what the lumens on the ground are, as far as transferring it to the site
plan, I’m not too hard over on that, actually.
MR. GARVEY-I was a little confused with that statement, if you don’t mind me saying. It says,
“The lighting plan attached to the project narrative should either be transferred to the site plan”,
which is the original site plan, “or a separate lighting plan should be developed to coincide with the
site plan”, and I thought that’s what that is.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what, I had that in my notes, that I thought this was satisfactory.
MR. GARVEY-But what we did is put the light poles actually on the larger. It was my fault. I was
trying to make something that was very easily portable, and that’s why I made a small site plan, versus
something of this size. I thought that you might like it easier. It might be easier for you.
MR. VOLLARO-They also talked about that fire hydrant back there.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. The fire hydrant was on my original site plan. I don’t know, but it wasn’t on
the stormwater management, which I did not think it mattered. So we combined them all.
MR. VOLLARO-Because they recommended removing them or moving that.
MR. GARVEY-They were concerned that it would affect access, but it’s nowhere close to it. It’s like
70 feet apart. I don’t understand.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In actuality, by ground measurement, it’s not interfering.
MR. GARVEY-It’s way far.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-The one issue that I, and again, we don’t need to go into a long discussion, is
the whole issue about access off either Barrett Drive or the loop road there, and, you know, you did
address it in your letter, but it is the policy to encourage linkages between existing lots, and make use
of existing infrastructure.
MR. GARVEY-The only way I could respond to that is the drive that ways on either side of that, to
the right of Barrett Drive, that is not a deeded right of way. That is part of the property that he owns
on the right side. The gravel road on the left is also a private drive.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. GARVEY-What the Town, from what I understand, they’d like curb cuts 150 feet apart or
further. I have lived in this Town for 22 years, and I go to lots of different businesses to transact and
buy things. I’ve never pulled into one business, ever, nor can I think of one, which the only way I
could enter the business is from the side. I would always have access. Anybody that owns property,
especially a business property or property that might have some value in the future, in a different use,
or for a different owner, they would want a curb cut in the front, and that’s why I got a Warren
County Curb Cut Permit for the front access from Dix.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s more than 150 feet. It’s about 165.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It said in the letter it was 200 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 200 from center to center.
MR. GARVEY-Yes. So I’m less than 150 feet. I’m over the 150 foot minimum. So, it would seem
to be arduous, and I don’t know if either owner would allow me to do that, if I, C.T. Male suggested
from the left hand road, I forgot what that’s called, the gravel road there, but to access the property
from that angle, I’d have to go over that 20 foot swale there, that drainage ditch. So I’d have to make
a bridge. It just seems illogical to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MRS. RYBA-The only thing I would add is in reference to the Staff notes. The Beautification
Committee gave preliminary approval. Now, I’m not familiar enough with how you interpret that,
because I know I haven’t seen a situation since I’ve been here where they’ve given preliminary
approval, but they did suggest additional plantings, and in terms with the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, that’s something that’s suggested for this neighborhood, is to, because there are a lot of
stormwater impacts, and I think that was evidenced in this application here. Mr. Garvey had to really
alleviate some of the impacts from his neighbors, that storm drainage. So I don’t know how you
want to handle that. If you want to see additional site plan or a site plan with additional information
first, unless you put that on this one. I don’t know, Mr. Garvey, I haven’t seen it, or I haven’t looked
at it carefully enough, I should say, on the new one.
MR. GARVEY-When I sat down with the Beautification Committee, it was a very relaxed
atmosphere, and they liked what they saw, but they really wanted to see more. They really wanted to
have more trees, more shrubs, flower beds, and we attempted to address that in this new map that’s
dated today. They wanted two berms in the front to hold trees or bushes and flowers, and so that
was added.
MR. MAC EWAN-Were you supposed to go back and see them again?
MR. GARVEY-I honestly, and I was surprised when I was going to need a final, at least when
someone suggested that I might need to present you with a final plan tonight, they led me to believe
that once the parking lot’s in and you’re doing your planting, come back to us and we’re going to tell
you how we want it done, or advise you.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not the way we do it, though.
MR. GARVEY-I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-You go see them first. They put their stamp of approval on it, with
recommendations, additions or whatever, and then you come to this Board, and whatever they
usually recommend we’ll usually incorporate it into our decision, what we do.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. GARVEY-So I have a signed letter from them stating that I have preliminary approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a first. Okay. it looks like all the works going to end up on your
shoulders, here, unfortunately.
MR. GARVEY-The Beautification Committee doesn’t meet until December 11. If I could ask
th
maybe.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, if you’ve given them everything they’ve asked for, and you’ve
incorporated additional things into your plan, I don’t understand why you need or should go back to
the Beautification Committee, and we need to get that clarified as to what a “preliminary” approval
is.
MRS. RYBA-Well, I did ask the Chairman what that meant, and the Chairman told me that it meant
that he was heading in the right direction, but that he needed additional information.
MR. VOLLARO-That means we can’t approve a site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we can.
MRS. RYBA-And they did discuss either shrubs or some additional trees, but all my point is, it’s not
specified on the site plan here, and if you’re approving something, I’m not sure it’s real clear what
exactly you’re approving.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is this something new that they’ve started doing, this preliminary approval?
MRS. RYBA-They had a stamp, so they must have done it in the past, but I don’t recall it having
been done previously.
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have a stamp.
MR. GARVEY-It says “Motion made to grant preliminary approval subject to more formal planting
plan presented to Committee at a future date”.
MR. MAC EWAN-They didn’t define what a future date was? They didn’t specify a date?
MR. GARVEY-No, and they mentioned I can’t use nonconforming signs, plastic or artificial trees or
shrubs or flowers.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, that’s the boilerplate stuff that’s in every one.
MR. GARVEY-“In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the Committee has
the expressed or implied agreement with the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or
plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be
screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. GARVEY-Okay. So, I honestly, if I would have pushed them, at that moment, to, if I knew
that I needed a final approval to approach you tonight, I would have said, well, draw the circles and
arrows and I’ll do what you want. It seemed they liked what I had but they wanted more bushes and
more flowers, and they wanted the berms in the front, and, so we added the berms.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t consider that a very big hurdle to jump. Anything else, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Okay. Like I said, our intention is to table this application tonight. I’m
going to open up the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d encourage anyone, if they’re here to address this application, if you want,
you’re certainly welcome to come up and make your comments. If not, we’d encourage you to hold
them off until next Tuesday, because that’s when we plan on hearing this application again.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you all.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not quite done yet, so you don’t have to leave right at the moment. Okay.
I’ll introduce a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 75-2000 SEAN GARVEY/GARVEY
VOLKSWAGON, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
Until next Tuesday (Nov. 28, 2000) for the following reasons:
1. To give Staff and Board members an opportunity to review the newly received information
that we got at tonight’s meeting.
2. For the lighting plan of 30 foot poles versus 20 foot poles to be reviewed by Staff and give
their recommendation.
3. That the site data sheet be revised to accurately indicate the numbers that are supposed to be
on there.
4. The Zoning Administrator make a clarification on his determination of storage versus sales
lot, as it was raised by one Board member regarding people coming on the lot to view cars.
5. To get clarification from the Beautification Committee as to what their definition of
Preliminary approval is, and if they do want to definitely see this application back in front of
them.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Now you’re all set, Mr. Garvey.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Let’s go back to the beginning of our agenda.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
PZ 3-2000 UNITED DEVELOPMENT OWNER: BETTY DUELL & OTHERS AGENT:
INGALLS & SMART LOCATION: DIX AVENUE, BETWEEN HIGHLAND & QUAKER,
ACROSS FROM MC DONALD’S RESTAURANT CURRENT ZONE: LI-1A/HC-1A
PROPOSED ZONE MR-5/HC-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF REAR
PORTION OF PROPERTY FROM LI-1A TO MR-5 TO CONSTRUCT AN 80 UNIT
SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE FIRST STEP IN THIS PROCESS IS FOR
THE PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS. THE APPLICANT
WILL GIVE A CONCEPTUAL PRESENTATION. CROSS REFERENCE: TB. RES.
410,2000/SB 23-1989 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.1
FRANCIS BOSSALINI, JOHN BOSSALINI, SUSAN LOMBARDI, REPRES. APP., PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing scheduled.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes, please.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff PZ 3-2000, United Development, Meeting Date: November 21, 2000
“Application
The applicant has applied for a Petition for Zone Change to rezone property located on Dix Avenue,
between Highland and Quaker Roads (across from McDonald's Restaurant). Parcel 110.-1-3.1
contains 14.58+/- acres and is currently split zoned with LI-1A (8.50 +/- acres) to the rear and HC-
1A (6.42 +/-acres) fronting Dix Avenue. The rezoning request is to change the LI-1A portion of the
parcel to MR-5, with the intent to construct an 80 unit Senior Housing Development.
Adjacent zoning is HC-1A to the east, south, and west, and LI-1A to the north. The HC-1A areas
contain residential uses to the east, and commercial uses. The adjacent land in the LI-1A zone is
vacant. A Concept Plan dated October 9, 2000 at a scale of 1 inch = 40 feet has been submitted.
The applicant will make a presentation to the Planning Board at the November 21, 2000 Planning
Board meeting.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
Planning and SEQRA Review Process
This is the first project to come before the Planning Board where the recent SEQRA policy change
will apply. The Planning Board will ask for SEQRA Lead Agency status, since there is a project
linked to the rezoning petition. Additional project information and details need to be provided by
the applicant so that the Planning Board can contemplate the rezoning issues for SEQRA review.
Subdivision review will be required. Site plan review will also be necessary for the senior assisted-
living facility and commercial uses. The Planning Board needs to make recommendation to the
Town Board for rezoning. However, the zone change cannot occur until SEQRA review has taken
place. SEQRA review is done concurrently with subdivision and site plan reviews. The Planning
Board may approve the subdivision and site plan after SEQRA review is completed and the Town
Board approves the rezoning.
1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
The proposed project area is in Neighborhood 10 in the CLUP. For this portion of Neighborhood
10, the CLUP notes that development of the Light Industrial parcels as commercial could be
problematic due to the amount of traffic, narrowness of lots, and intersection configuration. The
CLUP notes that the proximity of the area to the airport and major commercial travel routes, and
large tracts of vacant land indicates that the area would be attractive to industrial developers. The
CLUP also notes that lands north of the NIMO power lines (and north of this proposal), which are
presently zoned SR-1A, would most likely not be developed for residential purposes for the same
reasons. The CLUP lists extension of sewer, visual impacts, and Army Corps of Engineers wetlands
as other items of concern.
Staff Suggestions
The Planning Board should outline all issues and concerns to the extent possible to the applicant
upon the applicant's presentation. The applicants state in their "Responses to Zone Change Petition
Questions" that the proposal and associated development will be less intense in nature than the
development currently allowed. The applicant should be asked for supporting analysis and studies
relating to traffic, sewer, visual impacts and wetlands, all as outlined in the CLUP. A copy of the
marketing study, which supports the need for this type of housing, should also be presented.”
MRS. RYBA-The purpose for tonight is to request that Lead Agency status. Attached to your Staff
notes is also a copy of the resolution from the Town Board, and there are some notes there regarding
their discussion that you might be interested in reading, and that’s about it, I guess, at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to do this resolution seeking Lead Agency status first, before we
do anything else?
MRS. RYBA-It’s up to you. It probably doesn’t matter either way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, let’s do it and get it out of the way. Does someone want to introduce the
motion?
MOTION TO HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD BE LEAD SEQRA AGENCY FOR THE
ZONE CHANGE PZ 3-2000 UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has forwarded to the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury an application for rezoning by United Development Corporation
for recommendations in accordance with Town Zoning Ordinance Ss 179-94, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for a
series of actions that may lead to a change of zone for United Development Corporation, and
WHEREAS, such actions include the rezoning of portions of the property to Multifamily
Residential, MR-5, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the change of
zone to be an Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.4, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its
desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such
intent.
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-With that out of the way, good evening folks. Would you identify yourselves for
the record, please.
MR. BOSSALINI-Francis Bossalini, Ingalls/Smart Associates. I’m the Project Engineer
representing United Development.
MR. J. BOSSALINI-John Bossalini, United Development Corporation.
MS. LOMBARDI-Susan Lombardi, United Development Corporation.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. J. BOSSALINI-Mr. Chairman, can I request a change on the Staff notes, under “Planning and
SEQRA Review Process”, the second paragraph down reads that, “Site plan review will also be
necessary for the senior assisted-living facility”. In fact, we are a facility for well seniors, not assisted
living.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s really, for Staff notes purposes, immaterial at this point. Should you get to
the point where you do make a site plan application, it will be spelled out in your application.
MR. BOSSALINI-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-And if you’re going to go up to the Board, take the microphone with you, please.
MR. BOSSALINI-Good evening. As you know, this is the first step in the process to obtain the
zone change and then move on to the site plan approval for this proposed senior citizen housing
project. The property in question is located along Dix Avenue. North is to the right, with Quaker
Road being across the top of the page, and Highland Avenue across the bottom, and Super K-Mart
would be here. There’s currently a McDonalds and a small strip mall that has a beverage center
located directly across from the questioned parcel. The parcel’s total area is approximately 14 and a
half acres, with the zone line 500 feet off the highway, off Dix Avenue. The front of the property is
zoned Highway Commercial. The rear of the property is currently Light Industrial One Acre zone.
For the purposes of this project, we’re requesting a zone change to the MR-5, which is the
appropriate zone in this Town for senior housing, and with that, we’ve supplied some supporting
documentation, basically addressing that the impacts, the environmental impacts from this use,
would be equal to or less than, in many cases, that which would be, which would occur under a
development under the current zone. We’ve examined and are preparing more formal
documentation for the Town’s review. We’ve examined the stormwater management impacts, the
traffic impacts, and any other utility uses, such as municipal water and municipal sewage, that this
type of facility would generate, and we will be comparing those to what’s allowed there currently by
right as a Light Industrial zone. Sort of ancillary to this project, but we’re including conceptually is
potential build out of the front of the property, as it’s currently zoned, Highway Commercial, mostly
because we want to avoid any segmentation issues. As of now, there are no plans to develop this as
there are no tenants, but we are showing something there for examples purposes, anyway, at this
point. If the zone change is granted, we will be providing a site plan application for the senior
housing project only, and then some kind of subdivision dividing up the parcel, and if tenants are
secured, some kind of site plan application will be submitted separately for the front parcel. We’re
concentrating only on the color portion.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have no intentions of being the developers for the commercial aspect of it?
MR. BOSSALINI-I can’t say that we have no intention. At this point the emphasis is on the rear of
the property, the senior property. United Development specializes in this type of senior housing
development, and at some point, I believe there will be some effort made to develop these
properties, something that would compliment the senior development, but this is the emphasis at this
point.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-I think the Chairman’s question was very pertinent, in this particular case, at least in
my mind, and I would like to hear this presentation talk to the development of that Highway
Commercial property, as opposed to just concentrating on the MR-5 portion of it.
MR. BOSSALINI-That’s correct. For purposes of the SEQRA review, we are examining the senior
development and some kind of theoretical, some kind of theoretical maximum that can be applied to
this Highway Commercial, as the Code would allow us to. So, when we examine it, our
documentation will include traffic generation numbers, for instance, for the whole property, not just
this part. To clarify our stand, our intent, at this point, we’re only going to ask for site plan for the
senior facility at this time, but we’ll examine these for SEQRA. We don’t want to do a site plan on
the front parcels until the applicant is more comfortable with having a tenant or a potential tenant to
occupy that space.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just a curious question. Are you local developers? Are you from this area?
MR. BOSSALINI-United Development is based in Albany, and they have several projects in the
Albany area, several recent projects, perhaps the most prominent might be the Beltrone Living
Center that was recently completed along Wolfe Road. Diamond Rock Terrace in Troy also a
project that’s been recently completed by them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why Queensbury?
MR. BOSSALINI-Well, I guess I could pass that to John or Sue. They’ve identified a market here.
MR. J. BOSSALINI-That’s a good question, Mr. Chairman, and one of the reasons we’ve chosen
Queensbury is because it’s a terrific place to live. It’s one of the few places in the Capital District
that is still showing some growth, including the senior population. We’re focusing on Queensbury
proper. We feel that’s where the market is, and we’re focusing, particularly, on middle income well
seniors, which right now that product doesn’t exist, at least in our study, the Town of Queensbury,
and that’s a product we’d like to provide. If I may, Mr. Vollaro, if I may back up for a second,
Francis was quite right. Our focus is not on the two commercial properties. They just happen to be
part of the overall parcel. We would like to see them develop into something that could benefit the
senior population that we hope we could put behind them, something, a medical office professional,
perhaps. We haven’t been approached, but we are looking in the immediate community for that type
of business or operation to go in there.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that in keeping with your main, core business?
MR. J. BOSSALINI-Ancillary, actually. We’ve done some other things in the past. We’ve got quite a
long history, a lot of experience on our Staff. We’ve done everything from specialized labs to
residential subdivisions. In the last 10 years, our focus has been on the senior apartment residences,
and we feel, at least locally, we’ve been a leader in the industry. We’ve pioneered some ideas that are
incorporated in this design also. As far as making our particular residences for well seniors, that they
may age in place, there’s a lot of amenities in place. There’s a lot of spaces inside the building for
congregation. We make it like a home, they’re moving out of their homes. They’re moving into
ours, and that’s our focus. As I said, since this property comes along with two commercial parcels,
we feel that if we get the right tenant, they would just be another amenity to the senior project.
MR. BOSSALINI-I’ll just give you a little bit of discussion about the parcel itself, and the projected
build out here, and why we think this is a better use than an industrial use. Have you walked this
site? If you’re familiar with the site, the front is pretty much a fallow farm field type area, some
wooded area to the rear left, and again, continuing with the fallow field on what would be the eastern
portion of it. We have done a substantial sub surface soil investigation to determine rock elevations
and the soil conditions. Pretty much where there’s no woods right now, the soil is sandy and has
adequate depth to groundwater. In some cases, we didn’t even find groundwater at 10 or 12 feet.
The upper left hand corner, the rock comes to the surface. In some places, there are some
outcroppings of rock, particularly in these areas here where we’re not showing any construction.
There’s a small pond in the center of the parcel that does contain, is surrounded by a small area, the
heavy black line, a small area of Army Corps delineated wetlands. We have completed a delineation
there, and we’ll be showing that on the site plan map that we will submit to the Town. We are going
to place the building sort of in the rear corner, accessed off a cul de sac, built for Town standards.
Currently, the intent is to dedicate this interior road to the Town. The building driveway will then go
to the rear of the building where the main entrance will be, and then also we’re going to provide a
walking path type recreation area around the structure. This path will also double as a fire lane, will
be built and maintained for emergency vehicle access. The pond in the wetland area will remain as is.
We will not have any impacts there. This would be part of the features, part of the aesthetic features
of the site. It’s actually quite nice here. We have some photos showing the pond area. It’s lightly
wooded with some significant rock outcroppings, but we feel those will be a nice aesthetic feature of
the site for residents to enjoy.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the depth to groundwater here? Do you have that?
MR. BOSSALINI-Actually, the highest groundwater was in this area, and we were at six feet, four to
six feet in this area. Everywhere else, say in the front, we had 12 foot deep test holes with no
groundwater. Similarly, in this area we had a couple of holes near the back that we did show some
water in.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that site serviced by public water?
MR. BOSSALINI-Yes, public water. There’s a main down here that we will extend to the site and
into the site to provide potable water supply for the building, and along that vein, municipal sewer.
Right now there’s a manhole on the other side of the Hess Station here, out opposite the Super K-
Mart center that we intend to construct a force main along Dix Avenue to that manhole, and then
provide a pump station here, on this parcel, collecting any sanitary sewage here and pumping it over
to that manhole, by the K-Mart.
MR. VOLLARO-Your going to put that force main and the pump station in at your cost?
MR. BOSSALINI-Yes. The developer, as part of the development, will make all the necessary utility
connections.
MR. VOLLARO-So is that going to require a district extension? Are you going to have to go into a
new extension for that?
MR. BOSSALINI-Yes. At this point we had identified that a water and sewer district extension
probably would be likely for here, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re saying this is for well seniors. So will there be any medical facilities
there, or what happens if a, are the units going to be all individual apartments?
MR. BOSSALINI-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I mean all we’ve talked about in the past couple of years is facilities
for seniors that may need assistance later on.
MR. BOSSALINI-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Or at the time or down the line now. These are all, all right, tell me some
more about the clients you’ll have here.
MR. BOSSALINI-Right. There’s a mix of single bedroom and two bedroom apartments,
throughout the building, basically independent living, some community space in the center, so if
someone’s having a birthday party or something, they would be able to use that room. Also, that
gives us space for whatever, flu shots or some kind of public health concern that might be applicable
to these people who are residents here would be able to use. As far as acute medical care, that’s not
being given on this site.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will there be an infirmary of some sort or a health center where they can go
if they have a cold or indigestion or something?
MS. LOMBARDI-I can speak to the services. My background is social work, and I’ve been working
with John and the rest of our team for a few years now to try to create some senior housing that
would have some informal supports in it, but is not an assisted living or a skilled care facility. A lot
of people can get along quite well on their own and remain independent without living in a skilled
care facility, which can be very costly. We will have on site a part time social worker or a resident
service coordinator, as she’s called, may have a health background, but the intent is not to have a
skilled care facility or health care on the, in the building. The intent is to have health and wellness
programs, flu shots, linkages with area physicians, maybe a visiting podiatrist, maybe the visiting
nurses association. We usually link up with them. They come once a month and do blood pressures
and things like that. So very much a focus on wellness and preventative health, so that people can
remain independent and healthy. Now say for instance someone took a fall in the parking lot. Our
Staff is trained in trying to do the right thing, get the ambulance there, work with the service
coordinator, if she ends up in the hospital, work with the discharge planner to get her back in her
apartment, hook her up with a home health aide for two weeks, if she needs it, and then, you know,
get her back home, not have her end up in a rehab unit for six weeks, or in a nursing home where
she doesn’t need to be in a nursing home, just because she took a fall. So this type of product is very
much based in the concept that just because someone is old or older or frailer, they do not need to
be in an assisted living facility or in a nursing home. That is an instance that happens when you get a
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
little further down the line and you need skilled care, but for a vast majority of average seniors, they
just need a little bit of help in a supportive environment.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So all of these units are full apartments? They have kitchen facilities?
MS. LOMBARDI-They are full apartments, full kitchens, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there will not be a community dining area?
MS. LOMBARDI-There is a community room, an events room that we’re setting up.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but not a dining hall where they can all come down and have dinner if
they so choose?
MS. LOMBARDI-Well, actually, we’ve been speaking with the County Office for the Aging, and
they would like us to provide some space for a meal site, which would be a voluntary partnership
between our building and the OFA. So, if we set up our community room, which is in the center of
the building there, with tables and chairs which we’d be doing anyway, just to have events and have
people going to play cards or whatever, it’s quite a large room. We’ve spoken with them about the
availability for that on a daily basis for delivery of meals. I believe there’s a lower income senior
project in the Town, Solomon Heights, which we visited, which was very nice. They have the same
arrangement where they do deliver the meals on a daily basis, and many of the residents enjoy those
meals, and that’s a County driven program. So that would be one of the informal supports that we
could provide.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this a one or two story building?
MS. LOMBARDI-Two story.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So will the apartments have access to, have an outside access or do they have
to go through the main door and up the corridor?
MS. LOMBARDI-We’ll have outside accesses. We will also have elevators, which is something that
in my market study has been very scarce in the area, elevators.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. So in other words, they can just go right from their unit to the parking
lot and get in their car and go somewhere?
MS. LOMBARDI-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They don’t have to go down a main corridor?
MS. LOMBARDI-Correct, and we’ve tried to make the length from any wing or corridor, you know,
as short as possible, and little areas where someone could take a rest off to the side. So that we’re
not creating very long, long hallways that are not really senior friendly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Every apartment in this complex will have its own exit outside without having to
go through a common hallway?
MS. LOMBARDI-No, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what she just asked.
MS. LOMBARDI-Not every apartment. There will be more than one main entrance.
MR. MAC EWAN-All these apartments funnel off their main entrance to a common hallway?
MR. BOSSALINI-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not in each individual entrance to each apartment?
MR. BOSSALINI-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I wanted to know.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s not what I just heard you say.
MS. LOMBARDI-No, I’m sorry. I misunderstood your question.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought each apartment could get out, leave their door, and go right out to
the parking lot.
MS. LOMBARDI-No. They’d have to use one of the different entrances.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’d have to all go down a common corridor, hallway to the main focus
atrium or whatever.
MS. LOMBARDI-Yes, they’d have to go out one of the main entrances.
MR. MAC EWAN-Forgive me for being the Devil’s advocate here, but you’re description of just
what this project is, in my mind, is no different than an apartment complex.
MS. LOMBARDI-Well, the differences are very subtle, but they’re there. When we designed the
building, there are shower units with seats in them. There are features such as, the kitchen is
designed to be senior friendly, handicapped adaptable, to the point where you can take the cupboards
out easily.
MR. MAC EWAN-A lot of apartments are doing that now.
MS. LOMBARDI-A lot of them are. We have designed them so that there are emergency pull cord
systems in there for the use of the seniors. There are the showers that are specifically designed for
the seniors. The outlets are raised a little higher. The kitchen is designed a little differently.
MR. MAC EWAN-By your own description, though, it sounds like your staff, over what kind of staff
you plan on having at this facility, is very much up in the air. You don’t know, really, what you’re
going to do.
MS. LOMBARDI-No. Actually, I do. We have a full time manager on site. We’ll have maintenance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Every apartment complex does.
MS. LOMBARDI-Well, actually, they don’t. They have a visiting, a lot of them have a visiting
manager. A lot of them have a part time manager who isn’t there if you go. If you actually went to
the apartment, they wouldn’t be there all the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m comparing this to, from what your descriptions are, to apartment
complexes like we have Robert Gardens North here, which has a large senior population, which is
really no different than what you’re showing here.
MS. LOMBARDI-Yes, we visited them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Warren County has a visiting nurse program that’ll go in there, if the resident
needs it. They also have meals on wheels, if residents need it. They don’t have any on site staff of a
nurse or a nurse practitioner or something like that. However, there is an on site resident manager,
plus a maintenance outfit. So I guess my question to you is, why is this so unique, and what’s so
unique about it that separates it from a standard apartment complex that seniors would use?
MS. LOMBARDI-Well, we did visit them and actually talked to the manager there, and I think the
apartments are quite old. The seniors have to go up and down stairs, instead of elevators.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, but you’re in here telling us that this is a need that’s in Queensbury, a need
that we have in our community for a complex that’s geared toward a retired senior citizen type
person. What you’re describing in your project is no different than like a Robert Gardens apartment
complex, and I want to know how you’re justifying and why we should entertain doing a zone change
for this thing to accommodate this kind of enterprise when I really, I’m not hearing any big
differences. I mean, we’ve got the Glen at Hiland going in over here, which is leaps and bounds
ahead of this thing, quite frankly.
MS. LOMBARDI-In cost as well. This is an affordable project.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s going to be a tremendous cost to the tax payers in Warren County for
this.
MS. LOMBARDI-And this would be explained, I guess, a little further in the market study and the
market analysis. I’m not sure what the tremendous cost to the taxpayer is, but any of those
questions, when we do our market analysis, you know, we’d be addressing.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-My other more poignant question I guess I have at this point, have you looked at
any other parcels in the Town of Queensbury that don’t require a rezoning?
MS. LOMBARDI-We did look at several parcels when we first chose this. When we first chose this
parcel, we did look at several others.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have two very big problems with this site. Number One, I’m an advocate for
retaining what Light Industrial property we have in the Town of Queensbury, and unless you’ve got a
real good sell to sell on me personally, I can’t, and won’t, support a project like this or any other
project that wants to convert light industrial property to MR-5, or even a Plaza Commercial or a
Highway Commercial zone. Secondly, there’s a real problem with site distance, which you aren’t
showing on that site plan. About two years ago, right where your furthest easterly commercial site is,
was a proposed site for a Dunkin Donuts, and we denied that application because of site distances
right on that curve.
MR. BOSSALINI-I’ll address both of your questions. First of all, I want to stay focused on the
environmental, the SEQRA review pertinent tasks, topics, in this.
MR. MAC EWAN-It all goes hand in hand, sir. Because if we’re going to make a recommendation
to the Town Board to rezone this parcel, we’re taking into consideration all, not just the SEQRA.
MR. BOSSALINI-Okay. With your first question, this property, we did review the Town zoning
map. This property represents a very small fraction of the Light Industrially zoned property in the
Town of Queensbury, less than one half of one percent of that total property. If you were to look at
this piece of property, just based on area, you might be allowed to, by Code, put 150,000 square feet
of Light Industrial use in. Whether that would be some kind of warehousing or truck terminal, some
kind of small factory facility, along those lines, any type of facility like that would generate
significantly more truck traffic than this use would, would have a significantly greater demand on
public services, sewer and water, than this project would. So I’d like to keep those things in mind.
Also, to develop this property as an industrial use, you would likely be clear cutting the entire
property, removing all the vegetation. Certainly the residential areas to the east would then have to
look at that, as opposed to a more aesthetic development here. Wetland impacts, there’s a wetland
area right in the center of this property. You would have to impact that and effect some hydrology
factors there. As far as traffic and sight distance, part of the reason for this road in the center is to
minimize the driveways onto Dix Avenue. You’ll notice these two parcels do have driveways onto
this newly constructed road, and every piece of traffic will exit the property at approximately the
center of this short segment of Dix Avenue opposite the existing McDonalds driveway. We are not
proposing any entrances, other than this one, understanding your concerns about sight distance.
This is a tricky intersection down here, unsignalized. This is a signalized intersection up here. We’re
approximately halfway between the two. So I think, from that standpoint, from a purely engineering
standpoint, as far as sight issues, we can and we are going to supply the documentation that shows
this is a viable site for this use. These in the front are allowed by Code anyway. So we wouldn’t have
to have a zone change for this. We’re just showing the maximum that could be built out here. I
think that developing this parcel as Light Industrial, this particular parcel as Light Industrial, might be
difficult, because of the constraints, both size and topographical, and this is a much more appropriate
use for this site. As far as other MR-5 parcels in the Town, there, frankly, aren’t a lot of vacant
parcels that are appropriate for this type of development. There is a, you are talking about having 80
units. You need some, you can’t just pick a one or two acre parcel. You need to have, in this case
it’s over eight acres to be in compliance with the area Code, with the Code requirements for area and
the number of units. So I think that, from an environmental standpoint, from SEQRA related issues,
you can be comfortable that this proposal is, indeed, certainly not less desirable than an industrial use
that would be allowed by Code on this piece of property, from a Code standpoint, a zoning
standpoint.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I get kind of perplexed when I hear people come in and, obviously, you’re
trying to sell us on your project, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but when I hear people say that
this project is more desirable than a Light Industrial project, I don’t necessarily share that argument
or that position. Your argument that, you know, truck traffic is going to be less desirable than
automobile traffic, if it was a Light Industrial site and who knows what kind of Light Industrial.
Maybe it is a warehouse. Maybe it’s just going to be a trucking terminal that may only have 10 or 12
truckloads a day coming in. Is that worse off than having two commercial sites with heavy
commercial traffic going in, plus a residential area of 100 plus units with cars and residents going in
and out every 15, 20 minutes? I don’t know.
MR. BOSSALINI-Well, these could happen anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-These could happen anyways.
MR. BOSSALINI-These could happen anyways, whether you vote yes or no on this zone change.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-They also could not happen anyways.
MR. BOSSALINI-That’s correct, but we can apply for, under current site plan code, we can apply
for this type of use here.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. BOSSALINI-The difference we’re talking about is, if we develop this as industrial or if we are
allowed to develop it as this type of development, and this is the part that is in question.
MR. MAC EWAN-To debate the other side of your position, when you say, well, this parcel only
represents maybe one half of one percent of all the holdings of Light Industrial in the Town, you
start nibbling away here and there, and before you know it, you’ve got nothing left.
MR. BOSSALINI-I can’t disagree with you there. How long has this piece been on the market?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s, to me, immaterial. How long something’s been on the market has no
bearing in front of this Board.
MR. BOSSALINI-It has no inherent value as a Light Industrial zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe he’s asking too much for it.
MR. J. BOSSALINI-I’d like to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. The parcel is owned by three
sisters, two of which are still local residents. They have had the parcel on the market for over three
and a half years, and due to the fact that it does have Federal wetlands on it, and also six or seven
feet of perched rock, a few of the prospects that looked at the parcel found it too expensive to
develop. I know that the owners feel that the zoning has been unfair to them. Thus far, they’ve
been unable to market the parcel. We’re the first prospect, good prospect, to come along and get
this far in the process. We hope to preserve that pond. We hope to preserve those rock
outcroppings, and have a minimal impact on not only that site, but the Great Cedar Swamp, which is
just to the north of there, and the area in general. As far as traffic, our buildings, our residents
generate little or no traffic. Typically, 50% or less of our residents own their own cars, and when
they do travel, it’s usually in the morning hours from nine to eleven, and you won’t find them on the
road at noon time, or one to three in the afternoon is typically when they schedule their health
appointments or what have you, and at five o’clock rush hour, these people generate no traffic at all.
I can’t speak to the commercial, we have no idea exactly how that’s going to be used. As I said, our
intent is medical office, which is an ideal neighbor, because they typically generate very little in the
way of turns or traffic.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll reiterate my position again. In my mind, I see, for me to make a decision, I
see two significant hurdles that I need to overcome, is the value of this project versus the elimination
of Light Industrial land in the Town. That’s a major hurdle for me. Secondly, and this is also a big
hurdle, is what separates your project from just a run of the mill apartment house? And I, quite
frankly, haven’t heard anything in your presentation tonight that leads me to believe that it’s that
much more significant of a project that you can’t get at some place like either Solomon Heights or at
Robert Gardens North.
MR. J. BOSSALINI-Well, that’s a good point. We did a lot of footwork in Queensbury for quite a
period of time. Sue Lombardi and I visited most of the sites. We saw what was offered to the senior
community, as well as the market rate on senior apartments. We operate, as Francis mentioned
earlier, four facilities in the greater Capital District. In those 10 years that we’ve built these facilities,
these residences, we have gone through several different design changes. We’ve worked with the
seniors, most of which you’ll find in our apartments now are a result of senior focus groups, design
professionals, health professionals. To be more specific, when you go into one of our facilities,
something minor, and you may not even pick it up, something as simple as our electrical outlets are
higher off the floor, easier to reach. Our dishwashers are raised off the floor to prevent hip injuries,
which is very common as seniors age in place. In other projects, we have adjusted the countertops to
make them lower, more comfortable. Light switches, we’ve put them in areas that are easier to reach.
Simple things as cabinets, the handles on them, we use a particular type of handle as people become
less mobile, they lose their dexterity, they’re still able to grasp that and open it. Do we see these at
Robert Gardens? Did we see some of these other amenities? No. We have seen some changes
made in these facilities. They are trying to make them more senior friendly, but they’re doing it really
as a retrofit, where we do it from the ground up, as part of our design. We are ADA adaptable, each
apartment. If a senior is well enough, we deem them well enough, our social worker in there and
they deem them well enough to stay, we will continue to make that apartment adaptable as long as
that senior wants to live in that residence. I don’t want to say anything to the contrary about some of
the other market rate facilities here, but they would find that very difficult. They’re older facilities,
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
20, 25, 30 years old, and to retrofit those facilities for our senior residents would become very
expensive and very difficult. You’re certainly all invited to any one of our facilities. I’d be glad to
meet you and take you through a tour. We have the Andy Shaeffer Senior Center. It’s a ten story
urban facility in the City of Schenectady. The facility that is closest to this is Diamond Rock Terrace
in Troy, New York. It’s a rather rural site, landscaped much like this. We took full advantage of
some of the amenities that were already there. The Beltrone Living Center is 305,000 square feet, but
a rural facility in the middle of the Town of Colonie. A rural setting, the same thing. We took
advantage of natural ponds and it’s amazing to see, once you visit this facility, that you’re only a
block off of Wolfe Road, the busiest corridor in the Capital District. We take great pains, not only in
the design, interior design of the facility, but also the exterior design.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, I’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, when I was considering the proposal, I have to keep in mind the history of
Light Industrial in Queensbury, that generally if you change that, because it’s a precious commodity
(lost words) in this Town, and at this particular location the Light Industrial seems to have a lot of
benefits, in that it’s near an intersection where you have access to Glens Falls in the south, along Dix
Avenue to Hudson Falls, Fort Edward, and Quaker Road is providing you access to Exit 19 and the
Northway. It has the infrastructure, basically, what Light Industrial would need. It’s proximity to the
airport. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan calls for Light Industrial here, and if you look at the
zoning map of the Town, what you’re proposing would be an island in a sea of Light Industrial, with
the exception of the strips along Quaker Road and Dix Avenue, which are Highway Commercial.
Now, my concern would be that future Light Industrial uses, and you are surrounded by Light
Industrial property, would not be compatible uses with this residential nature that you’re proposing,
and we have to deal with that in the future. We’d have to extend buffer zones. In other words, we
would have to make the Light Industrial accommodate your situation, because it’s not compatible
with the Light Industrial area, and it’s less than ideal, and I would think that more of an idyllic setting
would be more appropriate for this, in my mind. So I tend to not favor the rezoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Christopher?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think John pretty much summarized, more articulately than what I was
thinking as well. With not necessarily the members of this Board, but certainly this Planning Board
has been criticized in the past for allowing other uses to go in the Light Industrial zones. I know
there was a comment made in one of the Board minutes that the value of this property as Light
Industrial is not necessarily ideal, but as John pointed out, the balance of the property surrounding it
is Light Industrial. There is a lot of potential there for new light industrial uses because of the
extension of infrastructure and other things. I’m reluctant to approve a project that really doesn’t fit
with what’s likely to be the future build out of that area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with John and Chris, except, one of the things I’m not sure of is just
exactly what well seniors are, and I really have a little problem with that, because, I don’t know how
to say it, but what if all of a sudden somebody gets really sick, and they’re not well anymore, and are
you going to just tell them they have to leave?
MS. LOMBARDI-I think a better word is “independent” seniors, rather than “well”. I mean, you
can have the flu and not be well.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, but then down the line they’re not going to be independent, and, I
don’t know, I think Craig was hitting on it. When I was asking you just what the general physical
outlay of this place was going to look like, I think Craig kind of hit on it. It really is basically an
apartment complex, but when you did say that you make the outlets and you make those little
tangibles inside their places a little more accessible, maybe that’s good, too, but we just had a builder
come in here a few months ago and get his subdivision approved, it had to have been rezoned, and I
voted against it. I did not want to lose the Light Industrial property in this Town. We had the head
of the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation speak to us, this past year, and he spoke for
almost a good 45 minutes, and he gave some really good reasons why we just can’t let this land go.
Unfortunately, the developer got the rezoning. I voted against it. It was a, he won by a four, three
decision, and, you know, right now that person maybe can’t sell. She’s had the land for sale for three
and a half years, and it’s not going, but, you know, there’s lots of time down the line, and like I said
before, right now this place, it seems like we’re becoming the bed for senior citizens, which I’m going
to be pretty soon, but it might be the bed for some nice clean technology types of industries, too, in
another 10 years, and if we don’t have any of these properties to put them on, we’ve missed the boat,
and then they can look back and say, yes, that Board, back in the Year 2000, they screwed up royally.
So, that’s why I have a real problem with changing the zoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m going to hang my hat on a couple of things. One is this project comes
under Neighborhood 10, by our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Plan talks very specifically
to the north side of Dix Avenue, and it says, it is unlikely that this land would be developed as
residential. Then it goes through recommendations, and it talks about that this is the only area in
Queensbury that is near major commercial and travel routes, has large tracts of vacant land in
proximity to the airport. Now, incidentally, let me just stop at that point for a minute and talk about
the proximity to the airport. Warren County Airport has two runways. This happens to be a book of
airports in the United States. The approach to this airport is what we call zero one zero true. It’s 10
degrees true on the compass. I took your site plan and I moved around the flight line, and it goes
directly over the house.
MR. BOSSALINI-Yes, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-Directly, it bisects that right down the middle, and they’re about two minutes from
touchdown when they’re over that. So, for a Piper Cub, it won’t bother you. For a Leer Jet, they
make a lot of noise coming in. So that’s just one of the comments I have on that. So, I see this
rezoning as being really in opposition to our Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That’s the first thing I
feel. Secondly, I’ve taken a look at all the senior housing stock that we’ve been developing in
Queensbury over the time, and I think the Chairman kind of just touched on that, but I’ve taken a
look at the Glen at Hiland’s, the new up and coming, the Meadow on Cronin Road, The Landing, the
Schermerhorn project, which is basically apartments. We’re getting very close to 600 units of
housing stock that I can identify, senior housing stock, and I’ve recently talked to the Commissioner
of Social Services, like this morning, about this project, and he is somewhat concerned, and I don’t
know whether this is a Planning Board issue or not, but it’s an issue I’d bring up, in any event. He’s
somewhat concerned about residency requirements, people coming into the senior housing stock
here, depleting their finances over time, and putting themselves at the mercy, really, of the social
services, or what we all refer to as Medicaid, and as soon as that happens, Warren County taxes take a
hike. So he has a very basic concern. He was supposed to be here tonight, but he just had other
business to attend to, but he asked me to make that statement, even though this may be out of the
purview of the Planning Board. It’s something that some other people at Warren County are
concerned about. Based on what I read in here, in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, on the need
for this, to maintain, I think Cathy also touched on a topic I had, it’s the Warren County Economic
Development Corporation is headed by Mr. Warren Rosenthal, and I think that’s who you were
talking about, Cathy, that made a 45 minute impassioned plea here that we do not relinquish our
Light Industrial land, and on that basis, I would have to vote against the rezoning for this, without
getting on and going on and on about it. That’s where I’m coming from.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I don’t think that I would be in favor of the rezoning of the project, not because we
would necessarily lose that little portion to Light Industrial, but because if Light Industrial does go in
to the rest of the area, then your project wouldn’t fit into that, and it just wouldn’t fit right there. I
don’t know if that parcel there is good for Light Industrial, but if Light Industrial does go in, as the
road goes down, then your project would just be out of place.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I, too, have concerns over it, not so much, mostly what Larry just mentioned. Just
in the future I see it being a development nightmare for us, and it would really be a disservice to
seniors if we do develop the rest of that corridor there. I just, I don’t feel comfortable. We’re at the
advantage right now where we can make a decision. Whereas in the past, I think we haven’t been so
fortunate to really, you know, forgive me for saying it, but nipping it in the bud right now. I’m sure
there’s got to be other areas that can be looked at besides this one. This just doesn’t sit well with me,
either.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess you kind of got the sentiment up here.
MR. BOSSALINI-Well, I do. Could I address just a few of the comments, Mr. Chairman? Thanks.
One of the concerns was, is the market there. You have, I’m sorry, Mr. Vollaro, you said 650 some
beds.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m giving an approximation of how much senior housing stock I can identify at
the present time.
MR. BOSSALINI-There is. That was one of our first concerns when we came into Queensbury, that
there are quite a few senior projects in place, and also in the approval process. We were very careful,
as we analyzed the market study, and we found that we were unique in one way, that we basically
focused on middle income seniors. There’s an enormous amount of subsidized housing. That is not
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
our product. We target mainly 50 to 100% of the median income for the Town of Queensbury. As
far as our marketing, and this is true of our Troy site and our Beltrone Living site in Colonie, where
85 to 90% of the residences there come from within five miles of that site. They simply are no
longer physically or economically able to take care of their own home. They put their home on the
market, take the enormous value of that home, equity that they’ve built over the 20 or 30 years of
their mortgage, and they move into one of our facilities. It’s as close to home as we can make it, and
we have a very good tenancy. We don’t lose a lot of tenants. They’re comfortable there. They’re
close to home. They’re close to their families, and the home that they sold, typically, is reassessed,
and especially in a market like Queensbury, is sold and occupied very quickly. It does not become,
we do not become a tax liability, but actually generate revenue for the towns we come into. It’s the
way we do business, and we have a track record of doing business that way. As far as the CLUP, this
Town did a very extensive report. We have the Dix Ave. report. It’s very comprehensive, and we
looked at that, looked at the considerations. This particular parcel, and we’ve talked to many of your
colleagues. This particular parcel would be difficult, at best, to develop as Light Industrial. It has a
lot of natural features that are very expensive to move, some can’t be moved. Army Corps, I think
you’ve probably had some experience with that. It’s usually a nine year process to change their
feelings about anything, if they’ll change at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-It depends on how much land you’re dealing with. .
MR. BOSSALINI-Yes, sir, it does.
MR. MAC EWAN-Across the street at the K-Mart plaza, there was Army Corps designated wetlands
over there that they disturbed. It was almost two acres of wetlands, I think, Chris, you were on
Economic Development at that time, and they moved it. They relocated it. They reestablished it.
So there is potentially a way, and I think the overwhelming position up here, with every member on
this Board, is that they are less than willing, at this point, to want to make a recommendation to
rezone this parcel from Light Industrial to anything other than Light Industrial. That’s a hurdle I
don’t think you’re going to get over.
MR. BOSSALINI-I understand. We don’t want to kick against the bricks, but as far as other parcels
in the area, we did do an extensive study. This wasn’t the first one we looked at, and there are a
limited number of parcels, unless you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right down the road there’s a great big piece of MR-5 land that’s vacant like this.
MR. METIVIER-I was going to say that.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking Guido Passarelli’s property, or Schermerhorn already has his stamp
on that, I’m afraid.
MR. BOSSALINI-That’s another issue that we ran into.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you certainly want to pursue this project, on behalf of this Board, I would
encourage you to seek out lands in the Town other than Light Industrial.
MR. BOSSALINI-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mark, protocol. Our consensus here is that we’re not going to support
this. Do we make a recommendation to the Town Board not to rezone this, or do we not make any
recommendations? What do we do?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, actually, that’s what Marilyn and I are talking about right now, and I’m not
sure we are on the same wavelength, and if you want us to take a minute to confer we can. I was
going to suggest, based on the feedback that we hear from I believe each and every Planning Board
member, that there’s no reason, if you feel prepared to make your recommendation on the rezoning
request, there’s no reason not to do that. I’m not sure Staff agrees with my feeling on that, and if
Staff doesn’t, I’d rather take a minute to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you take five minutes to confer, and we’ll take a quick five minute
break.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Okay. Mark, the floor is yours.
MR. SCHACHNER-The answer to your question is, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes and yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, just yes, by which I mean, if you wish to make your recommendation
tonight, you can. You’re not compelled to do so, but if you wish to make your recommendation to
the Town Board on their proposed rezoning, you certainly can do so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Given that, is there anyone on the Board who would like to introduce a
recommendation, one way or the other?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll make a motion that we deny a recommendation as lead, I should have
thought about this before I.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and if I could just, let me just straighten some of this out for you, if I
could. You’re not doing anything in your role as SEQRA Lead Agency tonight. That’s your SEQRA
review that you’re doing some other day. All you’re doing, or all you’re contemplating doing tonight
is recommending denial of the proposed rezoning or recommending approval of the proposed
rezoning to the Town Board.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then I would like to make a motion that we deny approval of the
rezoning.
MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me for interrupting again. You’re not denying or approving anything.
You’re recommending denial or recommending approval of the rezoning to the Town Board.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would like to make a recommendation to the Town Board that we deny
approval for the Petition for the Zone Change for PZ 3-2000.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a second?
MR. STROUGH-Second.
MR. RINGER-Could you repeat what you said? I’m not sure you did.
MR. MAC EWAN-She did exactly.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, actually, not quite. We’re getting there, and also, it wouldn’t be such a bad
idea to put some of your reasoning in your motion. You’re not required to do that, but my
impression is that the Town Board sometimes reads your motions more closely than it reads all your
minutes. So you might want to add some of your reasoning.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Larry, why don’t you do it.
MR. RINGER-I can try. Cathy, I’m not chastising you. I just didn’t understand your motion. I
wasn’t criticizing the motion.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, this is more complicated than I thought it was going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go for it.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE TOWN BOARD
THAT THE REZONING REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING BE DENIED,
BASED ON THE FACT THAT, THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
PLAN, THE RECOMMENDED USE FOR THE AREA IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND
THERE’S LIMITED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA AVAILABLE IN THE TOWN, AND
THAT IS THE REASON FOR RECOMMENDING THAT THE ZONE CHANGE BE
DENIED, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 21st day of November 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand what we just did?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. BOSSALINI-I speak for myself, but, yes. Your official position for the denial, or the
recommendation to the Town Board to deny the rezoning, is the fact that there is limited Light
Industrial within the Town of Queensbury?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s basically not what it is but where it is.
MR. BOSSALINI-It’s the location of this parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the motion that was made, the recommendation to the Town Board
that was made by Mr. Ringer really hung its hat on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which we’re
kind of bound to follow, and I think he used the correct words there as to the primary reason for
rejection, or non recommendation of zone change.
MR. STROUGH-And I think, to add to that, they’ll also be given a copy of the minutes of the
Planning Board, and that potential for adjacent incompatible uses is a major concern, too.
MR. BOSSALINI-Is that correct, sir? Your recommendation to the Town Board will be based on
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think, philosophically, you heard every Board member up here’s concerns
over the limited amount of Light Industrial land we have left available to us in the Town, in
conjunction with the fact that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends this parcel being
retained as Light Industrial land. That was what we based our decision on tonight.
MR. BOSSALINI-Okay. Well, thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Good luck to you. Next item.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The next item is PZ 1-2000, the Veterans Field Industrial Park, that’s
off for tonight, and we’re going to go into a little dissertation on the Karner blue butterfly.
MR. MAC EWAN-And agenda policies. The floor’s yours, Marilyn.
MRS. RYBA-Which do you want to do first?
MR. MAC EWAN-Whichever you want to do first.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s get the Karner blue thing done here.
MRS. RYBA-Get the Karner blue thing. I’ve given you quite a bit of information. Kathleen
O’Brien, from the Department of Environmental Conservation, came up a couple of weeks ago and
spoke with myself and the Town Supervisor about this recovery plan for Karner blue butterfly,
which, as you know, is an endangered species. Queensbury happens to be one of very few places in
the world that has sites here and also the type of land that is amenable for the plant upon which the
Karner blue lays its eggs and feeds. So, part of the impetus here, there are two things going on. One
is that the DEC is putting together a recovery plan for the Karner blue butterfly, and part of that is
education, speaking with local nurseries about plant mixes, etc. The second aspect is that the New
York State Open Space Plan is going to be revised in early 2001, and the significance of the Open
Space Plan is that, in order to get any kind of State funding, bond act funding, associated clean water
funding to buy parcels, whether it be a municipality or a nonprofit, such as the newly organized
Queensbury Land Conservancy, any of that land has to be in the New York State Open Space Plan,
and the only land in Queensbury that’s in the New York State Open Space Plan right now is Big
Cedar Swamp. So, having this recovery unit outlined, it includes quite a bit of land in the Town of
Queensbury, as the unit, many smaller parcels, but as you’ll see here on your map, they’ve noted
where Karner blue’s actually live right now, some unoccupied lupine sites, the plant upon which they
feed, power line areas, some open areas, sand pits, etc. because Karner blue needs open land in order
to thrive, and so there are a lot of possibilities, and some of this could be linked up. As I said, the
Queensbury Land Conservancy has organized, and I think that the timing’s good there. One of my
goals for this next year, as well as it’s the goal of your Comprehensive Land Use Plan, is to have an
open space plan, and we can, having this information is great. It’s in digitized format so that we can
link some of this with our build out study and open space land. So, what DEC is looking for from
the Town of Queensbury is a letter of support to include this information in the New York State
Open Space Plan. That letter of support would have to come from the Town Board, to add some
credence to it. What I was looking for was just a resolution from the Planning Board to say, yes, this
is consistent with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and I did put together a summary of
everything in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that points to this type of study and inclusion in the
New York State Open Space Plan, as being beneficial for the Town of Queensbury.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Your prepared resolution requires a resolution number. Did you have something
in mind, I mean, like today’s date or something like that?
MRS. RYBA-Sure. I just used a format that is typical. We don’t usually have, the Planning Board
doesn’t usually have particular numbers. So I would say today’s date is fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any discussion? No? Does someone want to introduce it?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll introduce it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ENDORSES
THE RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 21, 2000 THAT SUPPORTS INCLUSION OF
THE QUEENSBURY SANDPLAINS KARNER BLUE RECOVERY UNIT AND
KARNER BLUE STATE RECOVERY PLAN IN THE NEW YORK STATE OPEN
SPACE PLAN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has
prepared a draft Karner Blue State Recovery Plan and map of the Queensbury Sandplains Recovery
Unit, and
WHEREAS, a revised New York State Open Space Plan will be adopted in early 2001, and,
WHEREAS, protection of the endangered Karner Blue Butterfly and its habitat is a
recommendation of the Town of Queensbury's duly adopted 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CLUP), and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury 1998 CLUP has already had SEQRA review and a
negative declaration was made,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby supports
inclusion of the Karner Blue State Recovery Plan and map of the Queensbury Sandplains Recovery
Unit in the New York State Open Space Plan, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury encourages the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury to provide DEC with a letter specifying similar support.
Duly adopted this 21 day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MRS. RYBA-Thank you. I will be meeting with the Town Board at a Workshop Session next week
on this. The second item is the agenda policy. As you all know, the Staff and Planning Board were
inundated with applications this summer, and actually spring/summer, and early fall.
MR. MAC EWAN-Winter, spring, summer and fall.
MRS. RYBA-Right. There’s been a tad of a lull here, just this past month. So just because there’s a
lull doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re not going to experience that same kind of development,
number of applications. So I received this some time ago, and then I believe again more recently. It
just states that this is how you’re going to look at agenda items when you have more than 16 items a
month, which I think, historically, the past few months, it’s been something like 25, 30 applications a
month, and if you have any questions or discussion, I’ll try to answer them.
MR. STROUGH-Right off the bat, setting the number of items isn’t always going to be a solution.
Because for example tonight, where we have four items, three major ones and one discussion item,
two discussion items, and we’re going until nine o’clock now. So eight items might be excessive. So,
really, you’ve got to weigh each one and kind of guesstimate about how much is it going to take to
deal with.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. RINGER-Also, I would, why do we have to make this a resolution? Why can’t we just have this
as a general rule? It seems to me if we make a resolution, if that’s what you’re asking for on this,
then we’ve locked ourselves into that, and why can’t we just have it as a policy, unwritten, that we
limit our agenda to eight items.
MR. SCHACHNER-Was someone proposing to make this a resolution?
MR. RINGER-Isn’t that what you’re proposing?
MRS. RYBA-No, I wasn’t proposing a resolution.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I thought you were proposing that we make this a resolution, and I just didn’t
want to feel we should be locked in.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, for exactly the reason you said, no one is proposing to make it a resolution.
MR. RINGER-Yes, okay.
MRS. RYBA-Right, although we are proposing that it be a written policy.
MR. SCHACHNER-But a policy nonetheless, not a resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments, questions? I fully endorse this. I mean, I know I’ve
probably been on the Board longer than anybody, and I can remember years past, too, when it was
not uncommon to be, obviously, here until midnight, one o’clock in the morning, and this is certainly
going to be a welcome relief.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my idea was eight items is a lot of items in one night. That’s a pretty heavy
night there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t remember when we’ve ever done eight items, seven, but eight.
MR. METIVIER-Can we still break it up between, like a Tuesday/Thursday, have four meetings or
three meetings, or is that totally out, too?
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I make a recommendation here?
MRS. RYBA-Go ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-I recommend we adopt this, and let’s do it for a period of three months, three
calendar months, and let’s see where it goes, see how it works, and if we find that it’s not, if it’s still
too heavy of an agenda for us and we don’t feel comfortable with it, let’s revisit it and maybe we
need to drop it down to six items.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We haven’t had eight ever.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Go back through the minutes, through the past minutes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I can remember six, but eight is so overwhelming.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t make me pull out my notebook.
MR. RINGER-It doesn’t seem we have to have eight. We aren’t going to have more than eight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. RINGER-So we could have four, and if we have 21 items for the month, we’d have three
meetings. Limit it to a maximum of eight.
MRS. RYBA-To address John Strough’s concern a little bit, you’ll see here that there is a protocol,
and there’s Old Business. The New Business typically with the Old Business, it’s unfinished
information that, as long as everything is addressed by the applicant, can usually go through fairly
quickly. The other thing is that when all of the applications come in, Staff has at least two agenda
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
meetings, and you go through what’s needed, call people. We try to give our best estimate in
delineating it between meetings, to balance it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d just go back to September 19’s meeting. We got out at 11 o’clock at night,
th
and we had 12 items on the agenda. That was the night we had the cell tower, Courthouse Estates,
Stone Cast.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How many were tabled, though?
MR. MAC EWAN-Garden Time was here. Welcome back, guys.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but how many were tabled, out of all of those? At least three of those
were tabled.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two, two out of the twelve.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That is a real unusual.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll find more for you, then. I think eight is too many.
MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we do the trial thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s give it a chance to see if it’ll work.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to make a comment that Number Five, to me, is, new application
satisfying submission requirements prior to the deadline date, I think that’s an excellent one, and we
ought to stick with that, because tonight was a prime example. We got a whole bunch of stuff late,
and obviously it was tabled for that reason, but that, you know, I don’t think we should be getting
anything on that night that applicants bring in a haste, at four or five o’clock and then try to
assimilate that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That particular case, though, with that application tonight was not Staff’s fault.
That was the applicant gave, and once it’s on our agenda, Staff can’t remove it from our agenda.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. I just want to make sure that we stick to the deadline dates, and
then it has on the notes, Note Two is please refer to the submission requirements contained in the
Town’s Ordinance, which is the next page, and people ought to be very well aware that that’s the
lead time that they’ve got to get an application completed, through Staff, and before this Board. I
think that makes all kinds of sense.
MR. SCHACHNER-Somebody said something about extra meetings. I’m not saying if that’s good
or bad, but the proposed policy says the Board will continue to meet two times a month.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-We had talked about that before. I don’t mean to speak for the whole Board,
Craig, but the general feeling was that people would rather meet twice, maybe for longer, than to
meet three times.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that was the general consensus that we would do this in two nights,
and it would be limited by some degree like what they have here, no more than eight.
MR. HUNSINGER-The third meeting would be reserved for workshops.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is everyone in agreement with that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to just go back to that eight. I think we should give it the 90 day trial
period. However, you’re talking averaging a half hour an applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-An hour easy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m trying to say, eight items, there’s four hours giving them a
half hour. That’s 11 o’clock. I think that if we find that the first time we have eight items on the
agenda and it goes over 11 o’clock, I think then the next week you’ve got to truncate it a little bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think what Craig is suggesting, we do it for 90 days, let’s see how it goes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, because 90 days means we could go six meetings until one a.m., if we
have eight items on the agenda.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-We may have to do that. That might happen, and then we’ll assess that as we go.
If we’ve seen that we’ve gotten clobbered with 11 o’clock.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think all we need is two meetings until one a.m. to tell us that eight items is
too many.
MR. STROUGH-To go along with what Cathy is saying, is my concern from the beginning is that
too bad we couldn’t put a weight on each one of these and say, like a Great Escape was at 10, and if
you’ve got a 10, only that item will be scheduled for that night. Now if you’ve got some lightweight
like sundeck’s on docks, well, that’ll be a one.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STROUGH-It’s too bad we couldn’t weight some of these applications.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I thought that’s what you basically did.
MRS. RYBA-We do.
MR. STROUGH-In your mind you put a weight to them anyway. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. MAC EWAN-But you have to look at it from the standpoint of serving the public. I mean,
how do you tell someone coming in here, gee, I’m sorry, you’ve got, you know, you’ve got only a
one, but unfortunately this month we’ve got a ten on the agenda. So we can’t hear you until next
month.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, right.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would go over like a lead balloon.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but you could put one ten on it.
MR. STROUGH-But you’re certainly not going to put The Great Escape and seven other items on
the list for one night, are you?
MR. MAC EWAN-Short of beating this thing to death, let’s give it a try. Let’s compromise and go
for two months.
MR. STROUGH-With the noted reservations.
MR. MAC EWAN-Serious noted, a lot of reservations.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want a formal resolution on this or not?
MR. VOLLARO-No. She said no.
MR. MAC EWAN-No? Okay. Move along. Next item on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES
OWNER: G. HEWLETT & GARDEN TIME & BARRETT AUTO SALES CONTRACT
VENDEES AGENT: F. TROELSTRA ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES DISPLAY AND SALES OF RV’S, SHEDS, GAZEBOS AND PLAY
SETS. VEHICLE SALES AND RETAIL USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-2000 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/12/00 TAX MAP NO. 109-4-11, 110-1-1.21, 1.23 LOT SIZE: 4.00 AC., 11.42
AC., 1.95 AC. SECTION 179-23
FRED TROELSTRA & BILL BARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on July 25 was tabled.
th
STAFF INPUT
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 51-2000, Garden Time/Barrett Auto Sales, Meeting Date: November
21, 2000 “Project Description
The application for a display area for Garden Time and Barrett RV Sales has been tabled since
September 19, 2000 for revisions to the layout. The applicant has submitted revised drawings that
utilize the interconnection accesses between the properties.
Project Analysis
Garden Time proposes to develop a seasonal parking area with two internal connections to the
existing customer parking lot. The Garden Time display area includes a gated “drop-off-area” that
will be locked during nighttime hours. The Garden Time display site will only be used for the display
of sheds, gazebos, and play-sets, all other garden related items would be located on the adjacent
Garden Time parcel 109-4-11. The sheds, gazebos, and play sets will be displayed in a graveled area
surrounding a looped drive. The layout allows customers to drive or walk through the display.
The Barrett RV sales display area will utilize two gated accesses to the existing Barrett’s auto sales
parking lot. The Barrett display area will be used only for the display of RV’s, all other sales vehicles
will be located on the adjacent Barrett parcel 110-1-1.23. The RV’s will be displayed on one of the
four gravel lanes. The applicant intends to display about 60 RV units on the site. The drive aisle
between the lanes is 20 foot or greater for customer travel. The loading access will be from Dix
Avenue; this gate will be locked during night hours.
The project site will be landscaped with maple trees, shrubs, and a manicured lawn as noted on the
drawing dated October 23, 2000. The display areas will not be lighted and no signs are proposed at
this time. The proposed use will alleviate some site congestion between display items and customer
parking/travel.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant’s revision to the site plan is supportive of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan
(CLUP) reducing the number of curb cuts on Quaker Road.
The CLUP recommends this area (Neighborhood 10) contain mixed commercial and industrial uses.
The Planning Board has an opportunity to guide the compatibility of these uses by encouraging
additional landscaping. Landscaping can provide for a transition between uses, screening, and
aesthetic view of the Quaker/Dix avenue corridor.
Suggestions
The board may request additional plantings (i.e. maple trees, white pine) on the south side of the
property (loading access gates). The applicant will need a Warren County permit to work or install
plantings within the right of way.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, the floors is yours.
MR. TROELSTRA-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record.
MR. TROELSTRA-Fred Troelstra from Garden Time.
MR. BARRETT-Bill Barrett from Barrett’s.
MR. TROELSTRA-We have, as mentioned, made some changes. We did table it for a September
19 meeting. So we were in here September 19, and we have included, I would call it a pretty major
thth
item in light of what has been discussed by this Board, as well as Warren County, a change to the
ingress/egress for the parcel, and that change, primarily, has eliminated it, but that brought about
some necessary changes to the existing ingress/egresses that we have, both for Barrett’s and for
Garden Time, and those have been depicted on your new plan rev. number three. We’ve included
the notation for the landscaping out front, the particular species of trees, and we have included the
note on the gate. It’s going to be a chain type variety, essentially open during the daylight hours and
closed, secured at night, and I think you probably have already read through, at least I presume this,
on the notes from C.T. Male, that there was some communication between C.T. Male and Nace
Engineering and the Town of Queensbury, and they have all bought off on the grade plan, and I can
answer any questions that the Board might have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything. I thought the new plan was certainly a lot better
than what we had before. I think virtually all the questions were addressed. I guess the only question
I would ask is the applicant’s feeling about the suggestion for additional plantings.
MR. TROELSTRA-I have not spoken to anybody specifically about these additional plantings.
From what I gather, they’re looking at something on the south, well, let me call it the asphalt road in
the back of the property. That is not a Town road. We’re going to have a new neighbor, I see. I
don’t see the need there.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about Garvey coming into that slot?
MR. TROELSTRA-There’s a lot of activity, I guess, on this end of Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Maybe you could explain to me. Rev. Three, I’m taking a look at the Phase I
parking on Rev. Three, showing the 36 inch diameter drain pipe in there, in the parking area?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And Rev. Three is dated October 23, 2000.
MR. TROELSTRA-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And then I got a Phase II parking chart here, dated the same date, 10/23/00, that
shows Phase II, and that 36 inch pipe is now missing. I’ve drawn it in for Phase II.
MR. TROELSTRA-It’s underneath. It’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you know what I’m driving at? This is this.
MR. TROELSTRA-I know full well.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I drew the pipe in exactly as you had it. Now, are we really talking Phase II
parking, or is the Rev. Three what we’re going to have here? I guess I’m a little confused about that.
MR. TROELSTRA-Let me try to clarify that. Garden Time is not the owner of that property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. TROELSTRA-We are under a lease contract with Bill and Jim Barrett.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. TROELSTRA-Eventually I’d like to see Phase II parking there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, then, let me ask, what was the purpose of this submission? What were you t
trying to convey with this drawing?
MR. TROELSTRA-I had spoken with Chris Round. I would like to go directly to Phase II, but we
are not the owners of that property yet, and it will require a variance to go with these lot line
adjustments. Well, essentially the parking lot bounds. Do you see what I’m saying? When we
become owners, that’s a transparent line. I won’t have to be dealing with setbacks.
MR. VOLLARO-So if variances are required there, or may be required for this, then this piece of
paper is really superfluous to this review? Is that correct?
MR. TROELSTRA-No. According to Chris, we probably could move right into Phase II. He
wanted me to present to the Town now what we’re intending to do.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. VOLLARO-See, I see this piece of paper and the site plan in conflict with each other, in terms
of, what does Rev. Three really try to portray?
MR. MAC EWAN-For the purposes of our review, we’re going to stick with Phase I. Should you
close in on buying this piece of property and getting everything you need in order, then you’d need to
go to the ZBA and get your variances or whatever to put in your Phase II parking. Then you would
have to come back to us and get a modification to the site plan, although I don’t see it as any big
issue. That’s the process. Okay.
MR. TROELSTRA-That’s what’s required.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what’s required. Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I tried to locate the times of closing on those gates somewhere, and certainly, am I
missing it? Is it some place without me even asking, can someone just tell me?
MR. TROELSTRA-I believe I answered it on the Staff notes at one time here that it was going to be
closed at night. I can include it on the plan if you wish, final plan.
MR. BARRETT-You mean actual time of closing? Because it would probably vary, depending on
the time of year and the activity?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know that it was just talked about here a minute ago that closing times on
those gates would be defined, and if the majority of the Board feels there’s no need for definition in
that area, then that’s something else. I’m just raising the question in my mind as to whether we
would want a definitive time of closing those gates or opening the gates or the time at which those
gates become operable, from opening to close, and if it’s not important, you folks have more of a
need to make sure that those gates are open and closed at the right times, it seems to me from
conducting your business and from a security point of view. So if you want to stick a time on them
and say we’re going to open them at seven in the morning, we’re going to close them at such and
such at night, but you don’t wish to do that? All right. The Board knows that there isn’t going to be
a time connected with those gates, as far as the applicant is concerned.
MR. TROELSTRA-I think that should be at our discretion.
MR. BARRETT-When we turn the lights off, they’re locked.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not a concern to me, Bob, because, you know, if they want to leave it
open, you know.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not hard over on that area, myself. I just wanted
to clear it up, because I had heard these, we talked about that. In Chris Round’s letter of October
10, it said the application still requires submittal of signed authorization forms from property
th
owners. What’s the significance of that?
MR. TROELSTRA-That’s that sign off sheet acknowledging the landowners as being a Barrett and
I’m his Agent. That’s been provided to Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s already provided. Staff has that piece of paper?
MRS. RYBA-I’m looking for it right now. It should be there. I see something dated 10/23/00, and
it’s owner’s agent form, owner, Barrett, designates Fred Troelstra, and that’s signed by Mr. Barrett.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-On Number Three of Chris’ letter, it says the site plan does not identify gates as
proposed in the notes. I think you do identify the gates. I’m trying to understand Chris’.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, this letter is dated October 10. His drawing is dated October 23. He
thrd
revised it.
MR. TROELSTRA-Excuse me. Then those notes were duly included in the site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, from 10/10 to today, most of this stuff has been taken care of.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. TROELSTRA-Exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-I was very glad to see, you’re to be commended for eliminating the Quaker Road
access and providing the internal interconnect. You guys bent over backwards there. That now
we’re going to see the RV access to the Dix, that loading and unloading is going to be done primarily
from Dix or your adjacent properties, and that every time I’ve driven by, I’ve noticed that both Bill
and Fred maintain their properties very nicely. The landscaping is always very well taken care of, and
I’m sure that those good habits, I feel good that those good habits will carry over to this property as
well, and I like the drive through and the walk (lost word) that seems to work well. So, this plan has
gone through some changes, and I think, fundamentally, it’s a lot better. It’s a much improved plan.
I think down the road that, you know, I think that you are going to do some more landscaping in the
area, but I feel sure that you’re going to keep the place looking nice. So, I’m very content with the
application that’s been recently submitted. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes. It has been our concern, that in the future, if our markets change, we are
going to proceed, most likely, to market this particular piece of property to market this particular
piece of property. We’d like it to be known that we have conceded to the fact about putting this
ingress/egress in, and we have also been well informed on the regulations, this 150 feet, etc., and
that, at some point, there will be a request for an ingress/egress on that property. It may not be by
Barrett’s and Garden Time, but I see that as a potential, in the future.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll deal with that when the time comes.
MR. TROELSTRA-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
MR. TROELSTRA-Understood, and in so far as your concern about landscaping, I do not want to
be held accountable for placing tree at certain X, Y grid on this, because I see the need for some
flexibility in what we do with our particular product there. So, yes, John, I can assure you it is going
to be well maintained, and the product is probably going to end up from the sales yard to a
permanent place on that parcel. That’s what we do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. TROELSTRA-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t go far. We have a public hearing scheduled tonight. I’ll open up the
public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. Come on
up and address yourself to the Board. Any comments?
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. 51-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO SALES, 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 21 day of November, 2000, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to make a resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 51-2000 GARDEN TIME/BARRETT AUTO
SALES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 51-2000, Garden Time / Barrett
Auto Sales proposing display and sales of RV’s, sheds, gazebos and play sets. Vehicle Sales and
Retail Uses in HC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 109-4-11, 110-
1-1.21, 1.23. Cross Reference: AV 63-2000, and;
WHEREAS, the application received 6/29/00 consists of the following:
1. Application materials as outlined in the Official File
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 8/15/00 Planning Board resolution – tabled
7/25/00 Planning Board resolution – tabled
11/21/00 Staff Notes
11/6/00 CT Male Associates Engineering comments
11/1/00 Meeting Dates
10/31/00 L. Moore from F. Troelstra
10/23/00 New Info Received
10/13/00 C. Brown from D. Hogan re: Order to Remedy Violation
10/10/00 F. Troelstra from C. Round
10/2/00 Map titled Grading Plan
9/20/00 C. MacEwan from C. Brown re: Order to Remedy Violations
9/19/00 Planning Bd. from F. Troelstra re: request to be tabled
9/19/00 Staff Notes
9/13/00 CT Male eng. comments
9/11/00 Beautification Comm. comments
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
9/7/00 Meeting Notice
9/6/00 S. Sopczyk (A/GFTC) from L. Moore for review and comment re:
curb cut
9/5/00 Fax to F. Troelstra from L. Moore – signature page
8/29/00 Stormwater Management Report w/revised site plan map
8/15/00 Staff Notes
8/8/00 F. Troelstra from C. Brown
8/2/00 Meeting Notice
7/28/00 J. Edwards from C. Round – transmittal of application materials
for review
7/25/00 Rec’d. at mtg. – comment regarding joint ap.
7/25/00 NYS DOT – File info – policy and standards for entrances to state
highways
7/25/00 Staff Notes include 7/13/00 eng. comments from CT Male, 7/12
Warren Co. PB recommendation (approved), ZBA resolution
dated 7/19/00
7/24/00 C. Round from J. Edwards – eng. review comments in response
to 7/24/00
letter from F. Troelstra
7/24/00 J. Houston from F. Troelstra – response to eng. comments of
7/13/00
7/21/00 Map titled Grading Plan
7/21/00 Fax to F. Troelstra from staff – staff notes
7/18/00 Notice of Public Hearing
7/15/00 Cover letter w/map titled Grading Plan
7/13/00 S. Garvey to C. Brown – letter of support
7/13/00 GIS map
7/6/00 F. Troelstra from L. Moore – request for clarification and addt’l.
info.
7/6/00 Fax to Warren Co. Soil & Water
7/6/00 Meeting Notice
6/23/00 Pre-Application meeting notes
Undated Portion from the CLUP
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/25/00 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, 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;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT
The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved in accordance with the resolution that was prepared by Staff, and
2. That the map titled “Grading Plan” be identified by 10/23/00 date, and
3. The map titled “Site Plan” be identified by 10/23/00 date.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to ask one thing. Do we want to, as part of this resolution, talk about
the types of plantings and caliper, or are we going to let that go?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right on the site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Is it on the site plan?
MR. TROELSTRA-Yes, sir. Those were those subsequent notes, again, from.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go for a second, can we amend this drafted resolution to indicate that
the map titled “Grading Plan” be identified by 10/23/00 date, and also map titled “Site Plan” be
identified by 10/23/00 date, so we have the two most current ones.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, you’re all set.
MR. TROELSTRA-Thank you, and thank the Board for considering that project.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a good project.
MR. TROELSTRA-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1998 MODIFICATION MONTY MC NEILL – CONTRACT
VENDEE OWNER: WILLIAM & LISA GEREAU ZONE: RR-5A, APA LOCATION:
TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
BETWEEN PARCEL 123-1-21.3 (LOT 3) AND PARCEL 123-1-21.6 (LOT 5C, 5D) IN A
PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION. PARCEL 123-1-21.3 WILL INCREASE
FROM 5 +/- ACRES TO 7 +/- ACRES. ANY MODIFICATION TO A PLANNING BOARD
SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TAX MAP
NO. 123-1-21.3, 21.6
MONTY MC NEILL, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And no public hearing is scheduled.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1998, Modification, Monty McNeill – Contract Vendee, Meeting
Date: November 21, 2000 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment to an approved subdivision between parcels 123-
1-21.3 and parcel 123-1-21.6. The applicant has a purchase contract on parcel 123-1-21.3 pending
the modification proposal. The adjustment would increase parcel 123-1-21.3 from 5+/- acres to
7.12+/- acres and reduce parcel 123-1-21.6 from 13.74+/- acres to 12.74 +/- acres.
Project Analysis
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 modification is allowed through Planning Board review and
approval. The Gereau Subdivision was approved in June of 1998 for a five-lot subdivision. The
largest lot is broken into four sections (A, B, C, D) and identified on the filed map as Lot Five. The
modification is for Lot 5C of the subdivision. Lot five (abcd) was to be retained by the Gereau’s
with no further subdivision. Development on the Lot five was to be limited due to wetlands. The
filed map indicates Section D contains a majority of the wetlands and Section C does not contain any
identifiable APA wetlands. The filed subdivision map identifies the lot being added to parcel 123-1-
21.3 as Lot 5C.
Study of plat (§ A183)
Lot arrangement - The lot arrangement does not change with the proposed modification.
Location and design of streets - The modification does not alter and street, driveway design or
location
Topography – Does not change
Water supply – Does not change
Sewage disposal - Does not change
Drainage - Does not change
Lot sizes - Two lots are affected with 2+/- acres adjustment
Placement of utilities – Does not change
Future development – Does not affect any existing restrictions on land development
Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance – The property is located in neighborhood #3
State Environmental Quality Review Act. – The board should determine significance or non-
significance
Adirondack Park Agency –The applicant’s APA permit is conditioned upon any modifications be
provided to them.”
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. MC NEILL-My name is Monty McNeill. Good evening, Chairman and Board members. What
I am seeking tonight is a property line adjustment on, again, tax lot number 123-1-21, and the lots
that I’m looking at are the tentative lot that I want to purchase is Lot Three. The one that is going to
be affected is 5-D. I am under contract with Lisa and William Gereau to buy this parcel of property
and the purchase is contingent upon the approval of the property line adjustment, and what I’m
asking the Board to do is to allow the subdivision to be modified by removing this property line here
completely, and that would make this five acre lot adjusted to a seven plus or minus acre lot. There’s
no impacts whatsoever. There’s no wetlands on this two acres here. It’s strictly something I’ve
requested the sellers to do for me, so that I could add some more acres to this lot. That two acres
really doesn’t significantly help or enhance their property and it does enhance and improve, I think,
the proposed selling lot. So I’m seeking the property line adjustment, and with the adjustment, go
ahead, John. I’m sorry.
MR. STROUGH-You’re just going to include the lot that says stone remains, with the lot that’s to
the south of it?
MR. MC NEILL-Yes. This lot, 5-D, is an extension across Clendon Brook Road. The property is
located at the intersection of Tuthill Road and Clendon Brook, and the 5-D parcel extends across the
Clendon Brook portion of the road, and that two acres sits over there, but is adjoining this currently
now. What I’m seeking is to have this removed, reduce the lot size here, of the Gereau’s, and
increase the lot size, if I get the approval to purchase this, to be mine, and create a seven acre lot
versus the five, and the lay of the land down here is much flatter. It’s pretty steep here.
MR. HUNSINGER-See, the map that we have.
MR. MC NEILL-And, you know, and forgive me, and I know that you didn’t, all you got, when I
went to VanDusen and Steves, is I got the maps to you that didn’t have the line in it, and that’s why
I’m putting this up here, so that you can’t see it. This line, it doesn’t run straight. It’s kind of a
contour, but if you can’t see it, I can move it closer to you, but it does separate here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I remember this subdivision. The reason why they went this route is because the
APA and also, they need APA approval on this. Plus they also had the acreage minimum
requirements they needed to meet when they created this subdivision, and I remember at the time
we all kind of commented how oddly they were cut up, but it was to meet the requirements of the
zoning up there.
MR. MC NEILL-Right, that’s my understanding from talking to the sellers.
MR. MAC EWAN-As it was, I do believe we had to do it all over again because something happened
that they didn’t get their APA approval right away, and they had to come back in for a second time.
MR. RINGER-I think originally he wanted to cluster it, to reduce the lots, and we said no on the
clustering. Then he changed the thing around so he got his five acres on every lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, what he’s asking for is very simplistic.
MR. HUNSINGER-I figured as much, but when I looked at this map, I couldn’t see what it was t
that we were combining. So the acreage that’s shown on our map, in front of us, for example, 5-D, it
says that it’s 11.75 acres. Is that number correct?
MR. MC NEILL-Yes, it is. All they did is remove the line, but they didn’t change, you’ve got 11.75
on your 5-D? Well, then it didn’t change, it’s not adjusted. What do you have on your three?
MR. HUNSINGER-7.12.
MR. MC NEILL-7.12. Well, then that has been adjusted to accommodate that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, there is a note that says, Lot 5, total area, 25.45 feet. So that
probably takes into account the one across the street.
MR. MC NEILL-That’s probably where it’s changed. Okay. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that lot across the street is how many acres?
MR. MC NEILL-Well, 5-D, again, is four separate lots that create the 5, and I think the total is 27
acres or something, 27.44 acres, or maybe it’s 25, if we were to get the property line adjustment.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy, any questions?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I just think it’s pretty up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I already asked all mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything else that you wanted to add, Mr. McNeill?
MR. MC NEILL-No. I appreciate you getting me out of here.
MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t gotten you out yet.
MR. MC NEILL-Okay. I’ll reserve that until.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff?
MRS. RYBA-The only note is that the applicant’s APA permit is conditioned upon any modifications
that this Board makes, also need to be given to the APA.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. They’re going to have to go back to the APA and get a modification. Does
the APA give out modifications, or will they do it similar to what we do?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you can get modifications of the APA permits, but it’s not quite as simple
as here.
MR. MC NEILL-Can you enlighten me a little bit about what you just said? I have to go to the APA
and get a modification to the permit?
MR. MAC EWAN-Because this falls within the Adirondack Park Agency and this was an approved
subdivision by the Adirondack Park Agency, you need to go back to the Adirondack Park Agency
and get a modification to this subdivision, just like you’re here tonight.
MR. MC NEILL-And how do I do that, if I may ask?
MR. MAC EWAN-You may ask. We can’t enlighten you.
MR. MC NEILL-Okay. All right. You make it sound like it’s going to be a bit more of a process.
So that’s why I’m asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the State, need we say more?
MR. MC NEILL-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re sorry for doing that. Okay. Does someone want to introduce a
resolution?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1998 MONTY
MC NEILL – CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a modification request to Sub. 2-1998, Monty
McNeill for a boundary line adjustment between parcel 123-1-21.3 (lot 3) and parcel 123-1-21.6 (lot
5C & 5D) in a Planning Board approved subdivision. Parcel 123-1-21.3 will increase from 5 +/-
acres to 7 +/- acres. Any modification to a Planning Board subdivision requires Planning Board
review and approval. Tax Map No. 123-1-21.3, 21.6 and;
WHEREAS, the application received 10//24/00 consists of the following:
1. Application materials as listed in the Official File
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation:
1. 11/21/00 Staff Notes
11/1/00 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and 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 and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved as per the resolution as prepared by Staff.
2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a
copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 21st day of November 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. MC NEILL-Thank you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business?
MR. HUNSINGER-The memo from Chris Round?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at December when we do that. Any other business? No? I have
one comment. Your agenda is being modified for next Tuesday, to include nominations of officers
for next year, and I have all the faith that we’re going to do this much better and much more efficient
than the State of Florida. Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I thought I would ask if the Planning Board is aware of the policy being
considered by the Town Board relative to mutual or cross referrals of certain applications from the
Planning Board here to the City of Glens Falls Planning Board?
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing more than what I’ve read in the paper.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. SCHACHNER-Although I’ve read the paper, I can’t recall exactly how far the paper went into
detail about it, but just for your information, the Town Board is seriously contemplating, and it’s my
impression that they will likely enact, a resolution requiring the Planning Department to send copies
of all agendas to the City, just for their information, but to send copies of applications for certain
projects to the City of Glens Falls Planning Board, for that Planning Board to have the opportunity
to make advisory, non-binding recommendations to this Board as to what they think about
applications, should they choose to do so. The only applications that the Town Board is currently
contemplating this policy for are applications for projects that are commercial or industrial projects,
that are within 500 feet of the boundary between the Town and the City, and in which the building is
larger than 50,000 square feet. So, as a practical matter, it doesn’t seem to me that’s very many
applications at all, but when an application comes along that’s larger than 50,000 square feet, within
500 feet of the City of Glens Falls, and for a commercial or industrial project, they’re contemplating
enacting a resolution that would require the Staff to send a copy of that application to the City of
Glens Falls for its Planning Board to provide us with a non-binding, advisory recommendation. The
resolution that they’re contemplating specifies in it that, while it urges and encourages this Board to
consider, and that’s all it says, consider that recommendation, but it does specify that the
recommendation would have to be timely received by this Board, so that it doesn’t slow up the
process at all, and just so you know, the same resolution would also contemplate the sending of
rezoning applications that fit those same categories, or variance applications, again, that fit those
same categories.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would we do the same for them?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s the idea. The idea is that it would be a mutual, reciprocal thing, and
the City would adopt the same resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-In recent years, what did you say, building size?
MR. SCHACHNER-Fifty thousand square feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Over 50.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if it would have met it, but the only one I can ever think of, in the
eight years I sat on this Board, was one that we were talking about doing was Nemer was proposing a
Light Industrial warehousing facility, which would have been across the road from Garvey
Volkswagon, on the hill, which would have abutted Windy Hill.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think, for what it’s worth, the project that lead to this request is the Mega Save
project.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I had asked. Was that 500 feet?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not 500 feet.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think so, but I think that’s what lead to the request, and it was some
people’s feeling that that was close enough to the City so that there were City impacts, and if you
remember, I’m not saying it’s true or false or right or wrong or good or bad, but if you remember, we
did have members of the public who, in fact, were City of Glens Falls residents, I think, from time to
time, commenting that they felt that traffic impacts were extended to the City. Again, I’m not saying
that’s true or false. I’m just saying that those comments were made.
MR. RINGER-There’s some property for sale, too. The Seeley’s could fall into that area, Seeley’s
Auction House. That could fall in, and that’s for sale, and that could be something that.
MR. STROUGH-That Mega Save store had fallen under the characteristics you just mentioned?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, because apparently it’s not within 500 feet of the boundary, which I think is
true. By the way, if for some reason any of you, or the Board as a whole, feel that either of those
thresholds should be different, I would encourage you to make a recommendation to change them.
There’s not much magic to it. There’s just a rough draft for consideration right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-We may have one application every 10 years.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this sounds pretty minor to me.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 11/21/00)
MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds to me like it’s nothing more than a classic inter-municipal cooperation.
Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would like to ask Mark if there’s any further information on the Mega Save
thing?
MR. SCHACHNER-There isn’t, and I’m perfectly willing to tell you that. Sometimes when that
question comes up, I get the feeling that you all don’t believe me when I tell you that the very
moment that I hear anything about that court case, or any other litigation case we’re ever involved in,
I will immediately notify you, but the answer is no.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not necessary, if you get a call at three in the morning, to immediately notify
me.
MR. SCHACHNER-Fair enough.
MR. RINGER-The television today said that the CNS has sold the Grand Unions to Shaw’s.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. RINGER-So I don’t know if they’re buying all of the Grand Unions. I can’t imagine Shaw’s
coming into here.
MR. SCHACHNER-The only report I saw, and there’s no, I mean, this was nothing definite, was
that the vast majority will stay open, I mean the existing ones will stay open. Of course there’s
nothing to sell here. I mean, the property was never owned by Grand Union anyway.
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t thinking of the Mega Store, specifically.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but as far Grand Unions in the area, like I know that the Town of
Bolton’s concerned, the Town of Chester is concerned about the existing Grand Unions, and there
no official word yet as to which ones will remain and which ones won’t.
MR. RINGER-And being in the business for almost 50 years, Shaw’s not going to come over here.
So Shaw’s going to parcel off those and Price Chopper will probably take a good hunk of them.
That’s what I’d guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Everyone have a Happy Thanksgiving.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
39