2001-07-17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT SANFORD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
May 29, 2001: NONE
May 31, 2001: NONE
June 6, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 29, 2001; MAY 31, 2001; AND JUNE 6,
2001, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Okay. On our agenda tonight, the Pyramid Mall is listed. That is off. So we’re not
doing the Pyramid Mall tonight. The reason for that is the Town approved their EIS the other night,
but they have to do their Findings Statement now, and until the Findings Statement is complete, we
can act further on the site plan. So the first item on the agenda is, we have a request for an extension
for Site Plan No. 58-98, Joseph Leuci, Mountainside Auto, a request for a one year extension
until August 24, 2002.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION UNTIL AUGUST 24, 2001 FOR
SITE PLAN NO. 55-98, MODIFICATION FOR JOSEPH LEUCI/MOUNTAINSIDE
AUTO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Duly adopted this 17 day of July 2001 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HELEN MITCHELL
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES, JONATHAN
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
LAPPER ZONE: RR-5A, LC-10, APA LOCATION: LOCKHART MT. RD.
APPLICANT PROPOSES 12 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. REVISED MAP
SUBMITTED REFLECTING CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED IN PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION OF 6/26/01. TAX MAP NO. 23-1-41, 43 LOT SIZE: 141 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATION
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2001, Final Stage, Helen Mitchell, Meeting Date: July 17, 2001
“Project Description
The applicant proposes a 12-lot subdivision for Final Stage review. The Board requested the five
following items:
1. At submission of Final, delineate the cut zone, so forth, marked very clearly on the
map, and
2. Submit a written cutting plan, and
3. Combine Lots 10 and 11, and
4. Plat S-1 will show that Lot 3 will not be further subdivided, and
5. It should be in the written plan, in words, that there will be no timber harvesting.
The revised submission addresses the no-cut zone, a written clearing plan, combination of lots 10
and 11, no further subdivision of lot #3, and no timber harvesting.
Plat Review
??
Lot arrangement: The number of lots has been reduced from 13 to 12.
??
Topography: The plan indicates that 1.25 acres may be cleared per each lot.
??
Drainage: The Code Compliance Officer, according to Chapter 147 Stormwater
Management of the Town Code, will review the applicant’s stormwater management
plan.
??
Future development: The plan indicates that lot #3 is not to be further subdivided.
The lots are proposed for single family dwelling use.
Suggestions
The plat should include a revision date for the final stage.”
MR. RINGER-Now before we get into this, we have gotten some correspondence from the public
on this one. We have had a public hearing on this. The public hearing has been closed. I
understand that the correspondence was mainly to do with an application that’s coming before the
Board next week, the Top of the World, and how that will relate to this. This is not part of that
application. The properties don’t tie. It’s just not the same owner. So we’re not going to open the
public hearing. I don’t know how many of the people were here for that, but I thought I would like
to let you know that the public hearing will not be open on that tonight. So we’ll start with the
application, Final Stage for Helen Mitchell.
MS. RADNER-Larry, you might want to mention that the Top of the World application is on the
agenda for next week.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely, next Tuesday night, and there will be a public hearing on that, and
anyone wishing to speak at that time is certainly welcome to do so. So, the next thing, go ahead, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-When we were here last time, there were a few open issues that the Board asked us to
address and to resubmit. One of the issues, I have read the correspondence.
MR. RINGER-Jon, I’m sorry, I didn’t ask you to identify yourself for the record.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. For the record, Jon Lapper and Matt Steves. The Planning Staff graciously
gave us copies of some of the letters from the neighbors, and even though the public hearing is
closed, there were just a couple of issues that I’d like to address, just to assure the Board that there
are not big issues that are open, even though some of the neighbors have raised some stuff. One of
the.
MR. RINGER-Jon, before you go on, I’ll ask Counsel. If he’s going to address issues that have
never been presented before the Board?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MS. RADNER-It’s hard for me to know, before we hear what those issues are. Mr. Lapper’s making
a presentation now for final site plan review. It’s up to him what he wants to include in that
statement, with the understanding that if he raises new issues that the Board feels they need to
address, that might affect the approval this evening.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then you’re at risk, Jon. Go ahead, then, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Two issues, then, both of these were addressed by the Board at the last meeting. One
is clearing limits, and that was something that Matt submitted a clearing plan. If the project were
going to denude the mountain, it would certainly be a visual impact from the lake and in the lake
basin, but because we have clearing limits of no more than 1.25 acres for each of 12 lots, out of 143
approximately acre project, this is something that is not going to have a visual scarring effect. This is
very minimal clearing. Matt and I drove up there today to take a look at it, and because of the
topography, and Matt was on a boat with binoculars this weekend, and couldn’t see the neighboring
properties, the neighboring houses. The trees are so large, the existing trees, mainly because Mrs.
Mitchell’s family has been such a good steward of this property for so long, that clearing 1.25 acres, I
just want to assure the Board that this is not going to be a situation where people are going to have
great lake views and therefore people are not going to have great views of these houses from the lake.
It is a heavily wooded area, and it would be rare that somebody would have a lake view except
perhaps in the winter, and even that’s not going to be a great one, according to the surveyor sitting
next to me. So, to the extent that people are concerned about that, I just want to assure the Board
that that’s not the case, and you’ve taken care of that with the condition of us including the limits of
clearing for each of the houses on the map, and we submitted a specific clearing plan as well, Matt
says.
MR. RINGER-That’s your June 28 letter?
th
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-The other issue that was raised last time, in terms of stormwater runoff, we do have
to submit a stormwater plan to the Lake George Park Commission, and Matt has submitted that, and
that was done by Tom Nace Engineer. That is not an issue for this Board. It’s not a requirement of
subdivision approval, but it’s something, it’s a separate approval that has to go to the Lake George
Park Commission, and Matt and Tom Nace have submitted that and have submitted copies to
Planning Staff, but that is no more than your typical hay bales and silt fence that you would have on
any construction project, and again, with 1.25 acres of clearing on 12 lots, with 140 something acre
site, it’s just, erosion and sediment control is not a big issue here.
MR. RINGER-Okay. That report’s the one you faxed to Laura today?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I’d like you to explain what we’re asking. Is there anything more you want to talk
about? Okay. I’m going to turn it over to Matt Steves.
MR. STEVES-The only one change, minor change, to the subdivision plan, if you’ll recall on the
Preliminary approval, there was a lot that you had on the back side of this stream, and that the
Planning Board asked us that we merge that with the lot in the front, and we have done so. The only
one modification we would like to propose for that is to leave that Lot 10 as shown now is 33.18
acres, as the original 5.01 acre, just over five acres, and then attach all the rest of the land in the back
with Lot 11.
MR. RINGER-So Lot 11 would become 40 acres?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, because Lot Five has the existing barn that is the residence that is there
now, and just to maintain the five acres with that and let the rest of it go with Lot 11, which the
clearing plan and the development area is way up near the road, and the rest of it would be deemed
undevelopable by the clearing plan, and no disturbance would be beyond that couple of hundred feet
off the road.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you be willing to stipulate on there, as you did on Lot Three, that no
further subdivision?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Lot 11 goes to how many acres now?
MR. RINGER-Forty acres.
MR. STEVES-Lot 11 would go to 28 acres, plus the 7. So it would go to about 35 acres.
MR. RINGER-I see what you’re saying. I didn’t take the five out.
MR. STROUGH-The five acres.
MR. LAPPER-The reason for that is a practical one, in that Mrs. Mitchell has promised that barn lot
to somebody, but just as a five acre lot. So it’s nothing more than that.
MR. RINGER-So you’ll submit a new?
MR. LAPPER-For Final, for signature, we would submit that on the Final plat.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, Matt?
MR. STEVES-No. There was one comment, as far as, I believe that can be clarified real quickly, as
far as the wetlands that are shown on there. It is just the three and a half foot wide stream. The area
that is shaded is the 100 foot setback from that, and I just want to clarify, that whole shaded area is
not APA wetlands. The only thing the APA did flag on that was the stream itself.
MR. LAPPER-And there’s no disturbance of that whatsoever. No house would be built near there.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll start with John.
CAROL COLLIINS
DR. COLLINS-I have some problems. I know it’s been re-opened because of these issues that were
jut addressed, and I think Laura has some information that is timely that was received by her today,
by APA, by the Park Commission, that could affect this hearing.
MR. RINGER-I’m sorry, ma’am, the public hearing.
DR. COLLINS-Concerning stormwater runoff, the flagged wetlands, which she has a file of in the
file. The APA flagged those wetlands (lost words).
MR. RINGER-Excuse me.
DR. COLLINS-Excuse me.
MR. RINGER-Please, ma’am. The public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. I understand
your frustration. I really do, but the public hearing is closed. We will ask Staff if she has any
information.
DR. COLLINS-This is not (lost words).
MR. RINGER-Thank you, ma’am. I really am sorry, and I really.
DR. COLLINS-I don’t care how sorry you are. The stormwater program was not clearly done. It
has not been reviewed by an engineer. APA has flagged this. Laura is aware of that, at this time, and
it has to be reviewed by them before any subdivision is to be recognized. Laura, I think you might
want to comment on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you let us complete our deliberations here, because some of the things
you’re talking about I plan to ask questions on, and I’d appreciate if you’d give this Board an
opportunity to function properly before you stand up and disrupt this meeting.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, ma’am. John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Matt, the restrictions that you have listed in the June 28 letter, that no more
th
than 1.25 acres of land shall be cleared during construction. In clearing all efforts will be made to
maintain that letter, and it also includes which trees. No trees over four inches in caliper may be
removed except for the following reason, the tree is dead, that the tree is diseased, and the tree poses
a safety hazard. Are those going to be as deed restrictions?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. LAPPER-They’re on the subdivision plat, and they certainly can be deed restrictions. There’s
no problem with that whatsoever.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The one thing I have with that is this is all pretty subjective. If the tree is dead, I
think it’s alive, you think it’s dead. The tree is diseased, we’re not sure, and the tree poses a safety
hazard, and we’re not sure that it does or it doesn’t. So all of the three things that are on here I look
at as subjective, objective statements that could go into a deed. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I know, but you can make that argument for just about everything. I mean,
professionally landscaped or not. I mean, we can go on and on and on.
MR. LAPPER-I have a suggestion that might make the Board feel comfortable with that. If, as a
condition, we said that when somebody submits a building permit application, they also have to
submit a cutting plan that shows that they comply with this, then the Town would get to see the
cutting plan before the trees came down?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think the concern is later on, and I think Jon’s request is reasonable enough,
even if enforceability is an issue because it doesn’t hurt to include it. It just may not be especially
enforceable.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I think you’re right, Rich. I think that’s what John was getting to, not initially,
but future cuttings. Is that what you were looking to, John?
MR. STROUGH-I just wanted to make sure the integrity of it, and I, you know, I can see Bob’s
point, but I can’t see any way of making it any better. These restrictions are a lot more than what we
usually impose on any subdivision, even though this is only 12 lots, but it is in kind of an
environmentally sensitive area.
MS. RADNER-Gentlemen, may I interrupt for one moment? I want to remind you of the difference
between a deed restriction and a condition of the site plan. A deed restriction would be enforceable
by the other subdivision owners. It’s not necessarily enforceable by the Town, whereas if it’s a
condition of site plan approval, or it’s made a part of their plot plan, that may be enforceable by the
Board.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking at it, can’t we do both?
MS. RADNER-Yes, you can do both.
MR. LAPPER-And we would certainly agree to do both.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I have for now, then.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Actually, at this time, I really have nothing further. I do on the other project.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go to Bob now then, and then go back to Richard.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. One of the things I want to make sure of is that the building envelope is
suitable for driveways, dwellings and septics. I did a little quick calculation on the drawing itself, on
some of the driveways, and I get slopes that are well in excess of 10%, on some of those driveways.
Have you done a, when you talked about, it said, the applicant has determined that the building
envelope is suitable for driveways, dwelling and septic, have you taken a look at those slopes, Matt,
on those driveways? What do you get for incline?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Yes. I average about, on the steeper ones, about 8%, for the overall
grade of the driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-About 8%? I got 10 out of it, but that’s okay. I just had to scale the drawing to
come up with the triangles to do the.
MR. STEVES-Just like any other driveway, there’s going to be areas where your grade is shallower
and steeper, but the overall average is going to be less than the 15%. It would be well within the
10% range.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the one thing I wanted to, now, I guess your letter takes care of the
Compliance Officer’s review of the stormwater management plan. Is that a fair statement that
they’re going to do that?
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, what is the APA’s position on this proposed subdivision? Where do they
stand on this?
MR. LAPPER-It’s our position that it would be APA jurisdiction, if there was a wetland disturbance,
and APA came out to the site with Matt to flag the wetlands, and the only thing that they flagged was
the stream corridor.
MR. VOLLARO-Now do they have a statement in the record for that? Is there a statement, Laura,
that you have?
MRS. MOORE-I have a copy of an APA letter, in regards to the stream, the designated, I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-Could that letter be read into the record, Larry?
MR. RINGER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-From the APA. I’d like to have that read into the record, if we could.
MR. RINGER-While she’s looking for that, do you want to continue?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s all I have.
MRS. MOORE-I found it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go ahead, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-This is dated November 8, 2000, addressed to Matt Steves, “Dear Mr. Steves: On
November 7, I met with you and your crew member, Dave, and investigated the northern portion
th
of the above referenced property. I found no jurisdictional wetlands in that northern section. As we
discussed, there are jurisdictional wetlands in the southern section which have been flagged
previously.”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, and that’s all I have at this time on this.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-No, it was covered. I was concerned with where the APA stood. Bob already
asked that question, so, no further questions.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and Tony, you didn’t have anything?
MR. METIVIER-Again, I just, I have the same concerns about the clearing, as long as we can
enforce clearing of each lot, and it would have to obviously be on a continual basis, and, really, that’s
my biggest concern for the project. I mean, if you look at the amount of land versus the amount of
clearing that’s involved, it really is minimum, but, again, we’d have to be able to somehow regulate
and restrict what happens, but, really, it just is so minimal, compared to the vast land that is involved,
I just don’t foresee it being a major problem, but, really, besides that, I have nothing.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Is the Board satisfied with the letter from Van Dusen and Steves of the 28
th
regarding the clearing, as sufficient?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s 1.25 acres, is what it is, and I’m satisfied with that.
MR. RINGER-Well, it will become part of the subdivision approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Matt just a question on that subject. The 1.25 acres relates directly to
these small zones around the house that you’ve got?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. It would be able to accomplish the drive, the septic and the house
with a modest size front yard, back yard, side yard.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the builder’s going to have to, he’s certainly going to have to square this off a
little bit. He’s going to have to decide how he’s going to design this lot, these lots that, down to 1.25.
What we’re really saying that the livable area of the lot is 1.25 acres.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have anything else, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then we’ve done our SEQRA. I’m looking for a motion.
MR. METIVIER-Did we check with Counsel on the issues?
MR. RINGER-We have a prepared resolution. There’s a couple of things we should consider
adding, I would think, that the new subdivision map show the no further development on what is to
be known as Lot 11, and the subdivision plan will be changed to show Lot 10 as five acres.
MR. STEVES-5.01.
MR. RINGER-5.01, and the Lot 11 with the new acreage shown. That should be part of the.
MR. VOLLARO-And Lot 11 is going to.
MR. RINGER-The new acreage of Lot 11 will be?
MR. STEVES-It will be, let me take a look at the map again.
TOM ULASEWICZ
MR. ULASEWICZ-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question for clarification on the process that’s taking
place, without getting into the merits?
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. ULASEWICZ-My name is Tom Ulasewicz, by the way, I’m an attorney. I have a subdivision
application that says Final, prepared by the Town, and it says that in this second step of the two step
review process, three things are to be accomplished, ensure the proposed subdivision meets all State
and local regulations, ensure all issue raised during Preliminary have been addressed, and receive
additional public comment if necessary. I’m here to try to address all three of those.
MR. RINGER-I think we’ve done that, sir. Thank you. We’ve had a public hearing, and it has been
closed. Thank you for your comments.
MR. ULASEWICZ-I submitted them, by the way, about 20 minutes ago.
HEATHER SHOUDY
MS. SHOUDY-So did I, from the Lake George Association, and I had additional comments today,
Laura, and none of them have been addressed.
MR. LAPPER-Matt, the number on the lot?
MR. STEVES-Thirty-five acres.
MR. RINGER-Thirty-five. It would be the 28 plus the 7.
MR. SANFORD-And what was the other one?
MR. VOLLARO-Lot 10.
MR. RINGER-Lot 10 to 5.01.
MR. SANFORD-Lot 10 to 5.01.
MR. VOLLARO-And no further development on Lot 11. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-No further subdivision.
MR. RINGER-Subdivision, yes.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 HELEN
MITCHELL, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Strough:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Subdivision No. 1-2001, Final Stage for Helen
Mitchell for a 12 lot residential subdivision. Revised map submitted reflecting conditions as outlined
in Planning Board resolution dated 6/26/01. Tax Map No. 23-1-41, 43, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 5/30/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 7/13/01;
7/17/01 Staff Notes
7/11/01 FOIL request from T. Ulasewicz
7/3/01 FOIL request from L. Barthold
7/11/01 FOIL request from H. Shoudy Brechko
6/28/01 PB from M. Steves re: Cutting Plan
6/27/01 Final Stage Application w/ revised map dated 6/28/01
6/26/01 Staff Notes
6/22/01 Notice of Public Hearing
6/15/01 FOIL request – T. Jabaut
6/6/01 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/26/01 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 for final stage in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with
the following conditions:
1. Lot 11 will go from 7.49 acres to 35 acres, with no further subdivision on that lot, and
2. Lot No. 10 will go from 33.18 acres to 5.01 acres, with no stipulation on that lot, and
3. To add to the third Whereas in the resolution, a letter dated June 28, 2001 from Matthew C.
Steves concerning the cutting plan for this subdivision shall be entered in the resolution, and
4. The restrictions listed in the Van Dusen & Steves letter dated June 28, 2001 will be included
both on the Final Subdivision plat as well included in the deed restrictions of the
subdivision, and
5. All construction in this subdivision will submit a clearing plan as part of the building permit
application and
6. 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, and
7. 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 17th day of July, 2001 by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-And the AP A acceptance of the stormwater plan.
MR. LAPPER-LGPC.
MR. STROUGH-Should that be part of this as well?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. LAPPER-Approval, LGPC approval.
MR. STROUGH-LGPC.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure that that’s part of our purview.
MR. STROUGH-I’m not sure, either, but I thought I’d throw it out there, just to see.
MR. VOLLARO-Was Counsel listening to that?
MS. RADNER-I’m sorry?
MR. VOLLARO-John wanted to insert another thing in the motion, and I’m not sure that it belongs
in our motion. It has to do with, is it the Lake George Park Commission?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I wanted to condition our approval with the following condition, that the
Lake George Park Commission accepts the stormwater plan for this subdivision, and it probably
goes without saying.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if that’s within our purview to put that in our motion. I’m not sure.
MRS. MOORE-My concern is that under our Stormwater Regulations, that issue is reviewed by our
Code Compliance Officer.
MS. RADNER-Right. We can’t defer our enforcement duties to another agency, and we have to be
careful that we’re not doing that.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, exactly.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So we’re probably best without it. Okay. We’ll add those, John.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. RINGER-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2001 TYPE II ROBERT SUTLIFF PROPERTY OWNER: KATHY
SALOMON ZONE: WR-1A, APA, LG PARK CEA LOCATION: ASSEMBLY POINT
APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 576 SQ. FT. SUNDECK OVER AN EXISTING E-
SHAPED DOCK. COVERED BOATHOUSES IN WR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. REVISED INFORMATION HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION DATED
5/29/01. LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING; 5/9/01 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-31.1 LOT SIZE:
0.42 AC. SECTION: 179-60
KATHY SALOMON, PRESENT
MR. METIVIER-Larry, I’m going to recuse myself from this application. I’ll excuse myself from the
table.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-2001, Robert Sutliff, Meeting Date: July 17, 2001 “Project
Description
The applicant requests approval of a 576 square foot sundeck. The applicant was requested to
provide drawings that clarified the sundeck.
Areas of Concern or Importance
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
The applicant has submitted a revised set of plans that includes a top view and side views. The
structure is an E-shaped dock that is 46 feet in length along the shore and 36 feet in length extending
from the shore. The structure height is 13’8” from the top of the rail to the mean high water mark.
Suggestions
The mean high water mark should be labeled on sheet 1 of 3.”
MR. RINGER-Would you identify yourself for the record, please?
MRS. SALOMON-Yes. I’m Kathy Salomon, the owner of the property.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Bring us up to date on everything, you know, you’re whole project.
MRS. SALOMON-Okay. When we first hired Mr. Sutliff to construct the top sitting deck, we asked
him if we needed a permit, and he said, no, because there was a roof already on it, and he was just
going to flatten it, and that he wasn’t doing any work under the water, and he wasn’t making it any
bigger or anything. So, we said, fine, and he started working. Then we found out that you did need a
permit. So we said, okay, you file whatever you have to do to get a permit, and we were not at the
last meeting. He came and he said that you didn’t issue a permit because you had questions.
MR. RINGER-We don’t issue permits. We give site plan approval.
MRS. SALOMON-Or you didn’t approve. So I guess that’s where we are. We have not done any
more work. We’re just waiting to see where we are.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, the problem was, how it really came about is we had an application for
the building next to you, or the cabin next to you, and actually went to your place thinking that, what
we were looking at, wondering why it was already built when we were there to look at it. Then we
found out that that was not the location. So then we went back to Staff and asked them what
happened, and Staff contacted you and then you had to go through the process of completing your
application. Your builder, I guess it was your builder, came before us last month, and presented the
plan, and the Board had some questions, and asked for some additional drawings and stuff, which we
have now received, and that’s what we’re going to talk about tonight, okay?
MRS. SALOMON-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ll start with you, Richard, on this one.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes. I happened to be at the last hearing. At this point in time, is the dock
in compliance with Code? Can I get an answer to that?
MRS. MOORE-As to location?
MR. SANFORD-As to the height dimensions and all of the criteria that has been discussed in the
past? There were questions raised at the last meeting, there always is with these, it seems, in terms of
how you measure height, but I’m going to go to Staff for my resource on it. Does this dock comply,
in terms of the dimensions, within the parameters?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it does? Okay. That was debated whether or not it did or didn’t. At the last
meeting, I was uncomfortable with the options that we’re faced with. It looks like we can either
approve or not approve the project. I thought, and I still feel, we ought to have some other
alternatives. Because if you don’t approve a project that’s already built, I believe then by default
you’re asking that it be removed, you’re taking down. My position is that it’s inappropriate for this
kind of an activity to take place, for something to be built without the proper approvals, but I’m not
inclined to take such drastic action as to not approve it, but I wish there was some middle ground,
that I don’t believe we have. So I have no further questions, but I’m not inclined to be especially
punitive on this one.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we do have, we’re not an enforcement, but we can reject, and they would have
to tear it down, and I understand where you’re coming from, and I remember you had those
comments last month, too, and I’ve seen it. It’s happened before, and hopefully it’s an honest
mistake, and I think in this case, it certainly was an honest mistake. Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I can’t believe anybody would intentionally do this. However, this Board has
been faced with this before, several times, and I can sympathize with everybody on the Board, and I
understand, and I guess I’m going to take the same stand. I would not want to see something like
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
this come down. I just don’t know how we prevent this from happening in the future. I just don’t
know how to do that, because, you know, once people get the idea that, look, first we’ll build it, then
we’ll talk about it, that sort of takes the spec out of the game all together. It’s up. All you can do is
discuss it. So, there isn’t very much I can do, but what I do want to go over with you, though, is
something that I always harp on, and my fellow Board members sometimes agree and sometimes
don’t. It’s a case of the height, you know, how we measure height, and it’s either from mean high
water or mean low water, one or the other. I’ve always looked at measuring the height from mean
low, and I’ve talked to some of the people at the Lake George Park Commission. They also agree
that mean low is probably the best way to measure because, as an example, you’re talking about 13
feet 8 inches on the height of that deck. We know that we go, as far as dock, as heights are
concerned, we go all the way from 320.2 to 317.4 at mean low. So we’ve got about 2.46 feet of
change that that lake goes up and down at. So if you were to measure that at mean low water, you
would get 16.26 feet from mean low water to the height of the deck. That’s the maximum height it
could ever be. If you measure it from mean high, you’ll get your 13.8, like you’ve come up with, and
there’s some varying opinions around the Lake George people, now that I’ve talked to them a few
times, thinking about how they want to maybe re-word the spec, so it should be from mean low
water, but meanwhile, the spec does read mean high, and I think it’s incorrect, and I’ve had some
discussions with them, and they think they may want to look into changing that, and that’s probably
the only comment I had. I don’t have any information on, the dock is 36 foot in length extending
from the shore, well, whether we measure that from mean high or mean low, it’s not going to affect
that 36 feet any. It’s when you get up to the 40 that the mean high, mean low will begin to play a
game. So, other than that, I don’t have any questions on this one.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, my position on this hasn’t changed.
MR. RINGER-Well, since they weren’t here at the last meeting, would you?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I had asked if it could be lowered, to make it, the deck, the same height as
your roof was. Because what it’s doing now is substantially blocking the view of several camps to the
north of you, or to the south of you, rather, and so I don’t, I’m not in favor of this application.
MR. RINGER-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John certainly has a good point there, and I agree with him, and when we
came upon your project, all constructed, you know, it does strike a little cord with us, I mean, like,
wow, where did this come from? We didn’t know this was going up, and we don’t really have any
laws, like I said to Craig, who’s not here, he’s the Chairman, well, Craig, well, what do you do about
something like this? I mean, do you tell them to take it down? Well, why don’t we just fine them?
Well, Cathy, there’s nothing in the Town of Queensbury law’s that talks about fining people for
doing something like this, and I said, well, you can’t really make them take it down, because it’s really
a nice structure, but it does look like it is obstructing the view of the people on the south of you, but
yet maybe we should have some kind of a law that hits people in their pocketbook, and if the word
got out, people would have a little more discretion and would, you know, would say, wait a minute.
I’m building a structure of a pretty large magnitude here. Gee, maybe I better go to the Town and
see if there’s any rules or regulations that I have to follow before I put something like this up. So,
you know, I feel like John. It’s pretty serious, but I don’t think we can make you take it down, and
there’s no law to fine you, so, it looks like you guys win.
MR. RINGER-Well, I hope it’s not a case of winning or losing, but, anything else, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. We have a public hearing scheduled on this. So we’ll ask you to
leave the table, and I’ll open up the public hearing and see if there’s any comments from the public.
Anyone?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ANTHONY METIVIER
MR. METIVIER-Anthony Metivier, Assembly Point. Actually, I should be careful saying that, Bay
Parkway. Just to clarify a few issues about the dock. Keep in mind that the dock originally was the
same structure that you see today. The only difference is the railing that was put up. The roofline
that existed is the same roofline that exists today. They did put some decking on it, but it really did
not change, substantially change the height of the dock, except for the railing, and the last time I
spoke about this, I was mistaken about one thing, and I’d like to clarify the record. That the two lots
that existed, both the Salomon’s and the Gordon’s lots, have always been two separate lots. It’s my
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
understanding that originally that it was one lot, but in fact it always has been two lots. So that dock
has been grandfathered. The last issue was the height, and honestly, it really poses no visible
restrictions to any neighbors from our house on south. The only gentleman that it might pose
restrictions to is also here tonight. Obviously, if he’d like to speak he can, but to be honest, it really
does not pose any height problems for us whatsoever. At first when it was going up, I thought that,
you know, maybe it would obstruct our views, and the only thing, obviously, I would ask is that the
applicant be sensitive to any objects they put on top of the boathouse, you know, cell towers, or
billboards, stuff like that, but, besides that, I mean, that was a joke, guys. Come on, laugh, would
you? But besides that, it really doesn’t pose any problems to anybody. Again, our dock is so high
that anybody that’s south of us is just blasted with our dock, because we have a deck, and then a roof
on top of that. So, to be honest with you, looking up the lake, anybody that’s south of us can’t really
see through our dock, even to see this one. So, really, if anybody had any issues, it would be us.
MR. SANFORD-Tony, will you take your dock down?
MR. METIVIER-No. Absolutely not.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Tables with umbrellas wouldn’t be an obstruction?
MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, I think umbrellas might be an obstruction, but, you know, tables,
chairs, stuff like that would not be. I would just say to be sensitive to, you know, anything that might
be considerably higher than what you see now. Obviously, the chairs, tables, things like that, people,
it’s not going to matter, but if you put a couple of umbrellas up there, you know, something of that
nature, it might obstruct views more, but, again, I mean, who am I to say, you know, that they can’t
obstruct our view because, as, you know, matter of fact, we obstruct a lot of people’s views. So,
again, it really, to us, is not an issue at all, and if any of my other family had any issues, they probably
would have been here tonight, but nobody does. I invited them, but they didn’t come.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s good.
MR. METIVIER-And that’s really it, but I did want to clarify for the record that they were two
separate lots all along. They were not subdivided recently.
MR. RINGER-That’s it?
MR. METIVIER-That’s it.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. With that I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-And please come back up. Any further questions from the Board? Okay. Laura, do
we have to do a SEQRA on this?
MRS. MOORE-No, it’s a Type II.
MR. RINGER-No SEQRA?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Barring anything else, I’ll look for a resolution. Does anyone wish to make
the resolution, a motion?
MRS. MOORE-May I interrupt you for a moment?
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely.
MRS. MOORE-The County Planning Board, when this went to County, denied this application
because there was a land bridge. So that would require a supermajority from your Board. The
applicant has revised that plan, did not have a land bridge anymore. So, the opportunity exists for
this application to go back to the County to be re-reviewed.
MR. RINGER-All right, and let me explain to the applicants what this may mean, okay. The County
denying this will require a supermajority vote of this Board. Okay. I don’t know if you’re going to,
we’ve got five members here voting. One vote will, one vote denying will reject this. You have the
option, now, to go back to the County, okay, and say you’ve taken your land bridge out, and you’ll
probably get approval from the County. Then coming back to this Board, a simple majority will give
you your dock and your deck. I’m giving you the option, before we vote, because I don’t know how
this Board’s going to vote. You’re going to need every vote here to get the supermajority.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. SANFORD-Well, could someone explain what a supermajority is?
MS. RADNER-We have a seven member Planning Board. So, of course, a majority of seven
members would be four. A supermajority is the four plus one. It takes more. So the five of you
standing here tonight constitute a supermajority, because you have two absent members.
MR. SANFORD-But is it a supermajority of the full Board or a supermajority of the quorum Board?
MS. RADNER-Of the full Board.
MR. RINGER-The full Board.
MR. SANFORD-The full Board.
MR. RINGER-So what I’m telling you is you need every vote up here to get your thing approved
tonight. You could go back to the County and get a majority. Now, you’ve heard the comments
from the members tonight, and you may have a member that’s going to vote against this, and that
would deny your, and you’d have to tear the thing down. So you’re flipping a coin. You certainly
can.
MR. SANFORD-Well, if it’s approved, but not by a supermajority, is that the same as it being
defeated?
MS. RADNER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Well, we could still have a motion to deny. Wouldn’t we, Cathi? I mean, if we don’t
get a motion to approve, we’d need a motion to deny. Right?
MS. RADNER-No. If it is not passed, approved by supermajority, and there is not a way that you
can pass it by supermajority, by perhaps adding a condition that will satisfy another member, then the
effect is a denial.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we have to explore that, and, John, you know you’re the dissenting
vote here.
MR. STROUGH-At least one camp has its view blocked by this dock, and the dock was built, you
know, without a building permit. We didn’t have a chance to do site plan review, and then build it,
like you’re supposed to. So, you know, there’s a lot of issues in my mind.
MR. RINGER-John, I’m not asking you to change your vote. I wanted to make sure that the
applicants understand the position they’re going to be in, and you stand the risk of, I don’t know if
John wants to tell you what his vote’s going to be right now, but if he votes no, then you’re going to
start, we’ve either got to tear it down or re-apply again. You could go back to the County, and you’re
taking your land bridge out, you’ll probably get approval by the County. That would require a
majority vote here.
MRS. SALOMON-That sounds like that’s the way we should go.
MR. RINGER-I think that would be the way to do it. So I’m going to table this. Laura, the best
thing would be to table it for them to go back to the County?
MRS. MOORE-Correct, upon request by the applicant, and if the Board agrees to that.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2001 ROBERT SUTLIFF, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
For request by the applicant that they will go back to the County, resubmit their plans, taking out the
land bridge, and then it’ll come back to this Board.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Metivier
MR. RINGER-I think that’s your best, rather than to take a gamble. You’ve already got it up. I
mean, then you’d have to tear it down next week. It’s just another meeting that you may have to go
to next month. Okay, and you can get together with Staff for when that meeting is scheduled. Okay,
and she can tell you how to work with the County to re-submit that.
MRS. SALOMON-Yes, that was my next question.
MR. RINGER-And Staff can help you with that.
MRS. SALOMON-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-Did anybody know that that was rejected by the County?
MR. RINGER-No. Laura, thanks for bringing that to our attention. I appreciate that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t know that.
MR. RINGER-But it was so long ago. I mean, this was a long time ago.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It wasn’t in the Staff notes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 6-2001 LONG RIFLE ENTERPRISES
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME CURRENT ZONE: LI-1A PROPOSED ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: 257 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE PARCEL
FROM LI-1A TO HC-1A TO ALLOW FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 75-2000 WARREN CODE CO. PLANNING: 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO.
110-1-1.27 LOT SIZE: 1.8 ACRES SECTION: 179-94
SEAN GARVEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-We should let the Board know that this is also a supermajority vote coming up.
MR. RINGER-Yes, right.
MS. RADNER-With Tony back in his seat, there’s six of you on the Board. One negative vote is
okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I got that. I wanted the Board to understand we were on another one
of these supermajority.
MR. RINGER-But this is a recommendation, and not an approval. So I don’t know if a
supermajority would be a thing here or not.
MS. RADNER-Yes. No, it wouldn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-We would just not give the Town Board the recommendation for a zone change.
MS. RADNER-The Town Board would be the one that would need the, since we’re just making the
recommendation to them, it would be the Town Board that would need to have the supermajority
vote.
MR. RINGER-The supermajority, right, because they’re the one making the decision.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone –PZ 6-2001, Long Rifle Enterprises, Meeting Date:
July 17, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a change of zone from Light Industrial to Highway Commercial.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
Project Analysis
1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?
The applicant proposes to utilize an approved storage area for the sale of vehicles.
2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
The Highway Commercial zone identifies that the sale of automobiles requires site plan review.
3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?
The proposed zone is compatible with the adjacent zones because it borders on three sides by Highway Commercial
and one side by Light Industrial.
4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone?
The parcel is close to the road and is level with no significant topography change.
5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities?
The impacts on public facilities are expected to be minimal, but include Fire, EMS, Highway, and other business
utilities such as electric
.
6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question?
The existing zoning classification for the property is appropriate because of the existing industrial land located on
the West and South West side of the property. The change of zone does reduce the amount of industrial zoned
land in the community. The proposed zoning, Highway Commercial, allows for other site plan review uses besides
auto sales.
7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
The environmental impacts include land clearing for commercial development.
8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master
Plan?
The proposed zone change is located in Neighborhood 10 of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. This area suggests
flexible zoning for industrial or large commercial uses. This area also highlights a need for landscaping,
stormwater and visual control.
9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal?
The proposed zone would increase the Highway Commercial Zone coverage within the Town.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant’s previous site plan for storage has not been completed in regards to landscaping
requirements and a gated access. The proposed use for vehicle sales requires site plan review in the
Highway Commercial zone.
Suggestions
The Planning Board is to provide the Town Board with a recommendation to rezone the property.”
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you please introduce yourself for the record?
MR. GARVEY-Good evening. My name is Sean Garvey. I’m one of the owners of Long Rifle
Enterprises and Garvey Volkswagen, Hyundai. If I look a little bit grayer than I was the last time I
was in front of you guys, it’s probably your imagination. I’d like to give you a little history about
myself, which would help you better understand my application today in front of the Board. Twenty-
three years ago my brothers and I went into business and we started selling Volkswagens in 1978. In
1990 we took on the Hyundai line, and ’98 was KIA, and just recently, which you may have heard,
we took on Mitsubishi. Originally, we started with 12 employees. Right now I have 56 employees
and I’m hiring four more, probably by the end of this month. I’d like to supply the Board with some
statistics. These statistics basically have to do with the amount of property taxes and things such as
that I’ve paid in the last eight and a half years out of the 23 years I’ve been in business. My payroll
during that period of time, at least for the last eight and a half years, was $14 million. I have paid
$113,000 in property and school taxes. I have collected over seven and a half million dollars in the
last eight and a half years in sales tax, of which the Town of Queensbury has received $1.6 million.
You can easily double those figures for the 23 years I’ve been in business. Last summer, with the
three lines that we had, sales were slowly increasing. They’re all small lines, but there was a lot of
business for us, and if you have been on my Volkswagen/Hyundai site, you probably have noticed
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
that it’s been very clustered there, and we decided that the most economical thing that we could
afford was to make a storage facility to store cars, and I mentioned this in front of the Board about a
half year ago. So we bid on a piece of property that the Army Corps of Engineers owned off of Dix
Avenue, and September 25 of last year was our, during the second round of bids, our bid was
th
approved. At that time, I approached Chris Round and asked them for a letter, basically a
determination, to decide if my storage facility was appropriate. I also wanted to bring customers to
that site and show them the cars that I was going to sell. At that time, he said that storage was
allowed, but I could not bring customers on the site because bringing customers on the site would be
construed as auto sales, but grudgingly, because of the bind that I was in for storage, I wanted to
proceed with the application, as a storage facility and in the future, apply for a zone change. This is
so that I could at least use the facility for the winter, with the constraints that were imposed on me
by Light Industrial use, which would allow me only to store cars there in a gated format. I could not
bring customers on the site because the Town perceived that as auto sales. So I proceeded with the
application, because I explained to Chris what I really wanted to do with the property. I had only
seven or ten days to prepare a site plan application, which the Planning Department worked very well
with me, because of the deadline, I wanted to pave this property before winter came, and asphalt
plants typically close around Thanksgiving. Because of the month deadline, obviously the end of
September I approved, I received the letter of approval, and I only had seven or ten days for this
application, because you need everything a full month in advance. So last November I went through
Beautification Committee, Warren County Planning Board, and of course this Planning Board, and
my application was also delayed about a week because of problems with it. The paperwork wasn’t
complete, and of course you did approve the use, for Light Industrial for a storage facility, but I
could not use the site, because I could not pave it. There were two snows during November. It was
a cold November last year, and the asphalt plant closed soon after Thanksgiving anyway. So it
basically sat unused. Also during the winter, I went through two Beautification Committees, because
I received Preliminary approval, but not Final approval, which is something new, apparently, and
those girls are pretty tough. I thought it was going to be a walk in the Park. So, obviously, after
those two Beautification Committee’s, they came up with a Final approval. This spring I paved the
lot, and May 30 is when I turned in my application, of course, to you, for a zone change. Last week,
th
I was called to a dealer meeting, I’m a new dealer for Mitsubishi, though I have no cars, and I was
called to a dealer meeting, a yearly dealer meeting in Las Vegas last week, and so my brother Peter
was the one that appeared in front of the Warren County Planning Board. I, with my limited
knowledge of that procedure, I perceived that it would not have any impact on the County, a zone
change of this size, in the corner of Queensbury, in the corner of the County, and I prepared my
brother for it, but obviously he does not do this. This is my job, to go in front of the Boards, and we
divide our duties, and he was really ill-prepared, to be honest, for any sort of questions that arose,
and, basically to sum up what was said, it did not take that long, they felt that what I said for the site
plan application was different than the zoning application, that I promised them a half year ago that I
wouldn’t put customers on the lot, which I maintained that promise, and the site plan application has
nothing to do with the zoning application. I always thought that they were two separate entities, and
are treated that way. That’s why I’m here tonight, versus six months ago, and that basically sums up
why he was denied. Obviously, the Staff notes which Laura mentioned and touched on, which you
have copies of, which I also have copies of for you, of anything I’m talking about tonight, I perceive
those as favorable. The main areas of concern at the end of the Staff notes was the landscaping was
not done yet and the gate was not in, installed yet. Obviously, since I want to use it for auto sales,
and would make another site plan application for auto sales, there’s no need for a gate, and that’s if I
decide to use the lot. Landscaping, it was just hydro-seeded last week, and landscaping will proceed
in a timely manner. My Petition for Zone Change tonight is for auto sales, which is my original
intended use, which I have letters to Chris Round stating that. Eighty percent of the corridor is
Highway Commercial. I have 10 letters of endorsement, which are at the end of my application.
Basically, only three percent of the Town is commercial use. Fifty-one percent of it is residential,
thirty percent of it is Land Conservation. I don’t perceive this as having a major impact on the
Town. In the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan it states, basically, that the purpose of Highway
Commercial zones are those areas in Queensbury which have already developed fairly intense and
haphazard commercial patterns. The purpose of these zones is to confine development of this type
to these areas while providing for minimal expansion, primarily through in-fill. That lot over there is
surrounded by Highway Commercial use, primarily, and what I’d like to do is in-fill that corridor, that
triangle with Highway Commercial, with a Highway Commercial use. If approved, I hope to build a
dealership there. I’d like to hire more people. I’d like to sell more cars. I’d like to pay more taxes.
I’d like to collect more sales tax. I would like to share that with the Town, so that it can determine
how to spend that. I’m asking for your approval for a zone change. Thank you. I tried to make it
short and sweet. You guys aren’t in this for the money, I know.
MR. RINGER-I bought a car from you last month myself. I definitely agree that the property
probably should be Highway Commercial.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. RINGER-I am disappointed because I kind of agree with County that at least when you came
before us last for the storage, we specifically asked you what your plans were and stuff, and you really
didn’t present it to us, even though we seemed to know and questioned that you really wanted to use
this a used car lot, or new car lot, whatever, but that’s here nor there, and I don’t let personal, but I
kind of, when I saw the County’s rejections, I kind of nodded my head and said, yes, I kind of got a
little ticked off when I saw this application, too, but that’s beside the point, and it’s just a personal
comment.
MR. GARVEY-I thought I addressed that issue when I explained to you why I proceeded with the
application. I really was pressured, and I repetitively talked to the Planning Department and asked
them if I could clear the property before, you know, during the process. They said, no, once the
application was installed, you can’t clear it. You can’t even touch the site. Because I was under a lot
of pressure to pave it so I could use it.
MR. RINGER-I remember the constraints you were under, but I also remember a great deal of
dialogue as to people on the lot.
MR. GARVEY-I had to promise you I could not put my customers on the lot. Absolutely, and I
have maintained that promise.
MR. RINGER-My personal opinion, I think Highway Commercial is certainly a good use, but let’s
start with the Board for any questions. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-First of all, if you want to pay more taxes, you can pay mine any time, really.
Actually, what I’m just doing is looking through Highway Commercial right now, it’s taking me 15
minutes to find it, just to make sure that there’s nothing, because keep in mind, even though we’ve
approved this view, you could turn around and sell the lot, and then we’re stuck with Highway
Commercial in the future, which obviously in that area shouldn’t be an issue because everything else
around it is Highway Commercial, and I think, for the most part, you do a nice job keeping your
buildings, you know, presentable. I guess I am a little bit concerned about the fact that you’re just
getting underway with landscaping. I mean, we’re into the middle of July, and you just stated that it
was just hydro-seeded this past week, and I go by that lot a lot, and, you know, I just think a little bit
more could have been done by now to make it a little bit more presentable. I mean, it doesn’t look
bad. It’s just blacktop at this point, but just keep in mind that we want to be sensitive to these issues.
That corridor there really has to shape up a little bit with landscaping, and, you know, please be
sensitive to that, that, you know, those ladies do take a lot of pride in the Town of Queensbury, and
if they have landscaping plans that they’ve approved for you, that it really should be set forth, and
now that we’re halfway through the summer, you know, it just seems like it’s not on your list of
priorities, and really it should be. As far as uprooting this, I mean, I, too, was a little bit taken aback
at first, but you’re surrounded by car dealerships there, and it seems to be an appropriate use, and I
knew, in my heart, deep down inside somewhere, that you could probably come back and some point
and want to start selling cars there, and I think my approval is based a little bit on that. So, really,
there I have no issues with it. I think it’ll be a fine thing for you, and like I said, I think that you guys
do a really nice job maintaining your areas.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-And I do wish you luck, and that’s really all I have. I guess I didn’t have any
questions, but just stated my opinion on it.
MR. GARVEY-If I could comment on that landscaping, the site plan required a lot more money
than I originally thought. There’s $67,000 worth of dirt there, which I never planned on spending,
and it did stretch our bank accounts, and sometimes I do possibly delay certain things. I’m not as
timely, in the way maybe I should be, but I really wanted one particular person to do the hydro-
seeding, and this was the best time for him. Basically, after the landscaping, after, they had to work
on the lawn again this spring. Once that was done, within two weeks it was hydro-seeded. So I will
try to rush the landscaping, absolutely. I’m going to be, you’re going to be proud of it.
MR. METIVIER-In your defense, I have heard comments about all the hydro-seeders this year
having a terrible time. It’s been a terrible season for hydro-seeding, and in your defense, I
understand that. I know that a lot of people are just, honestly, getting around to it now, and I
understand with the weather the way it’s been, and, you know, that’s fine, but I just wanted to stress
the point that I hope you take the landscaping issues seriously.
MR. GARVEY-I do, and it will look very good. You’ll be proud of what it looks like.
MR. RINGER-I would presume, if you get your change of zone, that you’re probably going to come
back for site plan.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. GARVEY-I have to, yes.
MR. RINGER-You’ll have to come back, and there’ll be some landscaping done on that, too.
Richard, is that all, Tony? I’m sorry.
MR. METIVIER-No, that’s all.
MR. SANFORD-That was one clarification, thanks, Larry. Yes, I mean, this is for re-class. This
isn’t for a site plan. That’ll come later.
MR. GARVEY-I still can’t bring customers on the site, if you approve this.
MR. SANFORD-A question, I guess, just, why does this require a supermajority?
MR. RINGER-Because the County rejected it, denied it.
MS. RADNER-It really doesn’t, because you’re not approving anything tonight. You’re just making
a recommendation. So when you’re discussing supermajority and whether we needed supermajority,
we were just talking about general overrule of a Warren County Planning Board denial. You’re just
making a recommendation here, and the Town Board, which ultimately decides whether to re-zone
this or not, will have to be the ones to deal with that Warren County denial.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, my nose was not bent out of joint because I wasn’t at any of the
previous meetings, but as I look at this project, and try to be a little thick skinned, it seems to make
perfect sense. Perfect location for what you’re hoping to do with this. You have my support 100%
on this.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much.
MR. RINGER-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m going to be coming from a different place than most of the other Board
members on this. I remember sitting here, a year ago, when Warren Rosenthal came before us and
talked about the slow depletion, really, of industrial property in the Town of Queensbury, and here
we go again with another cut into the industrial zone. It seems to me that the way you’ve got it set
up now, it’s almost impossible for the Town to make a move. You have an operation going under
the industrial area where you can just store cars on the lot and respective customers can’t come on,
and that’s one phase that you’re in. You’re in that phase now.
MR. GARVEY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The second phase you’ll want to do is to come up with a Petition for a Zone
Change, which would allow you to take a quantum leap into building a dealership on that property.
So that means that that property is forever taken off the Light Industrial roll. I remember Warren
Rosenthal sort of sitting in front of us at that time stating that, slowly but surely industrial, Light
Industrial property in the Town of Queensbury was being depleted.
MR. GARVEY-If, for example, let’s say I built a building there, and let’s make believe I decided, I
went out of business, five to ten years from now, and a toy manufacturer wanted to make toys there,
and they would want to fill the building with 50 employees. They would have to, of course, approach
you for your approval because that’s Light Industrial, and I would presume that you would probably
say yes, only because they’re employing people. They wouldn’t be really impacting the
neighborhood. You’d be using an empty building. So I have never heard the speech that you’re
referring to, but at least that’s the way I simplistically look at it. It would seem like it would be good
for the Town, no matter what’s there, almost.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you, I understand what you’re saying, and there’s some sense to that. I
guess I have a concern, not with you on this particular thing, but with certain components in the
Town who are really not doing the kind of marketing job that I think this Town ought to be doing,
going out and looking for industrial people to come in. I think people sit in the office and just wait
for the phone to ring, and that’s never going to happen, now. So, I guess that’s my main concern
with this application. I think you, I agree with the other Board members. You run a nice dealership.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s clean. It looks good in the Town and so on, but my fundamental concern is
pulling Light Industrial property out of the mix.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. GARVEY-Well, if you look upon, at least the way the Town wide inventory is laid out, which I
have copies of if you wish, you have, five percent of the Town is Light Industrial, and three percent
is Commercial, and everything else is basically Recreational Commercial or residential parkland or
Land Conservation or Planned Unit Development, and obviously these businesses are where the big
money comes in.
MR. VOLLARO-All the more reason. Five percent isn’t very much, when you look at it, and all the
more reason why we should, you know, try to hold on to our Light Industrial property. This toy
manufacturer that you mythically discussed a few minutes ago would be great, but somebody’s got to
go out and get him, and I think he’s lurking out there maybe somewhere, but people have to go grab
him, and that’s not going to happen with the way the Town is running right now. That’s my own
personal opinion, and it’ll be in the record, and Town Board members will obviously look at that
record and see what this Board had to say about it, but that’s about where I am with this.
MR. GARVEY-We have very good employees, and obviously this is a good place to employee
people. That’s one of my strongest assets are the 56 families that are working for me now, and the
Town could possibly promote itself more. I don’t know exactly what they do, I just know, obviously,
I kind of have tunnel vision. I work a lot and I drive between my house and work, and I don’t
experience a lot, and I’m kind of like you guys. I don’t take the big picture in sometimes. I love this
Town. I love living in this community. The people that I think that love the Town the most are
possibly this Board here and the other Boards that I have to sit in front of, because you’re not doing
this for the money. I know that you’re not. You’re doing it because you care. You love the
community, and what you’re trying to do is tweak or control it’s growth, so it’s presentable. So I’m
asking for your affirmative vote.
MR. RINGER-Cathy? Bob, I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m finished, Larry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I share Bob’s concern, but the last time an applicant came in front of us, if I
can remember, was for a subdivision. So we had to get rid of the Light Industrial property so we
could build, have another subdivision and build more houses, which I voted against. This here, to
me, you’re very conforming in the area that you want to do this.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I don’t see any reason why I would not support your project, Mr.
Garvey. I would tend to think like you’re thinking. Maybe down the line, when you don’t have the
dealership, and you’re retired, and your kids maybe don’t want to take it over, and another company
comes in that is light manufacturing, maybe we could zone it back. I don’t know that we would
throw a company out because we didn’t have a place to put them in our Town. So I kind of tend to
be positive thinking along those terms. Is it possible to re-zone it back?
MR. VOLLARO-If we could have some dialogue on the Board, which is probably a good idea,
Cathy, so I’m going to try to talk to you on the subject, the less industrial property you have, the less
likelihood you have of bringing people in. It diminishes the probability.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what Warren was talking about.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. People would look at the Town map and say, my gosh, that
would have been a nice spot, but it’s zoned.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s already taken.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s already taken.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the concept right there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s where the Town, our Town officials should say, yes, but there’s
always ways that we can get around those things, if they go out to look for companies to come in.
MR. RINGER-But the right idea, and this is off the subject, was the Veteran’s Park, getting stuff
shovel ready Light Industrial, and that’s the way to go about it, but that’s not anything to do with this
application.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, it isn’t, and it’s not Mr. Garvey’s fault that, you know, that people aren’t
on the phones trying to conjure up light manufacturing businesses to come into our Town. So that’s
not your problem. I think this is a good plan.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Mr. Garvey, the whole process, you’re getting really good at this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You did your homework.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you. I have no, I don’t have anything to compare my applications to. I don’t
know if they’re too long or too short or too plain or too simple.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. You’ve done a nice job here.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-And I share Tony’s concern about the landscaping, and I share Bob’s concern
about the loss of Light Industrial, but in this case, this is kind of a unique spot, and the car sales, in
my mind, works, and I certainly will vote in favor of recommending rezoning to Highway
Commercial.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Just one question. How come the lighting on the site plan is different than the
lighting that’s there?
MR. GARVEY-What is deceiving is that I believe that I did not pave the whole area. I got
permission to pave, I think, 400 feet back, and I chose not to, and maybe that’s what’s.
MR. STROUGH-Now there’s, on here it shows lighting for six fixtures, and down there you’ve got
12 fixtures.
MR. RINGER-John, you should only be looking at the subdivision and not at the site plan.
MR. STROUGH-I just thought I’d ask the question.
MR. GARVEY-There were many light plans presented. It’s possible that it wasn’t transferred onto
this, or I maybe grabbed an old map to Photostat, but I was under the, the candle power was
discussed and re-discussed and reapplied many times before you saw it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, so I just thought I’d ask. I don’t mean to take away my support for rezoning.
I just noticed it there.
MR. GARVEY-Okay.
MR. RINGER-It’ll change, anyway, when he comes back for site plan. No, I just didn’t know how
far you were going to go with that. Go on.
MR. STROUGH-I’m done.
MR. RINGER-You’re done. Okay. I also really think that it’s a good location for Highway
Commercial and your operation, and you certainly need more room. My wife had to move the car
three times today, while I was inside, because it was in the way, and she was ticked off, when I came
out, she said, I had to move the car three times, you know.
MR. GARVEY-Well, tell her that your attending to the complaint.
MR. RINGER-I said I’ll see him tonight, and I’ve got to see you again tomorrow. I’ll be there in the
morning, but in any event, aside from that, we have a public hearing on this. So I’ll ask you to give
up the table, and anyone from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I served on the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use
Committee, and I can tell you, we talked long and hard about this very subject, and that area, and that
whole area, what should we do about that zoning, okay, was there a need for the Light Industrial?
And I really don’t know. We’re going through a new zoning process right now, and I don’t know
what is recommended in that plan for the future of this area.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know, either, John. The current plan recommends Light Industrial and
Highway Commercial, the Comprehensive Use Plan, I should say.
MR. SALVADOR-Anyway, we did talk long and hard about it. From my experience in this Town,
on this subject of storage and sales, I would conclude that the applicant doesn’t have to be here. Our
experience, dealing with the same sort of vacant land, if you will, used for storage, the issue came up,
could the owner use that for sales? He was trucking, transporting potential buyers of the products to
this site, showing them the product, taking them back to their main facility. At that time, Jim Martin
was in charge of the Department, John Goralski was in the zoning, and Nick Caimano sat in that seat
over there. The applicant’s permission to continue to use the property for storage and sales,
although the sales was not allowed, was the fact that the point of sale did not take place on the
property. The point of sale, where you signed the contract, took place someplace else, and that’s
where the sale took place. The simple fact that someone was taken there and shown the product,
maybe even climb around it, if you will, was immaterial. It turned on the fact that the point of sale
took place in another place. So I would say that, from that experience and that determination, and
that analogy, this applicant doesn’t need this.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, John.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, my only point, John, was that this piece of property is being taken off the
rolls of Light Industrial, and therefore, that property slowly begins to shrink, and the applicability of
that to anybody coming in gets, the probability gets less and less and less, as we shrink the property.
That’s my only concern, and if we have decided, in the Town, that we won’t do anymore Light
Industrial, that’s something that the Town Board has to grapple with, but I’m trying, on this Board,
to preserve that concept until the Town Board says, look, we’re not going to do anymore of that.
We’re going to just let everybody take over the Light Industrial, and there won’t be anymore, and
that maybe is what we want to do. I’m going to let those people (lost word).
MR. RINGER-John, the Zoning Administrator made the determination that storage and sales were
separate. That was not challenged by Mr. Garvey. So the determination of the Zoning
Administrator is what stood, and still stands on this particular application. I appreciate your
comments, but the determination was made. It could have been challenged and it wasn’t.
MR. SALVADOR-Remember, consistency is something that we should try to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, can I just clarify what you said, John?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because I think it makes a little bit of sense here. In other words, you’re
saying that, why bother with the zone change. Just leave it the way it is. Just leave it for storage. Let
the people go over there, pick out the car they want, but then bring all the paperwork where the sale
actually occurs, where the transfer of funds to the bank, yadda yadda, the whole thing, at the main
office, on the other side of the road.
MR. SALVADOR-This is exactly what was done in the case of.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you can’t do it now, because it’s after the fact.
MR. RINGER-No, the determination has been made by the Zoning Administrator. That can be
challenged, but it wasn’t, and it still could be challenged, but it wasn’t, and we have a different
application before us right now. Anything else, John?
MR. SALVADOR-With regard to Mr. Vollaro’s comment, Warren Rosenthal is no longer with us.
The Town did take care of that, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just got that message.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know who took care of it, but it was in the paper today.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I missed that.
MR. RINGER-He resigned. He just resigned today, Cathy. Thank you, John.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. Any other comments from the public? All right. I’ll close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Sean?
MR. GARVEY-Thank you. Just as a reminder, the property was owned by the Army Corps of
Engineers. So they would never have used it as a Light Industrial use, and there were no taxes being
paid on it. Just as an aside.
MR. METIVIER-And I’d like to state, certainly, from what that property was, even though it’s a
piece of blacktop right now, is 2,000 times better.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, that’s my feeling, at least.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think there’s any doubt on this Board that the property looks better now than
it did before. Any other questions from the Board? Laura, any comments?
MRS. MOORE-No, I don’t have any comments.
MR. RINGER-Okay. No SEQRA or anything on this, so all we need is a motion or a
recommendation, if anyone would like to make it. We have a prepared resolution.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE TOWN BOARD OF PETITION
FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 6-2001 LONG RIFLE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of PZ 6-2001, for Long Rifle Enterprises, to
rezone parcel from LI-1A to HC-1A to allow for Automobile Sales. Recommendation Only to the
Town Board. Tax Map No. 110-1-1.27. Cross Reference: SP 75-2000.and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 5/25/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 07/13/01:
7/17 Staff Notes
7/13 Warren Co. Planning Bd. recommendation – Denied
7/10 Notice of Public Hearing
6/6 Letter to involved agencies, TB requesting Lead Agency Status
6/4 TB resolution, 239,2001
5/30 Town Clerk from L. Moore – staff determination for complete application
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/17/01 concerning the above project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The recommendation to the Town Board is approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2001 by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to vote, no, and I’m going to vote no with a qualified vote that says the
reason I’m voting no is that I feel that this is being done at the expense of Light Industry, which is
shrinking in the Town, and it’s not a vote against Mr. Garvey, believe me. It’s a vote against the
principle of keeping a certain amount of Light Industry in the Town, and if that requirement is
changed, then the Town Board should start to make some decisions along those lines, but that’s my
qualification for a no vote. Thanks.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, Mr. Garvey.
MR. GARVEY-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GETTY PETROLEUM PROPERTY
OWNER: GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING, INC. AGENT: RONALD FORTUNE
ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF RIDGE RD. & RT. 149 APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW GETTY GAS STATION WITH CONVENIENCE STORE. NEW USES IN HC
ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 39-2001, SV 40-2001 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 TAX MAP
NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT SIZE: 2.78 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing that was left open from June 26.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2001, Getty Petroleum, Meeting Date: July 17, 2001 “Project
Description
The applicant was tabled at the previous meeting pending a variance request from the zoning board.
The applicant has submitted revised plans eliminating the need for a variance request. The applicant
has rearranged the car canopy island to be within the required setback and has adjusted the size sign
to meet the code requirements.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
Site Overview
The building will be located in a similar location to the existing building, but will be
perpendicular with the road. The building will have red brick façade with soffit lighting and wall
box lights. The building height including the copula is 26+/- feet. The building main entrance
will be along Route 149 with a side entrance on the east side for the Truck Fuel Island. The
applicant’s plan shows the location of the signage on the site. The applicant is aware the sign
square footage needs to be reduced from 65 square feet to 64 square feet.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
The applicant has provided a plan showing the travel route of trucks and other vehicles on
the site. The Truck fuel island is designed for one-way traffic that appears to handle three
trucks. The car fuel island is designed for two way traffic that is accessed from either Route
149 or Ridge Road. The applicant has provided 24 parking spaces where only 20 are
required by code. The plans also show that the car island can accommodate up to six
vehicles.
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
The applicant has provided a landscaping plan and a stormwater plan. The Stormwater plan
was forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. The Board may suggest a sprinkler
system be installed as part of the maintenance of the landscaping.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant was informed at the zoning board of appeals that there is to be no disturbance within
the buffer area. The applicant has indicated sheet S-1C showing the light poles in the buffer is an
error. The removal of the concrete pad in the buffer and the regrading/landscaping of the concrete
pad area is allowed. But, all other area grading and the landscaping within the buffer area needs to be
moved outside of the buffer area.
The applicant had proposed the project in December of 1999 and was tabled for the following
reasons:
??
The applicant was to consider the comments from Chazen Company on lighting
??
The applicant was to provide architectural design and color of building
??
The applicant was to review internal traffic and parking area
??
The application was to be forwarded to AGFTC for comment on internal traffic
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
LIGHTING
The plans indicate the pole lights have been reduced from 400watts to 250 watts,
confirmation of the number of poles should be addressed, Sheet L-1 indicates 12 pole
lights and LSI Plan indicates 13. The number of poles has not been reduced and the
pole height remains at 14 feet compared to the previous plan.
The Canopy lights have also been reduced from 400 watts to 250 watts according to the
LSI sheet. The number of canopy lights has been clarified as 18; eight will be for the
truck canopy and ten will be for the car canopy. The applicant had submitted a revised
lighting plan (7/11/01) that indicates two of the light poles are to be moved out of the
buffer zone. The remaining light in the buffer needs to be moved outside of the buffer
area.
The wall-mounted light is noted as two different wattages, sheet L-1 indicates 175 watts,
but sheet A-2 and LSI sheet indicates 250 watts.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND COLOR
The applicant has provided an alternate architectural design theme. The previous
drawing showed a block building similar to the existing building to be placed on the site.
The proposed building appears to be compatible with the 1998 Comp Plan. The Comp
Plan suggests maintaining the area with a rural appearance.
TRAFFIC
The plans were not forwarded to AGFTC and the internal traffic plan has not been
changed since the previous proposal. CT Male has been provided with the application
for review and was asked to comment on the internal traffic circulation.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the following:
??
A sprinkler system be installed for maintenance of the landscaping.
??
Clarification should be provided about the wall-mounted light, sheet A-2 indicates two 250
watt lights and sheet L-1 indicates a 175 watt light.
??
The plans should be revised to eliminate work in the buffer; this includes landscaping,
regrading, and movement of a light pole.
??
In addition plans should be revised to be consistent with each other:
1. The LSI sheet shows the dumpsters with an opening on the west side, all other
plans show the dumpster gate opening to the south;
2. The LSI sheet does not correspond with the sheet L-1 in regards to photometric
data, 250 watts or 400 watts;
3. Sheet L-1 needs to clarify light type for the wall pack–metal halide or high pressure
sodium;
4. Sheet A-2 does not correspond with the LSI sheet in regards to the location of the
wall pack lights.”
MR. RINGER-Okay. I don’t know if there’s anyone here from the applicant or not.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, there is.
MR. RINGER-You are here. Okay. We have not received information back from C.T. Male, and
we’re really not prepared to act on your application tonight. It’s going to be tabled. I think you were
told this by Staff, that you would probably be tabled.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes. We did not receive their comments until Friday, and we did speak with them
today, and they said that if we were to get the revisions that they had recommended and what we had
talked about on the phone to them by Friday, that they would have a recommendation, a positive
recommendation on it, for the next meeting. So it’s your decision.
MR. RINGER-Right. What I’m saying is I think we should table this to the next meeting, until we
get that information from Male, because we can’t act on it tonight. Okay. So, I’d like a motion to
table until the August meeting. How about the first August meeting? That would be, I’ll give you
the date right now, August 21.
st
MR. FORTUNE-I thought there was a meeting next week?
MR. RINGER-There is a meeting next week, but it’s pretty full, and I don’t think we’re going to be
able to add that on. Laura? Let me check with Staff. I mean, I can see this as being a little bit
lengthy.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MRS. MOORE-You have six items on your agenda for next week. I’m not going to tell you that
they’re, it’s up to you.
MR. RINGER-I’d prefer not to, and Pyramid Mall, too, if that comes on board, it would make seven.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. RINGER-So I would say, no, and we’ll look at August 21, and then would give Male plenty of
st
time, and you plenty of time to answer all their comments, and we should have everything down.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Can I just ask, the applicant has, you know, come to the site. Does any
Board member have any questions or concerns that you might address at this time, so that they can
be incorporated into the August plan? I know we discussed that.
MR. RINGER-I just didn’t want to get into a long, that we’re going to do all over again in August.
However, I’ll certainly leave it up to our Board, if they feel you’ve got some questions that you’d
really like to get answered tonight.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t know why, if this is the case, why we didn’t do this in the beginning of the
meeting and?
MR. RINGER-And not hold him up? Well, because I didn’t think of it. I knew I was going to table
it, John, but I had forgotten, and I really didn’t know, the Board can always say, look, I want to hear
all this stuff. Personally, I just feel that if we hear it now, we’re going to hear the same stuff again at
the next meeting. I didn’t want to duplicate or delay us in any way.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, one of the comments that I’m going to, and again, I also am
waiting for C.T. Male, but one of the comments that I wanted to make is, in the proposed rezoning,
I’ll just run this by you, but, you know, this intersection, in the new rezoning code, which hasn’t been
adopted, I know, Bob, but, you know, if you want to be proactive.
MR. VOLLARO-I was proactive tonight, John.
MR. RINGER-What’s your question, John?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, what we’re trying to do with the Route 149 Corridor is try and make
it Adirondack theme. Let me read to you, and this is by no means obligatory on your behalf. I just
want you to be familiar with this. So that, whatever, I’ll give it a shot anyway. It says that the
Adirondack architectural theme, the intent is to create a commercial intersection, it’s talking about
149 Corridor, and 149/Ridge Road corner specifically, with something of an Adirondack character.
Okay. Now they want to make 149 what they call a scenic destination, a unique area, and they’ve
gone to say, in the rezoning proposal, that the architectural style and rooflines would create a theme,
promoting an upscale business area along 149, with an Adirondack theme, and I just wanted to share
that with the Planning Board members, and like I say, this has not been adopted, but some people
have, on a voluntary basis, have come forward and said, you know, we like where you’re going with
this. Yes, we can come up with something that we think you’d be happy with, along the ideas of an
Adirondack theme. So, I’ll run that by you and I’ll put it out there, for whatever it’s worth, okay.
MR. RINGER-That’s good, John. You weren’t on the Board when Getty came before us, before,
about a year and a half or two years ago, I believe it was, with a building that was totally
architecturally rejected by the Board, and we told them, or asked them, to come back with something
different. What they did come back with was much different than their original plan, okay. It wasn’t
what you’re looking for, but certainly better than their original plan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I think the building style that you’ve put forward, traditionally
Getty convenience look you know, which is acceptable, and there’s nothing wrong with it, but I don’t
know if it fits in with the Adirondack theme, and I don’t know if there’s any impetus amongst the
Planning Board members to go in this direction at this time, but I just wanted to get it out there.
Okay, and, for references, a lot of what’s referred to is on Page 52 and they even have sign
recommendations and etc., in the fifties, if you look at the draft zoning ordinance, and it is only a
draft.
MR. RINGER-If you like, you can get together with Staff and review that, and if you feel you can
modify your plans.
MR. FORTUNE-I believe the package before you had that, some of that consideration to it.
MR. RINGER-Compared to what you had previously submitted.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. FORTUNE-Well even, I mean, before it was a white brick building with a red band flat roof.
This here is a gabled roof, which is not in our purview of a proposal for a Getty standard package, a
cupola and then the material that is on the building is completely different than what would be an
approach today at any standard upgrade.
MR. RINGER-Well, John had some things, and if you’d like, you can get together with Staff and
they can show you or make photocopies of the proposed thing, and perhaps you may feel you want
to put some in, if you can.
MRS. MOORE-That information has already been provided to them.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So you have that.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make, so long as we’re into this. On the Route 149 side of your
project, there should be, on the drawing there should be a 75 foot Travel Overlay Zone line laid in
there. Not that it’s going to make an awful lot of difference to the project, because there’s nothing
there right now that’s going to interfere with that, but there is a 75 foot Travel Overlay zone on
Route 149, all the way from Route 9 down to the, I guess it’s the Fort Ann line.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes. I believe the plans do denote that, that distance.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I looked at couldn’t find it. So that’s the only reason I’m stating it.
MR. METIVIER-It’s funny, I had the same exact issue with that, because that, what they’re doing is
supposedly going to end up all the way up to Route 4, if I’m not mistaken.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve got a lot of the projected DOT changes to Route 149 on the drawing.
That I know you do, but the 75 foot Overlay, Travel Overlay Zone, should be shown probably from
the DOT marking that you’ve got for the future. You’ve got the drive road, and then you’ve got a
right of way, and you move it up to what DOT’s going to do, if you take a look, I think that’s your S.
MRS. MOORE-I see, on their S-1C, a 75 foot setback line from Route 149.
MR. VOLLARO-You do?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-If you could double check that, because, you know, Bob brought it up. When I asked
you to sit down, I didn’t ask you to identify yourself. Would you please identify yourself.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes. For the record, my name is Ron Fortune of Lee, Mass, the agent for this.
MR. RINGER-We’re going to table it, but I wanted to make sure that there wasn’t something really
big that the Board member wanted them to do.
MR. STROUGH-On Plan S-10 you talk about the driveway entrances proposed by New York State
DOT, taking a new edge of road to be upgraded in the Year 2000.
MR. FORTUNE-That hasn’t happened as of yet.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MR. FORTUNE-But that was the plan. We were identifying the taking that would happen on a plan
that they had taken at that point.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Laura.
MR. STROUGH-And on S-2, I see the layout, but I’m not sure if you need one, but I didn’t see a
distribution box for the infiltration beds.
MR. FORTUNE-That’s taken care of under C.T. Male, which you’re at a disadvantage of.
MR. RINGER-That’s why I didn’t want to get into all of this, because Male is going to cover most of
these, John.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. STROUGH-There were just a couple of other things. On S-9, which is the stormwater
management plan, I think you want to take a look at, we’re talking about the drain bed. You’re not
putting a 24 inch diameter perforated PVC?
MR. FORTUNE-Twenty-four inch diameter, yes.
MR. STROUGH-That’s going in there? Okay, that’s accurate, then?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes, 24 inch, yes. Most of the infiltration beds are of that material, that 24 inch
bed, yes.
MR. STROUGH-I thought I’d ask, and on S-9, you’d want to remove the septic field notation on the
top.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Yes, there’s a few things as to lighting that Laura had pointed out, in Staff’s
recommendations, and that was, again, some clarity that I was going to address.
MR. STROUGH-And on the elevation detail, well, it’s not listed, but it’s called the self-serve mode
fire suppression plan?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-There’s some things I don’t think belong on the elevation detail, that blocks, I
think they were meant for another detail and somehow got stamped on there.
MR. FORTUNE-That’s right. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. RINGER-So let’s move for a table then, the table would be August 21.
st
MR. FORTUNE-There’s no sooner date that I could get, is there?
MR. RINGER-What you can do is, I’m Acting Chairman, and I’m not going to put you on for next
week.
MR. FORTUNE-Okay.
MR. RINGER-If you really feel strongly, you can contact Staff tomorrow, ask Staff to call the
Chairman, and maybe we can get a special meeting for you.
MR. FORTUNE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-But I’m not going to put you on next week, no. Right now I’m going to schedule you
for our first meeting in August, the 21, but if you do call Staff tomorrow and they can get a hold of
st
the Chairman and see if he’ll consider having a special meeting. Okay.
MR. FORTUNE-Thank you.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 GETTY PETROLEUM, Introduced by
Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Until August 21, 2001, and the reason for the tabling is for additional information coming back from
CT Male Associates and compliance with some of the requests in Staff notes.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Thank you very much.
MR. FORTUNE-Thank you for your time.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE
LEASED REALTY CORP. – NETWORK MANAGER FOR SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
PROPERTY OWNER: RAMADA INN/GF ASSOCIATES AGENT: MARGARET
SMITH/PYRAMID SITE ACQUISITION SERVICES ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 1
ABBEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 120’ STEALTH
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FLAGPOLE WITHIN A 20’ X 20’ EQUIPMENT
COMPOUND AREA. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-73.1 PLACEMENT
AND/OR OPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 12-
2001 (2/28/01) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 97-2-6 LOT SIZE:
N/A SECTION: 179-73.1
JACQUELINE PHILLPS MURRAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearings have been on April 24, tabled to June 19, tabled to
thth
July 17. So there is one tonight.
th
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-2001, Independent Wireless One Leased Realty Corp., Meeting
Date: July 17, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant was tabled at the June 19, 2001 meeting for additional information. The applicant has
provided visual simulations from:
??
West side of John Burke Apartments
??
Backyard of 61 Old Mill Lane
??
Intersection of Old Mill Lane and Fairwood Drive
In addition, the applicant has supplied a coverage map showing existing antenna and approved
antenna locations.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The application was previously forwarded to CT Male for comment; at this time they have no
additional comments from their April 19, 2001 letter.
The Planning Board had requested additional information from the City of Glens Falls and Warren
County in regards to not allowing collocation. This information has been provided for the Board’s
review.”
MR. RINGER-Okay, and we’ve got that information, and I don’t think we need to read that into the
record, unless the Board members feel they need to be read. Okay. Anything else, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Good evening. Would you please identify yourselves for the record?
MS. MURRAY-Yes. My name is Jacqueline Phillips Murray. I’m with the law firm of Crane, Greene
and Perrente in Albany, New York, and I represent Independent Wireless One Corporation.
PAUL MATUSAK
MR. MATUSAK-Paul Matusak, Director of Engineering for Independent Wireless One.
DAVID PUTNAM
MR. PUTNAM-David Putnam, RF Manager for Independent Wireless One.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. You were tabled last month to get certain information, and you have
gotten that information. Do you have any comments on any of it before I turn it over to our Board
members?
MS. MURRAY-Yes. I would just like to reiterate, as we discussed at the last meeting, that although
the application originally was for a 120 foot structure, we are amenable to reducing the height to 100
feet, and that is the height that is depicted in the photo simulations that were requested by the Board.
MR. RINGER-Okay. The ones from John Burke and the ones from Old Mill Lane are the 100 foot?
MS. MURRAY-Yes, sir, and also, we did bring with us this evening overlays of the plots that were
submitted to, the plot that was submitted to the Board showing the existing coverage, the proposed
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
coverage, and the approved coverage in the area, without showing the coverage that we seek to
provide with the proposed flagpole.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else?
MS. MURRAY-That’s it. We’re ready for any questions that the Board might have, and I would like
to just note that we do have Anthony Stellato here again from Clough Harbour and Associates, and
he is here to answer any questions concerning photographic simulations, and we also have Curt
Badore here from Techtonic Engineering, and he is here to answer any questions that the Board
might have concerning the site plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you. John, we’ll start at that end.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, first of all, there is no Glens Falls North in Queensbury.
MR. RINGER-John, excuse me. Before we, we’re going to take a five minute break, okay. Just a
couple of minutes to stretch, and then we’ll get right back into it. So, we’ll take five minutes. John, if
you’ll continue on.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. In the new simulation photos, and thank you for those, the tower height,
should I talk to Mr. Stellato on this matter? The visual.
ANTHONY STELLATO
MR. STELLATO-Do you want to see just the new photos?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, just the new photos.
MR. STELLATO-Okay. Now you also have these in your packets.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know, but, now the representations that you’ve shown in the photos, the
before and afters, the after the tower is built was based on 120 feet?
MR. STELLATO-These are 100. These are 100 feet, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Because I didn’t see that noted.
MR. STELLATO-Yes, it may not be on the photo, but everything since the second submission was
100 feet. The photo sims follow the current plans.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. STELLATO-We also, we did two sets of photo sims for the original pictures, too. I’ve got the
120’s and the 100’s, but since we had come down on the tower height, at this point we only did 100.
MR. STROUGH-So that’s at 100 feet? That would be the visual impact at 100 feet?
MR. STELLATO-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s all the questions I have for now.
MR. STELLATO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, John?
MR. STROUGH-No, that was it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay for now.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want me to talk? Okay. One of the best presentations is this new one that
you came up with, which shows the adjacent site without 381 in the mix, and in looking at that, I
noticed that if I were on my way up to Lake George, for example, the coverage is right on the edge
of Route 9, but not within that white space where the Northway travels slightly to the left there. So,
you know, for that one little break in Northway coverage, I don’t know that, all of the Village of Lake
George is covered real well. So I can go all the way from Moreau, all the way to the Village of Lake
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
George. If I knew a little bit about this before I made the run, I’d break off onto Route 9, and I
would hold the signal all the way up. That’s one of the things that this does show. Am I correct in
that?
MR. PUTNAM-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I notice in some of your write-ups here that you’re operating about 97 db down?
Is that where you are in your?
MR. PUTNAM-Yes, about mig 98.
MR. VOLLARO-About mig 98, is that where you are?
MR. PUTNAM-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s pretty sensitive. I guess, I giving an overall summation, in looking at
this thing for the fourth or fifth time, I would say that I like the idea of the 100 foot pole, if we’re
going to put this in. I’d like it not to be a flagpole, and I’d like it not to be lit, because I think all of
those things accentuate the presence of it. Now, the other part of my concern is, having read some
of the proceedings from the Glens Falls meetings, this is the Glens Falls Common Council, I read
through this and I said, gee, it looks to me like they seem to agree to this. This is the minutes that
come out of the Glens Falls Common Council meeting, and at the very end, I guess somebody on
the Board here just told me that we didn’t get all of it, but if you read this, it seems to me that the
Common Council almost agrees that, yes, this is not a bad idea. Were any of you at that meeting?
MS. MURRAY-No, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-No. Pretty interesting reading. Okay. That’s just a comment I had.
MR. SANFORD-Laura, I thank you for following through with all the requests, but as I followed
through it, it was clear how the County stood with things, but it looks like there’s one Common
Council meeting minutes that we don’t have, because when you follow this wild story, in terms of the
dialogue and the comments and what have you, it gets to a point where they adjourn until I think it’s
September 7, and then we don’t know what happened then. So, I’m following this sort of as a
th
drama as it unfolds, and one person likes it one time and they don’t like it the next time. They talk
about the money. The money gets anted up, and then one guy talks about honorable causes and not
honorable causes, and then they talk about, when is it going to end, because you could put a school
in, but you know we’re giving up all our land, and I’m reading this and then it just ends, and it’s like,
you know, your t.v. went out before you saw the end of the movie. So, do you have a page or so that
we don’t have?
MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of.
MR. RINGER-The newspaper article that came out that said that the three councilmen, members
were opposed to it. As a result of that, no further action was going to be taken because, so it never
went to an actual vote in the City, at the City Council, because three members were opposed and
they just said it isn’t going to pass and we’re dropping it.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I’ll turn it back over to Bob, with one comment, though. I’m a little
surprised. Because we’re flattered here, I know I am, with the representation that we get at every one
of our meetings. I’m surprised that you didn’t have representation at all at the Glens Falls meetings.
MS. MURRAY-There was a representative from Pyramid Site Acquisition who is a Site Acquisition
Agent for Independent Wireless One, who was there solely to try to push the lease forward. So I
don’t want this Board to have the misperception that there was no representation there. Mr.
Reitman, who is noted in the minutes of the meeting, was the representative there on behalf of
Independent Wireless One, and notably, he really bent over backwards over a period of nine months
trying to get this lease, because IWO’s main goal is to use existing structures whenever possible, and
it makes sense from an economic perspective, as well as the perspective of being a good neighbor,
and only when that is not a possibility do we come in and propose a new structure, and our goal is to
propose something that’s going to have the least impact on the community as possible, and that’s
why we proposed the stealth facility.
MR. SANFORD-I believe you. Anyway, I’ll turn it back to Bob. I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-No problem. I appreciate the support, because I had the same problem with this.
It does drop dead at the end.
MR. SANFORD-It drops dead, yes.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. RINGER-Because they never did take a vote.
MR. VOLLARO-I was reading on and said, look, it looks like they’re going to approve this. This is
what it looked like to me as I read through the minutes. One of the things, I’m reading here in I
guess it’s Fire Prevention and Building Code Enforcement, this has to do with placing your antennas
on the Warren County Municipal Center building. You went through that to look. Because that
would have been a site that would have worked for you, on the tower, and I guess what they were
talking about was interference. It seems to me that near field rejection techniques are pretty good
these days. I just don’t understand how they came to this conclusion? They were looking right, to
me, when I read this, that unforeseen things is what they were worried about, but I think we know
how to do near field rejection pretty good.
MR. PUTNAM-Absolutely. We’ve co-located with municipal entities on several different locations
without any issues, and we let them know that as well.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty odd that they, I mean, I think technically, in my own opinion, this is just
me speaking here, because I was in the same business you’re in, but in an entirely different area. I
was in the radar business, but I understand what you’re doing here, and I just don’t see that their
concerns are valid, frankly, from a technical point of view. Maybe they just don’t want you here for
whatever reason, but I don’t think they had a good technical reason for it.
MR. RINGER-I think they were reading what Essex County said, and Essex’s County has had so
much trouble with it that they didn’t go any further.
MS. MURRAY-I completely agree with you about that. Because I was never privy to that letter until
we received a copy from the Planning Department here, but when I saw that, I said they had other
concerns, other than technical concerns, based on the Essex County letter.
MR. SANFORD-At least you know where they stand. They basically said no loud and clear. This
Glens Falls one is wild.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Don’t allow it, the guy said, and he made no bones about it, in that particular
one. Okay. I guess, in looking at this, you know, I know that you folks are in competition with other
people, and I know that you know what frequencies they’re operating at, what their frequency
separations are, where you’re at, where your side bands are going to get into their, you’ve got all of
that figured out, right? And I understand all of that. It’s a competitive game you’re in, and you want
to be able to cover as much of the area with your signal as you can. To me, it’s a balancing act at this
particular point, whether or not, I personally think, from the background that I see, from a visual
point of view, if we keep it as a single pole, painted white, no flag, no light, taking a look at it in
terms of its interfering with the landscape, it, in itself, is not that much. My concern, as I said at the
last meeting here, was the proliferation of these towers, and that’s a competitive aspect. Everybody
wants their power in exactly the right place to get their coverage, and what we the community are
faced with is exactly that, your marketing needs, to be able to go out and say, okay, we’re covered, we
can go out and sell this service now. We don’t have to worry about somebody dropping it on the
Northway and complaining that they can’t get it north and stuff. So I guess if push comes to shove,
that’s where I’m really standing is in favor of the 100 footer, no flag, no light, and I would go with
that I guess.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’ll cut a deal with you, but it’s not quite the same as Bob’s. It has to be 100
feet, no taller, but I would like a flag without the light. I know you can’t do that because, I guess
there’s a code that means that you have to have a light if you’re going to have the flag there. So I
would suggest this. I would suggest that since this is a leased arrangement with Ramada anyway, and
there’s consideration that’s probably benefiting them, that what I would think would be most
appealing to the community, but not this Board, would be a 100 foot pole with a flag that is raised
and lowered every day, without a light.
MR. RINGER-I think the size of the flag would be prohibitive. We’re talking a flag like the one
down at K-Mart. I mean, you know it would take three men and a boy to take that down.
MR. SANFORD-How big of a flag? I mean, I knew the 120 foot one necessitated a very large flag.
MS. MURRAY-It’s a 10 by 15 flag that the manufacturer prescribes, and just as a side note, there’s
Federal law out there that does not mandate lighting of the flag, but it exhibits a preference for
lighting of the flag.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, if there’s not a requirement, I would prefer to see a pole with a flag on
it than a bare pole, because a bare pole, it looks kind of moronic having a 100 foot pole.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a lot of them out there.
MS. MURRAY-The one side note, though, that I would like to raise is that, in my experience, there
have been issues in the past where, for patriotic purposes, the community might come out and say,
that flag should be lit, and I just want to raise that as an issue. It’s in the Board’s discretion as to
which way the facilities most favorable to the community, but that is something that we’ve
encountered in the past, and there is indeed Federal law that says that there is a preference for the
lighting and that’s something that has been cited for support when members of the community come
out and say, for patriotic purposes, that there’s a flag on the pole, we want it to be lit.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, I don’t know which way the wind blows on it, except that I know
that, in talking to people, they would prefer not to bring attention to it, and therefore there’s a
preference not to have a light shining on it, and yet to be just a 100 foot pole without it serving a
purpose, other than a cell tower, doesn’t make sense either. So I thought it would be nice to see if
we could have the flag with the pole but without the light, and I don’t know, you know, whether I’ll
be an article in the paper for not being patriotic or something, but that’s what I would vote for.
MS. MURRAY-We can’t control raising and lowering it.
MR. SANFORD-No, no, but you would allow a pole with a flag on it?
MS. MURRAY-We could do that. I just want the Board to be apprised of potential issues that could
arise if it’s not lit, because there’s a Federal law that actually states the preference for lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re bringing a third party called the Ramada Inn into this, who has the
requirement to put the flag up and take the flag down. Certainly you’re not going to have somebody
on station to do that at sunrise and sunset.
MR. RINGER-Nobody’s going to take this flag down and up every day. When K-Mart does it, our
fire company has to go and help them take it down. So, I mean, this is not a little flag. This is a big
flag.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. RINGER-But I don’t, you know, I don’t want to take away from what you said, Richard. It can
stay up there, if that’s what the Board feels, they want a flag, but.
MR. VOLLARO-But it has to be lit.
MR. SANFORD-No, it doesn’t have to be lit.
MR. RINGER-No, she said it doesn’t have to be. Do you have anything else on that, Richard?
MR. SANFORD-No, that’s it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I personally have no objections or problems with a flag. I have a strong feeling
that, if you put a flag up, it’s got to be lit, and I don’t necessarily think it has to be super bright, but,
you know, just at least to show the flag, and I guess my question would be, what are we talking about
as far as lights?
MS. MURRAY-We did submit, at the last meeting, a proposed lighting plan. Tonight, Curt Badore
from Techtonic Engineering is here with us. He actually prepared the lighting plan. So I’d like to
refer the Board to him to further discuss that.
CURT BADORE
MR. BADORE-Thank you. Thank you for that question. To address your question about the
lighting, we can go as minimal, for lighting, as minimal as a single 400 watt halogen light, which
would be directed up directly onto the flagpole.
MR. METIVIER-Will it be on the base, or is it going to be up on the flagpole?
MR. BADORE-We would prefer to base it on the ground. We could put it inside the fence
compound, but we would go at your direction. If you have a preference.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. METIVIER-I was thinking of putting it up higher, but, boy, that would stink when it burnt out.
MR. BADORE-Okay. Our client would prefer not to put electrical leads to lighting up on a tower.
Then you get into the issue of grounding, lighting strikes, etc., etc.
MR. METIVIER-Yes, so that’s fine, but, the 400 watt on the base going up. I can’t visualize that,
sorry. That’s all right, but that’s my preference.
MR. VOLLARO-If you go down to Quantico, Virginia, that’s how the Marines light theirs.
MR. SANFORD-I think they want this bad enough so that we could request that they do it. If they
don’t like it, we’ll just have it as a pole.
MR. METIVIER-I was thinking that. Is that something we could do? If, let’s say we put this up,
then we all say, my God, that’s the most hideous thing we’ve ever seen, can we make them take it
down?
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t think we can make them take it down. I mean, we’ve got to make a
decision here. We can’t say, hey, wait a minute, but you’ve got to come back in 30 days.
MR. SANFORD-I think just the pole at that point. I think a lot of people have said that they would
tolerate just the pole, okay, and so what we’re saying is, is it worth it to give it a try with the flag and
the light. We judge it, if we don’t like it, they take the flag down, the light down. We’re stuck with
the pole.
MR. RINGER-Let’s go on. Do you have anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No. I like that idea. I think that’s a fine idea. I didn’t mean take the pole down. I
meant just take the flag down, if we decide that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’d like to make the decision one way or the other tonight, and I also feel that
definitely the lighting would become an issue in our community, which is a very, very patriotic
community, with a lot of veterans in this community, and I also feel that another issue would be,
with some of the people in this community, flying the flag during all the inclement weather that we
have in this Town, during horrendous snow storms, blizzards, thunderstorms, you name it. The
poor thing would be rotted out in about two years.
MR. RINGER-Or less.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just feel that the initial concept, when I heard it, was really good. I thought,
wow, this is cool, having a flag, a great big flag that we can all see, nobody’s about as patriotic as I am
but when you start thinking about how pragmatic the whole idea is, you might as well leave it the
pole, as long as you cut it down to 100 feet and it’ll work for that, just leave it the pole, and I think
that the pictures speak for themselves. It’s not that much of a visual impact.
MR. SANFORD-One hundred feet we could go with a Christmas tree, then.
MR. RINGER-Anything else, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, that’s the way I feel about it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. When this first came before us, the initial thing and the flag, I said, hey, that’s
a great idea, and then the more I get into it, I got to thinking that the flag is actually going to draw
attention to the pole, versus taking attention away, and so I kind of leaned against the flagpole idea,
just my opinion, because we don’t want to draw attention to this thing up in the air, and I think the
flag in itself being so big would. Again, that’s just my opinion. In any event, anything else from the
Board? We still have a public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask one more question. Going down, what are you doing to ERP
when you go down 100 feet, down to 100 feet, your Effective Radiated Power? Are you going to be
changing that slightly? It’s going to stay the same?
MR. PUTNAM-It will remain the same. We always operate at maximum power available.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How many watts?
MR. PUTNAM-Eight watts per second.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-Just a couple of quick ones. At 100 feet, how many co-locators will fit in there?
MR. MURRAY-We can accommodate two co-locators at 100 feet.
MR. STROUGH-So potentially three, and then the other two that are in the area can go over those
tanks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, you’re right.
MR. MATUSAK-Well, I want to address that, just to make sure we’re clear. When you say two co-
locators, to co-locators equal to or less than our antenna array. In other words, they can’t come in a
co-locator can come in and say, I want 12 antennas on a tower. It’s a flagpole. We’re not putting 12
antennas on that tower. So, when we say co-locators, it’s two carriers, equal to or less than our
antenna array, going underneath our position, meaning that IWO is at the top of the tower.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MS. MURRAY-Because the whole purpose of this is that it’s a stealth facility, so that the antennas
are internally mounted.
MR. STROUGH-Right.
MS. MURRAY-It’s not a typical facility as you see it, up and down the Northway with the big
platforms and several panels.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then we’ve got a public hearing which we opened and kept open. So is there
anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this? Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador. We’ve been here for a couple of these meetings. We haven’t
been here for all of them, and I have to say, in all honesty, until I heard all of this discussion here, I
never noticed the cell towers off the Northway. Never noticed them, and I think if you’re going to
do something, you should do just the pole, don’t draw attention to it with a flag. The flag is great,
should be flown and all, but if you’re trying to make this thing as invisible as possible, I think it
should just be the pole, but as I say, until all these discussions, I never noticed those, and I drive the
Northway every day.
MR. SANFORD-You notice them now, though.
MRS. SALVADOR-Now, because you’ve been talking about them.
MR. SANFORD-I notice them, too. I never noticed them, either.
MRS. SALVADORE-Never noticed them before, no.
MR. RINGER-Kathleen, when you south and you go on the Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State or
95, you see these about every 10 miles.
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, now we look for them, but before that, we drive to Pennsylvania all the
time, never noticed them. Now we look for them.
MR. RINGER-It’s part of our growing, I guess.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MRS. SALVADOR-It’s a part of life, it is, and who here does not have cell phones, who does not
live by their cell phones? It’s a way of life, and I’m sorry, unless we all want to give up our cell
phones, something’s going to have to happen.
MR. RINGER-In 10 years, they’ll have technology where they won’t need them anymore.
MRS. SALVADOR-Exactly. It’ll be the same thing as the old t.v. antennas that used to be on the
roofs of houses. You don’t have that today. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the drawing board now, guys.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Kathleen, I’ve been told when they get rid of the tax, the phone tax, that we’ll
be able to bounce the signals off some kind of a satellite, like they do in Europe. So then they can
come and take all those towers down.
MRS. SALVADOR-Take them all down. Maybe some day we can take down all of our power poles
and all, too. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-That’s it? Thank you, Kathleen. Anyone else from the public? Okay. I’ll close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-And if I could get you back up here, please. Any other comments from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have any.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Do we need a SEQRA on this?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Short Form?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I think they submitted a Long.
MR. RINGER-They submitted a Long Form?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they did.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Long Form, Catherine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got it right here. Okay. Here we go. “IMPACT ON LAND Will the
proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Small to moderate or what?
MR. VOLLARO-Small.
MR. RINGER-Small to moderate.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Can you tell us how it’s going to be mitigated, or?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the fact that it’s small to moderate, I don’t think we need a mitigation, do we?
MR. RINGER-I agree with that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, wait a minute. Every time we say a small to moderate, we always give a
reason that the applicant has.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no impact to the site itself, and there’s no impact to the surrounding
community, because of the mild nature of the pole. I don’t think there’s any way to mitigate. It’s
going to be there. It’s high. It’s 100 feet, but it’s very, very slim.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So you could say probably by the nature of it’s only 100 feet now and
it’s slim, and we have pictures.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. VOLLARO-I could give you a technical answer, and tell you that it’s a very low signal to noise
ratio. So, based on that, you won’t see it, but that’s not what you want to hear.
MS. MURRAY-Also, if I might interject, we’re using the existing accessways from the Ramada Inn, if
that makes a difference, with regard to the potential impact.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-“AESTHETIC RESOURCES Will proposed action affect aesthetic
resources?”
MR. RINGER-Well, it will, but we mitigated it by reducing it from 120 to 100, I would think, would
be one way that we mitigated it, to some degree.
MR. SANFORD-Then that would be small to moderate.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. It says here, “Proposed land uses or project components visible to
users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the
aesthetic qualities of that resource?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The fact is it’s coming out of a commercial establishment. It’s not as if it’s
right on top of a mountain where, you know, you’re going to be visually impacted.
MR. VOLLARO-Besides, if we indicate that this is small to moderate impact, in most of these areas,
visual impact, because it’s a slender pole, it’s just not going to be, if this was a block building, you’d
say, okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, Bob, and also I think we’re, it goes on to say, “Does this result in the
elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important in the area?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It doesn’t. Okay. So we’re okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE LEASED REALTY CORP., 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
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
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 17 day of July, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-Okay. Now I need a motion to approve or deny.
MRS. MOORE-I have a question for the Board. Did we confirm how many co-location, how many
antennas could potentially be located on the, well, I know it was discussed, but I just want to
confirm, two. Does that mean Independent Wireless One is one, and then there’s room for one
other?
MS. RADNER-No, two others.
MS. MURRAY-No, it’s three total, yes, carriers.
MRS. MOORE-Carriers.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’re called carriers, not co-locators?
MR. MATUSAK-Well, the antennae are encased inside the fiberglass, inside the structure. So there
could be multiple antenna array, inside the cylinder. So it’s that cylinder. There’s enough room for
three of them. So it’s equal to or less than whatever antenna array we manufacture that pole for.
They slide inside a sleeve, inside the pole. So there’s no, you don’t see the arms hanging out. It’s all
part of the cylindrical pole going up and down.
MR. SANFORD-I have a question on this. I mean, earlier discussions, you mentioned that there
were different technologies utilized by different cell phone companies, and so are you describing
your company’s antenna? In other words, I think it’s, we would prefer to see as many carriers utilize
this pole as possible, and when you’re saying three, hopefully you’re not saying three like kind as to
what we’re doing.
MR. MATUSAK-What I’m saying, to give you an example, say somebody comes up and they only
need to put up a single sector on that pole, there’s two other spots left open on that same position in
the same height elevation, we call it a RAD Center.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MATUSAK-So, if they use one part of it, there’s still two other parts open. So there’s three,
plus us, that’s four now.
MR. SANFORD-It’s way over my head. I admit it, but you mentioned earlier, in your prior
presentation, that certain companies go lower than others, and so they don’t all have to be at the
same height.
MR. MATUSAK-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Just right now you said at that height, at that given height, there’s only room for
three.
MR. MATUSAK-That was one height. There’s still two other positions available.
MS. MURRAY-That’s right, beneath our proposed antennas.
MR. PUTNAM-The way the pole is actually designed and intended to be used, there’s three available
RAD Centers. At a 100 foot pole, you’d have a RAD Center at 95 feet, approximately. Your
antenna would be placed inside the pole at 95 feet, approximately. Your antenna has been placed
inside the pole at 95 feet, and the next lowest RAD Center would be at 85 feet, and the next one
below that would be 75 feet. Each RAD Center can contain up to three antennas. So we, typically a
carrier such as us will want to provide coverage of 360 degrees, and we’ll have three antennas at the
top spot, so we can provide coverage at 360 degrees. Typically the next carrier that would come in to
co-locate on that pole would co-locate at the 85 foot level, with three antennas to provide 360
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
degrees of coverage, and then subsequently at 75. What Mr. Matusak was referring to was if a carrier
did come in and only needed to use, you know, say 90 degrees of coverage, there would be extra
spots available at that RAD Center. So, potentially, you could have co-location of more than two
additional wireless providers.
MR. VOLLARO-The probability of not going omni for any of these people seems to be a little low,
for me, unless they’re trying to project into a certain sector
MR. MATUSAK-Actually, it is possible, because that’s exactly what’s happening. Some sites, some
carriers are covering their propagation studies where they cover the RF interference because they’re
only trying to focus in on a specific section, and the probability is high that that could happen. It’s
happening more and more.
MS. MURRAY-And then as you noted, though, when, there are other carriers that are seeking to
enhance the quality of their service, and so they may seek to provide 360 degrees.
MR. MATUSAK-We can’t speak for the other carriers.
MS. MURRAY-Yes, but the potential is there so that co-location opportunities will exist, so that
other people won’t be coming in to apply for a new structure.
MR. MATUSAK-But we’ll make it so that it’s applicable for three carriers including us. So, us plus
two others.
MR. SANFORD-Why are you limiting them? As technology changes, you might be able to handle
all five carriers.
MR. MATUSAK-You said the key word, it might. As technology changes, yes, we’ll adjust to the
technology.
MR. SANFORD-What I don’t want is, you’re in a competitive field. I don’t want us to pass some
resolution where what we’re doing is we’re basically presenting the argument to have to hear another
company or plan for another company to put up another tower, simply because we’ve limited it to
only three carriers to utilize that pole. Why do we want to do that?
MS. RADNER-We haven’t limited it. We haven’t made it a condition that only three can, but
they’ve represented to us that at that height, two others can still co-locate there, present technology.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Why restrict them at all?
MS. RADNER-We’re not restricting it. They’re just telling us what it’s currently capable of holding.
MR. VOLLARO-I wasn’t planning to make it part of the motion. So we’re not restricting it.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I don’t understand why we have to deal with the issue, then.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t. We really don’t.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-She just brought it up.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a technical issue.
MR. MATUSAK-I was just addressing the question that was brought up.
MR. SANFORD-No, I’m not faulting you. I thought we were going in a certain direction. We
wanted to specify what the capacity of this pole is, and I don’t see any advantage to do that.
MR. MATUSAK-Structural load bearing addresses one issue. You only can have so much weight,
and so much wind loading on the pole, and two is, well, that addresses both, and then the actual
spacing, vertical and horizontal separation for the antenna array. So those are the two, but with that,
you’ve got, if you’re not limiting it, you’ve got, we’re going at 100 feet, so if somebody comes in and
needs 110, that’s 110, 90, that’s their system, that’s their communications network. It’s not ours.
MS. MURRAY-And it’s their burden to come before the Board, pursuant to your Code, to seek the
Board’s approval or disapproval. We just want to make it clear that the opportunity exists. So that if
somebody else does come along in the future and says, we need to provide service to this same area,
you may require them to first check out this pole and say, does this pole work for you, and can you
co-locate, instead of proposing to construct a new facility. Yes, that’s the whole purpose of it.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. MATUSAK-And we’ll make sure the pole is built for co-location.
MS. MURRAY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-What are you doing now? There’s a lot of towers up, a considerable amount of
tower s up at this particular point. Is somebody doing a tower study now of all the towers that are
up and saying, okay, given this frequency, given this ERP, let’s see if we can put some signal here,
some signal there, and slowly fill in some of the blank spots that are going on?
MR. MATUSAK-That’s exactly what’s going on.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MATUSAK-You have multiple tower companies out there doing that, as we speak.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. SANFORD-I thought the Light Industrial committee of Queensbury was doing it, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they’re doing it all right. Leave it up them these people are going to go out of
business. That’s what’s going to happen.
MR. MATUSAK-We’d prefer somebody else build the towers. We like the co-location part. It
makes it easier, because like I said, we don’t want to put up a peripheral set of towers. We want to
co-locate as much as possible, and as I said in the last meeting, as signal improves, as we grow in
capacity, we don’t need to grow in height, we need to shrink in height. We need to cover less area,
that means more sites, but they’re all co-locations, usually on rooftops, doing in-building locations in
situations like that.
MS. MURRAY-And that’s why we have four existing co-locations.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you don’t want to come before this filter too very often.
MR. MATUSAK-We’d rather come here with a smile than be disappointed.
MR. RINGER-Are there any other questions? What about the flagpole? Do we want the flag or not
the flag?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No flag.
MR. SANFORD-I guess the consensus is no flag.
MR. RINGER-Okay. I got the consensus, too, that it was no flag.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No flag.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So that would be no lights then. Okay. So anybody ready to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2001 INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE
LEASED REALTY CORP., NETWORK MANAGER FOR SPRINT SPECTRUM,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of to Site Plan No. 12-2001, Independent
Wireless One Leased Realty Corp., Network Manager for Sprint Spectrum, L.P. proposing
construction of a 100’pole within a 20’ x 20’ equipment compound area. In accordance with Section
179-73.1 placement and/or operation of Telecommunication Equipment requires Planning Board
review and approval. Cross Reference: Use Variance 12-2001. Tax Map No. 97-2-6, and
WHEREAS, the application was received 3/28/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 7/13/01;
7/17 PB resolution
6/19 PB resolution
7/17 Staff Notes
7/10 M. Lemery, Warren Co. Emergency Srvcs to L. More
7/9 J. Clark, City of GF to L. Moore
7/9 Transmittal of minutes to M. Smith
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
7/6 M. Lemery from L. Moore
7/6 J. Clark from L. Moore
7/5 New Info received
7/3 Meeting Notice
6/19 Staff Notes
6/14 New Information received
6/14 CT Male – engineering comments
6/13 PB from Pl. Staff – transmittal of minutes of 4/24 & 5/29, resolution
6/6/01 Meeting Notice
5/31/01 New Info received in response to 5/29/01 PB resolution
5/29/01 Planning Board resolution
5/7/01 M. Smith from L. Moore – letter w/ copy of minutes from 4/24/01
4/24/01 Staff Notes
4/19/01 C.T. Male Associates engineering comments
4/17/01 Notice of Public Hearing
4/10/01 Warren County Planning Board - Approved
4/4/01 Meeting Notice Letter
2/28/01 Use Variance No. 12-2001
WHEREAS, public hearing was held 4/24/01, 6/19/01 and 7/17/01 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; 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
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. Change the resolution from 120 foot stealth communications flagpole to 100 feet,
and
2. Replacing the word “flagpole” with “pole” – that’s in the first Whereas,
3. The flagpole itself, just for reference, the pole, the actual tower shall not contain a flag nor any
lighting to light that flag, and
4. It’s to be painted white, white painting to blend with sky background.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. RINGER-You’re all set. Congratulations. A long time coming.
MR. MATUSAK-Thank you very much.
MS. MURRAY-Thank you very much, and thank you for taking so much time reviewing our
application. We appreciate it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. A couple of things before we go any further. John Salvador has asked to
address the Board. So, John.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the Helen Mitchell
MR. RINGER-Identify yourself please.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m John Salvador. With regarding to the Helen Mitchell subdivision application,
I would like to have spoken. I wasn’t at the previous meetings when this was heard, but two things
come to mind. One is a detail.
MS. RADNER-Can I interrupt here? I think that this is inappropriate, when you had other people
here earlier tonight. You told them there’s no public hearing, and are not allowing them to comment
on this. You’ve invited Mr. Salvador now to speak after telling other members of the public that they
cannot, and I don’t think that this should be allowed to go forward.
MR. RINGER-Cathi, I agree with you. John asked me earlier if he could have the floor, and I said
yes. He didn’t tell me what he wanted to talk about. However, I do agree very much with you. If
you’re going to talk about a specific site plan, then, John, or subdivision.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m going to talk about an issue of the presentation, and an issue of stormwater.
MR. RINGER-Okay. John, I’ll let you talk, but just keep it as generic as possible, if you would, if
you can do that.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I will. The subdivision ordinance that this Town has adopted I think
requires that a, basically a professional engineer prepare the subdivision plat. There is a provision for
a surveyor to prepare the subdivision plat, providing the surveyor has an “N” Exemption. I am not
certain that Matt Steves has an “N” Exemption. Secondly, the subject of stormwater. This Town
adopted, a couple of years ago, the Lake George Park Commission Model Ordinance, Model
Stormwater Ordinance, and it’s up to this Town to enforce the provisions of that law and the
Ordinance. They could have done what other towns do in the Lake George Park some other towns
do in the Lake George Park. They let the Commission regulate stormwater on their projects, some
of the smaller towns, Queensbury, Lake George, I think Bolton, they’ve adopted the Model
Ordinance, and now it’s this Town’s responsibility, and I believe it’s covered by local law, it’s this
Town’s responsibility to enforce that. The Park Commission, and by the way, I attended many of
these meetings, and I spoke against this adoption. I didn’t think it was in the Town’s best interest to
do this. They had their own Ordinance, stormwater, but that’s aside. They did this. Now the Model
Ordinance that’s been adopted differentiates between what might be called a minor project, and what
might be called a major project. If it’s a major project, there are several hoops you’ve got to go
through before, before you get to the point of project, and one of them is the filing of a stormwater
management plan, a filing, that’s at the County, and depending on the location and how critical this
project is, a performance bond can be requested, or at least the filing of this plan is an encumbrance
on those lots and that plan, that this plan, the facilities that constitute this plan, are maintained
forever and ever. They become an encumbrance on that lot, and this Town, I believe they adopted a
local law that puts this into effect.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re right, they did.
MR. SANFORD-Did they define what constitutes, or what parameters are major and/or minor?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-If I can interrupt, here. You were directed, in your Staff notes, to the idea, and I
apologize.
MR. RINGER-Well, we’re not talking.
MRS. MOORE-Well, I don’t want to, I’m sorry.
MR. RINGER-John, if we’re going to talk Mitchell, then we’re not going to discuss it because that’s a
closed issue. We’re going to talk generically.
MRS. MOORE-There is a chapter in.
MR. RINGER-And really what you’re saying, John, is something for our information, but really we
rely on Staff to make sure that we have the information necessary to make the decisions, and
hopefully Staff does provide us with that all the time, and first of all I’ll just say I’m not as up to date
as you are on all these regulations, and Staff does an outstanding job in giving us this information. If
there are cases where you don’t feel we have, then of course the public hearing is available to you,
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
which you couldn’t avail tonight, certainly, but you can always go to Staff or to the Town Board
members and say, wait a minute, something’s wrong here. The system isn’t working right, and I
would urge you to do that whenever you, and I’m sure you do anyway. I don’t have to urge you to
do it. I know you do, and we appreciate your comments certainly. We always, we try to stay away
from specific items.
MR. SALVADOR-Somewhere on this Board the suggestion was made that the Lake George Park
Commission review the stormwater management plan, and that’s the thing that is totally out of order.
You have assumed that, this Town has assumed that responsibility with regard to that subject in the
Lake George Park. That’s what that local law covers.
MR. RINGER-And if we don’t do that, I would urge you to let Staff know, and if Staff doesn’t listen
to you, which I’m sure they do, then go to the Town Board, okay, but thank you for your comments,
John. I do appreciate them. Okay, other things we’ve got tonight. The Pyramid Mall. Pyramid Mall
was tabled tonight because the Town is still working on the Findings Statement, to approve the
Findings Statement. Pyramid Mall has asked to come to next Tuesday’s meeting. They still won’t
have the Findings Statement signed by the Town, but they feel they want to go over their project
with us to iron out as many things as they can, so that when they do get their Findings Statement and
then they come before us, they’ll be able to get approval in August. Because they’re on a tight
schedule.
MR. STROUGH-Do you remember the Sky Coaster?
MR. RINGER-I remember the Sky Coaster.
MR. STROUGH-I wanted to review, and absolutely, no, we’re not going to review the project.
We’re not even going to talk about the project. We’re not going to deal with the project until we get
this thing.
MR. RINGER-Okay. The reason for that, John, was we told the Great Escape specifically that we
would not entertain any additional applications, site plans from them until the completion of an EIS,
okay. They were told specifically that we would not do that, and that was a year and a half ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but, Larry, I think perception here is what John is talking about, and I agree
with him 100%. We should be making absolutely sure, on this Board, that the playing field is always
level. That’s how I feel about it, and that if we imposed that sort of restriction on the Great Escape,
that is a perception that will hang, that we’ve done it before, why aren’t we imposing that on other
applicants. We start to deviate from that, the field is not level.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I feel that the Great Escape would be not very happy with us if we took it
upon ourselves.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. It’s a good point.
MR. RINGER-I’m not arguing it one way or the other, although we have already listened to Pyramid
Mall for their site plan for this new addition, but whatever the Board decides. I mean, this could take
an hour an a half if we do decide to do this next Tuesday.
MR. SANFORD-I think John’s point is well taken. Some of the talk that I’ve heard around town
over the last few weeks suggests that the Great Escape had a pretty tough time of it, and I think that
if we set a different standard, we’re leaving ourselves vulnerable.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then you feel no for?
MR. SANFORD-I agree with what John and Bob have said.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and John is saying no to Tuesday. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I guess we have to be consistent here. Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Tony? Laura, would you tell Pyramid, then, that no for next Tuesday? Okay.
The next item is a, Mountainside. Didn’t I already do Mountainside?
MR. VOLLARO-We did Mountainside.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 7/17/01)
MR. RINGER-What was the last item I had? That was it?
MR. VOLLARO-That was it. Mountainside we did first.
MR. RINGER-I did it all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When did we do Mountainside?
MR. RINGER-Before you came.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What did you do?
MR. VOLLARO-We just extended it a year.
MR. RINGER-They didn’t get a chance to.
MR. STROUGH-Bob, I would not be opposed to have a special meeting, especially if we need one
for Getty, to deal with the Mall and Getty together in one evening, which is a pretty full evening.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good idea, John.
MR. RINGER-All right. Laura, that’s a good idea. I’d agree with that, John.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll review the schedule.
MR. RINGER-When do you think the Town Board will be doing the Findings Statement?
MRS. MOORE-I do not know.
MR. RINGER-Okay. There was something else about after they do the Findings Statement there’s
30 days before it becomes, Cathi, is there such a thing?
MS. RADNER-Ten day, we can’t act until ten days after.
MR. RINGER-But if they approve the Findings Statement, we could probably still act have the
meeting within that 10 day period, I would think, but that would be something for Counsel to
determine.
MS. RADNER-Yes, we’ll review your deadlines for you.
MR. RINGER-Okay. That was a good idea. If there’s nothing else, we’ll adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman
43