2001-10-23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
ANTHONY METIVIER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED HAL RAVEN (THE VISTAS) PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT:
VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 31.25+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS
OF 3.48 ACRES (LOT 9). AND 27.87 ACRES (LOT 10). CROSS REFERENCE: SB 19-1993
TAX MAP NO. 87-1-1-10.1 LOT SIZE: 31.35 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table the application because the applicant didn’t submit the
required information in time for Staff review. When are we going to schedule that, first meeting of
next month?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any information yet to tell you that the application is complete.
MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t? Okay. Could I hear a motion to table it to our first meeting of
November, please.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001
HAROLD RAVEN (THE VISTAS), Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Until the first Planning Board meeting in November.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Next item is the Pittenger Site Plan. Do we need to table that to a specific date?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What date do you want to table that to?
MRS. MOORE-You can table that also until the first meeting in November.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you happen to know the site plan number on that, offhand?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 45-2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I hear a motion from someone, please.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 RUSS PITTENGER / WALLACE
HIRSH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony
Metivier:
To the first Planning Board meeting in November. (November 20, 2001)
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
PROPERTY OWNER: SANDRA & MARTIN CECH AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING,
VAN DUSEN & STEVES & JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION:
INTERSECTION OF BAY AND MOON HILL ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES SAND
AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION OF 6.3 ACRES OF A 10.31 ACRE SITE WITH
RECLAIMED LAND TO BE USED FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. MINING,
EXTRACTION, MINERAL/GRAVEL IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY
THE PLANNING BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-15 AND 179-64 OF
THE ZONING CODE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY NYS DEC MINING & SPDES
STORMWATER PERMITS WARREN CO. PLANNING BOARD: 10/10/01 TAX MAP
NO. 48-1-13.21 LOT SIZE: 10.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-15, 179-64
JON LAPPER, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-2001, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: October 23, 2001
“Project Description:
The applicant proposes a mining excavation operation of 6.3 acres of a 10.31 acre site.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38):
Site Overview
The applicant proposes to remove about 200,000 +/- cubic yards of material from the site.
The applicant has addressed the requirements of Section 179-64, Mining of the Town’s
ordinance and has submitted an application to NYSDEC for a mining operation. The
material will be used for other projects being developed by Schermerhorn Construction.
The submitted plans address erosion and sediment control, the soil and gravel extraction,
and stormwater management. The erosion and sediment will be handled by re-grading the
property, hay bale dams, and sediment control fencing. The extraction material is noted as
surface mining and will be sloped during material removal to minimize rock fall. The
stormwater will be handled by re-grading of the property and the stormwater basin.
The stormwater management plan identifies two stormwater controls. The applicant
indicates that temporary depressions will be created at times when needed. The second
control is the pond and this will be used as the main drainage area for the project.
The project has only one entrance noted as “haul road” on the plans. The engineer for the
project has examined the entrance site and has determined this is the best location for an
entrance of a mining operation. Grading and landscaping will screen the haul road noted on
the plans. Grading and landscaping will also screen the material processing and storage of
materials.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The plans also address the reclamation of the site with construction of two dwellings through the
Town’s subdivision review process.
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the approval of the mining and excavation as proposed”
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MRS. MOORE-I do have a C.T. Male letter, and I’ll read that. This is dated October 23, 2001. “We
are in receipt of response letter dated October 23, along with the subdivision application and
rd
subdivision plans for the referenced project. 1. Based on the information received in the response
letter, it appears that our comments contained in a letter dated October 19 were adequately
th
addressed as they relate to the mining site plan application. We would anticipate signing off on the
site plan review, provided that the forthcoming plans contain the revisions. 2. With respect to the
subdivision application and plan, we received that information this morning. A preliminary review of
the plan suggests the pertinent details are included on the drawing. We will complete our review and
advise of any further comments.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. I
guess very simply, as you know, because you approved Rich is doing a good sized development and
office park south of the College on Bay Road, about a mile and a half south of this parcel, so he
located a parcel in a residential zone that has a substantial amount of fill, basically a hill to be
removed. In the Rural Residential zone, mining is a principal permitted use, and what Rich is
proposing is that he’ll take down the top of the two hills, bring the fill primarily to his Bay Road site,
which is very close, so not a lot of truck traffic, and when he’s done and he’s reclaimed it, he’ll
construct two single family homes which are in character with that neighborhood, in accordance with
the Code. Tom and Rich have met with DEC, because it also requires a DEC mining permit, and
there don’t seem to be any issues with DEC, and we believe that we’ve complied with all of the
Town requirements. In general, Tom has provided a substantial buffer. The trees are very thick
there. So it really won’t be visible for people driving by during the mining operation, which is just
the removal of the fill, and he’ll open it up, when it’s done, for some views for the houses, but during
the mining operation, there’s just going to be one road in and out for trucks.
MR. NACE-Real quick, I’ll walk you through the site plan. Basically, the existing site is along Moon
Hill Road, just east of the intersection of Bay Road. As you come up Moon Hill, it’s relatively flat
here in the bottom portion. It starts to climb up a little around the bend here. The property is
relatively flat with even a little depression on the very eastern end off Bay Road, but as you come
along Moon Hill, this area starts to rise very steeply. There’s a large hill in the middle of the site.
Then as you go toward the back, the site drops off toward the north. What this allows us to do, well,
let me finish. There’s this main hill in the middle of the site. Then on the very eastern boundary of
the site, there’s another fairly large knoll. This is all part of the geologic formation that goes down
along Glen Lake of esters and canes. I’m not a geologist, but it’s all glacial deposit material. What
the site allows us to do is to, because of the configuration, is to remove this hill in the middle, and
leave the hill here along the buffer, along the property line, and to leave this hill, I’m sorry, I
misspoke, when I said it goes down, it goes down the northwest, not the northeast. The northeast is
a hill, a ridge line up here. So it leaves us a hill in here that depresses into the site, and this hill that
depresses into the site. So most of the mining operation will be in the middle here, buffered by this
hill, this hill, and will leave a hill along the front of the road, Moon Hill Road, that will buffer the
mining operation. The Town Code requires a 50 foot setback from the property lines to be left
completely natural. So we’ve provided that all the way around the site. On the northwest side of the
site, we’ve left a good bit more than that 50 foot buffer, and then it also requires that the cut slopes
not be what you would normally think of as a gravel extraction with steep banks. It’s a good deal
flatter. It’s a 30% slope, which is one foot vertical on three and a third feet horizontal, which is fairly
flat. A lot of lawns are that flat. It’s easily mowable. It’s maintainable. It’s a relatively flat slope. So
these slopes in here won’t be cliffs, so to speak. They’ll be flat, gentle slopes coming up to these
hills, that’ll buffer the site. The mining operation, again, in compliance with your Town Code, the
mining road has to come in and turn into the site, once it gets behind the buffer, so that it’s not
visible. There’s not an avenue of visibility directly back that entrance road. Because of the grading in
here, we can’t leave the natural buffer in here, directly behind the road. So we’re going, as soon as
this road’s established and this area’s graded down to final grade, we’ll plant some white pines in
there to provide that buffer into the site. Stormwater, the site will naturally, as it’s graded will
naturally drain all to this depression. On the eastern portion of the site, we’ve provided a fairly large,
but not too deep, depression that’ll collect stormwater, collect any sediment that’s in the stormwater
and allow that to filter into the ground. During the mining operation, there will also naturally be
some pockets within the mining area, the active mining area, that’ll also provide additional infiltration
for stormwater. Basically, that’s the progress of the mining. When the mining’s complete, there’ll be
a site with relatively large, flat areas that can be developed for housing sites. In the grading of the
site, we’ve provided a little terrace between these two lots, to give a little separation to them, and re-
planted a buffer along that separation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. LAPPER-Not at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In looking at this site, the first question is, where are the two proposed
access drives? I only find one.
MR. NACE-Okay. There is one for the mining operation. If you look at the Plan S-1.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what I’m looking at.
MR. NACE-Okay. The easternmost drive, it says 24 feet at entrance, can you see that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. That’s the actual proposed mining Hall Road, okay. That will be the only
entrance to the site during the mining operation. At the completion of the mining, if you go to the
west, okay, you’ll see a second entrance with a note that says, do not disturb this area until mining is
complete. So at the completion of the mining, then this other entrance will be opened up to allow
access to that second lot, and those also show up more clearly than on the actual subdivision plan.
You can see both entrances, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I was a little confused by C.T. Male’s comment number two on their October 19
th
letter.
MR. NACE-One of their comments was that this entrance, the western most entrance, which is just
the subdivision entrance, it’s just for this lot, residential lot, once the proper, once the mining’s
complete and reclamation is complete, their comment was that that appeared to them to be a little
too close to this curve, and had limited sight distance.
MR. VOLLARO-The thing that was confusing me, Tom, is that they refer to Plan S-1, and S-1 has
only one entrance, that I can see on S-1.
MR. NACE-Well, the grading on S-1 infers a second entrance, okay. It doesn’t actually show a road.
It infers a second entrance that’ll be a future entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the entrance that they had there?
MR. NACE-I presume so, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, has a mining permit been issued against the application?
MR. NACE-It has not been issued. We met with DEC today to review the application, to find out
exactly what else they needed to get it complete, and we’re now in position to get that completed,
and DEC will go through their normal public notification and hearing process.
MR. LAPPER-That would be a condition, because that’s an additional permit that we need.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have another application before us that was tabled for the lack of a mining
permit, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It wasn’t tabled for that reason. It was tabled to investigate whether a permit was
necessary for that site.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And also the drainage.
MR. MAC EWAN-And, yes, there was reference to drainage they had to do, too. Those were the
two reasons for tabling.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me just ask the question of the rest of the Board members. How do we
feel about looking at this without an approved mining permit? Are you all happy with that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just continue on asking our questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I wanted to get some input from the Board, just to see what.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll let everybody go through their questions, and then we can kind of put our
heads together.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. My next question was, do we have a response to C.T. Male’s letter of 10/19,
and I guess the answer is yes, we do, but I haven’t had a chance to really look it over yet. I just got it
tonight.
MR. LAPPER-We concurred with all of their points, and they’ve signed off on our response.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s really not the point, Mr. Lapper. The point in my mind is that I’m getting
information on the night of the meeting that I haven’t had a chance to thoroughly review, and I just
want, for the record, to state that this has come in late. One other question I have, and I hadn’t seen
anything in here that referred to the depth to groundwater. Now, 179-64 of our Code states that the
depth of excavation shall approach no closer than five feet to the average point of the groundwater
table. Now, I looked at the stormwater report pretty carefully, and I don’t see any mention of the
depth to groundwater there.
MR. NACE-No. We have not done test pits back on the site. Based on the topography and the
materials, the floor of the pit is well above existing adjacent grades out on the road, and immediately
to the east of the site. We will confirm with DEC that those conditions are met with the test pit, but
we have not done that yet.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason I ask the question, and the reason I’m concerned with that, is not so
much for the mining operation as it is for Phase II of the development of the subdivision. Now,
most of the wording that I get and the reading that I get from doing this application, is that a great
deal of this water, because the perc rate is essentially so good here, you’ve got a lot of ground. I’m
just concerned about the level of groundwater and the effect of mining on that level, when we go to
dig wells, later on, for those two buildings that are going to be in there. That’s a concern that I had,
and I’d like to hear some discussion on that.
MR. NACE-Okay. The wells would be rock wells. So they would be down at a much greater depth
than the surface water table that you’re talking about or referring to. So anything we would do in
there would only affect whatever water there is perched on top of the bedrock, and based on other
sites near this that we’ve worked on, and also the general geology and topography of the area, there’s
no way that groundwater could be as high as five feet below the floor of the pit, but again, we will,
now that we’re a little further along with DEC, we will be verifying that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, when I look at 179-64 and the statement, and again, it says depth
of excavation shall approach no closer than five feet to the average point of groundwater table, and
179-64 is the mining section, by the way. So that we know what that is. That’s in there for a reason.
MR. NACE-We agree with that, and we’ll certainly make that a condition that we’ll provide proof
that it is prior to the final plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess my next question is on, have you done a perc test here at all, to
know just about where you are, as far as the speed of?
MR. NACE-The stormwater report did not count on percolation as a means of getting rid of water
during the storm.
MR. VOLLARO-I know that you’ve got the stormwater sediment and a number of other
intermediate depressions, as you call them, throughout the site, to handle that.
MR. NACE-Sure, and that, okay, the stormwater basin is sized to store the entire runoff from a 50
year storm, okay, not counting on any infiltration. Okay. Now based on the materials, and, again,
work we’ve done in other areas of that same geologic formation, it’ll vary, depending on depth and
location that you’re at. So that’s one of the reasons I didn’t want to count on these intermediate, you
know, depressions having a certain infiltration rate, because it’ll vary depending on the portion of the
formation you’re in. So there will be infiltration, and there’s plenty of, we’re looking at a worst case
store it all.
MR. VOLLARO-Certainly, if you’ve got good perc on this site, you’ll probably not have to depend
on those depressions or infiltrations as much as you would.
MR. NACE-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s exactly what I’m concerned about, is what is the perc rate here, and how
fast is this water getting to groundwater? Now, you say they’re going to be probably digging a deep
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
rock well, and we don’t have to worry about that. That’s something that’s an unknown here, at this
particular point.
MR. NACE-No. The Health Department now requires, okay, that wells be cased to 50 foot
minimum, and that they be grouted into bedrock. Okay. Very few people anywhere are installing
shallow wells. Okay. One of the conditions, if you look on the plans for the subdivision, it details
the typical Department of Health requirements for that type of a well.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that. I don’t know. Warren County Soil and Water, have they been
contacted on here at all to take a look at this?
MR. NACE-For what reason?
MR. LAPPER-We said that we would.
MR. VOLLARO-Just for whatever reason. I’m just wondering if whether Soil and Water has been
looked at at all, or Warren County has been contacted?
MR. NACE-We haven’t. We can, but there’s no.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask this. I guess I’ll pass that question to Staff. Did Staff think it was
a requirement for this or not?
MRS. MOORE-No, and one of the reasons is because we send it along to C.T. Male Associates for
review.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Who would do what? If they thought it needed Soil and Water, C.T. Male
would look into that?
MRS. MOORE-I think they have the expertise on their Staff to evaluate that type of information.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and they haven’t said anything about it in their response letter or in their
letter of October 19, have they? But I noticed that the County Planning Board recommendation
th
said Warren County Soil and Water Department Conservation District office was contacted with
regard to this project, and this is a recommendation with that condition of approval.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve agreed to that condition and we will.
MR. NACE-I’m sorry. You were talking about stormwater, and my mind was headed for
stormwater. Yes. The discussion at the County was that we contact them for the recommendations
on the seeding and restoration of the soil, for the reclamation portion.
MR. VOLLARO-It said this project site, approved with the following condition, that the project site
is seeded, that’s Number One.
MR. NACE-Yes, that’s what finally juggled my memory.
MR. VOLLARO-And that the Warren County Soil and Water Department Conservation District
office is contacted regarding this project. There were two conditions, essentially.
MR. NACE-Okay. Their concern was that we contact them to get their recommendations for
seeding. Okay. I do have a seed mixture specified on the plans. The County simply wanted us to
confirm with them that that was a reasonable reclamation method.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-On your Plan S-1, where it says Sand and Gravel Extraction Notes, Number 11, it
says when more than one foot of sediment is collected in the bottom of the basin, you move
sediment to restore full usable volume of the basin.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-And your stormwater report says that, on Page Two, it says sediment will have to
be removed from the basin when it accumulates more than six inches deep. Therefore, the plans will
require that the basin be cleaned after any rainfall of four or five inches of water.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. NACE-That’s a mis-coordination on my part. The note will be changed. I’ll make a note of
that, and we’ll change Note 11 to six inches. It should be six inches. That’s, the calculations were
based on that freeboard.
MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the vegetation goes, who’s going to maintain that after a period of time?
MR. LAPPER-The existing vegetation?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, once there area is re-seeded.
MR. LAPPER-Well, Rich is going to develop the houses and sell them.
MR. SEGULJC-Well, what happens if that doesn’t happen for two years?
MR. LAPPER-It’s his project to maintain.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re maintaining it?
RICH SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’ll still own it, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Also, the plans on the erosion and sediment control notes, Number One says that,
before any clearing or grubbing of the site is initiated, and during earthwork phase, the sediment
traps shall be constructed and all stormwater swales and ditches as indicated on the plan. I don’t see
any stormwater ditches or swales.
MR. NACE-There’s a sediment control fence around the whole clearing area, and these are general
notes that are required by New York State, and in this case, the sediment control fence is shown
around the entire site there.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s not going to be a swale or ditch, per se?
MR. NACE-No, but it’ll be an actual silt fence that’s installed at the edge of all clearing and grading
operations.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then with regards to the entrance, I guess it would be the eastern entrance,
how are we going to be sure that stormwater doesn’t run out that entrance?
MR. NACE-Doesn’t run out?
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I can see, I’m not getting a warm fuzzy feeling that it’ll all make it into the
stormwater sediment basin. How are you going to make sure there’s no elevation points in there?
MR. NACE-If you look at the proposed grade, all of the grade, you know, perpendicular to the
contour lines, which is the direction of down gradient, it’s across the road and toward the basin.
There may be, you know, 10 or 15, 20 feet of the end of the road that might drain out that way, but
there will be, one of C.T. Male’s comments was a culvert under the road, and there will be a dip in
the road before you come up to Moon Hill. So that that, any runoff does go down this existing ditch
line and not out onto the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then how about any mining activities in the dry weather. Are you going
to have any dust control or anything like that?
MR. NACE-As far as, say that again?
MR. SEGULJIC-Mining activities in the dry, extended dry periods.
MR. NACE-It really, there’s no, most of the dust no a construction site is initiated by trucks or
equipment running over materials that are fairly fine grain, silty, real silty, fine sands. Most of the
material in these glacial deposits is a little courser than that. Plus, it’s such a small, confined site, the
construction equipment won’t be traveling at high enough speeds to kick up any significant dust.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-There’s been a few references made to trucks. How many trucks are we talking
about, on an average, daily basis?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn, for the record. I currently have one truck, and the fill
is mainly going to be used for my own use, my own projects. There could be times that I could hire
trucks to help us, two or three at a time. It’s possible four, but generally my projects aren’t large
enough projects where it would warrant having 10 or 12 trucks backed up on a site like this. So,
worst case scenario, I’d say four, possibly five if we’re ever in a rush, I guess, to finish a project, but
typically it’ll be probably just one truck, the majority of the time.
MR. METIVIER-And will you keep other equipment on site, like all the time?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-This is the type of thing where there’ll be periods where we may be there
steady for a month, and then there may be periods, especially wintertime, where you may not be
there for several months. Typically, I know noise is a factor and that’s going to probably come up
tonight. The majority of all my equipment, or I should say all the equipment I have, backhoes,
loaders, and the type of equipment that would be used there, it’s all modern equipment within the
last four years. I’m not saying that they’re quiet, but they’re much, much quieter than the older
equipment that people think of when they hear of these mining operations.
MR. METIVIER-All right. So what about hours of operation?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, typically, hours of operation, again, this would fall under safety, too.
Generally, we just operate Monday through Friday, typically, you know, your seven o’clock ‘til five
o’clock, Saturdays ‘til noon, generally, but Saturdays are rare, because, typically, we try not to run the
trucks on Saturday.
MR. METIVIER-The 50 foot buffer, is it to my understanding correctly that you’re going to go on
much beyond that with the mining operation itself? Do you understand what I’m trying to say? If
you require a 50 foot buffer, that’s the minimum buffer.
MR. NACE-That’s the minimum buffer.
MR. METIVIER-If we require that as the minimum, are you going to mine right up to that?
MR. NACE-The edge of the grading, okay, will be at or very close to that 50 foot buffer, but most of
the mining operation, because of the shape of the site, will be well away from that, because if you
look, most of the perimeter of the site, here, or here, the front, is on a fairly good hill where we’re
going to be cutting these slopes in, so that by the time you get down to the bottom of the pit where
most of the operation is going to be, you’re not 50 foot, but you’re more like 120 feet away from the
property line. So there will be some grading up to 50 feet, but it’ll only be to shape these slopes
down on this 30% grade.
MR. METIVIER-I just worry about erosion. That grade there would be acceptable with?
MR. NACE-That grade, let’s see, if that’s about three feet. That grade would be from my feet up to
the edge of the table. It’s a fairly mild slope.
MR. LAPPER-Tom, wouldn’t that happen generally in the operation where we get final grading on
those slopes?
MR. NACE-No. That’ll happen.
MR. METIVIER-How long do you propose this to take, from beginning to when you do your final
grade?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, realistically, with the amount of fill, and using it for my own
purposes mainly, I would say it would probably take about five years, possibly sooner, but, you know,
like I said, we’re not opening this up as a commercial business. This is for, mainly, my developments,
specifically Bay Road, where there’s 82 acres to be developed there, but I have partial approvals now.
You’ve got silty soils and clay, where this fill is going to be necessary to use there.
MR. METIVIER-So if it did go five years, you’re going to continue to?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, DEC regulations, the permits are only good for five years, and then
you have to renew them and go through the procedures with them again.
MR. METIVIER-That’s all I have for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Nace, wasn’t The Meadows where you suggested, during the time of
construction, the entrance that the construction vehicles would use? Didn’t you have crushed stone
between the site of operation and the highway road?
MR. NACE-That was a much different site. The Meadows, yes, exactly, it was.
MR. STROUGH-Which I though was a good idea.
MR. NACE-Well, that site was a very silty, wet site that trucks coming off of it would have had a lot
of mud and material sticking to their tires, and that was the real reason for that. This site is going to
be in a sand and gravel pit. In fact, that item of discussion came up with DEC today, and their
reaction is that, no, it’s because it’s a sand and gravel operation. You really don’t drag material out
onto the road.
MR. STROUGH-Well, when it’s wet, it does stick to the tires and get dragged out in the road, and
you notice that with the Hayes’ doing their mining over here on Blind Rock Road. Did it work to
keep the road a little cleaner?
MR. NACE-Well, The Meadows was never built. Generally, it does, yes, we’ve used it before.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and wouldn’t also work, as Tom had some concern, wouldn’t it also work at
controlling the stormwater?
MR. NACE-The stormwater? Yes, it would, and, yes, we could use it here. There’s certainly no
reason.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I just.
MR. NACE-In fact, we could use material from the site to make it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, just some gravel.
MR. NACE-Yes, exactly. That could be done.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the contour lines, those aren’t above mean sea level.
MR. NACE-This is, I think there’s a note on it that’s an assumed datum, because there was no
benchmark, USGS benchmark close by. It says datum assumed, so, yes, these are obviously
somewhere around here we’re at 300 and some odd feet. These start at 100, or somewhere around
100.
MR. STROUGH-425.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then what’s the answer to that? I had that same question.
MR. NACE-It’s an assumed datum. When you do a survey, you can either check in on a USGS
monument to establish sea level elevation, or you can set your own benchmark and use an assumed
datum, and that’s what they did here, because it was too far to go to a USGS monument.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then where’s your baseline, then? Then where is your reference point, the
road?
MR. NACE-They established, without going back to the survey notes, I couldn’t tell you, but
somewhere on the site, they established a point of where they fixed the elevation at Elevation 100.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, I don’t mean to interrupt, but that was my question. Why would that
be so difficult?
MR. NACE-Well, it may take a run of three or four miles to get a USGS monument somewhere.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
MR. NACE-And some places up in the Adirondacks it’s 15, 20 miles.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can’t you stand there with a GPS and take your elevation?
MR. NACE-You can, but it’s not quite that simple to really get an accurate.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I did my own, I’ve got a topo program home, so I did my own, and
that’s the hill, 475 feet is the above mean sea level, and the best I can determine is that you’re going
to take approximately 50 feet of height off that hill, in general terms?
MR. NACE-At the very peak.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, yes, at the peak.
MR. NACE-At the very peak, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay. Now the length of time is going to be about five years, and the dust
and noise Tom already had questions about. I had concerns about that as well. The process, on-site
processing. Are you going to be doing screening, crushing?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-At this time, I’m not planning on doing any of that. I’m generally just
using the material for fill purposes.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I thought, too. You’re going to need it, probably, over on The
Meadows, and you’re going to need it elsewhere.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. STROUGH-So you won’t have any need to process it there because that may answer some
concerns that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t, to be honest with you, I’m using it for fill only. I don’t know
what type of processing you would do, but I don’t have any of that equipment. I don’t plan on,
other than extracting it out of there.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s all you need is to fill, and elsewhere for your other projects.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, that’s it.
MR. STROUGH-So we don’t really need the screening and crushing and the processing and the
stockpiling, necessarily, of the processed material.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, right, because it certainly wouldn’t be cost effective for me to try and
make my own stone because there’s places downtown I get it.
MR. STROUGH-And since there wouldn’t be any processing, that would also cut down on the noise
and the dust and the other operations that would have occurred if you were processing it in this area.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, John, could I just ask you a question while you’re running? You
might ask, what is the need for the processed material and stockpile area? I mean, what was the
thought process when that was put on paper?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not sure if the applicant might want to speak to that, Bob, because it may
have just been a typically kind of arrangement.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you ask him, since you’re on that track.
MR. NACE-That was exactly what you said, a typical arrangement, primarily because DEC wanted to
see it before I knew whether or not Rich was really planning on using that equipment.
MR. STROUGH-Like you, Bob, I have a question on the groundwater table. I ran across that as
well, and I see where you’re locating the baling dams, which seems fine for this project. The white
pines, I had a question about that. What will be caliper and the height of those white pines? Are you
going to use them for screening?
MR. NACE-I don’t know. Did I address that on the notes?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you did here, Tom. I’m sorry. Four inch?
MR. NACE-Three inch.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. STROUGH-Rich, have you talked to Mr. Green, is it Converse and Green, that owns the lot in
the northeast corner of this proposal?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Mr. Green I did speak to previously. He had indicated to me he had
heard that I was possibly going to purchase the property, and I basically told him what I was going to
do with it, and he was looking, actually, to get some additional land, which I’m happy to give him
additional land, but I said there really wouldn’t be a reason for it because I’m going to leave buffers
and we’re not going to disturb behind the homes on Bay Road, especially, if someone was to walk
out in the back, they’d see that’s an area that’s going to be left undisturbed because of the grades and
the buffer.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. One last thing. I meant to, I see Marilyn VanDyke every couple of weeks,
and this knoll overlooks the Sunnyside area, it overlooks the valley. Native Americans typically
favored that kind of positioning, and I just, there probably isn’t anything to it, but I just wanted to
run it by Marilyn if she had any knowledge of historic significance of this area, before we gave, you
know, the final go ahead. Like I say, it’s probably not significant, but I just wanted to run it by
Marilyn before we get all said and done here. That’s it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Most of my questions were directed to the actual mining operation itself, and
you’ve already addressed a lot of them. I guess I just want to elaborate a little bit on some of those.
You talked about the number of trucks that would be there at one time, but how would that equate
into trucks per day? Because I think that’s typically a measure that we’re more comfortable and
familiar with.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, to be honest with you, it’s really hard for me to determine that.
Like for example today. I’m working over at Hiland Springs. I had my one truck working there, and
on the daycare center we had to haul in Item Four for the parking lot and I had two trucks over
there. Again, it may be a situation where, for two weeks I might have four trucks there. It’s really
hard to determine. Unless I land a large project, and what I mean is something the size of a Lowe’s
Lumber where they were hauling all day every day. I don’t see that happening with the type of
projects I’m doing, especially the sites that have been approved on Bay Road where they’re office
buildings. Typically you’ll haul in 1,000, 1200 yards, and you can do that in a couple of days with just
two trucks. I’ve never had where, I haven’t really had a situation where I’d have to have the urgency
to have that much brought at one time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, just worst case scenario, for arguments sake, if you had four trucks there
at a time, would that be four trucks for that day, would it be eight trucks a day? How many trucks a
day?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, it would be four trucks. When I said how many trucks at one time,
usually four, because typically, a loader the size of the loader I have, I don’t think you could keep up
with more than four trucks at a time, especially with such a short haul back and forth to Bay Road,
because it’s only about a mile to the entranceway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-Are you asking how many roundtrips?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how many trucks per day would be coming in and out of the site? Maybe I
wasn’t clear.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m sorry. As far as roundtrips, if we were running to Bay Road, where
the majority of this will go, I think, roundtrip, honestly it would probably take them 12 minutes one
way, a few minutes to dump, and then come back out onto Bay Road and back, so, half hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-So if you’re running four trucks, maybe trying to do the math in my head, 16
trucks a day. Does that sound reasonable?
MR. MAC EWAN-Eight trucks an hour.
MR. HUNSINGER-Eight trucks an hour.
MR. MAC EWAN-Eight hour day.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sixty-four trucks?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I had four trucks there, and again, there’s times we don’t run all day
long. You might run to half a day, get the material you need, spread it around. Again, I’m not a
commercial sand and gravel. I don’t, I’m buying this to keep for myself. I’m not buying it to sell it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just ask. How many trips a day did you say you potentially could generate
out of this? Four trucks, if you generated four trucks, and they can do that in a half hour, four
trucks, that’s eight trucks an hour.
MR. NACE-Half an hour a round trip.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re roughly looking at an average of possibly upwards of fifty trips a day?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, it’s possible, if I had that many trucks, but again, I don’t, when you
look at the numbers that way, it would have to be a very large site where I would have to have, I
don’t think I’d need four trucks, if I could haul that much that quickly. I could probably get by with
two trucks. Again, it’s hard to determine, but most of the sites on Bay Road are, the commercial
ones were one acre, acre and a half, three quarter acre lots that were approved. So you could
probably only put so much on the site to begin with.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m glad that we got that straight. I mean, I understand that the mining
operation is temporary in nature. It maybe lasts up to five years, but still, you know, there’s going to
be the potential for significant impact on that neighborhood. They’re not used to seeing trucks going
up and down that section of Moon Hill, to that extent. So, you know, I’m just trying to get a handle
on what the maximum potential impact could be, and I don’t know how the rest of the Board
members feel, but maybe we might have some discussions about limiting the number of trucks a day.
I certainly have that question about limiting the hours of operation. You’ve said that it would
typically be seven in the morning until five in the evening. I don’t know how you would feel if we
made that a condition of any approval. Yes.
MR. NACE-One thing to consider, Chris, is that we’re only about 250, 300 feet off of Bay Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand.
MR. NACE-So we’re not going through a lot of residential development on Moon Hill to get to the
site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-But there is on Bay Road.
MR. NACE-There’s also a lot of truck traffic already on Bay Road. We’re not a significant.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to be turning in right across from Walker Lane. I guess I’m a little
sensitive to that because I live there. That’s one of the problems I see is the truck traffic, getting out
of Walker Lane today, with ACC running the way it does, plus your trucks. I don’t know. Bay Road
can just take so much congestion.
MR. LAPPER-Wherever it comes from, whether it comes from this site or it came from somebody
else’s borough pit, if he’s doing a project like he has been all summer with the daycare, the soil’s
going to get there, because that’s part of the construction project. So I don’t think that’s really
relevant to this review.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-My trucks, and the trucks I’ve hired, have currently been running on Bay
Road. If they come out of O’Connor or Harris’ pit, they generally come through Sunnyside Road or
sometimes Ridge Road. Fane’s pit, which is just off of, above East Sunnyside Road, that’s one that
we use probably 70% of the time, and the same amount of traffic has been generated from my truck
on Bay Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I had similar questions on the actual operation times. It does say, in one
of the extraction notes, that if phases are to be left for more than three months, that the slope shall
be no greater than 30%. Other than the wintertime, do you envision long periods of time where
there’s no extraction operation?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only time I could see where it wouldn’t be fairly steady is in the
wintertime when the ground gets extremely hard, and it’s not cost effective to try and have men run
dump trucks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Well, you’re not going to be building at that time of the year, either.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We do build in the winter quite a bit, but it’s, most of the local fill
pits even close down temporarily because it’s hard to get the frozen material.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about limitations on the length of time that the mine is open? I know that
DEC only permits for five years. Is there any expectation on your part that you might extend that
period?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-With the pace that I’ve been keeping, with the different developments and
the different commercial stuff, I don’t see where it would last past five years. Again, there’s not,
there’s a good amount of fill, but it’s not what I consider a significant amount. Within the last three
years, I’ve probably exceeded the amount of fill that’s on that site, buying that from sand and gravel
pits.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if there was a condition on the length of time that the pit would be open?
What if we were to limit it to say three years, just for argument’s sake?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Three years might, I don’t know, it could cut it close for me. The only
drawback, it might put us in a situation where I’m rushing within that three year period, and really
stepping up the pace trying to get it out of there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, I’m thinking of the temporary impact that’s going to be on that
neighborhood and trying to minimize those impacts. So that’s why I asked the question.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John addressed a lot of my issues, Rich and Tom. I’ve got a couple of others,
though. The time issue, to have this, you know, call it a gravel pit on that really nice piece of
property, I think it has to be taken into consideration. I hate to have a five year gravel pit right there
on that really nice land, but I understand your response and why you might need five years. Another
thing is, I’ve been taking these contour lines and playing with them in my head, and, I’ll tell you, I
should give this to one of my former earth science classes and let them go to town with it. It’s quite
a lesson in contour lines. What I perceive is, right now we’ve got a piece of land, and we were there,
that’s like this, and goes like this. When you finish, what I see is almost like a bowl, and in other
words, where you have the northeast and the southwest are coming in like this, and.
MR. LAPPER-We’re at 30%.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-At 30%, yes, okay, but, you know, 30%, it’s like, well, it’s a one third slope.
All right. So basically you’re just, tell me if I’m wrong, you’re just totally making the opposite of what
we have, and I do have one concern, to echo Tom’s concern about that drainage, where you have it,
you said where it’s not going to come out of the Hall Road? Well, you do have an arrow that does
point southwest, and if you look, you can see that that southern, the southern new contours that
you’re going to eventually, right there, those are going up. So when that water comes down, they’re
going to, it’s going to come down this way towards the southeast, and it’s going to come down
southerly, and it’s going to have to go into the Hall Road to finish its course.
MR. NACE-It goes across the Hall Road. The water moves perpendicular to the contour lines. So
the only water that would move toward the actual entrance would be from approximately right here,
around, this little piece right in here is the only place where water would move toward the Hall Road.
The arrow you’re looking at is an arrow for that note.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Okay. Yes, that one.
MR. NACE-Regarding plant white pines.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. All right, and I was also looking at the old contour lines that go. So
the other ones go 94, 92, 90, and that’s a big space between 94 and 92.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s relatively flat there.
MR. NACE-You’re thinking that we’re creating a bowl, and we do have slopes on these sides that
come into the site, but the site itself is pretty much this portion is level with the area out here on
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
Moon Hill, and then it steps up, terraces up about six or eight feet, and then this site’s fairly level.
Then it actually slopes off to the, there’s a little saddle in there and it slopes off to the northwest.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know it goes down that way. Now, your new ones go up a little bit, though,
Tom, there.
MR. NACE-Yes. The saddle is right here. Okay, and from here, it slopes very gently into the site,
and then slopes more steeply existing off to the northwest. So this is a high point right along there.
There’s a little high ridge right along here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Now my next question is, all those nice hardwood trees that we
saw on the site, all that’s going?
MR. NACE-Most of those nice hardwood trees are, a lot of them are poplar. The area was evidently
logged not that long ago, because most of it, if you look, most of it is fairly young growth.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. We drove down around and then came up, so we could look at it
from the northwest. Yes. We were down, right over in there, and then looked back towards it.
MR. NACE-I’m not sure you would see it from back there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I was wondering, if we could visualize it from the road back
there.
MR. NACE-I don’t think you could see it. We walked through the site, and up onto this ridge, and
on top of this ridge, you can just barely see a little bit off to the north, but you really can’t see much
at all to the west.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Because from the road, the colors were spectacular, but again, from
right around there. So maybe we were looking off into there.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Because I said to Craig, are you sure we’re, because 10 acres is a lot,
but, you know, are we still looking at the land from the road?
MR. NACE-I really don’t see. I’ve driven up here, and I don’t think you can see, having walked it
and then having been up here, that you can see the actual site from up there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think it’s good that you’ve got a plan for the property after you’re
finished with it. I think that’s, for two homes on that property, it would be beautiful, absolutely
beautiful, but it’s going to still take a while, but I understand where you’re coming from, as far as
needing, you know, you can’t use all that gravel and fill in one year. That’s one of my only problems,
just that the time, the time factor. Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask the question. Why? Why this site?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, over the years, the property’s been on the market for quite some
time, and I actually considered it as a home site for my own home at one time, and I walked it, and it
was just, it’s so steep, I can see why it’s been on the market for a while. Being in the building
business, it’s okay to have sloping driveways, but to get a driveway to the top of that would be
extremely steep and difficult. The other reason, I didn’t just pick this site for the sake of disturbing
that corner, but it was a site that was permitted for the sand and gravel extraction. It’s a site that’s
close to the intense development that’s going on from just Bay Road and Meadowbrook Road, Ridge
Road, but that was the site that I chose, and the other thing is, these lots, at five acres a piece when
I’m done, will be extremely marketable, because I have people come to me all the time that want,
what have you got? You’ve got an acre and a half, two acres. It’s almost impossible to find large
lots, and to offer, even if I have large lots, to try and offer them at a reasonable price where people
can afford to buy them and then build a house. They’re just not out there, but when I’m done with
the extraction of the fill, I’ll have two, five acre lots that will be very marketable, and I know I’ll sell
them immediately, if not, before the time I’m done with the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why couldn’t you just take enough fill out of there to make them buildable lots,
without having to take 200,000 cubic yards out of there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is a consideration, but again, with the way Queensbury’s developing,
there’s, you know, the fill is a necessary thing, especially everything west, or I’m sorry, east of the
Northway now. We’re into soils that are loamy, clay. It’s not like the east end of Town over by the
Queensbury School/Bedford Close area where we were working in just fine sands. I’m finding that,
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
you know, it’s every day that we’re having to purchase fill and move fill from other sites that I have.
It’s necessary, unfortunately, to do these developments.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just think that the mining, that potential for this mining is excessive for that
parcel of land, and I’m having a difficult time, in my mind.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No site, I understand, no site is a site that anybody wants to see mined.
I’m not particularly fond of going on any property and leveling it and taking all the trees and stuff,
but again, it’s necessary for the developments that I’m doing in the area.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it doesn’t mean every parcel of land in the Town is developable, you know,
to the maximum that you’d like to impact is.
MR. LAPPER-I guess part of the answer is that we’re in the zone of the Town that permits mining.
So to take out a hill and to have a developed parcel, Rich is thinking about the future, in terms of
what the neighborhood will look like. It meets the criteria under the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, Jon, in all fairness, you make that statement sound so cut and dried, that it’s
totally doable in this part of Town. Anything’s doable in the Town, as long as you have site plan
review or you meet the Subdivision Reg’s.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but there’s mining regulations that are very specific in the Town and the State.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it goes beyond that, too. I mean, not just the mining regulations, not just the
Zoning Ordinance. I mean, I’m thinking SEQRA, too, and I’m thinking the impact that this
potentially is going to have on the neighborhood, and everything that’s associated with it. I mean,
we’re talking about a character of a neighborhood here as well. I mean, if you’re currently getting fill
from other sites in Town, what’s wrong with continuing to do that, or impact this parcel as minimally
as you can?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Some of the problems are, we have very limited amount of places where
we can get fill. Fill is extremely expensive to move, to truck it. There are some pits that are reaching
their timelines where they’re going to be closing eventually, because they’re going to be meeting the
restrictions that DEC’s put on them. I know that for sure. So I’m, you know, always looking ahead
for the future, and, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you plan on selling any of the fill?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have no intentions. Again, I think I’ve said over and over, this is for my
own use, for my own projects. I have enough of my own stuff going on that I have no need to sell it
to other people.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to utilize it only for projects you have in Queensbury, or
elsewhere?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, if I had projects outside of Queensbury, realistically, it wouldn’t be
cost effective. Fill is not the expensive part. It’s the trucking. That’s where the expense is.
Generally people will even give you fill, if they have it, but it’s the moving of the fill. I had an offer
in Hudson Falls last week, someone offered me 10,000 yards for free, but if I was to haul it from
Hudson Falls, over to Bay Road, it would be one hour one way, through traffic and where the
location was. So it’s just not cost effective that way.
MR. LAPPER-Also, just in terms of what you’re saying about the mining operation, if you start with
a flat piece of property and you dig down, and then the water table permits it, when you get down
and you do your reclamation and you re-seed it, you always have a hole to look at, but here, because
of the nature of the land, you take down a hill, you can have two building sites. So at the end, it’s not
going to look like something that’s a scar. It’ll look like two homes. It’s just a nice opportunity
because it’s a hill.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I share that viewpoint because that particular part of Town is a lot
of rolling hills up there, especially in the Glen Lake area. So if you were to come in there and just
basically level that lot, and make it flat and build two houses on there, it certainly, to me, would look
out of place when it was all said and done.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if you look at the subdivision across the street, on Sunnyside, that’s all flat.
MR. MAC EWAN-Farm land.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it was, farm land. It wasn’t a big hill that someone moved. It was
farm land. If you were to move this 200,000 yards of fill out of here, how would you know when
you’ve reached your 200,000 yards?
MR. LAPPER-The grades. The contours on the map.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t really follow. Explain it to me a little bit more.
MR. NACE-The contours, the final grade contours, establish where the mining operation stops. The
200,000 cubic yards is a calculation based on the existing topography and the finished topography
that you see on the map, okay. It’s just a calculation. The finished topography is really the limit of
what we’re saying will be removed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then maybe you can explain it to me a little differently. Go back to the
beginning when you were talking about how you got your benchmark for shooting your initial grade,
to determine what your elevations were.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as it correlates now to what your finished elevations would be when it’s all
said and done.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we know that it’s 200,000 yards you’re taking out, versus 275,000 yards.
MR. NACE-Okay. The same, since there wasn’t a USGS monument anywhere close to check in on,
to get sea level data, okay, the surveyors set a monument of their own, okay, that establishes an
elevation that they’ll go back to, when final grades are determined, okay, so that they’ll all reference
that same benchmark, whether it was for the initial survey or for the construction surveys that are
done to make sure that these contours are adhered to with the final reclamation of the site. So that
this same datum will be used, okay. We say that it’s arbitrary because they set a benchmark
somewhere and called it 100. The 100 is what’s arbitrary. The actual benchmark is fixed.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s going to be done with all the trees from the lot now? Will it be
logged?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, again, some of the trees, if you were to walk up there, they’re real
small, four, six inches in diameter, but there are some larger ones. Anything of value we’d certainly,
you know, take away and sell as logs, but the other, the smaller trees would probably just be chipped
or we’d take them away. There’ll be no on site burying of stumps or brush. I want to make that
clear.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m still not convinced. I guess I don’t know. To me, it seems very excessive, for
the parcel of land, and more importantly, where it’s located in the Town. I think it would probably
be an easier sell for me if it was something a lot smaller, a lot less mining. If your position was that
you just need to clear off enough of the parcel to make it doable to build two houses on there that
were economically feasible to you and to the property owners by giving a level lot, I mean, that’s one
thing, but when you’re talking taking out 200,000 yards of fill, that, to me, seems like an awful lot for
this parcel.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what Rich is saying is that this lot affords the opportunity to take off 200,000
yards, and still leave it so it can be nicely developed for two houses.
MR. MAC EWAN-But what I’m hung up on is the character of the neighborhood, and that whole
area up there, this is what we see, on that side of Bay Road.
MR. LAPPER-Well, but when I started off tonight, the advantage to this site is that because there’s
nice wooded buffer in that 50 feet, this is all going to be taking place behind trees, and there’ll only
be the one road in during the logging operation. So it’s really hidden. It’s not like an open area that
you can see from the roads or see from the neighbors. It’s all going to be behind trees.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that you wanted to add? Any other questions from Board
members? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment on this application? Please come right on up and address your
comments and concerns to the Board, and could you state your name for the record, please.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ART LE MAY
MR. LE MAY-My name’s Art LeMay. I live right here on Moon Hill, approximately right in this area
here. Now, I’ve never heard of anybody taking a mountain out to build two houses, when there’s a
gravel pit right here. The trucks run here every hour, out of Fane’s pit. Hundreds of them a day
going by there, besides Fane’s trucks. Now we’re going to have trucks coming out of here, dragging
dirt down to here. There’s an accident here three times a year. Nobody’s put a light there. I don’t
know how you figure that’s going to work. I just think it doesn’t make sense to level all that for two
houses. How much area right here is going to be flat? That’s what I want to know first? Is that five
acres of flat ground? I’ve heard about all these curves coming down but they haven’t said how much
ground that’s going to be on the level ground. The whole thing it’s all about is gravel. Gravel $.50 a
yard. Figure it out. It’s not because he wants to build two houses there, and we’ve got to live here
and listen to that. Five years? You can’t do it in five years. I drove truck 20 years, I hauled out of all
these pits. Not this one, it’s not there, but I’ve hauled out of that one. I’ve hauled out of
O’Connor’s, there’s five pits around there. Why do you have to come here near our house and do
this? It doesn’t add up. It’s because of the gravel. It can’t be because of two houses. There’s
thousands of places you can build, other than taking a mountain down to build, but I just think it’s
going to be a mess, that’s all, and we’ve got to listen to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
RANDY HUBER
MR. HUBER-Randy Huber. I have property on the northern end. We weren’t privy to this map. I
assume this is being contoured down? Is that correct? Well, this was a gravel pit, years and years
ago, and that property is very, very low. I don’t know where you’re getting a contour down. Because
that property starts here and goes up, and I guess the other question that I want to know is the depth
of this compared to the road. Are we talking the same level as the road or are we deeper? Are we
above it?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get him to come back up, when everybody’s done asking questions.
MR. HUBER-I’m just curious about that, and, yes, the back part of this goes up a slope, and then it
drops, the back property line of Mr. Cech’s is way back here at the bottom of my hill. That’s quite a
drop down that hill. It’s got to be at least, I don’t know, a minimum of 2, 300 feet from the top of
the silt to where that bottom marker is. Is that hill going to remain also? I mean, we have a lot of
wild deer, turkey, numerous other animals. I moved there because I wanted to see where I’m at, not
to have somebody come in and bulldoze my hills out. So, other than putting money in Mr.
Schermerhorn’s pocket because he won’t go down here to get gravel. I just don’t see where it’s
going.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
JEFF KAIN
MR. KAIN-My name is Jeff Kain. I live at Sunnyside North. Obviously Mr. Schermerhorn is quite
an opportunist. He gave no definitive answers this evening to any of us. If you go back and read
through, he gave us none. Okay. He said he gets 70% of his fill from Fane, which this gentleman
said is probably less than half a mile down the road. We’ve got an increase in trucks with the
building of the new fire department that’s going to be there. It is on a very dangerous corner. I’ve
lived there for six years now, and I’ve seen several, and I mean several, serious accidents at the corner
of Moon Hill and Bay Road. There has been no light. There’s no caution area. It’s extremely
dangerous. I’m also very concerned that Mr. Schermerhorn is not more of a private home developer,
but more of a commercial developer in the area, as we’ve seen. All his areas seem to be, not single
family homes, but predominantly larger complexes, across the street, down the road, and so on, and,
you know, five years, he says, well, it may take longer. Who’s to say. He says borough pits that are
closing. Who’s to say this isn’t going to be a continuing operation, five years from now, as well. I’m
very concerned, and I’m sure I speak for many of the people in the area as well. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
FRED CHAMPAGNE
MR. CHAMPAGNE-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Fred Champagne. I live at
Juniper Drive, which is just northeast of this project. I want to start out by saying it’s awfully nice to
be on this side of the table asking the questions rather than trying to answer them, but my concern,
obviously, is, and I’ve known Rich for a long time. In my opinion, he’s a pretty honest builder, and
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
I’ve got a lot of respect for him, but, you know, Rich, you did leave some unanswered questions, in
my opinion, that I think somewhat disturbs me to the fact that, you know, when the question was
asked, and I can’t remember who it was that asked the question, will there be a mining operation to
greater intensity, which, for those of us that have been around mining operation where you have a
crusher, a screening operation, that’s noisy. Not only noisy, but it’s dusty, and it’s not good for
certainly the neighborhood that surrounds that area. In our home, on a good day, you can hear Fane
operation at Dream Lake. You can hear the crusher, and it’s disturbing, and I know that you folks
here have to make a pretty critical judgment tonight, and I honor you for doing that, but I think
Bob’s first question, right out of the shoot, was where is the DEC permit. Now my question, Bob,
very similar to yours, is, there will be a public hearing with the DEC, yes or no?
MR. MAC EWAN-There is during their process, isn’t there, in their permitting process, their
application process?
MRS. MOORE-I’m aware of a notification. I’m not aware of what the process is.
MR. CHAMPAGNE-My understanding, in the past, that there was a public hearing for the DEC
permitting process. That being the case, it just seems to me that this evening, maybe we’re
prejudging some options here that we may have down the road, or we may not have, and I guess I
would like an answer to that. What opportunities will we have to discuss with DEC, especially in
putting some regulations on this process, from seven to five, maybe, yes or no, Saturday mornings
from seven to twelve, yes or no, and it behooves this Board to make those kind of decisions early on,
and unfortunately tonight, I do not feel comfortable in the kinds of answers that I’ve received in
order to go forward, in terms of passing judgment on this, whether it’s yes or no on your part. I
think there still remains a number of concerns there that we need to concern ourselves with. Fifty
feet of buffer area is not an awful lot, let me tell you. Now we could probably measure out this room
and we may have 50 feet lengthwise here, but not an awful lot more, and I think that that in itself
does not speak highly of the sponsor of this project, in terms of protecting the neighborhood.
You’ve walked it. You’ve seen it. You’ve looked at it. We’ve got a real nice neighborhood there,
and by all means, I’m not here to discourage you and your vote, but I’m here to tell you that 200,000
yards of fill, at the rate of this gentleman said $.50, that’s buying it fairly reasonable, and I understand
that trucking costs are exorbitant, but for another half mile up the road, there it is, ready to go. Just
send me the check and you can get all the fill you need. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN PAYNE
MR. PAYNE-My name is John Payne. I’m a property owner on Lakeview Drive, just down in the
valley, and most of my concerns have been touched upon here with the rest of the folks that have
shown up. I do have the same concern that a lot of the questions were seemed to be skated around,
things like how many loads of fill are to be removed in this five year project. Based on the capacity
of the small trucks that he has, how many trips per day does that mean, and he also mentioned that
there was a limited amount of months that he could work to do this mining. So basically it sounds
like when it’s crunch time, they’re going to go like hell. I’m also concerned about things like
generators for lighting and that type of thing. Will it be lit year round? Will there be generators
running, creating more noise, than already created by the equipment? In fact, what type of
equipment are we talking about? There has to be something used to mine this stuff, not just dump
trucks coming in and out of the site, and what type of equipment is that? Hours of operation. That
was not defined clearly, and along the lines of the DEC concerns, was there ever a reclamation plan
and a bond amount established and secured with the DEC? I’m also concerned about the traffic and
the safety there. There’s several bus stops, school bus stops along the way, along that road.
Everybody who lives there, and most of the folks have talked about the already treacherous
intersection that it is. It seems to be when there’s an accident there, it’s never a fender bender. It’s a
serious one. Being that with additional dump trucks coming down Moon Hill Road, with how many
cubic yards of weight there is in a dump truck, with that already steep terrain, it’s a difficult stop to
make if you’re in a Volkswagon Rabbit, much less a dump truck with a load of gravel. Also, I live on
Lake Sunnyside, and I don’t know what effect this has on the lake and the lake water, but I’d like to
have that looked into as well as the pond and the stream that are on that property site. Nobody has
seemed to mention that there is some wetlands back there, and has DEC looked at that, and what
effect does it have on that? I know there’s a nice stream back there, if you walk back in, it’s beautiful.
It comes off the mountain. It ponds up in an area that there’s fish in, and I’d like to know what
impact that has, and my overall concern is that there should be, there could be a better site, less
residential in nature, for this type of mining operation. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DONNA LE MAY
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MRS. LE MAY-I live on Moon Hill Road as well, right behind this site.
MR. MAC EWAN-Your name, please?
MRS. LE MAY-Donna LeMay, and I live right behind the site where they’re going to build, and I’ve
got to say that when we purchased our property six years ago, we did it because of the quiet and the
beauty of the land there. I have asthma, and I’m concerned about the dust from the gravel being
taken out, trucked. I’m also concerned about, what’s that going to look like in the winter months.
They’re saying that there’s a buffer there, but when the leaves are all off the trees, what kind of an
eyesore is that going to be to the community when there’s notching there to protect it, as well as the
accidents on the corner and I work a 40, 45 hour work week. I don’t want to hear tractors, loaders
and trucks going at seven o’clock in the morning, even if that is convenient for when they need to
take the gravel out of there, especially on Saturday. So those are all my concerns, and the wildlife as
well, the deer run through there and everything. It just doesn’t seem fair that they’re going to destroy
something that we have worked our whole lives to buy and build. I mean, it’s just going to be gone if
they take that away.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? For the time being, I leave the public hearing
open.
MR. LAPPER-I guess just some general comments I’d like to make, in response. Rich is a local,
Queensbury resident who lives two miles from the project site, has a history and a reputation for the
projects that he does, as a careful builder. I understand that the neighbors are concerned about
change, but Rich lives there. He’s building projects on Bay Road. People have a lot of respect for
the care that he takes, and he’s going to do this right so that he doesn’t impact the neighbors, and we
certainly are here to discuss reasonable conditions to assure the Board members and the residents
that it’ll be done right. Somebody questioned I guess whether he would really build two houses
because he’s not a residential builder. Rich has built hundreds of residential homes in Queensbury
and the surrounding towns. He does many single family residences, as well as doing multifamily and
commercial projects.
MR. MAC EWAN-But would he?
MR. LAPPER-On this? He’ll commit that this subdivision, that he’ll build houses.
MR. MAC EWAN-Because it gives you, there’s some potential, under that Section of the Ordinance,
to build something other than single family.
MR. LAPPER-I didn’t look at that, because Rich only said he wanted to build two houses, but we’re
asking for a two lot subdivision, but, yes, we would condition it that it would be two single family
homes. We know we could have done three, but this just seemed like the better plan. I mean, we’re
willing to agree to reasonable conditions to put in writing everything that Rich has said.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we’re quite there yet.
MR. LAPPER-I understand that, but I’m just saying, in terms of where we are looking to go with
this. There is not a wetland in the area. The stream that was discussed is north of the site, on
another property, and we the tax map that shows that. In terms of, someone talked about the Fane
pit and that there’s already plenty of trucks on Bay Road, and that’s, Bay Road is one of the main
travel corridors in the Town, and it does have a lot of truck traffic and, as Rich said, sometimes
there’ll be more or less operation here, but we don’t, we’re not going to significantly add to what’s
there now. It just has to be done right. Tom, I’m sure you have some specific answers.
MR. NACE-Let’s see. Mr. Huber, I think, was discussing the topography of the site and concerned.
It sounded like maybe he’s one property removed. This, from the area up here, the limits of what
we’re disturbing all slopes down, and it continues to slope down through part of the next property to
the north of us, and I’m not sure, I don’t remember what his exact question up here was.
MR. HUBER-Well, there’s a ridge across that side.
MR. NACE-There’s a ridge across here. This is a high portion of the site. This ridge comes across,
and then there’s this little knoll that sort of interrupts the ridge, and then another little knoll over
here, but from those knolls, everything slopes down to the northwest.
MR. HUBER-Actually, it slopes to the northeast, I think. That’s my property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Huber, can we just let him go through his responses, please.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. NACE-This survey shows that this all slopes off to the north/northwest, but predominantly to
the north. One of the other questions that came up was regarding the DEC permit process. During
their permit process, there is a legal advertising period, and an open public comment period, which
DEC accepts public comments regarding the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you, offhand, know if that’s just written comment or is there actually, during
the review of the application, have a public hearing like we have?
MR. NACE-They actually hold a public hearing. There is some sort of threshold, and I don’t think
we exceed that threshold beyond which they require a public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-So it’s written comment only?
MR. NACE-I believe it’s written comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-How are neighbors notified of that?
MR. NACE-Through a legal advertisement in the Post Star.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. They do not do mailers or anything like that?
MR. NACE-No, they do not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-As Jon said, there is no wetland. There is no stream. There is no pond on this property.
I believe what Mr. Payne was referring to is one property or two properties removed to the north.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the concern was, was any potential erosion going to be kept on your
property, and not contaminate or effect that stream which is pretty much right off your property line
on that northwest corner, where it comes close.
MR. NACE-No, actually, the stream, I believe, that he’s referring to, is significantly to the north of
this.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that stream is right there. If this is your property, where you’ve got X’d out,
there’s a stream right there coming right off the corner.
MR. NACE-Well, then maybe I have it X’d out a little too large. Here’s the tax map. Here’s our
property, right here, okay, and the stream is up here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-So I may have, on this location map, I may have shown the site a little larger than it is.
One other thing that was said is the truck traffic approach to this intersection being steep. If you
look at the contours and if you go out there, by the time you get down to our entrance road, it’s
relatively flat from there to the intersection. There’s, I believe, only four feet above the intersection
on Bay Road. So it’s not, for our trucks coming out of that entrance drive, it’s not a steep pitch
down to Bay Road.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, just in general, as this moves forward, Rich has said that he’s not going to
have a crusher on the site. So that certainly could be a condition, and that would be a big noise issue
for the neighbors. The hours of operation can certainly be conditions. We’ll put in writing your
conditions, just what he said, and I hope that that will give the neighbors some comfort.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you address, one commentor was curious as to how many acres were
actually going to be, for lack of a better term, leveled.
MR. NACE-Okay. The entire, the site’s approximately 10 acres. The entire perimeter, entire area to
be disturbed is 6.3 acres. The flattened area within that, if you just sort of look and draw some, make
an estimate of what’s sloped versus what’s flat within the disturbed area, it looks that it may be two
thirds of the disturbed area is flat. So approximately four acres would be flat, or relatively flat.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have one, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple I guess. Tom, let’s talk about this
depth to groundwater one more time. In order for you to determine just how much you’re going to
be able to get out of that site, it seems to me that you’ve got to know something about depth to
groundwater. Because it’s going to talk to how much you can dig in an area. You’re not going to dig
into groundwater. Once you get there, you’re done.
MR. NACE-Okay. My professional judgement is that everything we have proposed will not come
anywhere close to that five feet to groundwater, but we will certainly verify that, and that could be a
condition that a test pit does verify that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, really, the reason I’m harping on that is not because I want to make a deal
out of depth to groundwater. The 179-64 really talks to that as the first, practically the first item on
the Code, in the Zoning Code.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Apparently whoever wrote that considered, when you do mining, depth to
groundwater is an important element.
MR. NACE-And that’s one of DEC’s conditions as well.
MR. VOLLARO-So without knowing that, without me or any of the other Board members
understanding that parameter, I don’t know, you know, I am almost stopped right there. Between
the mining permit and not knowing depth to groundwater, I don’t know how much further I,
personally, I can’t speak for the rest of this Board, but I don’t know how much further I can go in
coming up with an approval on this I just don’t see how I can do that. Now it’s not even
considering impact on neighborhood and a few other things that I think I’d like to talk about, as part
of this, and, you know, we’re running on cumulative impacts here as well, maybe not on this site, but,
you know, being a resident along Bay Road, I can really see, begin to see the cumulative impacts, just
a little bit of what, Rich, what you’re doing across the way from Walker Lane shows very heavily to
me, especially around 8:30 in the morning, when ACC’s starting to bring their students in, traffic
from your site, traffic from the neighborhood that I live in, including your apartments, and where I
live, it’s getting to be pretty difficult to get out of, making a left turn out of Walker Lane is becoming
very, very difficult, and we’ve had some neat accidents there in the last six months. I’m really
concerned about the traffic impact, from a cumulative point of view, on Bay Road.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, remember, this is a temporary project, and Bay Road is one of the main travel
corridors, and a County Road.
MR. VOLLARO-I know it’s the main travel corridor, I understand that, but, you know, we, this
community has got to be real careful now in its growth patterns, as to what we’re doing. We’ve really
got to be careful, as far as impacts on neighborhoods are concerned. We’re really getting to that
point now where it’s, we’ve got to carefully pick and choose what we do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Especially to your comment that it’s only a temporary thing. It may be a
temporary action, but it’s going to have permanent effects.
MR. LAPPER-But when it’s done, it will be in character with the neighborhood, because instead of
being a hole, it’ll be two houses.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the character of the neighborhood is already there. That hill is part of
their current character.
MR. LAPPER-But I don’t think that there’s a requirement that you keep the natural topography in
the area.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I know that. I understand that developers have their rights, and I support that.
I really do, but I think, at this point in time, we’ve got to be very selective in Queensbury about what
we develop now. Every piece of land is going to be expensive to develop, and we’ve got to be
careful on how that development impacts the entire Town.
MR. LAPPER-Development has to be done right.
MR. MAC EWAN-When we’re seeing a steady stream of that in the last year, year and a half.
MR. LAPPER-No question, development has to be done right, and Rich has proven, like with his
Hiland Springs project, that he will bring it up to whatever standards the Board reasonably requests.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s not like you’re going to bring this parcel up to some standards that it
doesn’t meet now. That’s the problem that I’m having with this whole application. What you’re
talking about is physically changing a specific part of a very rural portion of Queensbury that’s
known for the landscapes that it has in that area, and once you change it, you can never put it back.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would argue that there’s nothing significant about this hill, in terms of a
view.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not saying there’s anything necessarily significant about the hill in particular,
but I’m talking about significant in how it fits into that neighborhood, and neighborhood character
overall.
MR. LAPPER-Well, temporarily, you’d have the same impacts that you have with Fane, where there
would be trucks, and at the end, you’d have houses that are similar to what’s on Moon Hill Road
already.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but Fane is there now. It sells gravel. Gravel can be had from that. Why
develop a piece of ground to put two additional houses on it? I mean, I just don’t understand that.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, again, a gentleman in the crowd brought up the price of fill. If I
could buy fill for fifty cents, I wouldn’t even consider, I wouldn’t even look at this property. Fill, just
for his information, if he checks, typically is $1.25 a yard, $1.40 a yard, out of the gravel pits, and
that’s just pure bank run sand, they call it. So there’s a significant difference.
MR. LE MAY-So that’s what it’s worth to him, too, to buy it. That’s what it’s worth, $1.00 a yard.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please.
MR. LE MAY-He’s questioning me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t mean to mislead anybody in the crowd here. I’m not trying, I
think I made it very clear, in the very beginning, that I was developing this site for the fill, for my
projects, and then when we’re done, to put building home sites on that. I never, didn’t say that I
wasn’t taking the fill. I never brought up that there was a, you know, a value there. Obviously,
there’s a reason, to develop these other parcels, you know, to stay competitive, with changing, well,
conditions in our soils and stuff. I mean, I’m not saying I’m not, I never said I wasn’t taking the site
for the fill. I want to just make that clear.
MR. LAPPER-I have one important point. Somebody talked about the rural character. There are
not many zones in the Town where you can have mining operations, and because it’s Rural
Residential Three Acres, it’s not a dense zone. So on the one hand to say it’s a rural character, the
opposite is that you don’t have 20,000 square foot lots where you have a lot of people that are very
close to their boundary lines that are all developed. You have a lot of land here, and that’s why the
Town Zoning Code determines that this is an area where you can have this kind of operation, and
the boundaries, the buffers can be maintained. So, the Code looks at this as an appropriate location
for this type of operation.
MR. MAC EWAN-As long as we all know there’s some deficiencies in our Town Codes, and that we
all don’t see things the same way. While it may say in RR-3A that you can do a mining operation
there, it also says you can do it in light industrial zones as well, and that’s part of what I’m hung up
on. I mean, that’s just my position. I don’t know where the rest of my Board members are. I think
what I would like to see you prepare for me, anyway, and hopefully I’ll get the rest of my Board
members to go along with me on this. I’d like to see a cross sectional elevation of the site now, and
what the proposed finish would be, so we can see exactly how much is going to come out of there.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think Mr. Vollaro has got the support of the rest of the Board in wanting to
know the depth to groundwater.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I would also suggest that, if we’re going to table this, there’s no need to get
into the Subdivision tonight, since that’s the reclamation end of this. We might as well just table that,
let the other projects go on, and we’ll come back with this information and pick it up next time. I’d
like to make one request, I guess, if, when you go to DEC to discuss your mining permit with them,
is there a mechanism available for the neighbors to know when that will be, so that they have an
opportunity to either write in, if that’s the only thing they can do.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-They just answered it. The only means you’ll have will be a legal posting that will
be in the Post Star. Does the Town get noticed?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, we do get noticed.
MR. LAPPER-We can notify the Town, the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what I’d like you to do for me. The Town will get noticed anyway. When
the Town gets noticed, would you just carbon copy Mr. Champagne, and Mr. Champagne can let all
the neighbors know. That way everybody is kept in the loop. You didn’t think you were getting out
of public service that easy, did you?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I have a question about the zoning, and Mr. Lapper makes the statement
that this land is zoned like this, and then, Craig, you say, well, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all
the zoning is, you know, that you agree with it, but isn’t this all part of the new re-zoning of the
Town, Laura?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Remember how we re-zoned the whole Town, or we’re in the process of it,
and we’ve gone to the meetings, we’ve got all the proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not there yet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We have all the proposed sites up. We have all the different colors for all the
different parcels. Tell me.
MRS. MOORE-I’m not aware of a proposed zone change in this area. It is something that I’d have
to look at. I believe it’s still maintained as Rural Residential Three Acres in this area, and the uses I
don’t believe change either, in this area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. That’s my question. In other words, with all the studies and all the
committees and all the deliberation that’s been done over the past few years, on re-doing the zoning,
if it needs to be, or keeping what there is, then the committee’s all saw fit to keep the land that we’re
discussing this evening as is.
MRS. MOORE-As far as I know.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So in other words, my point is, the fact that that still has a mining
use, in the zoning, has been addressed over the past few years. Because all these properties were
addressed, okay. I just want to make that clear, in my mind, and in everybody else’s, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Cathy, let me try to understand what you’re saying.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What I’m saying is that, to go out of the character of this neighborhood, all
right, first of all, to mine on that piece of property could be out of the character of the
neighborhood, given the people that live in proximity to the site that we’re discussing, but, my
statement is that we’ve had, I’m trying to kind of talk about what Craig just said, as a rebuttal to Mr.
Lapper, that Mr. Lapper said, well, you know, this is within the confines of the zoning laws, and
Craig said, well, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these laws are, the way it’s been zoned is really the
way it should be, but my question is, haven’t all these parcels been looked at and addressed in the
past three to five years, with all the committees that we’ve had on the zoning of Queensbury?
MR. VOLLARO-In other words, you would think that they would eliminate mining from this zone if
they thought about it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly, and what I’m trying to say is that we’ve been deliberating all these
parcels of land, and, you know, the applicant’s counsel has got a point there, and I’m not saying I
agree with that, but I think it’s something that should be on the record, that this, all these parcels of
land in Town have been addressed and have been looked at, and out of all those people on the
committees, I don’t remember anybody saying that they’re going to take out that use for that land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stop right there. It hasn’t gotten to a Town Board. It hasn’t been enacted into
law. So anything can happen between now and then.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now that’s a good closure for what I just said. Okay, but again, all
those posters still have been made, and all those color, they’re all color coded.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-But it doesn’t mean anything. It’s proposed. I mean, that may be 20 years before
it’s adopted.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it was imminent.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing that’s imminent is your tax bill. Anything else that members may
want?
MR. STROUGH-Well, we ran into another mining situation, in fact, I think it was over by Dream
Lake, I don’t know if that’s Fane, and there were concerns at that time by some of the neighbors that
the heavy trucks were ruining the road, and I just wondered if we should get the Highway
Department to make sure that hill road can take the heavy trucking that Mr. Schermerhorn proposes.
Just an okay, might be okay, but just a look see, and I don’t know if you want me to take care of it, or
if you want to formalize it, some form of.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re just looking for like the maximum tonnage the road is able to handle?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and if it’s okay, it’s okay. If it’s not, then we’ll hear about it, but at least they’ll
take a look at it, and the same kind of thing with the Town Historian. Now, I don’t foresee any
problems with this, historically, but you never know, and I’d rather be safe, because the Glen
Lake/Sunnyside area is an area that has got a depth of history to it as far as Native American
occupations, and so I’d just like to run it by. I don’t know if you want the applicant to run it by
Marilyn, or you want me to do it on my own?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll direct our tabling to the Staff, and direct the applicant.
MR. STROUGH-Now, are we going to get some feedback from the Warren County Soil and Water
Conservation office?
MR. NACE-I can talk to them, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What was the purpose of, the County, when they made that a condition of
approval, they just want to be sure that it’s going to be seeded in a certain way?
MR. NACE-That the seeding spec was proper for the soil and the land.
MR. STROUGH-And, I don’t know if this is appropriate either. I don’t know if Richie might
consider possibly reducing the extent of the mining operation, seeing as there is some public concern
there, and maybe the extent of the time of the mining operation.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you asking for, like an alternate plan?
MR. STROUGH-If it’s not appropriate, I’ll stop.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I said it early on, too.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you suggested it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought it would be all or nothing.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s really about it.
MRS. MOORE-I just thought it may be useful if a list of equipment to be used to remove the fill was
provided as well. Because it’s not a standard thing that everybody is aware of.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have in my notes, in my written notes here, on the meeting, that no
processing of material would be done on the site at all. I see the only equipment on that site is a
backhoe and a truck.
MR. LAPPER-And a bulldozer.
MR. VOLLARO-And a dozer. Okay. That’s it.
MRS. MOORE-Well, I mean, it’s something that not everybody knows.
MR. LAPPER-There’s not going to be lights. Somebody also talked about lights and generator.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s a list I came up with. Elevations, before and after, you know, a center
elevation and a cross sectional elevation. Depth to groundwater, DEC permit status, along that line,
Staff is going to notify Mr. Champagne when that comment period opens up by DEC, proposed
hours of operation and proposed equipment to be utilized, all proposed activity to be done on site.
Referral to the Highway Department to make sure that the road can handle the extra tonnage of
vehicles, a Town Historical referral. Warren County Soil and Conservation their seeding
specifications and reclamation specifications, and last but not least is an alternate plan of less impact
on the property. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-There was one more thing, that was the maintenance of the grass area, if that turns
out to be, should be done by Mr. Schermerhorn or the current owner. We talked about maintenance
at the very beginning of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Incorporate that in your Warren County Soil and Water Conservation response.
Laura, you had something else?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Just a note that Staff will provide information to the Highway Department and
the Town Historian in regards to the matter. We typically have given information to the Historian in
the past. She just may have not commented on this project yet. I’ll remind.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just simply do both, the Highway Department and the Town Historian in the
form of a memo, ask them to advise us if there’s anything significant with what we’re looking for,
that they require comment, they’ll either comment or not comment.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, could I ask you something? The first item was an elevation plan,
before and after, is that with the one you have going here, and then also one for an alternative plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I’m not looking for one for the alternative plan. I guess where I was
going with the alternate plan was if his intention is to build two houses on the site, convince me with
a clearing and grading plan, and a mining plan, that is minimal impact so you can build two houses.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, to me, his purpose of doing this is not to build two houses.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s to make it, restore it back to normal, or some normalcy, but the main
purpose is to get your fill for your other projects.
MR. LAPPER-It’s both. He wants to take the fill out, and he wants to be able to make money selling
them his house sites and building houses. That’s the business he’s in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are we all set on those 10 items, then? Does someone want to move it,
please?
MR. VOLLARO-Now this is a tabling motion?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2001, RICHARD SCHERMERHORN,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
And the tabling will produce the following:
1. We’d like to get some elevations before and after, on the site, as identified by Drawing 5-1
dated September 24, 2001,
2. Information on depth to ground water,
3. We want the DEC mining permit and the status thereof,
4. We want to know what the proposed equipment on site will be, and all proposed activity on
the site, and hours of operation,
5. That there will be no processing of material on the site other than excavating material, taking
it out,
6. In addition to that, all proposed activity on the site shall be noted,
7. Staff to provide plans to the Highway Department for comment as to the maximum tonnage
capacity that would be allowed on Moon Hill Road [is road able to handle the vehicle truck
traffic associated with mining],
8. There will be a referral to the Town Historian [by Planning Staff for any historic significance
to the project site],
9. The applicant will contact the Warren County Soil & Water on their seeding specs,
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
10. We’ll have the applicant consider an alternate plan showing the impact of essentially a
smaller excavating site.
Please Note: Staff is to inform Fred Champagne of NYSDEC comment period for this application;
Fred Champagne will then notify the neighbors of the comment period time frame
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-And last, we’ll have an alternate plan showing the impact of essentially a smaller
excavating site.
MR. LAPPER-I guess on that one, Rich has to consider it, and he may or may not, I mean, we may
talk about fewer hours, but not, I think you should leave that to his discretion, as to whether or not
he volunteers that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which one?
MR. LAPPER-The smaller plan. It may be smaller in terms of hours, but not in terms of size. We
may be able to prove to you that this is acceptable.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what I was looking for. I mean, my request was, if you want to build
two houses on, his argument was early on that it was too difficult to build two houses on such a
steeply sloped piece of property, and I said, well, you can build houses on property that does have
some slope to it. Could you build houses on something that had less impact than what you’re
looking at, taking 200,000 cubic yards of fill out of there? That’s where I was going with that. Could
you develop that site and only take 50,000 yards out, and still be able to build two houses?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Again, I have said, over and over again, that the purpose is for the fill, and
then when I’m done removing the fill, it’s for the two homes. Yes, we could do it for less, but I did
say that the purpose was for the fill for use.
MR. MAC EWAN-So your position is you don’t want to do that, then?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t want to comment at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re putting a motion through, and we’re tabling this for 10 items, and one of
those is that item.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s up to him (lost words) ones to respond.
MR. STROUGH-I think we left it that we’ll let the applicant consider that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-That’s all we’re asking for.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Just for the public, we left the public hearing open on this
application.
MR. LAPPER-And you’ll do the same for the tabled next application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: SANDRA & MARTIN CECH AGENT:
NACE ENG., VAN DUSEN & STEVES, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: RR-3A
LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF BAY & MOON HILL ROADS APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 10.32 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 4.99 ACRES
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
AND 5.33 ACRES CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-2001 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-13.21 LOT
SIZE: 10.32 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table this application pending the outcome of Site Plan No. 40-
2001. We’ll open up the public hearing and leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2001
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE GETTY
PROPERTY OWNER: AGENT: DECKER & CO. ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION:
CORNER OF RT. 149 AND RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSED MODIFICATION
TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS TO MOVE THTE CANOPY AND
ADD 400 SQ. FT. TO BUILDING. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY CROSS REFERENCE: AV 81-2001 TAX MAP NO. 27-3-7.22 LOT
SIZE: 2.28 ACRES SECTION 179-23
RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2001, Getty, Meeting Date: October 23, 2001 “Project
Description:
The applicant proposes to modify an approved plan. The applicant intends to add 400 square feet of
building to an approved 2,000 square foot building and reorientation of the canopy.
Project Analysis (Section 179-38):
Site Overview
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings,
lighting and signs. The 400 square foot addition would be consistent with the
proposed 2,000 square foot building. The applicant proposes to re-orientate the
vehicle canopy at the front of the building that changes the traffic flow on the site.
The lighting on the canopy increases from 10 to 12. Staff would suggest reducing
the number to six and have the lighting be recessed. The freestanding sign size is
inconsistent on the plans, Section 140 allows for up to 64 square feet at a 25 foot
setback.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
The re-arrangement of the vehicle canopy appears to alter the traffic to the pumps
and pedestrian flow to the building. The applicant has applied to the ZBA to locate
the canopy within the 75 foot on the site (resolution attached). The number of
parking spaces required for the site is 24 for 2,400 square feet. Staff would
encourage locating a bike rack on the site.
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
??
The applicant does not propose any new impervious surfaces.
??
The landscaping area does not change from the original plan
Suggestions:
Staff would suggest approval with the following conditions:
1. The lighting under the canopies will have recessed lighting
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
2. One wall sign will be located on a canopy (Section 140 allows 2 wall signs for lots on corners
through the sign permit process)
3. One wall sign will be located on the building (Section 140 allows 2 wall signs for lots on
corners through the sign permit process)
4. The free standing sign will be no larger than 64 square feet (the notes on the plans are
inconsistent)
5. The canopies will not be back lit
6. That the septic system will get the approval of the New York State Department of Health,
C.T. Male, and the Adirondack Park Agency, only if applicable, and
7. That the identified drafting corrections, as identified by the C.T. Male letter dated August 17,
2001, be made prior to the Zoning Administrator’s signing of the plans, and
8. That a sprinkler system will be installed for lawn and landscaping care
9. The final plans receive a sign-off letter from CT Male”
MRS. MOORE-And the reason why there appears to be so many in this case is that you reviewed
this application at a previous time and some of these were conditions of that approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wouldn’t those conditions just continue on?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-They continue on. They’re more of a highlight.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. FORTUNE-Good evening. For the record my name is Ron Fortune of Lee, Mass.,
representing Getty Petroleum. I was just here a little while ago for an approval on the major portion
of this development and the plan that’s on the easel is, in fact, that. The islands are located parallel
to Route 149 and basically the proposal before you, in this application, is such that the islands will be
located 90 degrees to 149. In doing so, it changes the traffic pattern, and what happens with the
canopy is that we need to move it closer to Route 149 to allow for double lanes. The reasoning for
this request of reorienting the islands in a different direction is our parent company, Luck Oil, after
our submittal, through Getty, has requested of me, in several of their locations for security reasons,
to realign these fueling positions, such that you’re not looking over the top of a van or a car. You’re
looking directly at the front of the car, the rear of the car, and in line with, so that you can visually
see, somewhere in that activity, the car itself. We received ZBA approval on this last week, and some
of the things that were brought up was drive off’s. It really wasn’t on my list of reasoning. It was
more of a safety concern. We have to put fire suppression on this. We have to have controls within
the attendant area, as being a self-serve facility, but what we’re doing is, with cell phones, what we’ve
witnessed is the, even to the point of people using, we’ve had in the past a problem with people using
their gas caps as hold open devices for the nozzles. Well, now it’s even gone one step farther where
we’ve seen people using pagers in there for this kind of thing. We need to see, our attendant needs
to see, a clear line of visibility, as much as we possibly can, and this is one of the ways of doing this,
and that’s the primary reason for me being here tonight, other than the fact that our shape of our
building, with the standard package, it was desired that we get a greater width to the thing. We went
from 40 to 42, and this 42 Series Building runs 57 feet long, rather than the 50 that we had come up
with. So basically this is just a, in my mind, a tweaking of the site on basically a different set of rules
that the Corporation has composed on. I hope the Board would see that the travail lanes are
sufficient, on both sides of the canopy. As far as the lighting and questions to address each one of
the items, I believe that the past approval had 10 lights at 250 watts, we would drop down to that,
and this proposal shows 12 lights, and I would be willing, again, I don’t know that I can change
anything, the way that the memos are written to us, but if the Board wishes to entertain that, you
know, I’m not trying to get more lighting. I do want a safe facility, but we do need this arrangement
switched. I was able to convince the ZBA, and I think that they saw that it was necessary. We have
safety concerns, and we feel that this is a requirement that we need to get ourselves in line to, and
this is basically the request before you. As far as the other conditions, we have no problem with
basically any of those. The lighting still is a question, as to reducing it to an item suggested by Staff
of six. I don’t think we can function with that level of light. We did drop down significantly with
your past approval, from the 400 down to the 250, and again, I did submit this plan showing 12 lights
rather than the previously approved 10, and I have no problem with taking one light out on each end
of the canopy and just putting two on each side, just to make sure that, I’m not trying to get
something here, other than safety. The intention here is nothing other than that, and I apologize if it
seems that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have any comments at this time.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m all set, too. I didn’t have any problems with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m still, I have trouble seeing the traffic flow on here, because it’s kind of
confusing. Now, the entrance on 149, is a two way for automobiles only, right?
MR. FORTUNE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And so if I’m a driver, I come in there, I take a left, and I’m going to have to take
another 90 degree right to get my car aligned to fill it up with gas. Is this correct?
MR. FORTUNE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-So I’m seeing correctly, and you do have enough turning space?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes. There are two 24 foot lanes on each side of the islands, plus a 24 foot resting
lane.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure.
MR. FORTUNE-We’ll have the No Parking noted on the, you know, right in front of the pavement
on the store, and this, and again, somebody’s going to see very easily the traffic pattern on this, and
it’s a pretty standard switch over.
MR. STROUGH-Now, we gave you approval for 10 lights and the canopy.
MR. FORTUNE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And so you’re not asking for any modification for that, from what I understand.
MR. FORTUNE-The plan package before you has 12 shown on it.
MR. STROUGH-I know that.
MR. FORTUNE-And that’s what I’m saying, that I would, I apologize. I was not trying to get more
lighting. My whole thing is we can live with the 10 lights.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. So you’re not asking for a modification there. So it stays 10 lights.
MR. FORTUNE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. FORTUNE-All I need is the turning of the islands 90 degrees and the addition of the square
footage for the store. Basically, that would be, for me, the primary changes to the previous approval.
MR. STROUGH-And I think, correct me if I’m wrong, I think we also said that that lighting in the
canopy will be down lighting only, and that the canopy circumference would not be illuminated.
MR. FORTUNE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Now, the drainage around the well, I can’t remember. I still
have concern about that well being located so close to here, but you say it’s got a water tight cap that
goes on it?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes. We can seal that off completely.
MR. STROUGH-So that won’t be exposed to any contaminants. Okay. All right. That seems to
satisfy me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything. I was kind of curious as to why the proposed
change, because I have noticed that a lot of the newer gas stations do have that sort of arrangement.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
I always thought it was more for the convenience of the customer, rather than the safety issue, but I
guess it kind of achieves both.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes, well, part of the Queensbury, you know, again, the fire department, one of the
things is that, you know, again, they’re requiring a certain set of rules, and there’s State guidelines for
us, watching what kind of containers are used for, you know, transferring to, you know, home use of
the gas product, and this gives our attendant every opportunity. You can’t just say, well, look, I was
blinded by, you know, what was behind. This gives them a better visibility, and they have control of
that, they’re supposed to have control, and there’s an individual responsible for just the attendant for
that operation, not something else within the store. They’re supposed to be focused on that as part
of the reg, and so what this does is corporately takes and gives them the maximum opportunity to
witness every action at that site, and what we’re getting is is that, again, going in, we’re being warned
not to use our cell phones while we’re pumping gas, and I’ve got someone putting a pager in there to
hold their gas open. I mean, that’s the kind of thing that we’re seeing, and, you know, I hope that no
one’s doing it, but I’ve seen it myself, and I was shocked.
MR. STROUGH-They ought to just put their Bic lighters in there and hold it down.
MR. FORTUNE-Well, you wonder.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. Just the suggestions that Staff has. You’re aware of those.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? Staff?
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t had my say yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Bob. I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-As far as the lighting under the canopy is concerned, and getting down to six lights,
versus 10 lights, versus any other number of lights, what I would like to know is how many foot
candles are required underneath the canopy? That’s what’s important. The number of lights, to me,
is secondary to what the number of foot candles on the canopy should be. Right now you’re talking
somewhere around 41 to 32, 28, you’ve got nominally about 35 foot candles in there, across that
span. Taking it down to a six light level, what does that do to you, foot candle wise? That’s what
we’ve got to be talking about. How many foot candles do you think you need for safety under the
canopy?
MR. FORTUNE-I need almost double what’s there, usually.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re saying you’re living with 50% of some standard that you normally
see?
MR. FORTUNE-From Corporate standard, yes. That was agreed previous, on our last application.
MR. VOLLARO-And now that nominal 35 foot candles is equal to 12, to 12 lights?
MR. FORTUNE-I was concerned over losing, even down to six, and so what I came here prepared
to do was to give up two to be in the same as what I had approval previous. I was afraid that I
would get caught into the six, because I’ve always contemplated.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you were approved for 10.
MR. FORTUNE-Excuse me, yes. I was approved, previously, for 10, and I’d like to leave with the
approval on this design for 10, and what it is is I’m afraid that I will lose even, I don’t want to lose
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board’s comfortable in leaving it at 10.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m comfortable with leaving it at 10. I was just wondering, and this is not to cast
aspersions on anybody in Staff, but how did Staff wind up with six? Did you do a foot candle
analysis for six lights, or do you think six is just better than ten?
MRS. MOORE-I did some analysis when I looked at the lighting suggestions that were provided
previously from Chazen. I evaluated those, and I went through that information.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Now those 10 are each 250 watts apiece?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now are you from, can I interrupt for a minute, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure, go right ahead.
MR. STROUGH-Are you familiar with the, the Getty station up on Aviation Road? Probably not. I
don’t expect you to be.
MR. FORTUNE-No. Years back we did do some work on that thing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s got four lights, and I don’t know what the wattage is, and it adequately
lights up two stations, and I see you’ve got three pumps here.
MR. FORTUNE-I think we were regulated there to knock down our standard at that location
because of neighborhood concern right across the street.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay.
MR. FORTUNE-But that’s the compromise that we’re dealing with here. This would normally,
under our standard, we would have the full 12 lights. Usually at every fueling lane, we put, at every
fueling spot, we have three lights. So you would have, if you have six, you’d have 18 lights here that
are 400 watt, and, yes, you have a landing strip of sorts, but the attendant is doing, has no excuse not
to be doing their job. When it’s dark like this, we have complaints with reading, you know, the
dipstick for fuel, or for checking oil. Now, that’s going to be a problem there. We will have a
problem.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I have no problem living with our arrangement that.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes, so we’ll live with that. I mean, we understand the dark sky rules. We
understand we’re out there in a rural setting. We don’t want a landing strip, and we believe that we
can, this 10 is, as long as I don’t have to go to six, we’ll be happy with ten.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m not finished yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sorry. I keep on rushing you on, don’t I.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t mean to.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s two signs here, truck use other entrance signs, and this is on the most
easterly sign on Farm To Market Road.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Those signs, the way they are on this drawing, are facing the entrance. By the time
a truck pulls in there and sees those signs, he’s committed. He has no way of backing out into 149. I
would prefer to see the signs turned 90 degrees, so that they can be seen as no truck entrance from,
coming from east to west, and vice versa. You could have a sign up here that, in other words, you
want them to use this, you want the trucks to use Route 9L on Ridge Road to enter this site, and
these signs would not tell a west bound trucker that he can’t use this site. If he eyeballs this thing,
he’s going to come right on in, once he’s committed, he’s on his way in there. So I’d like to see the
sign turned around, so he can at least see it as he approaches it. This is not a truck entrance. Do you
follow what I’m saying?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-We dealt with that the first time around.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it’s not on the drawing. The drawing shows the signs pointed towards the
entrance there. They’re not turned around.
MR. FORTUNE-I have them heading in the other direction and they’ll have to see the signs as well,
and I think the point was made that maybe doing something, and we would come back if it wasn’t
working out, where they would understand. I think one person came up with the idea that these
truckers are going to understand rather quickly how to get in and out of this site, just visually seeing
what’s going on there, and then one suggestion was from the last time was doing something at our
freestanding sign as to a direction for the truck travel, but one of the things is that we could face
these do not enter, trucks do not enter signs whichever way, but they’re going to be coming from
both directions, to cue to get into this site. So I think it would be, maybe, if you want them to face
that direction, we’ll have to have additional signs for direction.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just looking at the drawing. I don’t have a recollection of what our
compromise might have been on the last time around. I hear other Board members saying, we did
that last time, it’s all done, but, you know, all done or not all done, the drawing doesn’t reflect that.
So I have a problem there.
MR. MAC EWAN-The drawing reflects what we approved.
MR. VOLLARO-It does?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. End of story. Just to be consistent here, with your square footage, you’ve
got a 2,394 square foot building in here, and it’s not 4,000. I know it’s small, but I like to see things,
if it’s a 2,394 square foot building, let’s put that down as what it actually is. It’s 57 by 42 is what your
elevation drawing shows.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And it confirms that in other spots.
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What did you say it was?
MR. VOLLARO-2,400.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-He’s off 10 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just accuracy. That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Just accuracy. I’d just like the drawing to reflect what it’s going to be. When you
went to the ZBA, you got a setback variance from the 75 foot setback requirements?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And your setback is now 58.25 feet. That’s not listed on the drawing. I think
you’re still showing 75 setbacks here.
MR. FORTUNE-We’re showing a canopy setback of 58 feet 3 and 7/16ths, but we’re also showing a
75 foot setback line that we’re indicating.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that what that 58 3 7/16ths is?
MR. FORTUNE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. FORTUNE-And just below it says canopy setback.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I see it. I missed it. My apology.
MR. FORTUNE-Well, I think the 75 is shown where the old, we left the old, approved canopy in
place, just so you could see what you had approved previous.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One last comment. I notice that Staff has indicated that they encourage
locating a bike rack on the site. I’m afraid I would have to stand opposed to that. I would
discourage a bike rack on the site. This is a site that handles 18 wheelers, big trucks. I don’t see this
as a spot where people are going to come in and bike recreate, frankly. That’s just my personal
opinion. I don’t see the need for a bike rack on this site at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-They would if they were riding up Route 9L and wanted to stop in.
MR. VOLLARO-Use a kick stand, you’ve got a built in bike rack.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but, Bob, there’s a lot of people that bike on the highways that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think mixing a bike with 16-wheelers is not just generally a good idea. Just off the
top of my head, it doesn’t good.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree, but people are going to go in there anyway, and they need to chain up
their bike so they don’t get stolen.
MR. VOLLARO-Let them use a kickstand or put a chain on the bike. That’s just my position.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What are they going to chain it to?
MR. VOLLARO-Chain it around your wheel. It’s a small point, but I just wanted to make it, and it
probably won’t go anywhere.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Obviously you’ve never had an expensive bike stolen.
MR. VOLLARO-I have never had an expensive bike stolen, Cathy, you’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please. It should be all inclusive.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2001 GETTY, Introduced by John Strough
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 23-2001. Applicant: Getty
Property Owner: Same. Agent: Decker & Co.. Zone: HC-1A.
Determination of Non-Significance.
Location: corner of Rt. 149 and Ridge Rd. Applicant proposes modification to approved site
plan. Modification is to move the canopy and add 400 sq. ft. to building. Any modification
to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Adirondack Park
Agency. Cross Reference: AV 81-2001. Tax Map No. 27-3-7.22 . Lot size: 2.28 acres / Section:
179-23. Public Hearing: Not scheduled
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 10/12/01:
10/23 Staff notes
10/17 ZBA resolution
10/16 Notice of Public Hearing
10/10 Warren Co. Planning
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
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 for modification is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous conditions of approval still apply with the exceptions of the
modifications being requested here tonight by the applicant. [Copy of the previous
resolution dated 8/21/01 is attached]
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 10/23/01 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. FORTUNE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 46-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED GARY & SUSAN HIGLEY PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: SE CORNER OF QUAKER & GLENWOOD AVE. APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,313 +/- SF WARREN TIRE BUILDING WITH
PARKING AND SITE WORK. NEW USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING
BOARD REIVEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 61-98, AV 83-2001 TAX
MAP NO. 105-1-38.2, 38.1 LOT SIZE: 2.91 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, JAMES MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 46-2001, Gary & Susan Higley, Meeting Date: October 23, 2001
“Project Description:
The applicant proposes a 6,313 square foot Warren Tire building with associated parking and site
work. The project also involves consolidating the Higley’s parcel; this includes the property that the
Sports Page building is on. The ZBA granted relief from the buffer zone requirements of the HC
zone (resolution attached).
Project Analysis (Section 179-38)
Site Overview
The plans indicate the building will be no higher than 20 feet with a total of eight
garage bays; four facing Quaker and four facing the rear of the property. Staff
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
would suggest the building be similar in color and or style to the other buildings on
the site. The project site contains additional businesses besides Sport Page. The
zoning code sign regulation defines this site with three businesses or more as a
business complex.
The applicant proposes to install one parking lot light and building mounted lights.
The pole light will be a cutoff fixture at 16 feet and will be located at the Quaker
Road entrance. Staff would suggest details be included about the building mounted
lights, i.e., type and location.
The freestanding sign is subject to the Business Complex sign regulation that allows
for one freestanding sign per entrance accessing a different public right of way.
Traffic, Circulation, Parking
Warren Tire will utilize the existing access points on Quaker Road and Glenwood
Avenue. The Quaker Road access will be used as the main access point.
Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services
??
The applicant has submitted a stormwater report that has been forwarded to CT
Male for review and comment.
??
The building will be connected to municipal sewer and water supply.
??
The landscaping plan is consistent with the other buildings where the vegetation is
close to the building.
??
Suggestions:
Staff would suggest approval of the site plan as with the following recommendation:
1. The building color or style be consistent with the other building on site.”
MRS. MOORE-I do have a C.T. Male letter. In regards to the application, “We have received a re-
submittal from the applicant’s Landscape Architect consisting of a response letter dated October 22,
2001 and six letter sized excerpts from the plans. Provided that this information is added to the
project plans, the re-submittal addresses the comments contained in our letter dated October 19,
2001.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor, from the firm of Little &
O’Connor, representing the applicant. With me at the table is Jim Miller who is the consultant that
has done the design work for the project. With us also is Gary Higley who is the owner of this site,
or one of the owners of the site, and also principals of the tenant for the site, Wayne Kellogg and his
son Robert Kellogg. This is a site that’s going to be developed as part of the Higley property, and
leased to Warren Tire, and Warren Tire is going to operate the new building that is being proposed.
We believe that we’ve answered all the questions that C.T. Male had, and then we have a sign off by
them. We do not agree with Staff’s recommendation as to color of the building, and we have some
color samples here that Mr. Miller can present to you to show you basically the color of the building,
which is as much in keeping with the building to the east, as they suggest the building to the west.
There really is no one particular color scheme on this particular track of Quaker Road.
MR. MILLER-Do you have questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s hear your presentation.
MR. MILLER-All right. Good evening. The property is 2.9 acres on the corner of Glenwood and
Quaker. Right now the existing Sports Page building is this large irregular shaped building, and this
project was reviewed under previous Site Plan, a number of years ago, and with that approval
different uses for the building were proposed, and the site has been developed according to that site
plan. The site plan required 78 parking spaces, and, right now, the site has those 78 spaces. The
parking along the back, basically for the Sports Page, the driveway continues around, from
Glenwood around, there’s an existing entrance onto Quaker, and there’s an existing parking area, and
this area, and the existing parking extends all the way back to this jog in the pavement, and then back
around, and I believe now there’s like 74 spaces. So it conforms, the existing use conforms to that
approved site plan. Right now the property is two separate lots, both under the same ownership, and
the property line runs down through the middle, and one of the reasons we have proposed
consolidating the property is, there have been numerous variances required, especially the parking,
existing parking for the existing building extended back into that rear lot. The other concern we had,
we have a driveway on Quaker Road, and then approximately 200 feet away there’s a driveway for
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
Key Bank. So there was no way we could accommodate an additional driveway onto that separate
lot. So, having studied it, as a separate lot, we came to the conclusion the best thing to do would be
to consolidate the two lots, and maintain the existing driveway, so no new driveway would be
improved. There would only be some widening and some upgrading of the existing driveway onto
Quaker Road. The proposed new building is a one story. It’s about 18 feet high, fairly small
building, a little over 6300 square feet. It’s going to be an eight bay Warren Tire store, with an office
section and a 1500 square foot storage area. The building meets all the setbacks. There was a
variance required, and in the rear there’s a buffer area, because we’re abutting a residential area, relief
was granted along that back area. This parking along the back would primarily be employee parking
to the rear, with customer parking to the front and side of the building. The parking for the Warren
Tire store is primarily the handicapped spaces are allocated to this building, and the parking in the
front and back are allocated to the Warren Tire store for sake of the parking count, and then the bulk
of this parking lot, as it exists now, will be for the Sports Page building. The site lighting, right now
there’s lights around the existing lot. There’s an existing lot in this area, an existing light on the
drawing, actually, it doesn’t show on the drawing. There’s an existing light right here. We’re
proposing two additional new lights, a new cut off, 16 foot high fixture in this area to provide
additional lighting at the entry and along this driveway, and one of the comments that C.T. Male had
addressed lighting on the building. They felt that the lighting was fairly dim. The business closes at
5:30, so there’s really not a need for much night lighting. There will be an overhang soffit on the
front which will have lighting underneath that’ll light the entrance, will cover the entrance and light
the front, and there’ll be some just wall mounted lights to the rear, which would light the back, and in
response to C.T. Male, in discussion with Jim Houston, one additional cut off light was provided to
add some additional lighting in this area of the parking lot. If customers were picking their cars up at
5:30 in the winter, that would provide safe access at that point, and that, too, would be a 16 foot high
cut off light. The storm drainage for the site, there’s a large culvert that crosses Quaker Road at this
point. There’s a depression in the site. What’s proposed is all the roof drainage would be collected
to the rear of the building in a gutter system, and there would be catch basins in the rear parking area.
The gutters would connect into that. The back portion of the property, where it jogs to the south,
there’d be a shallow grass detention basin. So drainage would come into this structure. There’d be
some detention to compensate for the roofs and paving, and then that drainage would, in turn, drain
to the front of the property and eventually to the existing culvert. In addition, the front, there’s
limited area for detention in the front. We have a groundwater. So wasn’t any option to use any
drywells. This front area drains, and there are two smaller detention basins which we’ve built into
the front of the property which, again, would tie through the catch basin system and out to the
culvert. The property, the landscaping for this site is going to be consistent with the Sports Page,
which is very well maintained and landscaped. We would be removing one tree. There’s two large
oaks at the entrance. They would remain. The new island that would be created, there would be
additional planting in that area, and we’ve provided some landscaping along the sides and along the
front to soften the views to the parking area. This is shrub planting in here, so the building is visible
and the signage, the building is visible. We show a freestanding sign, and as Staff pointed out that
that wouldn’t be allowed, because we already have the two allowed freestanding signs. So we will
remove that sign from the plan, but we’ll, you know, just rearrange that landscaping and maintain
that landscaping there at that corner of the parking lot. The dumpster area and there’s a waste oil
and waste tire storage area. That’s located to the rear of the building, and they will be, the tire
storage and the oil is actually under a roof, and they’ll be enclosed, and they’ll be buffered with some
planting. The areas, the green space areas around the building is fairly limited, and that will all be
landscaped. Then to answer the other question about the building material, normally I would agree
with Staff, on a complex like this, we’d want to try to match the buildings. We’ve looked at the
Sports Page building and it’s actually sort of a, it’s called tack on to me architecture. There’s about
several buildings with several additions connecting them, and there’s probably six different types of
wood siding, and I think Gary Higley has done a good job in painting it all dark brown. Because of
the mass of the building and the different types of siding, he’s really kind of tied it together. If you
look closely at it, there’s really a lot of different additions, and if you look at the roof, you can really
see everything that’s going on, and this is a fairly massive building, so the dark color and the wood
siding makes some sense. The new building is only 18 feet high, and being automotive repair, it
wouldn’t be appropriate for the wood siding, and the other issue we have, it’s a Goodyear store, so
it’s basically a franchise, so the owner wants to incorporate the Goodyear colors, and what is
proposed is to do the building out of masonry, using a split faced block, and I’ll show you a sample,
and that would be a gray, and the covered canopy along the front of the building would be a royal
blue and the Goodyear and the Warren Tire would be mounted on that in yellow, in Goodyear’s
colors. So the color scheme would be very similar to Lowe’s, except for having the red Lowe’s sign,
you know, it would be the yellow Goodyear sign, and if you look at the other buildings in the area, to
the east, we’ve got the key bank building and there’s a kitchen a bath building, or I guess it’s bath and
kitchen, really. I believe one’s a wood sided and one’s masonry, but they’re both a gray. So, I mean,
even though we’re not matching this building, we are compatible with the other smaller buildings in
the area, and in our opinion, if we tried to do a dark brown building that small, it would look like a
little vegetable stand out there behind that big three story building. This building is like twice the
height of the Warren Tire building. So with all due respect, we would propose that the split face
block in this gray color, the top, the gray, with the blue, you know, the blue canopy on the front.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. MILLER-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-Really the only question I have is, will vehicles be able to, well, actually, no, never
mind. It’s not even a question. It’s not going to be purple, right? It’s not going to be a purple
building.
MR. MILLER-No purple.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. I don’t want to start that theme in Queensbury with a purple tire store.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Aesthetically, I think two things, the building layout of the building
style can be improved. On the building layout, the site plan, I’m just wondering why you didn’t turn
your building 90 degrees, and put your landscaping toward Quaker Road, and then the building, and
so what addresses the public is landscaping and a pleasant looking building, not your bays of your
garage. What comes to mind, to me, is when I drive by the Firestone on Glen Street is what an
eyesore that is, looking into the bays and seeing the operations of tire changes and the equipment and
everything else being exposed to me. That’s what’s being addressed at the Firestone. I’m just
wondering why you didn’t, you know, what you addressed the public, I think, aesthetically, would
help business. I was just, I looked at this and I said, boy, this would be a lot nicer if that building was
turned 90 degrees, pushed toward Quaker Road, put the landscaping and the building out front, it
would be a nice place for the sign, too, Warren Tire, on the side of the building, and your car bays
wouldn’t be the object for what’s addressing the public. I’m looking for a little balance here,
aesthetic balance between the building, the parking lot, and your landscaping. What I see now is the
parking lot and open bays. Aesthetically, I don’t find that pleasing. I have a problem with that.
Okay. Just some suggestions, and I know I’m going to get some feedback on that. We’ll see what
goes on down the line here, okay. Is the dumpster in the buffer zone?
MR. MILLER-No. There’s a line that shows right through there, and it shows the 50 foot buffer
lines.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MILLER-And the dumpster area is outside that. The rear parking ended up in the buffer area.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, just to play the devil’s advocate for a minute, if they were to turn that
building 90 degrees, like you’re suggesting, I don’t think they’d make their parking requirements,
because I don’t think they’d have enough room.
MR. MILLER-We looked at some different options for the building and quite honestly, because
we’ve got the 75 foot traffic corridor setback in the front, and there’s also a utility easement, and then
with the building setbacks in the rear, we have a fairly narrow area to locate the building in, and we
also need to have the circulation around the building. If we were to turn the building, we wouldn’t
have enough room to have adequate circulation around the building. What we tried to do, the other
thing is there’s no glass, this is blank walls, the ends of those buildings. I mean, that’s all storage
room, and service bays is what we’re looking at, a little bit of the office in the corner. So if you
turned it, you’d be looking at just a blank side of the building, and quite honestly, Mr. Kellogg who
runs a business wants people to see his business, and what we tried to do is we pulled back the garage
bays somewhat so that the office section, the reception area is fairly small. So that would be glassed.
That has, the canopy over that extends further. So the intent was to try to emphasize that portion of
it, even though, you know, we did have some of the bays there, and then that’s why we also, on the
landscape plan, try to address some of that, some planting on the corners here, so if you’re coming
down Quaker in either direction, we get some buffering. You have views to the sign, but we get
some screening. I think the ones you refer to on Glen Street, I mean, it’s paved from the edge of the
road right up to the front door, and they’re fairly close. I mean, here we’re set back over 75 feet with
a fair amount of landscaping in front of the building, but, you know, we tried to strike a balance
between the two, knowing that would be a concern.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, in any event, you know, your arguments and the Chairman’s concern
for parking, I sometimes wonder if we have an excess parking here in Queensbury, and I certainly
don’t want the parking in the parking lot to be the address to the community. I’d rather have a nicely
styled building, with landscaping addressing the community. I have no problem with putting a sign
on the building, and as far as turning the building 90 degrees and circulation, if you turn that building
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
90 degrees and put it forward, look at all the parking area that you almost gain in the back of it, but it
is in the back and it’s not addressing the public, and I don’t think parking and parking lots should be
the address to the public. It’s just my aesthetic appeal, but moving on, and the landscaping, and Mr.
Miller, you usually do a great job with the landscaping. I have to give you credit, and jobs I’ve seen
you do before are very good, and I’d like to see your talents put to work, and that’s what the drivers
who are driving along Quaker Road see are your talents, and not open car bays, and I think that
balances the view a little bit better. The drainage, to move on to another topic. If the building were
adjusted as I suggested, we might be able to get that drainage so we’re not draining into Halfway
Brook. That is a concern for me because right now the parking lot is draining into Halfway Brook. I
think that if we turn the building, I think we could get the drainage to go towards the back part of the
property, where it’s drier, and make use of the drywells and keep all the drainage on site.
MR. MILLER-Groundwater is within two feet of the surface, and drywells are not possible. If we
tried to put drywells in, high groundwater is like two feet and normal groundwater is maybe four. If
we tried to use drywells, there would be no infiltration during those high times. That’s why, typically,
we try to use drywells whenever we can, rather than detention basins. In this particular instance,
there’s just, there’s no way. We have to resort to using a basin because there’s not enough infiltration
in the soil. So right now, all of the building and the majority of the parking lot drains to the back,
like you say, and it’s detained there. However, it still has to drain back around to the front. I mean,
it’s absorbed into the pond as much as possible, but during high groundwater, times of high
groundwater, that’ll be minimal. So then the drainage would continue back to the front drainage
system.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just wondering if a reallocation of the building, as I suggested, might lead
us to the situation where we might be able to keep the drainage on site, and possibly not using
drywells but maybe drainage swale toward the rear of the property and the side of the property, the
south side of the property, and the east side of the property, rather than, I’m just bothered by that
drainage going right into Halfway Brook, especially the operation that’s being proposed, and it says
you’ve got a percolation rate of one minute per inch. That’s fairly good. It says in the stormwater
management report.
MR. MILLER-That’s true, but it’s the depth to the groundwater that’s the problem. In order for,
you know, typically we use an eight foot deep drywell, or, you know, even a four foot deep drywell is
typically the minimum we use. So a four foot deep drywell, in spring conditions, would be mostly
full of water, and essentially wouldn’t work, and typically what we do is we have drywells, and we
always have to have, especially on a site like this, where there’s not positive flow off of it, with the
exception of the front, we always provide some kind of an overflow system, if the drywells fill, that it
will overflow. So that’s essentially what we’ve done, using the pond, is the pond is the primary
source of stormwater management, but it does have to overflow out to the front, to that relief point.
Also that’s where the existing drainage runs now. All of the drainage from the site at this point now
does flow out into that low area, and flow through that culvert under the road, except for we’re
increasing it.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine, because right now it’s all vegetation. I mean, and it’s not going to be.
It’s going to be pavement and car repairs, and we’ve got Halfway Brook there. The radius at the
entrance, is there going to be any big trucks going in and out?
MR. MILLER-Well, there’s deliveries that come here now, that come, that will enter onto either
Glenwood Avenue, and make deliveries to the Sports Page building and exit or onto Quaker, or vice
versa, and we anticipate using the same circulation for deliveries. Deliveries would be to the back of
the new building.
MR. STROUGH-So the truck deliveries can use the Glenwood Avenue entrance?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Because I was just curious about the turning radius, but if the trucks are going to
use the rear and can access it that way, that’s fine.
MR. MILLER-That was part of the reason for combining them, the circulation for deliveries would
work better.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I haven’t had time to go over some of this other stuff that I just got
tonight. The only other thing that I would like to see is that the building that you’re explaining to me
does not sound attractive. It sounds like a Goodyear car dealership, and with the Key Bank on one
side, which has a roof style that’s residential in nature, an style, and so is the Sports Page building, I
just think you’re going to look like a sore thumb, with the building designed the way it is. I’d like to
see some elevations, and I’d like to see more of an effort to make that look a little bit more
presentable than a garage, and more in line with the Key Bank and the existing Sports Page building,
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
and have a pitched roof on it, for example, because I assume that this one has a flat roof? So those
are my comments, and we’ll see what goes on down the line here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Christopher?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that came up is where the entrance doors are to the
building.
MR. MILLER-To the new building?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, where customers would enter.
MR. MILLER-This is the office area right here. You see the light lines? The front door is right in
the center of that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wasn’t sure if that was a window or a door.
MR. MILLER-That whole front portion would be glass, and that would be the entrance.
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any specific questions. I thought the landscaping plan
looked pretty good. I do concur with some of John’s comments, though, and I’m thinking of some
other precedents that we have set with some other projects, like Stewarts, for example, the new
Stewarts on Corinth Road, where we asked for alternative roof design plans that were more in
keeping with that corridor, and certainly, you know, the two most adjacent buildings do have pitched
roofs instead of flat roofs. Further down Quaker Road, the buildings are certainly far more
commercial in nature, but, you know, I could go along with looking at some elevation drawings.
MR. O'CONNOR-The supermarket right down the road is flat roofed. The Aldi’s in between that is
also flat roofed. I think if you take a look at some of the other operations of this particular tenant
throughout the Town, you will see how well they’re maintained, and landscaped, which may not
appear on this paper. You’ve got the former Town garage building on Aviation Road, which was a
terrible mess before they got in there and took it over and operated it. You’ve got the warehouse
down on Lower Warren Street, or off of Lower Warren Street, Queensbury Avenue, and how that’s
been dressed up as part of their operation. Any of their operations are very well maintained,
manicured, and presented well, and I think fit well into their neighborhoods, even though they are a
garage. They basically are a garage. I mean, this is their operation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m certainly not questioning the maintenance and upkeep of the business. In
fact, I was just mentioning to John I spent far too many hours at the Upper Glen Street Warren Tire
on Saturday. I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no doubt that the Warren Tire operations in our community are just
stellar and that they’re immaculate. I have this thing about the architecture. I’m confronted by my
neighbors. I’m confronted by people in the Town because I’m on the Town Planning Board, and
since the past few years, that’s one thing we’ve addressed. We’re not an architectural review board.
There’s no one of us up here that’s an architect, but I think some of us have a little feel for design,
and we’ve tried to encourage some of our applicants to just experiment a little bit with some changes
that they haven’t really always, well, some changes that would be a little bit contrary to some of their
original plans, but what we’ve found is that the results have been good, and it hasn’t hurt business at
all. I think the materials you have for the outside of the building, my main thing is I think it’s a great
site. I think it’s a great location, and I think it’s going to fit beautifully there. As far as turning it on
the lot, I know where John Strough is coming from, but it has to be able to work, and I don’t know
all the logistics. I’m not a landscape architect, but my question was, what color are the shingles going
to be on the hip roof, you know, and then I find out it’s going to be a flat roof. I think it would look
nice with a hip roof. It doesn’t have to be a regular 6/12 type of, you know, a regular gabled roof,
but a hip roof is a little expensive, more expensive to build, but I think it would bring the place right
out, and you also have to remember, across the street is that great, big Doyle’s monster colonial brick
building that’s an antique shop. So, when I pass the blue, garish, Blockbuster video place, and finally
hit Glenwood Avenue and see the beautiful Sports Page with that nice, dark siding, and now they’re
doing a nice front with some really nice windows, and then we go on and we see those other
buildings, and we did spend a lot of time, if you can remember, when Doyle’s was torn down, and we
wanted to get a little effect in there with the panes on the windows, you know, with the grids on the
windows instead of, you know, to make it a little bit more like, you know, not colonial, and not
Manchester, Vermont, but just a little, give it a little touch, and I think we worked pretty hard there.
We kept the trees. We kept the tree. We kept the little park setting. So maybe between the Sports
Page and the corner of Bay, there’s a flat roofed Hannaford and there’s a flat roofed Aldi, those are
typically great big monster box grocery stores. I think you could put a nice architecturally grade
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
shingled hip roof on this building and it would really look nice with that nice stone façade. That’s my
opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe if I could just interject, Cathy, on that thought. I live on that side of
Town. So I travel up and down Quaker Road six times a day probably, and what has really happened
is the bike bridge has become a visual barrier, and I didn’t think of it until Cathy was talking about
the property across the street. You don’t see the flat roof buildings from this site, because they’re on
the other side of the berm that makes up the bike bridge, and you literally have a barrier now, that
separates the two different styles. So even though, you know, you are correct. There’s a lot of other
properties on Quaker Road that have flat roofs. They’re all on the other side of the bike bridge.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Bank has a flat roof, and it’s just on the other corner. So I think you can
argue either way, depending on how quick you’re looking and how quick you’re changing your
visions.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And those places were put in a while ago, and that’s what we’re trying to do
now with new things that are going in, like, you know, we talked to the Stewarts people on Exit 18
and they put some, they put in a hip roof, put in a few little gables, little dormer type thingy’s in, and,
you know, all we get is raves, wow, how come they did that. That’s not like their usual store. Well,
because we asked them to. I mean, that’s my opinion, and that’s why I’m here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would like Staff to just read back the C.T. Male comments to their October
19 letter so I can, I don’t have it in front of me.
th
MRS. MOORE-The October 23 letter?
rd
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they, on the Sports Page, Warren Tire, their C.T. Male letter dated October
19.
th
MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read through that?
MR. VOLLARO-No, not that. Their response to this C.T. Male letter, just, what did it say? C.T.
Male responded to, or not C.T. Male, but.
MRS. MOORE-You received that this evening, along with the C.T. Male comment.
MR. VOLLARO-I did? Okay.
MRS. MOORE-The title on the top says Miller Associates, and it’s addressed to James Houston.
MR. VOLLARO-I might have missed it, somehow or other it got tangled up in some paper up here.
MRS. MOORE-I have an extra, if you want me to pass that along.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want me to go to Tom and come back to you?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, please.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thomas?
MR. SEGULJIC-I have a couple of questions with regards to, Mr. Miller, you alluded to the fact that
they’re going to be storing oil on site?
MR. MILLER-From oil changes, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and that was going to be stored in the southeast corner of the building, right
outside?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. SEGUJIC-Is that going to be a wall out in front of that, or is it just going to be vegetation as a
screen?
MR. MILLER-I believe it’s going to be a fence. It’s going to be a roofed area with a screened fence
around it. I don’t believe it’s going to be a masonry wall. Excuse me a second, I’ll find out. Matt,
the waste storage area, what’s the material of the enclosure of that going to be? Is that masonry or?
Okay. Fencing.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. In regards to the oil storage, one of my concerns would be the slope of
the parking lot is right towards that catch basin, as I look at it.
MR. MILLER-All that oil storage, you know, it’s got to be under roof and it’s, you know, it’s all
under DEC requirements and certified tanks. I believe it’s removed from the site weekly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, but I’m getting at if there’s any drippage, and there’s rain water in context,
it’s going to go right to that catch basin. So is there going to be a berm there or anything to prevent
migration of the rain water from there?
MR. MILLER-They fill it from the inside. They don’t go to the outside.
MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s a dashed line there also.
MR. MILLER-The dashed line is just the edge of the roof structure.
MR. SEGULJIC-So there won’t be any filling from the outside, so there shouldn’t be any drippage.
Because, once again, there’s that catch basin.
MR. MAC EWAN-That catch basin is for the roof gutters, right?
MR. MILLER-It picks up drainage off the parking lot also.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s under the roof, so it really shouldn’t have any contact with it then.
MR. MILLER-That’s right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s the only place you’re going to have any storage outside there?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then I, too, would agree that it would be nice if we could have some type of
sloped roof or some type of architectural there, just to make it more aesthetic for us.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe we could get Matt Cifone, who has been doing some of the design, up
here to speak to that a little bit. Apparently they did try to put a sloped roof on it and it looked out
of place. It looks like a house. It doesn’t look like a commercial operation. The building is too
short, and the other problem is that they’ve got to have some place to put some of their utility
operations.
MATT CIFONE
MR. CIFONE-We tried to draw it.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record?
MR. CIFONE-Matt Cifone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. CIFONE-We did draw it with a pitched roof on it. We drew it with every roof we could
imagine on it, and it seemed to be that was the best look for their store. That’s how we came up with
that design on the front. It is a pitched roof. It’s a half twelve pitch to the back, and we do have a
rooftop unit, heat and air in certain sections of it, and if we went with a total pitched roof, we’d have
to put that on the ground.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you were looking at the building from the front, with your back on Quaker
Road, what would one be looking at? Would they be just looking at a façade up there, that you
wouldn’t see the rooftop utilities up there?
MR. CIFONE-Yes, that’s the idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Like a false wall kind of an idea?
MR. CIFONE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. STROUGH-How about designing the office area with a roof in the back, after you turn the
building 90 degrees, have that flat roofed. At least what you’re presenting the public sounds more in
harmony with what’s in the area.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re really trying that 90 degree thing, aren’t you?
MR. STROUGH-I want that in the worst way.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re told that we can’t turn the building. We’re trying to listen to your
suggestion as to some type of roof treatment different, and I.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s a fair statement to say that nobody likes the Blockbuster Video plaza,
and if we all had it to do over again, it certainly wouldn’t look anything like it does today.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We weren’t here when that went through.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It’s fair to say it was all before this Board ever took office. I think I’m
hearing the majority of the Board would like some alternate design of a roof type treatment.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have elevations?
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, did you have more questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got to get back to Robert, too.
MR. CIFONE-Essentially we did drop this down to bring out the store (lost words) some of the
block (lost words) bring it around and bring in the block wall to hide the roof line and the equipment
we might have on the roof.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that a step down where it says Goodyear Warren Tire there, on the right?
MR. CIFONE-Just the façade steps down a little.
MR. VOLLARO-Are those nine foot bays?
MR. CIFONE-They’re 10 foot doors.
MR. VOLLARO-Ten foot doors.
MR. CIFONE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the façade made of, the material?
MR. CIFONE-It’s a corrugated metal, seamless, concealed fastener.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s the part that going to be yellow, or blue?
MR. CIFONE-The yellow would be just the signage. This would be blue.
MR. MAC EWAN-What color would the façade be?
MR. CIFONE-Blue.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would be royal blue.
MR. CIFONE-Dark blue, kind of like Lowe’s, a dark blue.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the question maybe I might ask is that, yes, I’m seeing, I’ve got to be
honest with you, I’m not getting the warm and fuzzies here. I know that Mr. Kellogg has several of
these franchises all around Town and all around the Capital District, and they vary so much in
architecture, even right in the immediate Glens Falls area, why can’t something be done more
aesthetically cohesive with what’s in that immediate area? I mean, you’ve got the old Sunoco Station
on the corner of, or across the Firestone dealer. That one is brick with a typical roofline. Conversely
you’ve got a couple down on Warren Street are old gas stations that have been renovated. I’ve seen
them down in the Capital District area that are of colonial design. Is there something that maybe we
can do to kind of make the majority of the Board here somewhat happy in getting something that’s
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
more to the liking of the current buildings that are surrounding this proposed site, if we put our
heads together here?
WAYNE KELLOGG
MR. KELLOGG-My name’s Wayne Kellogg, and I own Warren Tire. Stewarts just built us a store
in Greenwich, and they sloped the roof like this, and it was front to rear. The problem is is when the
snow comes off, it’s going be a problem, and it looks like a house. Every other building, other than
that Sunoco Station, you know, Queensbury’s got a flat roof. Glens Falls is flat. The extension’s flat.
The Mobil Station down on Warren Street’s flat. Hudson Falls is flat. That old Shell Station down in
Fort Edward is a ranch style, three bay, and the bays face the street. So they had that ranch style look
to it, with an eight bay (lost word). I’m not a designer. So I’m not sure that you can do it that way.
I’m not opposed to whatever we need to do, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess maybe the point I would make is all those other stores and facilities that
you just mentioned were all existing ones that you purchased and renovated. Well, we have an
opportunity here, with brand new construction, to do something, and I think that the Board has
pretty well echoed.
MR. KELLOGG-As far as roof design, I’m willing to do whatever will satisfy the Town and the
Board. It’s just whether it’ll work or not. I’m not an architect. I left it up to these people to draw.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does Goodyear, in and of itself, give kind of like typical buildings that they like
to see in different areas?
MR. KELLOGG-I gave Matt Cifone different drawings that Goodyear had. I gave him three
different drawings, and they’re pretty similar to what you see right there. In Greenwich the store
with the town was a major problem with color. So we went tan and brown. It’s fine. If you do
business in Queensbury, it’s tan. Downtown it’s tan and brown. We’ve got one that’s light gray and
white, fairly a variety of colors. The preferred color is gray and blue, but we’re not opposed to tan
and brown. I don’t know how to design a roof. I’ll leave it up to these people. If the roof works
and it’s functional, it’s fine with me. I don’t care, as long as it doesn’t leak.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good point.
MR. KELLOGG-I’d just have to accommodate the door height and however the water has to be
distributed off the top of the roof, that’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask a question. What would the HVAC, I assume you’re using a roof-
mounted type HVAC?
MR. KELLOGG-For the office area it’s on the roof, and then in the shop area there’s those hanging
individual units for the ceiling.
MR. VOLLARO-Maybe you could run a gabled roof from the one edge over to where you have that
Goodyear/Warren Tire sign, and then have a flat roof right after that, but right over the bays, I heard
the problem with the snow. That’s an interesting problem.
MR. KELLOGG-One problem is if the roof is pitched this way, and the snow all comes off in the
front, that’s a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. KELLOGG-Whether or not he could design it to have a peak here like that Sunoco Station
you’re talking about. Those were old Shell Stations that were designed, and they built that peaked
roof there. This span here probably could accommodate it, but I don’t think this one here can, and
this is a back to back, we did that back to back bays, like Clifton Park, where most stores are lined up
in a total straight line like I have a 10-bay store in Colony, and it’s 10 bays in a row, and it’s in the
same configuration this, it’s 20,000 square foot building. So I’d have to leave that to Matt or Jim if
they could make a design, with this part here. You look at Evergreen Bank, before the Sports Page,
Mark Plaza, Cellular One, they all have flat roofs. That whole strip mall area does. The one thing
that I always liked about Stewarts stores is the one that’s across from the Harvest, it’s a split faced
block, and it has that metal roof, and that’s their new style they use pretty much everywhere. Now
over on Big Bay Road, I know they did a little different style, and I just traded them a building in
Argyle, and I built a new store, and I have that same system here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They use those shingles in the front.
MR. KELLOGG-They don’t use shingles anymore. They use that standing seam.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and it’s like an offshoot of an old French Mansard design.
MR. KELLOGG-They use that like in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is it sufficient if they use brick on the front part of the office?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t have any problem with the material you’re using.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re talking about an architectural type thing, which I don’t think there is a
standard in your Ordinance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, there isn’t.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re trying to accommodate everyone. I think we’ve got some physical
problems with the site, as far as flipping the building, and it looks like we also have some physical
problems with trying to put a different type roof on this thing.
MR. KELLOGG-Originally, we drew it in an “L”. So the bays wouldn’t show. It didn’t work. We
had the bays facing Kaidas kitchen, and it just wouldn’t fit on the property.
MR. O'CONNOR-They’ve tried to do a lot of different alternatives before they got here, some of
which I’ve seen, some of which I haven’t seen, but would it break up the front if they put brick on
the front?
MR. HUNSINGER-Personally, I don’t have a problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the siding is the issue. It’s the flat roof.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re trying to think of some architectural treatment, honestly, so it doesn’t look
like a repair shop, and it is a repair shop, which is one of the permitted uses in that zone.
MR. METIVIER-What about grated windows and maybe some awnings in front?
MR. O'CONNOR-On the office part of it?
MR. METIVIER-Yes. Have grated windows there. Put an awning above it, make sure it’s not.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think that’s objectionable, put grates on your windows.
MR. METIVIER-There’s windows on either side of the office.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-He just means putting grids in the windows to make them not look so.
MR. METIVIER-Grids. You know, make it look at little more.
MR. STROUGH-There’s only one facing Quaker.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, there’s two.
MR. METIVIER-There’s two.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that would look nice. I thought of that, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there’s two facing the west.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But Mr. Kellogg said that he wouldn’t be opposed to a different type of roof
as long as it didn’t leak, and if it looked nice, and I don’t think another type of roof will make it not
look like a service center. I think it just would make it look a lot nicer.
MR. O'CONNOR-What are we trying to accomplish, though?
MR. KELLOGG-I just asked Matt Cifone about this, putting a pitched roof on here and he said it
would look fine from the front, but not from Glenwood Avenue side, you know, on this portion
here, as far as.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When you say a pitched roof?
MR. KELLOGG-Well, you know, to make it.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I was saying a hip roof, where you’ve the same coming in on all four
sides.
MR. KELLOGG-I’m not an architect. So I’d have to leave that up to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Matt knows what I’m talking about.
MR. MILLER-Cathy, I think one of the problems by doing the hip all the way around like would
probably be a place for signage. Some of it could be hip, but it seems like the area over the office,
maybe that could be a gable.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. MILLER-Where a sign could be incorporated into the gable or something and accent that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That would be nice. I mean, that’s what I’m saying. You’ve got to
use a little creativity.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know what I mean? I forget what you call those things. Stewarts used to
do them on their buildings. It’s kind of like, it still utilizes the flat roof technique that they need to
have, but it’s kind of like a false gabled roof on the front, and Stewarts used to do them. I don’t
think they do them anymore.
MR. MILLER-Yes, a modified Mansard, where part of it’s flat.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I think, Matt and I were talking about doing that, and maybe that would be a
possibility, doing part of the office gabled, to maybe give it a little more height and emphasis over
that front entrance.
MR. MAC EWAN-All those doors are going to be glass doors, the overhead doors, will be all glass
doors?
MR. MILLER-No. I believe they’re solid with a couple of glass panes in it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bob, did you have a couple of questions?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I looked at the engineering report. I don’t have any questions.
MR. MILLER-The engineering comments were fairly minor. We resolved those.
MR. VOLLARO-I have just a couple, real quick. I noticed that, on the site development plan, your
non-permeable is 69.2. Boy, that is close to that 30% requirement. I’ve got to tell you, you’re a sliver
off. I don’t know how you designed that close. Is there any plus or minus on that there at all?
MR. MILLER-It does take it off very accurately on the computer.
MR. VOLLARO-Whenever I see numbers that approach the limit, I get worried about the design
capability, because I know nobody does that.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was worse, Bob, before he designed the two sites.
MR. VOLLARO-It was?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it was. That’s one of the reasons we combined the two sites.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think the two sites works very well.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it looks nice.
MR. MILLER-I do, too. I think it works much better. When we did the individual ones, we had all
kinds of problems.
MR. VOLLARO-I took a ride over today and walked through what I could get through. It was very
difficult. It’s pretty weedy back there. Is this commercial or a residential property back?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MILLER-Behind this?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MILLER-That’s residential. The residential line runs right along our property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that neighborhood commercial back there where the old Seeley machine
shop used to be?
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-Actually, this is the property line right here, and that’s used for a commercial
purpose. This is a, if you had a tax map, this is like a flagged lot that goes over to Harwood Beaty’s
house that’s on Glenwood Avenue, and Mrs. Beaty filed a letter with the Zoning Board saying that
she had no, she saw what we were doing and had no objection to it. This parcel here on the back
goes over to North Road. This is Whitney’s property. It’s, I don’t know how many acres, but it’s
quite a piece of property, and these properties on Kaidas’, or buildings on Kaidas’, are closer to that
than what we were going to be, and this is actually going to be, we took a variance for the retention
area in there, even though the retention area is going to be natural, is going to be just grassed area
when we’re all said and done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. O'CONNOR-So we had no objection from any neighbor of any part of what we were trying to
do.
MR. VOLLARO-So I guess we’ve really got two approaches to this site. One is through Glenwood
Avenue, and one is on Quaker, then. So you can get to this site from both ways. Is that the idea?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and there’s an interconnection provided for even going further east.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see the Bank connection. I really don’t have any, as a matter of fact, I don’t
think I have, personally, this is my personal opinion, I don’t have any real objection, I don’t think
you can do much with this building architecture there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think if you went on line, Bob, as I’m planning on doing, there’s about 10
examples of Goodyear and other tire company buildings that work, and look good.
MR. O'CONNOR-We, in good faith, will be glad to entertain those, but we’d like to be able to go
ahead with our construction, footings and everything else. We think that we’ve, and Matt has a
system by computer for designs and things like that, and he’s tried to put together different designs
and hasn’t come up with something that worked.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re asking us to forge ahead and give an approval for this tonight without
knowing what we’re going to be approving?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to have your approval as is, and if somebody wants.
MR. MAC EWAN-From what I’m getting, I don’t think that’s going to happen tonight.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think, Mr. MacEwan, we comply in all aspects of it. I think, I
understand your questions about architectural design, but our present Ordinance does not have any
regulations with regard to architectural design. I know you have a.
MR. MAC EWAN-But it doesn’t prohibit us from doing it either.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I’d like to see how you do it on the basis of public health, welfare and
safety.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You drive a hard bargain, Mr. O’Connor.
MR. MAC EWAN-You just a few minutes ago said that you’re more than willing to try to work with
us.
MR. O'CONNOR-I, in all honesty, would say that we will deal in good faith with the issue. I think
they’ve tried to do it. I’ll even make an agreement that we will come back next month and have more
dialogue on it, but we’d like, I think we’re entitled to go ahead with the building as we’ve designed it.
There are no restrictions in the Town against what we’ve proposed.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Why are you so steadfast, adamant against it? When we had the Stewarts, they
were more than willing to work with us. Getty’s worked with us. Lowe’s works with us. CVS has
worked with us, and a number of others have worked with us. Why don’t you want to work with us.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’d like to start our footings.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can we put that in as a condition?
MR. MAC EWAN-Condition of what? What are you conditioning?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That the roof design of the building not be flat. That there be some angles,
some variation.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think there’s been a proposal by the applicant that they would return. What
they’re trying to do is to get into the ground before frost.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. I have no problem with that.
MS. RADNER-I don’t think you can do that, folks. I think you’ve got to either approve it,
disapprove it, or approve it with conditions, and if you’re not ready to approve as it is, or approve it
with conditions, you can’t just approve it so that they can come back with a different design for you
to approve. In your parameters of site plan review, you’re most definitely entitled to consider things
like visual impacts and how it combines with the neighborhood and aesthetics, and you do this on a
monthly, weekly, twice a month basis all the time. If you’re inclined to disapprove this application,
then I think what you’re doing is you’re giving the applicant a chance to come back with a better
design. If the applicant chooses not to take that opportunity, then you can either approve,
disapprove, or approve with conditions, reasonable conditions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Couldn’t one of the conditions be that the applicant provide alternatives to the
roof design?
MS. RADNER-How are you going to enforce that condition, though? If they go ahead and they
break ground, and your Building Department can’t issue a building permit when a design hasn’t come
through here, and if your condition is you still have to come back to have your.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that would enable them to get their footings and foundation in. I mean, I
know we’re walking a fine line here.
MS. RADNER-I think, yes, you’re trying to break up the application and approve the site and
approve the lot layout and approve those aspects, but I don’t think you can do it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Basically that’s what site plan is, though.
MS. RADNER-Site plan is all encompassing, though. There isn’t (lost words).
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I’ll go back, and maybe Mrs. LaBombard is saying I’m being tough. There’s
no place in the Ordinance that talks about architectural design.
MR. STROUGH-It talks about aesthetics, and it talks about harmony with adjacent uses in the zone.
Interpret those as you may.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m trying to find those, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-We get nowhere here by sitting here and debating that issue back and forth. I
think the Board would like to take the direction, we’d like to see an alternate design, roofline design.
If there’s something we can do to achieve that goal, together, and work together to do it, we’re all
ready and willing to want to do it. More importantly, if you are under a timeline, worried about
getting footers and foundations in, we’d be more happy to accommodate you with a special meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Higley would like to speak to you.
GARY HIGLEY
MR. HIGLEY-Hi. I’m Gary Higley. I own the property. Thank you for having me. Susan and I are
both very adamant in keeping our property looking nice, and we try very hard all the time to be good
Queensbury citizens. Wayne came to us. We’ve done nothing with this lot because we’ve never
found anything that we felt would tie in and work. Wayne came to me. I know Wayne. I know his
businesses. I know he’s immaculate, and that’s how all of this project started, because I knew that he
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
would be a good neighbor. Susan and I definitely want this building to look nice, but we also want
Wayne to have a profitable business and to be a Goodyear tire center. So it’s kind of a Catch-22 for
both of us to have a commercial piece of property on a high count road, but to also have it look nice.
I’ve worked all summer with Matt to try to get, we’ve had so many drawings on this building it’s been
unbelievable because we’ve had to put it onto a footprint in that tiny little spot. This seems to be
what will work. I really have no objections to putting a peak on or making it look nice, but we’re
very much under the gun because of the very high water table, as far as getting footings in, and that is
a major concern for us right now. So I don’t have, we do want it to look nice. We’re not trying to
ramrod anything through the Town, and I think anybody that knows me in the Town, I sit back and
I listen and I try to follow what goes on, and that’s what I’m doing here tonight, but I would like, if
we could make something work here, that would be great.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a suggestion. I would like to do the SEQRA, and propose that this
pass with, I think, Mr. Kellogg, I know he’s a man of his word, that you could pass it so you could
get your footers in the ground, with the condition that the roofline be one that is not flat, that would
have some kind of angles, and something that isn’t flat, with angles or gables or a pitch of some sort.
MS. RADNER-Remember, you still have a public hearing tonight, folks.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We haven’t done that either, right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Would you take it as a minimum putting a pitch on the fascia over the office that
faces Quaker Road, even if it is a false front?
MR. MAC EWAN-The drawing, is that what you had in mind, something along those lines? That’s
just on the office portion. Do you know what I’m driving at, Jim? It’s hard for me to describe.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Cifone makes a point, and I appreciate your attempt to satisfy us. We need a
building permit to start, for the footings, and we can’t get a building permit unless we have the whole
package. So, you can’t approve part of it.
MR. STROUGH-Part of the problem was the location of the buildings and trying to meet the
number of parking space requirements?
MR. MILLER-Building setbacks were the biggest problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, I think everyone is satisfied with the way the footprint of the building has
been laid out on the site, other than you. So you’re a real minority at this point.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve been there before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. I think where I’m hearing the majority of the Board is they want to
see some sort of roof treatment, and how we achieve that. If we did this, let me throw this at you.
Tell me what you think. I’m looking at my calendar. If we tabled this thing tonight, and gave you
until the 29, which is a Monday, to submit an alternate roof design on the building, and we held a
th
special meeting for you on the 6, Tuesday night. Is that doable for you? You’d be the only thing
th
on the agenda. So you’d be in and out. I promise you’ll be the only item on the agenda. If we did it
by seven o’clock, you’d be out by eight.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we do just a false roof on the front, if they say yes, that that’s okay?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board’s going to want to see a drawing, by a professional drawer.
MR. O'CONNOR-Basically, that’s what you’re talking about. You’re talking about a false parapet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I was just talking to Jim about it. I think I’m hearing where the Board, what
they want to try to achieve here.
MR. MILLER-I hear what you’re saying, and in talking to Matt, I think we could probably work
together and develop some ideas and come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that doable for everyone to do that? Does that give you enough time? I would
think it would.
MR. CIFONE-If we had some different ideas, and then, once we pick one, then we’ve got to do the
structural drawings again, because we have firewalls, three hour firewalls in this building. We have
certain things, and that’s another reason we kept this roof tight, because with tire stores, we have to
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
have a three hour rated fire ratings between a surface area and the entire storage. So some of those
walls are gone, right up the underside of the roof. So there’s some other reasons for doing this roof,
besides just the looks. It’s the function of the building, the use of the building. There’s some other
considerations when we re-design this roof.
MR. MAC EWAN-But see, for me, personally, that’s a hard sell for me when I know that there’s so
many other different architectural styles that are currently being used, and I don’t understand it, and I
don’t mean to be, you know, difficult about it, I just don’t understand it. How this one particular site
can only have this style of building and nothing else would work.
MR. CIFONE-It can have other styles. We came up with this design from a Goodyear prototype
building that we looked at.
MR. MAC EWAN-The old corporate prototype thing
MR. CIFONE-That’s what we liked, and that’s what we started to work with. We did angled roofs.
We did hipped roofs. It looked like a big house. It didn’t look like a Warren Tire. It’s what it’s
going to look like when you’re done. Once you put the other roof on it, if you want it to look like a
house, then we’ll put a hipped roof on. It’s 14 foot high walls.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we make up the difference with landscaping?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re pulling out all the stops here.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re talking about appearance, and you’re talking about a significant attempt.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think a bunch of bushes is going to change someone’s mind about how
the plans look. I’m the only one talking here. I want to hear some other people up here talk.
MR. O'CONNOR-It might break it up. I mean, I think I’m hearing that there’s a functional reason
for some of the design, besides the site demands, and I know the time that they spent with trying to
come up with different alternatives. I think they started on this in the beginning of the summer.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the Board want to do? I want to hear some opinions.
MR. STROUGH-I think a flat roofed building, with the garages addressing the public, the colors
blue and yellow, will not be something I’ll be proud approving. So, as is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They mentioned tan and brown.
MR. STROUGH-And I’ve also got a problem with the drainage going into Halfway Brook.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s no more drainage going off site after construction than there is before
construction. The drainage that’s going off site is filtered, so that there’s a sedimentation area.
There’s no contamination of Halfway Brook. That’s a mischaracterization to give that. That’s, the
drainage as I understand it, the stormwater management plan has been approved by the Town’s
engineering consultants.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s, for now, keep this as simple as we can, then. Let’s deal with just the issue
of the roofline. Were you looking for a different style of roofline?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I am, and I’d like, you haven’t addressed the color scheme. I mean, Mr.
Kellogg even suggested he’d be willing to work with browns and tans, which, to me, is better.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you on that. Chris, are you looking for a different roofline?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and browns and tans.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’d like to see a different roofline.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I think they can do something.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. METIVIER-I honestly don’t. I think there’s a lot you could do with this building.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re now the minority.
MR. METIVIER-Well, that’s all right. There’s an awful lot you can do with this building to make it
look nice with a flat roof, and they’ve said over and over again, that they’ve tried everything else. It’s
a flat roof. Look at what’s around that area, and some of the crap, seriously, that goes around there,
and look at Gary’s building and how beautiful it is. Go up the road and look at CVS. That’s a flat
roof and it’s an attractive building. There’s so much you could do with that, and just by the mere fact
that it’s going on Gary’s property you know it’s going to be appealing, period. You know it is. It’s
going to look nice.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you condition that into an approval?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m not disagreeing with you on that, Anthony. It is going to look nice.
You’re right, it is going to look nice, but that.
MR. METIVIER-Do you want it to look like a house? Do you want it to look like a house?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t want to say this, and I didn’t want to argue, but, and I’m not an
architect, but I have a son who’s getting his masters in architecture at the University of Virginia, and
I have gone down and I have seen the stuff that comes out of those students, and if you know what
you’re doing, you can design anything that you want to, but you know what, I’m not saying anything
anymore because I don’t feel that, I feel that Mr. Kellogg has said we’ll be glad to put a different
roofline on, and everybody around him is arguing that, and I just don’t want to say anyhting more.
MR. MAC EWAN-Six out of seven are looking for a different roofline, and a difference in colors, as
they said you would do like you did down in Greenwich, I think it was.
MR. MILLER-Then you’re talking about those meeting dates you mentioned.
MR. MAC EWAN-So if we tabled this tonight and gave you until close of business on the 29 to
th
submit different drawings or different rooflines, and then we’ll reconvene on November the 6
th
around, nine, nine fifteen. Is that okay? You’re supposed to smile and laugh at that point. Seven
o’clock, downstairs?
MR. O'CONNOR-Seven p.m.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we make it earlier. Make it six, give him a chance to do what he’s got to
do. Make it six o’clock.
MR. MAC EWAN-Six o’clock for everyone?
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask this question, seriously?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would think that there is a reason for having this same color scheme on this
particular property as there is on his other six to eight sites, and if that, and the way that it is set up, I
think with the gray and the bottom and the blue and the yellow, just in the signage portion,
depending on how it fits into the new roof scheme, is worth maintaining. I mean, you can ask us to
change the architecture, but I don’t think you can ask us to change our trademark, unless there’s
some real reason to it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with the roofline for the time being. How’s that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, that’s what I’d heard, and I mean, I understand, I think the offer to change
the colors was the idea to try, to change the colors, if that changed it, could we do that tonight, and
make that attempt, and I don’t mean to speak for everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need a motion to table, please.
MRS. MOORE-You need to open up the public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? I’m going to leave the public hearing open, though, until we reconvene.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-And prior to you making your motion for tabling, can I go through some of the
items that the Board addressed earlier?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Information on the canopy design, as well as the color. Currently you don’t
have any elevation drawings to look through to review that information.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t understand that one, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-The canopy design, if it’s going to be above, if it’s going to be a canopy or if it’s
going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I think we got away from the canopy thing when we got, when we started
talking about the different rooflines.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re really asking for, in simple terms, we’re asking for a different roofline to be
presented, and that’s the only thing I think we’ve settled on as a Board so far.
MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. May I continue?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. These are questions that the Board drew up as well as some of my concerns.
The enclosure that contained the waste oil and tires, that verify that it’s fence with either color slats
or whether that’s going to be an open chain link fence. I think there were slats with it, and whether
there was going to be a green color or a white color or something to that effect, so that that’s
addressed. Apparently there’s roof mounted structures. The Board should probably take a look at
where those are located, if there are roof mounted structures, and the other item that I have is the
elevation drawing of the garage doors. He indicated there were windows in them, then let’s see an
elevation drawing that shows where those windows are and the garage doors.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go back to the roof mounted HVAC equipment. Why is that so important we
know where it is?
MRS. MOORE-You want to see how the view of that is with the new architectural scheme.
MR. MILLER-That’s no problem, we’ll show it.
MR. VOLLARO-That can be up under the gable, too, depending upon how high you’re going to get
it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, to table?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2001, GARY & SUSAN HIGLEY, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
Until November 6 at 6 p.m. to present a different roofline, but prior to that, the submission for the
th
different roofline will be submitted by October 29.
th
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, unless you want to continue on the roof mounted structures and the rest
of it. I don’t think so. I think that’s the only reason we’re tabling this thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do I have a second?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. STROUGH-The color scheme I think was mentioned.
MR. VOLLARO-We said we were going to limit it to the roofline, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-We said by changing the roofline it’s going to change the color scheme anyway.
So do we have a second?
MR. STROUGH-Second.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. This does not require a re-submittal to any of your other
Boards?
MS. RADNER-You already got a zoning variance. Correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-We got the variance, but we also got site plan recommendation from the County.
I would take it to be an insignificant change?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would think so.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would like that on the record, that’s all. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks, Mike.
MS. RADNER-Just so you know, you’ll probably end up with me on the 6 and not Mark.
th
SITE PLAN NO. 43-2001 TYPE II JOHN HECKMAN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 68 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 396
+/- SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND A 330 SQ. FT. DECK. IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCKS REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL; SECTION 179-60 HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE ALSO REQUIRE BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. APA, LAKE GEORGE PARK, CEA, LGP C PERMIT# 5234-32-01, 5234-33-01
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-2001, BP 2001-656 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/10/01
TAX MAP NO. 15-1-42 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-16, 179-60
JOHN CREED, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN HECKMAN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-2001, John Heckman, Meeting Date: October 23, 2001 “Project
Description and Project Analysis (Section 179-38):
The applicant had originally proposed a 366 square foot sundeck open sided boathouse. The
applicant had also proposed a 330 square foot lawn deck. The Zoning Board reviewed the project
for area variance relief and conditioned the approval that the lawn deck and the sundeck would be
removed from the application (resolution attached).
The amended proposal is for an open sided boathouse with a semi-peaked roof to allow drainage to
run-off. The applicant had previously removed the boathouse in hopes to construct the original
proposal. The intent now is to construct the same size open sided boathouse, 396 square feet in the
original location. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of the boathouse showing
that reference to the roofline construction.
Suggestion:
Staff would suggest approval of the open sided boathouse.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. HECKMAN-Hi. I’m John Heckman. I’m the property owner.
MR.CREED-I’m John Creed, Pro Built Docks.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. HECKMAN-Thank you. Basically, what we’re asking for now is to be able to construct the
dock just as it was, with the same size boathouse, which we have drawings of in your package, and
we don’t meet the setback requirements because of, well, that’s the way the lot was built, I guess, and
that’s the way the dock was built originally.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MR. HECKMAN-That’s all we’re asking for, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-I was at the Zoning Board meeting, and I saw the applicant go through the grind
there, and I think the applicant’s just going to be happy to get back what he had, at this point, and
I’m all in favor of that. So, that’s all I have to say. This is fine the way it is. It looks nice. Good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Me, too. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I hate to be the spoil sport on this. It was going down the line so fast I
figured we’d, I just have to ask some questions. Real quick. It won’t take a lot of time. You have
two drawings. I’ve had a problem trying to get the drawings in line, but I think the two drawings you
have revised 10/19 is what I should be looking at. There’s a couple of drawings here, but you’ve got
two of them that are revised on 10/19, which are the latest drawings that I have.
MR. CREED-Are these the ones you’re looking at?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Should I be looking at those?
MR. CREED-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what we’re looking at. Now, okay, in one case you have the height
from the high water mark is 12.6. What I did was get to the, and I’m digging it out in a minute here,
from all of this stuff, if I can. Yes, I went to the Lake George Park Commission, and I finally got
something that makes determining the height of a boathouse real simple. Really simple. You call up
a number, and I’ll go through this real quick, 668-9347. You probably know all about this, and you
say what’s today’s level at, according to Roger’s Rock gauge. He gives you a number like 3.4. You go
to your dock and you go to the mean high, it says 8.9 inches. You measure from the water level,
providing it’s relatively flat, 8.9 inches, you put a mark on your dock, and then you’re allowed 14 feet
from that to the height. Am I right?
MR. CREED-Well, I calculated it a little bit differently, equally simple. If you take that same Roger’s
Rock water level reading, you can calculate the mean low water mark, and the mean high water mark
is 30 inches above the mean low water mark. It’s a point located on the shore, okay, which can be
located on the dock, with a level reading.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, either way. Whenever, I look, when somebody gives me a height above the
water mark, I always say to myself, how did he calculate that? I see nine feet here.
MR. CREED-No, it’s nine feet from the dock.
MR. VOLLARO-Nine feet from the top of the dock, but I don’t know what, how high it is, and the
spec is, at least our spec, talks about the height from the mean high water mark to the top.
MR. CREED-Okay. Well, first off, that project has no relevance, because that project was denied.
So we’re just asking for permission to replace what was existing there, which was a nine foot, open-
sided, flat roofed, shed boathouse. If we were asking permission to, which we would have liked to
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
have done here, you know, put a proposed sundeck up above there, the mean high water mark, at
that point was about six inches below the height of the dock that presently exists now, so, to answer
your question.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have, on this one drawing it shows a slight pitch.
MR. CREED-The drawing is just a simple schematic, just representing what was there. Nothing’s to
scale. It’s just length, width and height.
MR. VOLLARO-All I’m trying to do is verify in my own mind that the height above the mean high
water mark is below 14 feet. That’s all I need to know. I don’t need to know anything else.
MR. CREED-Okay. Just for your interest, the Park Commission allows 16 feet from the mean high
water mark.
MR. VOLLARO-The Park Commission does. Queensbury.
MR. CREED-Queensbury allows 14 feet, from the water level. Right now, from my understanding,
you’re trying to clarify that with, I met with your Code Enforcement Officer, Craig Brown, and we
had a sit down discussion about trying to adopt the same rule as the Park Commission, which would
greatly simplify this process right now.
MR. VOLLARO-It probably would. I find this chart, the lake level elevation chart really, really
simple way to do it, though. I mean, I talked to the Park Commission, went up there and got this
piece of paper, talked to.
MRS. MOORE-Tom Wardell?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I also talked to Chris Round, and Chris said, yes, we would accept this, as
the methodology, not the 16 feet, but the method by which to calculate it.
MRS. MOORE-We do. We do.
MR. HECKMAN-I think to answer your question, we’re well below that limit from the County or
the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re nine feet above your deck area now, your dock surface, and that’s
where it was before.
MR. HECKMAN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to build, okay. So you’re just replacing what you’ve got. I was just
trying to help, to come up with it, because every time we come up with this, we come up with the
same back and forth seesaw and stuff, how do you do this. If we all can agree on a methodology, we
can cut this conversation down to zero.
MR. CREED-Again, it could greatly simplify the process if, when you re-write your codes, that is
specifically says that. Right now, your rule is very vague. It’s 14 feet from the water level, which
could mean this spring coming up, you know, the boathouse could be 18 inches, I mean, the water
level is going to be 18 inches higher, 2 feet. Right now the water level is very low.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. CREED-And it probably is going to get much lower until we get some serious rain.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I had talked to Chris Round about that, and I had told him I would try to
write a section, if he wanted to, you know, because we talk about this. We never define exactly how
this less than 14 feet is developed. We never get it done.
MS. RADNER-Ultimately, if you want to change your Town Code, it’s, of course, your Town Board
who has to do that, and Chris Round can make a recommendation to them, as can any member of
the Planning Board, but it’s up to your Town Board to change your Town Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else. I love it the way it looks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
54
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. SEGULJIC-All set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you gentlemen wanted to add? Staff?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAMES FARLEY
MR. FARLEY-My name is James Farley. I reside at 10 Cedarwood Drive in Queensbury. I also
have a camp at 67 Rockhurst Road, and I’ve known John since 1975. I figured I should say
something as long as I waited this long. I think, though, just from a personal note, I’ve looked at his
dock. It’s a vast improvement. I’ve known John and he takes pride in his property, but just from a
personal observation, I think it’s sad when a property owner has to spend X amount of dollars to try
and improve his property, and the sundeck would have been a good money well spent, and to have
the, I know it’s not your folks, but to have the previous Board, the Zoning Board turn that down on
an existing dock and boathouse, I think was a crying shame. It’s just a personal observation, as a
citizen of Queensbury, since 1967. Thank you. I hope you vote in favor of John’s proposal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else?
MRS. MOORE-I do have a public comment. This is dated 10/19/01, “We have no objection to the
application submitted by John Heckman.” And this is from Kenneth Uhl.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add?
MR. HECKMAN-I do have, I don’t think it’s necessary, but I do have signatures of other neighbors
that we used for the other Board. I don’t think it’s going to be necessary tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was that part of our packet, or was that part of the ZBA’s?
MRS. MOORE-It appears to be part of the ZBA’s, unless it’s addressed to the Planning Board, it’s
not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions or comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2001 JOHN HECKMAN, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 43-2001, John Heckman. Type
II. Property Owner: Same. Zone: WR-1A. Location: 68 Rockhurst Road. Applicant proposes a
396 +/- sq. ft. sundeck and a 330 sq. ft. deck. In accordance with Section 179-16 Private Boathouse
and Covered Docks require Planning Board review and approval; Section 179-60 Hard Surfacing
within 50’ of the shoreline also requires Board review and approval. APA, Lake George Park CEA,
LGPC Permit # 5234-32-01, 5234-33-01. Cross Reference: AV 77- 2001, BP 2001-656 Warren Co.
Planning: 10/10/01. Tax Map No. 15-1-42. Section: 179-16, 179-60, and
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/01:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 10/12/01:
10/23 Staff notes
55
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
10/19 Revised drawings
10/19 Public comment from K. Uhl
10/17 ZBA resolution
10/16 Notice of Public Hearing
10/10 Warren Co. Planning – Approved w/condition that the land bridge be removed
from plans.
10/3 Meeting notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 10/23/01 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 prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. HECKMAN-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2001 TYPE II GF CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESS
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: ANDREW CRONQUIST ZONE: LI-1A
LOCATION: CORNER OF CORINTH & OGDEN RDS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
PAVE 20,180 +/- SQ FT. OF THE CURRENT PARKING AREA AND ENTRANCE/EXIT
DRIVES. ALL NEW LAND USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 179-26. WARREN CO.
PLANNING BOARD: 10/10/01 CROSS REFERENCE: UV 79-2001 TAX MAP NO. 147-1-8
LOT SIZE: 1.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-26
ANDREW CRONQUIST & GREG GARAFALO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 44-2001, GF Congregation of Jehovah’s Witness, Meeting Date:
October 23, 2001 “Project Description and Project Analysis (Section 179-38):
The applicant proposes to pave 24,064 +/-square feet of an existing parking area. The applicant
informed staff of the revised square footage of paved surface from 20,180 square feet to 24,064
square feet. The applicant has also indicated that there will be five feet of green area between the in
and out access points. This will move the pavement in this area five feet from the property line. The
parking lot lines will be adjusted accordingly to maintain a minimum of the 20-foot drive aisle. The
site will be able to accommodate 58 parking spaces in the paved area. The site also has the potential
to accommodate an additional 20-30 vehicles as overflow. The ZBA granted a use variance approval
for expansion of a nonconforming use (resolution attached).
56
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
The applicant proposes two new light poles at either end of the island parking. The poles will be
18’6” high with cutoff fixture style with 250 watts sodium vapor lights. The building light is an
existing floodlight located at the gable end looking over the parking lot.
The applicant proposes two drywells at 1,200 gallons at the south end of the parking area. The plans
were provided to Soil and Water for review and comment. The Conservation District indicated 5
drywells would suffice to accommodate the first ½ inch of runoff. They also suggested mapping out
a grading plan. The applicant has been informed of this information. The driveways are located in
the right of-way and will be pitched to the lands of the right of way. Due to the amount of green
area to the south of the property another stormwater alternative is a combination of drywells,
infiltration trenches, and or lawn depressions.
Areas of Concern or Importance:
The Planning Board reviewed a similar project for WEB Graphics where the proposed paved parking
area was 102,000 square feet or about three times the size of the applicant’s parking area. The
stormwater plan developed for WEB Graphics used three drywells to accommodate the stormwater
runoff from the paved surface.
Suggestions:
Staff would recommend approval of the paved parking area with the suggestion the applicant meet
with the Soil and Water Conservation District”
MR. MAC EWAN-Say that last part again, please?
MRS. MOORE-“Staff would recommend approval of the paved parking area with the suggestion the
applicant meet with the Soil and Water Conservation District.”
MR. MAC EWAN-And have you addressed those concerns to the applicant, suggested to them?
Just so I can get a handle on where we’re going here.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. They understand that there’s going to be a discussion in regards to stormwater
management.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and this information that was received by us tonight, which is just a two
paragraph memo, I guess, and form. Good evening.
MR. CRONQUIST-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. CRONQUIST-I’m Andrew Cronquist, the applicant, and this is Greg Garafalo, who’s also listed
as an alternate of sorts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go too much farther here, this, I guess it’s a memo form that we have.
Could you explain what this is to us and where you were going with it?
MR. CRONQUIST-Well, after a phone conversation letting me know of the concerns about the
watershed situation, I ended up drafting or having someone who knows a little bit more about this
part of the project, give some notes and draft up this letter, to explain in a little bit more detail,
especially compared to what we gave you as far as a map, our plans to be able to handle the water
shed of the parking lot. After receiving this letter, both from the Development Department and also
Warren County Soil and Water, I received this on Saturday morning and realized that you may want
more details than what we’re able to give you in that quick letter, and we haven’t had a chance to
meet with the Soil and Water Department to get their feedback on the project, but we’d be happy to
do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has Staff given consideration to referring this to C.T. Male for review?
MRS. MOORE-With this application, I felt it could be addressed through Soil and Water
Conservation District.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think it’s ample, it’s suited enough to address this application if they had
just gone to Warren County and had their help on this? I mean, is that what Warren County is
willing to do is help them design drainage and such on that?
MRS. MOORE-They are able to do that, yes, they are.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you have a meeting set up with Warren County now?
MR. CRONQUIST-No, we don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have any idea how long it takes Warren County?
MRS. MOORE-They’re fairly efficient. If a request is made of them, they’re fairly efficient about
going to see the site and working with the applicant to come up with a plan that would be acceptable
to accommodate the stormwater as needed on the site.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s our deadline submission date?
MRS. MOORE-October 31, for next month’s meeting.
st
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, which is, what, next Wednesday?
MRS. MOORE-Next Wednesday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it foreseeable, in your expert opinion, that they can get in touch with Warren
County soil and get the information they need and update their plat and have it to Staff by next
Wednesday?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think so? Okay. I think that’s what we’ll probably do tonight is we’ll
table your application and give you an opportunity to go work with them, and resubmit the
information we need to have so we can have it for next month’s meeting and hopefully come up with
a resolution for this. Before we get too much farther, is there any other questions from Board
members referencing this? I don’t want to go along too far on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I had a question of the Staff, though, on the Staff note, Laura. Under your
areas of concern or importance. I’m not sure I understand the reference to Web Graphics. If they
only needed three, and Soil and Water is recommending five for this, which is a third of the size, are
you thinking that the five is excessive and two sufficient?
MRS. MOORE-It’s possible, that may be the case.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, because that’s what I inferred from it.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. That’s why I think the applicant can meet with Soil and Water and
quickly come up with the resolution that says, this is a design that they could, there’s also in the
plans, instead of doing five drywells to the site, which incur costs, I think there’s other alternatives.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought you were saying, but I just wanted to make sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, do you have anything?
MR. STROUGH-Just a couple of quick things. Now, I’m getting different figures. What is the
square footage? Is it 2280? Or 2240, or 2464 or 2180? Which one of those is it?
MR. CRONQUIST-Well, we did get through with the Zoning Board on, you know, roughly about
25,000 square feet. There was a math error that was on the plan, and they had no problem approving
it, based on the size that we have drawn here. Obviously, we’d have to come here tonight for the
drainage situation, and we, I don’t know about options of scaling it down, but this is what we
presently have right now, would be 256 by 94, and that would add up to 24,000 something. I don’t
have that written down right here.
MR. STROUGH-24,064 is the current figure?
MR. CRONQUIST-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. CRONQUIST-And based on drainage, could add extra cost to this. We’re hoping that they
would scale that down. I got the same impression, because actually the figure from Web Graphics is
102,000 square feet, which is actually four times our project, you know, they said three in here, but
it’s more like four times, and I did speak with Mr. O’Connor’s paving, not that we’re definitely using
O’Connor, but he was at the site with me today and we, because of this letter, and I was talking to
him about the drainage and since he did Web Graphics across the street, he was able to give us some
58
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
pointers, and thought with the two drywells and possibly maybe something along the back side of the
parking lot, we could easily accommodate it, and some of it could actually pitch to our own property
in the back, but based on that cost, everything will affect the Congregation cost wise, too, as far as
the size, but since we’re going to the next Planning Board, we’ll try to get all that from the
Conservation Department, and then anything we feel that we need to adjust.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I notice that the south exit is 24 foot in width?
MR. CRONQUIST-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Now that’s just an out only?
MR. CRONQUIST-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And isn’t that currently a group of trees through there?
MR. CRONQUIST-Not through that area. The scale is not quite correct, based on this.
MR. STROUGH-What I’m suggesting, I don’t think you need 24 foot width for a one way situation.
MR. CRONQUIST-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Number One, it might save you money, and Number Two, it might have saved a
few trees, but, you know, I’ll let you make that call. I just made that as a suggestion.
MR. CRONQUIST-Yes. As a matter of fact, the Zoning Board didn’t want to see anymore trees
taken out. The only trees that really became part of the, an issue were near that out section, but we
were re-thinking some of the size, too, on that, as you did, because we’d like to leave the trees.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think what you’ve suggested is having the out on the south side of the
parking lot is a very good suggestion, because the out allows for more stacking, when everyone’s
leaving on Ogden Road, and so I thought that was a good design. I just didn’t know if you needed
24 foot in width being one way.
MR. CRONQUIST-Between the two trees, the trees that are there now and the big pine tree on the
other side, there’s about that, and basically that’s what we measured. So the paving would probably
be a little bit less than that, because we wouldn’t go up to the trees.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, thank you.
MR. CRONQUIST-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about a public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave the public hearing open.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 10/23/01)
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2001, GF CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S
WITNESSES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Strough:
Until the next meeting on November 20. The applicant is to meet with the Warren County Soil and
th
Water to discuss their letter, that is Warren County Soil and Water letter of October 10, 2001. [The
applicant will work with Soil and Water to develop a stormwater management plan.]
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Just be aware that our deadline submission date.
MR. CRONQUIST-The 31.
st
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the 31, close of business.
st
MR. CRONQUIST-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So what’s the story for next month?
MR. MAC EWAN-Marilyn’s thing on Open Space. She’s looking for a couple of volunteers. I
volunteered myself, but then I guess I got un-volunteered by Marilyn. I understand you’re on it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I understand you’re on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And we got a mailing from her today that has the list of the entire
Committee, and there’s enough people.
MR. MAC EWAN-So they don’t need anybody else? You two guys are on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we’re fine for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-When are site visits? We’re going on the big tour of the Town on the 3 of
rd
November, and when are site visits?
MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits are going to be the 17, Saturday morning at nine o’clock. Tony’s got
th
the donuts, and our meetings are the 20 and the 27, and the 6. The 6 is at six o’clock. Anything
thththth
else? Any other business?
MRS. MOORE-Who will be attending the next agenda meeting, November 5 at 10 a.m.?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll be there. If you’re not going to be here the 27, just give me plenty of notice
th
and we’ll make sure that we get Rich Sanford for the 27. It’s his turn.
th
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Another note is that I will not be here for your November meetings,
December or January. Craig Brown is going to be here.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
60