2002-04-23
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 TYPE II MODIFICATION PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY
CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES
ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 133 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION IS TO ADDRESS
PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE LIGHTING PLAN OF THE SITE. ANY MODIFICATION
TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2000, AV 54-2000 TAX MAP NO. 82-3-1, 82-3-2 LOT SIZE: 6.85
ACRES SECTION: 179-20
RICHARD JONES & LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2000, Modification, Prospect Child and Family Center, Meeting Date:
April 23, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes modification of an existing site plan to address changes in the site lighting.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The previous Zoning Ordinance did not address site lighting. This modification application shall be
reviewed subject to the “old” ordinance.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
It is not anticipated that the proposed modification will present an impact to the burden on the
supporting public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed modification, to change the site lighting from intermittent (only when vehicles are
traveling on the access road ) to constant illumination may present a detrimental condition to the
adjoining neighborhood.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
1
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
It is not anticipated that this modification will present any undue adverse impact relative to these
concerns.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed lighting is a change to constant illumination as opposed to the previous approval, which called
for the rear access road lighting to be operational only when vehicles traveled behind the buildings at night.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The site landscaping appears to substandard from the plantings outlined on the previously approved site plan.
While the quantities of plantings appear to be present, the quality or size appears to be deficient. The
approved plan calls for 3”- 4” caliper Canadian Hemlocks to be planted on the berm along the southern and
eastern property line. Actual plantings are approximately 1”- 2” caliper.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
No changes to these conditions are proposed with this modification
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 22-2000 resolved 5/17/00 Additions to School & site improvements
Area Variance 54-2000 resolved 9/20/00 Additions to School & site improvements
Site Plan Review 10-2000 resolved 6/27/00 Additions to School & site improvements
Staff comments:
The proposed alterations to the approved site plan do not appear to present adverse impacts on the
community or neighborhood. The landscaping along the berm adjacent to the fence appears to be lesser in
size than shown on the approved plans. Such landscaping, if properly maintained will grow and mature,
however, it may take a few years to achieve the desired effect.
SEQR Status:
2
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
Type II”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record.
MR. JONES-Richard Jones, agent for the owner.
MR. GOUGE-Larry Gouge, Prospect Child and Family Center, Executive Director.
MAL O’HARA
MR. O’HARA-Mal O’Hara, attorney for the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. JONES-What we’re proposing, with the site plan modification, is a change to the lighting aspects of the
project that were approved approximately a year ago. The small scale plan that you have in your packet, we
have two existing fairly tall lighting poles that were in the east parking lot of the existing structure. Originally,
the site plan review had requested that we change those to a cutoff fixture, which we were doing. We were
looking to add a sensor that would make the lights come on when someone came by them, and basically what
we ended up doing, we originally had three heads on each fixture. We were going to be replacing those with
three new heads. As part of the project, we only replaced the pole. We basically placed two new heads on
each pole, rather than the three, reducing the total light level. What we were running into, with both the
existing poles and the two new light poles, which are located on the back drive, which connects the two
parking lots, and then the back corner of the new drive behind the building addition was that, when we put
the sensor on the poles, because of the nature of the fixture, the type of fixture that we have, someone would
trip the light. It takes approximately five to six minutes for the light to come to full intensity. By then,
whoever has driven by or walked by is long gone. The basic timer on the unit shuts it off. There’s very little
time that it’s at full strength for the fixture. What happens then, the next person or vehicle comes through,
trips the light, and it starts to short-circuit the circuit on the light. So it just totally throws the thing out of
sequence and then it won’t even start. So what we’ve proposed is basically we have a unit on there which
senses daylight and dark, and at dark the lights come on. Basically, we would we request that we be able to
leave them that way for security and that fact that we do need the light in the back. As one of the stipulations
that was put on the site plan approval, we added the gates at the, what would be the farthest, most west
entrance into the site, as well as the connection point where the driveway loops around the back side. If
those lights are not on at night, there’s no one, no way for anybody to know who’s back there. So basically
we need to be able to leave them on for security on the site, plus to, we think, alleviate any potential
vandalism problems in that back area, which was very prevalent before we started the project. As far as other
alternatives, there really are no other alternatives. The type of fixture that we have is economical. It’s
economical to run. The down lighting patterns that we have with those directs the light directly to the
ground. Our foot candle levels, if anything, are reduced from what we had by downsizing the number of
heads that we have on the fixtures, and we really don’t feel that what we’re proposing is detrimental to the
neighborhood on the back side. The berm and the fence and the plantings that have been put there have
severely curtailed the lighting, the foot candle levels that filter in to that back area. What we found, in doing a
basic inspection and survey of the site at night, is that the fixtures that are most obtrusive now are the existing
wall packs that currently exist on the back of the Administration building. Those are shining directly toward
the back side, and they are something that does create glare into the back area, because we’ve reduced the
canopy on the back side of the existing site, and what we’re proposing on that is that we provide some type
of a cutoff shield on that to direct the lighting down to the ground, rather than letting it filter out directly
from the fixture. With that we feel that we will have a reasonable light level on site. We’re not creating light
pollution with both of those solutions, both for the wall packs, the existing wall packs, and the existing pole
lights and the new pole lights. We feel that we’re really controlling the light, but providing something which
does give the Center security in the parking lots and enables people to basically come in and out of the
buildings from the parking lots at night without any chance of any type of thing going on. Basically, as you
can see, this is one of the new fixtures which sits on the back side of the loop, and it is a down type cutoff
fixture. The intensity of the light is directly under. That is the one that is at the end of the new parking lot
extension behind the Administration building, and if you look at the end of the Administration building,
which is the gabled, right there, that’s the wall pack fixture, the existing wall light that basically is glaring to
the back neighborhood now.
MR. GOUGE-I think that’s already been corrected.
MR. JONES-Okay, and I haven’t been there in the last few nights to look at it.
MR. GOUGE-I think so.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. JONES-But that’s basically what we’re proposing, and the rationale why.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you address the changes in landscaping?
MR. JONES-Basically, the landscaping along the back berm, on the contract documents that the contractors
bid, we had indicated the caliper size on the trees that we were looking for. In supplying the trees along that
berm area, there is something that’s a lesser caliper than what was indicated on the drawing. We have not, at
this point, made the contractor take them out. We are going to be going, my firm is going to be going and
doing an inspection, meeting with the contractor, to review that situation. If we deem that they have to come
out because of the sizes, then they will come out. At this point, the berm itself has not been completed.
There’s still site work, as you can see, that has not been completed. I’m not sure what the date on these was,
but they’re pursuing and completing site work. We have the drainage around the base of the parking lot that
needs to be complete. There’s still mulch and that type of thing that needs to be completed on the berms.
We still need to do spreading of topsoil and seeding. There’s still landscaping around the buildings that hasn’t
been completed, and as of last week, they were going to attempt to do some striping in the parking lots, and I
don’t know if they were able to do that either. So there’s still site work that has not been addressed, and I
know that the Planning Department came out to do a site inspection to make it part of the CO for the
building, but I think they were a little bit premature in some of the commentary that they had put together,
because we had not finished a punch list on the site, nor finished the site work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who requested the CO?
MR. JONES-The contractor had requested the CO for the owner, and I don’t have a particular problem with
that, but I think that what they could have said is that the CO is a Temporary CO contingent upon
completion of the site work. There was a lot of stuff, at that point, that wasn’t even started nor completed.
As you can see here that I don’t believe the fence has even been completed, and I believe these are only a
couple of weeks old, and we’ve had decent weather, and they’re starting to get weather where they can come
in and start to complete the work, but in order to stripe the parking lots, we need high temperatures at night,
roughly 50 to 60 degrees. We had two nights last week which we didn’t expect, and they were attempting to
start to do that, but I don’t think that they did complete the work. So those types of things will be completed
when weather permits.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. JONES-No, that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I really have no problems with the lighting. I was up that way the other night and
took a look over from Mountain View, and it doesn’t seem obtrusive at all. I guess my biggest question is
with the landscaping. I’m confused as to why the wrong trees were put in, and, I mean, are you considering
taking those out or?
MR. JONES-We may have to make the contractor take them out to conform to the contract documents. If
that’s what we need to do, that’s what will happen. They bid the drawings and the project as indicated on
those drawings, and we would anticipate that if they’re not going to supply the trees as specified, then that
there would either be a credit back to the owner, we would come back to the Town and say, we’d like to do
this, and is this acceptable, and at this point, we’re not looking to do that. What we’re looking to do is have
them supply basically what was required by the documents, and at this point, they have not done that. Some
of the trees are the right caliper, some are not, and we would have to go through and basically be selective
and take out the ones that are not the correct trees.
MR. METIVIER-Interesting, but as far as the lighting, I honestly have no problems with it. I don’t know,
you know, what the neighbors feel, or how they feel about it. We might hear from some of them, but as far
as I’m concerned, it doesn’t seem too obtrusive to me. I have nothing further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-How visible are the light poles to the neighbors in the back on Willow?
MR. JONES-To be honest with you, when you’re standing on the back side, the thing that you really notice is
more the packs, the existing lighting on the building. Because of all the down lighting with the cutoff
fixtures, you realize that there’s a pole there, but you really can’t see the fixture.
MR. RINGER-Nor the light? You can’t see?
MR. JONES-Well, you see light dispersed on the ground, but it is not washing into the back yard of the
neighbors at all.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. RINGER-And they have to be on all night now under your proposal?
MR. JONES-Yes, they would have to be on all night. We were thinking that we might be able to put them
on a timer, but if we do that, and they go off at midnight, there’s no way to control what goes on back there,
and with the gates on, there’s no way for anybody to patrol back there without having to put the gates up and
opening the gates and everything else.
MR. RINGER-The only thing you have back there is a driveway. Right?
MR. JONES-Yes, but we’ve had vandalism problems back there before.
MR. RINGER-You’ve had vandalism there before.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. RINGER-I mean, I’d hate to think that the light is going to be on all night long, and those people back
there, you know, are going to be exposed to that.
MR. JONES-The lights have been on all night since roughly mid-January when we put the fixtures on. At
that point, we were experimenting with the.
MR. RINGER-And we’ll probably hear, we may hear tonight from some people that it may have been
offensive to them. You indicated that there’s no other alternative that you can?
MR. JONES-The only other alternative would be incandescent fixtures, and I don’t think that’s practical for
what we’re trying to do. We’re not going to get the required light levels that we would need in the parking
areas, and the maintenance aspects of that, these fixtures would be going on and off. They’d be burning out
once a week, and I mean we’re talking fairly good sized fixtures here.
MR. RINGER-Lowering the poles wouldn’t help?
MR. JONES-No.
MR. RINGER-Reducing the light over?
MR. JONES-No. We basically need the height of the fixture to be able to disperse the light to the area that
we need for the parking and the drives, especially in the big parking lot on the east side. Those poles were
put up, I’m going to say probably six years ago. Is that safe? Maybe even longer ago than that, five to six
years ago?
MR. GOUGE-A few years ago. I think more than three to four.
MR. JONES-Yes, okay, and to reduce the height of those fixtures, we would never get the light washing into
the back areas that we would want in the parking area. As it is right now, at the edge of that parking lot.
MR. RINGER-But haven’t you put up some new lights in that back driveway area, closer to?
MR. JONES-We’ve put up two new poles. That’s a new pole on the back drive, and then the one just before
that that Craig had was the new pole at the end of the parking lot. The closest light to either one of those is
on the building itself or the bollards at the walk at the main entry. As you’re coming back along, from that
light pole back toward the building, under that light pole you’ve got roughly seven and a half foot candles. By
the time you get 30 to 40 feet away, you’re at one foot candle. By the time we get to the corner of the new
building, we’re down to about a half a foot candle, and anything less than a foot candle is really not enough
light in a parking lot. We know that we’ve got a little bit of a dark spot there, but we’ve also got bollards at
the walkway right there that comes into the building. The one on the back side again has seven and a half
foot candles directly under it on the driveway. On the opposite side of that roadway, going toward the berm,
you have one foot candle at roughly 25 feet away.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything more right now, but with public comment tonight there may be some
more things coming up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have the same concerns that Larry just expressed about the lighting and having it on
all night. I’m wondering if, what the issue is. You have the gates, and the gates are locked, and presumably
that’s to keep people out.
MR. JONES-It’s to keep vehicles out. It doesn’t mean that pedestrians can’t walk back there. What they
were having problems with is kids going back in there and basically having all types of parties. There was a
5
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
heavily wooded area that came back probably to within 50 or 60 feet of the original building and there were
trails that went back through there, and what was happening, the kids were congregating back in there, and
they were having things going on. They were partying, and at one point, the School actually had vandalism.
There were people trying to break in to the cars that they had parked in the parking lot.
MR. SANFORD-So what’s the purpose of the gates being locked?
MR. JONES-The purpose of the gates, as I understood it, was to keep vehicles from driving around that
thing at night. That was a Planning Board decision that was made a year ago. That was a stipulation that was
put on the approval. We put a gate at the western most entrance onto Aviation Road coming from Aviation
into the new parking lot, and then a gate at the back of the big parking lot where the new connector drive
comes around. That was to keep vehicles from basically driving around back there at night. It won’t stop
pedestrians because they’re not those type of gates.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, Queensbury School is down the road. They don’t have gates, and do they
have lights on all night?
MR. JONES-Yes, they do.
MR. SANFORD-The lights are on all night there?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, let’s hear if anybody has anything to say from the public.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the site’s developing fine. I think it’s just going to take some more time, and I
think it’s good that you’re going to hand select all of those trees to make sure, if there’s some that aren’t
conforming, you get rid of them, and that you fix the light on the back of the Administration building, which
is good. Yes. The site looks good. I have one question that really isn’t relevant to what we’re discussing, but
maybe you can just answer it. Why were there three different types of brick used on three different building?
MR. JONES-We had a brick that we felt was a match to the original Prospect School. When we actually got
the brick on site, it was more red than we anticipated, and it had more whites in it. The brick for the small
building, that’s actually a thin brick, was supposed to be a match to the brick that we had selected for the
Prospect School addition. That one doesn’t really match, but again, we felt that the buildings, basically, the
small Administration building with the pitched roofs is a totally different type of structure. The other
building, with the drivet and the stow bands on the building, that type of thing, we were attempting to tie it
back in that way, and the window colors as well, those types of things.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’m interested to hear if there is any public comment regarding the lighting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything new to add. I just would go along with my fellow members. I
have some concern about the lights being on all night, too, if it’s going to be obtrusive to the neighbors, but
the site plan, I mean, I think is coming together very nicely. It certainly looks great.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-How late do you stay open for regular, every day activities?
MR. GOUGE-One night a week until 8 p.m. One night a week until 10 p.m., and the other three weeknight
5:30.
MR. STROUGH-So 10 is the latest.
MR. GOUGE-In terms of having actual programs would be in operation.
MR. STROUGH-In your usual course.
MR. GOUGE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So from 10 p.m. until, when do activities start in the morning?
MR. GOUGE-Eight o’clock.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So from 10 p.m., and workers start showing up I assume at seven o’clock.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. GOUGE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So there’s a nine hour period where you only need lighting for security reasons.
MR. GOUGE-Correct, or the other time, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the high pressure sodium just isn’t working with the turn off type fixture, which
is triggered by a motion, I suppose.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And now are we talking about all the fixtures will experience a turn off?
MR. JONES-No, it would be the ones that we were looking at.
MR. STROUGH-Just the two in the rear.
MR. JONES-Were the two new poles and the two existing poles only.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now those are in gated areas.
MR. JONES-The two new poles, one of, both of those are in a gated area. The two existing poles are in an
open parking lot.
MR. STROUGH-They’re in eastern parking lot.
MR. JONES-Right, the east parking lot.
MR. STROUGH-Now, they were all supposed to get motion sensors?
MR. JONES-Yes, they were.
MR. STROUGH-And you’re saying that incandescent lighting would not be appropriate because they may
experience frequent shutting off and on by motion?
MR. JONES-Yes, well, we’d have to increase the wattage to be able to get the foot candle levels that we’re
looking at, because it’s a totally different type of light, and in doing that, we’re talking about increasing the
size of the bulb, which is going to create burn out because of the thing coming on and off all the time. We
will burn those bulbs out very quickly.
MR. STROUGH-How about fluorescent?
MR. JONES-That’s not practical with the cold weather ballasts even, because again, you’re going to need
something that’s going to give you, you’re up in the air 20 feet with the new poles, and I believe we’re 30 feet
with the existing poles.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. JONES-And it’s just too high for that type of fixture.
MR. STROUGH-I was just thinking, they have new ballasts out that work a lot in cold weather now. How
about mounting some kind of lighting halfway up the pole that would be just for security lighting? I mean,
and it would be, and the rest of the lighting would be off, and only the lighting halfway up the pole would be
triggered by motion, and they could be, say, incandescent.
MR. JONES-We’d have to try and do some type of a cutoff fixture, and I’m not sure what is available,
because if we didn’t, you’d have light glare all over the place, and I’m not sure what type of fixture is available
for that type of thing.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I’m just trying to look at all the alternatives. Now you’re saying that, how
about the building mounted lighting? That’s not sufficient to light up the area for security reasons?
MR. JONES-It is the building, but it isn’t the parking lot areas, no.
MR. STROUGH-It doesn’t reach out into the parking lot areas?
MR. JONES-No. By the time we’re 40 feet from the building, we’ve got less than half a foot candle in most
areas. So we’re not getting any coverage of the parking lot area.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. STROUGH-How about in the rear area? Do you have building mounted lighting toward the rear? Now
that’s a lot narrower back there, toward, which would be the south side of the building?
MR. JONES-Anything that’s back there is in soffits. So it’s a down light at a door usually.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. JONES-We’re not washing out away from the building. We’re only trying to light the area at the door.
MR. STROUGH-Well, one thing, though, with this being developed now, as opposed to what it was before,
and it being gated, I would expect less mischief to occur back there, as a general rule.
MR. JONES-Less vehicles, but the problem we have is that the children are still using it for a cut through
from Aviation Road to the watershed properties on the back corner because our fence stops at the back
corner. So basically they’re cutting through the property and coming out what would be the southwest corner
on the back side into the watershed.
MR. STROUGH-Well, is there something we could do to try and prevent that from happening?
MR. JONES-Short of fencing the entire site, I don’t know.
MR. STROUGH-They don’t go over the berm?
MR. JONES-They do.
MR. STROUGH-They do?
MR. JONES-Yes. We’ve had people that have tromped up over the berm. We’ve had people that have
stolen fence slats off the fence already. So, I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. That’s why we’re trying to
keep some kind of foot candle level on the back side of the property.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the only thing that seems to be plausible at this point, and we’re not even sure if
it’s plausible, is mounting some kind of lighting midway up the poles, just for security purposes, night
lighting, it might be less obtrusive. Let’s pause there and see what the public says. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. JONES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes, if you would, please.
I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LEVI BROWN
MR. BROWN-My name is Levi Brown. I live at 37 Willow Road, which is right behind the back of Prospect
School. First I’d like to, on behalf of the Willow Road residents, really thank Dick Jones and Larry Gouge for
meeting with the residents in the neighborhood on several occasions and listening to us and actually making
some changes to their original plans based on the neighbors’ concerns. So we really appreciate that. In
regards to the changes in the lighting, I’d just like the Board to be aware of the following, and some of these
have already been mentioned, but I want to emphasize them. As you all know, the construction site removed
a lot of large trees in the rear, and it was needed to be done for the construction of buildings and the rear
driveway, but as a result of that, the existing soffit and wall lights on the old building, and the ones installed
on the new created brighter lights reflecting into the neighbors’ yards, and it’s worse, of course, in the winter,
when the leaves are down, and, you know, the lights reflect off the snow, and currently, I think, as Dick said,
there are not cutoffs, I think that’s the right terminology, for the light to get reflected down as a cutoff, I
believe, and there are not cutoffs, I believe, on any of the soffits or the wall lights, but I do want to mention
something positively, that in my opinion the parking lot light fixtures have reduced significantly the light
shining on the neighbors, because it shines down, yes, one of you asked, we can see the poles, but it really,
personally, doesn’t bother me, and you can see the light shining down and you can see the coverage of the
parking lot pretty good, but it really doesn’t, there’s not much at all that flows into the neighborhood. The
back yard still, though, if you include the wall and soffit lights, and the parking lot lights, by them being on all
night, it still creates a moderate amount of light wash into the neighborhood. Yes, the lights have been on
since mid-January, I think, all night long, but the neighbors and myself in particular just assumed that they left
the lights on all night because of the construction materials there and because of the construction equipment.
We just figured they’d leave them on for safety purposes, and we assumed that they’d be switched to the
motion sensors once the construction was completed, but as Dick mentioned, there’s problems with the
8
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
particular lighting fixtures they have now. There’s also, if you stood in my back yard or neighbor on either
side of me, there’s a fair amount of lighting, believe it or not, that shines off the front of the building, on the
north side of Aviation Road. So there’s at least two and then one tall one which could be the street light
that’s that yellowy light that’s irritating and it shines right, in all directions. So that’s just as bad as the lights
on the back of the building, but I was disappointed to hear from Dick that I guess there are no high pressure
sodium lights available at the current time that have motion detectors that are activated without a warm up
period. So maybe there’s a creative solution to that, but based on what I’ve just said, I’d like to request that
the Planning Board consider a couple of changes to the site plan, and I think this goes in conjunction with
what Dick had to say. Number One, all parking lot fixtures, as well as wall and soffit lights are required to
have cutoff features, and I think that would take away a lot of the light from shining in our back yards. It’s
not necessarily the two old parking lot lights, or the two new ones, because they have the screens on them,
the cutoffs, but it’s the wall and soffit lights that are the most irritating to us, I think, in the back, and then my
other idea might be, or proposal, is instant on motion sensor, high pressure sodium bulbs must be installed
on all building and parking lot fixtures on both sides of Aviation Road when they become available, or when,
as Mr. Strough said, there might be another alternative that works just as good for safety and security during
the night, and I would invite any of you, if you wish, during the night, whether I’m home or not, and look for
yourselves, because by you looking, that might give you some ideas as to what it looks like at the current time.
Are there any questions from any of you that you have for me? Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else?
KEVIN STOCKMAN
MR. STOCKMAN-I wasn’t really prepared to say a whole lot. My name’s Kevin Stockman. I live at 102
Aviation Road. I’m just to the west of the property here. We are just on the other side of the pump house
that is to the west of Prospect School. My main concern is that if lighting, extra lighting is put on that end of
the house, and it extends past the pump house property, that it’s going to light up my side yard coming in to
the end of my house, which would be my own bedroom and my kid’s bedroom, and create a situation where
we have excessive lighting coming into our yard. Now I know it’s a lot of distance away. So, you know, I
might be overly concerned where I shouldn’t really be necessarily. However, unfortunately, I wasn’t here
right at the beginning of the meeting to see exactly where the lighting’s going to be placed and just how
strong it is and all that stuff. So I apologize for that, but, you know, I do have a concern that how much
lighting they are considering putting on that end of the property, that it’s going to come onto our end and
possibly create a situation like that. As far as the kids that it was mentioned are going in and out, between,
you know, their property, which is my property, through the pump house area, there’s minimal traffic of kids.
The partying out back, if it was going on, I’d be aware of it, and there really isn’t that much of that going on
anymore. So I don’t know what the major concern is about the traffic in and out of there, of kids and
vandalism and that kind of a thing going on, because if that was going on, I’d be overly concerned about it
myself, and it’s not happened. I don’t see the kids going in and out of there, and creating any kind of a
problem whatsoever back like it used to exist in the early and mid 80’s. It’s not happening now like it used to
back then. If they have other information, I’m not aware of it, but it as a person living there, I don’t see the
people going through there like that creating a problem that they seem to be concerned with. Now I respect
that they want the security and have the lighting so that you can see it going on, if it is, but I don’t see it
happening, as a homeowner living there, and I can see it right out my bedroom window if it’s happening. I
don’t see any of this stuff going on, but I just don’t want the excessive lighting on that end of the building
coming on to my property where it could create an issue for myself or the kids with trying to sleep because
you have too much lighting possibly coming in that end. I know it’s a distance away between the building
and my house, but it’s just a concern. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what should we do?
MR. JONES-Well, just to set the last person that spoke at ease, we’re not adding any lights to the property,
and we feel that the vandalism and the traffic probably hasn’t occurred because we’ve had lights on since
mid-January at night in that back area, and it is well illuminated in the parking lots, and not creating obtrusive
lighting into the neighborhood. As far as the light fixtures themselves, we feel what we’ve proposed is a
reasonable solution to a problem that has occurred, and this, I’m sure that at some point in time, the Planning
Board has probably requested motion type sensors on lighting fixtures, and if anyone has any idea of what the
client did to address it, we’d certainly be interested, because I don’t know of any other solution than what
we’re proposing here tonight.
MR. SANFORD-A couple of quick questions. Have you ever requested that the police do a random drive
through?
MR. JONES-But they can’t drive through with the gates down. That’s the problem that we have.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. SANFORD-Okay, or drive just in the parking lot that they can get into?
MR. JONES-I know that during the construction they were doing that. We had asked them, the contractors
had asked them to do that for surveillance because of the building materials and that type of thing.
MR. SANFORD-There wasn’t any kids partying out back there when the police pulled in I’ll bet you.
MR. JONES-I doubt it very much.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. One other question, since Mr. Strough asked the timing that you have, your hours, it
seems like you want these lights on for security purposes more than for the benefit of people who are going
to be really driving and parking at night for a purpose, because you have limited evening hours. Why not just
set the motion sensor turn off, keep it on a little longer before it turns off, and therefore prevent the burn
out.
MR. JONES-There’s a maximum setting on that, and what we’re running into is that the maximum time it
takes for the high pressure sodium fixture to warm up and get the full light output, the sensor that we have
on the fixture cuts it off. There’s not enough time between it. It takes so long that once somebody goes by,
the light starts to come on, and by the time they’re gone, there’s not sufficient light in the parking lot for
them to even walk through or drive through.
MR. MAC EWAN-On an average, a sodium light takes probably five to ten minutes before it comes up to
full power.
MR. JONES-Yes. It’s very, very dim when it first comes on.
MR. SANFORD-Right, but wasn’t your issue that it shut off quickly too?
MR. JONES-Yes. The maximum amount of time for the shut off basically almost matched the warm up time
for that. So you could set it for a minimum of three minutes up to a maximum, I believe, of seven minutes.
So we’d have the fixture come on, and it would take five minutes to get to almost full light, and two minutes
later it would go off, but by then whoever was there, vehicle wise or pedestrian, was gone. So it didn’t assist
in being able to get into the parking lot and park safely or anything else.
MR. SANFORD-Right, but the issue, I mean, again, I’m confused. On the one hand, now you’re talking
about it for a practical purpose of accommodating people who are parking back there.
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. SANFORD-And yet you just got done talking to Mr. Strough and say you’re really using it very limited
for that. You want it more for security purposes.
MR. JONES-No. I think it’s a combination of the two. When we had originally proposed this as part of our
site plan, they were on at night, and it was a request of the Planning Board that we try to put a sensor on it
that would make the light come on and go off. We’ve attempted to do that, but what’s happening is they
come on. They go off too quickly, they take too long to warm up. They go off. They’re on for a short
period of time. The next time the light is tripped, it starts to short circuit the circuit of the sensors and
everything else on the light. So then it won’t even come on.
MR. RINGER-I think our concern was that you were going to cut down a lot of that wooded area and that
light was going to be going into that neighborhood more, and that’s what our concern was. We wanted to get
those lights out as early as we possibly could.
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. RINGER-Because you were cutting away all the trees in the buffer zone that was there.
MR. STROUGH-But, if I may, it seems like the residents are more concerned with the impact that the soffit
and the building mounted lights are giving you, and you’ve already said that you are going to be placing a
shields, cutoffs on the building mounted lighting.
MR. JONES-Yes, we are addressing that.
MR. STROUGH-Now what confuses me is soffit lighting. When you say soffit lighting, I’m picturing
recessed.
MR. JONES-Yes, that’s confusing me, too, and maybe we should have that clarified.
MR. STROUGH-Because if it’s recessed soffit lighting, I mean, it’s already a cutoff.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. JONES-Technically it’s a cutoff fixture.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. So that’s confusing me. So if we’re back down to the building lighting, and there are
going to be cutoff fixtures added to that, then that seems to solve that problem, but this soffit lighting is still
confusing me.
MR. JONES-Yes, me, too.
MR. STROUGH-And you too, okay. So, it looks like we can solve the worst of the problem, except I just
don’t know what this soffit lighting is and you’re saying that it’s all recessed fixtures in the soffits.
MR. JONES-Yes. Any soffit lighting is recessed fully. There’s no drop lens on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the wattage of them?
MR. JONES-I think they’re either 50 or 70 watt. Some are incandescent in the existing building. Some of
the new, I believe, are a mix of incandescent. I think there’s even some fluorescent, and there might be one
or two mercury vapor in the existing canopy on the back side, but again, it’s 50 watt, 70 watt maximum, and
it’s strictly a down light. It’s a recessed down light.
MR. STROUGH-And the more I think about it, the way those outside poles are wired, and I know it’s
conduit probably going to those poles, but I’ve done electrical work, a lot of it, that it’s not likely you’re going
to be able to put out a new circuit out there to service a mid-level lighting fixture, the more I think about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t seem like the lights in the parking lot are an issue.
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like the issue is with what’s on the building.
MR. STROUGH-And since they’ve already said they’re going to be putting cutoff fixtures, I guess that might
solve our problem.
MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I agree. I just don’t know if the compelling case has been made that there is a
need for the lighting. I mean, there was vandalism at some point in time. Whether it’s going to continue,
after all, the School is built in less than a campus setting, and I am concerned about the neighbors having the
lights on all night long, if it’s not absolutely necessary for the security, and that’s my point, that’s my hang up
on it.
MR. JONES-I think the lighting is basically two fold. It’s security is Number One, and I think we also need
to provide adequate lighting in the parking lots for the time of year when it is dark, when there’s still Staff and
students in the building. Short of leaving them on, I’m not sure what we can do.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what also surprises me, too, is those two fixtures in the old parking lot do do an
ample job of lighting that up.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And we’ve had other applicants come before us that want much more lighting than that,
but I can see that does a nice job, and an ample job, and not excessive.
MR. JONES-And we reduced the heads on that as well, from what we had originally had approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? How long before you have the whole site finished,
complete, as far as the landscaping and all the as sundry items on the Town’s checklist that were not
completed at this stage?
MR. JONES-I’m going to say probably about the third week of June, mid to, the 15 to the 21, in that
thst
timeframe, in June.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m concerned about your landscaping. I know we’ve put a lot of time and effort into
that, and it was one of our main thrusts is to ensure there was going to be some protection, some privacy for
the neighbors behind, and I would encourage you, if those things are not as what was specified on your
approved site plan, have your landscaper change them. Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 10-2000 PROSPECT CHILD
& FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 10-2000 Applicant: Prospect Child and Family Center
Type II Property Owner: Same
Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates
MODIFICATION Zone: SFR-1A
Location: 133 Aviation Road
Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Modification is to address proposed changes in the
lighting plan of the site. Any modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and
approval.
Cross Reference: AV 22-2000, AV 54-2000
Tax Map No. 82-3-1, 82-3-6
Lot size: 6.85 acres
Section: 179-20
Public Hearing: April 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 4/19/02:
4/23 Staff Notes
4/16 Notice of Public Hearing
4/4 B. Frank from R. Jones in response to 3/14/02 letter
4/4 Meeting Notice
3/14 P. Bennett from B. Frank – Compliance issues
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 23, 2002; 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
We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-And I don’t think I have to condition it, but I just want to tell the public that Mr. Jones has
given us, in an April 4, 2002 faxed memo, to Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer, exactly what he is going
to do, which seems to satisfy most of the concerns that were brought up by this Board tonight. So, unless
there is a comment or a condition by another Planning Board member, I will just leave that resolution as I
stated.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Sanford
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2002 TYPE: 16-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED LARRY BROWN PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, JAMES MILLER ZONE: LI-1A
LOCATION: 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,350 SQ. FT.
ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE SPACE AT JERRY BROWN AUTO PARTS CENTER.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-26 ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 40-1992, SP 19-92 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 4/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-23 LOT SIZE: 13.92 ACRES SECTION: 179-26
BEN PRATT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY BROWN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 16-2002, Larry Brown, Meeting Date: April 23, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes a 1,350 sf addition to the office space associated with an existing auto salvage business.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The land use, Jerry Brown Auto Parts, is a pre-existing, non-conforming use within the Light
Industrial zoning district. The addition of office space to this project is an allowable use.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed project does not appear to present significant undue adverse impacts or an increase to
the burden on supporting public services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed addition may present an improvement to site conditions and may eliminate a portion
of the existing outdoor storage of equipment.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed addition does not appear to present any adverse impacts on these concerns.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed location appears to be situated in a logical location relative to the existing building. No site
lighting plans were submitted.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The proposed addition does not appear to present any difficulty to onsite traffic patterns.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The site appears to have adequate on site parking.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
No additional pedestrian facilities are necessary for this addition.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The proposed eave trenching appears to be an adequate stormwater control method. See Nace letter.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The proposed project does not appear to present any significant impacts to these facilities.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The proposed plan offers 5 plantings along the addition and 5 plantings along an existing building.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The proposed plan appears to offer adequate emergency zones.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
The proposed stormwater management techniques appear to be planned for the addition as well as for
portions of the existing building.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Use Variance 40-1992 resolved - 4/22/92 New warehouse
Site Plan Review 19-92 resolved – 6/16/92 New warehouse
Staff comments:
The proposed addition appears to be located in a logical area on the site. The additional landscaping
proposed for the site appears to be an improvement to the site and the area. The proposed stormwater
management devices would appear to be an improvement to the existing site conditions.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. PRATT-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record.
MR. PRATT-I’m Ben Pratt of Bartlett, Pontiff, and we’re here tonight with Larry Brown of Jerry Brown,
Ltd., and as Staff has indicated, there appear to be no adverse impacts from this proposed office space
addition of 1,350 square feet, and it improves both the aesthetics and the function of the site, and we would
respectfully request that you approve it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have no questions on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-No. We saw it on site view, and it looks fine to me. No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It looks good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
14
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t been down there in quite a long time, until we went down for the site visit, and
I was really impressed by how nice the site looks now. I mean, it’s certainly not the way junk yards used to
look. Now, of course, you don’t call it that, but it really looks good.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-And I agree with Chris on that statement. The only question I have about the whole thing
is I know that, in the rear of the building, which would be the north side of the building, that you’re going to
be installing a new door. It says concrete apron, add new door. Okay, now, and I see that you have the stone
trench, the eaves trench, to collect rainwater. That’s fine, but I see that one concrete apron that I don’t know
what that’s serving, the one to the west. See, one is serving the door. The other concrete apron, is that
serving any purpose?
MR. BROWN-That’s probably going to be overhead door as well. There’s probably going to be two. Right
now, one of, where the proposed addition is, we have an overhead door on that end of the building. So what
we’re doing is just putting two smaller overhead doors on the side of the building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s fine. I just didn’t know if it was just supposed to be indicated on the
plans that maybe it’s supposed to be indicated as a continuation of the eaves trench, but if it’s going to be a
door, that’s fine.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s the only question I have. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. I would like to second Chris’ comments. I think it looks great down there.
I really do.
MR. RINGER-I can’t think of a better junk yard that I’ve ever seen, outside looking in, to tell you the honest
truth. It’s clean.
MR. BROWN-Recycling center.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re on your way to a Beautification award. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. BROWN-I’ll take a Beautification award.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not this Board. We don’t do that. Okay. We have to open up a public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DANIEL OLSON
MR. OLSON-Good evening. Daniel Olson, a resident in the Town of Queensbury. I own the property,
vacant land adjacent to this project, which would be 24 Warren St., the small corner down there between
Taylor Welding and their property. I couldn’t hear exactly what they were saying. It wasn’t very clear over
your system here, but I assume, in not seeing any plans on this project, but my main concern is where is the
addition going to go in respect to the existing building?
MR. MAC EWAN-The area that’s cross hatched. Your property is over here. It’s that area right there.
MR. OLSON-In the back?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. OLSON-Okay. Basically that’s my only concern, and my reason for coming, was to find out the
location of it. I wouldn’t be happy if it was going to be in the front and cut off more of the visibility on the
road side. The property that I own there I hope this year to have either some development going there or
else have it in a situation where it’s going to be marketed, and it makes it more advantageous if you have good
sight visibility on the road. I think they’ve done a good job over there, and I would support this move, or this
expansion of the project. They’ve been, their beautification and their ideas of shielding something that’s not
a popular type of business or things that go on has been quite good. I think they’ve done a good job down
there. I would support their move here as long as it’s in that location. That was my main feeling. Thank you
for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do we have to do a SEQRA?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we do.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ready?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 16-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LARRY BROWN, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2002 LARRY BROWN, Introduced by Larry Ringer
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 16-2002 Applicant: Larry Brown
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same
Agent: Jonathan Lapper, James Miller
Zone: LI-1A
Location: 26 Lower Warren Street
Applicant proposes a 1,350 sq. ft. addition to existing office space at Jerry Brown Auto Parts Center.
Pursuant to Section 179-26 all uses in LI zones require Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: UV 40-1992, SP 19-92
Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02
Tax Map No. 110-1-23
16
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
Lot size: 13.92 acres
Section: 179-26
Public Hearing: April 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 4/19/02:
4/23 Staff Notes
4/16 Notice of Public Hearing
4/10 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact
4/4 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 23, 2002; 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
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. BROWN-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 15-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AGENT: DEXTER BLAKE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 15 BOULEVARD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND COMMERCIAL
BUILDING (FORMERLY TIRE WAREHOUSE) FOR PLUMBING SUPPLY, WELDING
SUPPLY FOR COMBINATION RETAIL, WHOLESALE STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-23 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ALL
USES IN HC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 1328, AV 7-1996, SP 11-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TAX MAP
NO. 303.20-2-34/113-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.77 ACRES SECTION: 179-23
DEXTER BLAKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; NICHOLAS DAIGLE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
17
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-2002, Nicholas Daigle, Meeting Date: April 23, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes to utilize an existing warehouse and commercial building for Plumbing and Welding
retail, wholesale and distribution.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposal appears to be an allowable use within the Highway Commercial, HC-1A zoning
district.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed does not appear to present any undue increase to the burden on the supporting public
services.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed development offers the closure of approximately 150 lf of road frontage along
Boulevard in an attempt to manage the accessibility of the site. The proposed access aisle in front of
the building does not appear to meet the minimum required width of 20 feet. Angled parking in this
area may help to alleviate the potential for conflicts here.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed project does not appear to present any undue adverse impacts related to these issues.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposal does not offer any changes to the size of the building and lighting and no signage is shown on
the project plan.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The proposed parking layout appears to deficient in that the drive aisle servicing the front spaces appears to
be less than the require 20 foot width.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
There appears to be ample area on the site for the spaces required for warehousing. Perhaps angled parking
along the front of the building might be beneficial.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
The project plan calls for a new sidewalk to be installed from the parking area to the entrance of the eastern
building.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
No provisions for stormwater have been identified. A waiver from this requirement has been submitted.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The site is serviced by municipal water and an on site sewage disposal system.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The project plan offers a variety of plantings to be installed within newly created landscaped areas around the
parcel and along Boulevard.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
It appears as though the site plan has made adequate provisions for emergency access.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
This item has not been addressed as a waiver from the Stormwater Management requirements has been
submitted with this application.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Area Variance 1328 resolved – 2/17/88 Tire & Brake Distributor
Area Variance 7-1996 resolved – 3/21/96 Tire & Brake Distributor expired, not acted on
Site Plan 11-96 resolved – 4/23/96 Tire & Brake Distributor expired, not acted on
Staff comments:
The proposed development would appear to be an improvement to the accessibility of the site. With no
formal Stormwater Management plan or letter of verification from an engineer, staff cannot comment on the
potential grading, ponding, flooding and stormwater issues associated with the plan. With no site lighting
proposed, the project does not appear to introduce any adverse visual impacts to the neighborhood. The
parking spaces shown on the site plan appears to be sufficient for the warehousing portion of the application,
however, should there be any significant retail floor area the requirements will increase sharply and a variance
would appear necessary.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. BLAKE-Good evening.
MR. DAIGLE-Good evening.
MR. BLAKE-My name is Dexter Blake, agent for the owner, Nick Daigle.
MR. DAIGLE-I’m Nick Daigle, the owner.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tell us a little bit about your proposed project.
MR. BLAKE-I’d be happy to. This is the site on 15 Boulevard in Queensbury. The site of the old Tire
Warehouse, owned by Mr. McCall, and as you’re probably aware, it has been abandoned for some period of
time. It was taken over by the bank. Mr. Daigle bought it from Fleet Bank this past December, and as I
noted in the letter to the Board, he has, in the intervening time, been clearing out in excess of four to five
thousand abandon tires that were located in that structure and has been taking them to a proper facility for
whatever they do with old tires. He now presents the site plan that is before the Board, asking for your
approval to approve this site in just about every way possible, with no expansion or intensification of the
prior use and we respectfully request your approval of the site plan and would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I’ll start with you.
MR. SANFORD-Do you have any kind of concrete idea as to what the use will be once you get new tenants
in there? What I’m trying to get at is, I know when it was the Tire Warehouse it had a certain level of activity.
Do you anticipate that once you clean out the 5,000 tires you’ll have a tenant in there that will generate as
much traffic as the Tire Warehouse generated?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. BLAKE-I believe that the tenant that we’re looking at right now will actually use less traffic, would be
less of a traffic develop type business. It’s more of a wholesale business where they do a lot of delivery out of
the facility, very intermittent access to the customer that may or may not come in for a few small items.
Presently, it looks like more of a wholesale business than a retail business. There would be a small showroom
to display some items, but for the most part it would be more of a wholesale style business that’s looking at
the property at this time.
MR. SANFORD-This would be plumbing fixtures and things of that nature?
MR. BLAKE-Correct, and/or possibly a welding supply business that does a lot of delivery and supplying to
the different fabricators in our area.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. How long has it been vacant? I think you mentioned that before.
MR. BLAKE-We’re not exactly sure. Several years apparently.
MR. MAC EWAN-At least five.
MR. BLAKE-Yes, that sounds about right.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes. I, for one, am glad to see that it’s going to be rehabbed and put back into use.
No further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a couple of questions here. First of all, are you putting in a new septic
system?
MR. BLAKE-We are putting in a new septic system, yes. We propose putting in an Elgin leach field system
which is designed for more of a confined high water table areas. Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And are you pretty sure that the business going in is going to be a plumbing and
welding?
MR. DAIGLE-Those type of businesses are the only type of businesses that have expressed any interest in
the property at this time. We are now right in the middle of pretty close negotiations with a welding supply
business at this time, so, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s welding supply. It wouldn’t be doing welding on the premises?
MR. DAIGLE-No. Strictly supplying welding rods and things of that nature.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So there’d be a lot of tanks of gas in this building?
MR. DAIGLE-Nothing more than the elevation of propane gas, which is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But not acetylene?
MR. DAIGLE-Acetylene is the same ratio as propane. I just said propane because that was my explanation
of the type of gas that would be there, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they’d have to get a special permit to be able to handle those kind of gases?
MR. DAIGLE-Yes, they would need a special permit, which they already occupy in their conduction of
business.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, the parking area, is this how it’s going to exist? I guess my question is, when
the new tenant comes in, will they have to come before us again?
MR. BROWN-No, that’s why the applicant is here now is to get the space approved for tenants.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then the way the parking area is depicted on the drawing, then that’s the way
it’s going to be?
MR. DAIGLE-We did notice in your notes that you’d rather see it at an angle, making it a little bit more
accessible, which I have no objection to doing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the landscaping is the way you have it here?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. DAIGLE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You have some new plantings that you’re going to put in?
MR. DAIGLE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Just to answer your question, Mrs. LaBombard, all the site conditions shown on their plan
would have to be completed before a CO would be issued to occupy. So they kind of go together, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then are there, so how, I remember going to, we’ve been past the site.
We’ve looked at the site. I remember going to the old Tire Warehouse years ago. Explain to me the back
side here. Is the back side on, where it’s the unpaved parking?
MR. DAIGLE-Yes, that is correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that on the other road?
MR. DAIGLE-No. Behind the property is the old Cieba Geigy property. There’s quite a vacant lot there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. So in order to get to that unpaved parking, you just have to drive
around the building on the west end?
MR. MAC EWAN-Either side.
MR. DAIGLE-Either side.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can you go either side?
MR. DAIGLE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. I remember, the building that’s on, just bear with me while I’m talking
myself through this. The building that’s on the east, that says existing building there, the smaller building,
that used to be an office, if I’m correct, years ago?
MR. DAIGLE-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and then all the work was done where they used to put the tires on in the
longer building, the one that’s rectangular?
MR. DAIGLE-That is correct. They use the smaller building for office and I think display and some storage
of tires.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So what are your projections, as far as this goes? Like would that be the same way?
MR. BLAKE-No, it would not. They are looking only at the larger building at this time. The second building
would stay vacant at this time, but we would like to also include that in the request to reactivate that building
as a viable piece of property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. That’s all I have for now, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that didn’t come in with the application is any kind of stormwater
management plan. Do you have problems at all with water puddling or runoff or drainage problems on the
site?
MR. DAIGLE-I would say we don’t have any problems with water puddling at this time, no. With the gravel
back parking lot, it does absorb the water quite well, and the front parking lot appears to drain toward the
back and in through the gravel. It’s quite a deep bed of gravel there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think your plans would be a tremendous improvement over the existing site,
and I certainly don’t have any problem with any of the waiver requests either that you’ve asked for, seeing as
how it is an existing building, and all you’re doing is striping the parking lot and adding landscaping which, of
course, we would prefer to see anyway. So I certainly don’t have any problems with your plan. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, with the parking spots, did you draw those in yourself?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. DAIGLE-Yes, I did.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, there’s a Town Code, and we can get around this a little bit. The Town Code
says there has to be 180 square feet per parking space. So, traditionally, it’s been nine by twenty, and there’s
your 180 square feet per space. Now, I measure it out, and I don’t get a depth of anything near 20, and I’m
assuming the width is about nine feet, and then you need 20 feet in back of a 90 degree parking space, okay,
and that’s all Town Code. However, we don’t have any Code that I know of, or I’m aware of, other towns
do, we don’t have any Code that applies to angled parking, other than the square foot of the parking space
has to be 180 square feet. There’s no back up range for angled parking. So I looked at other town codes, and
I see that a comfortable range for angled parking is between, depending on whether it’s a 60 to 45 degree
angle, it varies between 12 and a half and 15 feet. So I think you can squeeze in angled parking there, okay, in
front, and I’m going to assume that the parking in back is just, you’re not going to stripe it or anything. It’s
just that you could use that, and you put that in there just so that you could meet Code if you needed to.
MR. DAIGLE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So we’re not going to worry about that. So I would be fine with this, as long as you
put angled parking in the front parking, and those parking spaces met Town Code. Okay.
MR. BLAKE-Very good. Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing on it, except if they occupy the other building with another business, Craig,
will that come back to us, or how will that work?
MR. BROWN-Well, I guess I tried to mention in the Staff notes that if you take the square footage of all the
buildings on the site now and applied the warehousing parking requirements, they’re going to be okay. If you
take that second building, the smaller building, I guess, and consider that for office use or retail use, rather
retail use, not office, the requirements go up quite a bit. So I’m not sure if they could get all the retail parking
spaces they need for that other building. If it was used for a warehouse use, similar to their proposed use for
the bigger building, it would probably be okay, but retail they could probably run into some problems. I
didn’t crunch all the numbers, but it looked like they were close with the warehouse.
MR. RINGER-My question is if they put another, let’s say a retail building, or a retailing occupancy in there,
would it have to come back for site plan?
MR. BROWN-It depends on what kind of approval you give them tonight.
MS. RADNER-I think what Craig’s suggesting is that if you approve it for warehouse use only, then they’re
fine, and they could find tenants for both, but if they weren’t able to get a warehouse tenant for all of it, then
they would need to come in for a modification. So one of your conditions, if you’re leaning in that direction,
would be to condition it on warehouse uses only.
MR. RINGER-Well, the application apparently says a combination of retail and wholesale.
MR. BROWN-A lot of times what you get is you’re going to get a wholesale distributor, and there’s going to
be, you know, not just a contractor counter. There’s going to be a showroom for the public, and they kind of
go hand in hand.
MR. RINGER-And I don’t have any difficulty at all with the application. I think it’s a good use and I think
you’re really doing a good job. The other building is what I’m having some difficulty with. If they do come
with something else that goes in there, that could be a retail operation that would require a great deal of
marketing.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess what Cathi was trying to say is if you condition this that both buildings be used
as warehousing, it’s going to be fine. If they want to change the use in one of the buildings to retail, and then
come back for a modification of the plan and look at the parking, and maybe need to apply for a variance.
MR. RINGER-But the application says retail and warehousing.
MR. BROWN-That was what was included in the description from the applicant, with no further description
of how much floor area for each use. It was advertised for what they’ve asked for.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-You have to remember the zone, too. It’s wide open for all kinds of uses in Highway
Commercial zone.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct. Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think probably if we’re going to entertain doing an approval on this, the smart way to go
would be to approve his request for warehousing facility here or a wholesale facility, and if he should, down
the road, find a tenant that is something other than warehousing, just come back in and seek a modification.
MR. RINGER-And I’d kind of lean that way. That’s what I was getting at.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, we could be very flexible depending on what kind of a retail tenant you may end
up with, maybe one who’d only have five or seven customers a day, versus one that would have 50 or 60 a
day. Then you could deal with the parking restraints.
MR. DAIGLE-Well, I do have someone that had looked at that building, that I think would suit that building
very well as a kitchen cabinet counter top business, basically manufacturing the countertops in the back, using
that as a shop and a small display for the countertop and types of different Formicas and hard surfaces that
would go in there. That is someone that has expressed some interest in the property. So, without having to
keep coming back and doing this over and over again, that is one of the types of businesses that would
entertain that property.
MR. RINGER-What you just described would require you to come back, because that would be a
manufacturing if they’re doing countertops. Wouldn’t it, Craig? Didn’t we run into that on Western Avenue?
MR. BROWN-Yes. It’s tough. We’ve got four different things going on here at the same time now.
Without an accurate depiction of how much floor area is going to be associated with each type of use, it’s
impossible to determine what the parking requirements are going to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the safe thing for us to do, if we’re inclined to approve this thing, is to approve it
for the warehouse purposes only, and then if you should come up with a tenant, just come in and see us for a
modification. It’s a relatively painless effort to go through. Okay. My only question, I have is all your
plantings that you’re showing along the boulevard, how do we know what they are and how big they are?
MR. BLAKE-I think we’ve delineated on there that there will be at least three Junipers, a minimum of three
Junipers, in the westerly island, if I can call it that, and I would assume that we would do the same in the
easterly island, or the center island, and also in the easterly island. It looks like that would be, and there
probably will be some ground covers to supplement that, but I would expect at least three Junipers in each of
those island areas.
MR. MAC EWAN-What is the “HL” plantings, the larger ones?
MR. BLAKE-Those represent deciduous crabapples or things like that.
MR. DAIGLE-I would probably be leaning on a landscaper to give me something that would stand the snow
and salt abuse that that would take in the front. It’s kind of a tight area as far as getting a lot of salt and snow
cover there. So something very hardy, to answer that question, I guess. Whatever I can get to survive there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? I’ll ask you to give up
the table for a minute. We’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NICHOLAS DAIGLE, and
23
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2002 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Catherine
LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board by for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 15-2002 Applicant: Nicholas Daigle
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Same
Agent: Dexter Blake
Zone: HC-1A
Location: 15 Boulevard
Applicant proposes to utilize existing warehouse and commercial building (formerly Tire Warehouse) for
Plumbing Supply, Welding Supply for combination retail, wholesale storage and distribution. Pursuant to
Section 179-23 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury all uses in HC zones require Planning Board review
and approval.
Cross Reference: AV 1328, AV 7-1996, SP 11-96
Warren Co. Planning: 4/10/02
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-34 / 113-1-6
Lot size: 0.77 acres
Section: 179-23
Public Hearing: April 23, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/27/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 4/19/02:
4/23 Staff Notes
4/16 Notice of Public Hearing
4/16 PB from N. Daigle – waiver requests
4/10 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact
4/4 Meeting Notice
24
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-103 of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 23, 2002; 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
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by
Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. To utilize the existing warehouse for wholesale storage and distribution for plumbing and welding,
retail is excluded, and
2. The front parking will be at an angle, and the landscaping as depicted on their drawing,
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Do I have to put anything in there about the kinds of trees they’ve enumerated?
Really, you have the three Junipers on the drawing, and the Yews and the deciduous trees. So, basically, that’s
depicted.
MR. STROUGH-I wonder if the larger trees are supposed to be Hemlock, HL?
MR. BLAKE-Originally they were, but on hindsight, we’re a little bit concerned about sight lines, and I think
we better stick with the low Junipers and Yews and the ground hugging, so we don’t get into sight line
problems.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and the landscaping as depicted on their drawing.
MS. RADNER-You also discussed, as a possible condition, I don’t know if the Board’s still leaning that way,
approving this for warehouse use only.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. She said the word retail, and that caught my attention.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Excuse me.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like you to delete retail out of that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. BLAKE-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 19-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES ZONE: LI-3A LOCATION:
25
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
543 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES 24,867 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURING PLANT. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-
26 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ALL USES IN LI ZONES REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 25-92, AV 26-2002
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/02 TA X MAP NO. 55-2-19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 19.14 LOT SIZE:
12.971 ACRES SECTION: 179-26, 179-67 A3
RICHARD JONES, RANDY BODKIN, BEN PRATT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 19-2002, Angio Dynamics, Inc., Meeting Date: April 23, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 24,867 sf addition to an existing medical device manufacturing plant.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The proposed use is an allowable use within the Light Industrial, LI-1A zoning district. The Zoning
Board of Appeals has granted an Area Variance for this project due to the proposed separation
distance between the proposed structure and the existing building on the site. The required setback
distance is 50 feet, the proposed structure offers a 28 ft 2 in setback.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
The proposed construction, which nearly doubles the size of the facility will, presumably, offer
additional employment opportunities and an increase in the consumption of utilities.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed development calls for a significant increase in the on site parking facilities.
Recent site inspections reveal that the current on site parking patterns appear to be exceeding the
current capacity of the site.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The impacts created by the proposed project do not appear to be inordinate. The proposed
mitigative measures appear adequate.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
The proposed layout and building placement appear to be the most suitable for the site. The proposed
lighting layout depicts 20 ft tall poles with 2 – 400 watt lights per pole. No specification sheets or formal
lighting grid have been supplied with this application.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The proposed parking area layout appears to comply with the requirements. The access drive along the
southern and western portions of the site appears to be a well planned method to route onsite traffic.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
See previous comment.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
The majority of the parking lot appears to be designed and utilized for employee parking. The frequency of
public usage is unknown. Minimal, if any pedestrian walkways are proposed with the plan. Consideration
may be given to on site signage to direct the public as needed, if necessary.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
No CT Male comments have been returned as of this date ( 4/18)
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The site is serviced by municipal systems for both water and sewage disposal.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
Approximately one-tenth of an acre of wooded area will be removed as a part of this plan. The proposal calls
for the addition of approximately 14-18 trees throughout the parking areas and some additional landscaping
along the addition.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The proposed plan appears to offer adequate emergency access aisles.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
No CT Male comments have been returned as of this date ( 4/19)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan 25-1992 resolved 5/21/92 conversion to Angio Dynamics from Prof. Building Sys.
Area Variance 26-2002 resolved 4/17/02 building separation
Staff comments:
The proposed development would appear to improve the existing site conditions related to the parking of
vehicles and the access aisles on the site. However, the plans do not accurately reflect the proposed lighting
details for the site. Historically, a lighting plan, and lighting grid are supplied in order to better demonstrate
the planned lighting patterns. Additionally, consideration may be given to supplemental landscaping along
the eastern side of the existing and proposed parking areas.
Is there a lighting plan/grid available or detailed specification sheets for the proposed fixtures and poles?
Are there any FAA requirements for outdoor lighting in this area?
How did the sign and landscaping get in the right of way?
Have all four parcels been consolidated into one parcel?
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at these faxes that have been going back and forth. Didn’t we ask or, help me
out here, Larry, I’m going back maybe a year or so, that any communication regarding applications should be
funneled through the office, through Planning, to the consultants?
MR. BROWN-Probably.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, because I notice that these things have been, in this application anyway, it seems
like there’s been communications directly between, instead of coming through your channels, so that you
have a handle on what’s going on as well.
MR. BROWN-That could happen. Most of the time it’s more expeditious for the consultant, I mean, the
Town Engineer to deal with the applicant and copy the Town so that the matters get resolved quickly, but I
think as long as everybody gets a copy of what’s going on, it’ll work.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good evening. Richard Jones, agent for the applicant.
MR. BODKIN-Randy Bodkin, Director of Manufacturing Engineering at Angio Dynamics.
MR. PRATT-And Ben Pratt, also agent for the applicant.
MR. JONES-What I’d like to do is just briefly go through the site plan, indicate what our intent is with the
project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before you launch into your presentation here, just based on the information I see put on
our table tonight, I wouldn’t expect that we’re going to probably venture to an approval tonight.
MR. JONES-No, we don’t anticipate that you would.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. JONES-Basically, what we’re proposing, on your Drawing SP-1 that you have in your packets, the
existing site consists of what we’re calling Building Number One. It’s the old main building, a wood frame,
single story structure. We have Building Two which we’re keeping as an accessory structure on the site.
Building Three which is coming down. Building Four which is basically foundations. This building was taken
down and there’s some remnants there now, and Building Five which will also be coming down. What you’re
looking at here, this is the actual area of the site that has hard paving. There’s a little bit coming in off of the
Hicks Road side. Everything else on the back side is basically gravel area between all of the accessory
buildings that were on the site and then basically back to just about the area or the line of the on site storm
drainage lines that run along the west side of the property. This dark green line delineates the existing tree
line on site, and these are the major trees that populate the front and the north side of the property. This is
that existing pond that exists with the overflow that connects back in to the drainage again on the west side of
the property. Basically, what we’re proposing to do is take down the three structures in the middle, and place
an addition in this general area of the site. In completing that, we’re looking at a single story addition which
will be basically used for manufacturing, process and warehouse. The front half of this addition would be the
manufacturing aspect. The back side with the loading docks would be the warehouse aspect of the addition.
Once we take and get this building up, we’ll actually take the warehouse portion or the manufacturing portion
out of the existing building and move it into this building and then convert the manufacturing process area to
research and development and office space. One of the things with the site, currently there are two existing
trailers. We have a trailer on the north side and a trailer on the south side of the existing building. During
construction, it is our intent to take Trailer A and relocate it adjacent to Trailer B. At the end of the
construction, those trailers will be gone, but basically they need the office space, during construction. Those
people would then, once it’s complete, move inside the building. So I wanted to make sure that you
understood that portion of it. In reference to the basic site plan itself, we have the access point off of Hicks
Road, which we will maintain. We have the existing access point off of Queensbury Avenue/County Line
Road to the east that we would maintain, and we would be developing a new enter and exit point along
County Line/Queensbury Avenue. This would be for both employees and trucks coming to the back side.
We would like to be able to have them come in from either direction, load or unload, and then come back off
site. In developing the project, we’re basically taking all of the gravel area here on the back side and actually
creating both green space up against the building and paved parking area that’ll be striped. Currently, they
have, I think the last count we have was about 144 or 146 vehicles on site at any one time during the day, and
this includes both employees, manufacturing staff, research and development office staff, and visitors to the
site. Basically, what they need is a parking area, because of the change of shifts, to have second shift come in,
first shift is still on site. So they have a little bit of overlap between the two, but because of the additional
employees that will be employed for the addition, with the second shifts, we need a bigger area. So we’re
looking at the parking area on the front side. In developing the site, there is an existing drainage swale that
comes along the, what would be the east side of the parking lot and then comes into this detention pond. It
has the overflow which then goes into this storm drainage system which runs along the west side. Basically,
right now, everything is shedding off of County Line Road. This is the high side of the property, and
everything sheds to the low side on the west side. We’d be looking to set up collection points with
infiltration, or not an infiltration, but just a retention trench along this area. We’d be culverting underneath
and tying back in so that everything coming off of County Line Road is caught before it gets to the paved
areas. It’s currently coming on to site, and we’re redirecting it in this fashion and back into the detention
area. Everything from this parking lot and the existing parking in front of the proposed addition would be
collected in a storm drainage system in here, along the east side of the building addition, which would be a
series of catch basins, underground piping systems, which will then pipe the water back through. We’d also
be collecting roof drainage in a roof drain system from the building addition, both the front side and the back
side, and basically piping everything back to the drainage system on site. This portion of the proposed
parking area is basically shedding from east to west. We have a gradual slope across the site, and we’re
collecting in a trench system, coming down with the trench system, and we’re going to have another
detention area on site behind existing building two, the accessory building that would stay on site. Everything
else we’re collecting with a series of trenches along the perimeter of the parking area, so that we have basically
28
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
a point of collection to slow down everything coming off of the paved areas. We’re also introducing
additional or new planting in the drive and parking lot areas along the front side. We’d also be creating a new
entry for employees here on what would be the southeast corner of the new building, and maintaining,
basically, building two, which would be cold storage, dry storage, for the facility, and then providing a paved
apron area on the back side for trucks to be able to pull in, back around, and either load or unload into the
building. We were before the Zoning Board last week in reference to the separation between the two
buildings, this would be accessory building two, and the proposed addition. As we had explained to the
Zoning Board, basically this building addition is Type 2B construction, which is noncombustible. The
building, both the existing is currently fully sprinklered. The building addition would be fully sprinklered as
well. In addition to that, we’re also in the process of putting a metal siding or noncombustible siding on the
accessory structure because of the separation of the building. So those things have already been addressed
through the Zoning Board itself. Basically, the comments that we’ve gotten from C.T. Male, we received
those rather late yesterday, and we did have an opportunity to sit down and basically go through the
comments. We spoke with the gentleman today from C.T. Male, in reference to those comments. We did
fax him a written response to the comments, but we’re in the process of providing changes to the drawings
that basically address those items. We feel that none of the comments are comments that are going to create
a problem for us on site. They can be addressed, and they will be addressed as part of the site plan review. I
think they’re all positive comments, but basically that’s where we are with the site plan at this point. I’d be
happy to answer any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t have anything right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-One of the Staff comments was in regards to a lighting grid. Has one been prepared?
MR. JONES-Yes. It was submitted as part of the package. It was a smaller sheet, and I’m not sure where it
ended up going.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JONES-But I have copies of that which we’re going to submit to C.T. Male as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. JONES-Drawing SP-2 did indicate the lighting fixtures. We had a key on there which basically indicated
the existing fixtures and the proposed, and then we had supplemented it with the foot candle level drawing.
MR. HUNSINGER-There was also a comment about some supplemental landscaping along the eastern side
of the existing and proposed parking lots.
MR. BODKIN-That area will also be addressed.
MR. JONES-Yes, we can add landscaping if that’s requested.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I always thought it was a great site, with the fountain and everything, you know,
and the parking seems to be kind of haphazard right now. I think it always has been, and, I mean, personally
I see this as a major improvement, you know, what you’re planning to do. Is the company taking advantage
of the new Empire Zone benefits?
MR. BODKIN-Yes, we are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what prompted the expansion?
MR. BODKIN-It helped. It kind of coincided together.
MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have anything else to add.
MR. BODKIN-The landscaping, I mean, when you get right down to it, our requirements are probably going
to be a little bit greater than yours. I mean, we put great pride in having the facility look well, the outside as
well as the inside. So, we shouldn’t have any issues there.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to update myself. It looks like a good plan and all that, and I hear you might be
the first recipient of the Empire Zoning, and I wish you luck, and it’s a great project, great to see somebody
locally expanding like this. The only probably concern that I’ve got to address at this point is the parking, and
29
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
I think C.T. Male also had concerns about that. The Town Code, 179-66, Paragraph B, states that a nine foot
width, twenty foot depth, and you should have at least twenty feet to back out room, maybe more if it’s going
to be a two lane situation. So I’m sure you’ll remedy that, and then the checklist in your site plan review sheet
isn’t checked. So I’m assuming you’re not asking for any waivers.
MR. JONES-No, we’re not.
MR. STROUGH-But I also, usually that’s checked, and you’re going to address C.T. Male’s concerns, and I
just got this tonight. I started reading it. I didn’t get very far, and the parking situation was the only thing
that I was concerned about. Otherwise, it looks like a great project, and I wish you all the luck, and we’ll see
you shortly.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I had nothing to add. I was, as a matter of fact, I went by there today, and it was about
four o’clock, and there were just cars on top of each other. So, you know, parking, obviously, is a concern,
but obviously it’s going to be addressed. I also drive by there at night, you know, and I was just thinking,
besides the airport, and some homes down the street, across the street, there’s really no residents along there.
So I can’t foresee any problems with the lighting. My question is, if you were going to add, are you going to
add shifts? Because right now, after about five thirty, the parking lot’s empty. So are you going to have a
night shift?
MR. BODKIN-Yes. Currently, we do have a night shift. It consists of about eight to twelve people. It
varies up and down. Unfortunately, the last group, last week’s meeting, I handed out a little thing that told a
little bit about Angio Dynamics and its growth potential, bottom line, five year plan, shows us doubling our
number of personnel, which would be a full fledged, three shift operation, is our goal going forward. It’s
going to take us a while to get there, slowly, but, so, hence the parking. I know we exceed the recommended
parking spaces for the number of people and so on, but with shift changes and need to provide two shifts
worth of parking, plus there is very little commuting, if you will. Just about everybody drives themselves, and
with the staggering shifts that you have to offer today to be competitive in the workforce, to try to get people,
you know, we have very flexible work hours. So we have people starting at five a.m. in the morning, four
days a week, and they work until three thirty, and there’s some that start at six, some that start at seven.
Carpooling is minimal.
MR. METIVIER-Well, it certainly is a nice site. I applaud you for your ambition on this. I wish you the best
of luck, and would be anxious to see the final product on it.
MR. BODKIN-We know our parking is atrocious at this point. We’re trying to make the best of a bad
situation.
MR. METIVIER-But, you know, during the afternoon if you look at it, it’s really not. It’s just those peak
times, and I just happened to be driving by today, it was about four o’clock, and I mean, it was like, there
were cars everywhere.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems likely lately all too often there’s a lot of industry and businesses in our area that
have just the opposite problem in their parking lots. It’s refreshing to know that someone’s got a major
parking problem.
MR. METIVIER-Right. Believe me, I have no problems with that, because I just applaud you. I know a few
people that work for Angio Dynamics, and they just can’t say enough good about it. So, good luck with
everything, and I hope you get this thing squared away so you can move on. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No. I think you have a very good project, too, and you get the C.T. Male comments squared
away and signed off on that, and I’ll be very happy with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Just a clarification. When we took a look at it, Building Two which is remaining, is that the
building that sort of is open and a boat stored in there?
MR. BODKIN-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Because it didn’t look like it was being utilized too much, and I actually was
wondering if that was going to come down, too, but apparently you’re going to keep that?
MR. BODKIN-Yes.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. I’ve got a pretty good bearing on everything. What’s that going to be
utilized for, just basic storage and that kind of thing?
MR. BODKIN-Yes. One of the other buildings, we call it the Bargain Barn, for example, is coming down.
We left the signage from PBS. It’s coming down in there, there’s a lot of items, used equipment from the
production floor, supply items, and stuff like that. So we’re kind of cleaning up that tent building, so we’ll
have a place to store those types of items, and, one, to satisfy the 50 foot rule there, and as well as to beautify
the place, we’re going to steel side the entire structure, all the way around, clean it all up, and last year we did
the roof, and based on this, we’ll do the rest of it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’ll join everybody else in support. It’s nice to see a growing business in the Town.
So, good luck.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just quickly, the comments made by Staff in their comments, did you research if there
were any FAA requirements for lighting in this area?
MR. JONES-No. There’s nothing in regard to lighting. Basically they’re talking about the height of poles
and that type of thing, and the height of buildings. We don’t exceed any of the tiered, elevational type things
that they have coming off of the runway areas in that particular area. We’re well within those guidelines. The
basic lighting that we are proposing was included on SP-2. Unfortunately, this evidently did not get
transmitted, but basically the poles that we’re proposing, the new poles are all down lighting with a cutoff
fixture, similar to what we’ve done on other projects. We’re looking at light levels under the fixture which
then fan out. We’re looking at no wash at the property line in excess of two foot candles at the main entries
on Queensbury Avenue, or two-tenths of a foot candle, excuse me, and we’re basically zero by the time we
hit what would be the entrance onto Hicks Road on the north side of the property. We’re proposing to keep
some of the existing light poles which basically ring the existing parking lot to the north and the east corner
of the existing building, it’s going to remain, and we’re proposing new double headed light fixture poles in the
parking area, and we’re trying to basically do the remainder of the building parking line areas from the areas
around the building themselves, either by putting them at the overhead door locations on the west side, and
again, they’ll be a down type fixture, so that we don’t have wash coming out and projecting into the adjoining
properties, but basically, by the time you hit the, even back drive, we’re basically at three-tenths of a foot
candle or less.
MR. BODKIN-Lighting it critical for us. I mean, second shift people, like I said, there’s no houses, nobody
around, and we’ve got mom’s, and somebody’s wife and whatever coming out of there, our facility late at
night, and we have had situations, historically, where there’ll be people parked on the road just kind of,
whatever. There’s a lot of weirdoes out there today. So lighting’s critical.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The sign and the landscaping in the right of way, we can figure on the new plan
will be moved off the right of way onto the property?
MR. BODKIN-Yes. The sign permit, (lost words) the other day, the original location of the sign from PBS,
didn’t know it wasn’t on our property initially.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It’s not a big deal. Just make sure we get that moved. Could you talk about the
façade of the proposed buildings a little bit?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. BODKIN-This is not the color scheme, by the way.
MR. JONES-What you’re looking at here in the top elevation, this is the existing old PBS building. This is
the wood sided building, basically a single story structure. It has a little mezzanine area here in the center
portion. What we’re proposing is the addition, in this general area, we’re looking at basically a metal sided
building. We’ll have our main employee entrance right here on the southeast corner, right here, and basically
we’re looking to continue the landscaping along the base of the building. We’re trying to experiment with
colors. The colors on the metal siding are somewhat limited, but what we’re trying to do is basically
introduce colors into the building and then take and probably change the color of the existing building as
well, through new stain or paint, so that we can basically unify the entire building. Fortunately, we don’t have
brick on this one. So we’re not going to be contending with three different brick colors. This is the actual
south elevation of the proposed addition. Warehouse being on the back corner here, and you can see the
elevated docks. Basically, this is a blank wall, because this is sitting between that accessory building that is
going to remain, which is approximately 28 feet away. So we’ve tried not to do any planting at this point
between the buildings. We’re trying to maintain the gravel surface that’s existing right now between those
buildings for vehicle access, that type of thing. We wanted to have something in there that was a hard surface
if we have to get a fire truck between the two buildings. So we’re leaving that and we’re trying not to
landscape that area at all. At some point in time, if this building comes down and the buildings do expand,
we certainly, at that point, would look to landscape further on the site, but that’s basically what we’re
proposing. The building itself is basically a large box. There’s no question about it. It’s the nature of the use
31
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
of the structure. It’s a very utilitarian type building, and the majority of what’s going on is really inside the
building. The building itself, the front half here would be the manufacturing portion, as I had indicated
before. We would have windows in general areas along the front side. There would be limited windows in
the manufacturing area because of the, we want to try and keep the heat/solar gain out of that portion of the
building. The basic building itself will have a thermal envelope within the building, because we need to
maintain certain pressures within the manufacturing areas for the degree of cleanliness of the manufacturing
process. Basically, the warehouse area in the back would be just high bay storage, with loading docks off the
back side, and I believe we have five or six loading dock areas on the back side of the building, and we’ve
attempted to keep them on the west side, away from the basic primary drive entrances into the building itself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BODKIN-(Lost words) potential 10 year plan, 15, 20 year, hopefully we will expand even more so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Very good. Any questions or comments from Board members? Staff? Anything you
gentlemen wanted to add?
MR. PRATT-Yes, if I might, just for a second, to give you just a very brief overview. We’ll do this a little bit
in reverse order in which it’s usually done. You may have seen the articles in the newspaper lately with
respect to Angio and its Empire Zone designation, and benefits. This is a company that’s been in existence
for about 10 years. It has raised its revenues during that period 100 fold, and now does approximately $30
million annually of gross sales. It makes medical instruments that are used in diagnostic and therapeutic
radiology procedures. It sells internationally, not just in the United States, but around the world, and its plan
is, here, to develop this facility from roughly 200 employees to, in the next five years, to 500 employees,
which will be a real boon and benefit to the community as well as the project itself. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Ben. Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll leave it open, and I think it seems like it’s everyone’s consensus, we get these issues
addressed from C.T. Male, and we can move forward.
MR. BODKIN-Is there any way we can do them dealing with Staff?
MR. MAC EWAN-We would need, the procedure is that they’ll sign off on this, or, you know, go back and
forth with Dick, and address any concerns that need to be done. Then they’ll send us a letter saying that
they’re satisfied with everything. We’ll incorporate that into our findings and our approvals.
MR. PRATT-We understand that, in terms of the late notice that we all got from C.T. Male. The one thing
that I would just ask everybody to keep in the back of their mind is that the plan was initially to get in the
ground around June First, and we’ll be back, obviously, in May. We’re looking toward June 1, but we would
st
love to wrap it up on that occasion, if we could.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see any reason why we can’t. Would someone like to introduce a motion, please?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-2002 ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC., Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption seconded by John Strough:
For further review and signoff from C.T. Male and we’ll table it until the May 21 meeting.
st
Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
rd
MR. RINGER-We could possibly, if you would like, Craig, put them on, we’ve got a tentative meeting
scheduled for May 16, for Benyamini. That would get you in a week earlier.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know that Benyamini is coming in at all on the 16 at this point. I mean, it’s
th
just, it’s on the docket as the potential to happen. I mean, certainly if you get your issues addressed with C.T.
Male, we wouldn’t have a problem moving you up from a regular meeting to something else that we have
scheduled.
MR. RINGER-It would be a week earlier, if we do.
MR. PRATT-That would be wonderful for us, because then if there were any loose ends, we’d have another
week to fix them by your next meeting. So that would be very good.
MR. RINGER-How about if I table it until May 16 or the first regularly scheduled meeting in May? We
th
could do it that way. Cathi, can we do it that way?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-We have to table it to a specific date.
MS. RADNER-Yes. Why don’t you pick one or the other. If you’re not sure that you’re having the 16
th
meeting, table it for second, and the applicant’s already, or the first regularly scheduled meeting. The
applicant’s already indicated that they’ll agree to come in earlier if that opportunity presents itself.
MR. RINGER-I was just thinking we’ve got the public hearing open. That’s why I wanted to put it either
one or the other.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make your motion to the 21.
st
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then I’ll table it to the May 21 meeting.
st
MR. MAC EWAN-If we have the opportunity to move it up, we’ll move it up.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good luck.
MR. PRATT-Thanks, folks.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 TYPE: UNLISTED BEN ARONSON/DOUBLE A PROVISIONS
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR ZONE: CR-15
LOCATION: 64 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,330 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO
AN EXISTING BUSINESS. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL WILL RESOLVE NON-
COMPLIANCE ISSUES. SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A GRAVELED PARKING AREA,
GREEN AREA AND PLANTERS. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN C R ZONES. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 24-1992, AV 29-1992, AV 29-1992, UV 14-1994, AV 15-1994, UV 18-1997, AV 19-
1997, AV 83-1999, AV 10-2002 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-2, 130-1-21 LOT SIZE: 1.70 ACRES, 0.49
ACRES SECTION: 179-24
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 49-99, Ben Aronson/Double A Provisions, Meeting Date: April 23, 2002
“Project Description:
Applicant seeks approval for the 3,330 sf expansion to the existing building on the site as well as for site
improvements to include parking and graveled areas, landscaping and access drive.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
The existing use on the property, wholesale distribution, is not an allowable use in the CR-15 zoning
district. The use has existed for several years and in 1997 was granted a Use Variance to expand the
business. This expansion is the basis for this application. In March of 2002 an Area Variance was
granted to allow the site to be developed in excess of the permeable requirements and within the
required buffer zone.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the
location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting
public services and facilities?
It is difficult to gauge the level of consistency with the ordinance, as this use is not listed as an
allowable use in this zone.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the
parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or
33
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general
welfare of the town?
The proposed site layout adds several parking spaces on the Main Street side of the site as well as an
access point onto Main Street. Staff recommends the removal of the existing parking spaces in Area
I in favor of the proposed spaces near Area B on the plot plan. The maintenance of the spaces
would present a conflict when the Main Street widening project is performed.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have
any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic,
recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the
public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project?
The proposed project does not appear to present any undue adverse impacts.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
Ideally, the proposal would have included additional lands, which would have alleviated the 2.1 foot setback
to the rear property line. No lighting plans were submitted.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,
pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
The use of the proposed parking area (Area B) would appear to be an improvement over the existing
customer parking area currently being utilized on the site.
The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
See previous comment.
The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
The proposed layout calls for the continued use of the parking along Main Street and the addition of parking
spaces to the east. Pedestrians may find the existing parking convenient, however, the proposed parking area
may prove to be a safer location, given the proximity to Main Street.
The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
To date there are no engineering comments.
The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The site is service by municipal water and on site septic. Municipal sewers are planned with the Main Street
widening project. Consideration should be given to relocating the parking area to the current location of the
septic system when the sewers are installed.
The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening
constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
While the plan is consistent with the variance resolution, consideration should be given to the long range
plans for Main Street and the associated landscaping, lighting and sidewalks.
The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
The proposed plan appears to present adequate emergency zones.
The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding,
flooding and/or erosion.
To date there are no engineering comments
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV10-2002, resolved 3/20/02 permeability requirements, and buffer zone requirements
34
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
SP 49-99: tabled 5/16/99, 3330 sq.ft. expansion, improvements to graveled parking area, planters and green
area.
AV 83-1999: resolved 10/20/99; setback relief, relief from permeability requirements, and relief from buffer
zone requirements.
AV 19-1997: resolved 7/30/97; setback relief and buffer zone relief.
SP 22-1997: resolved 7/30/97; warehouse addition & site improvements
UV 18-1997: resolved 7/16/97; expansion of a non-conforming use (wholesale meat distribution).
Staff comments:
Applicant requests approval of a 3,300 square foot expansion to an existing building. The applicant received
an area variance; use variance and a site plan approval in 1997 for the construction of the proposed addition.
The applicant had an agreement with a property owner to the south and east to utilize the property for the
expansion. The applicant was not able to obtain the property to the north that resulted in the applicant
applying for and receiving area variances for permeability and buffer requirements in 1999 and 2002. The
applicant was able to obtain the property to the east for use of the expansion and increased parking area.
The plan submitted with the application appears to address the zoning board requirements of the area
variance that included landscaping and fencing. The applicant states that the New York State Department of
Health has stated that they could not maintain any landscaping around the building that might harbor or
promote vermin or insects. There are several options available that could meet this requirement and, at the
same time, offer additional landscaping around the building. At least along the Main Street side.
Staff recommends:
??
Relocation of the spaces in Area I in favor of the proposed spaces shown in Area B.
??
Extension of the fencing or some form of closure of the curb cut to the center of Area I
(this would allow one way traffic through the customer parking area)
??
Additional landscaping along Main Street
??
Planning for connection to future sidewalk
??
Planning for future sewer connection and relocation of parking
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. BROWN-Yes. These are going to be a little lengthier than normal, because there’s a little bit of a
history, and it’s been tabled for quite a period of time, and I’m not sure if all the Board members that are here
now are familiar with the history of it. So, basically what’s been constructed on the site is a roughly 3300
square foot addition, and that’s really the basis for the application, the site plan review here is that, you know,
the formalization of the approval for that addition. The application number, I think it’s 49-99, was started,
the review was started in ’99, tabled with certain requirements made by this Planning Board. So now the
applicant’s back trying to finalize that approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-Craig, what you just said is contradictory. You said started in ’99.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This was built in ’97. The addition has nothing to do with the application that’s
before the Board tonight. You’re wrong in that. The addition went up under ’97, ’98.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let him finish his comments.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. BROWN-To respond to that, what happened in ’97 was a site plan was issued. The conditions with that
site plan weren’t met. So they had to come back in ’99 to get that site plan re-approved, if you will, because
certain conditions of the site had changed, and specifically those conditions were that the applicant had an
agreement with the property owner to the south and east to utilize property for the expansion. The applicant
wasn’t able to obtain the property, and that resulted in the applicant applying for and receiving variances for
both permeability and buffer requirements in ’99 and then again recently this year. The applicant was able to
obtain the property to the east for the use of the expansion, and increased parking area. The plan submitted
35
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
with the application appears to address the Zoning Board requirements and included landscaping and fencing.
The applicant states that, and has stated in previous Zoning Board applications, that the New York State
Department of Health has stated that they could not maintain any landscaping around the building that might
harbor or promote vermin or insects, but there appear to be several options available that could meet the
requirement, and at the same time offer additional landscaping around the building, provided that it was
maintained where those types of things wouldn’t be harbored, I guess, at least on the Main Street side, maybe
not around the entire building, and I guess maybe a couple of questions or Staff recommendations would be
the relocation of parking spaces in Area I, I think it’s labeled on the plan, in favor of the proposed spaces
shown in Area B, and if you have the plans in front of you, it would probably make more sense. Maybe an
extension of the fencing or some form of closure of the curb cut towards the center of Area I, and this may
allow just one way traffic in through Area I, through Area B, and then back out. Maybe additional
landscaping around Main Street with the thought of the current Zoning Ordinance and the current vision for
Main Street. Again, with that plan in mind, maybe planning for future sidewalk connection, which is part of,
with the new Zoning Ordinance, the Main Street plan. This application is not subject to that, because it was
started under the old Ordinance, but keep in mind, that’s the new Zoning Ordinance and the requirements
for Main Street, and the possibility of maybe planning for future sewer connection, and if the site does
connect to the sewer on Main Street, maybe consideration to relocating the parking from that area in the
front to the area in the back where the septic system is now. Not, a necessary thing, but just something to
consider, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you jump back to the comment regarding the Department of Health and
landscaping? I’m curious about that. I’ve not heard that before.
MR. BROWN-Yes. That was, I guess one of the conditions that was on a previous site plan approval was
that they landscape near the building. Part of the business operation, and you can jump in here if I’m wrong
here, Mr. O’Connor, is they have New York State Health inspectors come out and inspect the site because
they handle or distribute or somehow unpackage packaged goods for redistribution, and what I guess the
Health Department report said is any landscaping around the building couldn’t be there if it was going to
promote insects or any type of rodents around the building.
MR. O’CONNOR-Do you want me to jump in?
MR. MAC EWAN-Jump. In.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It’s U.S. Department of Agriculture, breeding and hiding spaces for rodents cannot
be allowed along the perimeter of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it because of the kind of business it is? I mean, he handles meat and poultry and that
sort of thing?
MR. O'CONNOR-Anybody who handles, my reading of this is that there’s a couple of sections, we’ve
submitted them. I’m not sure where they are, anybody that handles fresh food, they’ve got to have like a clear
zone outside the building, so that they can see that the building’s not infested or subject to infestation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve submitted that information as part of something here, but I’ll get to that in a bit,
too.
MR. MAC EWAN-I suppose that would apply the same to supermarkets and stuff like that, too, then,
wouldn’t it? I would think.
MR. O'CONNOR-They, I wouldn’t think it would be the same. I don’t know, if they’re under the same, I
know what’s under this business. I’d be guessing to try and tell you, Mr. MacEwan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You might just as well take the floor and run with it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I agree with Staff in one sense, that this thing has been around a long time, an
every time I look at the file I get a headache, because I’m not sure what’s the car and what’s the wagon, or
which is the horse and which is the wagon. As I understand best where I would be right now is that in 1997,
1998, the applicant got approval to build this propeller shaped addition which is on the southwest, or
southeast corner of the building. It’s got the flag up at the top, a long line down through, and a flag at the
bottom. That was constructed in that time period, under both site plan approval and I think there was some
variance that was granted even for that. Then all heck breaks loose. The property to the south that he was
supposed to be buying under contract from James and Judith Fish, if you’ve got the map there, is no longer
available. Fish is not going to sell it to him, and I’m not 100% sure, we weren’t involved in that, but Fish has
real title problems, and if you look at some of the tax sale notice that came out recently, they’ve got all kinds
of liens, federal, state tax liens and everything else. Probably they’re in a position where the property, they
can’t salvage anything out of it. So until something happens, all those liens go away, they just aren’t going to
36
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
be able to sell it. In any event, that becomes a problem. So he doesn’t meet, then, the setback from the back
of the property which he anticipated he was going to meet. He obviously doesn’t meet the buffer that he was
going to have, and then some place along the line, and this is fuzzy in my own mind, although the dating with
the building permit appears as though it was at the time the building permit was issued, Dave Hatin said,
because of the square footage of the building, you have to have access on three sides for emergency vehicle.
That’s why you see this elongated fire lane that’s along the east side of the building, and actually goes by letter
agreement over the Fish property back out to the property as it touches Second Street. Later that’s amended
so that they are saying that you don’t need the fire line behind the building. This structure only needs
frontage, or access on three sides, which would be the east, the north, which is Main Street, and the west,
which would be Second Street, and the applicant has had different people making applications, some of
whom have been before your Board, some of whom aren’t real experienced in just trying to listen and see
what you want and come back with what you want, or something reasonably close to what you want, and
because they, and I’m not sure in my own mind, and I’ll say this, and I don’t have any real documentation,
when the parking lot up front first came onto the table. I have another parking lot up front, not the same
configuration. My impression is that it was never approved, this parking lot and Area F. With the Area F as
parking, and with the fire lane and everything else, a question arose as to permeability on the site, if they
didn’t own the Fish parcel. We calculated everything the worst way. That’s what we went to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for and said, we will miss by six tenths, or six percent. We will have 24% permeability, if
you count the fire lane, if you count this parking, you count everything, and that’s the variance that we asked
for and did receive from them. We did ask them to allow us to leave the stockade fence where it is, which
was constructed when this road was supposedly going to go around three sides of the building, and leave it
there until the owner told us to move it, and then we moved it back on the property line. They did not want
that. So we said we will move it, and we agreed to move it, withdrew that part of the application for
amendment of those conditions, if you will, and by the end of June I think we agreed to re-establish that
stockade fence along the back of the property line, to the concrete pad, and then on the 19 foot angle and on
the 86 angle, and we’ve established some actual landscaping plans, given detail on here as to what landscaping
will be installed. What we were talking about before was landscaping along the stockade fence. We said
because of the placement of the building, what we’ve suggested is effective. We would add additional
landscaping to the front corner, which was not required, and we will add it to the easterly line between
ourselves and the people by the name of Winslow, which would make it maybe more effective use of the
landscaping dollars, and I’m not sure, and again I say part of why I get a headache every time, trying to figure
out what has happened since 1980 something through is not real clear. I mean, it doesn’t look like there was
ever a stormwater management plan submitted. There was, at one time, there’s a plan in the file that has a
bunch of arrows on it, which was maybe the old way of showing directional flow, but there was no
quantification or no anything. So I did ask Tom Jarrett to do a stormwater management plan based upon the
‘97/’98 addition, what effect that would have as opposed to the single family house that was on this lot, and
that parking area. So I guess my point is I don’t think we’re really here to talk about the addition that was
built in ’97 and ’98. We’re talking about that parking area that’s up front, that’s the change. I think if you
really look at your file, you approved that addition under a site plan approval in ’97, ’98.
MS. RADNER-The reason why we’re still here talking about the building is because the building is all part of
the original site plan approval which included that piece of property. That building went ahead and the
changes went ahead, even though that piece of property was never acquired. So now you basically need to
get after the fact approval for the site plan because the proposal you presented and got approvals for you
couldn’t build without that piece of land.
MR. O'CONNOR-With due respect, they already did this before I got involved.
MS. RADNER-Right, but that’s why the building is still at issue. Because they couldn’t build on the site
when they didn’t own the land, and the densities and so forth for the original addition all included that land.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there’s a site plan 22-97, which was approved by this Board, and at that time, I
don’t think they had the additional land.
MS. RADNER-I think you’re incorrect, but if you can prove me wrong, fine.
MR. BROWN-I think they offered that they were going to have it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Every time I look, I’ve got these things separated by.
MS. RADNER-We’ll all agree we get a headache from this one.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, ’97.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do we need to do to remedy this problem?
MR. BROWN-I think what’s happened is recently, the last couple of months, they’ve received an Area
Variance for permeability and buffer. So any density, permeability, buffer issues are pretty much off the table.
The plan that you have, for the most part, actually, you know, right down to the detail, complies with that
37
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
variance approval that they gained, and now it’s a matter of talking about the site plan issues, parking areas,
accessibility, landscaping, additional if you think necessary. The building’s built. It’s a matter of getting
approval for the property and getting it finished, I guess.
MR. O'CONNOR-My suggestion is, I don’t really have a suggestion, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Boy, your headache must be turning into a migraine.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, also, part of the problem is that Tom Jarrett tells me that his frustration is Corinth
Road is going to be re-graded. Corinth Road’s going to be changed significantly along the front of that. How
much money and time are we going to spend on trying to figure out our stormwater management and what
not and our grading and our landscaping that’s right along the edge of that road, and then have it all torn out
in a year or so?
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the survey maps are already available as to how wide they’re going to take that.
So you could figure that already.
MR. O'CONNOR-The best that I’ve gotten show two different strips along here, and they tell me neither
one of which is binding or neither one of which they know for sure is going to happen.
MR. MAC EWAN-They haven’t put this thing out to bid yet, as far as what they’re doing?
MR. JARRETT-It’s theoretically in design, but it’s a ways off.
MR. O'CONNOR-Tom has looked at what was here before, the hard surface, looked at what’s here, by hard
surface new, and looked at the runoff from it, and says that he will have less runoff if he puts in two drainage
facilities near the road on our property, and we’re prepared to do that. We’re talking about a 3,000 foot area,
3400 foot area. I think Rist-Frost has got some questions that maybe are more fitting if you’re going to talk a
five acre site or something like that, as opposed, you’ve got a 10 car or 8 car parking lot. We ought to be able
to grade that by eye, if nothing else, than have it work. We’re not going to put in two drainage facilities and
have them stick up above the drainage.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we could just talk about the history of this site for just a minute. I think, personally, for
me, I think I’ve sat through at least two previous site plans for this one, and the frustrating thing about this
particular site is he doesn’t seem to want to comply with what he’s given approvals for, and I know,
specifically, that corner piece where that landscaping has been a chase game for several years, in trying to get
him to comply.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know how much guidance he gets by those that are representing him. I have not
had a great deal of difficulty with him. In fact, I thought that we, logically, had a good argument for leaving
the stockade fence where it is, and it was a matter that we didn’t have a full Board. We talked about it on two
different occasions. He finally said, the hell with it, I’ll move the fence. I’ll move it now, if that’s going to
make them happy and I get this thing behind me. So I haven’t had a great deal of difficulty with him. I think
the only compliance issue, as far as I’m aware of, Mr. MacEwan, was whether that fence was built on the
property line or on this imaginary property line by letter. Again, the calculations on the prior permeability
and the present permeability, this is the first time he’s had an actual survey of all, if I understand it correct, or
at least that’s my belief, first time he had an actual survey of all the improvements on the property. Because I
understood what Staff was saying, that you’ve got, I’ve got the maps that they had. They weren’t good maps.
You don’t know what he was doing. This is what gives Staff something, they can go out and they can take a
look, and they can say, okay, you did or you didn’t put the landscaping up this side. You did or you didn’t put
that number of landscaping in that corner, and we haven’t had that tool before. He did meet, I thought, on
site with Craig, and initially, before we came in, this was not shown as a blocked off area along the parking,
that was going to be a wide open entrance across there, and he agreed with Craig to have the traffic out of
that diagonal parking one way coming out of that area where the old house/driveway used to be, and put a
fence, a rail fence across the front of that new area, so that the traffic doesn’t just back out on the highway.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the Fish property in the back, I mean, does he still have an easement or a right
of way to use that as fire access now?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s still doable, but he can’t purchase the lands because of all the liens and?
MR. O'CONNOR-The Fish family, apparently, and I was not part of the conversations, but I was told that
the Fish family said that there’s a dispute within the family and they just can’t come to the table with anybody.
I know, personally, because I did, I reviewed the tax sale summons and complaint that you get, that they
serve, to make sure that I didn’t have somebody that was on there that shouldn’t have been on there. They’re
never going to sell that piece of property. The Fish people have got probably maybe $150,000 in tax liens,
38
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
and that’s a general lien on everything. So unless they fall into something some place, they aren’t going to sell
much of anything for a while.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m just curious, and I guess I’ll direct this one toward Staff, that addition, that
new Building Area M in the rear of the complex, how could they have ever gotten a building permit to build,
start erecting that thing, when they didn’t have the property purchased?
MR. BROWN-Well, that was part of the original, I don’t want to say the original variance, the variance
associated with the addition said, please give us our variance, and our buffer relief because we’re going to get
this Fish property and we’re not going to have any setback problems. So the Zoning Board said, okay, you,
and I think some place in the file there’s a letter from the Fish that says I have sold this property to Ben
Aronson. So they said, okay, you’ve got the Fish property, here’s your variance. At that time, I don’t know if
they needed it, maybe because a deed hadn’t been filed and it wasn’t a complete transaction, so technically,
the Zoning Board felt like they needed to give them the variance because the property hadn’t been
transferred, but the intent was that they were going to have that Fish property. So that’s why that variance
was granted.
MR. RINGER-I remember seeing that letter when it came to the Planning Board, too, and that also had to
do with the fence.
MR. BROWN-It was way before the fence was even installed or even thought of.
MR. RINGER-The Fish’s were here at one of our meetings, too. Probably the ’99 meeting, I guess.
MR. O'CONNOR-In ’97 they got a Use Variance because, and I’m not sure why they got a Use Variance, but
they got a Use Variance. They got a Site Plan Review and they got an Area Variance, and then in ’99 they
came back in for setback relief, relief from buffer zone, and that was granted. Then they came to this Board
for Site Plan Review under 49-99. That was tabled because they didn’t have very good plans. I don’t think
they ever came back. When we came back for the Area Variance, in 2002, we said we wanted a survey, we
wanted to know what the permeability was, and we came in and got, we got a variance for the permeability
only, buffer and setback was already taken care of in ’99, and we asked, initially, that the conditions on the
fencing and landscaping be reconsidered, and then we withdrew that request.
MR. MAC EWAN-How’s your headache doing?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s getting better the longer I talk. I’m not trying to make it difficult.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re giving us a pretty good history of it, and it seems to be pretty accurate.
MR. O'CONNOR-What I really would like to do is if we can get approval, subject to us satisfying C.T. Male’s
comments, which are not, although I had asked for a waiver I guess for some of these comments, and maybe
Tom ought to better address some of those things, but I don’t know what your feeling is. Do you want us to
go put stormwater management in, or stormwater in and see what the County does when it does the highway,
or do you want to give it some time and let me do it? You’re basically talking the eight parking spots, or
whatever is there. You’re talking six parking spots, not something that’s going to create a significant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Given the history of the site, and considering the limitations of the site, I don’t think it
would make a whole heck of a lot of difference if you had it or you didn’t have it.
MR. BROWN-I think it could be located, any stormwater control measures could be located in a way that the
highway improvements aren’t going to be effected, or the highway improvements won’t effect the
stormwater. Yes, they can be located in the center of the parking or underneath the parking spaces near the
building. It could be graded that way.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I might go as far as to say that. However, I sited these drywells right on the northeast
corner of the parking area in the fire lane because that’s where the ground appears to drain to, and I went up
there purposely during several rainstorms and watched the rain exiting the site there, felt that’s the best
location. So I’d really like to see what the Town and County do with the boulevard in that area, or whether
they have a boulevard or whether they go back to just a third lane, see what width we end up with and then
site these things then, but if you insist that they go in now, we’ll move them back some.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add, Tom?
MR. JARRETT-Do you want me to go through these comments?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, why don’t you.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. Number One is obviously an okay. The soils on the site, Number One, we’re dealing
with a situation that’s already been constructed. The entire parking area, fire lane, building has already been
39
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
constructed. So as far as doing a survey of the existing conditions in doing test pits, a survey, I didn’t feel,
was necessary because I could base it on visual analysis of rainfall events. The soils in the area, I did two
things. One, I’ve done enough investigations in the area to know that we have generally sandy soils in that
area of Town. I don’t believe there are any anomalies on this site, at least in that area, and, Number Two,
you’ll see down in Number Five I size these things somewhat conservatively. So it really doesn’t matter if the
soils are somewhat more silty than what the Conservation Service report predicts. Three and Four, again, I
based it on visual analysis myself and I sited the drywells to handle what I saw on the site. Five acknowledges
that we were conservative in our sizing. Number Six and Seven, Number Seven, let me jump to that first.
The location I selected based on what I saw runoff doing. So I would like to keep the drywells where we
have them. If we can’t come to terms with C.T. Male, or if we, if you insist, we’ll relocate one of them to get
a greater separation. Number Six, we understand where the comment is coming from. We have also
designed drywells with fabric around the stone. We don’t generally do that in a case where we’re asking the
drywells to handle exfiltration, water going out of the drywells. It would be conservative to add the fabric,
and we will do so if we need to. We don’t recommend it. If you notice our detail, we’ve shown fabric on top
of the stone, which offers the greatest likelihood for sand to migrate down in the stone. We did not show it
along the sides, which is what they’re asking for. So, all in all, we’ll comply with what we need to to move
this thing along. However, I think we’ve offered some evidence that suggests our design is appropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Chris, we’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I really didn’t have any specific questions. I think the history of the site is pretty
fascinating. It sounds like it fell through the cracks at least a couple of times or something, for us to get
where we are.
MR. O'CONNOR-I used to think it was funny to see Frank Leo make presentations.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. That’s who used to do that, didn’t he?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. He’d say, yes, oh, yes, we can do that.
MR. HUNSINGER-So what we’re really being asked to do is to treat this as a typical site plan review, even
though it’s already been constructed, as I understand it. Okay. In reading through the notes, I wasn’t sure
exactly what we were supposed to be reviewing and what we were going to be doing this evening either. So, I
guess I didn’t have any questions. I would agree with Staff comments on the parking areas along Main Street,
particularly Area I which undoubtedly will be impacted by the widening of Main Street. I wasn’t as concerned
with that, depending upon how far the street does come into the site. It’s also going to impact the planter in
the corner. So I’m not sure how we address any of those issues, you know, knowing down the road that
they’re going to have to be changed. So I guess I’ll kind of leave that open for discussion later on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I concur with Chris. We’re kind of in limbo here. Yes, I wish this was like two years
from now, Main Street was already redeveloped and in, and I had some working plans, and you had working
plans, and we could do the stormwater, we could do the landscaping, we could do everything right. I mean,
right now, and I agree with Mr. O’Connor, it’s going to be a hit and miss. It’s probably going to be changed
somehow. It’s certainly going to be changed somehow, when Main Street gets widened, and can we table this
for a couple of years, Mr. Chairman?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, no.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you suggesting we, like, table it until the second meeting of 2004 in June or
something?
MR. STROUGH-Exactly. Then, you know, to the benefit of the applicant and the benefit of the community,
we could do something right with this property, but right now, like I said, we’re in limbo. This is a tough one
for me to deal with, in only having a sketchy idea of its history. All right. Staff’s suggestions. They said
could you eliminate parking in Area I with the idea that Area B might be available when sewer comes through
there? Let’s start with that.
MR. O'CONNOR-If and when sewer comes through there, that’s something he’d probably consider. I can’t,
these are, I can’t tell you that. Right now, I can’t tell you that he would. I haven’t had a chance to go over,
we missed, I came back into town Saturday afternoon. I had Staff comments as part of my packet of stuff,
went over them over this weekend. I called Ben. Ben is gone this weekend. So I have not gone over them.
I do not have authority to say that. Right now, I do know that he needs Area I. He uses, there’s pictures
here. I think you’ve got some pictures where, basically.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-There were people there Saturdays pulling in picking up stuff. The parking lot’s used all
the time.
MR. O'CONNOR-The short trucks could actually go in there now. The pedestrian cars go over to the front
of the office.
MR. STROUGH-Well here’s my thinking. As far as the plans go, Mr. O’Connor, when the final plan is
submitted, that we don’t show parking in Area I. That we show potential parking in Area B, and we all know
that they’re going to park in Area I, okay, but at least when we get to Round Two some day, after Main Street
goes through, we didn’t give them approval to have parking in Area I, that’s what I’m saying.
MS. RADNER-I would discourage that. If you’re telling this applicant to get approval for one thing and go
ahead and do something else, you’re just asking Dave Hatin to go out there.
MR. STROUGH-See, what I’m trying to do is deal with a difficult situation, and what I’m trying to say is I
don’t want to give him approval for parking in Area I, and he can show he has additional parking in Area B.
He could show that on the plans.
MR. BROWN-If I could just make one point of clarification. There’s a typo here. It should say the
relocation of the spaces in Area I in favor of the proposed spaces shown in Area F. There aren’t really any
spaces shown in Area B. Well, I mean, that’s a grass area. Area F is actually where the parking spaces are
shown, and the thinking there is to extend that fence line to the west, and encourage one way in traffic
through those spaces in Area I and one way through the Area F and in/out, and I think if that was the case,
people wouldn’t park there in front of the store, and in conversations that I’ve had with Mr. Aronson, where
it says the Area I, which is 1696, that’s an area where he has trucks backing up to that loading dock, and it’s
difficult for his trucks to use that when he has customers parking there, and that’s what he’s conveyed to me.
So it’s my understanding it would be beneficial for him if there weren’t customers parking in front of his
loading docks, and I think that’s the intent for him creating those spots in Area F, to get them away from the
loading docks.
MR. STROUGH-How far do you think we should extend the fence, Craig, to the corner of the building, the
first three parking spots, I mean, to deter, I mean, where are cars going to access the Area F parking? How
are they going to access that from Main Street?
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve extended, on this map, just short of the one where it says one way.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see that. I think what Craig is suggesting is to put a stockade fence in front of the
parking area labeled Area I to deter parking there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t get hung up on a whole bunch of that stuff, because I’ve just got a feeling it’s
all going to be wiped right off the slate here within a year or so.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I know that, but I’m trying to get to the point where, you know, we might be able to
work with it in a year or so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what I think we ought to do is work on getting this thing resolved tonight to fit
today’s needs. If I’m a gambling guy, I’m willing to bet we’ll probably see this site plan in another couple of
years anyway.
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure that there’s any guarantee that they’re going to have to come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that, considering the history of the site, and how often
it seems to come back, every two years, it’s like an eclipse or something.
MR. BROWN-I’d be willing to bet, if they get out of here with an approval tonight, they won’t come back.
They’ll avoid it like the plague.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you think? What I’m thinking, this whole portion along Main Street here, if we start
trying to do some things in there and try to resolve some problems in there or potential problems, it’s only
going to be a race when the road comes through, because they’re going to scoff up 15 feet on either side.
MR. BROWN-That may be a good reason to plan for those things in the future. When you know the road is
going to be widened, or at least there’s a pretty firm plan that the road is going to be widened, do you want
parking spaces in Area I backing out onto a widened road?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t. Let me ask you this. When we did Cumberland Farms.
MR. BROWN-You spent a lot of time on Cumberland Farms.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-We know what that road’s going to be at that point.
MR. BROWN-Pretty good idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we know what it’s going to be in front of Double A?
MR. BROWN-I think we know about as much as we know about Cumberland Farms.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s what I think we ought to do, then. If we know where that road is going to
set, based on the survey maps that we used for Cumberland Farms, why can’t we apply it to this site plan, get
a feel for how much you’re going to lose, then we can address it from there?
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me approach it maybe differently, not try to avoid what you’re saying. My
understanding, from talking, trying to get the engineers to tell us what’s going to happen to this site, they
can’t tell us. They won’t tell us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s telling you that?
MR. O'CONNOR-The engineers for the State project.
MR. MAC EWAN-The State Department of Transportation is telling you that?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve got some of the plan.
MR. BROWN-I wouldn’t disagree with that. It’s a moving target.
MR. RINGER-I don’t understand why we just can’t say, take Area I out of the parking. Take the parking out
of Area I. I mean, we could tell them now that we don’t want parking in Area I.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me just say this. We’re not adding that area. That’s a pre-existing area.
MR. RINGER-But if you want a site plan approval, we can say, we’ll give you site plan approval, if you take
the parking out of Area I.
MR. O'CONNOR-We use that area for two different purposes. One of them is for pedestrian traffic, or
pedestrian parking, which we probably don’t need as much anymore when we have the six spots over here.
What we use it for trucks. We’re still going to back in and out of that loading area. We’re going to park our
trucks there.
MR. RINGER-He can back in, but he won’t park there. Mike, if Double A had cooperated with us since ’97,
you know, the blame isn’t all here. They’ve never done anything we’ve asked them. They’ve never put any
plantings in. I think this is the third time that I’ve sat on, when Aronson has come through, and they’ve
never done anything, and if Staff feels that Area I should be taken out of parking, then I say let’s approve it
and take the parking out of Area I. If you want approval, take it out of there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then you’re going to tell them not to use the loading dock.
MS. RADNER-They’re not the same thing. They’re not telling you remove the asphalt.
MR. RINGER-You’re going to tell them to take the five parking spots out of Area I.
MR. JARRETT-Strictly parking? The loading and unloading would be acceptable?
MR. RINGER-Well, he’d be backing in to the loading dock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me show you pictures. There’s three trucks parked in that area. There’s another one
in the same area. This one is a little bit further to the west. This one shows two other vans that are back
there. That’s a paved area that’s been used on a regular basis.
MR. MAC EWAN-The area that’s denoted on the plan as Area I says existing customer parking. It shows
one handicap parking spot to the easterly most parking space. That is currently being used as customer
parking. I have witnessed it myself. Saturdays are the busiest days for customers to go in there and pick up.
People will walk out that front door, carry stuff out and load it in the customer’s cars for them. They’re using
it for customer parking.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right. I think they are, and I think there’s some pictures there that show that.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think anybody up here has an issue with, I realize that that loading dock, he loads
the small trucks on it, and I’ve seen that routinely. As a matter of fact, at night he parks the trucks there with
the back doors open. I don’t think anybody up here on the Board would have an issue with that continuing
to be used as a loading area for his vehicles. I think what people are concerned about is that being utilized for
customer parking.
MR. O'CONNOR-What I haven’t seen, in any of the things for any of the people along this road, is that
they’re going to have limited access. I don’t know that the Town’s worked on other projects, or you folks
have worked on other projects.
MR. MAC EWAN-We just did Cumberland Farms. We cut one curb cut out of that. Right?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if the State, when it takes its easements, is going to take an easement for
limited access. The Copper Kettle restaurant, when they took that, and established that, they have a one foot
easement across the front of that property. That’s why you don’t have a parking lot exit out onto Corinth
Road, and that’s just a way that they’re going to do it. I anticipate they’re going to do something. They’re
going to have better control of, they’re going to put a sidewalk in, as part of the improvements, on one plan
we’ve seen. There going to have a better access. They’re going to have better ingress and egress to and from
the street.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get a consensus from Board members. Where are you guys leaning here?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think Cathi had a suggestion, that there be no parking, loading zone only. Label it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think it makes sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a question about Area I. See where there’s six parking spots in Area I.
Am I correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because I just didn’t want to discount the part that was more on the west side.
So it’s all six. So all you have to do is just put a great big sign in there that says positively no parking, loading
zone for trucks, and I won’t park there when I go in there.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m going to ask you. Most people, when they go there, are going to pick up something.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right.
MR. O'CONNOR-So they’re loading their car. They’re loading their van.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re stretching it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mike, I would understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a big difference between loading up a truck for a delivery versus loading a
customer’s car.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why don’t we say truck area only. So I go in my pickup.
MR. O'CONNOR-Tell me how you’re going to do it, and I’ll tell him what you’ve done.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Positively no customer parking here. There’s no customer parking, and then have an
arrow that goes to the left. So customer parking this way.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we wouldn’t have had any problem with customer parking out front if we were doing
site plan review on this back in, correct me if I’m wrong on the date, 1998, or ’97.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I was here.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I mean, it’s only an issue now because of what we anticipate is going to happen with
the road, which, back then it wasn’t even thought of. Is that correct?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. RINGER-Well, they didn’t have Area F, Richard. They didn’t have Area F then.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They didn’t have that other area.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I beg to differ with you, Larry.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Did they have it?
MR. O'CONNOR-They had another area, and this is why I didn’t know why it wasn’t brought, if it wasn’t
brought up then, why it’s an issue now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, is Mr. Aronson saying that the customer vehicles are getting in the way of his
trucks?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’re doing here, folks, I think we’re beating a dead horse, because I’m
sensing five members already want to re-label that as a loading zone only, no customer parking.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But like Rich is saying, how come it wasn’t an issue four or five years ago when you
came here?
MR. SANFORD-Well, my point is simply that the horse has left the barn. We’re looking at something, the
building’s been built, and it’s quite honestly a little bit of an embarrassment that it evolved like this. I think
everybody’s recognizing that this is sort of a snafu project, and now we’re saying, well, we’re not really
looking at it as we would have looked at it. We’re looking at it now in light of what might happen to that
road, and that’s what we’re deal with, not, the main issue is they went and they built an addition, but under
the presumption they were going to buy some land which never happened, and we’re saying, okay, we’re just
going to accept that because things didn’t work out right, but, hey, let’s look at over by Main Street.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would you do, tell them to tear it down?
MR. SANFORD-No. Basically, what I would do is, on this particular one, is I would let it go. I would
approve this thing, and not sit around and look at it as if we’re approving a contemporary project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s not good planning either, because you’ve got a snafu project, as you said, now,
and you’re going to continue to let it be a snafu project.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have an opportunity to try to remedy some of the problems on the site.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a suggestion. Is there any way that you could put in the motion that when the
road, when Main Street is re-done, that we have to see, take a look at the site plan again for the parking in the
front, to make sure that it conforms and it’s safe?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can’t put that in the motion?
MS. RADNER-You don’t have the authority to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think it’s against the law to back out onto a public highway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then the DOT would have something to say?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know. They may treat it as a pre-existing building. I don’t know if they will or
they won’t, but I mean, if you, any time you show that somebody has to back onto a highway, that’s not a
legal turn or a legal operation. So it hasn’t been legal. I mean, they’ve paved it. They’ve paved right up to the
front of this building when they did it. I don’t know when they started this thing, and they started this whole
thing, what, they don’t have the early history in ’82 when they did, it used to be a Trailways bus station.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s going back a couple of years.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but that was the last use prior to him making it into this food warehouse.
MR. MAC EWAN-Man, that’s like going back into the 70’s.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe, and the front of this building has not been any different since then. The front of
this building was what was Trailways. They’ve always had parking immediately adjacent to it. They’ve always
had parking that backed out onto the street there. I don’t know of any big cry for safety or access on that
street. I understand what you’re trying to do, from a planning point of view, but really I’m saying, maybe
look at what is new, and we’re trying to give better parking, which would encourage people to use it. I hate to
restrict the other, but you tell me what you’ve got to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we left off with you.
MR. STROUGH-No, wasn’t it me?
MR. MAC EWAN-We started with you.
MR. STROUGH-I’m the one that started talking about Area I.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, you are.
MR. STROUGH-And then it just branched out. Everyone went out of turn.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll come back to you, won’t leave you out of the loop.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ve just got a couple of more questions. Tom, can you explain to me what
exfiltration means?
MR. JARRETT-Well, exfiltration in this sense is, we’re filling the drywell with runoff from the drop inlet,
from the surface, and then we’re pushing it out into the soil, exfiltrating liquid from the drywell out into the
soil, as opposed to trying to collect it, which would be, and the terms are not used correctly by many people.
So it’s very confusing. Sometimes they’re used interchangeably, infiltration and exfiltration. The way I used it
was water’s going out of the drywell into the soil.
MR. STROUGH-So what they’re saying is that the two catch basins are so close that the soil gets saturated
between the two and won’t be effective for?
MR. JARRETT-That’s their comment, that they won’t be as effective as if we separated them more.
MR. STROUGH-And your counter argument was that?
MR. JARRETT-I’ve provided a lot of storage with a lot of stone and a lot of drywell volume. I don’t believe
that’s an issue. I’ve sited them to capture as much runoff as I can. If I move them, I may not be quite as
efficient in capturing runoff, but I understand the comment.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and, okay, well, I’m down to this, is that I just am in agreement with Cathi and others
to eliminate parking in Area I because of potential conflicts on Main Street, and Main Street to come, and
current conflicts, and I agree with Cathy’s suggestion for signage, that it be loading, no parking, and an arrow
pointing toward parking is a good recommendation, and now we can go on to Tony.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry.
MR. STROUGH-Tony’s next.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, Larry’s before Tony.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything more on this. However, I do think that, you know, Male has made
some comments. Tom has made some comments that disagrees. I think Male should have an opportunity
to, Tom should answer Male’s concerns to Male, or through Staff to Male, and let Male come back with his
comments there. So I wouldn’t be approving this tonight without further comment from Male, and I still
would like something done with Area I. I like Staff’s comments on that one.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. I don’t know how you want to move this, but we could stipulate to several of these
things, and maybe we could ask for a conditional approval based on compliance with the rest of the
comments on that issue, on the C.T. Male comments, but it depends on how the rest of the approval goes.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I don’t know what else to add. I can’t add anything. No insight on this one. I can’t even
add plantings, because it’s going to be torn down some day.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. SANFORD-If we address Area I to the consensus, are we still dug in on waiting on the C.T. Male?
MR. RINGER-I think we should get a signoff from C.T. Male of some kind. Tom should give your
comments to C.T. Male in regard to what he had said, and give him an opportunity to come back, Tom.
MR. O'CONNOR-How about subject to us getting that, and if we can’t get it, put it back on the agenda.
MR. BROWN-I don’t think you’ve done that, historically, at least not with the last applicant before the Board
who had C.T. Male comments. You asked them to get a comment letter. It’s a comfort level thing with you,
but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you. What’s the push to get this approved, when God knows we’ve been
through this thing 18 billion times? What’s one more meeting? In my mind, I’d like to ensure that you and
C.T. Male are on the same page, as far as those wells, and that they’re going to work. It seems the consensus
of the Board is to eliminate Area I.
MR. O'CONNOR-The applicant consents to an adjournment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t mean this seriously, I don’t actually physically have a headache, but I do have,
every time I’ve looked at this file.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s frustrating.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a nightmare, and in part what we’re trying to do is make up for stuff that just wasn’t
done on the priors. I mean, the permeability hasn’t really significantly changed on this site at all, and all of a
sudden it’s important that we get an Area Variance for six percent. The stormwater hasn’t changed on this
site significantly at all, and we’re spending a great deal of time and money doing stormwater, which will
probably all go out the window when they widen Corinth Road. So, I mean, from my point I have some
frustration with a waste of effort and a waste of time. I know you’ve got some problems, because of the
applicant’s past history, but I have not had that problem with this guy.
MR. MAC EWAN-We just want to do the right thing, that’s all. If we can table this to our first meeting of
next month, that should give you ample time to resolve the issues with addressing C.T. Male’s concerns. I’ll
open up the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-If I could be clear on one thing, and we won’t talk about it anymore. It’s the Area I parking,
and my intent when I made that comment was to extend the fence up, not to limit the loading and unloading
at the dock, but was to try and help hinder the use of those spaces as parking areas. If you can’t get into
them, you’re not going to park in them, and I think, and this may be a project engineer design issue, but it
looks like there’s a 30 foot distance between the front property line and the building, and that seems adequate
for not only a drive aisle one way, as well as a safe pedestrian access in that area. So, with the loss of the
parking spaces, you’ve still got adequate room for one way traffic and pedestrians to come out and get to the
parking area in Area B, Area F, whatever it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand where he’s talking about, Tom?
MR. BROWN-You may want to review that as part of the tabling motion, if he wants to come up with a plan
and have C.T. look at that at the same time, if you want to add that. That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-How does the Board feel?
MR. RINGER-I like that.
MR. STROUGH-I like that.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re not going to agree to fence that off, that front area.
MR. STROUGH-No, but if you put a sidewalk there, that’s certainly going to, you’re going to eliminate.
MR. O'CONNOR-A sidewalk to where?
MR. STROUGH-Well, from the access to the building to Parking Area F.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would have no problem, I think, planning wise, bringing the end of that fence over to
what would be the northerly extension of that building line, right under the 253.18, where that line is, bring
46
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
that split rail fence over there. That would allow them to continue to have trucks parked or standing at this
loading dock, as they presently do. It would leave those last three parking spots as an area to cut across to get
to the new parking area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Show us a plan where you can do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll work with you. We’re trying to work with you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-A motion to table, please.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 49-99 BEN ARONSON / DOUBLE A PROVISIONS,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Until the first meeting in May. The reason for tabling is to address comments made by C.T. Male, and also to
reconfigure Parking Area “I” as shown on the plan to eliminate customer parking in that area.
Duly adopted this 23 day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. STROUGH-Another notation, though, that they’re going to eliminate that handicap spot. So they’re
going to have to show a handicap spot in Area F, then, right?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mike, we’ll get there. I’m confident, this time. We’ll get there.
MR. O'CONNOR-I will tell him you made him take a long walk.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. Let’s talk about our May meetings just for a couple of minutes here. All right.
Craig, I will be in Virginia on May 18. I will not make site visits.
th
MR. STROUGH-And I will be in New Hampshire on May 18.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-I won’t be there on the 23.
rd
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just not have any meetings in May. Let’s take it off.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, tell me, how accurate is this agenda here? May 8, Warren County Planning.
th
MR. RINGER-That’s not us, Cathy. That’s not us. That’s Warren County.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t know. I was wondering if we were supposed to meet with them. That’s why
I’m asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a pretty good observation. That is kind of misleading.
MR. HUNSINGER-That is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I was wondering.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mental note, Staff needs to write memos.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we do not meet, right, on May 8 with Warren County.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-We have nothing with Warren County.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Well, I didn’t know if you had something that we were supposed to do with
them. Okay.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board meeting 4/23/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Now, we don’t know about Benyamini yet, whether they’re even going to be in here. We
really can’t draw any kind of conclusions as to what we’re going to have next month until deadline tomorrow.
So Staff will have a very good inkling Thursday morning about 8:15 as to how heavy our agenda will be.
Larry is covering the agenda meeting for next month. So Larry, get with Staff whether it’s going to be Friday
or Monday.
MR. RINGER-Now if we’re going to have the 16, do you want to have Angio Dynamics on the 16?
thth
MR. METIVIER-First.
MS. RADNER-We don’t even know if we’re going to have a C.T. Male signoff by then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’d prefer to leave them on the 21.
st
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would. Let’s leave them on for the 21. I’m suspect that we won’t even seen Benyamini
st
on the 16.
th
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Please note that we have a Thursday meeting in May.
MR. HUNSINGER-I won’t be at the 23 meeting.
rd
MR. MAC EWAN-You won’t be at the 23.
rd
MR. HUNSINGER-I will be out of town.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I will not be at site visits.
MR. STROUGH-And I will not be at site visits.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone going to be at the 21 meeting?
st
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-And everyone except Chris is going to be at the 23 meeting?
rd
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right? Is everyone else going to be there? Can you sit in on the 23?
rd
MR. SANFORD-Sure, I can make that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Note that he gets the packet for the 23.
rd
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right now I’ll be here for the 23, but there’s a possibility I’ll have awards night at
rd
school.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only other comment I have to make is, with everyone’s blessing, Mr. Brown and I are
going to pen a quick little memo to C.T. Male, asking them to get their Staff comments back to us in a more
timely fashion than what they have been.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Starting in May we use the new zoning code, right?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Know your books. Know your codes. Know your Town.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
48