2002-07-16
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 16, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
ANTHONY METIVIER
LARRY RINGER
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE–JIM HOUSTON
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
May 16, 2002: NONE
May 21, 2002: NONE
May 23, 2002: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 16, MAY 21, AND MAY 23, 2002, Introduced
by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 35-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DEBRA MARSH PROPERTY OWNER: JEAN
WEEKS ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: 20 SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES USE OF
EMPTY RECEPTION ROOM FOR DISPLAY AND SMALL RETAIL AREA FOR SALE OF
PRE-PACKAGED HOME-MADE CANDY AND COLLECTIBLES. TOWING BUSINESS
STILL EXISTS INSIDE 4 BAY GARAGE. CHANGE IN USE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-44
LOT SIZE: 0.98 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4
DEBRA MARSH, PRESENT
MR. STROUGH-And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I’d like to recuse myself from this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-2002, Debra Marsh, Meeting Date: July 16, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to use a portion of an existing building for retail sales.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Retail sales in the HC-MOD zoning district require Site Plan Review before the Planning Board.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
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 use would have a minimal impact on 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?
No public hazards related to traffic or the parking of vehicles is anticipated as a result of this
proposal.
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 use of an existing building should not have any adverse impacts of this type.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs.
No new buildings, lighting or signage is proposed with this application.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
This site currently has open access from both Sweet Road and Montray Road.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The site appears to be able to provide adequate off street parking.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Pedestrian traffic for this project is not an issue.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
No information on stormwater management has been provided, and the applicant has requested a
waiver from providing such information.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
The water supply and sewage disposal systems are not at issue with this application.
7. 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.
No landscaping plan has been submitted, and the applicant has requested a waiver from this
requirement.
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants.
Not applicable to this project.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to
ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
No new structures are proposed that would cause flooding or erosion.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A towing business currently exists at this location.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to use an area of an already existing building for retail sales. The applicant is seeking
several waivers (Stormwater Plan, Landscaping Plan, Lighting Plan).
Access management at this location could be improved by better definition of entrances/exits on Sweet Road
as well as Montray Road. One option is construction of a guardrail along Sweet Road, as well as Montray
Road. Another option is providing landscaped areas along both road frontages to better define access areas.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted. A Short Environmental Assessment Form has not been submitted.
Site Statistic Confirmation:
The existing buildings at this location meet setbacks for the HC-MOD district. Permeability is below what is
required, however since no new construction is proposed, a variance is not required.”
MRS. RYBA-I wanted to note that you have the Short EAF form in front of you that was submitted by the
applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any Staff notes?
MRS. RYBA-This project is for a proposal to use a portion of an existing building for retail sales. The
zoning district is HC-Moderate, which requires site plan review before the Planning Board, and in terms of
Staff comments, there’s already an existing building. The applicant is seeking several waivers for stormwater,
landscaping, and lighting. Access management at this location could be improved by better definition
entrances/exits on Sweet Road as well as Montray Road. One option is construction of a guardrail along
Sweet Road, as well as Montray Road. Another option is providing landscaped areas along both road
frontages to better define access areas, and as I mentioned, you do have the SEQRA form.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? Good evening.
MRS. MARSH-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, would you identify yourself, please.
MRS. MARSH-Debra Marsh.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your project.
MRS. MARSH-Well, we’ve had a towing business at this location for about 10 years, and it goes down into a
repair shop. So I have an empty room there. I have to be there answering phones, and I have a home based
business, and I don’t have time to go out and deliver things, and I can’t have people come to my house. So I
would like to have things for an occasional person could stop in there and either view them or pick up an
order, and I have a sign out so it’s a little more defined so they can find it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. It seems pretty simple. Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-No comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. METIVIER-I just had a comment, I guess, more than anything, about the entry way and exits. I
wouldn’t want to see guardrails there, but I think that perhaps a little bit of landscaping might go a long way.
It is an opportunity for us to clean that up a little bit.
MRS. MARSH-Right. I want to do some, not to a great extent, because the property is for sale. We’re going
to sell it as a garage. It may not happen very soon, but I do want to clean up the area. Right now it looks like
a garage, and if I tell somebody, come and get some candy, they’re going to say, well, (lost words). So it will
be cleaned up, but as far as the front section for our towing, we really do need that open, but it will be
cleaned up to look more presentable than what it is at this time.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Just one. I want to probably make it part of the motion, if a motion is made, that the
expansion beyond the proposed operation will require.
MR. RINGER-Bob, I’ve got one written up with that in it, if you’d like to hear it, when we get, since it’s pre,
it’s a little premature, but if you want to read what I’ve written up.
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s fine, so long as you’ve got it, Larry. I just wanted to raise the issue.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you’ve got it, that’s great.
MR. RINGER-Yes, and the waivers also I included.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-It’s a little premature now, I thought, to.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s great.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 35-2002, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
DEBRA MARSH, 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
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
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 16 day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone have a motion they would like to introduce?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2002 DEBRA MARSH, Introduced by Larry Ringer
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 35-2002 Applicant: Debra Marsh
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Jean Weeks
Zone: HC-Mod
Location: 20 Sweet Road
Applicant proposes use of empty reception room for display and small retail area for sale of pre-packaged
home-made candy and collectibles. Towing business still exists inside 4 bay garage. Change in use requires
Planning Board review and approval.
Warren Co. Planning: 7/10/02
Tax Map No.: 296.17-1-44
Lot size: 0.98 acres / Section: Art. 4
Public Hearing: July 16, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/26/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 7/12/02:
7/16 Staff Notes
7/10 Warren Co. Planning
7/9 Notice of Public Hearing
7/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on July 16, 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
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Any future expansion of this or any other retail operation at this location would be referred back to
the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and
2. Waiver requests for landscaping, grading plan, stormwater management and lighting be granted, and
3. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 7/16/02 by the Planning Board of
the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Strough
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001, MODIFICATION, PYRAMID CO. OF GLENS FALLS, PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION
MALL, AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED
SITE PLAN. THE MODIFICATION IS TO RELOCATE BUILDING E TO THE WEST OF
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LOCATION AND SETBACK FARTHER FROM AVIATION
ROAD. A LARGER PORTION OF THIS PROPOSED STORE WILL BE INCORPORATED IN
THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE MALL SO THE NET INCREASE IN DEPARTMENT
STORE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NOW 70,429 SQ. FT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-94, SB 2-94,
SP 1-91, SV 45-90, AV 21-89, AV 1459, AV 25-96, SV 63-96, SP 38-96, SSE 1-97, SP 14-98, P1-98, SP 14-
98, SV 89-98, SP 67-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.21, 5.23 LOT
SIZE: 40.81 AC., 3.14 AC. SECTION: 179-27.1
JON LAPPER, RUSS PITTENGER & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on May 16 was tabled.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. ROUND-Sear Brown was the review engineer and also assisted with the plan review, and if you’ll recall
in May Sear Brown drafted a letter to the LA Group and the applicant regarding the type of submission that
was requested. There was some confusion at the May meeting regarding whether the project was a
modification or to the extent there was some difficulty on the part of the Planning Board to determine what
was new versus what was proposed. The applicants worked closely with Sear Brown to resolve those issues
and the most recent correspondence is dated July 11, with the minor exception there was some additional
th
correspondence today between Sear Brown and the Town, but if you’d like me to read from the Sear Brown
comment portion. This is a letter dated July 11, 2002 to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, regarding
Aviation Mall. “Dear Mr. Brown: We have continued our review of material provided by the applicant and
have met with Mr. Russ Pittenger of the LA Group to discuss the site plans. We have the following
comments: 1. The applicant has officially addressed the majority of technical issues. 2. The applicant has
provided some colored plans which attempt to show the areas of change from the existing conditions, to the
approved site plans, to the present site plan modification. The applicant should be prepared to present and
discuss these plans for the Board’s benefit at the next meeting. 3. The applicant’s technical report updates
(traffic, stormwater management) indicate that no additional off-site impacts will occur when compared with
the previous approval. 4. We previously noted that besides a comparison to the previous approval, the
applicant should show that the proposed plan meets good design practices. We have only one remaining area
of concern in this respect. The design of the Western Entrance/Ring Road/Friendly’s Access meets design
standards individually but stretches the limits of those standards. A few examples of these are as follows: A.
The single access to Friendly’s is acceptable given anticipated traffic generation, but two access points would
be more adequate. The fact that the lone access is off of the entrance road only complicates this design
further. B. The length of the entrance drive is just long enough based upon the traffic volume standards and
information provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer. This information did not address the turning
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
movements into and out of the Friendly’s lot. C. The intersection geometry combination of the western
entrance drive with the curving ring road does not violate any individual standards. However, the
combination of the geometry with the maximum 5% grade at this location the intersection is less than ideal.
D. The truck access route shown on the plans represents the centerline path of the trucks. The applicant
should show the full sweep of the vehicles and should also show a route by which the trucks enter the
western entrance. Presently the truck route only shows the access from the eastern access drive. All of the
above items are self imposed hardships. It is not likely t hat these issues will cause any offsite impacts. The
applicant can accept less than ideal configuration but should be prepared to assure the Planning Board that
users of the site will have safe access throughout the site. 5. The most recent set of drawings sent to us for
review does not show any future expansion off the rear of the building. We are assuming has removed this
from consideration. 6. The Existing Conditions plan was not included in the 6/26/02 set of drawings. Our
May 20 letter indicated items which should be addressed on this plan. 7. The landscaping plan does not
th
indicate the shrub designated as “JC” on the plans. These are found in the islands in front of the proposed
store but not in the planting key. 8. The applicant should provide a drawing which shows the continuous
façade of the new development including the new 9,800 SF Store Replacement area. As stated above, the
technical engineering aspects of the plan have been addressed from our previous questions. We will be
available to discuss any of the items listed above at the Planning Board meeting on July 16. Sincerely, Frank
th
Palumbo, RLA Site Development Group Manager” And we have a correspondence dated today, regarding
the entrance road, dated July 17 to Chris Round from Frank Palumbo, and I’ll read this “First I would like
th
to express my apology to the Planning Board that I am unable to attend this evening meeting. As we
discussed, the comments we raised regarding the intersection of the western entrance drive and the proposed
ring road can be addressed by the applicant with some minor design revisions. An intersection configuration
which provides a minimum of a 100 foot tangent section in each direction will improve the function of this
intersection. We are confident that the applicant can achieve this with minimal loss of parking spaces. At the
Board’s discretion, we will work with the applicant to satisfy such a condition on project approval. In
addition, the Board and the Applicant should be aware that the present intersection and other site design
features only meet the needs and thresholds for the current proposed square footage. Any future
development will need to undergo a full and separate site plan evaluation. Please let us know if there are any
other items we can assist on.” And this, for the Board’s clarification, that the original presentation in May did
include some, what the applicant indicated was previously approved expansion at the south side of the Mall
and some reconfiguration of some other previously approved facilities. The plans as they are presented
tonight I believe do not include any of those elements, and just the retail facility that’s been the subject of
discussion is in front of you tonight, and I’ll pass it off back to you, Mr. Chairman, or to the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Bob Orlando, Russ Pittenger from the LA
Group, and Eric Goetzman from Pyramid home office. We’ve been working with the July 11 letter, which
th
as Chris read and paraphrased, really only boils down to one issue, which is characterized by Sear Brown as
an onsite issue which doesn’t impact offsite at all, and that’s just at the Friendly’s entrance. Since we were
here last time, we were able to rework the plans, which the Board seemed to be leaning in favor of, to keep
Friendly’s where it is now. What I want to explain is just the nature of the changes that we’ve made this time
are all to accommodate this proposed Department Store E. They have, in one respect, more stringent
requirements than the Town does, in that their parking field cannot be more than a three and a half percent
grade change, and that is less steep than what’s there now. So in order to accommodate that absolute lease
requirement, the difference is that the Friendly’s site, the elevation of the Friendly’s site, and the elevation of
the parking lot, the parking field in front of that new department store, is going to be a greater change than
what’s there now, and that’s why we had to eliminate the secondary entrance into the Friendly’s parking lot.
We can’t add that because it would be too steep. So that’s what the Sear Brown traffic engineers have said,
that it meets the design criteria. They would prefer if it was there, but it’s an onsite issue, and that’s how
we’re hoping the Planning Board will look at it because we don’t physically have the ability to make that
change. Beyond that, we have all of the rest of the stuff that they’ve asked for. We have the elevation, the
façade, just to show you what that looks like, that they’ve asked for in this letter, and we can go through these
items, if you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go right ahead.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. One, the applicant has sufficiently addressed the majority of technical issues. Two, the
applicant has provided some colored plans which attempt to show the areas of change from the existing
conditions, to the approved site plans, to the present site plan modification. The applicant should be
prepared to present and discuss these plans for the Board’s benefit at the next meeting. Russ has done some
colored renderings that just show you the differences.
MR. PITTENGER-I believe that everyone does have a copy of the 11 by 17’s, but I did prepare some larger
ones. I’d like to quickly go through those, if I could. Beginning at the back of the package, Drawing F-3, I’ve
highlighted areas, this is a comparison between the plan as we propose it now and the existing conditions
here for the front of Aviation Mall. This is a portion of the new department store. What’s not highlighted is
the 9300 additional square feet here. This is additional pavement. We’ll be extending the drive from existing,
a little bit longer. There’d be additional pavement here, and also here, up in the northwest portion, across the
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
entrance drive from Friendly’s. This would also be paved. The F-2 plan, in the blue color, indicates our
approved plan, and how that was affected in relationship with the existing design. This is overlaid with the
existing plan and the one that was approved. Here we have our larger addition of some hundred thousand
square feet. We have the same drive addition. We have some parking additions here, and we have a rather
large parking addition here, along the northwest boundary, also on the drive opposite of Friendly’s, and the
F-1 plan which probably should have been last is a little bit more confusing because we have existing
conditions underneath. We have our approved plan highlighted in blue, and our proposed plan highlighted in
green. Here it’s the original store that we had approved. Here’s our proposed store, where here we have
100,000 additional square feet. Here we’re down to about 70,000 square feet, plus the 9300 here. This blue
area here we’ve paved under the approved plan. This additional area we’ve paved under the proposed plan
compared to the approved. So, in essence what we were doing is our approved plan was very close to the
front setback. Now we’re quite some distance away. That’s summarized on the chart on the front of the
sheet, as far as the site statistics. At one time we were as close as 61 feet with our approved plan. This
proposed plan, our closest line to the front is 290. So that hasn’t, there’s quite a bit of setback. It’s really
incorporated more into the existing Mall. What I’ve tried to summarize here is the square footages, and that,
indeed, we are, while we would like to reserve the 661,000, as compared to the SEQRA, but we’re down
about, our proposed plan as compared to our approved plan is a difference of approximately 28,000 square
feet.
MR. LAPPER-Three, technical report updates indicate no additional off-site impacts from the previous
approval. Four is what I mentioned about the onsite, which Sear Brown says is okay, and that’s our issue.
Five, the most recent drawings sent to us for review does not show any future expansion off the rear of the
building. We are assuming has removed this from consideration. We had a brief discussion about this earlier,
when we first came in.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Lapper, what letter are you on?
MR. LAPPER-The July 11.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Of Sear Brown?
MR. LAPPER-Of Sear Brown, yes. It’s got eight items.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-And Number Five, the last approval included not only the 20,000 feet, which is not part of
our site plan now, but also the 9,000 feet, approximately, that we’re adding in the front of the building to just
straighten out the front of the building. That was to be 14,000 square feet. So there’s a net difference of
24,000 square feet, and we would just like the record to show that for the SEQRA, because we went through
the Full Environmental Impact Statement on that, that the environmental impact analysis took into account
that. So that we wouldn’t have to redo SEQRA if they come back in a year or two or three to add the 24,000
square feet. It’s not part of the proposal now. There’s nothing on the back, but just since we went through
all that trouble with the Board, not that the Board caused us trouble, since we went to that length to get
through the whole SEQRA, we just don’t want to lose the fact that the SEQRA impact analysis contemplated
24,000 square feet, which is not currently on the plan. It also contemplated the 150,000 square feet for the
northwest property, which we’re hoping in six months or a year or two years, to come back. I know that Bob
and Eric hope that that’s sooner, to have a tenant up there, but just that we want to clarify that for the record,
that the SEQRA did include that 24,000 square feet, but it is not part of this site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-That, you’re talking about now the baseline for the SEQRA for 661,000. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly right, 661, because we wouldn’t be here without checking our numbers, so that when
you asked us we’d know the number.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I just want to make sure that we’re on the same page.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, 636,729 is what we have now, and 661,000 is what was contemplated in the SEQRA last
time. Six, the existing conditions plan was not previously included, but you do have that now. Seven, the
landscaping plan does not indicate the “JC”, which is?
MR. PITTENGER-They’re shrubs along the front of the proposed department store. They’re Junipers.
MR. LAPPER-Chinese Junipers, and that was missing from the legend.
MR. PITTENGER-It was shown on the plans. They weren’t indicated (lost words).
MR. LAPPER-And this is superimposing the new department store on the existing façade, plus bringing out
the 9,000 square feet to straighten that out. Bob wants me to mention that this tenant has a new prototype
that may, it may actually be a white building rather than a tan building, when this gets built, because they’re in
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
the process of changing their prototype. That was last year’s color, and this year’s color may actually be
white, which would be closer to what the Mall is. in the 6/26/02 set of drawings. Our May 20 letter
th
indicated items which should be addressed on this plan. 7. The landscaping plan does not indicate the shrub
designated as “JC” on the plans. These are found in the islands in front of the proposed store but not in the
planting key. 8. The applicant should provide a drawing which shows the continuous façade of the new
development including the new 9,800 SF Store Replacement area. As stated above, the technical engineering
aspects of the plan have been addressed from our previous questions. We will be available to discuss any of
the items listed above at the Planning Board meeting on July 16. Sincerely, Frank Palumbo, RLA Site
th
Development Group Manager”
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now what are those columns? What’s that to the right of the entrance? Yes, there.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s the Mall entrance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So we’re going to keep the Mall entrance, and that’s going to be just the
entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s coming forward.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So then we’re changing the façade of the Mall entrance. I mean, right now it’s
got a big BON TON thing on it.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. That actually today exists in this area, Cathy, and that’s being reproduced over
here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-The middle entrance to the Mall is in this area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and then the regular entrance will just look like that, and then there’s the
Penneys over there.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. That looks nice. I like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I guess that’s it for us.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s talk about that ring road for a minute, and Sear Brown’s comments on it.
MR. LAPPER-You mean today’s letter?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Russ?
MR. PITTENGER-We just saw that when we got here. Chris, do you have a feeling exactly what Frank was
talking about with the tangent sections?
MR. ROUND-I think what they’re looking for, where the entrance road meets the ring road, the ring road
itself doesn’t have a 100 foot length north, or east and west of the entrance that are, that would offer you a 90
degree intersection and a 100 foot sight distance without any changes. I think at this location, it’s 100 feet
without any curves in either location. So if this was a 90 degree intersection, that he would go 100 feet and
100 feet in the other location. I haven’t seen it on the plan, but I’m basing this on a phone conversation that
Mr. MacEwan and I had this afternoon.
MR. PITTENGER-I think what, we were looking very carefully at some of the issues that Frank raised
regarding the geometry of this and the grades, and one of his concerns was that we were looking at a five
percent grade in there. I’m not sure what effect that, having the 100 foot tangent in there would have on this,
and I hate to commit to something not knowing what it’s going to do.
MR. LAPPER-There’s pretty good visibility anyway.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, there is good visibility, and I think that it’s also important to note that, while there
is a five percent grade in here, it’s really only along about the center of this driving lane as someone is
proceeding west. That’s approximately five percent. Actually, in a tangent along the curb, at the curb itself is
really a little bit less than five, along the center it’s about four and a half, and along this side it’s about three.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
So really any motion, people coming in and going left, coming in and going right, that’s at about three
percent. People coming in here, stopping and continuing, and also moving this way, it’s less than four
percent. There’s existing conditions in the area. This turn here from Greenway North, this is about six and a
half percent, this little turn here. There’s part of this parking lot now that’s almost at six percent, that we’re
going to alleviate. Turning back to the existing conditions plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-Russ, could I get you to leave that up there, just that plan for just a second?
MR. PITTENGER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-In the conversation that we had with Frank today, I think his concerns weren’t evolving
around grades. It was evolving around the ability to have the sight distance for someone coming around on
the west side of that loop road being able to stop at that stop sign. There isn’t a lot of area for queuing up of
people to hit that stop sign there, and if you potentially had that parking lot filled at that end, your sight
distance is even further eliminated as you come down that curb, and what he’s trying to do is get you to
extend that so that you have a little bit more of a queuing distance there.
MR. ROUND-I think that’s, in the July 11 correspondence, Frank went through this Item Four, and he
th
went through A, B, C, D, and it was no one element, but it was a combination of factors, and I think 4 C, it
says, “The intersection geometry combination of the western entrance drive with the curving ring road does
not violate any individual standards. However, the combination of the geometry with the maximum 5%
grade at this location the intersection is less than ideal.” So they were looking to either, you know, improve
grade, you know, get rid of the five percent grade, and/or the 100 foot sight distance, and 100 foot’s a
common.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s what he was leaning more toward doing that, wasn’t he? That’s the sense I
got out of the conversation.
MR. ROUND-That’s correct.
MR PITTENGER-I think having, incorporating a 100 foot tangent on the eastern portion of this is certainly
something that we could do, assuming that this is the intersection that we come back our 100 feet, because it
brings us about to here, and that’s something that we could certainly incorporate. For the western portion, it
appears that it brings us past the intersection of this northwest parking, and that brings this road into here,
before it starts to turn, and I think that, as we have approximately a 20 foot slope here that we’re picking up
with riprap, I’m concerned that we could actually do that and still grade it and stay on the property. I mean
it’s possible. Well, and then to get back, then the ring road would have to be, the radius would be down at
about 150 feet, which would be a little bit less than I would like to see. I think we’d be willing to work with
Frank if he has some suggestions that we can accommodate on the site.
MR. ROUND-The other option, the thing that he’s been talking about right along, is bringing that entrance
drive, extending that longer. I know that impacts your parking, but that would allow you to bring that curve
around. Do you follow me?
MR. PITTENGER-Like existing.
MR. ROUND-There’s a couple of options out there, I guess that’s what I want to point out. It’s not just the,
going west into the bank.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a comment, but I’ll save mine. It’s in the same area.
MR. ORLANDO-It’s in the same area, Bob? We could do it now.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s the first one on my notes, but I’ll just do this and then I’ll sit back while Mr. Chairman
picks to talk, but the reference would be S-4, on the old S-4 dated 4/23/02, and this is version S-4, that
you’re looking at, which is 6/26/02. Now if you take a look at that very same place that you’re talking at, the
4/23/02 drawing showed a radius of an R-30 right there at the turn, coming in. Right there. Now for some
reason or other, when you got to your 6/26 drawing, you went to R-25. I think you could soften that curve a
little. What you’ve done is hardened it up with going to R-25 when it was an R-30. Do you remember that?
MR. PITTENGER-I remember that. I’d be happy to make that a 30 foot radius. That’s not a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-All you’ve got to do is go back to your S-4, where it was before. So for what reason that
changed, I don’t know.
MR. PITTENGER-I don’t either, but we could certainly make that a 30 foot radius.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not giving us the 100 foot we’re looking for.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not giving you the 100 foot, but it’s softening that turn a little bit. That’s what I’m
trying to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not so much traffic making the right hand turn, or, yes, making the right hand turn
coming into the Mall. It’s the traffic circulating, heading for that exit road going out of the Mall.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine, but that whole thing can be, there’s a couple of, as Chris said, there’s a couple of
options in there, and one of them is to soften that point a little bit with a little smoother radius, I (lost words),
now as far as it coming up, going north is concerned, that’s a whole other question. They’d have to take part
of their parking lot to do it, I think.
ERIC GOETZMAN
MR. GOETZMAN-Yes. One of the issues we have with the department store is the very strict, I guess,
number of parking spaces they’re looking for. We’re already well under that, and that’s one of the reasons
you saw the (lost word) come in the way it did, to push that back further, it would knock out across your each
row, five spaces per row, probably. I know it seems like a little amount, but a department store of this nature
is looking for X number of spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-When we get into parking, we’ll talk about the spaces a little bit, but right now we want to
stay on the subject that we’re on, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any solutions, Russ?
MR. PITTENGER-I can’t think of any.
MR. LAPPER-Perhaps we should go on, hear everybody’s comments, and come back to this.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is the stop sign located?
MR. LAPPER-Right here.
MR. PITTENGER-The way this is designed is that entering the Mall in the ring road, they’d have the right of
way, just similar to the way it is at Exit 15 and Saratoga Mall, where the car could come in and make a
continuous left or a continuous right. Traveling the loop road, they’d have a stop here, traveling west, you
would have a continuous flow in, as this is a two lane road, and people continuing on the ring road would
have to stop.
MR. STROUGH-One of the things in the past, time and time again, if that corner is, one, going to be utilized
by trailers, the minimum has been a 30 degree radius, minimum, and will that be accessed by tractor trailers, I
assume to get to the rear of the Mall?
MR. PITTENGER-Normal operations are that the service comes in on the eastern entrance, and for our
purposes and for this store, it would exit this.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re saying tractor trailers never use this entrance?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s what I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-I think Frank had asked about that in one of his letters, I recollect now. One of your
drawings outlines the truck route from the eastern entrance all the way around, and now he said, what about
an alternate truck route on the western most entrance. I think Frank Palumbo had a comment on that.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, he did, Bob, and thanks for bringing that up. Just today we had received an analysis
of the site using a program called Auto Turn, and what this does is it really takes a truck and not just the
centerline, but it takes the front wheels and rear wheels and runs through the whole site. It was always our
thought that deliveries into the new department store would come in from the eastern entrance, would run
around in front of Sears, in front, back down to here, and then exit this way, and that all works perfectly, until
we get to here. Once we get to here, what we realize is that this 45 foot radius really has to be pulled back.
Actually, the design that you have in front of you, the tractor trailer would track over that curb. So I do have
some amendments to that which I’m happy to pass out to the Board. Frank also asked that we look at what
happens if a tractor trailer comes in this way, it can get out onto the ring road and run through. However,
under the existing conditions, as it starts to run through here, it can’t really get back out of here. So this is
not a suitable entrance. For this department store’s purposes, they would direct the three or four deliveries a
day to use that entrance, and that’s the way it would work.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’d have to be some pretty good signage there for delivery trucks to make sure they
use the right entrance.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. PITTENGER-Now what this sketch shows, and it’s unfortunately at a different scale. So that’s 30 scale.
It’s a little bit larger. What this shows is that we really have to widen out the throat of the way that this
operates. We have to push this back, and it was, in terms of making it clear for people driving their cars, what
we elected to do was to paint out this center island, make that bigger, so the people coming out would follow
the curb line out, and also the Auto Turn program indicated that the truck would track over the little bit of
nose of this central island, so we painted that one out also.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that that, at the R-30, at the R-65 that’s got to be moved a little bit?
MR. PITTENGER-No, that is actually a redesign. I mean, this is the proper design that will be implemented
into the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This supercedes what is on, I guess it’s S-6 now?
MR. PITTENGER-That is correct. All the plans would reflect the.
MR. STROUGH-So visually, Russ, if you take a look at where the R-25 is, that looks like, I mean, if you
compare it visually to what you have labeled just across the way as R-30, that looks like a wider radius. Could
that have been mislabeled?
MR. PITTENGER-I’ll bet you it is, because it does look at lot different. Well, one of them’s mislabeled, I
can guarantee that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, the inside one that is the access to the parking area, the northwest parking
area, maybe that’s R-25, and maybe that actually is an R-30.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. When I looked at S-4, dated 4/23.
MR. STROUGH-If you see the curve, obviously, the curves a little bit tighter in the entryway going into the
parking area, it would be employee parking area, I believe?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. That looks like a 25, actually, and the 30 looks like it’s mislabeled, because I just
measured that 25. That definitely is not a 30 foot radius there. So that looks like a 15.
MR. STROUGH-And the other one looks more like a 30, though.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we saying that S-4 is really not R-30 on S-4 dated, on the 4/23 is really an R-25, right
there?
MR. PITTENGER-That is correct. I think what it is, if you look at the difference between the eight and a
half by eleven plan, and you look at the one that Bob’s holding, that is a big sweep. That is a 30 foot radius
here. Now we’re showing more like a 15.
MR. STROUGH-Maybe they were just switched.
MR. PITTENGER-I think they were mislabeled. I think this was a 15, and they just kept the number when it
was modified.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re saying this is probably an R-15?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. The 25 I believe is a 25. We’ll make that a 30, and the one that’s labeled
30 is actually a 15.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that would solve the problem if a truck did arrantly go that way. He would be
all right without ruining your curb.
MR. VOLLARO-It still looks tight on that tracking, though. You’re going to have to play with that tracking
program there, Russ, I think.
MR. PITTENGER-I think this certainly works for the exiting of the vehicles from the proposed department
store and the study does indicate that we can get our trucks in there, as to how they get them in the rest of
the Mall, I haven’t the faintest idea, and if they come in this way, I don’t know where they go. I think that we
just have to, I don’t think we have an issue in controlling the deliveries to the department store. I think that
if it was an issue where cars shouldn’t go this way, or wrong way, don’t enter, that would be a signage issue,
but really, when they get deliveries, they’re going to say, go in that entrance and that’s the way they come in. I
mean, that’s what they do. That’s what their job is. So they’re not coming from too far away.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Larry, we’ll start with you.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-All set as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, everything seems to work, Russ. I appreciate that. So what we’re basically
getting here, for a total net square footage increase, the 79,729, which is the 70,429 square foot addition to
the building to accommodate the 125,000 square foot retail store that’s moving in there, plus the 9,300 square
foot store replacement area equals a total net increase of 79,729. Is that correct?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And then everything fits. Okay. Thank you. Which means in our resolution that’s going
to have to be changed and corrected. Okay. Next in line here, the northwest parking area, the only comment
that I have about that particular aspect of your project is the riprap. Your located in Exit 19, gateway to
Queensbury. Isn’t there something a little bit more pleasing, more aesthetic than riprap shoring up that wall
going up to the gas station adjacent to the parking lot expansion in the northwest parking lot?
MR. LAPPER-You mean along Aviation Road?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, near Aviation Road.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. I think in all fairness, for the gateway as people come in to the Town of
Queensbury, they won’t really see it, because it’ll be below the grade. I mean, you will see it as you’re leaving
Queensbury. There certainly are alternatives to riprap. I think that there’s some treatments to riprap that you
could use to dress them up. You could plant some vines and have it covered. You could spend more money
and have something fancier. I didn’t want to commit the applicant to that. Certainly it’s not my call.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I, for one Planning Board member, would be more than glad to hear some dressing
up or alternatives to just bare, basic industrial looking riprap, okay, but we’ll see how that moves on down the
line. Bike racks, are there any bike racks on the Mall currently?
MR. ORLANDO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. ORLANDO-Yes, there’s bike racks that are scattered throughout the site, John.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Were the sanitary inverts relocations shown on S-9?
MR. PITTENGER-The utility plan, yes, they were.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Friendly’s is not being relocated. Friendly’s is staying where it currently is. Okay. I
did have a question about how that loading area would be serviced, but the way you explained it, it would
work.
MR. PITTENGER-It works very well.
MR. LAPPER-This is substantially better than what we had.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. No, I was picturing a truck going in this way, but I see what you’re saying. That
works. Pedestrian access, that northwest parking area is going to be, or at least it’s listed as employee parking,
but I understand there’s not going to strictly be employee parking. Anyone that wants to park there can park
there, but that aside, shouldn’t we have some crosswalks for employees? I assume that the Friendly ice cream
employees are going to park over there and possibly some of the Mall’s tenants’ employees are going to park
over there maybe? And shouldn’t there be crosswalks on the ring road and the access entry road?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, what we’re currently proposing is that we’re proposing to hook into the sidewalk
along Aviation Road, at the west side of the Friendly’s entrance, and then really run along the curb line. We
have a crosswalk at the entrance to this upper parking lot, employee parking lot for lack of a better name, and
then running around and with crosswalks crossing in. We weren’t sure if Friendly’s would use that as an
employee lot. I do know that the department store that they’re negotiating with is interested in placing as
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
many 80 employees up there. So that would really utilize that lot. They’d be happy to do that, and thereby
free up part of their space right in front of the store.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, Friendly’s may want to free up some space, too. I can easily see them asking
them to have their employees park over there. So the only area you don’t have cover would be a potential
crosswalk from that parking area over.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, looking at the grading plan, it’s interesting, because, in terms of pedestrian access
in, we really have very limited cross traffic because of the grading from this portion of the site. So they
almost are forced to come to this point from offsite people. There is an existing crosswalk across the
entrance at Aviation Road, and with this being an uncontrolled right turn and an uncontrolled right and left
turn, I’m not sure where that crosswalk would go.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you had shown that pedestrian access that exists already, and I forgot that it
did. See, I probably wouldn’t have asked the question.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. That was my fault because there is a crossing here of some sort at that light, and
that would probably be the best control intersection for, if someone’s parking here and employee’s walking,
you really couldn’t get anywhere out anyway. So this makes a good place to go, or if you’re coming to the
Mall to come down this way.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. Stormwater. I couldn’t find Reach 24.
MR. PITTENGER-Is that existing or proposed 24?
MR. STROUGH-Proposed. I found 25. This is proposed.
MR. PITTENGER-I think it was on existing.
MR. STROUGH-See, this is proposed. That’s about the location of it. See, there’s 24, but there’s no 24
here.
MR. PITTENGER-It was incorporated into 104, I believe. This proposed is (lost words), or, no, this is
flowing here.
MR. STROUGH-But that’s supposed to be a reach.
MR. PITTENGER-104 is a subcatchment, I believe.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, 104 would be this subcatchment.
MR. PITTENGER-I believe that, and 53 and 104 incorporate 24.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, what is this device?
MR. PITTENGER-This is a 12 bang drywell system.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s on the grading plan.
MR. STROUGH-All right, because in one observation they’re worried that the Reach Number 24 is at
capacity.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s exactly correct.
MR. STROUGH-And so that’s what this solves?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s exactly correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-The idea is that it would continue to flow into the outlet pipe, but this would ameliate the
differences. So we would get some percolation gain, also to retain it (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Very good. You’ve got the answers today.
MR. PITTENGER-I’ve been studying from Mr. Carr.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I’m fine for now. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I tried to do in this review is go back to 4/23/02 drawings and but them up
against the 6/26 drawings, take a look at the two. This is where we were, where we are. This is the modified
plan, and what I did look at it, when they talked about the grading up there of the parking lot, changing the
grading to the new store’s requirement, I saw that, on 4/23 we were going from 430 to 414, in that drawing,
coming on down, and on 6/26, we’re going from 428 to 414. I don’t see where there was any conflict in the
grading of that lot, based on the two drawings that I saw that you had to drop that. Maybe I’m, something
I’m not seeing there.
MR. PITTENGER-Bob, you’re talking about the difference between the main plans?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the 4/23 plans are the original plan. If you go to S-5 on 4/23.
MR. PITTENGER-This is not the approved plan. This is the one we submitted earlier.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay, and the difference, here’s what happened. We got some really specific
requirements from the tenant, and part of that is that their requirements are that within 150 feet of the front
door, it’s a 1.5%, and I think that’s the factor, even though they gave us, the requirements are the one I just
told you and that the rest of the parking lot cannot exceed three percent. Now they gave us two breaks on it.
One is they only held us to 100 feet at 1.5%, and then they let us go to three and a half percent, but earlier we
had portions that were at four and portions that were at five. They absolutely will not tolerate it. So we had
to re-grade he entire thing.
MR. VOLLARO-So you can’t do a linear projection on this. That’s what you’re telling me. There are points
that they’ve defined that.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. I think it’s 100 foot at one and a half percent that we go down and back
up again. That’s what took the bust out of it, but this, the whole configuration of it, and where we meet the
entrance road and actually it’s a direct line of how we get from the department store to Friendly’s at existing
condition. Everything else in there we just had to make it fit, and that’s how we ended up with that 4.4%
around the curve at that intersection.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that answers that question. I can see that if I was going to look for that on a
linear basis, that wouldn’t work, based on what they’ve given you. All right. On the parking, just follow me
through on this, but the SEQRA approved parking for the 661 square feet of SEQRA was 2679 spaces. Is
that correct? The proposed expansion is 636,729, and John went over that very capably with you a little bit
ago, that runs us a reduction of 24,271. So that’s really what we’re saying is that we’re down about four
percent against the SEQRA, roughly. It’s merely 636 to 661.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So we’re down about four percent there. Now the current parking formula that we use
here, which is, starts off with five, then goes to four point five, then goes to four, and to use that formula, the
current parking formula allows us 2872 spaces. Now what I’m trying to get at here is that, under the current
formula, 2872 versus what you’ve asked for, 3057, is a 6.4% increase, but if you take a look at the SEQRA
approved 2697 versus your 3057, that’s a 13.3% increase over the approved SEQRA.
MR. LAPPER-I want to explain, generically, that we were here.
MR. VOLLARO-Let me just ask a question. Am I doing this right? I mean, is there a 13% increase over
SEQRA?
MR. LAPPER-We increased the parking, which was done because the reason we were here last year, and
Pyramid wasn’t able to sign the lease after we worked with the tenant to get this approved, and the primary
reason was the tenant’s concern that there was not enough parking in the field in front of the store. That’s
what this primarily came down to, and that’s why, that’s how we were able to come back, to move it, to make
it what the Planning Board seems to indicate is a better plan. Parking was the key in terms of the lease. So
we had to add parking beyond what we thought we could do last year to satisfy the Town, and that’s why,
simply, there’s more parking on this plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re 360 spaces over SEQRA. I know in the Findings Statement, and I’ll ask
Chris Round to track me on that because he’s pretty good with Findings Statements. I think in the Findings
Statements we say that in the future expansion, I think it was on Page Seven of the Findings Statement, that
on future expansion, we could allow additional parking if we so chose. Am I correct with that?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. ROUND-Yes, you’re right.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. LAPPER-We’re also saying that we could add the 24,271 square footage without having to add anymore
parking.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, I’m just trying to see what we’ve approved under SEQRA.
MR. LAPPER-And our permeability improved. There’s more green space now than there was on the other
plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but there’s an inverse proportion here. You haven’t used all of the SEQRA
equipment, space. You’re down by 24,000 square feet, 24,271, yet you’re up 13% in parking.
MR. LAPPER-But we did improve the green space.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t know whether the term green space fits in this equation. Maybe it does.
MR. LAPPER-Permeability.
MR. VOLLARO-Permeability.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, we had a dog that liked bread. Now we’ve got a dog that likes beef. It’s a different
dog. They require, they really want to be at that five point for the entire site. That’s one of their
requirements and we’re trying to get to that to make them happy.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just putting this on the record for the rest of the Board, for the Board to
understand that we’re out past our SEQRA approvals, but I think the Findings Statement under SEQRA
allows us to give you that flexibility, and I just wanted to check that with Chris Round and he seems to
indicate that it does.
MR. ROUND-I think what you’re looking at, Bob, is that the project that was approved as part of the
rezoning that occurred back in September of last year contemplated a particular building size at this location,
a certain amount of parking at this location, and a potential future expansion, and it evaluated, the
environmental documentation and analysis, evaluated potential impacts as it related to traffic, stormwater, I
think those were two of the larger areas. Aesthetics was a major area, and I think what the applicant’s trying
to do, and I think what you’re trying to get the Board to do is the proposal in front of you significantly
different than what was in front of you previously, from an environmental impact analysis, and the Findings
Statement did include certain provisions, certain details about how large the building size was, but I think the
applicant was trying to indicate was, well, I think what we’re looking when it came to impermeable area, when
it comes to parking spaces, the thing that we’re looking at, the impact of parking is aesthetics and is
generation of additional hard surfaces and stormwater. The stormwater analysis has been done and Sear
Brown has evaluated that and they think they can accommodate stormwater, but you’re right so you make
sure that you get those things on the record, that you have looked at those things, and before you entertain a
motion to approve or deny an application, you have to indicate that these are consistent with your previous
findings, and that you reaffirm those findings and then impose any additional site plan approval conditions as
part of the site plan approval.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re consistent by 360 spaces, the way I look at it, but, you know, 13% over SEQRA it
could be significant, but we’re allowed, by the Findings Statement, to make that movement, it seems to me.
See there’s some discretionary movement on the part of.
MR. ROUND-Right. I guess the SEQRA did include additional expansion and contemplated additional
expansion.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does.
MR. ROUND-Of 150,000 square foot building that’s not on the plans. So you do have quite a bit of latitude
as far as whether you allow additional parking or not.
MR. VOLLARO-Just to get back to a second on that, what I had in my notes, which doesn’t mean I’m going
to ask you folks to do, now that I’ve cleared that up with respect to the Findings Statement, but the 121
spaces that sit up in that northwest corner there, I’ll tell you what I had proposed in here was to eliminate
those all together and to reduce the 280 spaces on the east side by 239, which would get me down to the
SEQRA thing, but you’re saying you can’t do that, but I can understand why you can’t do it, but see the
thrust that this Board has been looking at over the past maybe since the new zoning law came in, is to not
increasing parking in the Town, but to try to minimize it to a point where it was utilitarian. It could be used
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
but still wasn’t overbearing in terms of parking spaces, and that’s the thing I was looking at, what our thrust
has been over the past.
MR. LAPPER-We’re saying here this is based upon the tenant’s historical use at other sites, and this is what
they say they need so that there’s enough parking, because they feel that they’re a draw, and we’re trying to
accommodate them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know that I want to be driven, essentially, by that, as a Planning Board
member. I have to look at not what the tenant wants, but where I stand with respect to things that we’ve
been trying to drive in on the Town. I happen to think that this is probably a good site the way it is, but I’m
just, you know, really talking to the record here mostly, to get it on. Now, we’ve talked about truck routes.
One of the things I want to look at was some just real quick, I want to go back to, this is our resolution, back
up stream the way, which is really in the Year 2000 I believe, yes, it was the 4 of September 2001. Now, last
th
September we made some conditions in that, and some of them have taken place. The first one is the width
of the proposed walkway was to be extended five feet from the northwest corner of the new addition. If you
go to your plan, it’s not to the new addition, and I see why. It’s in the right spot.
MR. LAPPER-That was because of where the location of where the other department store was on the
previous plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I don’t know that that makes sense now.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The retaining wall would be constructed to maintain a 12 foot planting area. I can’t
locate where this retaining wall.
MR. LAPPER-That was because the building was so close to Aviation Road at the entrance to that one way
in driveway. We had some issue, and that’s all gone also now.
MR. VOLLARO-Most of it looks like riprap up there to me now.
MR. LAPPER-It’s nowhere near as elevated as it was because we don’t have that, the issue for the retaining
wall.
MR. STROUGH-That issue was over here, Bob.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Where?
MR. STROUGH-That one way drive coming in, they had to alter that and make a retaining wall over here.
MR. PITTENGER-At the time, Bob, we had our trucks backing onto the ring road, the outer ring road, and
we had to raise the grade to reduce the elevation, and then we had to put a retaining wall in and we’ve got
some plans to screen the loading area which is no longer there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that second one is no longer an applicable condition.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So I’m just trying to see whether these previous conditions apply to this modification or
not.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s a good idea. We did resubmit plans. They were in the final plans. They were
incorporated into the final plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Additional striping will be done inside the loading dock area. I think that still holds.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. We incorporated that. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. At the intersection of the connector road and the west entrance, the truck radius
to be extended to 35 feet, and I think you just covered that. So I think we’re okay with that one. That’s still
applicable. That’s applicable and so is that. That’s been covered. The Little Leaf Lindens, I don’t even know
what Little Leaf Lindens are.
MR. PITTENGER-I don’t know, but you’ve got them. They’re an attractive deciduous street tree. Those
were proposed. I think there were eight that were supposed to go along that parking lot across from
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
Friendly’s, and we kept all the plantings the same, and then we added more in and around the new
department store.
MR. STROUGH-I noticed that you tried to (lost word).
MR. VOLLARO-And the last one on that was Sear Brown will be allowed a final review of site plans prior to
the Zoning Administrator’s final approval. I’m not sure I understood why we put that in the conditions, but.
MR. PITTENGER-I think because there were comments at the meeting that we were going to revise the
drawings and then Sear Brown was going to sign off on them. That did basically happen.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s applicable now. I think that Frank is finished, almost, isn’t he, except
for his letter?
MR. PITTENGER-I believe so, except that we have two issues to revisit, the one being the geometry of that
intersection, and I think that we can work something out to make him happy, and if that was the condition, if
the Board was so inclined. Just on that intersection, I think we can work with the geometry, because perhaps
we can curve that entrance road a little bit to get more tangent out of that.
MR. VOLLARO-So shall we leave this in as a condition, if we, when we go through our?
MR. LAPPER-Only with respect to the geometry of that intersection.
MR. RINGER-Bob, I wrote, I was making some notes here, and I wrote one of the conditions, if we were to
approve this, that applicant will work with and get signoff from Sear Brown for the western entrance drive
and the proposed ring road to improve the function of this intersection, was one of the conditions I had
written down.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s well worded. I think that that’s a good. Okay. In looking at the stormwater
management in the enclosed drawing in Figure B, I think that satisfied Warren County’s issues on snow
runoff. The whole stormwater plan I think was excellently done. I read, looked at it. It looks pretty good to
me.
MR. PITTENGER-I put together a memo that I didn’t really send, but looking at different issues about snow
storage on site. Quite frankly, snow storage doesn’t increase runoff. It actually reduces runoff because it
absorbs, it doesn’t melt as fast. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess we talked about Dr. Hoffman’s concern, visa vie the pedestrian access to the Mall. I
think we’ve talked about that a minute ago. John, are you satisfied with that? That’s something you look at a
lot.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, yes, I thought about it, but, you know, if I was to park my car on the
northernmost part of the parking lot, I use the driving lane to walk into the Mall. I mean, that is the
pedestrian access.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, it almost seems to be a waste of space to make a particular pedestrian access that
there’s a high probability nobody will use it. It just seems to be a waste of space.
MR. PITTENGER-And, John, I feel more comfortable with having a route that had one side the traffic and
one side the non traffic. I felt more comfortable with that the way it is now, rather than going down, having
something that goes down through the middle of.
MR. LAPPER-But you’re saying that the drive aisles are the walking aisles.
MR. STROUGH-It is. Because you make a pedestrian access doesn’t mean people are going to use it.
They’d only use it if it’s convenient, and I just don’t think people are going to use it. They’re just going to get
out of their car and like every other place, just walk down the drive lane, and so I just thought maybe I
wouldn’t want it to be a waste of space and make you do something that didn’t make any sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to ask Mr. Pittenger one question. In your memorandum of June 26, the
th
last two pages are kind of a handwritten memo, memo of the meeting.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct. That was really an internal memo, but I thought the Board ought to have it
because that’s really something Frank and I talked about some issues and I tried to respond to them.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. PITTENGER-So I thought I would include it.
MR. VOLLARO-Are those pretty well, and I’ve looked them over. I thought the lighting plan, when it says
the lighting plan seems haphazard and insufficient, I didn’t think so.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, that was my paraphrasing of Frank’s comment. So he thought that, he just wanted
to verify, I think the graphics, and the way it was presented, it wasn’t clear where the lights were. Some of
them were hidden by the trees. So we did a separate plan that very clearly illustrates where the lights are and
what the foot candles are and I think it’s a good, comprehensive plan now.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was just going over those comments. There’s a lot of insight when you read
comments of a meeting, you know, you get a lot more out of that, sometimes, than you do at one of these
formal things we do here. Mr. Chairman, I think I’m finished with my line of discussion here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I had, I wanted to address those attached resolutions on the conditions that we
had done before with Staff and Bob did that and I appreciate that. The second thing is, this might sound
stupid, but, and I know Bob addressed the parking issue, but the numbers don’t mean as much to me as the
location. Now, this, I tried to kind of superimpose this with my eyes onto the great big one, which is down
here in the box. Is there any of the approved, that we approved before, staying?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, it is.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, this is not and this is, right?
MR. PITTENGER-No, all of what I’ve colored there is not, is what was hard scape approved but it’s now
going to be grass. So the Friendly’s parking lot got smaller.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, for some reason I thought that this triangular piece was still there.
MR. PITTENGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s not, because I know this isn’t.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. There’s a portion of it that’s existing now, but that’s going to go away, because
actually that lot’s going to get smaller, get cut back.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I think you’ve done a nice job.
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ROUND-There’s correspondence. This letter is dated May 15 from the Warren County Healthy Heart
th
Program. You’ll recall we did have a public hearing scheduled but it was not acted on in May. “Dear Mr.
MacEwan: The Warren-Washington County Healthy Heart Program would like to recommend that the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board address the following concern at your upcoming meeting May 16,
2002. We would support that the Planning Board requires aesthetic value and bicycle pedestrian amenities
for the Aviation Mall and Home Depot proposed projects. The current location of Friendly’s has always
been a welcoming site in front of the Aviation Mall. A part of that feeling is the fact that it conceals a large
parking lot and is nicely landscaped. Furthermore, the restaurant is close to Aviation Road, which makes it
easy for people to access. The Planning Board should require that the “new” Friendly’s is equally as attractive
by having parking behind the restaurant, 6’ wide sidewalks leading to and from Aviation Road, and bicycle
racks and benches installed in front of the restaurant. The removal of the old Friendly’s provides an excellent
opportunity to insist that the developer install a 4’ wide planting strip, with a 6’ wide sidewalk, along the
Aviation Road in front of the mall. The current conditions are dangerous and unattractive for pedestrians
and bicyclists trying to get to, or pass by the Aviation Mall. Approval for the Home Depot should also
require sidewalks leading to and around the store as well as accommodations for bicyclists. The Home Depot
should be visually attractive with greenery and offer safe passage for pedestrians through the parking lot. As
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
community leaders, we must encourage and provide more opportunities for everyone to be physically active.
It is necessary that we make our environment as safe to travel by foot and it is by automobile. As more and
more people, in our community, travel from place to place without a vehicle it is our desire to have a
community that supports such a behavior. Not only is this an economic draw, it also improves our quality of
life. Sincerely, Jodi Byrnes, Program Director Kathy Varney, Program Coordinator” Warren-Washington
County Healthy Heart Program. A memorandum dated July 16 to the Town Board regarding Howard
th
Johnson’s Motor Lodge Town Board Action, “Dear Board Members: Be advised that the Pyramid
Corporation has complied with all the requirements as set forth in your December 2001 order. At this time
we will consider the matter closed unless we receive further complaints regarding the property. Sincerely,
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, David Hatin, Director, Building and Code Enforcement”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? I see two things that seem to have cropped up. One is
redesigning that radius, and I think Larry’s got that covered. John had concerns regarding dressing up that
entrance along Aviation Road.
MR. STROUGH-With riprap.
MR. MAC EWAN-With riprap, and I’m inclined to agree with him.
MR. VOLLARO-That make sense to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only other thought I had was that one entry to Friendly’s, and the applicant states
that the second entrance is not practicable because of the elevation differences between the ring road and the
parking lot of Friendly’s ice cream. So, I was just wondering, should we make that access to Friendly’s, I’m
just thinking out loud, wider, because I’m worried about emergency vehicle, emergency services access,
because that’s the only access to Friendly ice cream, and I don’t know if a boulevard approach, or, you know,
dividing it up or making it wider so that if there’s an accident in the entryway in front Friendly’s that it doesn’t
block emergency access to Friendly’s. I just had some concerns there, and I’m just throwing it out.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve looked at this, and sat down and put our heads together, and we just have limited
possibilities because that’s the existing Friendly’s site and they have the right to keep it the way it is. So, we’re
comfortable with it and what we’d say is that if there was a, some sort of an emergency and somebody needed
an ambulance, I mean, that they’ll get in there, and if it means that there’s going to be havoc in the parking lot
for moments while there’s some emergency or if there’s a fire truck, the fire truck would pull up on the ring
road.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s say it’s a busy Christmas holiday day, and traffic’s queued all the way into the
parking lot, and somebody is choking on food in Friendly ice cream, and so the emergency vehicles, how are
they going to access from you?
MR. LAPPER-Well, cars will pull over to the side, and they’ll pull up next to the building.
MR. STROUGH-Well, they can’t. They’re waiting to get out, they’re queued off. They’re stacked. I mean,
there’s just no other way to get into Friendly’s.
MR. LAPPER-We just don’t have the ability to safely, because of the grade change, to add another access
there.
MR. RINGER-How many entrances are there to Friendly’s now?
MR. STROUGH-Two.
MR. LAPPER-Now there are two, and there’s going to be one, but, I mean, the building is so close to
Aviation and so close to the ring road that an emergency vehicle could just pull up, pull up on Aviation if they
had to.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I was just thinking that, and I might be wrong, that if that entryway were made wider,
it might make it safer, because I doubt, if an emergency vehicle were coming in, and there were cars stacked
in Friendly waiting to get out because there’s cars stacked in the entry road waiting to get out, an emergency
vehicle might be able to access that, but I’m just wondering if it’s a little too narrow for a big fire truck to get
in, if cars are stacked up all over the place, and if making it a little wider might make it a little safer, but it’s
just a thought. I don’t know how my other Planning Board members feel.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think you really have a gain, there, John, by doing that. Even if you widened it, I
mean, you still have the queuing problem, considering that, you know, your example of having a very busy
holiday shopping day. I mean, even if it was wider, you’ve still got a queuing problem.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you see my main problem, and I’m just trying to also come to some kind of
remedy, and I’m having difficulty finding the remedy. I see a potential problem with the arrangement here,
and I’m trying to get a remedy, and I don’t see an easy one either, but I’m not real comfortable with that.
MR. VOLLARO-What does history tell us? Have we had lots of problems with that intersection in terms of
that kind of thing in the past? I mean, I don’t know. I’m just asking.
MR. RINGER-We haven’t had any trouble getting in with the fire trucks or the ambulance, that I know of,
that I’ve been on any of the roads.
MR. ORLANDO-Yes, I’ve been here for almost five years, and we’ve had no incidents, to my understanding,
in that area, in that intersection at all.
MR. VOLLARO-History’s not a bad teacher, and rather than, you know, I’d defer back to John, but I think
that, historically, if we haven’t seen a lot of that kind of thing, the probabilities of it occurring frequently in
the future I think is slim.
MR. RINGER-It’s amazing how quickly people get out of the way when they see that big fire truck coming at
them. I mean, they find a way to get out of the way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. They find a way. They go up on the curb, stack on top of each other.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And the other thing that I have is, did you add the additional low ornamental plantings to
S-6?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I did. It’ll be in the final plans. It’s on the set that I brought.
MR. STROUGH-That’ll be on the revised plan. Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-If I may jump in, John, we’ve had very much success dressing up riprap slopes by
planting ivy at the base, and I think that with a Baltic Ivy or a Boston Ivy, we could get 10 to 15% coverage of
that wall in that end in a year or two. It really grows pretty aggressively. Also we could try some euonymus.
I think we could plant and dress that up to.
MR. STROUGH-Well, 10% in a few years isn’t a whole lot. How about a more aggressive planting schedule?
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. We could double it up so that we could get 20%. It takes some time to develop it.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Can you plant it in rows?
MR. PITTENGER-No, actually you plant it at the base and it grows, it works its way up.
MR. STROUGH-Can you plant it base and mid-way so you’ll get most of that covered up?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I can.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-No, you put, plant pockets in there. Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many plants are you talking, so we can come up with a number.
MR. PITTENGER-We’re talking 100.
MR. MAC EWAN-I heard him say 125.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s why I said 100, because I figured you’d.
MR. STROUGH-What kind of ivy?
MR. PITTENGER-Boston Ivy, Baltic Ivy. I want to make sure it’ll grow. It’s going to be a little dry there. I
want to make sure it’ll survive the sandy conditions and be aggressive and cling to the rock. So a euonymus
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
would lay up there, but it wouldn’t go the whole 20 feet. So I think a clinging type ivy like a Baltic or Virginia
Creeper.
MR. STROUGH-And how far would that extend from Aviation Road, those plantings?
MR. PITTENGER-I think with the plants that I’ve just been committed to, it would extend to the south, to
the bend. So it would extent.
MR. STROUGH-The whole first section?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Where the parking lot is.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-That sounds good.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right? All right. What we’ll do is take five minutes to let John, Bob, and Larry pen up
a resolution. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Mr. Strough, do you have a motion you’d like to introduce?
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 PYRAMID CO. OF
GLENS FALLS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 21-2001 Applicant: Pyramid Co. of Glens Falls
Property Owner: Same
Agent: Jonathan Lapper
MODIFICATION Zone: ESC
Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road
Applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan. The modification is to relocate Building E to the
west of the previously approved location and setback farther from Aviation Road. A larger portion of this
proposed store will be incorporated in the existing footprint of the mall so the net increase in department
store square footage is now 70,429 sq. ft. The existing “Friendly’s” restaurant at the western mall entrance
has been relocated across the west side of the entrance drive. Additional site modifications to accommodate
the relocated facilities are also incorporated.
Cross Reference: AV 22-1994, SB 2-1994, SP 1-91, SV 45-1990,
AV 21-1989, AV 1459, AV 25-1996, SV 63-1996, SP 38-96, SSE 1-
97, SP 14-98, P1-98, SP 14-98, SV 89-1998, SP 67-98
Warren Co. Planning: 5/8/02
Tax Map No. 98.-1-5.21, 5.23
Lot size: 40.81 ac., 3.14 ac.
Section: 179-27.1
Public Hearing: May 16, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 7/12/02:
7/16 Staff Notes
7/11 Sear Brown engineering comments
6/26 Revised Information received
6/17 B. Hafner, Town Counsel from J. Lapper: Pyramid site work
6/10 C. Brown & others from LA Group: transmittal of info
6/10 C. Brown from J. Collins Eng.: analysis of existing queue from west driveway
6/6 R. Pittenger, LA Group from C. Brown and C. Round: Incomplete submittal
6/5 LA Group response to Sear Brown letter of 5/20/02
5/20 C. Brown from F. Palumbo, Sear Brown: eng. comments
5/16 PB resolution - Tabled
5/16 Staff Notes
5/15 C. MacEwan from J. Brynes, K.Varney of Warren/Wash. Co. Healthy Heart prog.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
5/14 C. Brown, etc. from J. Collins, P.E.: traffic information
5/13 F. Palumbo from R. Pittenger, LA Group: response to 5/9 eng. letter (letter/map)
5/9 C. Brown from F. Palumbo, Sear Brown: eng. comments
5/9 Notice of Public Hearing (sent 5/8)
5/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approve w/condition
5/1 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 May 16, 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 with a couple of corrections:
1. The net square foot increase will be 79,729 not the 70,429 square feet as stated, and
2. Delete the line that the existing Friendly’s restaurant at the western Mall entrance has been relocated
across the western side of the entrance drive. That sentence will be deleted, and
3. We acknowledge that there is no change in the previous SEQRA findings on the 661,000 square foot
approval, and
4. In the prior site plan approval dated 9/4/01 delete Conditions 1 and 2, Condition No. 4 change 35
to 30. Replace No. 6 with applicant will work with and get signoff from Sear Brown for the western
entrance drive and the proposed ring road to improve the function of this intersection, and
5. A revision of Sheet S-6 will include additional low ornamental planting referred to in the June 26,
2002 letter from Russ Pittenger to Chairman MacEwan.
6. A minimum of 125 Boston or Baltic like ivy will be added to the riprap slope on the western side of
the parking area. It’ll be planted along the base, and in the pockets along the wall, and will extend
from Aviation Road the length of the parking lot, and
7. All conditions of previous approval applicable [except the changes indicated above in Items No. 3, 4
and 5), and
8. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s
signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 7/16/02 by the Planning Board of
the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. I hope it comes to fruition for you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2002 PRELIMINARY STG. FINAL STG. TYPE I GREEN MT. DEV.
GROUP, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. AGENT: STUART
MESINGER ZONE: PO & RR-3A LOCATION: ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF CHURCH
OF THE KING PROPERTY (685 BAY RD.) OPPOSITE ACC NORTH ENTRANCE
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 25.01 AC. PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF
5.536 AC., 3.724 AC. & 15.745 AC. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 36-2002, SP 25-2002 TAX MAP NO.
296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/60-7-3.4, 2.2 LOT SIZE: 25.01 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on May 23 was tabled, and on June 18 was left open.
rdth
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2002, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc.,
Meeting Date: July 16, 2002 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision to be
derived from a consolidated parcel. A sketch plan waiver has been requested. Review scheduled is for
preliminary plat, final subdivision, and site plan. A negative declaration SEQRA determination was made
June 18, 2002 by the Planning Board as Lead Agency. An area variance AV 02-36 for access by easement to
Lots 2 and 3 and relief from road frontage for Lot 2 was granted by the ZBA on June 19, 2002. Applicant
proposes a phased development for an independent living facility for persons over age 55, consisting of 117
one and two bedroom units. The project is known as the Cedar Senior Living Facility. Please refer also to
previous staff notes. These staff notes will address only major points for discussion. Study of plant and
site plan: Streets and roads: Access off set with Adirondack Community College (ACC) north drive needs to
be addressed, as well as limited sight distance. The Warren County DPW has accepted sign specifications
(see letter dated June 25, 2002 to Chazen from Warren County DPW) for a cautionary sign. Suggested
monitoring is an additional cautionary measure. The Planning Board should ask about details regarding
monitoring activities. At what point will a different type of traffic control be necessary? The applicant has
indicated a turn off to the south of the entrance for a bus stop. Will it be necessary to remove trees fronting
the property (in addition to those to be removed for the access) to assist with the development of this turn
off? Grading, Erosion Control, and Drainage: See C.T. Male comments of June 25, 2002 and July 11, 2002.
Wastewater Management: Please refer to the attached letter from NYS DEC. Comments indicate additional
design information required and conditions in issuing a SPDES permit. Criteria for considering a Site
Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: The Planning Board
should go through each of the items indicated in the criteria as part of the formal review. Staff comments:
Please note that the following items need to be added in the form of a Resolution if used by the
Planning Board: 1. A sketch plan waiver should be granted based on the degree of scrutiny by the Planning
Board of the project to date. 2. Provisional parking for seventy (70) spaces as per the Layout Plan should be
granted based on the ability of the applicant to provide those spaces should they be needed in the future. 3.
A waiver for design guidelines should be granted based on the limited visibility of the project from Bay Road
due to set back and the expected appearance of the buildings. 4. The Planning Board may wish to consider
having the Town consulting engineers inspect the installation of the septic system as a condition. 5. The
Planning Board may want to approve this project with the condition that SPDES permit conditions be part of
the Town permit with a note to go on the final plat. This means that only Phase I could be constructed at
this time. Phase II building permit would be contingent on evidence of SPDES permit compliance as
indicated.”
MRS. RYBA-Staff notes combined the Site Plan and the Subdivision review. In addition to the preliminary
and final subdivision review this evening, you have site plan review. Jim Houston’s here from C.T. Male to
address items for discussion, and we did receive, tonight, a signoff letter from C.T. Male with some additional
considerations, and I believe in your Staff notes packets you received a letter from C.T. Male as well as from
the Department of Environmental Conservation, Randy Galusha, who is the environmental engineer. With
that said, a little bit of background, you did make a negative declaration for SEQRA determination on June
18, and an Area Variance has been granted for access by easement to Lots 2 and 3, and relief from road
th
frontage for Lot 2 that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 19, 2002.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-That is it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. For the record, I’m Michael O’Connor, here for the applicant. With me is
the principal of the applicant, Charlie Brush. Also, Stuart Mesinger and his firm is represented with the
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
engineering, Joseph. We think we’ve exchanged a lot of information since we last met. We’re happy that we
have a signoff letter from C.T. Male. We have no problem with the signoff letter or the suggestion by C.T.
Male that you do your final site plan approval for Phases I and II, but the issuance of the building permit for
Phase II be contingent upon submittal and review of revised plans showing larger onsite disposal fields or
connection to municipal sewers if that is still the opinion of DEC as we progress with the project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, do you have any comments regarding the subdivision?
MR. HOUSTON-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, I’ll start with you, regarding subdivision.
MR. RINGER-Subdivision, nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-No comment in regard to the subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John? Subdivision only.
MR. STROUGH-Subdivision only?
MR. MAC EWAN-Subdivision only.
MR. STROUGH-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess we have to waive the sketch plan on subdivision?
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And, just to make sure, I guess AV 36-2002 approved the lot without frontage on a public
street. What I didn’t understand in that Area Variance is what did they mean that legal measures? What legal
measures were they referring to in that Area Variance? Does anybody remember that?
MR. O'CONNOR-As part of our presentation to them, and as part of our plan going forward, we will have
mutual easements to benefit all three lots to guarantee that they will have right of access across the drive
that’s established.
MR. STROUGH-How about, who maintains that driveway? Is that also made clear?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s established in the agreement.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s the definition of the legal measures. Okay. I’ve got that. I didn’t understand
what that meant. I see what it means now. That’s it, Mr. Chairman, for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comments? Anything the applicant wants to add?
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2002 GREEN MT.
DEV. GROUP, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry
Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 8-2002 Applicant: Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc.
PRELIMINARY STG. Property Owner: Woodbury Dev. Group, Inc.
FINAL STG. Agent: Stuart Mesinger, Michael J. O’Connor
Type I Zone: PO & RR-3A
Location: Adjacent to and south of Church of the King property
(685 Bay Rd.,) opposite ACC north entrance
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 25.01 ac. parcel into three lots of 5.536 ac., 3.724 ac. & 15.745 ac.
Cross Reference: AV 36-2002, SP 25-2002
Tax Map No. 296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/ 60-7-3.4, 2.2
Lot size: 25.01 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002 (Tabled)
June 18, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/24/02:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 7/12/02; and
7/11 CT Male engineering comments w/attachment from DEC
6/27 Staff Notes
6/21 FOIL, K. Mattson
6/20 Notice of Public Hearing
6/18 Res. SP 25-2002, Acknowledging Lead Agency status
6/18 Res. SP 25-2002, Adopting determination of non-significance
6/18 Staff Notes: include the following: notes for SB and SP; 6/14 CT Male comments; 5/29 C.
Brush; 6/7 Fax from Chazen regarding site distance; 6/7 Fax from Chazen [Warren Co.
DPW regarding water main plans]; 5/30 comments from S. Smith; 5/29 memo from CB to
MR; 5/28 memo from MR to CB; and 5/28 letter from D. Hatin to MR
6/5 Meeting Notice
5/29 Revised Info
5/29 MR from Chazen
5/28 M. Ryba from D.Hatin regarding floodplain
5/23 Resolution seeking Lead Agency status
5/23 Staff Notes
5/22 Fax of Staff notes
5/21 Letter of Transmittal from MR to DH
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/15 Memo from MR to CB
5/15 ZBA resolution
5/8 Warren Co. Planning
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183--9J and A183-10C, D of the
Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002, June 20,
2002, June 27, 2002 and July 16, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the
resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver request(s) granted.
Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-Staff does have some conditions. The waiver request is one. All necessary outside agency
approvals have been received by the applicant. What would they be, Marilyn? I had a question in my own
mind as to what those outside agency approvals were. A lot of them tie into the site plan, I know.
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-But not into the subdivision. I didn’t know what other agency approvals would be
applicable to us for that.
MRS. RYBA-Department of Health, DEC.
MR. RINGER-How would they be applicable to a subdivision?
MRS. RYBA-Typically, we do ask for, in the Subdivision Regulations, we are looking at utilities, and so the
system is, even though it’s on site, is a utility for wastewater disposal and water supply. So that’s how it
would tie in.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think Department of Health has jurisdiction over a three lot subdivision.
MRS. RYBA-This is correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not being argumentative, but in this particular instance, I don’t know of any outside
agency.
MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t think of any either, and that’s why I’ve asked the question.
MR. O'CONNOR-Unless you consider the Zoning Board the outside agency.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes. The Health Department wouldn’t be involved unless there was five or more lots of
five acres or less, and this is only a three lot subdivision, and it wouldn’t, by that definition, require DOH
approval.
MR. O'CONNOR-The DEC does not have jurisdiction for subdivisions.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, because at the subdivision level you couldn’t tell whether you were going to put
homes on there or something that would be of a much smaller scale than that, and it’s not until site plan that
you’re going to address those issues.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, with the concurrence of the Board, I’d like to take the resolution prepared by Staff
and the conditions attached thereto and delete Number Two, that all necessary outside agency approvals have
been received by the applicant with a copy sent to and received by the Planning Staff within 180 days.
MR. STROUGH-If there’s nothing necessary, then that’s a moot point.
MR. VOLLARO-But I didn’t want it to cloud the resolution, John, that’s what I’m saying. I’d just as soon
get rid of it if it’s not applicable.
MR. RINGER-I agree with Bob.
MR. MAC EWAN-Second it, then.
MR. RINGER-I’ll second the motion.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, for Final.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2002 GREEN MT. DEV.
GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 8-2002 Applicant: Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc.
PRELIMINARY STG. Property Owner: Woodbury Dev. Group, Inc.
FINAL STG. Agent: Stuart Mesinger, Michael J. O’Connor
Type I Zone: PO & RR-3A
Location: Adjacent to and south of Church of the King property
(685 Bay Rd.,) opposite ACC north entrance
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 25.01 ac. parcel into three lots of 5.536 ac., 3.724 ac. & 15.745 ac.
Cross Reference: AV 36-2002, SP 25-2002
Tax Map No. 296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/ 60-7-3.4, 2.2
Lot size: 25.01 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002 (Tabled)
June 18, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received 4/24/02:
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 7/12/02; and
7/11 CT Male engineering comments w/attachment from DEC
6/27 Staff Notes
6/21 FOIL, K. Mattson
6/20 Notice of Public Hearing
6/18 Res. SP 25-2002, Acknowledging Lead Agency status
6/18 Res. SP 25-2002, Adopting determination of non-significance
6/18 Staff Notes: include the following: notes for SB and SP; 6/14 CT Male comments; 5/29 C.
Brush; 6/7 Fax from Chazen regarding site distance; 6/7 Fax from Chazen [Warren Co.
DPW regarding water main plans]; 5/30 comments from S. Smith; 5/29 memo from CB to
MR; 5/28 memo from MR to CB; and 5/28 letter from D. Hatin to MR
6/5 Meeting Notice
5/29 Revised Info
5/29 MR from Chazen
5/28 M. Ryba from D.Hatin regarding floodplain
5/23 Resolution seeking Lead Agency status
5/23 Staff Notes
5/22 Fax of Staff notes
5/21 Letter of Transmittal from MR to DH
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/15 Memo from MR to CB
5/15 ZBA resolution
5/8 Warren Co. Planning
5/1 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code
of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 23, 2002, June 20, 2002,
June 27, 2002 and 7/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution as
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and
received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff
of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2002 TYPE I GREEN MT. DEV. GROUP, INC. PROPERTY OWNER:
WOODBURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. AGENT: STUART MESINGER ZONE: P O,
RR-3A LOCATION: ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF CHURCH OF THE KING
PROPERTY (685 BAY RD.) OPPOSITE ACC NORTH ENTRANCE APPLICANT PROPOSES
A PHASED DEVELOPMENT FOR INDEPENDENT APARTMENTS FOR SENIOR ADULTS
(AGE 55 AND OVER) WITH SOME ASSOCIATED COMMON FACILITIES. PHASE ONE
CONSISTS OF A BUILDING HOUSING 44 ONE BEDROOM AND 18 TWO BEDROOM
APARTMENTS. PHASE TWO CONSISTS OF A BUILDING HOUSING 37 ONE BEDROOM
AND 15 TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS. TOTAL BUILDING AREA IS 55,140 SF.
APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II. MULTI-FAMILY USES IN
PO ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SB 8-2002, AV 36-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/8/02 TAX MAP NO.
296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/60-7-3.4, 2.2 LOT SIZE: 25.01 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing is still left open.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 25-2002, Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc., Meeting Date: July 16, 2002 “Project
Description: The applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision to be derived from a consolidated parcel. A sketch
plan waiver has been requested. Review scheduled is for preliminary plat, final subdivision, and site plan. A
negative declaration SEQRA determination was made June 18, 2002 by the Planning Board as Lead Agency.
An area variance AV 02-36 for access by easement to Lots 2 and 3 and relief from road frontage for Lot 2
was granted by the ZBA on June 19, 2002. Applicant proposes a phased development for an independent
living facility for persons over age 55, consisting of 117 one and two bedroom units. The project is known as
the Cedar Senior Living Facility. Please refer also to previous staff notes. These staff notes will address only
major points for discussion. Study of plant and site plan: Streets and roads: Access off set with Adirondack
Community College (ACC) north drive needs to be addressed, as well as limited sight distance. The Warren
County DPW has accepted sign specifications (see letter dated June 25, 2002 to Chazen from Warren County
DPW) for a cautionary sign. Suggested monitoring is an additional cautionary measure. The Planning Board
should ask about details regarding monitoring activities. At what point will a different type of traffic control
be necessary? The applicant has indicated a turn off to the south of the entrance for a bus stop. Will it be
necessary to remove trees fronting the property (in addition to those to be removed for the access) to assist
with the development of this turn off? Grading, Erosion Control, and Drainage: See C.T. Male comments of
June 25, 2002 and July 11, 2002. Wastewater Management: Please refer to the attached letter from NYS DEC.
Comments indicate additional design information required and conditions in issuing a SPDES permit.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-38 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance: The Planning Board should go through each of the items indicated in the criteria as part of the
formal review. Staff comments: Please note that the following items need to be added in the form of
a Resolution if used by the Planning Board: 1. A sketch plan waiver should be granted based on the
degree of scrutiny by the Planning Board of the project to date. 2. Provisional parking for seventy (70)
spaces as per the Layout Plan should be granted based on the ability of the applicant to provide those spaces
should they be needed in the future. 3. A waiver for design guidelines should be granted based on the
limited visibility of the project from Bay Road due to set back and the expected appearance of the buildings.
4. The Planning Board may wish to consider having the Town consulting engineers inspect the installation
of the septic system as a condition. 5. The Planning Board may want to approve this project with the
condition that SPDES permit conditions be part of the Town permit with a note to go on the final plat. This
means that only Phase I could be constructed at this time. Phase II building permit would be contingent on
evidence of SPDES permit compliance as indicated.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MRS. RYBA-There were a couple of additional questions that I suggested the Planning Board might want to
ask. One is in terms of the cautionary sign that is going to be put onto Bay Road. There was a letter there
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
from the DPW, that’s the Warren County DPW, which suggests monitoring as an additional measure, and the
question is, at what point will a different type of control be necessary? What are the monitoring activities that
the applicant and/or DPW are proposing. The other is in terms of the turnoff to the south of the entrance
for a bus stop. In looking at the site plan, I was just wondering if the applicant would be removing additional
trees. I didn’t really see that in the landscaping plan, and that’s a question to ask. So those are two, I think,
questions. In terms of comments, the applicant has asked for a waiver from design guidelines, which should
be granted due to the limited visibility of the project from Bay Road because of the setback and also the
expected appearance of the building, which substantially complies. I don’t know if substantially is the right
word, but it does go along with those design guidelines to some degree. Also, the applicant has requested
provisional parking for 70 spaces. That’s per the layout plans, and has demonstrated ability to provide those
spaces in the future, should they be needed, and then the other two comments were items that have been
discussed, either through letter or in the past. One is having the Town consulting engineers inspect
installation of septic system as a condition, and the other approving the project with the condition that the
SPDES permit conditions be part of the permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, your comments?
MR. HOUSTON-I had received some plans, the revised plans, after meeting with Joel of Chazen, and wrote
a letter on July 11, in response to the information that I received, and it had some issues on the grading and
th
erosion control plan, and basically what I felt was there, which they subsequently have corrected, and also
there was some inconsistencies between the grading on the plans and what the stormwater report was
showing, and again, they have made a resubmission, based on my comment, and have addressed that, and so I
indicated in my most recent letter of July 15, that those technical issues raised in our previous letter were
th
satisfactorily addressed, and I have some comments in there regarding the letter that was received from DEC
regarding their review of the wastewater disposal system, and some pertinent issues that I feel are relevant to
the site plan regarding that comment letter. The first item was there’s basically a typographical note in their
comment and response to DEC. It’s critical from DEC’s standpoint whether there’s over or less than 10,000
gallons per day, and the way the letter was written, it indicated that the first phase was in excess of 10,000
gallons per day, which throws it into a different classification of review or requires this additional treatment,
and so with that thing being corrected, that addresses that one item, and it was agreed that it was a
typographical error. The rest of it was regarding the size, my most critical issue is the size of the wastewater
disposal system, with the DEC’s criteria of basically full occupancy or full flow rate per unit, and that’s going
to be directly related to the size of the disposal beds that are required, and as the size of the beds require,
they’re going to occupy definitely more and more space, and we’re limited by property lines and by wetlands
and site limitations that are critical to whether the site can handle that much space for the expanded beds, and
that’s, hence, my second comment in there about whether the site can accommodate Phase I and II. That has
not been demonstrated or provided to me for review, and then I just left a possible approach that the
Planning Board could take, based on the information that I’ve received so far, and it’s basically, okay I believe
there’s sufficient space, even with the additional loading rates that DEC has requested for the Phase I, but
I’m very skeptical about the Phase II, and there is the option of pursuing offsite municipal wastewater
disposal as a very viable option, if push comes to shove.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. The floor is yours.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think I probably addressed them earlier when we were talking about subdivision. It’s my
understanding that the typographical error will be revised. We have no problem with the suggested condition
of approval as I indicated that we would ask for final site plan approval for Phases I and II, with the
condition that before the issuance of building permit for Phase II, we submit and have reviewed revised plans
showing larger onsite disposal fields or connection to a municipal system. As to the other comments, the
monitoring, who wants to address that?
JOEL BIANCHI
MR. BIANCHI-Yes. I reviewed all the comment letters from Warren County DPW and found nothing that
indicated.
MR. MESINGER-Yes. Their last letter was sort of vague. I guess they said what kind of monitoring will
there be. We hadn’t proposed that there be any specific monitoring. I think the way that you monitor any
intersection is you see if there’s an accident history, and it may be that they’re simply saying to us, let’s see if it
works. If there’s an accident history, you have to do something about it, but we wouldn’t propose to do
anything in particular. You’re aware of it. We’re aware of it, and they’re aware of it, and I’m not sure what
else we need to do, other than be aware of it. The other comment related to clearing of trees around the bus
stop, and that is a question for you.
MR. BIANCHI-There might be some clearing associated with the grading for extension of the shoulder.
Most likely that would occur, but there would be no tree clearing say down the right of way to improve sight
distance. That’s not required. That isn’t anticipated to be needed, just some grading of the bank that’s
relatively steep in that area. That’s about the extent of shrub or tree removal in that area.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. O'CONNOR-We do affirm the request for the two waivers, and we have no objection to a condition
that the Town engineer inspect the installation of the septic systems, or that the SPDES permit conditions be
included as a condition to your approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m going to hold off for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No. I think I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-A couple of things. Now, I meant to get back to the minutes but I didn’t. Maybe you can
help me out here. Remember I talked about the sidewalk running along the north, it crosses the road, runs
along the north, then comes back to where the bus stop is. Did that have something to do with the retaining
wall? Because the retaining wall has been moved.
MR. BIANCHI-Yes, it did. The purpose was is we put the sidewalk along the entrance road to the south
side, or to the north side, excuse me, and the reason we didn’t put it on the south side is there’s a retaining
wall there. You’re correct, the retaining wall was moved, but the only purpose of that was during discussions
with C.T. Male there was concerns with possibly grading on the adjacent property in order to facilitate
construction of that wall, and he moved it closer to the road but still not impeding or hindering any
construction in that area, but it was strictly for the purpose of not having to grade on an adjacent property.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the reason I bring it up is it just seems to make more sense to have that sidewalk on
the south side without crossing that road twice to get to the bus stop. Can we put that sidewalk on the south
side now, or is that still?
MR. BIANCHI-It would be, as a site engineer I would be strongly not in favor of doing that, just because
there might be inherent hazards to having a sidewalk so close to a retaining wall that goes anywhere between
four feet to six feet high.
MR. STROUGH-How close would it be?
MR. BIANCHI-How close? You’re talking two feet, two, three feet, if it was placed there, with the proper
separation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that versus someone, a pedestrian having to cross the road twice to get to the bus
stop. I mean, weighing the factors, it just seems to make more sense to have the sidewalk, if we can put it on
the south side, on the south side. I mean, the more times you guys come to me, the more questions I’m
going to have.
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re not talking a great deal of traffic on this site.
MR. STROUGH-I know that, but, still, one car is enough.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you just talked about people walking down the main entrance to the Mall from their
car to go to the stores. We’re going to have less frequent traffic than you had in that case. I mean, we’ve
done what we think is a reasonable thing. From a safety point of view, we think that having an elevated walk
next to the drive on the south side with a short separation is probably potentially more problematic than
having them cross the walk twice, or cross the road twice.
MR. MAC EWAN-We discussed this retaining wall here a couple of meetings ago.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the retaining wall has changed, you see.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s that big of an issue, really.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just thought it just makes a whole lot more sense to put the sidewalk on the south
side of the road and people don’t have to cross the road twice to get to the bus stop.
MR. BIANCHI-Can I add to that as well?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. BIANCHI-We had also provided improved drainage along the roadway, which had graded swales.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I saw that.
MR. BIANCHI-Now the fact that we’ve moved the retaining wall probably three or four feet closer to the
road, we would not be able to facilitate both improved drainage and a swale and a sidewalk at that location.
There’s more room to the north side to do both those.
MR. STROUGH-I gave it a shot. All right. Thank you. Maintenance agreement. All right. Now the
garden, you have mixed perennials in the garden. I mean, when something’s on the plan and it says mixed
perennials, it’s got to be a mixed perennials. Do we want to do that in the garden area?
MR. BRUSH-Which garden area are you referring to?
MR. STROUGH-Around the gazebo.
MR. BRUSH-Yes, I would think so.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I mean, it’s going to be a garden area for the seniors to use, right? I mean, if I’m a
senior there, and I may be, and I want to grow tomatoes, I can grow tomatoes. Right?
MR. BRUSH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no, when you say mixed perennials, I think of flowers like hemerocallis.
MR. STROUGH-I just thought we should identify it as garden area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Cone flowers.
MR. STROUGH-Just eliminate the mixed perennials.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is it flowers or vegetables?
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I don’t want to hold you to something I don’t want to hold you to.
MR. BIANCHI-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and Building Number Two, if I’m located in Building Number Two, where is my
garden going to be? I’ve got to walk all the way up to Building One to plant my tomatoes?
MR. BIANCHI-Even though it’s not shown on the plans, I believe there’s significant space in the island, per
se, between the parking spaces and the road to provide a garden there. It’s not as elaborate as the Building
One, with the gazebo, just because (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-But you would offer a garden area?
MR. BIANCHI-Possibly put a garden area in that somewhat of an island area.
MR. STROUGH-I’ll take a look. Okay.
MR. BRUSH-No problem. We like gardens.
MR. STROUGH-The bus pull off, did you get permission from Warren County Highway Department yet?
MR. BIANCHI-Yes, and the Town Staff has been copied on their review and approval.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I want to thank you for changing the stormwater runoff on the road to
something a lot more environmentally sensible, for two reasons. One, it’ll help reduce the pollutants reaching
the stream, and, two is, as Stu knows, it’ll reduce the amount of flash flow shock to the stream, and the
cumulative impact of that as every development comes up, and thank you for doing that. Okay, and you
made all the corrections on the plans that we asked you to do, and thank you for doing that, and I guess that’s
my list, and thank you, gentlemen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-We were asked to look at the offset with the ACC north drive. I guess we kind of put that
to bed. What I was concerned about a little bit was the DPW regulated sign being advisory rather than
regulatory. Just what does that mean anyway?
MR. BIANCHI-We had talked with DPW, and concurrently C.T. Male, independently, but at the same time.
We had originally said that they were going to be regulatory signs. However, when discussed with DPW, they
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
felt we could do regulatory signs, but because of the legislation I believe they had to pass, they would prefer
to have advisory signs. The difference between those two would be colors. Regulatory signs are white and
black, and advisory are yellow and black. Regulatory signs are enforceable by law. Whereas, advisory are just
go at your own risk.
MR. VOLLARO-So what does that really do to us with this offset that we’ve got in terms of turning
movements and stuff like that? I’m just trying to get a feel for what it does to the traffic.
MR. O'CONNOR-It should be as effective. You, technically, know the difference between the two color
signs.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do.
MR. O'CONNOR-Most of the traffic people don’t. Also it gives the police agency a basis for saying that
somebody was doing something unreasonable, even though it’s not necessarily against a posted limit. They
enforce it the same as if they enforce the regulatory. I don’t necessarily agree with Joel saying that it’s not
official. You’re getting a speeding ticket for 1180D, which is the posted speed, or 1180E, which is
unreasonable speed, regardless of what the posting is, and I may have my subsections mixed up, but there are
two different subsections that you get into with speeding tickets. The same thing applies to all the traffic
signs.
MR. STROUGH-Well, while we’re on the topic, what if the accident history in front of the area, and I agree
with you, it’s unlikely, but what if shows that it’s significant?
MR. O'CONNOR-Then the County would change the sign or change the circumstance.
MR. STROUGH-And who would be financial responsible for that?
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe typically the County, as any other highway.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Perfect case in point is they put up the traffic control at the southern end of the College
entrance, because of numerous accidents there. So they put a control device in there. I don’t believe the
College paid for it. I think the County did it.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean the light down at their entrance?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right, the light at the College entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-On the wastewater, this gets to drawing SP-4, I won’t open it up, but taking a piece out of
Mr. Houston’s letter, you have to adjust those spot grades on the lower wastewater disposal field, and you’re
all set with that?
MR. BIANCHI-Yes, we forwarded those on to Mr. Houston to review, and he concurred with what we had
shown.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set with that?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes. There were some spot elevations that didn’t jive with the contours, you know, but in
the resubmittal they faxed to me excerpts from the plans, and it shows that that’s been corrected.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Page Two of your letter, Jim, of 6/25, talking about the relocating of the upper
primary disposal field for Phase II, how does that, what’s been done to satisfy your requirement there of
relocating the upper primary disposal field? You talked about that in your letter, your letter of 6/25.
MR. HOUSTON-There’s been no change to the proposed plans. Well, I guess the biggest change right now
is that, in looking at just Phase I for that whole area, so that’s going to put a whole different light on that
whole design of the system.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of the things I said here. I said if and when it gets approved, I mean, you’re
talking about the disposal field for Phase II, we’re really looking at Phase I right now, based on Mr. Galusha’s
recommendation, from DEC. We’re really looking at a Phase I only approval. Is that correct, or am I wrong
there?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think we’re looking at approval, from Site Plan Review, of Phase I and II with the
condition that before a building permit is issued for Phase II, we get specific approval of the septic for that,
or if we can show that we hook up to a municipal system.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. RINGER-I’ve got a condition written up on that, if you’d like me to read that, Bob, now, I’ll tell you
what I’ve written down, and see if you agree with it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Let’s hear that.
MR. RINGER-The site plan approval is for Phase I and II, however before building permit is issued for
Phase II, an additional review by the Planning Board and Town engineer showing plans for a larger onsite
disposal field or connection to a municipal sewer.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’ve woven into that the fact that when Phase II gets, it’s got to come before this
Board.
MR. RINGER-Before this Board and a review with the Town engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s necessary that it comes back before the Board. We’re approving Phase I
and Phase II now. What’s contingent upon Phase II going forward, before they get their building permit, is
to prove the viability of the existing septic system they have up there or they tie in to municipal sewer. Any
way you look at it, the overwhelming authority on this is going to be DEC. They don’t get their blessing, they
don’t go anyplace. So it’s not even necessary to come back here.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason that I said that is that in the Galusha letter, DEC letter, they talk about final
SPDES, right. When I looked at that I said to myself, is what he’s getting now an interim SPDES report, and
maybe Jim can answer that. I don’t know.
MR. BIANCHI-What DEC would issue is essentially a SPDES permit pretty much summarizing what his
comment four says, saying they would issue a SPDES permit for building one, and then the conditions of that
permit would stated saying if you proceed with building two, with onsite septic system, you have to provide
treatment for phosphorus, or, if you proceed with building two, you have to tie into public sewers. The
permit will have those conditions right into it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s what he’s referring to in Number Four as final SPDES permit?
MR. HOUSTON-Well that final and draft, I think all SPDES permit are issued, first a draft is issued and I
think it’s up for public comment.
MR. MESINGER-Thirty day public comment period, and then it becomes a final.
MR. HOUSTON-Before it becomes a final permit. So that’s the distinction between the draft and the final.
MR. MESINGER-And so just to reinforce Craig’s comment, there wouldn’t seem to us to be reason to come
back in front of you for an approval on the building two septic system because it’s already covered by the
DEC. We would have no objection to your engineer reviewing that and concurring with it, but I’m not sure
why we would need to come back here for something that’s covered by their permit, and which they’ve made
clear is already going to be a permit condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a motion, a comment for the motion, myself. The DEC issuance of a
SPDES permit for Phase I is required for final site plan approval. This condition shall be placed in the final
plat. In addition, C.T. Male shall inspect the installation of the lower Phase I disposal bed. Does that sound
correct?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes. The only thing that is trouble in my mind is the last statement there about the lower
bed. That’s in accordance with the design as it stands now. As they readjust their numbers or whatever, that
may not be a lower bed, and it may be a series of beds across the whole field, and that whole configuration
may change as a result of this redesign, but what I’m trying to say in my letter is that I believe there’s adequate
space in there to support the Phase I development. The actual configuration of that and the determination of
an upper and a lower may change as a result of this reconfiguration and redesign.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Vollaro, would you accept the suggestion, as to your condition, not that the Board’s
approval not be final until we have the SPDES permit, that we not be issued a building permit until we have
in possession the SPDES permit. There’s a whole series of events that take place after we leave here. We’d
like to start some of those time clocks running. We can’t start those time clocks until we can tell the world
that we’ve got final approval. There’s another set of time clocks that will come into play as to the building
permit, but we’ve got a lot of work that we can do between your approval and the building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-That sounds doable.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problem with that. Conditioning the building permit sometimes is a good
idea.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. O'CONNOR-In fact, I think that’s your regulation anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob?
MR. O'CONNOR-We can’t get a building permit until we have a SPDES permit. I don’t think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, do you have anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking here. Some of this stuff I have I don’t need to talk about. It’s been talked
about already. I guess the one thing I have, I looked at the wastewater management report that we’ve got,
and it’s the original one, I guess, that was, revised April 23, but a lot of what was being talked about in here
rd
is not covered in the wastewater management report, and I thought that that should be brought up to present
time, with all of the stuff that we’ve been talking about
MR. HOUSTON-Have you got specific items on your list that you want to talk about?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just had, wastewater management report should be revised per DEC’s letter of July
11, 2002.
MR. MESINGER-But what happens, Bob, is that the revision is essentially now the give and take between us
and DEC. We’ll be ending up, we’ll be submitting additional material and revised plans. I’m not sure that
they are going to, that this report’s really for them. I don’t think that they, necessarily, are going to say to us
now go back and take your April 23 and go through the exercise of revising. We’re not going to do that.
rd
MR. BIANCHI-No, actually, I’ve spoken with Mr. Galusha, and he’s not requiring us to formally revise the
entire report, just basically address his comments with technical and/or verbal comments substantiating our
answers to his comments.
MR. VOLLARO-Now will we see those here? I have a little disconnect here with trying to get to a position
where I can have a good conscience and a vote, trying to put all these things together, and there’s a lot of
thing that I probably am not going to get to see, not that it makes any difference that it’s me, but I’m talking
about the Planning Board itself.
MR. MAC EWAN-As far as what?
MR. VOLLARO-As far as this interchange that he’s talking about. He’s talking about having an interchange
with DEC, and it’s not in the final, in other words, this doesn’t really reflect a wastewater management report
that’s up to date. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Given that, I think the two overwhelming ties we have to coming up with any kind of
resolution is Jim’s letter signing off and telling us what we need to do to sign off on this thing and make him
satisfied, and the fact that you’ve got the DEC SPDES permit. That’s going to override anything.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think that’s the catalyst that’s moving this whole thing right now. I mean, as far as
everything we’re dealing with as far as site plan issues, I think we’ve pretty much got the bases covered, I
think, as a Board, we’re fairly well satisfied with everything we’ve required the applicant to do, but the
outstanding issue we’ve got here is this SPDES permit, which isn’t under the realm of our review anyway. I
mean, if it’s not going to be adequately addressed to DEC’s satisfaction, they aren’t going to move forward at
all.
MR. MESINGER-And I think remember DEC has said they’re prepared to issue us the permit. We have
some technical things to take care of with them and we get our permit. There’s no outstanding substantive
issues with DEC.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the last comment I had, I agree with the Chairman. I understand where he’s
going with this, and it makes sense to me. I have no problem with it. The last question is, what is the status
of the joint permit application to Army Corps and to DEC, which was dated April 29, 2002?
MR. MESINGER-We anticipate issuance on August 12.
th
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s in the pipeline?
MR. MESINGER-Yes. It’s going through. It’s a mandatory 45 day comment period. That’ll be up in a
couple of weeks, and they’ve given us a tentative date of August 12 for issuance.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is this something also until you get that joint permit, you can’t go forward, much
like the SPDES permit? Is that what we’re talking about here?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. MESINGER-No, because it really relates simply to the stream crossing aspect. It’s a very specific and
limited thing, as to what that involves. I mean we could, in theory, build everything, but I don’t know why
we would do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Mr. Chairman, that’s it for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve read over all the comments from the engineers on both sides and everything that
you’ve done regarding what we had asked. I think all the stones have been overturned.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? Tom, last shot?
MR. SEGULJIC-My only concern was the wastewater, and that’ll be addressed by the DEC. So I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? Applicants? I’ll open up
the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Inkling for a motion here?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have two conditions, one about no tree clearing in the right of way. Did you have
that one, Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, I only had two also.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then the other one was the issuance of a building permit for Phase II be
contingent upon submittal and review of those revised plans for the disposal.
MR. RINGER-The two I had, Cathy, was the Condition One I had was that C.T. Male is to inspect and
approve the installation of the septic system from Phase I, and then the second one I had was the approval of
Phase II was contingent upon our additional review, and I had by the Planning Board and the Town engineer,
showing the plans for a larger onsite disposal field or connection to municipal.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. We can’t say approval of Phase II. We’re going to approve Phase I and II
tonight.
MR. RINGER-Yes, well, actually it reads.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Issuing of the building permit.
MR. RINGER-The way I had it written down is this site plan approval is for Phase I & II. However, before
a building permit is issued for Phase II, an additional review by the Planning Board and Town engineer, but
obviously there’s concern that maybe we don’t need to review it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, we don’t.
MR. RINGER-I’m not, personally, convinced of that, but that can be taken out and say additional review by
the Town engineer showing plans for a larger onsite disposal field and connection could be put in there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And Marilyn had some, an issue, or she just had a request about any unnecessary tree
clearing on the right of way? Right, wasn’t that from the very beginning, Marilyn? You were concerned
about any unnecessary tree clearing?
MRS. RYBA-Well, I just wanted clarification because it didn’t really indicate on the plans what would be
removed or what would remain.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should that be a condition?
MR. RINGER-You’d have to be specific as to what.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was along the right of way that they said they were just going to do grading there.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments regarding a possible motion here?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Bob, did you have something?
MR. VOLLARO-We want to get in the idea that the SPDES permit would be required in order to get the
building permit started. In other words, that’s what you’d like to have is the coincidence between the two.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that’s the order it’s got to go anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Do you need to put that in if it exists already? I mean, I would think that the Town would
not issue, as Mr. O’Connor pointed out, a building permit unless they had the SPDES permit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that was Mr. O’Connor’s recommendation that we do that, to tie the building
permit to the SPDES permit.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was my recommendation to change your condition for that. I also would say that
already exists without having it as a specific condition.
MR. VOLLARO-I see.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, your comments on that?
MS. RADNER-I think Mr. O’Connor’s concern is that you not say that you’re conditioning the issuance of
your final permit on the, not the building permit but on your approval, rather, on the SPDES permit. I think
having the SPDES permit as a condition for the building permit is a good idea, because if nothing else, it just
alerts people and reminds them that this is an issue and to look at it.
MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t have an objection to that. I think it’s already a law.
MR. STROUGH-About the garden area for Building Two, I wouldn’t want to see that area between the
parking lot and the road disturbed. I mean, it’s nice that it’s vegetated now. I mean, if I’m going to be in
Building Two and I want a garden center, I’ll just raise hell. I’ll get it. Otherwise, I’m not going to, but I do
have one condition that I would like to add it on, that is, of course, important to me, that, and Mr. O’Connor
already agreed to this, the stone wall along the west property line of Lot Three will not be disturbed. Those
are your words because I took them from the minutes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It was not an issue when you brought it up. I just reminded Mr. Brush about it.
That’s all.
MR. BRUSH-Do not disturb, does that mean we can’t go in and make it better?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know what Marilyn Vandyke would say about that. I’d rather not have it disturbed.
MR. BRUSH-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-You can’t dress it up?
MR. MAC EWAN-I think because there’s a potential for historical significance in the Town, I think things of
that nature they want them left the way they are, not necessarily maybe restored. I really don’t know where
she stands on that.
MR. STROUGH-You can always come back and say we’d like to dress it up. Okay, right now we’ll leave it,
should you want to dress it up, then I’ll go with Marilyn Vandyke and we’ll see how it can be dressed up
without ruining the historical significance. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Has somebody got this all ready to roll?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, as long as whoever is doing this has got that condition about the stone wall.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got it down. Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2002 GREEN MT. DEV. GROUP, INC., Introduced
by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 25-2002 Applicant: Green Mt. Dev. Group, Inc.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
Type I Property Owner: Woodbury Development Group, Inc.
Agent: Stuart Mesinger, Michael J. O’Connor
Zone: PO, RR-3A
Location: Adjacent to and south of Church of the King property
(685 Bay Rd.,) opposite ACC north entrance
Applicant proposes a phased development for independent apartments for senior adults (age 55 and over)
with some associated common facilities. Phase One consists of a building housing 44 one bedroom and 18
two bedroom apartments. Phase Two consists of a building housing 37 one bedroom and 15 two bedroom
apartments. Total building area is 55,140 sf. Applicant seeks approval for Phase I and Phase II. Multi-family
uses in PO zones require Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: SB 8-2002, AV 36-2002
Warren Co. Planning: 5/8/02
Tax Map No. 296.07-1-15, 289.19-1-15/ 60-7-3.4, 2.2
Lot size: 25.01 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: May 23, 2002 (Tabled)
June 18, 2002
June 27, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/24/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 7/12/02:
7/11 CT Male Associates engineering comments w/attachment dated 7/11/02, DEC
7/8 M. Ryba from J. Bianchi: 6/25 Warren Co. DPW letter
7/3 J. Houston from M. Ryba: transmittal of info rec’d. 6/25
6/27 Staff Notes
6/20 Notice of Public Hearing
6/19 ZBA resolution: Approved
6/18 Staff Notes for SB and SP
6/18 M. Ryba from Chazen Eng.: response to CT Male letter dated 6/14/02
6/18 Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency status
6/17 Fax to agent of staff notes
6/11 Notice of Public Hearing
6/5 Meeting Notice
5/31 M. VanDyke from MR: forwarding Archaeological Assessment
5/31 E-mail from MR – Per L. Moore, Warren Co. requirements satisfied
5/31 Fax to S. Mesinger
5/30 Fax to S. Mesinger
5/29 MR from Chazen
5/29 MR from Chazen
5/29 MR from CB
5/24 Fax to Chazen: B. Vollaro comments
5/23 PB resolution
5/23 Staff Notes
5/23 MR from Chazen: response to 5/16 CT male comments
5/23 Rec’d. by MR – colored pictures
5/22 Copies of Archeological/Historical Survey
5/22 PB from J. Graham Goldsmith Arch.: boring logs
5/22 Fax to Applicant/Agent
5/21 D. Hatin, S. Smith from MR: plan for comments
5/16 Resolution seeking Lead Agency status
5/17 CT Male comments received
5/16 Notice of Public Hearing
5/16 J. Edwards from MR
5/15 ZBA resolution
5/15 MR from Chazen – Formal response to 3/29 CT Male comments
5/15 CB from MR
5/10 S. Mesinger from CB: Building Height
5/10 MR from Chazen – SP6, Illumination Plan
5/8 Warren Co. Planning: Approved w/condition
5/8 MR from C. Brush: Elevation for Ph. II
5/6 Application materials to CT Male
5/6 CT Male from MR: Staff notes to date
5/3 CB from B. Beall: US ACOE Joint Permit application
5/1 Meeting Notice
4/24 S. Mesinger from J. Bianchi: analysis of septic system, etc.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
Undated Traffic Report
4/24 J. Bianchi from Chazen
4/24 MR. From Chazen: letter from D. Hatin (2/11/02)
4/24 CB from Chazen: Narrative for Prelim Sub. And SP
4/23 Memo to Planning staff, applicant from MR: pre-application notes
4/4 Planning staff from MR: workshop mtg. notes
4/3 File from MR
4/2 Planning Bd. From S. Mesinger: response to CT Male and staff
4/1 Fax to S. Mesinger, etc. from MR: 3/29 memo to PB from MR, workshop materials for
review, 3/29 CT Male comments, 3/29 memo from MF concept plan notes
3/29 CT Male comment
3/29 C. Brush from B. Greenhouse: Stg. 1A Archeological Assessment
2/26 W. Mullin from US Dept. of the Interior
Undated MR. From C. Brush, memo regarding amenities for recreational/social activities
2/11 S. Mesinger from D. Hatin
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 May 23, 2002, June 18, 2002, June 27, 2002, and
July 16, 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 is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject
to the following conditions:
1. The stone wall along the west property line of Lot No. 3 will not be disturbed, and
2. The five (5) staff comments dated 7/16/02 be added and included, in Condition 5 should
have the wording changed to read, “that SPDES permit conditions be part of the Town
permit with a note to go on the final plan”, and (attached)
3. CT Male shall inspect the installation of the Phase I disposal bed, and
4. The Building Permit issued for Phase I be based on the issuance of a SPDES permit, and
5. The Building Permit issued for Phase II will be dependent upon the issuance of a revised
SPDES permit to handle the additional flow, and
6. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 7/16/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, could you read us those five conditions, so we know?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I’d be glad to. I have them right here.
MR. O'CONNOR-I thought we had answered some of them.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but, the Staff comment was Please note that the following items need to be
added in the form of a Resolution if used by the Planning Board: 1. A sketch plan waiver should be granted
based on the degree of scrutiny by the Planning Board of the project to date. 2. Provisional parking for nine
(9) spaces as per the Layout Plan should be granted based on the ability of the applicant to provide those
spaces should they be needed in the future. 3. A waiver for design guidelines should be granted based on the
limited visibility of the project from Bay Road due to set back and the expected appearance of the buildings.
4. The Planning Board may wish to consider having the Town consulting engineers inspect the installation
of the septic system as a condition. 5. The Planning Board may want to approve this project with the
condition that SPDES permit conditions be part of the Town permit with a note to go on the final, and you
want plan, that “plat” should be changed to “plan”. plat. This means that only Phase I could be constructed
at this time. Phase II building permit would be contingent on evidence of SPDES permit compliance as
indicated.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, you seconded that, I think?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. MESINGER-Thank you very much.
EXTENSION REQUEST:
SP 24-2001: OMNI (APPROVED 7/24/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Whoever makes the motion, grant it to the last calendar day of the month, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this extension based on the fact that their site plan approval is coming up for
termination?
MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s been a year, if you look at the date on there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, thank you very much.
MR. HOUSTON-You’re welcome.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, thanks, Jim, and, Mr. Chairman, you’re asking for?
MR. MAC EWAN-The end of the month. If this thing expires on the 24, move it to 7/31/03.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Easier to track.
MR. RINGER-How long of an extension are they asking for?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re giving them one year?
MR. MAC EWAN-One year. Typically we do, unless it’s something underway that they’re doing plantings.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s expiring 7/24/02. We’re giving them until 7/31/03.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do it to 7/31.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not getting any help from Staff.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. July 31, 2003. Go for it.
MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 24-2001, OMNI,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
The extension would be to July 31, 2003.
Duly adopted this 16 day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. OPEN SPACE PRESENTATION
MR. ROUND-Are we talking about that tonight, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re not doing it, then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda.
2. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE POLICY
MR. ROUND-You guys do have different agendas.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This was what was in my packet.
MR. ROUND-I’m sorry.
MR. MAC EWAN-That off the agenda?
MR. ROUND-For the record, Chris Round, Director of Community Development. Petition for Zone
Change Policy you had asked us, you had given your blessing on that and forwarded that to the Town Board,
and that policy is to entertain applications for, review for applications for petitions for zone changes on a
quarterly basis.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you approach the Town Board on that yet?
MR. ROUND-I’ve had a discussion with them and I’ve given them a copy of the draft policy, and I’m going
to be talking to them in a couple of weeks.
MR. MAC EWAN-At a public meeting.
MR. ROUND-During a public meeting, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me know, please.
MR. ROUND-We’ll do.
MR. MAC EWAN-So I can be there.
MR. ROUND-The two items that we wanted to talk about tonight, one was a policy for expedited review.
We gave you a memorandum and a proposed policy. It’s a two page document. First I just want to reiterate
something that you should have received early in the month, and that was our notice that’s effective
September 2002 for our Planning Board deadline. We sent this notice out to our regular customers and users
of the Planning Board, and our new application deadline date will be the 15 day of the month, or the next
th
business day effective for our September submissions. So August 15 will be the deadline for September
th
submissions. We will allow applications tabled by the Planning Board to be submitted under what was our
old deadline. If you tabled an application tonight, you could still allow an applicant to submit by the last
Wednesday of the month for review for the following month, as long as it was a Planning Board request. We
are, and it may not be necessary, but we are strictly enforcing our 16 application limit for review by the Board.
So you would see eight items in each Planning Board meeting, and if we receive in excess of 16 applications
for a particular month, those would be pushed over to the following month, and then our completeness
review, we have instituted a policy, and we have had two Board members, and I don’t know if the Board
members will be giving you feedback on how that went. I know the first time out of the gate is always a little
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
more difficult than, but Larry and Bob sat down with George and Craig and reviewed the agenda in front of
you tonight and looked at several applications and Craig was astute and put people who land on opposite
ends of the spectrum, as far as attention to particular items and what they need to see in order to deem the
application complete, and that’s what we struggle with, as Staff, you know, when you’re dealing with an
application like the Marsh application tonight, what level of detail do you need to see, versus a project like
Aviation Mall or Green Mountain Development, what kind of detail do you need to see. So those are things,
this notice has gone out and you should have received a copy of it, if you don’t have copies of it tonight, and
we will continue to provide them with our applications and mailings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me just add a comment to that.
MR. ROUND-Go right ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess what motivated Chris and I and Craig to sit down and do this was obviously that
the burden this Board has been carrying for the past several months and I, for one, have been, quite frankly,
burned out. I think we’ve been carrying too many meetings, too many on the agenda, and hopefully this is
going to alleviate a lot of those problems. I think that we’ve been bogged down, the past several months, by
just the continuation of applications, that’s stuff I think that should have been reviewed maybe in a little bit
more timely fashion, but because they were lacking pertinent information right up front, it delayed the review
process, and I think that this is certainly going to help us out in the long run. I really do.
MR. ROUND-One of the things I’ve talked to Craig about, I just want to share with all of you, though, is
that many boards do not receive engineering comments until the night, or after, a particular meeting occurs.
So in the case of this Board, it’s been the past practice that this Board receives its own engineer’s comments
on an application, receives an applicant’s response to those comments, and then is asking for the second set
of comments from the Town’s engineer before you’ve even had a chance to discuss the project, and you’d
like us to get the engineering issues flat, and Craig and Craig and I had discussions about well, it’s not always
the practice. We talked to Frank Palumbo from Sear Brown. We talked to C.T. Male, and as many
community’s, like Clifton Park, Niskayuna, Bethlehem, don’t receive engineering comments until after a
project has at least been discussed by the Planning Board because what you want to do there, you want to
plan, first, before you engineer, and you say, well, we really are sensitive to this particular building location, so
make sure the building location is here, or we have sensitive to wetlands disturbance, so make sure you
minimize wetlands disturbance. You identify the plan that you want to see and then you go and engineer the
plan, versus we try to do all the engineering first and then do the plan. I mean, engineering and planning are
very closely linked, but they’re not the same. One’s a little less subjective than the other, but we offered the
suggestion is we could change this, but this policy or this past practice, but these are some things that we
think are going to improve the problems that we’ve been having. They may not, but we need to try and we’re
willing to try. Another is the thing that we want to talk to you about tonight was expedited review of certain
applications like the Marsh application would be a prime candidate, and you should have a policy in front of
you. If you don’t, I have, does anybody need copies?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I brought it with me but I think it’s somewhere in that trash barrel over there.
MR. ROUND-Not meant to be all inclusive, but you said several months ago, we’ll put something together
and let’s react to it and suggest some classes of applications. We’ve been very busy, and we’ve been meaning
to get to this several months ago, but just briefly, I think the purpose, and Marilyn and I have had some
discussions. Marilyn will have some comments on this particular policy, but the purpose is not to minimize
your review of applications, but to a large extent there’s certain things, with our new Zoning Ordinance we
do have performance standards. We do have professional staff who can review applications and say that they
are consistent and meet the zoning regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and the desires of the
community, to a certain extent. So all we’re looking to do is minimize the time that there’s a public debate,
and if you have a list of questions about particular applications during our agenda meeting or during our
completeness review, we can certainly get clarification on issues, but the purpose is that we think that an
abbreviated or an expedited review is an appropriate level of review for certain classes of applications, and we
suggest, so under Purpose under Item One we identify that. Under Item Two on this policy we list several
classes or categories, and I think we have six of them, that we’d like you to consider as potentially eligible for
expedited review, and how this would work is that, during our agenda, the Zoning Administrator would
review these and say, hey, we think these three applications are eligible for expedited review. We would
prepare staff notes for those. We would identify them on the agenda as a separate agenda item. You would
go ahead and open and close the public hearing on them and if nobody speaks, like, you know, there’s
nobody to speak, are there a list of questions that you want answered. If there are none, let’s move forward
with the approval, and you do that kind of in a defacto way, but we’d like to formalize that and see if we can’t
push that ahead a little faster. So under our classes of a project eligible for review, we think replacement uses
where no physical alteration to site/facilities are proposed. We have certain zones in Town that do allow you
a change in tenancy, and where there’s no physical improvements, and we’d like you to consider, like the
Marsh, you know, here’s occupation of a facility. It doesn’t require any improvements. Certain instances we
might want to look at traffic access or we might want to look at beautification, or we might want to look at
some other element. We would say, let’s not put it in that class. B, Boathouses, conversion of boathouses,
waterfront decks. That’s something we think is largely handled through an administrative permit process. If
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
there was an obstruction of an adjacent view or a potential negative impact for the shoreline or wetland, etc.,
we’d say, hey, this deserves the attention of the Board and let’s not lump it into that class. C., Hard surfacing
within 50 feet of a Shoreline or Filling/Excavation of the Shoreline. Marilyn, I know, might have a comment
on this, and we’ll open it up after this, but a lot of this is just, if you comply with an engineering best
management practice, if you have a Lake George Park Commission or DEC permit, or a Corps permit if it
involves a Corps regulated activity, really not a lot of Planning Board involvement on that. You’re going to
put up a silt fence. You’re going to put up a silt curtain if you’re doing activity in the water. You’re not going
to come 18 inches above the water line. You’re going to maintain soil and erosion control measures, re-seed,
those kind of things. Unless it has some aesthetic impact, something more subjective, we wouldn’t ask you to
look at it. Off premise directional signs, there’s no narrative below that, but generally you’ll, you know, we
don’t want to encourage those type of activities, but generally there’s not a lot of review that goes into that
particular thing. Modification of Previously Approved Subdivisions. Any Planning Board approved
subdivision that’s proposed to be modified needs to come back in front of the Planning Board. So if this just
is, you know, a lot line alteration, let’s approve it. So long as we’re not creating an additional lot, creating
additional roadways, altering stormwater or municipal utility layouts or locations, it really doesn’t need to
come back in front of you. If this is, you know, we’ve had a couple of these. The Michaels Group over here,
they wanted to adjust lot lines, and they went from seven lots to six lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did one over in Herald Square for the people with the pool.
MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s a mutually agreeable to the property owners, we don’t need to get into a big dialogue.
The one that’s newer is Subdivision of Lands creating four (4) or fewer lots. Prior to ’88, there was a four lot
administrative approval. Now we have a two lot administrative approval. We find that, you know, four or
fewer lots, and you’re not creating infrastructure or roads, that generally if you submit a plan that’s, and we
can confirm with the engineering review and Town Staff review, that you’ve complied with all the standards,
you know, you don’t need a variance to do this. This is something you can come in and approve, but you get
more than four lots, and they’re less than five acres, then you’ve got Health Department approval and
sanitary sewer system requirements. So, we think those are the, you know, this list could be deleted or
expanded or modified, but that’s something we want you to look at and be happy to talk about it tonight, if
you’re prepared to get into a dialogue about it, or we could be prepared to come back next week, or next
month, after you’ve had a chance to review it, and what we would propose to do is at least initially modify
your Planning Board Bylaws, Policy and Procedures to include that. Under that there is a section about types
of applications reviewed, order of business. So there’s some modifications that are necessary for this, and
then, you know, long term, we are preparing a series of modifications and amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance already, and we would propose to modify the Zoning Ordinance to identify expedited reviews, so
the public just picks up the Zoning Ordinance, they know that, hey, if my project fits into this category I’m
eligible for this particular review type, and I’ll throw it back to you, Mr. Chairman or the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Maybe we could just run a mock scenario on say the boathouses, which is something that’s
fairly simple. You get the application. You review it, and you determine that this could probably be
approved, based on what you have. You’ve got to transmit that to us somehow, in order to say that we, Staff,
have reviewed this and find this to be an acceptable and an approvable application. That’s what you give to
us, and then all our job is to go ahead and approve it.
MR. ROUND-Basically deal with the administrative, procedural aspect of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Will we still get the entire documentation in our packets for something that’s an
administrative review?
MR. ROUND-Yes. You would. You would get the same application. You would still get staff notes. Our
staff notes would reflect that we’ve reviewed it. It’s consistent, and actually indicate, you know, we
recommend this for expedited review. We recommend approval, you know, an approval with this particular
modification or condition, and you would say, okay, here’s our list of items considered for expedited review,
any questions or comments about these three or four applications, if not, we’ll open our public hearings for
each of them. Still have to do SEQRA review, if, indeed, they are unlisted actions, and then.
MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t there any way you can throw Class A Marinas into this thing, too?
MR. RINGER-By Tuesday?
MR. ROUND-You laugh, but I think that’s a separate discussion about Class A Marinas. I think you’re going
to get into, we’ve had individual conversations that we think that’s probably the road you’re going to take is
more administrative review or a commenting on a Park Commission permit to make sure that the local
concerns are, indeed, incorporated into the permit that’s being issued by the Park Commission. We can
discuss that, I think we’re going to be discussing that further next week.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Have you had any discussions at all with the Park Commission concerning this? I mean,
you know, I see a lot of redundancy here in terms of issuing these Class A permits, because they have to
ultimately be issued by the Park Commission to begin with.
MR. ROUND-Bob, when we initiated the revisions, without getting off track on expedited review, when we
initiated the revision of our Zoning Ordinance, one of our first meetings was with the Park Commission and
we wanted to talk about docks, marinas, wharfs, stormwater and we discussed this. Before we put the Zoning
Ordinance in front of the Town Board, we still had reservations about marinas, and marinas were debated in
the Steering Committee phase, and they elected to include regulation of Class A and Class B marinas. We
talked to the Park Commission and we indicated that we had originally proposed that we would be, well,
based on our final conversations with the Park Commission, we chose the path that we did. Is it going to
work? We don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Does the applicant have to go through two hoops, our hoops and then finally the Park
Commissions’s hoops?
MR. ROUND-Well, they do with docks. I mean, the Park Commission issues a dock permit. The Park
Commission issues a boathouse permit. The Park Commission issues a marina permit. They have a
reviewing Board. They have an application process, a fee. They’re fee based. They derive their revenue from
fees.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a double hoop, essentially.
MR. ROUND-It is. There was a concern, though, about docks. Let’s not even issue building permits for
docks. Let’s get rid of all that together. Well, what happens, you know, you’re further removed from that
process, and so the problem with marinas is the Park Commission doesn’t look at the upland impacts of
marinas. The Town doesn’t look at waterside impacts of marinas, and so I think there’s a need for both
entities to be involved. How they are involved is what we’re struggling with right now. Park Commission,
we’ve said this to you before, Park Commission requires that you have a trash receptacle, that you have
sanitary facilities, that you have pump out facilities for boats that are carrying sanitary facilities, that you have
parking, and they give you a parking schedule, and so all those things impact, you know, my home or your
home or your neighbor’s home, because you have parking for five facilities, you know, or for five vehicles,
and it’s something that’s worked, you know, when we’re a small town and a small community, when your
cousin that lived next door to you or, you know, you’re renting to your brother-in-law, but that’s not the case,
and you see we just had this conversation today. There’s three deaths on Lake George this year, and it’s only
July, and there’s on the order of 7,000 boats, registered boats on the lake, and Queensbury is, you know, we a
have a blind eye to it, but Queensbury is the busiest area of the lake. Not Lake George. Queensbury. The
problem that was brought to the attention five and ten years ago, Sandy Bay. Sandy Bay is located in
Queensbury. Ask John Salvador, it’s Bolton Landing, but Sandy Bay is Queensbury’s front yard, and
Dunham’s Bay, Queensbury. Assembly Point, Cleverdale, these are all Queensbury communities that we’re
all kind of isolated from, but, you know, our front door, all the projects you deal with are generally Quaker
Road and Route 9 and we’re used to and comfortable dealing with those kind of projects, well, we’ve kind of
been ignoring our front door, and that’s Lake George, and so we’re going to struggle with it. I don’t know
that this is the answer, but it was something we’re going to try, and I know it’ll probably be modified in short
term. The Park Commission indicates that there’s only 14 or 15 Class A marinas on the lake in Queensbury.
I have a hard time believing that there are that few.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question for you, as far as the two applicants at Pilot Knob. Did they come
to us, or did the Park Commission go to them? When the zoning changed.
MR. ROUND-They came to us. We are notified. The Park Commission issues a five year marina permit. A
marina permit is where the local municipality is noticed. They send a notice of a pending application to the
Town Supervisor, and we’re copied with that, and then we have the ability to comment on it, and we indicate
to the permit seeker that, hey, you need a building permit, that you need a special use permit, whatever the
particular case might be. We don’t go looking for them. The Hopper one, I think there’s a long history. I
mean, we’ve known about that, but we don’t have, and I think you’ve all learned that during your experience
here. We don’t have a police force. We have, our enforcement staff is not, the Lake George Park
Commission employs peace officers, you know, that have police authority, carry a weapon and have the
ability to, you know, a different level of enforcement. Each time we get a new Board member, a new Town
Board member, they struggle that our zoning enforcement officer doesn’t carry the weight that a police
officer carries, and I’ve had this conversation with Board members and Planning Board members, is that a lot
of the quality of life problems that we’re facing in Queensbury are generally addressed by a police force, noise
complaints, parking illegally, neighbor disputes, property owner disputes, fences on, you know, fences on so
and so’s yard, or there’s an activity that I don’t like them, but our zoning enforcement officer has been the
police officer for the Town for the last 15 or 20 years, and every problem that comes to Town is basically
thrown in our office, and how come there’s not a rule, how come there’s not a zoning law. I know we’ve
regulated all these activities with zoning. Well, that’s not the only mechanism that you have to deal with these
issues, and marinas is kind of one of those. I think people brought up, well, Lake George has a noise
ordinance. Well, Lake George has Warren County Sheriff’s patrolling the streets. Well, the Park Commission
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
regulates noise of personal water craft on the lake. Well, Lake George Park Commission has an investigator
and a police officer and a boat. They have police staff. So Queensbury doesn’t have a local police
department. Not that I’m advocating for those things, but I think people have to open up their eyes and
know that we can’t solve all the problems in Queensbury with zoning laws and a building code. There’s a lot
of quality of life issues that we’re really facing. We’re a population of nearly 26,000 people, and we’re having
those congestion, urban type problems every day, and we’re just not able to deal with them, but, back to
expedited review.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re going to get.
MR. ROUND-Do you want to digest this and look at this and give me some comments? What we need to
do is set deadlines and dates on this so that we can progress it. I know I’ve stalled the process, and I
apologize, but Marilyn, I don’t know, Marilyn has some comments that might help stimulate some debate or
dialogue on the issue. I think these are the kind of things that have come back to us. These are the five or
six different types of projects, and we can include some other things, anything else that the Zoning
Administrator feels is appropriate for expedited review. We could include that kind of thing in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-How about if everybody has their comments back to you no later than next Friday?
Doable?
MR. ROUND-That will work.
MR. MAC EWAN-That would be the 26.
th
MR. VOLLARO-July 26.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. ROUND-I’d appreciate it if, Marilyn had a couple of comments, as far as.
MRS. RYBA-Sure. Just a couple of things, and as Chris said, it’s more to stimulate your thinking and maybe
discussion. One of the things in your current policy or previous expedited process policy, there was a
checklist, which I think we had submitted copies of that a while ago, which is really helpful because I always
think about the checks and balances and this type of thing, and that leads right into my next comment which
is, at what point does the Planning Board say no to expedited review, and maybe it takes place in all of these
venues, agenda meeting, at the point of application completeness review, or even at the meeting, but it helps
when you have a checklist to clarify that no increase in intensity of use, and checking off traffic, noise,
parking those things that are listed there. The second thing is the question about hard surfacing within 50
feet of a shoreline or filling excavation of a shoreline. The thought is, is this counterproductive to
stormwater impacts and what we’re thinking about in terms of stormwater, and I think that you’ll get people
from the LGA and also property owners up along the lake that might question an expedited review. On the
other hand, as Cathi and I were talking about earlier, you have a situation where somebody wants to build
some steps. That’s hard surfacing, and that might, that would come in handy under an expedited review
situation. So maybe it’s a question of having a percentage or a certain amount of square feet and that could
be researched a bit. The next comment I have, and actually the last one, is in terms of lands creating four or
fewer lots. This is another area, and I know there’s some things listed here, such as no new roads to be
constructed, conventional onsite wastewater, etc., but if you recall the Kraft subdivision up along the
lakeshore, that was four lots, yet there were some extensive impacts concerning wetlands. No new roads, but
there were some things to consider, and perhaps all of these things would be considered anyway, and this gets
back to the checks and balances and the checklist type of items.
MR. MAC EWAN-If things hit a certain threshold with you.
MR. STROUGH-You mean like if it’s not in the Adirondack Park or near a body of water or something like
that, that would be part of the checklist?
MRS. RYBA-That could be, and I know, you know, there’s always a concern with checklists that they, A, that
they not get too extensive, and, B, that, you know, you’re missing something, and so maybe that’s, once again,
where the checks and balances comes in place, and that could be outlined, that here’s where, and I think the
intent is that at any point, certainly the Planning Board can say during meetings, well, we want to hear more
about this, and you all will get a copy of the application, as Chris was saying.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what would happen there, Marilyn, for the Staff, it would be pretty self-limiting.
You would be self-limiting yourself when you see yourself getting into areas involving stormwater, involving
things like that, and you would automatically then say, no, this is not a topic for us to put on the fast track.
That’s what I mean.
MRS. RYBA-I mean, different Staff have different opinions. So that’s where you, you know, I guess that’s
where that kind of goes to.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that brings up a good point. How does this get Staff reviewed? Who does this? Who
determines that this goes into expedited review. Is that you?
MR. ROUND-I think it’s the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator is really responsible for
administration of the land use regulations, and it’s included in site plan review.
MR. STROUGH-Why don’t we do it at the monthly meeting when we have a Planning Board member
present?
MR. ROUND-Yes. We recommend, I think, in the event you have time now with this 15 day lead time we
go to, then we could say we recommend these three items for expedited review, and here’s why, and you get
the buy in right up front. I mean, you could still do the public hearing, do public notices. I think you could
poll people prior, is there anybody here to speak about application A? No. B? No. C? Yes. You open and
close those public hearings and you don’t necessarily have to issue an expedited review if there is a series of
questions or concerns that have been generated, that you didn’t know about this particular issue or the history
of this particular property.
MR. STROUGH-For the most part, isn’t it going to turn out to be pretty close to what we do?
MR. ROUND-Yes, I think it is, but if we start to delude it and all, then really there’s no, you know, we
haven’t saved any time or.
MRS. RYBA-One of the things that I neglected to add, and I think it’s, it really truly is a policy situation, is
providing an incentive for people, as well as somewhat of a disincentive, which is when you have situations
where you have smaller, less intensive projects were people come forward for a permit and they’ve already
done the work, that they not be allowed to go through expedited review. That that might be a way of,
because that happens quite a bit, where somebody comes in and whether or not they knew they needed a
permit, but they’ve gone ahead and they’ve done it, that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s kind of public perception at that point, where they see somebody that’s already done
it getting on the fast track, if you want to call this expedited review a fast track, and they go, it’s just
perception is.
MRS. RYBA-Well, I would definitely make that a policy.
MR. STROUGH-Put a hanging tree up.
MRS. RYBA-Off the topic a little bit, and I apologize, in terms of the Open Space plan. That was on the
agenda, and we were looking at this. Actually, it was just information provided for the meeting. I know it’s
late, and I mean, we have the information, but we were also making a few changes to our presentation, but
we would like to get on this Planning Board agenda to do the presentation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll have to talk to Staff and see if Staff can get on the agenda.
MRS. RYBA-Cathy and John are both on the committee.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m almost thinking maybe the first of August do a workshop.
MRS. RYBA-That sounds good, because we’ll have our changes made.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d love to have someone from the APA do a dog and pony show.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would be nice.
MR. STROUGH-Is anybody going to go to this Planning and Zoning Summer School?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. STROUGH-On July 25, Thursday, Niskayuna Town Hall. We could carpool.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have something going on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Some of us work. Anything else? Marilyn, why don’t you and I get together and we’ll
come up with a date to do a workshop, and maybe we can work it in and get someone from the APA to
come in.
MRS. RYBA-And I know at one point, John mentioned, too, someone from Warren County Soil and Water
Conservation Service.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/16/02)
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do the APA first, because I’ve been barking that one for a while.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we had the person that did the presentation for the dredging on Glen Lake,
Wicks there, Dave Wicks. He’s good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much everyone.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
47