2002-10-15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER
JOHN STROUGH
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-The Saturn application that was going to be for the 22 of this month has been now put
nd
off until December, and the reason for that is they haven’t submitted an upgraded elevation. The two
applications that were slated for Expedited Review tonight, Ameri-Log and Slote, will be conducted in a
regular fashion, and we won’t start Expedited Reviews until next month.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN & DONNA D’ALONZO PROPERTY
OWNER: EMMANUEL MAILLE ZONE: LI LOCATION: 80 EAGAN ROAD APPLICATION
PROPOSES CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL FOR USE AS WINERY. 4.5 ACRES
OF VINEYARD TO BE INCLUDED. RESIDENTIAL HOME WILL CONTINUE TO BE
RENTAL UNTIL PROJECT IS DEVELOPED. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE USE IN A LI
ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE:
N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-3/137.2-9.52 LOT SIZE:
6.03 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4
JOHN D’ALONZO, PRESENT & JOE MAILLE, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll ask for Staff notes. I believe the latest Staff notes we have is August 27, 2002.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Those are the latest. When this application was heard on the 27, the tabling motion
th
asked for information on stormwater, access on Eagan Road, and information on pesticides that might be
used at this location. That information has been provided. There have been discussions between the
applicant and C.T. Male concerning stormwater, and that memo should be, you Planning Board members
should have that memo. So, no new Staff notes at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. We’ll have the first applicant, John & Donna D’Alonzo. Good evening.
MR. D’ALONZO-Good evening.
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, please, your names?
MR. D’ALONZO-John D’Alonzo.
MR. MAILLE-Joe Maille, property owner.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you start off with your application from where we left off the last time.
MR. D’ALONZO-I think where we left off last time there were three items to be addressed. One was the
stormwater issue, and I think our engineer and C.T. Male have had some discussions, and at least the way I
had read their letter from C.T. Male they had pretty much decided that everything was acceptable. They
requested that maybe on the northern edge of the property either some additional buffer or a small berm be
put in. I guess the other question was concerning the highway road, and the highway, I guess, from the
Highway Superintendent, was found to be acceptable for the load of heavy trucks and for traffic, the volume
of traffic that might be expected. There were also some questions concerning fertilizers and pesticides, which
we, I believe, provided. So I’m not sure if there’s anymore questions concerning those items.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that it?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. D’ALONZO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and we’ll start off with some Board comments. John, I’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Good evening. Well, after all is said and done and we’ve reviewed this thing, I’ve come
down to just two questions or concerns. One is, did you come to any final conclusion with C.T. Male in
reference to the stormwater? Because he suggests that, or he said we discussed the possibility of constructing
a grassed earth berth or widening the vegetative buffer in this area to contain any runoff on the site.
MR. D’ALONZO-I believe what, at least our information was that they were talking about maybe a six inch
berm around the northern edge to prevent any runoff. So I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t see that as a problem, either. It’s fairly flat. According to the engineer there is a
possibility that drainage could go on the adjacent neighbor’s property, and so if that six inch berm is
satisfactory with you, it’s satisfactory with me, and just to keep it from running on to your neighbor’s
property. I don’t even think it would be a concern, but just as a precaution.
MR. D’ALONZO-I think that would probably be satisfactory with us.
MR. STROUGH-And you and I have talked before. My only other concern is in reference to the pesticides,
and I did further research, and I thank you for supplying the law, and I also went on to look at New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Neighbor Notification Law, which is basically what
you gave us, and I don’t believe the County’s adopted that anyway, and according to the way I read the law,
the Counties have to adopt it before it comes into effect, but, in our discussion last time, you did seem to be
agreeable to a condition that as follows, and I’ll read it to you to see if my fellow Planning Board members,
and for the applicant, this is, I think, pretty much of our understanding. At least 24 hours prior to the
application of sprayed pesticides, now this doesn’t apply to granules, fertilizers, and other things, but if you’re
going to spray pesticides, if and when, okay, the applicant should notify occupants of all dwellings within 150
feet of the site of such application. The notification may be written or oral, and in addition that pesticides
should be used in a manner, and under such and wind and other conditions as to prevent contamination of
people, pets, fish, wildlife, crops, property, structures, lands, pastures and waters adjacent to the area of use,
and from my understanding in our discussion last time, that wasn’t a problem.
MR. D’ALONZO-I don’t believe that to be a problem, either.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that’s all I have. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I had any specific questions, other than covering the items, for the reasons
that we had tabled the application the last time. I was pretty satisfied with the documentation that was
provided. I guess the only real question I had was, going back to C.T. Male’s comment letter, discussing the
drainage issue, and their next to last paragraph, they said provided that this modification is incorporated into
the project, and I guess the question is, you know, how high would the berm be, how long? Where exactly
would it be located, you know, those kinds of questions. Because I didn’t think it was really outlined in either
their comment letter or your response to the question that was raised.
MR. D’ALONZO-Yes. I believe that information, I think, was discussed between Tom Jarrett and C.T.
Male, and as of yet I haven’t gotten that from Tom, but that’s, I guess we would propose that we would put
something like that in there upon the development of the vineyard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay, and we’ve passed resolutions in the past with, you know, comments subject to the
satisfaction of the Town’s Attorney, or the Town’s Engineer. So that would be acceptable to me. That was
the only outstanding question that I had. I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t have anything really to add to this, except I’m surprised. This isn’t exactly
known as grape growing area, and what do you plan on growing, or is that a trade secret at this point?
MR. D’ALONZO-They’d have to be pretty hardy grapes. There are some grapes grown in, you know, not
too far from here, that they’re obviously not what’s called vernifera, the Cabernet Sauvignon, the Merlow,
that type of grape, but there are some other grapes that make good wine that are potentially viable.
MR. SANFORD-I wish you the best of luck, but I think it’s going to be a little bit difficult to try to grow
wine up here in the North Country.
MR. D’ALONZO-I agree with you.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SANFORD-No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I think everything’s been addressed. I wish you luck. I think it’s kind of exciting, some
growing grapes, but, best of luck with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I do have a few comments, just, and most of them are going to be housekeeping
comments on this particular application. I, also, would like to see, with reference to C.T. Male’s 19
September letter, I think it’s a little bit vague, and I would propose, at least, that we get a final signoff, a clear
signoff by C.T. Male. For example, I’ve never had a chance, and I don’t think my fellow Board members
have a chance, to read what was called C1. There are two C1.’s involved in this application, by the way, and
I’ll get to that in a minute, but that Plan, C1., without some verbal interplay between the two engineers, I
think that that’s missing. I don’t have a clear view of that. So I’d just like C.T. Male to give me a clear signoff
on this, as opposed to just the September 19 letter, and as Mr. Hunsinger said, we might want to make that a
th
condition of approval that that signoff be obtained by C.T. Male, providing the Board members agree with
that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know what I have, Bob. I’ve put down as a condition the applicant will berm the
property as discussed in the C.T. Male of September 19, 2002. The berm, in effect, would prevent
stormwater runoff onto the adjoining property. So, by that very condition, should there be a situation where
the adjoining property got stormwater runoff, it pretty much rests on the shoulders of the applicant to make
sure that doesn’t happen, according to the condition.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I think that, and I wanted to ask Staff a question. This C1. that was issued,
because there are two C1.’s, and I’ll get to that in a minute. We’ll clear that up, but you have a copy of C1.
from Tom Jarrett. Because that wasn’t in anybody’s Staff notes. I did get a chance to look at it with you, this
afternoon, but it’s very hard to define what that means without some verbal explanation.
MR. HILTON-We do have the drawings you’re speaking of. C1., which shows drainage flow directions, and,
we do have that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s in the record. All right. Now, that C1., which is dated September 16, 2002,
there’s another C1. in this application that’s a site plan for 80 Eagan Road. Now we’ve got to try to make a
definition, when somebody looks at this in the future, to C1. and C1., we’ve got to, I try to identify what C1.
we’re talking about.
MR. D’ALONZO-Can I propose that we just call one C1A. or one C1. and one C1A.?
MR. VOLLARO-We can put that in the record that C1A. is the site plan for 80 Engineering Road, and CA2,
or CAB, or C1B. is the drainage dated September 16, 2002. Now there’s just one other question I want to try
and clear up. In the Staff notes dated August 27, 2002, which we talked about a little bit ago, in the last
paragraph, I believe, of those Staff notes, and I’ll get to them in a minute, just to read it, but I think they talk
to the buffer zone that has to exist between the WR-1A zone, and 80 Eagan Road. That’s got to be a 50 foot
buffer all the way around, and not just on the eastern side. It has to comply with 179-8-050.
MR. HILTON-The buffer requirements from the Light Industrial, between Light Industrial and Residentially
zoned property, it is 50 feet. They’ve proposed a 50 foot buffer on the eastern property line. The north line,
I understand it’s probably a little difficult because there are existing buildings there. Certainly the Board has
room to work with the applicant and, you know, allow whatever buffer, if any, that you see fit.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a drawing that I’m looking for here that shows that, and it’s attachment, again, it’s
attachment C1., or better than that, attachment C2., for the Board members who are looking for that, and it
shows a 50 foot buffer on the eastern zone, but nothing on the southern side of that plot. I happen to draw a
line through that. C3. might even give you a better look at it. The 50 foot buffer zone goes right through
that pool storage area, and we may want to talk about some landscaping on this southern side of that line. I
don’t know, John, that’s something you might want to talk to a little bit.
MR. STROUGH-I’m trying to find the map that you have there, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Attachment C3. is the one to forty foot scale, for 80 Eagan Road.
MR. D’ALONZO-Well, I guess, notwithstanding the existing structures, there seems to be, there would be at
least a 50 foot buffer there. There would be no real development in that area. That would all be landscaping
anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The only thing that falls within that 50 foot zone is the pool storage building, a slight
portion of the pool storage building.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. D’ALONZO-And there could be some, there is a fence around there now, you know, for the pool
fence. So there could be some landscaping also associated with that.
MR. VOLLARO-We just want to define that 50 foot buffer zone as it buffers out the WR-1A zone, that’s
just opposite this. We could probably do that with some plantings. How are you coming with that, John?
MR. STROUGH-The only thing that I see, and I’m not sure if, is this what you have, with the green?
MR. VOLLARO-No. See, take a look at that. I drew that line across. That’s the 50 foot line on the one to
forty scale.
MR. STROUGH-I see, and what you’re saying is the only thing that’s really sticking in to the buffer zone,
which is an existing condition, is the pool.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, exactly. Right. So we may want to institute that buffer by some plantings in there to
make sure that that 50 foot zone is held. Now the applicant says he has a fence, but that fence is not, you
haven’t paced that fence at 50 foot from your property line. Have you?
MR. D’ALONZO-No. I think that’s probably less than 50 foot from the property line.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t see that, Bob, as a significant issue, but.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I just want to make sure that the buffer zones are in place to buffer off the residential
zone, just opposite Eagan Road.
MR. STROUGH-Well, he has to stay in accord with the Code anyway, without the (lost word).
MR. D’ALONZO-I think if you actually, where Eagan Road is, if you go a little further south towards the
river from there, the property, the land drops off quite rapidly. There’s not a lot of building opportunity
there, but still we’d want to keep that buffer zone in there and I would think that after a period of time when
this pool area becomes something different, that whole area might change a little bit, and you’ll have an
opportunity to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My only concern is I want the drawings to indicate that there’s a 50 foot buffer there,
you know, to be in accordance with our Code. I think we can say that. We can probably use that as a
condition, that a 50 foot buffer, if you go to, well, to 179-8-050, it talks about that.
MR. STROUGH-The only thing extending into that 50 foot buffer is the pool. Should the applicant, in the
future, want to make any alterations to the site, he has to come before us anyway. So nothing can enter the
50 foot buffer zone anyhow, at this point. So I think it’s kind of a moot point.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as he doesn’t bring anything forward.
MR. STROUGH-And he does show the proper buffer around the vineyard. So I’m satisfied that this meets
Town Code.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just bringing that up.
MR. STROUGH-I did find those maps.
MR. SANFORD-What are those, from the prior meeting?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’ve covered all the points, and if the Board is satisfied with the points that
we’ve covered, I would entertain a motion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s still public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The public hearing was left open.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s an Unlisted. So we have to do a Short Form SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Who are you going to appoint Secretary?
MR. VOLLARO-How about you, John, do you want to take that role?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll do it, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ll do it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is there a Long Form on the SEQRA, or a Short?
MR. STROUGH-No, a Short Form. I’ve got it here if you want me to do it, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris said he’ll do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Now the public hearing was left open the last time, but I’ll ask you folks to give up the seat
for a minute to see if there’s anybody else that would like to comment on this application. Do we have
anybody out there that would like to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAMES MARTO
MR. MARTO-Hi. I’m James Marto. As a matter of fact, one of my proposals is before the Board meeting
tonight. I’m just coming into this meeting and hearing this gentleman’s proposal. I think this is a wonderful,
wonderful adaptation to the Town of Queensbury to have a vineyard in this Town.
MR. VOLLARO-It is.
MR. MARTO-Of course going with the parameters that the Town sets, and possibly giving any leeway to let
this function follow through and try to nurture its success. I think it would be nothing less than beneficial to
the residents of the Town of Queensbury as far as property value wise, because it would add such a
wonderful luster to the Town of Queensbury, not only on the public side, but on the financial and real estate
side.
MR. VOLLARO-True.
MR. MARTO-And that’s really all I wanted to say.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much.
MR. MARTO-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else like to comment on this application? Okay. With that, I’ll close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And the applicants can come back up, and I think we have to do a SEQRA, and Mr.
Hunsinger will undertake that.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 39-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN & DONNA D’ALONZO, 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:
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, I’d entertain a motion.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2002 JOHN & DONNA D’ALONZO, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 39-2002 Applicant: John & Donna D’Alonzo
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Emmanuel Maille
Zone: LI
Location: 80 Eagan Road
Application proposes conversion of residential rental for use as Winery. 4.5 acres of vineyard to be included.
Residential home will continue to be rental until project is developed. Agriculture Service Use in a LI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: N/A
Warren Co. Planning: 8/14/02
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-3 / 137.-2-9.52
Lot size: 6.03 acres / Section: Art. 4
Public Hearing: August 27, 2002, Tabled
October 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/31/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/11/02, and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/2 Meeting Notice sent
9/16 New Information Received
8/27 PB resolution - Tabled
8/27 Staff Notes
8/23 CT Male engineering comments
8/20 CT Male from G. Hilton
8/19 Stormwater Info
8/20 Notice of Public Hearing
8/15 Clarification of stormwater management
8/14 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
8/5 Meeting Notice
7/23 Applicants from C. Brown: Determination
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on August 27, 2002 and October 15, 2002; and
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements
of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of
Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the
Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed
modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no
further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following notations:
1. That at least 24 hours prior to application of sprayed pesticides the applicant shall notify the
occupants of all dwellings within 150 feet of the site of such application. The notification
may be written or oral.
2. Pesticides shall be used in such a manner and under such, wind and other conditions as to
prevent contamination of people, pets, fish, wildlife, crops, property, structures, lands,
pastures and waters adjacent to the area of use.
3. The applicant will construct a berm in accordance with the C.T. Male letter of September 19,
2002. The berm would, in effect, prevent stormwater runoff onto adjoining property.
4. The C-1A drawing would be a site plan for 80 Eagan Road, and C-1B would be the drainage
plan dated September 16, 2002.
5. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 10/15/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. Lots of luck.
MR. D’ALONZO-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 TYPE II MODIFICATION HOME DEPOT PROPERTY OWNER:
AGENT: THE LA GROUP ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: NE CORNER RT. 9 & QUAKER
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE
PLAN. THE MODIFICATION INVOLVES MOVING THE SEASONAL SALES AREA FROM
THE LOCATION JUST EAST OF THE GARDEN CENTER APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET TO
THE SOUTH. THE SALES AREA MUST BE MOVED TO MEET A BUILDING CODE ISSUE:
CLEAR AREA REQUIREMENTS AROUND A BUILDING FOR FIRE ACCESS. ANY
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 54-02, PZ 1-02, SB 12-02 TAX MAP NO.
72-7-2, 3, 4
DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Dave Carr. I’m with the LA Group, and this evening I’m
representing the Home Depot for this modification. As stated, the originally approved site plan located the
seasonal sales area in this location here. What we were requesting is to move it approximately 70 feet to this
location here. The reason for the modification is because of the type of building construction. There’s a
required 50 foot cleared area around the building, and the Garden Center. Home Depot could change the
fire rating of the building, but it is, they had found it to be cost prohibitive. So to get a building permit, this
has to be moved from this location to afford the 50 foot clear area around the entire building. So that’s why
we’re requesting it to be moved from here to here. Nothing else on the plan will change, as far as lighting,
pedestrian circulation, vehicular circulation. As far as the location we’re moving it to, it will not be blocking
any rows of parking. So clear access will still remain as it did within the original approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you. Do you have any comments on this application?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what kind of, I’m having trouble visualizing it. What kind of a, will it be a structure,
just a fence?
MR. CARR-No. It’s actually just a pad, an area where it’ll only be used temporarily through late spring to
early fall, mainly just for plant materials, trees and shrubs, bulk mulch, things like that. No fertilizers. No
chemicals, and pretty much that’s it. It’s basically for extra items that they don’t house inside the Garden
Center that’s to sell just through those good weather periods.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is there going to be a barrier around it of any kind?
MR. CARR-Because of where it’s located, they would like to put just a temporary fence around it, just, you
know, to keep, for security reasons more than anything else, but that would be temporary. Obviously that
would come down.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just going to be a pad?
MR. CARR-It’s just a pad, yes. In the original application, we showed it as concrete, which we would do the
same. It would still be striped as parking when it’s not there it will be utilized as parking, but really it’s just a
pad.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’d use the existing lights that would be there for lighting at that time?
MR. CARR-Absolutely. The lighting does not change.
MR. SEGULJIC-And it would just be seasonal plants out there then?
MR. CARR-Yes, trees, shrubs, mulch.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now isn’t there any, I don’t know, it just seems like it’s going to be sticking out there.
There’s no other place you could put this? I mean, shave off the approved area?
MR. CARR-Well, any place we put it, it would have to be along the front, because of the 50 foot requirement
we need for fire access, and because of the location of the wetlands. I mean, the optimum solution would be
to move that fire lane to the east, but we have a fairly substantial wetland area there. So we’re pretty much
shoehorned in. So the only area we can put it is somewhere along the front. It just made sense in our mind
to put it in close proximity to the Garden Center, because that’s where people would be moving to and from,
to that area, would be the Garden Center.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just to clarify for me also, so if you made a, if you bought something there, you’d have to
bring it inside the store?
MR. CARR-There would be, there’s a light location right there, and it would be wired, they could have a
register out there, a temporary, they bring it in every day type situation. So they could have a salesperson out
there. Probably for weekend, heavy volume periods in the spring.
MR. SEGULJIC-So really what you’re saying, then, is it really doesn’t work any other location except for
there?
MR. CARR-The best location was its original location, but that, in our mind, and in Home Depot’s mind, is
the second best location. I mean, either side would probably be the best location, but because of that fire
access issue, that’s not, it’s not possible.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SEGULJIC-And have they done this at other stores?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And how has it worked out there?
MR. CARR-Fine. I mean, the optimum location is where we originally had it, just because then you don’t
need the temporary register. It’s just easier because it’s closer to the store, but all of the older locations, this is
the way it, actually, in the store in Halfmoon, this is where it’s located, in the parking lot in front.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s it for me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I have just kind of a, I think I know where Tom’s going with this. I don’t like the idea
of cars coming, driving in front of the building, and you’re going to have customers over, cross into the
parking lot, essentially.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. SANFORD-And I don’t know, I think of Wal-Mart as a similar situation.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. SANFORD-And I think it’s kind of a lousy set up.
MR. CARR-It isn’t the greatest. As I said, it isn’t the optimum solution, but because of that, the fire rating
and the clear area issue.
MR. SANFORD-So what’s the issue? The issue is where this box is approved, seasonal sales location, the
perimeter of that, there’s not a space between that space between that and the other side of the road, or?
MR. CARR-Yes, you need 50 feet clear, for fire apparatus.
MR. SANFORD-And how many do you have? How many do you have?
MR. CARR-You have 50 feet exactly, with that, taking that area away, you have 50 feet.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I see. So there’s no way you could just, unfortunately, make do with less, and suck it
in?
MR. CARR-No, and they looked at the possibility of changing the fire rating on the building, because, you
know, this is the optimum location and that ran in the neighborhood, somewhere between $400 and $500,000
to change the fire rating of the building, and that made it, in their mind, cost prohibitive.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, I think I understand the issue and I’m interested in hearing from some
other people. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, how about you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I really don’t have any problem with it. I had the same questions that Tom had.
It’s really not unlike, you mentioned Wal-Mart, K-Mart does the same thing. There’s an area of the parking
lot that they block off for seasonal sales.
MR. CARR-Right. I think the only difference is they make an effort to actually change the paving to
concrete, so it’s more of a distinct area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. CARR-And that’s the effort they make. Obviously, there’s a lot of resistance, but the problem is, is that
in those periods, they do get a lot more inventory, as far as vegetation, trees, shrubs, landscape materials.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the question that I would have is maybe one of Staff or maybe other members of
the Board, in terms of prior approvals for seasonal sales. Did we limit the dates during which they could have
outdoor sales like that? Specifically I’m thinking of either Wal-Mart or K-Mart, which they do them every
year.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MRS. RYBA-I’m not positive, but I think the difference is that, in this case, there are some reciprocal
agreements. So we’re looking at it not as a seasonal sales event, whereas I think that that’s how the
application came forward, with both K-Mart and Wal-Mart, as more seasonal type events, but I’m not
positive on that, that I’d have to look into the records to be sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I know they don’t come before the Board every year. So it is a
permanent approval of some sort, and I was just curious if we limited the timeframe that they could have the
outdoor seasonal sales. I know the applicant said it would be late spring to early fall, and I, you know, just
something to consider, that’s all. I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-John?
MR. STROUGH-Nothing. When I first read that you’re moving to the front of the store, I said, oh, my
God. You’re not going to ruin that beautiful façade that we worked so hard on, but I see where it’s located,
and it’s not going to block the façade, and I looked and looked, and I couldn’t think of anything better.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And so it’s fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. With respect to that area, if that was made permanent, where are
you going to deposit a lot of this snow in the winter time?
MR. CARR-Well, that was under discussion during site plan. We do have a couple of areas outside of the
parking area that we deemed snow removal areas, but normally what we do, that probably wouldn’t be a
primary area, normally. They tend to place them at the ends of the parking areas, farthest away from the
buildings, and then basically, as the snow melts, it goes to the storm drainage system. I know there was a
concern about, which they have done previously, about dumping the snow into the wetland area, which has
been prohibited as part of the site plan approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know that.
MR. CARR-So, normally they don’t pile snow that close to the store. It’s a little farther away, and winter is
their least busy time. So parking isn’t normally an issue.
MR. VOLLARO-So they would take up some of those parking spaces at the end.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that what would happen?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Since there aren’t any further questions from the Board, and we don’t have, a public
hearing is not scheduled because this is a modification, and I don’t think we’re doing a SEQRA on this
because we’ve already done a SEQRA on this.
MR. STROUGH-It’s Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-So I think we could entertain a motion here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll entertain the motion. I didn’t know if Chris wanted to go any further with this,
and if he did want to condition it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I don’t have strong feelings about it. I just raised the issue.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I didn’t know if you did.
MR. SEGULJIC-Did you want to say anything about not allowing fertilizer storage or anything like that, or
has that already been?
MR. CARR-That’s fine. I mean, that’s part of their policy that no chemicals or fertilizers are stored out there.
If you want to make that a condition, that’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-We probably should, for runoff.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Let’s see if we can get this.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 12-2002 Applicant: Home Depot
Type II Property Owner:
Agent: The LA Group
MODIFICATION Zone: HC-Int.
Location: NE corner Rt. 9 & Quaker Road
Applicant proposes a modification to a previously approved site plan. The modification involves moving the
seasonal sales area from the location just east of the Garden Center approximately 70 feet to the south. The
sales area must be moved to meet a building code issue: clear area requirements around a building for fire
access. Any modification to an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: AV 54-02, PZ 1-02, SB 12-02
Tax Map No. 72-7-2, 3, 4
Public Hearing: Not scheduled for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/11/02, and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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 and is subject to the following conditions:
1. That no fertilizers or chemicals will be stored in the seasonal sales area.
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 10/15/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. CARR-Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. Okay. Then the next application is for Ameri-Log, for Dan and Carol
Margolis. Are Dan and Carol Margolis here? We don’t have an applicant. Do you know of any reason why
the applicant’s not here, George?
MR. HILTON-No. I’ve had no correspondence with anyone saying that they weren’t going to attend. The
applicant, Ameri-Log, is for an open-sided boathouse/sundeck, 134 Lake Parkway. No. I haven’t heard
anything from them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Put it at the end of the agenda, in case they show?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we could do that. I think Mr. Hunsinger suggests we put it to the end of the agenda
and see if they show up. That’s okay with me if it’s okay with the rest of the Board.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine with me.
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine with me.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s do it that way. Okay. We’ll go on to Site Plan 48-2002 for Joseph & Jill Barone.
MR. HILTON-Bob, I was just wondering if there were any members of the public that came to speak for the
public hearing. You may want to open the public hearing, in case it gets kind of late.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 47-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AMERI-LOG PROPERTY OWNER: DAN &
CAROL MARGOLIS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 134 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD AN OPEN WALLED BOATHOUSE WITH STAIRS AND
A 34’ X 37’ SUNDECK ON EXISITNG U-SHAPED DOCK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02-
339, 98-312, 97-599, 96-706 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP
NO. 226.15-1-10/9-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
MR. VOLLARO-Getting back to Ameri-Log, I will open the public hearing for anybody who wants to
comment on that application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. VOLLARO-And if not, I will keep the public hearing open until the end of this session.
SITE PLAN NO. 48-2002 TYPE II JOSEPH & JILL BARONE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 5 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION
TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 75-2002 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO.
240.06-1-27/20-1-22 LOT SIZE: 0.88 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JILL BARONE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-2002, Joseph & Jill Barone, Meeting Date: October 15, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing residential structure. Expansion of a non-
conforming use in a CEA requires Site Plan approval by the Planning Board.
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?
Expansion of a non-conforming use in a CEA requires Site Plan approval from the Planning Board.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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 impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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.
The proposed building addition is compatible with existing site conditions.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Traffic circulation should not be impacted as a result of this proposal.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Adequate parking exists to support the existing residential use at this location.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable to this application.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The construction of the proposed addition will generate a slight increase in stormwater runoff. Eave
trenches would appear to be an adequate stormwater control method to handle this increase.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Not applicable to 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 additional landscaping or screening is proposed with this site plan.
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.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
AV 75-2002- res. 09/25/02; setback and expansion of non-conforming structure relief for residential
addition.
Staff comments:
The applicant is seeking approval to construct an addition to an existing residence. A request for setback
relief was approved by the ZBA on September 25, 2002. Stormwater control measures during construction
should be used on site as required by Section 179-6-070 of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the survey map that has been submitted should be updated to show the current location of
the on site septic system in order to show the distance from surrounding wells.
SEQR Status:
Type: II, no further action required.”
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are?
MR. MOONEY-I’m James Mooney, the applicant’s agent.
MRS. BARONE-Jill Barone.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you have any Staff notes on this?
MR. HILTON-Just a quick comment. The applicant has received a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals on September 25 for setback relief and expansion of a nonconforming use. The only comment that
th
we would have is during the time of construction, some stormwater management techniques be used to
control runoff during construction. Also that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the site plan be
updated to indicate that the proposed septic system will be at least 100 feet from the well, and that’s all we
have.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Will you tell us a little bit about your project? You can just tell us what you’re going
to do, what you intend to do?
MR. MOONEY-Basically they’re going to put an addition on an existing home that’s been approved by the
Zoning Board for the setbacks, an additional great room, bedroom, and half bath, a new septic system that’s
been approved by the Town. As far as I know, all the other information has been set forth in the application,
in your application.
MR. VOLLARO-I see you’re putting an Elgin system in.
MR. MOONEY-Yes, they’re very good.
MR. VOLLARO-Good idea. Very good idea.
MR. MOONEY-Especially in the Lake George area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, John, I’ll start off with you on this application.
MR. STROUGH-Nothing. When we drove up there on our site visits Saturday morning, now, Mr. Mooney,
you’re the contractor?
MR. MOONEY-No, I’m not. I’m just their agent for this part of this.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. It was kind of deceiving. I mean, when I went up there, there was a row of hedges
there, next to the house that I just took as the property line. When I look at, you know, the layout of your
parcel, it seems to make a lot more sense, when I look at it now. I just was wondering, when I got up there, I
must have assumed that the property line was closer to the house than what I thought. According to this, it’s
not, and that was the only concern I seemed to have in the forefront of that, for now, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, John. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sort of following on John’s comments, when we went out there for the site plan
inspection, my biggest concern was the encroachment on Route 9L, but then, you know, in reviewing the
plan, the proposed addition is actually further away than the existing house.
MR. MOONEY-Yes. It is tight there.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a tight spot, yes.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. MOONEY-They did the best they could with what they had.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but other than that, that comment, I didn’t have any questions or anything.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-I’m fine with this. No questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing, other than the stormwater control during construction. That you put those in
place.
MR. MOONEY-I’ll make sure the contractor has it in place. Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with it, then.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s a public hearing on this, and if you folks want to just give up your seat for a
minute, I’ll see if there’s anybody here that wants to comment on the public hearing. Are there any people
here who wish to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL DI PALMA
MR. DI PALMA-Michael DiPalma. I live right across the street, and I don’t have any problem with it at all.
He’s been my friend since he moved here a few years ago, and it looks like it’s going to be a nice addition to
the home.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Your name is, sir?
MR. DI PALMA-Michael DiPalma.
MR. VOLLARO-Michael DiPalma. Okay. Thank you. Is that it?
MR. DI PALMA-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, if no other people want to come up or persons want to come up and
comment on this application, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And you folks can come back up again. I think we have to do a SEQRA on this.
MR. HILTON-Actually, it’s a Type II.
MR. STROUGH-Type II.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Type II.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Do you want me to make a motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2002 JOSEPH & JILL BARONE, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 48-2002 Applicant: Joseph & Jill Barone
Type II Property Owner: Same
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 5 Hanneford Road
Applicant proposes addition to single family dwelling. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA
requires Site Plan review by the Planning Board.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
Cross Reference: AV 75-2002
APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 10/9/02
Tax Map No. 240.06-1-27 / 20-1-22
Lot size: 0.88 acres
Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020
Public Hearing: October 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/11/02, and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/9 Warren Co. Planning
10/8 Notice of Public Hearing
10/2 Meeting Notice
9/25 ZBA resolution
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on October 15, 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant’s waiver request: stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan,
and landscaping plan be granted and a condition; stormwater control measures during
construction should be used on site, as required by Section 179-6-070 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the survey map will be submitted
showing an update of the current location of the septic system in order to show the distance
from surrounding wells, and deletion, in the prepared resolution, of the SEQRA paragraph.
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 10/15/02 by the Planning
Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set.
MR. MOONEY-Thank you very much.
MRS. BARONE-Thank you.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
JAMES MARTO/MELANIE SCHWAB PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A
LOCATION: 573 WEST MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF 2.70 ACRES
INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.056 ACRES AND 1.645 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 2-2002, SB 9-
2002, AV 3-2002 TAX MAP NO. 301.13-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.70 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 20-2002, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, James Marto/Melanie Schwab,
Meeting Date: October 15, 2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.70 acre lot into two lots. The lots would be split into lots of 1.056 and
1.645 acres.
Study of plat:
Lot arrangement: The current lot is on the west side of West Mt. Rd. just south of Fuller Rd. The new lot
would be created by splitting the lot approximately in half. As a result, both lots would front on West Mt. Rd.
Topography: The site is relatively level with no steep slopes on site.
Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed lots have access to the municipal water system. On site septic
systems will be used on both lots.
Drainage: The applicant has submitted a waiver request from the requirement of providing a drainage plan.
Lot sizes: Lot sizes of 1.056 and 1.645 acres are within the requirements of the SR-1A zone.
Future development: The applicant’s plans indicate a possible new home to be built in the northeast corner of
the new lot (Lot 1).
State Environmental Quality Review Act: Type is Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a long form.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 2-2002, 9-2002 - Similar applications for subdivision of this property
AV 3-2002 – res 1/16/2002; relief from minimum lot width requirement of lot on a collector street.
Staff comments:
The applicant is seeking a number of waivers as indicated in a letter submitted along with the subdivision
applications.
This subdivision is the same subdivision previously heard by the Planning Board (SB 2-2002, SB9-2002). A
variance has been granted by the ZBA granting relief from the minimum lot requirements on a collector
street for Lot 1 of this subdivision.
Previous comments made by staff as part of prior reviews of this subdivision state that the extent of the DEC
regulated wetlands and the required buffer area on Lot 2 have not been determined. To date, no definitive
information regarding wetland location on this property has been received by Planning Staff.
Previous staff comments have also stated that a stream shown by the Braeside subdivision (SB7-1998)
appears to be located on this property. The subdivision plat should be revised to show the location of the
stream.”
MR. VOLLARO-I think we’ve seen you a few times before on this.
MR. MARTO-We’re becoming very close friends, I think, maybe. I don’t know if you have any questions for
us, prior to us speaking.
MR. VOLLARO-No. Why don’t you go right ahead and tell us a little bit about why you’re here. Is this the
third time?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. MARTO-Actually, this is the fourth time. The first time was for a variance, and we had two times with
you for zoning. So this is the fourth time that we’re sitting in front of you folks to get another final approval
on this. The reason for this was, we are following and the guidelines of our attorneys, Van Swisen was one,
and Greg Canale is another. Two attorneys who advised us, because of this property, and there is a little bit
of history to it that you gentlemen are well aware of. Because of contractor disputes that we’ve had, litigation
that we had to go through, and get past, to satisfy the Town of Queensbury, to satisfy the lending institution
who holds the mortgage, and all of the other items, as far as like the Water Department and NiMo to get the
gas in. We had to make sure that all the litigation was taken care of and settled, and it has been, and it’s been
documented, and the County Clerk, all the taxes have been paid. Everything’s been taken care of. Litigation
has been filed. All the documentation, again, the legal documentation is in place, and that’s why we went
over our 62 day limit that the Town Board allows us, as far as leeway to get this particular subdivision filed.
We surpassed that, but we want to make sure, again, to repeat myself, on the advice of our attorney, that all of
those other variables were taken care of and satisfied before we filed any other document, but we’re here
tonight to say that everything has been settled. Everything has been satisfied, and I have a new mylar for you
gentlemen to sign. Nothing has been changed in the original meetings that we’ve had prior to tonight.
There’s no boundaries have been altered. No buildings have been erected, from the original documentation
and the original mylar of the survey that we submitted to you folks. Nothing has been altered. All we are
simply here for is to just simply get an updated date and signature on this particular mylar, and that’s the
reason why we’re here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and this is for Preliminary and Final. Well, we’ll start, Chris, we’ll start off with you
on this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m a little confused. I didn’t think that we had approved the subdivision before.
MR. MARTO-As a matter of fact, I’ve got the old mylar in front of me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MARTO-Signed, I can’t recognize the signature, but with your permission I’ll bring it before you and
you can probably identify who it was.
MR. HUNSINGER-I believe you.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s Craig’s signature. I can tell it from here.
MR. SANFORD-I’m going to have the same recollection as Chris. I thought we were waiting on letters from
wetlands, the last time I was involved with this.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we got letters from DEC. I reviewed the letter from DEC, and.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I saw it recently. I didn’t know that it came in at a prior meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That was at a prior meeting as well, the DEC letter.
MR. MARTO-Possibly to clarify any possible confusion you may have, is that we just simply submitted the
same Preliminary application and Final application that we submitted in the first place, because we didn’t
want to go ahead and re-invent the wheel twice. Because the exact same verbiage that was used in the
documentation, as well as the guidelines, still adhere to the original application. So, nothing, again, to
reiterate, nothing has been altered, and that’s why we just simply submitted the exact same Preliminary
application as well as Final application. To make a long story short, it’s just a matter of just altering the date.
MR. SANFORD-You just missed the deadline, I guess.
MR. MARTO-That’s exactly what it is, is that we had a 62 day limit to make sure this was filed with the
County Clerk, and by the advice of our attorneys, again, they wanted to make sure that all the litigation and
water and every other variable involved in following through on this construction project was taken care of
first, and that’s what we did, and we satisfied all those requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just a little confused, because doesn’t it say on the Staff notes that, the letter
explains there, unable to determine the amount of wetlands on the property, due to weather conditions.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s a February 8, 2002 letter from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation that kind of covers that, and I was going to ask Staff a question along those
lines, myself.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll let you ask the question.
MR. VOLLARO-I want to ask Staff, based on the comments in the Staff notes, the last two, when you say
DEC has provided a letter indicating there are wetlands on the property, and the letter explains they are
unable to determine them. Yet the letter goes on to say that it is my opinion, and this is a letter that comes
from Allen Koechlein, the Senior Wildlife Biologist, I guess, from DEC, it is my opinion it can readily be
done. The delineation of the wetlands by Mr. Munsey places all construction outside the wetland boundary
and the 100 foot adjacent area regulated by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Any work beyond the 100 feet does not require a permit from the Department. It seems to me that this letter
kind of clears up the question in the last paragraph of the Staff notes. Does Staff agree with that?
MR. HILTON-I certainly agree that there’s no proposed construction within the 100 foot buffer. These
comments were comments that were provided to you with previous applications. I’m just summarizing what
was said by Staff at earlier dates.
MR. MARTO-If I could interject real quick. Mr. Vollaro, as a matter of fact, you were the one who brought
the exact same letter, the exact same comments to the Board, or actually to the Town for question, and
because of the analysis of the DEC, you found really no problem or no hindrance in.
MR. VOLLARO-I still don’t.
MR. MARTO-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Based on their letter. I think their letter is very clear.
MR. MARTO-Right. Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, do you want to continue?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-No, I’m all for this, provided you don’t come back here again. Although you’ve been nice
applicants.
MR. MARTO-Gentlemen, for the fourth time, it’s been a pleasure being in front of you, but, you know what,
we really don’t want to be here again ourselves.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, I have nothing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. John?
MR. STROUGH-No comments.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see that you’ve submitted a Long Form, a Long SEQRA form on this.
MR. STROUGH-It’s Unlisted.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but I was wondering why the Long Form? We’ll go through it.
MR. STROUGH-But we’ve already done SEQRA on this. We don’t have to do it again, do we?
MR. SCHACHNER-When have you done it? You’ve done it before on something that’s now expired, no
longer exists.
MR. STROUGH-So we have to do it again.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So, Chris, can I ask you to do the SEQRA on the Long Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, did we have a public hearing?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. VOLLARO-There is a public hearing scheduled for this, yes, and I think I will open the public hearing
before we go to SEQRA. You can stay right there, because I don’t see anybody jumping up to comment on
this. Is there anybody here in the audience that wants to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll go right into the SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is the Long Form?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 20-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JAMES MARTO/MELANIE SCHWAB, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can entertain a motion for the resolution approving the Preliminary Stage of this
subdivision. Does somebody want to make a motion on that?
MR. STROUGH-Mark, can we, they have the resolution written so you do the Preliminary and Final at the
same time.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, they don’t. They just have the resolution. It’s the same resolution. It’s typically
enacted as two separate resolutions, although they’re otherwise identified.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think they have a resolution for Preliminary and a resolution for Final.
MR. STROUGH-Not on the new one. On the new resolution, they’ve got them together, but I’ll do it
separately.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2002 JAMES
MARTO/MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 20-2002 Applicant: James Marto / Melanie Schwab
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same
FINAL STAGE Zone: SR-1A
Type: Unlisted Location: 573 West Mt. Rd.
Applicant proposes a subdivision of 2.70 acres into two lots of 1.056 acres and 1.645 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 2-2002, SB 9-2002, AV 3-2002
Tax Map No. 301.13-1-4
Lot size: 2.70 acres
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: October 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/16/02, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 10/11/02; and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/8 Notice of Public Hearing
10/2 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 October 15, 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
We find the following: The application for Preliminary is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I know make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-2002 JAMES
MARTO/MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Sanford:
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 20-2002 Applicant: James Marto / Melanie Schwab
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Same
FINAL STAGE Zone: SR-1A
Type: Unlisted Location: 573 West Mt. Rd.
Applicant proposes a subdivision of 2.70 acres into two lots of 1.056 acres and 1.645 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 2-2002, SB 9-2002, AV 3-2002
Tax Map No. 301.13-1-4
Lot size: 2.70 acres
Section: Subdivision Regulations
Public Hearing: October 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received 9/16/02, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included is this listing as of 10/11/02; and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/8 Notice of Public Hearing
10/2 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 October 15, 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
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
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 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
MR. MARTO-Thank you, again. Gentlemen, do I bring this to you now?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s got to be a signed mylar. I would give it to, I’m only substituting for the Chairman
tonight. I’m not authorized to sign that document. So I would give it to the Staff and they’ll get Mr.
MacEwan in here to sign it for you.
MR. MARTO-Thank you.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 66-98 TYPE II MODIFICATION NORTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS
PROPERTY OWNER: IDA OF WARREN WASHINGTON COUNTIES AGENT: TED
BIGELOW ZONE: LI LOCATION: 66 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN (4/27/00). THE
MODIFICATION IS CONSTRUCTION OF A 1150 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING 12,000
MANUFACTURING BUILDING. ADDITION WILL HOUSE NFPA APPROVED PAINT
BOOTH FOR PAINTING LARGE METAL CABINETS, WHICH ARE MANUFACTURED ON
SITE. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REIVEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 29-2000 TAX MAP NO. 308.20-
1-6/137-2-1.14
TED BIGELOW, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-A public hearing is not scheduled for this modification.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 66-98, Modification, Northeast Power Systems, Meeting Date: October 15,
2002 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to construct 1150 sq. ft. addition to an existing manufacturing building. The addition
would be used for painting materials manufactured on site. Modifications to a Planning Board approved Site
Plan require review by the Planning Board.
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?
The existing manufacturing operation complies with zoning requirements. The proposed
modification requires approval by the Planning Board.
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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 impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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.
The proposed building addition is compatible with existing buildings at this location.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Traffic circulation should not be impacted as a result of this proposal.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Adequate parking exists to support the existing manufacturing use and proposed expansion.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable to this application.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The proposed modification should not have any adverse impacts on stormwater management and
drainage.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
This site is currently served by municipal water. The site is served by an on site septic system.
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.
Adequate screening exists to provide screening for the proposed addition.
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.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 29-2000; 6000 sq. ft. manufacturing addition.
Staff comments:
The applicant seeks approval to construct an 1150 sq. ft. addition to an existing manufacturing building. Staff
does not anticipate any negative impacts as a result of this proposal. The addition will meet all required
setbacks, and site permeability will remain well within zoning requirements.
SEQR Status:
Type: II, no further action required.”
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are?
MR. BIGELOW-Good evening, folks. I’m Ted Bigelow here representing Northeast Power Systems, and
with me tonight is one of the principals, Pete Staichuk.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and just give us a quick overview of what you plan to do.
MR. BIGELOW-Okay. Well, you’re nice enough to have a picture up there. Basically, what they’re
proposing to do is to build a small addition onto their manufacturing facility of approximately 23 by 50, and
the picture up there, where it would come off the building, it would be flush with that back wall that you’re
seeing and would come back this way, and it’s going to be a metal building, just like the one that’s there, and
then it’s going to house an NFPA approved painting booth. They are now manufacturing their own cabinets,
large metal cabinets that they use for their power capacitor banks and modulating equipment, and they want
to be able to paint them, and that’s what’s going to be in there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you on this.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have nothing. I’m fine with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I’m fine with it, too.
MR. VOLLARO-John?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. STROUGH-Fine.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going through real, real easy tonight. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I feel making them wait. We have a new process for expedited review that we will be
implementing next month, and this certainly would have been one for that, and we would have had you in
and out. So, sorry about that.
MR. BIGELOW-That’s all right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and is this a Type II?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s a modification.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a modification. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Type II. No public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, but we do have a SEQRA on this?
MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t need one.
MR. STROUGH-We don’t need one.
MR. SCHACHNER-Unless you see a different impact.
MR. STROUGH-Are you ready for the resolution?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 66-98 NORTHEAST POWER
SYSTEMS, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 66-98 Applicant: Northeast Power Systems
Type II Property Owner: IDA of Warren Washington Counties
Agent: Ted Bigelow
MODIFICATION Zone: LI
Location: 66 Carey Road
Applicant proposes modification to a previously approved site plan (4/27/00). The modification is
construction of a 1150 sq. ft. addition to existing 12,000 manufacturing building. Addition will house NFPA
approved paint booth for painting large metal cabinets, which manufactured on site. Any modification to an
approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval.
Cross Reference: SP 29-2000
Tax Map No. 308.20-1-6 / 137.-2-1.14
Public Hearing: Not scheduled for Modification
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/11/02, and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, 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
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
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 the exception that the SEQRA paragraph part of the prepared resolution be removed.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. BIGELOW-Thank you, folks.
MR. STAICHUK-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED LYNN & DANIEL SLOTE PROPERTY
OWNER: MYRON RAPPAPORT AGENT: HAWKEYE BUILDERS ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: 20 BURNT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16’ X 28’ SUNDECK
OVER EXISTING U-SHAPED CRIB DOCK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES SIT E
PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 85-01, BP 02-778, 87-
776 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-19/5-1-17
LOT SIZE: 1.20 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
DANIEL SLOTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-And there will be a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 45-2002, Lynn & Daniel Slote, Meeting Date: October 15, 2002 “Project
Description:
Applicant proposes to construct an open walled boathouse with sundeck and stairs on top of an existing
dock. Boathouses in the WR-1A zone require Site Plan approval by the Planning Board. The applicant also
proposes to remove a tree that lies within 35 feet of the shoreline. Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of
the shoreline requires Site Plan review by the Planning Board.
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?
The proposed boathouse appears to meet the height and setback requirements for the WR-1A zone.
Removal of vegetation within 35 feet of the shoreline requires review by the Planning Board (Sec.
179-6-060, B4).
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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?
No impacts of this type are anticipated with this application.
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.
The location and size of the proposed boathouse, as shown on the submitted site plan, meet the
dimensional and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections,
road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Not applicable to this proposal.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
Not applicable to this proposal.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures,
control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience.
Not applicable to this application.
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The construction of a boathouse on an existing dock would not impact on site storm water drainage.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
Not applicable to 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 additional landscaping or screening is proposed with this site plan.
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.
Not applicable to this project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 85-01; Lot line adjustment decreasing lot area
Staff comments:
The proposed boathouse, sundeck and stairs all appear to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. As part of
the plan, the applicant has submitted a request to remove a tree along the shoreline near the proposed
boathouse. Section 179-6-060 B4 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for removal of vegetation within 35 feet of
the shoreline with Planning Board review and approval. Removal of vegetation shall not be done in a manner
so as not to increase erosion or sedimentation into the lake.
SEQR Status:
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
Type: Unlisted; the applicant has submitted a short form.”
MR. HILTON-The only comment we have, this application proposes a boathouse, an open-sided boathouse
sundeck and some stairs, but also the applicant has submitted a letter, stating their intent to remove a tree,
right near the proposed boathouse. Removal of vegetation that close to the shore is allowed with Site Plan
review. So we are including that as part of this application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. Can you tell us a little bit about what you want to do? I mean, the
picture is, we’ve been to the site. We’ve taken a look at what your plans are.
MR. SLOTE-Okay. Good evening. My name is Daniel Slote. When we purchased the house, there was an
existing U-shaped crib, and we had contracted back in June. So all along through the summer we had
planned on what we would like to do, and one of the things is putting this U-Shaped, or the sundeck on top
of the U-Shaped crib. When we started to get into that, we realized that that one tree is impeding the sea wall
and the current stairs, and it’s going to be leaning over what will be the proposed sundeck, as well as throwing
pine pitch all over the place. If you guys were there recently, then you’ll see that it’s doing so much more
now than it was a few weeks ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that it?
MR. SLOTE-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward. Okay. John, we’ll start with you on this.
MR. STROUGH-A side question. Your septic is not under your parking area. Right?
MR. SLOTE-As far as I know, that’s what I’ve been told that, yes, it is. Not completely, but a good portion
of it is, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and you’ve read Staff comments, that removal of the vegetation, removal of that one
tree is going to be done in a manner so as to not increase erosion or sedimentation. Is that going to be a
problem?
MR. SLOTE-No. At your suggestion, if you have any other than cutting it down and leaving the stump, we
didn’t intend to dig the stump out any further than what’s there, and I think if we did that, then that would, at
some point, cause some erosion. Later on, if we need to replace the sea wall, we’ll come back and maybe
address it at that point, but at this point, I don’t think it would cause any further erosion, if we leave the
stump in place.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-While we’re on that, I’d just make a suggestion. Where your septic tank is, you might want
to get somebody to come in and bring your clean out up to grade, if you are underneath that parking area
here. It might be a lot easier to do if you have to pump it.
MR. SLOTE-I’m sorry, bring a what?
MR. VOLLARO-Your clean out. You have a clean out in the septic tank.
MR. SLOTE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Bring it up to grade so that.
MR. SLOTE-Actually, it is below, and where that, the tank is, it’s outside of the wall, and I had Sam Cook,
before we even went to contract on the house, we went and had it pumped out, had it checked out, and it is
at grade already.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So was easy to get at. That was my only comment is a helping comment. It had
nothing to do with this application.
MR. SLOTE-I appreciate it. Actually, the previous owner had taken care of that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-Other than not liking to see trees cut down around the lake, but I can understand what
you’re saying. I have no problems with it.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SLOTE-I’m fourth generation on the lake. So my great grandfathers both had houses here. My
grandparents still do and my parents do. So we’re fourth generation. I do very much agree with you, but in
this case I think it’s going to affect us in the future.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, other than having fun getting up and down that hill. We were all wondering how
you do it in the wintertime.
MR. SLOTE-We haven’t attempted that yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It looks like it would be fun.
MR. SLOTE-We’ll probably just put a sled down with a big rope on it.
MR. HUNSINGER-No comments.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I’m fine with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, we can, we do have a public hearing on this tonight. Does anybody want
to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a SEQRA on this or not?
MR. STROUGH-It’s Unlisted.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Unlisted.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s an Unlisted.
MR. STROUGH-So we do have a Short Form on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t see it, though. I might have misplaced it. Is there a Short Form?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s a Short Form in the application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Chris.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 45-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
LYNN & DANIEL SLOTE, 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.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
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 15 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll entertain a motion for the resolution on Site Plan No. 45-2002.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 45-2002 LYNN & DANIEL SLOTE, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan Review No. 45-2002 Applicant: Lynn & Daniel Slote
Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Myron Rappaport
Agent: Hawkeye Builders
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 20 Burnt Ridge Road
Applicant proposes a 16’ x 28’ sundeck over existing U-shaped crib dock. Boathouse in a WR zone requires
Site Plan review by the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 85-01, BP 02-778, 87-776
LGPC, APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 10/ 9/02
Tax Map No. 239.16-1-19 / 5-1-17
Lot size: 1.20 acres
Section: Art. 4, 179-4-020
Public Hearing: October 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/16/02; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received
information, not included in this listing as of 10/11/02, and
10/15 Staff Notes
10/9 Warren Co. Planning
10/8 Notice of Public Hearing
10/2 Meeting Notice
LGPC
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public
hearing was advertised and was held on October 15, 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.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
MR. SLOTE-Gentlemen, thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE – PZ 4-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED RECOMMENDATION
JOHN H. BERNHARD PROPERTY OWNER: BAY-RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO.
CURRENT ZONING: RR-3A PROPOSED ZONING: PO LOCATION: 483 GLEN LAKE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE FORMER BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE
CO. ON GLEN LAKE ROAD CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRE (RR-3A)
TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO). CROSS REFERENCE: TB RES. 381.2002, SP 51-2002 TAX
MAP NO. 298.06-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.37 ACRES SECTION: ART. 15
JOHN BERNHARD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition for Change of Zone – PZ 4-2002, John H. Bernhard, Meeting Date: October 15,
2002 “Staff Notes:
Description:
The applicant proposes to re-zone the former Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co. property on Glen Lake Road
from RR-3A to PO. The parcel, 289.06-1-6, contains 1.37 acres.
Properties across Glen Lake Road to the east are zoned WR-1A. Properties adjoining the firehouse are zoned
RR-3A. The area requested for rezoning currently contains the firehouse and associated paved drives and
parking areas.
Maps submitted and reviewed include a portion of a tax map for the Town of Queensbury 289.06, containing
the subject parcel, and a survey map dated December 1987, revised 9/4/01, at a scale of 1in. = 50 ft., by
Richard W. Bennett, titled, "Bay-Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc."
Application:
The Town Board forwarded the application to the Planning Board requesting a recommendation as per
Resolution 381,2002. The Town Board also consented to the Planning Board as Lead Agency for SEQRA
review. There is an associated site plan with this zone change request.
SEQRA Review Process:
A Short Form EAF has been submitted. A Short Form EAF may be accepted by the Planning Board since
the proposal is Unlisted. A Long Form EAF is usually required. However, this parcel has already been
developed.
The Town Board has asked the Planning Board for a recommendation on this rezoning. Any Town Board
action on the rezoning request cannot be made until the SEQRA determination is done first. Any Site Plan
Review action must take place after the rezoning is approved by the Town Board.
Planning Board Review:
Since this rezone request is for a single parcel, the question often asked is whether the rezone could be
considered "spot zoning." For a definitive answer, Town Counsel should be consulted. From a planning
perspective, the question to ask is whether or not the rezoning is in accordance with the CLUP and for the
general benefit of the community.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
The Planning Board needs to address Petition for Zone Change questions when considering their
recommendation to the Town Board. The applicant has also addressed these questions, as submitted with the
application. Staff has provided analysis for discussion beneath each question.
1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?
The rezoning to Professional Office (PO) from Rural Residential 3 Acre (RR-3A) will benefit the
applicant by providing office space. The rezoning will benefit the community by adding an improved
parcel to the tax rolls.
2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
Zoning districts located in other areas in the Town allow professional offices; these are ESC, HC-
Int, HC-Mod, MU, NC and PO.
3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?
The adjacent zones on the same side of Glen Lake Road as the subject parcel are RR-3A. Directly
across the road is a WR-1A zone. Both of these zoning districts are residential. The RR-3A district
is intended to enhance rural character while the purpose of the WR-1A district is to protect the
ecology while allowing development opportunities. According to the Zoning Ordinance, PO districts
"encompasses areas where professional offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials
adjoining residential areas where compatibility with residential uses is important." Although Glen
Lake Road is not an arterial road, the CLUP indicates that protection of the residential area is a
primary concern, and PO zones are intended to be compatible with residential areas.
PO districts allow day care centers, offices, parking garage/facilities, personal service businesses,
professional offices, seasonal produce businesses, cemeteries, places of worship, health related
facilities, schools, or public/semi-public buildings.
5. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone?
PO zones require a minimum of 20,000 square feet. All other dimensional requirements can be met.
The property is already developed.
6. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities?
The primary benefit to the municipality is a positive addition to the tax base. The parcel does not
contain public sewer/water facilities. Additional commercial development will not directly add to the
school population. Minimal impacts on emergency services and town facilities, such as recreation,
are expected. The local burn plant will be used for solid waste disposal.
7. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question?
There are appropriate alternative locations for professional office uses as allowed through zoning.
However, the probable impact of the proposed change on other areas similarly designated would be
slight. At this time, there are no other proposed alternative uses for the area under consideration.
8. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
Consider the SEQRA short form EAF. A check of the GIS system indicates no wetlands, steep
slopes, natural heritage areas, or flood hazard areas on the site. Traffic impacts depend on the
activity allowed in the zone. The allowable uses with the greatest amount of activity would be a
parking garage/facility, health-related facility, day care center, or school. It is difficult to apply
Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates since the building and site are
smaller than the typical school or office building found in the Queensbury/Glens Falls area. The
ITE manual shows a range of 6 trips per employee for a medical clinic to 13 trips per employee for
an elementary school. A parking garage/facility would have trips associated with the number of
offices.
9. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use
Master Plan?
The proposed project area is located in Neighborhood 4 in the CLUP. The CLUP notes on page 3
that most of the area is residential and that current parcels assessed commercial within the area are
"interspersed within residential areas, and do not represent a specific area in need of rezoning."
Glen Lake area issues outlined on page 7 are: protecting the residential use, the natural setting of the
area, and unique/endangered species present, in view of proximity to higher impact commercial
areas.
The probable impact on the overall pattern of land use due to rezoning would not be significant.
There is a restaurant/bar across the street. Traffic patterns for the proposed zone would be highest
during the daytime, while the restaurant/bar traffic is geared towards later afternoon and evenings.
Land adjacent to the site of the requested zone change is not developed at this time. Any new
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
development on adjacent lands would require 3 acres for residential purposes, and curb cuts would
be limited via frontage requirements of 200 ft. for that zone.
The site contains an institutional building, which indicates a planning strategy already in place for the
parcel, that is, a use other than residential.
10. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal?
The property would be put to use and thus generate tax revenue.
Comments:
??
Conditions may be placed on the property upon site plan review, especially regarding curb cuts and
green space.
??
An alternative to a change of zone is a use variance.”
MRS. RYBA-Bob, if I may, since I know that this is the first time you’ve been acting as Chairman, because
the process is both for a Petition for Zone Change and Site Plan review in regards to SEQRA, I thought I
might outline for you a little bit about how the proceedings should go.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. RYBA-What you would do is open the public hearing for the Petition for Zone Change and the Site
Plan. You would do the SEQRA review for both Site Plan and the Petition for Zone Change. You would do
the Lead Agency Status and Declaration. At that point you could close the public hearing for the Petition for
Zone Change and give your recommendation on the Petition for Zone Change. The other recommendation
I would make is that Staff notes outline items that are asked by the Boards, and it’s always a good idea for the
Board to go over those questions when they give their final recommendation. You would keep the, or I
would recommend you keep the public hearing open for the Site Plan because you cannot act on the Site Plan
until the Town Board has actually approved the zone change, and that would occur after your
recommendation this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Along those lines, I was surprised that we even had a Site Plan.
MRS. RYBA-Well, what’s been happening is that, and I think this has been a policy directive by the Planning
Board, is, as has happened in some of these larger applications, I think one, for example, was the commercial
development.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Right, on Quaker.
MRS. RYBA-Right, up at Quaker Road, and the Board has wanted to see when there is a site plan in
conjunction with a Petition for Zone Change, the Board has wanted to see both at the same time.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the Site Plan, at this point, is just for informational purposes only.
MRS. RYBA-Informational, questions, answers, correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Great.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So with that, you’re saying we should open the public hearing first? Is that what you
were saying?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is an application proposes to rezone the former Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire
Company on Glen Lake Road, currently zoned Rural Residential Three Acres, which is RR-3A, to
Professional Office, PO. So, this Board merely makes a recommendation to the Town Board on this
rezoning, but the public hearing is open for anybody who wishes to comment either for or against this
application. So if there’s anybody here who would like to comment, I think it’s, come right up and state your
name.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAY NICOLAI
MR. NICOLAI-My name is Jay Nicolai, and this is my wife, Dawn, and, why don’t you go first.
DAWN BAIATA-NICOLAI
MRS. NICOLAI-I’m here because we live at 22 Nacy Road, which is the property right on the lake. If you
see the green shaded area along the lake, we’re the next property, right there.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. NICOLAI-So we’re familiar with, my two concerns are the traffic pattern on Glen Lake Road. It’s a
very windy, hilly country road, and I’m afraid that if there’s additional traffic coming out of that particular
area, especially in the daytime where there are children waiting at the buses and departing from the bus and
getting on to the bus in the morning, I’m concerned about the traffic on that particular bend, because coming
out of Nacy Road on the lower section of the map there, you can’t see around that bend. You can’t see very
far oncoming cars at all, and my concern is for additional traffic in that particular area. Another concern of
mine is that Glen Lake Road is a popular way to get to the bike path, the Warren County Bike Path. So there
are a lot of joggers, people walking their dogs, bicyclists on that road. There’s little or no shoulder along most
of that road, and there aren’t any sidewalks. So my concern is for additional cars coming on that road for the
safety of those people accessing the bikeway. Another concern of mine is that people leaving, if that zone Is
changed to Professional Office, people leaving there and heading out toward Route 9, at the intersection of
Route 9 and Glen Lake Road, there isn’t a light, and especially in the summertime, you can wait, you could be,
you know, six or seventh in a line of cars trying to get out onto Glen Lake Road, and heading southbound,
the road dips down and curves. So it’s really difficult to see. You don’t have that much leeway to see
oncoming cars to get out onto Route 9. I notice a lot of people, particularly elderly people, go through the
Municipal Center so they can get to a light to get onto Route 9, rather than actually attempt to come Glen
Lake Road. So those are my traffic concerns. Another concern that I have is that, we moved up here from
Long Island about three years ago, and what we loved about Queensbury is its rural characteristics, and that’s
why we came, and what I don’t want to see is I don’t want to see Queensbury become another place that we
have to move away from because it has become so suburban. There’s a lot of construction in the Town of
Queensbury. There’s a lot of open space being paved over into daycare centers and stores and I’m not sure
what else is going on along Bay Road. There’s a lot of construction in that area, a lot of houses going up in
the area on previously undeveloped lots, and my concern is that if you open up Glen Lake Road from Rural
to Professional Offices, that kind of creates a doorway for additional professional offices to go into that area,
and one of the main reasons why we settled in the Glen Lake area is because the rural characteristic of it
appeals to us so much.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things I just wanted to let you know, that the area itself is not being
rezoned, and Staff can check me on this if they want. It’s just this firehouse. This building is going to be
rezoned into professional offices only. So it’s not the surrounding, or we’re not changing the entire zone.
MRS. NICOLAI-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-One building is being rezoned, and that will be discussed up here under the, I’m sure
there’ll be some comments on spot zoning from some of the folks on this Board, but I just wanted to let you
know that, and we appreciate your comments.
MRS. NICOLAI-It’s being considered to be rezoned.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MRS NICOLAI-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-This Board will merely make a recommendation to the Town Board as to whether we
recommend a rezoning or not. We don’t, this Board is not authorized to change zones. That’s the
prerogative of the Town Board.
MR. NICOLAI-The only thing I wanted to add, I should have known she’d hit every point that I wanted to
hit, better than me anyways, but the only thing she didn’t touch on was, we don’t know, whatever they’re
planning on doing with the building, if it’s going to be office spaces and how many spaces, which would
translate into how many different, how many cars could go there, but it could possibly turn out that the traffic
patterns onto Route 9 would be so choked that you’d end up having to put a light there, and I don’t know,
anybody that knows the area, the last thing we need in that area is another light. The traffic between the
Municipal Center and The Great Escape gets clogged all the time, just because of those two lights, if you add
the third light, because there’s two lights in a row right by The Great Escape. If you put a third light in that
two mile area, and that place is going to be a wreck in the summer. So that’s about it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll take that into consideration as we go through. Anybody else want to comment
on this application?
RUSS CHATHAM
MR. CHATAM-Good evening. I’m Russ Chatham. I live at 69 Cedar Court here in the Town of
Queensbury. I’m also a firefighter and an officer of the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company. The plan to sell
the building there on Glen Lake Road is a plan that’s been in existence for many years. We built the new
firehouse over on Bay Road, with the idea that we would sell both stations and relieve the burden that it costs
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
the Town to operate that building. The folks behind me, I can appreciate what they’re saying. I moved here
a dozen years ago, and I love this area, and I understand what they’re talking about, but I can tell you, as you
people that have lived here, that a lot of that traffic problem they’re talking about has gone away, simply
because the firehouse has relocated. A lot of vehicles were going to that area in the past, and leaving at
speeds that were higher than normal to get, to respond to fires and rescues. So that has been eliminated,
obviously, and that is a better area, but when we looked to sell the building, we were looking for something
that would be responsible to the area, and this use that you will hear about, as the gentleman that wants to
purchase the property speaks of, in my mind, is the best use that this property could be used for. As you’ll
see, it’s very low impact. It’ll certainly not have the effects that the firehouse had there, the siren’s off, the
vehicles are out of there now. The flashing lights and all the things that are associated with that. It is a very
minor project, and it will also benefit the community for a couple of reasons. The burden that us, as
taxpayers, pay on that building will be relieved. The reality is that if that building does not sell, all of us in this
room will share the expense of paying for that building for many, many years to come. The financial stress
from the fire company is non-existent because our funding come from us, the taxpayers. So it behooves us
to look at this project as a project that will not only benefit the citizens of the community, but I think it’ll be a
better place, with John’s operation there, than it is now, and again, he will tell you the details, but this is not a
major office complex. Those of you that deal with lawyers know that most of that work is done today fax
and phone and computers and I visit my lawyer maybe twice a year, and I run a company in Glens Falls. So I
never go to his office. The bottom line is, there isn’t going to be a lot of traffic coming and going from there.
Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome, sir. Anyone else?
PAT SEELEY
MR. SEELEY-My name is Pat Seeley, and I’m the broker and the listing agent of the property, but I’ve been
trying to sell this property for about four, five months. We’ve had umpteen people interested in the property.
What John’s proposing to do here is definitely the lightest of any commercial entity that I’ve seen go in here.
Most other people that wanted to go in here were looking to put in workshops for their cars, their boats,
whatever, more mechanical, more noise, more traffic going into the property. Realistically, I don’t know of a
lighter use than what he’s going to use it for. As far as commercial, I can’t imagine a buyer buying this
property without getting the zoning changed, just because of the fact of him turning around and selling it
down the road. Not having it zoned commercial means somebody’s got to go through the whole variance
process again. I couldn’t see them going for a variance and not having the zoning changed, and just for that
aspect, the building really, if it doesn’t get, the zoning doesn’t get changed, they really ought to just tear down
the building, to relieve the tax burden. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak to this application? Okay. With that, then, I
will close the public hearing on this application.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And ask Mr. Bernhard to come on up and tell us a little bit about what you’re going to do
with this.
MR. BERNHARD-My name is John Bernhard. I live right on Glen Lake. I’m a neighbor of people that
spoke earlier, though I’ve never met them. I, likewise, moved up from Long Island over 20 years ago, and for
the last 20 years I’ve had my office in Glens Falls. My office, or my practice primarily is centered around
assisting disabled workers and people applying for social security, disability benefits. So the firehouse is of
great interest to me because I live nearby. It’s handicap accessible, which my current office really isn’t to the
standards I’d like it to be, and it also satisfies a concern that I have which is I have a couple of antique boats
that need to be stored, and that stores them right nearby. These are very valuable boats, two of them, and so
the bays of the firehouse were of interest to me for that reason, but primarily the issue is, all I want to do is
put my law office in there. I’m a sole practitioner. The volume of traffic that you might expect of this is
probably going to be minimal. Normally, when I don’t attend court, which normally is about four days per
week, I attend worker’s comp hearings, my appointments don’t start until one in the afternoon, and so
morning traffic is going to be minimal. I think, you know, typically I have three secretaries working. The
traffic pattern on Route 9, the problem at the light on Glen Lake Road I’m certainly well familiar with, and I
would share with the need for a light. At times it’s absurd how long you have to wait, and people are flying
up the road from the south. I really don’t see my practice, however, having any real impact on that. My own
preference to go down into Glens Falls is down Bay Road, since the firehouse is closer to the Bay Road area.
Oxbow Hill Road is right near by, which takes you up onto 149, for people that come from Fort Ann,
Northern Washington County, Whitehall areas. So I don’t see a big traffic impact on the area at all. As was
pointed out by Russ, we’re now eliminating the fire trucks, the sirens, all the traffic of the firemen going to
and from the firehouse. Being somebody who lives in the area, I would actually like to see it limited to a
professional zoning because I can certainly see somebody else wanting to come in and put something more of
a commercial nature in, which would have a much greater traffic impact than I might have. So, for that
reason, I’d urge that you rezone the property to professional so that it is limited to professional.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would just like to digress for a minute and ask my fellow Board members if they
have completely read the Staff notes because it’s, starting on the second page, there’s sort of a question and
answer area here, like for example, Question One, what need is being met by the proposed change. Now, if
you think it’s necessary, we can go over these. Has everybody taken a look at that and understand what they
all say? Okay. While I’m on that subject, Mr. Bernhard, I’d like to say that, looking at the summary of
allowed uses in various districts, residential districts, and if you’re looking to get a recommendation from us
to change this to a professional office zone, commercial boat sales, service and storage are not an allowed use
in that zone. So while I understand that you’ve got, you know, boats that you’d like to store in there, the
storage thing is not an allowed use.
MR. BERNHARD-I think it allows three, from what I was allowed, what was sent to me by Craig Brown,
along with the information you’re looking at now.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, I didn’t?
MR. BERNHARD-Up to three boats per parcel is what I was informed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, he’s not talking about commercial operation. He’s talking about personal
storage.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask him to clarify that as well. You’re talking about personal storage
only?
MR. BERNHARD-Purely personal. My parents have a home on Loon Lake. I have a boat up there. I have
my own home on Glen Lake, and I also have a home in Fort Miller on the Hudson River, and for that reason,
I have several boats, and plus I’m interested in antique boats.
MR. SCHACHNER-And, Bob, I think you also need to understand that the Zoning Ordinance defines
commercial boat storage to say three or more vessels, and the applicant, as we understand, is not proposing
three or more vessels.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was just looking at the summary of allowed uses here.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and it says commercial boat storage, and your point was that commercial boat
storage is not allowed.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the concern was that the applicant’s proposal, therefore, wouldn’t work, even if the
Town Board rezoned as requested. What we’re trying to point out is that commercial boat storage is defined,
and that’s not what the applicant seeks, as I understand it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is a personal storage that he’s using.
MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have to label it “personal” if you don’t want. That term is not defined in the
Ordinance, but the term “commercial boat storage” is defined in the Ordinance and that does not appear to
be what the applicant’s proposing.
MR. BERNHARD-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand. Okay. With that, I’d like to get some comments from Board members on ho
we feel about this recommendation. John, I’ll start off with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good evening. So you’re basically going to have a law office there and use it for
some personal storage.
MR. BERNHARD-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Are you willing to do some landscaping? I mean, we have a lot of pavement out in front of
there. It might fit in more suitably, and we’ll, I’m just asking you this ahead of time. This isn’t a site plan
review, but I think generally the Board’s going to require some landscaping work to be done to soften the
institutional look, and it’ll also make your office more pleasant.
MR. BERNHARD-That certainly is something I already had in mind.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. BERNHARD-Access to the bays would be a concern, of course, three doors.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I think you can arrange the landscaping to take away the institutional look yet
provide you the access you need once you sit down and look at it.
MR. BERNHARD-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. BERNHARD-Yes. I definitely had that in mind.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I don’t want to put you on the spot, Mr. Schachner, but can you explain spot
zoning? Is it easy enough to do?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. It’s not very easy. I mean, I think the Board members, and yourself in particular,
have dealt with applications previously at which the concept of spot zoning came up. I mean, I think it’s very
easy to describe what a spot zoning concern might be, but the reason I said, no, it’s not easy is because there’s
no bright line, there’s no law, there’s no statute, there’s no regulation and there’s not even any court decision
that says exactly in a bright line, yes, no, black/white definable way what does or does not constitute spot
zoning. The concept, I can’t imagine any of the Board members are not familiar with the concept. The
concept of spot zoning is the notion of creating an island, if you will, or a particular type of zoning that would
be completely incompatible with any of the surrounding zones. I’m not suggesting this application does that.
I’m speaking generically. The example that’s often given is if somebody were to suggest that in a Land
Conservation type zone, the most restrictive type zone imaginable, the most intensively heavy industrial
rezoning were to take place on a very small piece of land, so for example, I’m making this up, if you had a 100
acre area that was all Land Conservation and somebody proposed to rezone one acre in that 100 heavy
industry, one might argue that that would be what’s called spot zoning and therefore problematic because the
heavy industrial zoning would be so grossly incompatible with the Land Conservation zoning. That’s just an
example. I hope I’ve answered your question, but I don’t think I’m shedding any light on anything that the
Board members are not already familiar with.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in other words, it’s almost like we would do for a special use permit. It’s kind of out
of character with the current zoning, but it would be compatible with current zoning.
MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the “it” you’re referring to, in my example?
MR. STROUGH-Well, yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I don’t agree.
MR. STROUGH-In other words, the sharper the contrast between the different type of land uses, the more
likely is it going to be spot zoning?
MR. SCHACHNER-I agree with that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and what I’m getting at is the more compatible it appears to be, in terms of land uses,
the less likely it’s going to be spot zoning.
MR. SCHACHNER-I agree with that as well.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and my outward thoughts on this is that, you know, given the, all the potential
zoning types, and I went through all of them, I mean, and you look at it. Can you leave it residential? Well,
the building just isn’t going to work well residential. If you take a look at its prior history, it’s a firehouse. It
was noisy. It had a big whistle. It had big fire trucks going out. A professional office proposal is just that.
It’s professional offices. I think traffic will be minimized. I think it’ll be added to the tax rolls. I think that
there won’t be any contributions to the school system. There wouldn’t be any additional burdens on the
Town or the Town facilities. In addressing all the potential impacts of all the possible zoning types, I think
professional office is probably the type of zone I would most desire. I mean, short of taking down the
building with a bulldozer, and putting a house there, which doesn’t seem very practical, I think professional
office is probably the best thing for that, and that’s some of my thoughts for now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Richard?
MR. SANFORD-I agree mostly with what Mr. Strough said. I have a couple of questions. First of all, what
is the size of your current staff at your practice?
MR. BERNHARD-I have two full-time and two part-time secretaries.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it’s a relatively small law practice. You don’t anticipate much of an expansion
when you move, if you move up to the new location?
MR. BERNHARD-I don’t anticipate that. Looking down the road, there possibly could be an additional
attorney as I get older and want to start to wind down, but at this point, there definitely isn’t any plan for that.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, the only thing I wrestle with, of course, is we really aren’t rezoning for you, we’re
rezoning forever, and of course your professional use could become a different professional use down the
road, which could have a lot more congestion, or people working there than what you’re envisioning. I guess
we’ve got to wrestle with that sort of in the context of what Mr. Strough was talking about, in terms of what
the alternatives are. So that’s something we’ve got to weigh in at. Just a couple of more questions, though,
regarding the boats. I think you’ve made it pretty clear, but I would like to just beat this dead horse just a
little bit more. You’re not going to be bringing in a boat that you do not own and getting a storage fee for it?
Is that correct?
MR. BERNHARD-I have no intention.
MR. SANFORD-And all storage would take place inside, not outside, with tarps and what have you?
MR. BERNHARD-Everything would be inside.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So it wouldn’t present any kind of an eyesore.
MR. BERNHARD-No.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Having said that, I mean, not that, you know, my opinion’s going to sway you guys
too much, but I agree with Mr. Strough, to a large degree, that considering what we have here, it makes sense
to move forward with this, and this is probably the least impact use.
MR. STROUGH-And if I could add, too, in addition to what Mr. Sanford was pointing out, and Staff can
correct me if I’m wrong, but any significant change of use would have to come before us, even though it was
zoned Professional Office, and to allay some of the concerns of the public.
MR. SCHACHNER-For site plan review.
MR. HUNSINGER-Site plan review.
MR. STROUGH-Site plan review, that’s correct.
MR. BERNHARD-That would be my understanding.
MR. SANFORD-I’m all done, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Just to sort of pick up on comments from my colleagues, certainly one of the concerns
that we have to take into account is who would be the next user and what they would likely use it for, and I
would agree with Mr. Strough that probably the proposed use is probably the least impacted on the
neighborhood. I really want to commend Staff, though, for their Staff comments on this, because I thought
they really focused right in on some of what I thought, anyway, were the important issues, and Mr. Chairman,
if you’re looking for comments on some of the specific items, in one through ten, I guess my comments
would expand on item ten, in the fact that, you know, I really see the property as being a community asset,
and that the sale and reuse of the property is clearly in the best interest of the community, provided that it’s
not done at the expense of the neighborhood, and I clearly don’t see where that’s the case here.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand. Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with all the comments so far. I think the greater danger here is that if it’s not
changed, it could just sit there and you’d have a derelict piece of property on your hands, and in the future
any changes to the site would have to come before the Board anyway. So, I don’t have any problem changing
the zoning.
MR. VOLLARO-I have a similar view. In looking at this, I don’t see any really viable alternative,. An
alternative would be to do nothing, and therefore the building would do, as Tom said, would lay derelict and
eventually have to be torn down. I think, just looking at what some of the people have talked about, as far as
traffic is concerned, looking at your proposed Staff size, your hours of operation, I think a lot of the things
that Mr. Strough brought up, not impacting the school district and so on, I think it makes perfect sense, to
me, that we, as a Board, recommend this zone change, and that’s just, you know, trying to look at all of the
possible alternatives here, this seems to me like one of the better ones, even looking forward to later on, in
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
other words, somebody coming in and taking that space and converting it into something. They must come
back to us, as a Board, at that time, under site plan review. So, I have a question in the back of the room, but
you’re going to have to come to the mic if you want to say anything here.
JAY NICHOLAI
MR. NICHOLAI-My wife and I just agreed that after hearing what this gentleman had to say, we have no
objection about this and we’re about 300 feet away from it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NICHOLAI-So we want that to be in the record.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. I think the next thing that we have to do here is put up the resolution
acknowledging Lead Agency Status, in connection with this recommended zone change.
MRS. RYBA-Bob, what I would do is actually go through the SEQRA review first.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to go through SEQRA first?
MRS. RYBA-With those questions, because the way this resolution is set up, it discusses whether or not there
is an environmental impact statement would be needed.
MR. VOLLARO-The environmental impact will require. I see it, okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-And it includes your actual SEQRA determination, the way it’s set up.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that now. Okay. I understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s a Short Form.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you ready?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-A comment, Mr. Chairman? I would suggest a different answer to, I believe it’s the
second question. I don’t have an environmental assessment form in front of me, but I believe the second
question asks whether the action will receive coordinated review, and the answer actually is yes, this action is
receiving coordinated review, by virtue of this Board being Lead Agency. There is one other involved agency,
namely the Town Board, and I don’t want the record to suggest to the Town Board that the Town Board has
to go through all this SEQRA review all over again, which it obviously does not, based on your SEQRA
review. So I would suggest a yes answer to that question.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then the mitigation to the yes is that.
MR. SCHACHNER-There is no mitigation.
MR. VOLLARO-There is none.
MR. SCHACHNER-You’re not identifying an environmental impact. You’re merely answering the factual
question of whether the action is undergoing coordinated review. The answer is, yes, there’s no
environmental impact in that.
MR. STROUGH-I’ll second that, as amended.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. PZ 4-2002; SP 51-2002, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN BERNHARD, 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
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as
the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Metivier
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, now, I think we want to put the resolution up acknowledging the Lead
Agency Status in connection with this zone change 4-2002 for John Bernhard. Does somebody want to?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m going to give it a shot. I may need some help.
MR. VOLLARO-I think before we get it, we might want to just discuss this a little, John, before. I think the
big discussion is going to be down, number one.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I was just going to ask Mark. Should I go one, and, I’ve made a list of
reasons, and should I list those reasons?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry. I’m confused. What proposed resolution are you talking about now?
MR. STROUGH-It says.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. What did you just pass by unanimous yes vote?
MR. STROUGH-SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-SEQRA.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I think we’ve become confused because Staff’s proposed resolution attempts to
knock off two birds with one stone, so to speak.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Staff’s proposed resolution has you as the Planning Board, acknowledging yourself as
the SEQRA Lead Agency, okay, and then Staff’s proposed resolution also includes what’s called your
SEQRA determination, which is either a SEQRA negative declaration or a SEQRA positive declaration, and I
think you just enacted a SEQRA negative declaration, if I’m not mistaken. Did you not?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So what I would suggest, therefore, is that you not do anything further on
SEQRA. You don’t need to do this first prepared resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Then our motion would be to recommend a zone change, or not?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-That would be the next procedural step, exactly.
MR. STROUGH-And, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have a prepared resolution for that, John.
MR. STROUGH-I’ll list the reasons. Well, let me run these by you first, but let me get this clear with Mark.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, it’s very appropriate, and it’s both appropriate, legally, and helpful to the Town
Board to list the reasons supporting your recommendation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let me run the reasons by the Board and see if there’s any additions or deletions. I
have, the proposal is compatible with the residential area. Two, it does not directly add to the school
population. Three, it will be a minimal impact on Town facilities and emergency services. Four, the parcel is
not a wetland, nor has steep slopes, nor is a natural heritage area, nor a flood hazard area. Five, traffic impact
would be minimal. Six, current parcels assessed commercial properties are within the area and are
interspersed within the residential area, example of the restaurant or bar across the street. Seven, the site
already contains an institutional building, which indicates a planning strategy already in place. Eight, the
property would be put to use and generate tax revenue. Nine, given the prior unusual history of this parcel as
a firehouse, the potential compatible uses seem limited, given the design and structure of the building located
on this parcel. Professional Office zoning might be of less impact or intrusion upon the neighboring
residential area than other zoning possibilities. Is there anything I should add?
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to ask, I think you had one in there, John, but I wanted to put something that
the building has pre-existed, and has not demonstrated any significant environmental impacts.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I said, given the prior unusual history of this parcel as a firehouse, the potential
compatible uses seem limited, given the design and structure of the building located on this parcel.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that that essentially covers my point, yes.
MR. SANFORD-I would like one deletion to be considered, and that is the school tax, I guess, or the school
impact, only because it suggests that there’s a bias here for approving projects that may, in fact, contribute to
a higher cost of providing secondary school education, which I don’t think it’s especially relevant.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my point was that it was a minimal impact on the Town and the Town facilities.
MR. SANFORD-Well, either way, I don’t think it matters too much.
MR. STROUGH-Does Council have any suggestion?
MR. SCHACHNER-I certainly don’t have any suggestion as to whether you include that or not, because
that’s a policy decision for you all to make, but Mr. Strough is certainly correct that proposed effect or
possible effect on public facilities is one of the factors for you to consider in rezoning.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, well, that’s fine. Leave it in then.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I have, John, I mean, I guess I kind of thought that we would take off
from Staff notes in any resolution.
MR. STROUGH-I borrowed a lot from Staff notes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you hit on all ten items?
MR. STROUGH-I kind of thought I did. Did I miss something?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. I just wanted to.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if I missed something, you know, speak up. I kind of went through them and picked
out what I thought was the heart of it, and then I added a little bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I don’t have any problems with anything that you mentioned.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, if you see something, I think I picked up just most things that Staff pointed out,
and then some.
MR. SEGUJLIC-Future site uses would have to come before the Board.
MR. SANFORD-That would have to happen anyway, though.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That would be a procedural thing that would just automatically take place.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, there’s no harm in saying that, but it doesn’t really need to be part of
anybody’s motion, because that’s the law.
MR. VOLLARO-I think John has put a pretty comprehensive package together, and I think he’s kind of, I’ve
tried to do the same thing you did, Chris, look at items one through ten of, and I think, Marilyn, these were
your comments, primarily, weren’t they? And I think that he’s put a pretty comprehensive package together,
and basically what we’re, this package is for the benefit of the Town Board, so the Town Board can
understand how we have gone forward to propose a recommendation, and I think that John’s does it very
well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a Staff question. What other information would the Town Board receive, other
than the resolution itself? Would they receive Staff comments and minutes from the meeting?
MRS. RYBA-They would receive the resolution, and I’m not really sure how it’s been done in the past, but
we can certainly give them the whole package.
MR. SCHACHNER-They do get all the minutes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I mean, I knew they got the minutes, but I didn’t know if they would be
separated out for purposes of this resolution.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think they generally try to get them separated out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, John, why don’t you go forward with the motion.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, we don’t have anything prepared. All right.
MOTION THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SUPPORTS A
REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PZ 4-2002 JOHN BERNHARD APPLICATION, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
We recommend a change of zoning to the Town Board for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is compatible with the residential area
2. It will not directly add to the school population
3. There will be a minimal impact on Town facilities and emergency services
4. The parcel is not a wetland, nor has steep slopes, nor is a natural heritage area, nor is in a flood
hazard site.
5. Traffic impacts would be minimal
6. Current parcels assessed to commercial property are already within the area and are interspersed
within the residential area; example, there is a restaurant/bar across the street.
7. The site already contains an institutional building, which indicates a planning strategy already in place.
8. The property would be put to use and generate tax revenue
9. Given the prior unusual history of this parcel as a firehouse, the potential compatible uses seem
limited, given the design and structure of the building located on this parcel. Professional Office
zoning might be of less impact or intrusion upon the neighboring residential area than other zoning
possibilities.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. Well, you’re all set for the recommendation. You’ve still got to go to the
Town Board for a zone change.
MR. SCHACHNER-And, if the zone change is approved, back here for site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-And back here for site plan, correct.
MR. BERNHARD-On tonight’s agenda you have a site plan review listed.
MR. SCHACHNER-And it was advertised for public hearing as well. So you may wish to open that public
hearing, if you wish to do so.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can certainly do that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Let me rephrase that. You should open the public hearing, since it was advertised.
MR. VOLLARO-But we’re not going to discuss the site plan any further, other than that.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can discuss it if you wish to, you just can’t rule on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s up to you whether you want to discuss it or not.
SITE PLAN NO. 51-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN H. BERNHARD PROPERTY OWNER:
BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. ZONE: PO LOCATION: 483 GLEN LAKE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONVERSION OF THE FORMER BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER
FIRE CO. FIREHOUSE ON GLEN LAKE ROAD INTO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. CROSS
REFERENCE: PZ 4-2002 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP NO. 289.06-1-6 LOT
SIZE: 1.37 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
JOHN BERNHARD, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll open up the public hearing on Site Plan 51-2002, for purposes of discussion, and is there
anybody willing to comment, or wanting to comment on the site plan, now that we’ve gone through the
rezone?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. VOLLARO-Having no takers, I will close the public hearing, or shall I leave it open?
MRS. RYBA-You need to keep it open.
MR. VOLLARO-Leave it open until we get through site plan review. We’ll leave the public hearing open.
Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Again, this seems to me a little bit crazy that we’re even entertaining this when the actual
rezoning hasn’t happened yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s crossed my mind, too, but as Counsel says, it’s been publicly advertised, and I
guess we’re obligated to.
MRS. RYBA-If you recall the whole reason behind it is because the Planning Board made the policy decision
to do site plan review in conjunction with the petition for zone change when it is known that a site plan
review will be coming down as a future application.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s how we get into the Lead Agency position. Isn’t that what determines whether
we take Lead Agency or not, is whether a site plan is to be introduced at a later date?
MRS. RYBA-Right, exactly.
MR. SCHACHNER-Whether a specific proposed use is proposed as a part of the rezoning, correct.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I, for one, don’t see any necessity for us to go further in discussion on the site plan itself,
until such time as the Town Board approves the rezone, and then we can do this.
MR. BERNHARD-There is a time concern, putting boats away for the season is upon us. If it is at all
possible, if you could act on the site plan review contingent upon the rezoning being approved by the Town
Board. If it’s not approved by the Town Board, it will be a moot issue because the contract won’t be
executed.
MR. VOLLARO-We really try not to approve things here based on subsequent approvals by, at a later date.
This has other ramifications, concerning things that have happened in the Town. It’s not just this, but other
things that may come up, that we don’t want to set the precedent for approving something before we actually
get approval on its requirement.
MR. STROUGH-In addition to that, and if I’m alone, I’ll just keep quiet, but in order to soften the
institutional appearance of this project, given that it’s surrounded by a residential area, I’d like to see a
landscaping plan, and I’ve told the applicant this, and so I’d want to review that landscaping plan before I
gave any approval.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, sure. I have no problem with that. You’re talking about during site plan approval?
Yes. It makes sense to me. So I think we’ve opened the public hearing, we’re going to leave it open, but
we’re not going to have any discussion on the site plan until we actually get to an approval by the Town
Board for the zone change, and then we’ll go forward with that. Now, how does Staff feel about that?
MR. HILTON-That’s fine. We have our comments out. We, at some point in the future when this is heard
again, may have additional comments, but right now the only issues from the site plan point of view seem to
be landscaping and access management, but, you know, you don’t have to discuss them this evening. We can
wait until another time.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we would rather do here, yes. At least that’s what I am recommending to the
Board, if the Board wants to go forward and discuss issues of site plan.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STROUGH-I agree with you.
MR. BERNHARD-I hope to target it on a date as soon as possible after the Town Board acts on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We can try and do that.
MR. STROUGH-When’s the Town Board scheduled to?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the application is, I take it that, I mean, you certainly can tell the applicant what
information, if you wish, and I’m not saying you have to do this, but it might make sense, to tell the applicant
what information, additionally, you want to see as part of a complete site plan application, if you don’t feel
you’re there yet. I think Mr. Strough’s made it pretty clear he wants to see a landscaping plan. You should
decide as a Board if, I mean, I would suggest, you decide as a Board if you want to have the applicant do that,
to facilitate the applicant’s return here, if and when the Town Board rezones. I believe this is, this may be
rezoned, or the rezoning issue may come before the Town Board as soon as next Monday night.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I do have one other thought. I notice on the back of the plans, there’s these gas
tanks. Have they been removed? Were they removed by the fire department, or are they still there?
RUSS CHATHAM
MR. CHATHAM-Those were lp gas to heat the building. They’re inside (lost words).
MR. STROUGH-Okay. They’re not gasoline gas tanks.
MR. CHATHAM-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would certainly agree with Mr. Strough on the landscaping plan and Staff on access
management. I don’t have any specific ideas, other than that, other than I’d like to see that on the site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Does the applicant understand what the Board has requested there?
MR. BERNHARD-I do. I appreciate it.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. VOLLARO-With that, I will, we’ll see you when this comes through, and we’ll try to set it up so that we
get on just as soon as possible, right after the Town Board approves the zone change.
MR. STROUGH-Since we opened the public hearing, do we have to do a tabling motion?
MR. BERNHARD-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re very welcome. With that, I’ll entertain a motion for adjournment.
MR. SCHACHNER-You have Ameri-Log.
MR. HILTON-Yes. You have to go back to Ameri-Log.
SITE PLAN NO. 47-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AMERI-LOG PROPERTY OWNER: DAN &
CAROL MARGOLIS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 134 LAKE PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT
APPILCANT PROPOSES TO BUILD AN OPEN WALLED BOATHOUSE WITH STAIRS AND
A 34’ X 37’ SUNDECK ON EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK. BOATHOUSE IN A WR ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02-
339, 98-312, 97-599, 96-706 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 10/9/02 TAX MAP
NO. 226.15-10/9-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: ART. 4, 179-4-020
MR. VOLLARO-Are they here?
MR. HILTON-They’re not here. We do have two pieces of public comment, written, that we should
probably open the public hearing, at least, and read those in to the record.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. What’s the protocol for this, George, when somebody doesn’t show? They
just go off on the next, on our next review, or do they get injected on the 22? Or how we do we do this?
nd
MR. HILTON-Well, it could go either way. Personally, I don’t know if I’d feel comfortable acting on it
without the applicant, but you could table it, open the public hearing and begin hearing the application at a
later date.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just so you know, legally, they’re also not required to be here.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry?
MR. SCHACHNER-Just so you know, there’s no legal, I mean, I’m not suggesting you do this. You do
whatever you want, but you’re not prohibited from acting in the absence, in the physical absence, of an
applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-True. In this particular instance, I would like to get some dialogue between the two.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not suggesting you do that. I just want to make sure the Board knows that for
future reference.
MR. STROUGH-Well, wasn’t this supposed to go in our package of expedited reviews anyway?
MR. VOLLARO-It was originally supposed to do that, but I think the Board and the Staff, particularly Chris
Round, has determined that we should start expedited reviews after this month.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my point is, if we were thinking about putting in an expedited review, there probably
isn’t little consideration more than we’ve already given to give.
MR. SANFORD-Whatever that means.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true.
MR. HILTON-Well, we do have public comment.
MR. VOLLARO-Except that, he’s got public. With one exception, John, I would say that during expedited
reviews, I would have expected that Staff would have done a lot more work reviewing this than we would
have. We’re just pretty much approving what they’ve have to say now. Under this consideration, we haven’t
looked at it yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-And public comments would take it out of expedited review anyway, if people showed
up at the meeting for comment.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SANFORD-Sure, but I think what, maybe it’s John’s point, is that these could be read into the record,
and then we could call this to a vote, and we could approve this in the absence of the applicants being here,
and so I’m not so sure if we don’t want to do that. I mean, what’s the compelling reason, is there real reason
not to do that?
MR. STROUGH-I mean, I don’t want to ask the applicants to come here and then say, well, fine, you came,
we don’t have any questions. Thanks for coming.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-If the majority of the Board wants to go forward with this, I’ll certainly entertain. John,
what’s your opinion?
MR. HILTON-I’ve got the comments.
MR. VOLLARO-Do the comments.
MR. HILTON-First of all, I have a letter signed, I believe the first name is Wilfred, and anyway, the last name
is Lester. It says, “Dear Catherine LaBombard: We have received notice for Dave and Carol Margolis’s site
plan review 10/15/02. The Margolis’s are good and responsible new neighbors. Having seen the quality of
their new dock, we have no qualms re: the deck to be built. No deck height above dock is mentioned. I
presume it will be less than 8’! Good luck Dan & Carol”
MR. VOLLARO-Less than how much?
MR. HILTON-Eight feet. They’re talking about.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the height of the dock has got to be determined. On the back, they talk about the
Lake George Park Commission and they go on to submit this determining the position of the mean low water
mark, mean high, low water marks, in terms of setting the height of the dock.
MR. SANFORD-He’s just reading the letter.
MR. HILTON-Okay. The second piece of information to be read into the record is a phone conversation I
had with Miss McLean, who is the property owner directly to the north. She asked me to forward concerns
to the Board about the proposed boathouse and how it would potentially block scenic views of hers to the
south. They are also, she was also concerned with, overall throughout the Town, how there seems to be
construction like this that continues to diminish scenic views and precedents that applications like this set.
However, more immediately, she was concerned, as I said, with her views from her property, and how this
boathouse may impact that negatively, and I have here a photo of the existing dock where the
boathouse/sundeck will be built on top of it, and this is the view from Miss McLean’s property to the north,
and this is the same dock that you saw in the previous photo, and this is where the boathouse will be built.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty much representative of a lot that we’ve seen on the lake.
MR. STROUGH-Is this from her cottage or down below?
MR. HILTON-This is from Miss McLean’s property in front of her cottage near the lakeshore.
MR. SANFORD-Is this construction totally in compliance?
MR. HILTON-According to the plans submitted, the application, the construction appears to be in
compliance with the Town’s zoning regulations, and they seem to have noted the mean high water and mean
low watermarks correctly.
MR. SANFORD-Again, I don’t know why we want to bring them back, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the Board is, just trying to get the sense of how the Board feels. I know how
John feels, and I think I know how Rich feels.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. After listening to Miss McLean and seeing how this is going to block her
property, I wouldn’t mind getting back up there and taking another look at that. My first thought was I didn’t
think it was blocking anybody’s view, but now I wouldn’t mind getting back up there and taking another look.
MR. VOLLARO-This property is to the north of that boathouse?
MR. HILTON-Directly to the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-We were on the south when we were looking at it.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I didn’t look at it from this perspective, and now I should probably take a second
look.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Strough, if it is blocking their view, is it going to alter your decision?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m going to vote no.
MR. HILTON-This is the view to the north.
MR. STROUGH-But I want to confirm that. I want to see how damaging that is to the views. That photo
makes it look very damaging, but I have to get up there and personally take a look.
MR. HILTON-The McLean’s property is where my cursor is, and again, this image looks toward the north.
This image looks from Miss McLean’s property toward the south.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do the McLean’s have a boathouse?
MR. HILTON-They have what appears to be, and I went out there today. You can see this little dock here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HILTON-That’s all I saw on the property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve changed my mind. I’ll table it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me try to pick up a consensus from the Board. Rich, what do you think?
MR. SANFORD-I think we should move on it, only because we’ve had these before, and even if we don’t
personally like the idea that it’s obstructing a view, they tend to go through and they get built anyway, and as
long as they’re in compliance, in terms of the construction dimensions, they go through, and so I just can’t
see dragging it out.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, how do you feel about it?
MR. SEGULJIC-I just want to see what the proposed boathouse looks like.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s quite typical of all of the open boathouse and a top deck for sunbathing and so on. It’s
a pretty typical design that we’ve seen several times.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand what John’s saying, but on the other hand, I understand what Rich is
saying, but I also feel like we’re operating in a vacuum here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, what if, I don’t know how limited her view is. For example, there was a
Mrs. Beckerly on Sandy Bay, and she has a place on Rockhurst, and her neighbors were given permission to
put up a sundeck on top of their U-Shaped dock, and what it did, essentially, was almost totally obliterate her
view with the exception of looking directly across the lake, with the view north, up toward Bolton Landing
from Sandy Bay is totally blocked out, from her cottage, from her lawn, and unless you walk out to the very
end of her dock, and it completely ruined her view. Now, it may not be the case here, and it may be. I’m
going back up north.
MR. SANFORD-John, I know that, and if it is, you’ll vote no.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think that anybody has, you know, I don’t like these decks anyway, but, you know, if
they do it and it’s not obstructing anybody’s view, I’ll vote for it, but if you’re blocking somebody else’s view,
and you’re going to hurt somebody else’s quality of life and somebody else’s property value, then that’s not
right, not for these sundecks.
MR. SANFORD-John, has there ever been a dock application that’s obstructed somebody’s view before?
MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s a minimum and then there’s a lot.
MR. SANFORD-Well, has there ever been?
MR. STROUGH-Well, that one instance I just told you.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
MR. SANFORD-Was it voted yes or no?
MR. STROUGH-I wasn’t on the Board at the time. I would have voted no.
MR. SANFORD-It was voted yes. I guess I understand your point, John, but, you know, I don’t think it’s
going to affect the outcome, is my point.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, what do you think?
MR. VOLLARO-I hate all of them. I agree with John. If it were up to me I would vote them all down, but
how can you vote one down when you’ve already approved the 120? So, I mean, I would agree with him, if it
blocks someone’s view, I would be inclined to vote no.
MR. SANFORD-All right. So I guess we want to table it. We’ve got a couple of people here. I don’t have a
problem with tabling it.
MR. SEGULJIC-We could just vote it down. They’re not here.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the important point here is, and I think it’s well taken, that Tom’s point is, if this
individual who wrote that letter feels very strongly about this dock going up, how come she’s not here for the
public hearing?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same thing.
MR. STROUGH-In the case of Mrs. Beckerly, for example, she’s too old and frail.
MR. SCHACHNER-If I can interject a comment about that. That’s a pretty tough standard to hold
somebody to. The purpose of allowing written comment is specifically so that you can do that if you don’t
have the resources, the capability, the availability, the transportation, the health or whatever to show up at a
public hearing. I obviously, as Counsel, I have no input whatsoever in what you think about these boathouse
things or not, but I think you should, I’d be concerned, as your Counsel, if you were to weigh prejudicially
against somebody for not physically showing up when they, I don’t mean the applicant, but you said the
person who wrote the comment.
MR. SANFORD-Well, first of all, a letter wasn’t really read into the record. It was, apparently, a paraphrasing
of a telephone conversation.
MR. SCHACHNER-A separate issue.
MR. SANFORD-Could you read the actual letter?
MR. HILTON-There was no letter submitted. There was a phone conversation between me and Miss
McLean, who.
MR. SANFORD-So, is there a distinction to be made on that?
MR. SCHACHNER-My opinion, and this is something that Staff and I don’t agree with. My opinion is that
telephone conversations should not be allowed as part of public comment.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with you.
MR. SCHACHNER-But just understand, Staff disagrees with Counsel on that. I don’t mean these particular
Staff people, but Queensbury Staff has, that’s a traditional disagreement between Queensbury Counsel and
Queensbury Staff.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you happen to be right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, that’s just our opinion.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we should go out and look at it again.
MR. STROUGH-I’ll make a motion.
MR. HILTON-Excuse me. Before you entertain a motion, I just want to bring to your attention, to the
Board’s attention, Section 179-9-80 which discusses or sets forth the requirements for approval at site plan.
It brings up certain things such as ecological, wildlife impacts, traffic congestion, impact on neighborhood
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/15/02)
character, etc., etc., etc. So you’re not necessarily, I guess, bound by the traditional definition of, well, does it
meet the Ordinance, and that’s it, continue. You can consider these factors listed in the Section that I just
mentioned.
MR. SANFORD-Sure. We appreciate that.
MR. HILTON-Right. They’re requirements. They should be considered prior to approval.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2002, AMERI-LOG, Introduced by John Strough
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
For Dan and Carol Margolis, to the first regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting in November, which
would be November 19, and the reasons are the applicants were not here. We had some questions and we’d
th
like to do further site plan review.
Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
MRS. RYBA-Before you adjourn, I just have one last comment, which is Craig Brown has submitted some
information on Special Use Permits, and he’d like you to look at that and talk with him by this Friday, if
possible, give him your comments.
MR. VOLLARO-By Friday?
MRS. RYBA-By Friday, thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Is e-mail comments satisfactory?
MRS. RYBA-That would be great.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman
49