2003-04-24 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 24, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
LARRY RINGER
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 RUSSELL PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSCH ORIGINAL
APPROVAL: JANUARY 15, 2002 EXTENSION GRANTED: MARCH 30, 2003
MR. HILTON-We really don’t have anything. We have a letter in the file from Mike Travis
stating that the applicant has indicated to Mr. Travis that he’s been given permission to use
Marley Way, and Mr. Travis seems to have no objection at this time. We have nothing further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. My name is Russ Pittenger, and I’m here with Wallace
Hirsch. I guess we’d ask the Board, we’ve had some, I’ve had preliminary discussions with the
owners of Marley Way. They’ve indicated a willingness to allow us to haul loaded trucks out
Marley Way. My discussions with Mr. Travis indicated that he would be willing to remove a
time of year restriction on that hauling if we used Marley Way for the loaded trucks. I have not
negotiated nor signed contracts with those land owners, but I anticipate that we will, and what
we’d ask the Board to do is to, two things, one to allow us to remove the time restriction if we
indeed use Marley Way, and the second issue is that, if for some reasons those negotiations
don’t bear fruit, we would like to have next winter to have the opportunity to do that hauling
like we did last winter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have something from the property owners on Marley Way that says
they give you permission to do this?
MR. PITTENGER-I’ve discussed it, and various owners have various concerns. I believe that
we can work that out. We have not worked that out yet. I mean, some people want the road
fixed. Some people want the road not to be fixed, and one of the Board’s, I guess I came to the
Board first to ask for their allowance of that, before I went and went to the contractor. We
anticipated that they would be signed (lost words) insured on the insurance for the contractor,
and we would have certain negotiations that would all be taken care of before we would do it,
and if indeed we could not negotiate that, then we would just try to do it this winter like we did
last winter. Unfortunately, last winter, I’ve heard a million stories but there was a lot of frost, a
lot of snow and we just couldn’t get it done.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I think from the position of the Board, I think we would be relatively
uncomfortable granting an approval to use Marley Way, without you having prior approval
from the property owners along Marley Way. I mean, if it’s not that big of an issue where you
can get their approvals for it, then, you know, come back and see us and we can put it together
for you, because I don’t think the Board, as a whole, would probably be uncomfortable with the
use of Marley Way. We would like to be assured that you have the property owner’s
permission before we grant an approval to do it.
MR. PITTENGER-If I could distribute this to the Board, what I’ve done is get a quick ownership
map of the properties. The lots marked with H & P are the Hirsch and Pittenger lot where
we’re removing material. The lots marked J, R, N & S are the land owners. I’ve spoken with
them, and in principal they’ve agreed to let us use it, but before we would use that, I guess it’s a
Catch-22 or chicken and egg thing. We certainly don’t anticipate that the Board’s relief of the
advisement from the Highway Department would not grant us the right to do that. I would ask
the Board to allow us the timeframe to do that, contingent upon us agreeing with these owners.
I’ve spoken to them all. They agree in principal, but we haven’t really.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve spoken to all four property owners?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, I’ve spoken to three of them. The fourth, the end property is Niagara
Mohawk, where they have an easement that ends right at that edge, which I didn’t anticipate
would be a problem, but I’ve spoken with Dave Stevens, which is the “S” lot at the corner of
Birdsall Road, Ann Russell, at the “R” lot, and Steve and Lisa Jackowski at the “J” lot. They
own that, the property that that right of way goes across.
MR. VOLLARO-When you say in principal, what do you mean? Are they talking about you
fixing the road later? Do you have other things that they’re asking you to do as a result of your
using their road?
MR. PITTENGER-There’s 1,000 stories. Dave Stevens likes the road not really fixed up. He
doesn’t use it, and he thinks that a road that’s not too fixed up reduces traffic. Ann Russell
would like the road to be fixed up better and to put some gravel down, and we’ve indicated a
willingness to do that. Steve Jackowski would like it moved, or, they each have their own
concerns that I think we can address to receive their final approval for that. I guess I would like
the Board’s opportunity negotiate with them and do that, you know, not in the middle of the
winter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t think it’s, you know, it’s necessarily this Board’s, how do I want
to phrase this?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re not a mediator, is what you’re saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. In other words, it’s kind of like putting the cart in front of the horse. I
mean, if this Board was to say, okay, we would grant you an approval to use Marley Way to
move all this gravel off this property, and you go back and say, well, the Board’s given me
permission to do this, in the public’s eye, who’s not here tonight, if any of them aren’t here, that
could kind of like confer to them like, well, I guess it’s a done deal because the Board said it was
okay, when this is a private right of way. It’s not a public road. It’s not a Town road. It’s not a
County road. It’s a private right of way.
MR. PITTENGER-And it seems, and I don’t mean to belabor that point, but from my point of
view, it would seem that the restriction that we have on hauling was based on the Highway
Department’s recommendation that extended Birdsall Road couldn’t take the pressure. So he
recommended that it be, in other words, it was the Highway Department guy’s
recommendation that the Board was contingent our wintertime use of, and all I would like the
Board to do is to give me next winter to do it, or, if I can, and I don’t mind it being an approval
with contingencies. I’m happy to come in here with signed agreements from all these
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
landowners before we do it, if the Board can make that approval contingent upon having signed
and filed things. I’m happy to do that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I have a quick question. If we just give you another year to do it in the
wintertime, as you originally suggested, and you secure approval to use this private road, why
do we even have to be, maybe it’s more for legal, why do we even have to be involved with
that? It’s not a Town road. Not a County road. I don’t know why we’re even a party to that.
MR. PITTENGER-The only reason is that my approval restricts my hauling to certain times, and
there is a piece of the end of Birdsall that I’d have to haul on, basically getting from Lot P across
Gloria Cooley’s lot, there’s like three lots to get to that. So the Board restricted the time that we
could haul, and that’s the only reason I came back, and we’re very motivated to do this. I think
that we can reach an agreement with the landowners, because last fall we cut all the trees off
that thing. It’s not pretty now. We thought we were going to get it done this winter, and now
it’s not pretty.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if I see where you have, yes, okay.
MR. PITTENGER-There’s just a stretch there.
MR. SANFORD-Small stretch.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes. I feel as though this project has been limited by the condition of the road
and the Highway Department guy’s recommendations that the Board has implemented, and
fine and good. I think that the Highway Department has looked at an option, in fact, he
recommended it early on and I couldn’t contact the owners. I’ve since become friendly with, I
mean, I know all the owners. They’re willing, and I think we can work something out. I’m just
asking the Board to give me that opportunity. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, to work something out, some sort of agreement with the
property owners, is not, the point I’m trying to make here, that’s not the Board’s, in the Board’s
realm of jurisdiction to tell you, we’re going to grant you permission to use Marley Way,
contingent upon you getting the approvals from the property owners because you’re dealing
with private property.
MR. PITTENGER-I understand that. Would the Board feel comfortable in.
MR. RINGER-You don’t want the Board to give you permission to use Marley Way. You want
the Board only to give you permission to change the date that you can do the moving?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. RINGER-So Marley Way has nothing to do with what you’re doing at all. All you’re
asking us to do is give you permission to change the timeframe.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. RINGER-So I think we’re clouding the issue up when Marley Way has nothing to do with
it at all.
MR. PITTENGER-Right. It’s November 1 ‘til March 30, unless we use the Marley Way swing
for loaded trucks. That’s what I’m asking the Board to make a recommendation on.
MR. MAC EWAN-But see, that’s where they’re tied together. If we say, okay, you can start
hauling that stuff out of there this summer, the Town doesn’t want you using the Town road.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-So your option is to use Marley Way.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we’re saying, okay, you can start hauling out of there next month until
you get it all done. That’s basically telling you we’re giving you an approval to use Marley Way
when you don’t have the approval in place from the property owners who own the road.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to get their approval first.
MR. SANFORD-Well, one way we could do it is by just giving them approval to use that small
section any time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Small section of what?
MR. RINGER-That little bit of Birdsall Road.
MR. SANFORD-Birdsall Road any time, and of course they can’t just use that small section
unless.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s the issue, though. The Highway Department doesn’t want that
road used in the summertime, Birdsall Road, which is a Town road, because they’re fearful that
that amount of truck traffic on there is going to deteriorate the road in the summer months.
MR. SANFORD-No, but I’m talking about if they get the land owners approval for Marley what
are we talking about? How big of a stretch of that road are we talking about?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, it’s between Lot J & P, and the P Lot I know is 100 foot of frontage. So
it’s 200 feet, 250 feet, and according to Mr. Travis’ letter, he indicated that he was okay with
that, in my discussion and in his letter.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t see a big deal, but, all right. I’m just one.
MR. STROUGH-Now, when would you be able to begin this? Have you talked to contractors?
MR. PITTENGER-We have willing contractors, and that’s all I can say. I mean, we’re really
trying to get them to do it, and we have no control over them. The schedule is, what I like to do
is, when I get a contractor that’s willing to start, sign a contract so we have control over him, we
have insurances. We protect the landowners, and we all want to protect ourselves and get it
going.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, do you foresee this going into the summer, July or August
where there might be other residential issues?
MR. PITTENGER-It’s not my desire to do that. I would be willing to work until whatever the
Board, June 15, and then if it’s not done stop until September 1. I mean, it’s not my interest to
thst
do it during the summer.
MR. STROUGH-So what you’re essentially asking for and you’d be happy with is an extension
of your approval to July 1, contingent upon you getting the approval from the adjoining land
st
owners to Marley Way, or, Option Two, that you be allowed to resume or initiate the hauling of
the material, say January 1 to next April 30, during the winter months.
stth
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. PITTENGER-Well, I had November 1 for last year, but that’s, you know, whatever you’d
st
prefer. That would be fine.
MR. STROUGH-Whatever the case might be.
MR. VOLLARO-Anything we do here of that nature is going to be subject to Highway
Department approval, however. I think right now, the Highway Department, we extended the
date for hauling, was to end on March 30.
th
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Right? And that’s where we were. Now March 30’s come and gone, and for
th
us to get any additional information, or any additional approvals on Birdsall Road, would be
something that I don’t think we can even consider until we’ve talked to Highway Department.
MR. SANFORD-Highway says they have no objection.
MR. MAC EWAN-No objection to what?
MR. SANFORD-To rescinding the time limitations that we had imposed upon them, that’s what
they state.
MR. STROUGH-So as long as they use Marley Way, they don’t have to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but you’re missing the first part of the sentence, if he uses Marley Way,
they don’t have a problem rescinding those restrictions.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-The catch to this whole thing is Marley Way is basically private property. I
don’t think this Board has the authorization to grant an approval for someone to use someone
else’s private property.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either.
MR. STROUGH-No, I don’t think that’s what’s being stated here, Mr. Chairman, with all due
respect. I think what we’re saying is we grant them permission to do their excavation only if
they get permission from the property owners. If they don’t get permission from the property
owners, they have to go to the second option, which is to do it during the winter months of next
year.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s fine with us.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think we’re forcing anything on the property owners. It’s up to them.
If they don’t get the property owner’s permission, they can’t do it.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Until the winter months set in.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have talked to every property owner along Marley Way?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-And I have gone around and around with Ann Russell because she thought
that the Board was going to grant that approval, and she would not be able to have anything to
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
do with it, and I told her, first, I wanted your approval in principal, then I want the Board to
give us the relief, then I want to go back with them and get the, sign a contract. I don’t want
them changing their mind the last minute either. I want them to work it out, get all their
concerns down and deal with it.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things you need to make your deal go, it looks like, is an approval
from this Board, and you go back to these other people and say, I already have the Planning
Board’s approval to do this, and that’s Step One is already been taken care of.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s my desires.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s kind of a negotiating point for you with them as a matter of fact.
MR. PITTENGER-But I started with the owners, too. Because if they were interested, then we
were just going to wait until the winter again, but the contractor brought up, he said, you know,
we could haul out Marley Way and maybe we could get some relief from the Highway
Department and I took that and I went to the owners, then I went to the Highway Department,
and now I’m before you.
MR. MAC EWAN-What would the Board feel comfortable with, as far as some sort of
documentation?
MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s what I’ve got written.
MR. VOLLARO-In answer to the Chairman’s question, I would like to see some approval from
the owners of Marley Way first. That’s my position.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I said approval of adjoining land owners to use Marley Way must be
demonstrated and submitted to the Planning Department prior to excavation and hauling of
material, and that this would only be good until July 1, and if they can’t get this done before
st
July 1, then I think we do have to jump to next winter.
st
MR. SANFORD-I agree with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Why the July 1 implication on Marley Way?
st
MR. STROUGH-Well, because I think that way we’ll stay out of the other residential, the noise
and the dust and all those, the other issues of people wanting to enjoy their camps during the
summer months.
MR. VOLLARO-If those people say, okay, it’s okay for you to use Marley Way all year round,
where are we with that, with those words? We have no control over Marley Way.
MR. SANFORD-The applicant said he would stop.
MR. RINGER-No, but we limited him to the time frame that he can move dust, trucks around.
It’s going to be on Birdsall Road for part of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just not the properties on Marley Way, because you’ve got six, seven
other camps or residences that are on Birdsall Road that would hear the truck noise that could
potentially see the dust.
MR. STROUGH-I think they’d be more likely to get the approval from the people on Marley
Way, if they know that this only went until July 1.
st
MR. RINGER-I kind of like John’s, I like the way he’s presented that.
MR. SANFORD-I’m with John on this one.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. VOLLARO-We’re also now taking on the fact that we’re going to allow a small portion of
Birdsall Road to be used, past March 30, which was the Highway Department’s cut off date.
MR. RINGER-But I think that it’s covered there by Travis in his letter.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I agree.
MR. RINGER-As rescinding the limitations that we have previously placed on, the last sentence
of his letter, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m reading it now.
MR. MAC EWAN-See, I don’t read that in that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either.
MR. SANFORD-I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I’m reading, he’s under the impression that they’re exclusively going
to use Marley Way, and that they’re not going to be transferring.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what are they going to do, throw the dirt a couple of hundred feet? I
mean, they have to go on the road for a certain section. I mean, if Travis was, you know,
studying the situation, Marley Way doesn’t take it all the way there.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that the way the words read now it looks like Travis figured,
okay, if you’re going to use Marley Way, then we’ll let you use a little bit of Birdsall Road for
just a little bit of time?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. RINGER-That’s the way I.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t see it that way. It certainly could be read in both ways, but I tend
to see it as the Chairman sees it, myself.
MR. RINGER-This applicant’s been before us I don’t know how many times for doing a little
job, and I just think that we’re down, you know.
MR. SEGULJIC-How many trucks are you talking?
MR. PITTENGER-About 10,000 yards. It could be 200 trucks loads.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a few trucks.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you know, to comment to your comment, Larry, I appreciate and
sympathize with the frustration the applicant has gone through trying to make his parcel up
there the way he desires to have it, and that’s just been compounded by Mother Nature and
certain circumstances and such like that, but on the other hand, we’re now impacting a private
right of way.
MR. RINGER-We’re not doing anything to a private right of way.
MR. SANFORD-I disagree with that.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-We would be if we said, okay, we’ll grant this approval. You go see the
property owners. My preference is for them to see the property owners first, get a letter of
authorization from each of the three property owners, and take it from there.
MR. RINGER-I’m looking at the fact that he’s got to get this done by June 30, and he’d have to
th
come back to us again. We’ve already got a full schedule for May, probably got a full schedule
for June. He might not even get in to see us again until July.
MR. SANFORD-Plus John’s saying that they can’t start doing it unless they have the approvals
submitted to the Planning Department. So it’s conditioned upon them securing those
approvals.
MR. RINGER-You know, if this were a mile, or two miles he was using Birdsall Road, but 200
feet, and I think that, in my opinion, the way I read this from Travis is he’s kind of looked at
that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the thing that I don’t see in it. Travis saying, well, okay, you can
drive on my road now for a while. That’s not a problem. I don’t see that jumping out at me in
those words.
MR. SANFORD-Well, if he didn’t think they were going to be on the road, on a Town road at
all, he would write down it’s none of my business.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we can sit here and suggest what he was thinking when he
wrote the letter or what his mindset is.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SANFORD-But that’s what you guys are doing.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re reading what’s in here.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and if you read it.
MR. RINGER-John was penning a resolution. Are you coming on that? Or have you got
something that you might want to try and?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Here’s what I’ve got. Approval of adjoining land owners, in other words,
we’re granting the extension based on this, that the approval of the adjoining land owners to
use Marley Way must be demonstrated and submitted to the Planning Department prior to
excavation and hauling of material. This first option is only available up to July 1, 2003. All
hauling must cease at that time. Option Two, if the project is not complete by July 1, 2003, the
applicant may resume or initiate hauling, and I’m not sure what the original, what the starting
date was, but we’ll keep the same ones we had before, and must be completed by March 30,
2004.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only part that I have reservation about in that, what you penned, is the
first couple of lines where you say demonstrate and submit. Just change it to a letter of
authorization from the property owner, from each property owner.
MR. STROUGH-Must demonstrate.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Strike your demonstrate. Submit a letter of authorization from each
property owner on Marley Way.
MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, will demonstrate through the issuance or submission of.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-If you put a letter of authorization, it’s clear what we want.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d sure like to have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Travis and see what his
words really mean. He might say, in a sense, well, you’re allowing him to go on my road all the
way up to July 1. That was not my intention. That wasn’t the intention when we first did this,
st
was to keep them off this road during those months, but, you know, put the motion up and see
where it goes. John? You wanted to make a motion, go forward with it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll give it a shot. I don’t have any formal resolution. I guess we don’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just reference the site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 RUSSELL
PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSCH, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
Extension be granted based on the following conditions:
1. The approval of adjoining landowners to use Marley Way must be demonstrated
by having letters of authorization of all adjoining property owners submitted to
the Planning Department prior to excavation and hauling of material. This first
option is only available until July 1, 2003.
2. All hauling must cease by July 1, 2003. However, the applicant may pursue
Option Two. If the project is not complete by July 1, 2003, the applicant may
resume or initiate hauling November 1, 2003, but must be completed by March
30, 2004.
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2003 by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-No, and I’ll quantify my no. I’d rather have the property owner’s permission
first, and I’d rather have this letter from Travis verified as well. That’s the only reason why I
voted no.
MR. PITTENGER-I can appreciate that, but I did speak personally to Mr. Travis and I think that
you’ll find that he was aware of, that we were going to be using that little stretch of road.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford
NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. PITTENGER-I would ask that, of course it’s already voted and done, but the issue of the
adjoining property owners, I think that the Chairman referred to the property owners of Marley
Way, and I think that’s an important distinction that I’m aware of and not the adjoining owners,
which gets us into another ball of wax.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. Can we amend your resolution of that Marley Way?
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MOTION TO AMEND MOTION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 45-2001 RUSSELL
PITTENGER/WALLACE HIRSCH, Introduced by John Strough who for its adoption, seconded
by Larry Ringer:
When I say approval of adjoining property owners, I am referring to the owners of the property
under Marley Way.
Duly adopted this 24 day of April 2003 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford
NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck, Russ. I hope you get it done.
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you.
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 1-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED
HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: DOMBEK TRUST AGENT:
NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONDUCT/CAUSE A REGULATED ACTIVITY ON OR ADJACENT TO A
FRESHWATER WETLAND PURSUANT TO FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION
LAW, LOCAL LAW 1, 1976. NYS DEC GF-19 – HALFWAY BROOK. AREA OF WETLAND:
1.26 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-03, SP 14-03, DEC PERMIT TAX MAP NO.
296.20-1-2/59-1-13 LOT SIZE: 4.89 ACRES SECTION: : 179-6-100
JIM MILLER & BILL SIMPSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
PROPERTY OWNER: DOMBEK TRUST (RPS) AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, MILLER
ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 16,000 +/- SQ. FT. CAR WASH, OIL CHANGE AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SHOP. CAR
WASH/AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILITIES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE
PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-03, FWW 1-
03, DEC PERMIT WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 LOT SIZE: 4.82 ACRES SECTION
179-4-020
JIM MILLER & BILL SIMPSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-We will do the SEQRA review in conjunction with Site Plan 14-2003 for
Hoffman Development Corporation. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. In terms of the Freshwater Wetlands permit, when we last met, the Board
asked if we could try to get some information out of DEC concerning the 100 foot buffer area
and to what extent they felt comfortable with that. We did send a letter to DEC asking them
just that, and at this point haven’t received any information. The Freshwater Wetlands permit
for the Town of Queensbury is still before you. This project will require New York State DEC
Freshwater Wetlands permit as well. In terms of the site plan, it appears that the C.T. Male
comments regarding stormwater and the floodway have been addressed. However, the main
issue for Staff appears to be lighting. Lighting plan contains light levels that still exceed limits
in the Zoning Ordinance. The pole heights, the cut offs aren’t directed to the ground. Some are
actually pointing up, and, you know, various degrees, 20 degrees and so forth. Again, it just
seems like it’s going to be a very, very bright site and Staff continues to have some concern,
particularly about the way it’s proposed, and with the ultimate plan of turning off some lights,
it becomes an enforcement issue of how do you enforce an evening, a plan to turn off lights in
the evening, and that’s all we have for now.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SIMPSON-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Bill Simpson, Project Engineer for
Hoffman Development. Also with me tonight is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, Miller
Associates, Tom Hoffman, Jr., President, Hoffman Development Corporation, and other staff
from the Company. Are we combining both the submissions, or just the wetlands first?
MR. MAC EWAN-For SEQRA purposes, we have to do both the applications for SEQR review,
so we can talk about the wetlands permit first, then we’ll move in and talk about the site plan.
MR. SIMPSON-Okay. As previously stated, C.T. Male reviewed the Hec Res Stormwater
Analysis, and they determined that there is an insignificant or a very slight floodplain
differential from pre-conditions to after development conditions, and they signed off on it
stating that it’s going to be not effective on the floodplain. The other stormwater issues I think
were listed on page, there’s a stormwater management plan that, the notations of maintaining
the stormwater detention area and excessive snow being removed from the site via trucks in the
wintertime, and I think those were the only key issues pertaining to the wetlands permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. Any questions relative to the permit?
MR. SIMPSON-I should also add that Tom Nace is out of the area. That’s why he’s not in
attendance tonight.
MR. STROUGH-No. I’ve looked through this pretty thoroughly. I mean, the stormwater plan,
Tom Nace seems to have buttoned it right up. He put the notations on that we had asked for, in
reference to snow removal and maintenance of the stormwater devices. I want to thank you for
that, and, you know, I’ve been down there three times, and this is, you’ve really got a first class
operation. I mean, the place is neat as a pin. I mean, it offers a lot of valid services. I’m looking
forward to having it here. My one issue was Quaker Road, and the two things about Quaker
Road is I don’t like to see the cross traffic. I want to limit that, but I don’t think that this is going
to be that grave of an application that I’m going to say no I think it has so many overwhelming
benefits, and I think that aspect of it will be minimal, although I think as a Planning Board
we’ve got to keep conscious of these applications as they go along and the eventual, you know,
cumulative impacts that it is going to have on Quaker Road. So I’m mindful of that, and I hope
they are too. The only other couple of things, so, I think it’s a good application, but I didn’t see
any handicapped parking on it.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, basically, we don’t have a handicapped parking space because the
customer’s in the car until they get inside the building or they’re met outside the doors. So the
entrance area to the lube is, in fact, handicapped area where the customer would exit the car.
MR. STROUGH-Well can it be designated as such?
MR. SIMPSON-Well, the problem with designating it, any one of the three doors where you’re
pulling in to the lube, if we designated as handicapped, then other non-handicapped customers
would have a tendency not to want to pull into that lane. As it is now, a handicapped customer
pulls in to any one of our three lanes, and they can exit the car in that area. Because of the
excessive width of each one of the three doors.
MR. STROUGH-Now, isn’t there a State law that says you have to have a certain number of
handicap spots or spots available to the handicapped use?
MR. SIMPSON-For a facility where a customer would park in a parking space, and enter a
facility, yes.
MR. STROUGH-And if I was going to go there to get an oil change, don’t I have to park and
unload and?
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SIMPSON-No. As we stated in our original application, the three, this area right, the entry
area to the lube right here, that’s why the excessive width. The striped area actually allows for
the handicapped person to exit the car in those areas. Then they would go inside the building
and the excessive width at the exit end allows them to get back in their car at the exit end of the
building. Because they’re greeted out here by our service advisor.
MR. STROUGH-Now would that occur with all repairs, such as tire changes and anything else
that might occur?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. The service attendant greets all customers in this entry lot outside the
building.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the only other issue that I have, and if we get anywhere close to
meeting Town Code on the lighting issue, by the end of this meeting, then you’ve got my
approval, and thank you.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Questions relative to the Freshwater permit?
MR. SANFORD-Not lights?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I just want to do the Freshwater permit first, then move into the site
plan.
MR. SANFORD-Nothing, then.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one thing so I understand it. So what you’re saying is with the partial
grading on site is going to increase, potentially, the water, increase the water upstream of the
floodway by half an inch?
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it essentially, right? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing on the Freshwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-My only comment on the Freshwater permit is a very small portion of the
building is within the 100 foot, very small portion of it. So I see no problem with the Freshwater
permit. I’ve read it over. It seems to me that that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bill, do you want to go over the site plan?
MR. SIMPSON-With reference to the next permit?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SIMPSON-Basically what I’ll do is address the changes that we’re proposing for the
lighting. I should note that the lighting package we have at this location is the same lighting
package we’ve put in to the last four locations in Kingston, Colonie Village, Wilton, Clifton
Park, and there’s one more in there some place. Well, four locations there must have been, I
can’t think of the other one. Sand Creek in Wolfe Creek, thank you, Tom, but for the Town’s
request, this is what we’re proposing for reduced lighting. Right now, all of our lighting, with
the exception of the ones highlighted in orange, are shoebox down lighting. The ones in orange
were the proposed floodlights that are set at 60 degrees to the horizon. We’re proposing to
change all the floods from 1,000 watt floods to 320 watt cut off floods which are set at 15 to 20
degrees off the horizon. So they’re more of a down type lighting fixture. Additionally, they’re
120 watts that were killing the intensity or the hot spots that were on the site, from 51 foot
candles down to the neighborhood of 31 foot candles. That will be during the operational
portion of the, when the car wash is open. Additionally, for overnight, we’re shutting off the
lights that are highlighted in red, all the lighting in the back of the facility, and most of the
lighting on the east, or the west side of the facility, except for two we’re leaving on for night
lighting. Jim, would you just comment on what this sheet is right here for them, please.
MR. MILLER-One of the things we looked at, in looking at the Code, some of the comments
were equating this project to a commercial parking lot, and in looking at the Code, there’s other
areas in the Code that allow much higher light levels, one in particular is automobile lots, which
allows 20 foot candles. I assume that’s so people looking at cars at night can see what they’re
buying, and I think we have, you know, we have a situation here where this is not parking, per
se, you know, people aren’t parking here, going into the building. People are coming in here.
They’re lining up to come in to the facilities. They’re using the vacuum stations and they’re
working on their cars. So they need to see what they’re doing. They need a higher light level
than what you would normally get in a commercial parking lot. I think, I would agree with
you, if it was just a parking lot, having 20 foot candles of light in a parking lot would be
excessive. What we’ve done here is show the extent of the lighting. Here is the outside of our
paved area, and this is with all lights lit. This isn’t the night version where they’re shut off, the
light blue line shows the limits of two foot candles. So our lighting is basically, two foot candles
is the minimum and higher in the general circulation area, and you can see, because of our
setback from Quaker Road, that the lights along Quaker Road are basically at the entrance. The
darker blue lines indicates the 20 foot candle lines, and you can see where they occur. They
occur throughout the areas where the vacuum stations are. They occur where the customers are
at the coin operations and making selections for the laser wash, and then there’s some areas
where there’s some multiple head lighting. So, you know, what this drawing shows you is that
those higher light levels are in these work areas, where the people are doing things, and that’s
why that light level’s required. If those areas were two and a half foot candles, people couldn’t
see what they were vacuuming, and, you know, that’s, I think it’s different than just a parking
lot.
MR. SIMPSON-And like I said at our first presentation, customer safety, customer safety,
customer safety is why we equate a well lit location to what we need for our site. The outside of
our facility is basically our customer area or our lobby. We greet the customers in this area.
The customers are outside of their cars. They’re working on their cars in the vacuum area.
They’re entering their cars outside this area. So what we’re doing on the outside of the building
is in essence the lobby area, or an area like this where people are not just passing through it.
They use that area as part of our wash process.
MR. MAC EWAN-The lights that you have highlighted in orange that you say you’re going to
turn off, what are the hours of operation and what time would those lights be turned off?
MR. SIMPSON-We do this at one or two of our other locations. We turn them off from
midnight until six.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the shoebox lighting, the lights that you’re talking about that you’re
now going tilt at, what did you say, 30 degrees, versus the 60?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SIMPSON-The floodlights were at 60, but now there’ll be a cut off floodlight, which is at 20
degrees. All the other fixtures are shoebox which are straight down. This notation of the night
lighting either doesn’t list the lights that are shut off at night.
MR. SANFORD-What services are open between the hours of I guess midnight to six?
MR. SIMPSON-All of the self-service locations, which would be the self-service here, and the
laser here. So we’re leaving it lit, well lighted, so people can enter those areas and leave those
areas, and the vacuums also.
MR. SANFORD-Now will there be employees, any employees present during those hours?
MR. SIMPSON-No, there’s no employees present at any of our locations overnight.
MR. SANFORD-Have you experienced any vandalism or troubles?
MR. SIMPSON-Only in an unlit, a location that’s not lit well, and vandalism mainly occurs a lot
of times, too, when the equipment isn’t maintained properly. People put their money in the
facility, and they don’t get the desired results. That’s when vandalism occurs. We have a very
high maintenance program. We have a service staff of 12 people that just do maintenance on
our facilities, and that’s what keeps our vandalism down to a minimum.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m just, it’s your business decision. I’m just surprised that you’re
comfortable leaving an unsupervised operation open for six hours like that, and obviously
you’ve done your research on it.
MR. SIMPSON-It works well. There’s many people that work during the day that use our
facility, or sleep during the day and work during the night, and they use our facility on their
way home from work.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll put my two cents in. I’ve looked at the lighting, and I’m looking at Tom
Nace’s letter of April 4, where you’ve got an average of 10.46 foot candles, and what I did with
th
that 10.46 is I tried to look at a 4 to 1 ratio based on that, and all of the lights that you have, the 4
to 1 ratio says that the lowest light level against the 10.46 ought to be 2.6 foot candles, and
you’re over that on all of the three fixtures you have. You’re at five on every one at the zero
point. So it seems to me you’re even meeting the 4 to 1 ratio with this, if we allow the average
of 10.46 foot candles to exist. If we can approve that, then the 4 to 1 ratio falls in place, and I’m,
for one, taking a look at an average of 10.46 throughout that site. Considering the operation of
that site, the fact that it’s not abutting a residential area, the fact that you’ve pulled your floods
down to 20 degrees, I really don’t have a problem with this. In looking at the words in our
Code, it says the Planning Board may vary these standards, making them more or less
restrictive where it finds them in the interest of this Chapter, and to the Town to do so. In
particular the Town may vary the standards with reference to the brightness and use of
surrounding environment, and that’s what really caught my eye was the surrounding
environment. I don’t see any residential environment being impacted by these lights, and
therefore I’m in agreement with this light situation, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I have other things I want to talk about, but that was my two cents on the
lights. For whatever that’s worth. I see that C.T. Male, I had a note on the Nace Engineering
response to C.T. Male on the floodplain issue, and I see that Tom has, it looks like he’s satisfied
that, and the elevation would be increased by approximately a half inch. Is that correct?
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m happy with that. Now, I could find no reference in prior documentation on
all the submissions that we had concerning the DEC SPDES permit for stormwater discharge. Is
one required? Are you going to have to get a SPDES permit for stormwater discharge on this?
MR. MILLER-Yes. We’ll fall under a general SPDES permit, as part of, and the same with the
stormwater pollution prevention plan. It’s a general permit. We’ll need a specific permit for
the wetland disturbance, which has been applied for. One of the other things is we had to
contact, Tom Nace did, the Soil and Water Conservation service because of the stream
improvements, and they’ve signed off on our erosion control and sedimentation control along
the stream.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re operating under a blanket SPDES permit? We’re not going for
anything special?
MR. MILLER-No, we don’t need a special one, no.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, there was a note, I guess, way back in the beginning of this
application, and I guess it was from Mr. VanDusen in the Water Department, that had a note
that the four inch ductile water pipe must be poly wrapped with a Class 52. Now the water
meter supplied by the applicant shall be to Queensbury standards. I couldn’t find that note in
SP-6 or SP-7, which is, both of these have to do with details.
MR. MILLER-Okay. We’ll make sure that’s addressed and Tom took care of most of Mike
Shaw’s and Mr. VanDusen’s comments. That’s not on there, I’ll make sure that that’s on there.
MR. VOLLARO-Go to Six, and, you know, to SP-6 or SP-7, where that note should sit, either one
of those two drawings. I don’t see it on there.
MR. MILLER-Okay. We’ll take care of that.
MR. VOLLARO-John mentioned handicapped parking. Our zoning code doesn’t address
handicapped parking, but there must be, I think it was well put by Bill the reasons why. Now,
there are no pedestrian walks on SP-1. How do your other sites handle pedestrians? For
example, or are there none, essentially, walking around or need to walk around?
MR. SIMPSON-There’s really no need to walk around because the exterior customers stay right
in their car until they go to the vacuum area. The Jiffy Lube customers are greeted in this area.
They enter the hallway, into the customer lounge or the gazebo out front and they enter their
car at the exit end here. Self service customers pull right into the bay and pull out of the bay.
The laser customers pay at the exact tellers, pull into the bay, receive the service, and then pull
out to the vacuum area, so there’s really, the only customer walkway would be walking would
be the Jiffy Lube customers which exit the car right in this area right here, and that’s where
there is a concrete apron in front of the building, but they’ve basically just walked across the
blacktop into the entrance door.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes. I was just wondering how you handle that, in other locations. You
must have grappled with that and you find that it’s not a problem.
MR. SIMPSON-It’s pretty much the same layout.
MR. VOLLARO-And with that, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished with my review.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No, I did all mine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. Rich?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t know we were supposed to do just the Freshwater. I got the
inkling afterwards, though.
MR. SANFORD-No, actually Bob, I think, did a nice job. The location and the fact that you’re
not near any residential area at all, and I really thought you did a nice job in explaining how
this is not at all like a parking lot, and that the higher degree of lighting is needed in order for
people to perform the function that they’re there for, like vacuuming, what have you, is very
logical. So I’m very comfortable with it.
MR. HOFFMAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything to add.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a couple of clarifications. What is the exterior wash?
MR. SIMPSON-Exterior wash is a wash where the customer stays in the car and they pull into
the facility and the car is put on conveyorized equipment and washed with robotic and
computerized equipment and dried at the exit end. Just the outside of the car is washed and
dried.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then, on the outside exterior wash, there’s trench drain to the south of that.
MR. SIMPSON-That is something we’ve put in at all of our new stores. Basically they’re (lost
words) like when the car is leaving the facility, there’s a small amount of water that drips off,
and it’s even less nowadays with our new blower systems, and what that trench drain does, it
captures that water so it isn’t tracked as much down the roadway, and goes into the storm
sewer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So by then the car, all the soap’s been rinsed off and it’s captured inside?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and you had a graphic before what the building was going to look
like.
MR. SIMPSON-Sure. As we stated last week, we don’t just build a square building. We like to
emphasize the building, and as you can see, in looking at the front of it, there’s jogs in the
building to recess it back. So it’s not just a long storefront like a shopping center or something
of that nature. We’ve put gabled outcroppings on the building. We’ve put a triangle or
dormers over the doors to accent the roof, a clock tower on the end of the building, and I think
we’re going to put that on both ends like we have at our Wilton store. It just accents the
building. Additionally, it doesn’t show on here, but there’s a full skylight on the exterior wash
that makes the inside of the wash in daytime quite bright, almost like daylight, and that is
where we find many of our women customers really like that, because when you go in the
wash, it’s not a dark, scary place. It’s well lit and bright.
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks very nice, and that’s the color scheme you’re going to use?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. We use earth tone bricks. We get them out of Oklahoma. It’s rustique
brick. It’s a three wall brick, eight inches wide, twelve inches long, four inches high.
Complimentary porch screen shingles, just like our Wilton store, and this is a color scheme
we’ve been using in all our new stores.
MR. SEGULJIC-It looks very nice. I’m all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff comments?
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MRS. RYBA-I do have a few. One of the things, I think, to consider, and I know certainly a
valid concern is safety. However, I think when you see a lot of studies and research and RPI the
lighting center, for example, they’ve shown that when you go above three to five foot candles,
that you’re really not increasing safety. The other thing is, in terms of community character,
when the Ordinance was changed and written, one of the reasons lighting was added to the
Ordinance was to think about what you wanted to see in the future for the community, and one
of the things I would mention here is that, as you’ll recall, when Saturn was proposing on going
on Quaker Road further down, you really stuck to the 20 foot candles for an auto lot, and I
understand where this is very similar to that, but we’re looking at 31 foot candles versus 20, and
is that really acceptable there? The other thing is, closest to the road, there are a couple of lights
that have a higher level.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bill, could you put your lighting plan back up there for us, please.
MRS. RYBA-And I don’t have that right in front of me, and I can’t see that far, but I think it’s
about close to eight. One of the things you need to be careful about, in terms of safety, is that,
and this was the same thing that was addressed at the Cumberland Farms gas station down on
Exit 18, and other ones, Stewarts that you’ve looked at, too, is when you have this, you’re going
from a brighter light to a lower light, going out into the road, which is about two foot candles,
the driver’s eyes can’t adjust as well, and so that’s a safety consideration, and I think in the past
you’ve requested that the lights go further, a little bit further back. Now I understand they are
further back from the road, and that’s one of the reasons why you might want to see a little bit
more lighting so that people can tell you’re there, but it’s still, in comparison, it’s fairly close to
what you would see at Hess on Dixon Road and K-Mart, which were both put in before this
Ordinance. So those are some of the things, I think, while certainly some concessions have been
made, and I would say concessions just in terms of getting a little bit closer to the Ordinance,
there are a couple of items that, when you’re looking at consistency and looking at what you
want to see, you know, the future of Quaker Road to look like, one of the concerns is making
sure that when you have a really overly lit area and next door there might be something that’s
adequately lit, it’s not going to appear to be as adequate, if something’s overly lit next door to it.
So, that’s part of the reason for looking at consistency along a highway like that.
MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn, I looked at that as well. When I look at our lighting zoning code, and
I look at all of those things, and what we’re saying is that this is at 31 foot candles. This is the
maximum light level on the site is 31. I think a better measure of a site might be, because the
four to one ratio is based the average light.
MRS. RYBA-Right, average to minimum.
MR. VOLLARO-The average minimum. So when you look at that, and try to get your four to
one ratio to work, I tend to tend to like to look at the average light level, as opposed to the hot
spots, if you will, you know, the maximums.
MRS. RYBA-No, I understand what you’re saying, and certainly it’s very difficult to come with
an average luminescent level, especially when there are different type of activities on a
particular site, and this Board has recognized that. What I’m saying is think a little bit more
about the consistency and community character and what you want to see, and you have
deviated. These are guidelines. I think probably the main concern I would have at this point is
certainly the two lights that are closer to the entry way there, because it is a safety issue when
you’re going from something bright to something darker.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the eyes being able to adjust to get on to the road.
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a two part question relative to that corridor overlay zone. Isn’t the
Zoning Ordinance designed that you don’t do development in that, that’s why it’s a 100 foot
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
setback? Two, this is Niagara Mohawk, part of it’s a Niagara Mohawk right of way. So how
can we develop in a Niagara Mohawk power right of way, but more importantly, how can we
develop within this corridor overlay zone that’s designed to keep commercial activity set back
off the corridor?
MRS. RYBA-I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by design. I think, in terms of.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have a 100 foot overlay zone, on that corridor, on Quaker Road, right?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s 100 foot setback from Quaker Road.
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s 75, isn’t it?
MRS. RYBA-George will look that up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Even if it’s 75, that’s 100 feet. There’s six lights within 100 feet, four of
them are within 75 feet. So how can you develop in a setback that you’re not supposed to be
developing in? Even though they’re just lights? It is development.
MRS. RYBA-Well, I think that’s a Zoning Administrator determination that I would hope has
already been made before this Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I agree with Marilyn that hopefully the Zoning Administrator has
already looked at that, but, generally speaking, remember that, for example a driveway, by
definition, always goes through a setback, and if I’m understanding the site plan correctly, but
correct me if I’m wrong, it’s the lighting that’s the only thing that’s within the area you’re
talking about, other than the driveway itself.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Again, I don’t have the crystal ball any better than Marilyn does, but
hopefully Craig Brown’s already looked at this and has made a determination, either explicitly
or implicitly, that the mere addition of the lights in the driveway area does not constitute
“development” within the context of what wouldn’t be allowed in the setback.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HILTON-If you’re referring to Travel Corridor Overlay zones, the Zoning Ordinance was
Route 9, Ridge Road, some other roads, 149, Bay, Quaker Road is not included on the list.
MR. MAC EWAN-I thought Quaker Road had a 75 or 100 foot setback.
MRS. RYBA-Part of Quaker Road is design overlay, and that doesn’t go all the way down. I
mean, that’s closer to Route 9, where you have the design overlay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, maybe that’s where there’s a cutoff point in there, because both Jim
and I are thinking of previous applications where that played a role. I guess the other question I
have, why is there a need to have six lights within 100 feet?
MR. SIMPSON-Fifty foot is what, like I said, at all of our locations, this is the lighting layout
that we normally put on a site, and they’re laid out in this way, shape, manner and form
because of the transmission lines that are going through here. There’s a double set of the high
tension right here, and then there’s the lower tension over there, lines that go through here. So
we set the lights up at the 50 foot spacing, like we do at all of our locations.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-If you go on the other side of that line, on to your parcel, and follow those
same lights up along the edge of the property line, those lights aren’t 50 feet apart.
MR. SIMPSON-They’re 50, but they’re staggered, because of the excessive width on the
entrance because we have the double exit.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you don’t absolutely need those two entry lights because Quaker Road is
lit up in that part, too. I mean, if we told you to eliminate those two, I don’t think it’s going to
be a catastrophe.
MR. VOLLARO-Eliminating those two lights aren’t going to move your average foot candles .1.
MR. STROUGH-No, but it would address the concern Marilyn brought up of the lights possibly
dazing a driver that is trying to exit out to Quaker Road.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s certainly a possibility. I wouldn’t sit here and fight the two lights. If the
Board wants the two lights off, I would go along with it. I think the lighting plan is okay the
way it is, based on numbers. Now I’m just going from the numbers portion of it. There’s some
aesthetics, maybe, that we should be looking at.
MRS. RYBA-I think that’s one of the reasons why we refer to these illuminating engineering
society, North American standards, IESNA standards, is because they have a two foot candle
for driveway entrances, and that’s one of the reason. Certainly the road lighting is something to
consider. I’m not saying that it has to be eliminated. I’m just saying that, whatever the road
lighting is, and whatever is there, should equal to two foot candles at the entrance, just so you
don’t have these major distinctions, or major points of brightness and darkness.
MR. VOLLARO-So what you would say is to take all the entrance, and let’s do an average on
those and see if we can get the two foot candles on those are just on the entrance way?
MRS. RYBA-Right. I think it should, I’m not even looking necessarily at an average, but making
sure that, at the access point, it is two, and I think it says eight or seven, eight, something like
that on there.
MR. SANFORD-So you’re saying just those two lights, those two close to Quaker Road have
reduced bulbs in them, essentially? On Light Fixture One and Twenty-seven.
MRS. RYBA-Let’s see. Actually, there’s one that says 15, 7, and the other one is 15, right at the
roadway, though, it’s eight, nine, okay, eight nine and eight six.
MR. SANFORD-So Light Fixture Number One and Light Fixture Number Twenty-seven having
reduced brightness there?
MRS. RYBA-Right, and the other ones are all, you see that whole driveway entry way there is
15, 11, so, in answer to Bob’s question, it should really be lowered, so that you don’t have that
excessive brightness going out, and all I can say is the standard is two.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask you a question, Marilyn. Is your overall, how is your overall
view of this lighting concept, now that they’re talking about what they have highlighted on that
plan that they’re going to be willing to limit the lighting, you know, from the midnight to dawn
hours?
MRS. RYBA-Well, I agree that it’s an enforcement concern. It’s certainly, certainly it’s not a
situation where, I mean, it is towards the back. I think that the concern with anything above the
horizontal is that where is that going out to? And on this plan it doesn’t appear to be going out
to the road, but is it going out to adjoining properties? I don’t think that’s the case, either. It’s
supposed to be illuminating the building, I think, and certainly there’s the metal halide which is
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
a clearer light, I mean, that’s another thing that standards, where you were looking for softer
light, which is the high pressure sodium, and I know I’ve seen other car washes with it but
under different circumstances. So I understand, you know, most gas stations, auto lots, etc.,
they like the metal halide. It’s a clearer light, but it is a brighter light, too, and so I think that’s
another reason for trying to tone it down a bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think I recall, and correct me if I’m wrong, the applicant, in a previous time,
said that they went with those design guidelines because it gave me more, a truer sense of day
light for people who want to wash their cars.
MRS. RYBA-True.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I can understand that rationale.
MRS. RYBA-Yes. I understand that. I mean, it does seem, when we look at other adjoining
commercial activities, it certainly is going to be brighter than other things that you see there,
and it’s a balancing act, and it always is, but, as I said, the main concern is along the road. The
other concern is just making sure that, whatever is being highlighted, it’s highlighting the
building and parking area, not necessarily getting to a point where drivers can’t see. That’s a
main criteria.
MR. SIMPSON-If I may, as you’ve already stated, the zero foot candle for this property is well
within the property boundaries. It’s in this area and in this area, and in as much as this
property is 100 foot setback from Quaker Road, is important for us to accent where the entrance
to the property is, and that’s another reason, possibly, why we have that type of lighting in that
area. So that the entrance to this facility that’s set back from Quaker Road is easy to identify.
MRS. RYBA-And I do understand that. The main thing, I think, is the safety issue, and, as I
said, there is a standard and then there’s, you know, different studies that have been done that
show that it’s not necessarily a safety issue to have it, or it is a safety issue to have it higher, and
it’s like you said, you want the higher lighting there more for advertising purposes.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess what I think would probably satisfy this, the Board here on this
lighting plan is to see if you can come back with, what can you reduce on Fixture Number One
and Twenty-seven to, which will put less glare into Quaker Road. That’s really, I think, what
Marilyn is saying is the issue, and of course that’s entrance way. There’s no vacuums there.
There’s not a functional need. It’s more, maybe, profiling your business, but it does potentially
create a driving hazard. So what are you willing to do, in terms of a reduction there, on those
two fixtures?
MR. HOFFMAN-Well, keep in mind, too, we started out with 400 watt fixtures in that area, and
then we have that at pretty much every one of our last five or six facilities, and I don’t ever
recall ever having an accident occur at night at any of our facilities because exiting customers,
you know, experienced any kind of excess glare from our lighting. We’ve reduced these down
to 175’s, which is about half the light I have in my, 320’s rather, in these, and what I’m
concerned about, too, is the consistency of the lighting from the driveway. What did you say
the next size down was on the lighting? Maybe we could reduce those fixtures, again, to 150’s,
which would be, I think, similar to household lighting at that point, which would reduce the
lighting in that entry area.
MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I don’t want to be beating this to death, but I think if you’re willing
to do that, I’m not sure what that would come out, in terms of a number, but, I mean, that
would be significant. I mean, that would make me happy, to see some effort that way.
MR. HOFFMAN-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Refresh my memory. How tall are your poles now?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SIMPSON-Fifteen feet. Seventeen feet to the top of the fixture.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m trying to rationalize the brightness of this parcel versus say Della
next door and Nemer down the road a little bit, where those poles are 40, 50 footers.
MR. MILLER-One of the advantages of tall poles is you get more uniform light. By requiring 20
foot poles, that gives you more hot spots and the lights fade out faster. So you gain something,
but you lose something.
MR. VOLLARO-In your cut sheets, your PR Series, your VFT Series, and your CF Series, are all
listed at 320 watts.
MR. MILLER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. So you’re using 320. Did you say 175? Did I hear 175 somewhere in
there?
MR. HOFFMAN-I thought I heard one of the fixtures was a 175.
MR. VOLLARO-No, they’re all set at 320 watts.
MR. HOFFMAN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, we may get into some compromising, because each one of those fixtures
can go down to 175 watts and still have the 16 inch housing.
MR. SIMPSON-We use the pull start metal halite.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s okay. For example, on the CF Series, I’m on the flood now,
these are the VFT Series.
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. All our floods are addressed towards the building, though, keep that in
mind.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. On the VFT Series, you can still get down from 320 watts, the best you
can go down to is 250 on this cut sheet.
MR. HOFFMAN-We’re only talking about these two fixtures right here, at this point? I think
we’re all in agreement that the rest.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure what we’re talking about. Because I’m looking at the amount of
foot candles on the ground in this entrance way, and I know that all of those foot candles are
not generated by just those six lights. There’s light spill from other lights that are generating
foot candles on the ground here. So, you’d have to be modulating this whole plan in order to
get this down to an average of two.
MR. MILLER-Bob, I think, though, because of the intensity of those lights, with those six lights
being grouped the way they are, they’re the main contributor to the light levels on that
driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-If you could drop those to something else, you might help the situation, but I
don’t think we can get down to two.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think they’ve suggested they would drop them down to 150 watts.
MR. VOLLARO-But I’m looking on the cut sheet to see if that’s an available.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SIMPSON-If it’s a make or break situation for the Board, we will stipulate to lower these
two lights that are closer to the road to I think the next one down is a 150, on pull start metal
halite.
MR. VOLLARO-Let’s see where we are on that. The PR Series, yes. You can go down to 150 on
that.
MR. SIMPSON-That way, as this young lady suggested, it would be more of a transition of a
brighter light to more of a street type lighting, and you’d get closer to the road.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So that would mean that Number One and Number Twenty-seven would
go to one hundred and fifty watts.
MR. SIMPSON-So stipulated.
MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with that. I don’t know how the rest of the people are.
MR. STROUGH-I think it’s moving in the right direction. We’re going to, let me see if I
understand. We’re going to eliminate the two closest to Quaker Road.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no, no. We’re going to reduce their light levels.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So the six are going to stay, but we’re going to use the 150 watt.
MR. VOLLARO-In Fixture Number One and Fixture Number Twenty-seven.
MR. STROUGH-The PSMH’s?
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Right. All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Marilyn, where are you on that?
MRS. RYBA-I certainly think it’s better. I think that, just making sure that there is a good
transition is the main thing, and the only concern I would have is without seeing what the
impact would be on those light levels, is it going to go real quickly? I mean, at least it’s, even if
it did, then some distance there, and I don’t have a scale with me, there’s some distance which
would help before you get out to the road.
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll soften it some before you.
MRS. RYBA-It’ll soften it some, and in terms of seeing the business, certainly with the other
lighting that’s on site you’re going to see the business. The only other thing, and I think this
was in Staff notes, was, and I hadn’t answered Mr. MacEwan’s question correctly, or thoroughly
I think, in terms of these lights that are being turned off at night, it’s really more of an
enforcement issue. I know it’s something that you have put in.
MR. MAC EWAN-I was looking at it not necessarily from the enforcement standpoint, but as
far as from an aesthetic standpoint that, you know, the lights are going to be off, and what was
your reaction or thoughts on cutting down on the amount of light wash?
MRS. RYBA-It’s going to be better. I mean, there’s no doubt it’ll be better.
MR. STROUGH-Now another question I have, too, is Staff had a little bit of a problem
delineating which lights would be the ones shut off from that 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. time period, but
there they’re all designated by the orange dots.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I have a letter right here, John, that specifically labels every light that they
want to turn off.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Essentially they’ve done what’s on there to the letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-What he’s got there is right here in the form of a letter.
MR. STROUGH-All right. What I was just wondering, Craig, is should we ask the applicant to
submit that to Staff, seeing as it’s a little bit easier to?
MR. SIMPSON-I have a copy of that marked up right here for you. This goes along with the
memorandum.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that answers that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think we’ve done the job on this light pretty well, myself.
MR. SIMPSON-Just one other note, too, about the lighting. The lights are controlled by
computer. It’s not a person’s responsibility to shut the lights down at night. All the lights in the
facility go on and off with the computer.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s like an automatic sprinkler system.
MR. SIMPSON-Twenty-four/seven, 365.
MR. STROUGH-And all your other places kind of standard, 12 to 6?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe to touch back on Staff’s comments regarding the lights being turned
off from midnight to six a.m. and it being an enforcement issue, I mean, every site plan we ever
approved has got some sort of realm of an enforcement issue as to whether they comply with
the landscaping, whether they comply with stormwater or whatever, and it is. I mean, well,
that’s the track. I mean, if we consider approving something with conditions, those conditions
are all subject to an enforcement if they don’t follow through on the condition.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you have to have faith that an applicant is going to comply with the
conditions that you give them, should you grant them the approval.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you don’t, you have other mechanisms in place to make sure that happens.
What else did you have, are you done?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m finished. I’m happy with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, this is the third time I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m giving you a chance. I didn’t know if you had anything else.
MR. STROUGH-No, I’ve been kind of just working along.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SANFORD-No, let’s just bring it on home.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. I wouldn’t wander too
far. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN MAC MURRAY
MR. MAC MURRAY-I’d actually like to say a few words. Good evening. My name’s John
MacMurray, and recently I’ve heard about this. It sounds like I’m a few meetings behind. I just
had some, I had a few issues with this site in general. I am familiar with the area that they’re
proposing to put this in, as well as the water shed area. I’ve done a lot of Environmental Impact
studies on Sanford Pond, Glen Lake, Lake George and the water shed, involving such. I’ve
worked for the main DEP, two independent environmental consulting agencies, and this, like I
said, I’m a few meetings behind, but basically I got the gist, and I walked around on the site,
and we’re proposing to put in an oil changing station, as well as a car wash, bordered by three
sides of a State protected wetland. Now I recently glanced over their stormwater. It seems like
they’ve got a few things, you know, they did their homework, but I’ve worked at an oil change
facility before I went into the environmental field. I mean, there’s, considering the business,
there’s oil tanks, oil deliveries and pick ups, antifreeze and wiper fluid barrels, and a constant
flow of traffic, and any mishap in this environment could prove, I mean, detrimental to the
surrounding wetlands, and, I mean, pretty much all I ask, I mean, I heard that this went before
the DEC, and I understand that some of their approval that final approval, correct? I just would
like to express my concern about that, and as well as, you know, I overheard this, only part of
the building is within the 100 foot buffer zone. However, the paved surface, I mean, it’s
encroaching upon the wetland, you know, upon the buffer zone to the wetland, and that, in
itself, I mean, with the regard to oil change, are you changing, oil change filter, I’m sure many of
you have, it’s impossible to get an oil change filter off without soaking your chasse or the
engine of some sort. They’re going to drive around on a paved lot, get the car washed, you
know, I just think, as a community thing, this should definitely be taken into consideration, that
we’re putting a potentially environmentally hazardous business surrounded on three sides by a
wetland, and, obviously the State’s going to look at that. I just wanted to say that the public’s
concerned as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, for the benefit of yourself, I nodded my head when I said yes, but I think
that we still have to apply for and receive a New York DEC Wetlands permit, and that any
conditions of the DEC permit be included as a part of our granting this Freshwater Wetlands
permit. So they still have to make that application, and it still has to be received, as far as I, am I
correct with that, George?
MR. HILTON-Yes, they do have to apply for and receive the permit. The condition that you
just read is a suggested condition of ours to include in our, in any Town of Queensbury
Freshwater Wetlands permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that.
MR. HILTON-But the answer is, yes, they do have to apply for a New York State permit.
MR. VOLLARO-They still have to make an application for it, yes.
MR. HILTON-They have made the application, it’s my understanding. They have to receive the
permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I nodded yes, when you said they’d had their permits, and I think I
misspoke there.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-But we, too, have been very sensitive on that issue, and so we had another look
at this. Dave Wick from Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District took a close look
at this, and he gave a stamp of approval, and he’s very sensitive to how something like this
would impact the Halfway Brook watershed, and we all took a very close look in previous
meetings, as you suggested, and they have one of the best people doing the stormwater, Tom
Nace, anyway. So we did take a hard look at it.
MR. MAC MURRAY-Right. Will there be underground storage tanks for the used oil?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think they’ll have a good,
MR. MAC MURRAY-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Their routine as to what they do, I think they’ll come back up and speak to
that, rather than me.
MR. MAC MURRAY-Right. Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you gentlemen want to come back up. Maybe for the benefit of the public
who wasn’t here at previous meetings, you just could summarize how your used oil recovery
program works, stormwater and your grease, your oil traps and stuff like that.
MR. HOFFMAN-Sure. If we were to have underground tanks, they would have to be double
containment, but none of our facilities have underground tanks at this time, and we also have
secondary containment around every single tank in the facility. You could walk into any one of
our stores, any day of the week, and probably eat off the floor in the basement. We have what
most people regard in the industry as some of the most immaculate facilities that you can find
anywhere. DEC is, you know, visits our facilities unannounced to do spot inspections on how
we maintain our records, our tanks. We have a spill prevention kit on site at every location. We
have trained employees that can handle any type of environmental threat that may occur, and,
you know, quite frankly, we do it better than most in the industry.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any final questions, comments from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA, then. We’ll do a combined SEQRA. We’ll get through the
SEQRA, then we’ll readdress the water permit, then we’ll go to the site plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I believe this is a Long Form.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is.
MR. STROUGH-Part Two. Okay. “Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a
physical change to the project site?”
MR. VOLLARO-Physical change? Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Then you’ve got to go down to whether it’s moderate or what.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-So, examples, “Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per
100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than 3 feet.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of
existing ground surface.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one
phase or stage.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of
natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction in a designated floodway.” I think the answer to that is yes.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s yes, with mitigation by floodway study by the engineer.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I think we next have to address, would that be small to moderate,
potentially large, and, three, can impact be mitigated by project change. So do you want?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say it would be small to moderate, and that the mitigation is through the
project’s design.
MR. STROUGH-And I’ll agree.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to increase this, the upstream floodway elevation, by
approximately a half inch. So I think that that’s pretty moderate for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-“Impact on Water Will proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-“(Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)”
Okay. Yes. Examples that would apply to this. “Developable area of site contains a protected
water body.” Would you say the impact is going to be small to moderate, potentially large, and
then, three, can the impact be mitigated by project change?”
MR. VOLLARO-What’s the difference between a wetland and a water body? They’re
synonymous. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So we’ve got to answer that, first before I can move on. I think.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you can answer it small to moderate, right?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, you could say small to moderate impact.
MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s what I say.
MR. STROUGH-And then can impact be mitigated by project change?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The next item, if you’re in agreement with that, I’ll move on to the next
item. “Will the project be dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a channel of a
protected stream.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-Will there by, with the project, “Extension of utility distribution facilities
through a protected water body.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction of a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-Any “Other Impacts”?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then I think we have satisfactorily answered Three. “Will Proposed
Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it will.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it will. That’s what I was thinking, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-It will increase.
MR. STROUGH-So let me read through some of the items until we trigger something. These are
the examples that would apply to what I just mentioned. Will affect surface or groundwater
quality or quantity. “Proposed action will require a discharge permit.”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, under a National SPDES permit.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Will that be a small to moderate impact, potentially large impact?
MR. VOLLARO-I say small to moderate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate.
MR. MILLER-New York State SPDES permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-And can impact be mitigated by project change?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is everyone in agreement with that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Then I’ll move on. “Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that
does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply
system.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. RINGER-No, not adversely.
MR. STROUGH-“Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do
not exist or have inadequate capacity.”
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.”
MR. VOLLARO-I would say yes in this particular case. Am I right, are you in excess of 20,000?
I don’t know, you’d have to ask the applicant that.
MR. STROUGH-What does the average Hoffman use?
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s calculating it right now on his James Bond watch.
MR. HOFFMAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then we have to answer, is the impact going to be small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Because we have a municipal water system available.
MR. STROUGH-And that would be the mitigation project change.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. If that’s satisfactory to everyone, I’ll move on. “Proposed Action will
likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there
will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products
greater than 1,100 gallons.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we have to ask.
MR. HOFFMAN-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-What was that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Read the sentence again.
MR. STROUGH--“Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products
greater than 1,100 gallons.” And the applicant said yes.
MR. HOFFMAN-Well, are they talking about petroleum as in gasoline?
MR. STROUGH-Petroleum or chemical products.
MR. HOFFMAN-No, not petroleum. I’m interpreting that as gasoline.
MR. MAC EWAN-It could be oil. It could be gas. It could be kerosene. So the answer is yes.
MR. STROUGH-The answer is yes. Is the impact going to be small to moderate or potentially
large?
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I think it’s small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and can the impact be mitigated by project change?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s on site storage capabilities.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Then I’ll move on to the next item.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m a little concerned that you’re creating a SEQRA record that refers to
project “changes” by things, about things that I don’t think are project changes. I think they’re
mitigation measures. Correct me if I’m wrong.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we were referring to, I thought.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, but the question is, can the impact be mitigated through a project
change. That means something different than what the applicant is proposing, and I don’t think
in any of these cases, the first question that you answered this was back on Impact on Land,
and, Mr. Chairman, you yourself said it’s impacted by one of the mitigation ”features”, but it’s
not, or you said it’s mitigated by one of the project design elements, not a project change. I
thought that was an appropriate comment. Since then, on the other bullet items you’ve been
checking off, you’ve been saying in some instances that the project can be mitigated by a project
change. What I’m trying to explain is that, unless I’m misunderstanding, the mitigation
measures you’re talking about are not project changes. They are features of the project as
proposed by the applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the word “change” should be referred to as “design”, and not “change”.
MR. SCHACHNER-If you want. You actually don’t need to address the issue of mitigation
measures unless you check one of the boxes as potentially large impact. It’s fine to do so if you
wish, but just so you know, you don’t need to unless you check off potentially large impact, but
when it says, can the impact be mitigated by project change, it means a project change. It
doesn’t mean by one of the features that’s already part of the project.
MR. SANFORD-Good point.
MR. STROUGH-I have not checked off anything in Column Three, and I think we can interpret
everything prior that we’ve identified as a small to moderate impact, the proposal has
mitigated, to our satisfaction.
MR. SANFORD-Do we have to go over this again?
MR. SCHACHNER-No. I’m not suggesting you have to go back, but I think John’s, I think the
statement Mr. Strough just made is correct, and if that’s correct, then I think what you’re
agreeing is that these, that one of the reasons that you’ve identified each of the impacts you’ve
identified as small to moderate is because, in fact, they’re mitigated as design features of the
project as proposed by the applicant, not by changes that are not proposed by the applicant.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then I’ll move on. “Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas
without water and/or sewer services.”
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-Any other impacts you want to discuss under category five, which is surface
and groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water
runoff?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it will.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it will, but small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-Here are some examples we may want to consider. “Proposed Action would
change flood water flows.” Well, I think it changes floodwater flow half an inch.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s small.
MR. STROUGH-It’s small to moderate.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s part of the applicant’s design.
MR. MAC EWAN-The question didn’t have the word “change” in it, though.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-We’ll go, yes, small to moderate.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I can move on?
MR. SCHACHNER-As long as there’s consensus that it’s small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-It seems like there is. “Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion.”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway.”
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and will that be a small to moderate?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Or potentially large?
MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate.
MR. STROUGH-Small to moderate. And should we answer all small to moderate
identifications as just saying that the project’s design renders this non-significant?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what you’d do at the end.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s been a while since we’ve done a Long Form EAF. Most applications
come with a Short Form. So it’s kind of like a refresher course, sometimes, for us. We don’t see
these that often. I think what’s throwing people here is that we’re dealing with an application
that’s sitting in a floodplain and it’s got a DEC regulated stream with it. So, I mean, that makes
us think a little bit harder about our answers before we give them, and I think we’ve given the
right answers.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and for what it’s worth, and you’re doing it very appropriately.
MR. STROUGH-Good. “Impact on Critical Environmental Areas Will Proposed Action impact
the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established
pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14(g)?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. “Impact on Transportation Will there be an effect to existing
transportation systems?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Impact on Energy Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of
fuel or energy supply?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Noise and Odor Impacts Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration
as a result of the Proposed Action?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-No.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-“Impact on Public Health Will Proposed Action affect public health and
safety?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will
proposed action affect the character of the existing community?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. FWW 1-2003 & SP 14-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the 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.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments or discussion about the site plan? Certain conditions?
MR. VOLLARO-Other than light, reducing lights number one and twenty-seven on the entrance
to 150 watts, I don’t see anything other that we wanted to add, except, let’s see.
MR. STROUGH-Is there anything on the plans that says that the pole height will be limited to
20 feet?
MR. VOLLARO-He has, on the plan it shows that thing is up, yes. The only one I have is this
thing on ductile water pipe must be poly wrapped. I couldn’t find that on SP-6 or SP-7, you
said you’d look into that.
MR. MILLER-We’ll take care of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the date? Is that SP-4 I’m looking at, the lighting plan that you did,
Jim?
MR. MILLER-Yes, it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the date of that drawing?
MR. MILLER-Well, we’re going to have a new revision, because we’ll have this re-done with the
150 watt lights, and we’ll update that with another edition, another revisions, but this one
revision one, was April 3. We’ll have another one. For the record, we want to make sure we
rd
show those.
MR. STROUGH-Those six lights, I think, for the record are going to be the PR Series.
MR. VOLLARO-Those two lights.
MR. STROUGH-Twelve inch, 150 watt PSMH model.
MR. MAC EWAN-So the only issue Board have is with the lighting. All other concerns have
been addressed to your satisfaction?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Ready. Go. Someone introduce it.
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FWW 1-2003 HOFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Freshwater Wetlands
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
Permit – FWW 1-2003 Applicant: Hoffman Development Corp.
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Dombek Trust
Agent: Nace Engineering
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: Quaker Road
Applicant proposes to conduct/cause a regulated activity on or adjacent to a freshwater wetland
pursuant to Freshwater Wetlands Protection Law, Local Law 1, 1976. NYS DEC GF-19 –
Halfway Brook. Area of Wetland: 1.26 acres.
Cross Reference: AV 19-2003, SP 14-2003, DEC Permit
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-2 / 59-1-13
Lot size: 4.89 acres / Section: 179-6-100
Public Hearing: March 25, 2003
[Tabled, PH left open]
April 24, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/18/03, and
4/24 Staff Notes
4/4 New Information received
3/25 PB resolution – Tabled
3/25 Staff Notes
3/19 ZBA resolution
3/11 Notice of Public Hearing
3/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on March 25 2003 and April 24, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Freshwater
Wetland 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 is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will apply and received a DEC Wetlands permit and that the conditions of
the DEC permit be included as part of the granting of the Town Freshwater Wetlands
permit itself.
2. Additionally, we would like to have a ACOE non-jurisdictional determination or permit
be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction on this site.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
3. Any additional conditions of any NYSDEC or Army Corps Permit will be make part of
the approval of FWW 1-2003.
4. 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 4/24/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2003 HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 14-2003 Applicant: Hoffman Development Corp.
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Dombek Trust (RPS)
Agent: Nace Engineering, Miller Associates
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: Quaker Road
Applicant proposes a 16,000 +/- sq. ft. Car Wash, Oil Change and Automobile Repair Shop. Car
Wash/Automobile Service facilities in the HC-Int. zone require Site Plan Review from the
Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 19-2003, FWW 1-2003, DEC Permit
Warren Co. Planning: 3/12/03
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-2 / 59-1-13
Lot size: 4.82 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: March 25, 2003
[Tabled, PH left open]
April 24, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 4/18/03, and
4/24 Staff Notes
4/4 New Information received
4/2 Meeting Notice
3/25 Staff Notes (incl. 11/19/01 memo from M. Ryba re: lighting)
3/18 ZBA from W. Simpson from Hoffman Dev. Corp.: response to staff notes
3/18 Notice of Public Hearing
3/14 CT Male engineering comments received
3/12 Warren Co. Planning: Approved w/condition
3/11 C. Brown from T. Nace: response from WC Soil &Water Conservation
3/5 Meeting Notice
2/28 C. Brown from M. Shaw, Wastewater Dept.
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 March 25, 2003 and April 24, 2003; and
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
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 conditions:
1. The light fixtures labeled as Numbers One and Twenty-Seven on Site Plan SP-4 dated
April 3, 2003 will be changed to be one hundred and fifty watt fixtures, same or similar
to the PR Series 150 PS MH.
2. The lighting plan dated as SP-4, Dated April 3, 2003, will reflect the letter from William J.
Simpson to the Queensbury Planning Board dated April 24, 2003.
3. The lighting plan labeled NL-1, dated April 3, 2003 will be used to designate those lights
which will be turned off from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. daily.
4. There will be a note added to drawing SP-6 or SP-7, whichever is applicable, that the
four inch ductile water pipe must by poly wrapped class 52, and the water meter
supplied by the applicant shall be to the Queensbury standards.
5. All CF Series adjustable floodlights will be changed to a twenty degree tilt above the
horizon.
6. An Army Corps of Engineers non-jurisdictional letter or permit will be provided prior to
the issuance of a building permit at this location.
7. A NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands permit is required prior to the issuance of a building
permit at this location.
8. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 4/24/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. HOFFMAN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you, members of the Board. We look forward to becoming members of
the Town of Queensbury community.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 3-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED J & D MARINA, LLC ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: WARNER BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD A 96’ X 40’ SHOP
AND PARTS BUILDING TO EXISTING SHOWROOM, AND CONVERT EXISTING
BUILDING INTO RESTROOMS AND RECREATION ROOM. APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO REMOVE EXISTING RESTROOMS, SHOWER ROOM, TENT STORAGE AND BLOCK
STORAGE BUILDING. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 12-2003 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO.: 240.5-1-25 THRU 29, 227.17-2-1 LOT SIZES: 0.36, 1.01,
0.88, 0.58, 126 X 207, 0.77 ACRES
JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. As far as Special Use Permit, the applicant proposes an approximate 3800
square foot building addition to an existing marina. The use is listed as a Class A Marina in the
Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and the Special Use Permit approval requirements
apply. Stormwater appears to be provided with the addition of a two foot by two foot trench on
the south side of the building. Other trenches are shown on the plan for stormwater. Other
stormwater facilities are shown. It should be clarified which stormwater management methods
or features exist on site and what’s proposed. As far as screening, the applicant shows some
shrubs to be planted on the south side of the building. No listing of species has been provided.
The plan should be updated to kind of give a better idea of what kind of screening or what kind
of plantings are being proposed. Staff just has a question, is can clearing associated with the
building expansion? Is any lighting proposed? And finally, a letter to the Town of Queensbury
on April 9, 2003, the Adirondack Park Agency indicated that this application may involve
jurisdictional wetlands, which may require further review. The Planning Board may wish to,
it’s not a suggestion, but you have the option of tabling this application until such time that a
non-jurisdictional determination from the APA has been provided. Any comments from C.T.
Male should be addressed, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s unusual that the APA jots off a letter like this to us. Most of the time it’s
just a non-jurisdictional thing. We don’t hear from them. Now they seem to have some interest
in this. Good evening.
MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, owner, Castaway Marina, J & D Marina. In regard to the
letter from the APA, I talked to the lady involved, and she sent me the forms and what not to fill
out for this jurisdictional review. She also said that this was something that I didn’t have to do,
but she recommended that I do it. What she really wanted to know was, are there wetlands
involved or aren’t there, and there aren’t. Basically where this project is there’s no wetlands.
It’s up on top of a hill, and it’s all rock. So I have started the application procedure and I’m
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
filling out the forms and I’m sending them in to her. So, she didn’t feel that it was going to be a
stumbling block, but, who knows.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who did you speak to at the APA?
MR. SCHACHNER-If I say it will you know it?
MR. MATTHEWS-Probably.
MR. SCHACHNER-Rita Quinn?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, Barbara Rottier.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s an APA Staff attorney.
MR. SANFORD-I’m confused. If you didn’t have to, but she suggested that you might want to.
MR. MATTHEWS-I was very confused with that also. I couldn’t figure out what she meant by
that. She said you really don’t have to do it if you don’ t if you don’t want to, but we
recommend it. So, I mean, I have no reason not to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, can you offer us an opinion here?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand either. I mean, it’s either jurisdictional or it’s not. The
letter is from the Director of Planning , I think, Jim Connelly, is it not?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. MATTHEWS-He’s away on vacation.
MR. SCHACHNER-And there’s a lot of mays. It may, you know, may involve wetlands, may
require a variance.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, this letter basically is something the opposite of what they normally
do.
MR. VOLLARO-They normally don’t do this. Is that correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-They either normally tell you that it’s non-jurisdictional, or it’s jurisdictional.
Not in the middle.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and apparently, according to Jim Connelly’s letter, he wrote his letter
not in response to any inquiry by the applicant, but as a result of receiving our agenda.
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-Now the applicant has talked to Barbara Rottier is the Staff attorney at
APA, and if the applicant is stating accurately what she said, I guess what she’s saying, I’m just
trying to figure this out as we go along, is that they don’t know if there’s jurisdiction or not, and
if the applicant wants to find out, he can find out. If not, I suppose he runs the risk of doing
something that is jurisdictional without APA approval, but I guess my overriding comment is
probably that unless the Board feels otherwise, I mean, if it’s subject to APA jurisdiction, the
applicant will have to deal with the APA. If it’s not subject to APA jurisdiction, the applicant
won’t have to deal with the APA. There’s nothing that obligates you to hold up awaiting that
determination.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MATTHEWS-And that was exactly what she told me. She said there should be no reason
for the Town to, they can make it, any resolution that they may propose, contingent upon
receiving their approval if necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Kind of an odd twist.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, and well, she did also say that normally the Town acts as the lead
agency and would handle this. Anyway. As you can see before you is our proposal to move
our shop activities as far away from the lake as we possibly can, and the area which we have
chosen is up on top of the hill next to our rack storage building and our existing showroom
building. We’ve been granted a variance for the setback from Route 9L, and I’ve prepared this
site plan for you, for your scrutiny. I am open to your questions and so we can resolve some of
the questions that you do have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I have a number of questions. Well, let’s start with, there’s a proposed
well listed in the middle of the site. Is that, that’s proposed for?
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s a proposed site, not cut in stone. I haven’t had a well driller there or
what not. It’s in an area which is easily accessible to the facility, and not near any direct runoff
area.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would just be concerned with the service area right next to the well. I guess,
are you getting the water from the lake now?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. We have a well which is 10 feet from our existing service area. It’s a
deep well, 200 and some feet deep, and I’m assuming that this one will probably have to be
deeper yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-So why not just keep the existing one?
MR. MATTHEWS-The logistics. I mean, to pipe underground, year round, water from where
the existing well is up to this site, it would be kind of impossible. It would actually be cheaper
to drill another well. There is no water service on any of these buildings, on top of the hill right
now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that (lost words). Now, down by the lake, there’s a little new pond
area to catch runoff, down with the grass and sand. What do you mean by new pond area?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, after removing this Quonset hut that I have here, and the sheds, and
restrooms, what I wanted to do was to grade an area between the driveway and the lake, or the
swamp that’s over here, so that any water that comes down the hill will have an opportunity to
infiltrate in the sand and gravel and what not that’s at this lower section of the.
MR. SEGULJIC-So more like an infiltration area then, more or less?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. I mean, the whole site slopes towards the lake. It’s been like that, it was
like this, exactly like it is when I bought the place six years ago. I’ve tried, I don’t know
whether it was necessary for me to scrutinize the whole site for this shop area, but I’ve tried to.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’ve tried to incorporate other improvements, then?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. As of right now, we have exactly the same amount of runoff that
we’re going to get when we do this, and we have really no problems. There are no issues, as far
as erosion, as far as silt or effluent or anything like that washing into the lake. The pavement is
kept clean.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I just chime in here along those lines, what you’re asking about with
your new retention pond is going to be here. Where you’ve got that labeled with a dashed line
that says top of fill.
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where is the actual lakeshore at this point?
MR. MATTHEWS-The lake actually ends, the shoreline comes across the front and then curves
and follows parallel to the edge of the docks, about 40 feet off the end of the docks. This whole
area in here where it says plot plan, Castaway Marina, is a wooded wetland. It’s woods.
MR. MAC EWAN-How far is this proposed retention pond, basin that you’re proposing here
from the wetlands?
MR. MATTHEWS-Probably 50 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Now it becomes APA jurisdictional, doesn’t it?
MR. SCHACHNER-To be honest, it sounds likely to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. When we were first talking about your proposed activity up on top of
the hill, we were just building the building. Now that you’re proposing activity down here near
the lake, you’re now APA jurisdictional.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not necessarily.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Within 50 feet of the lake?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, you know, I don’t even have to do this.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s more the wetland than the lake that’s likely to be APA jurisdictional,
actually.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s saying that there’s wetlands. It’s a wooded wetland right there.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s what I jumped on. So I just think we need to be careful. We
don’t make that call.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-It is substantially likely. I agree. There’s a good likelihood.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you have, you said you filed your applications or notice or something
with APA asking them to review this.
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-No, he has not yet done that.
MR. MATTHEWS-I’ve got the forms here. I’m filling them out, and I don’t, this is just a
suggestion that I put some kind of a sump or what not in this area, just thinking that I was
going to better the nature of what might be going in the lake. I mean, it’s not there now. If you
say I don’t need to do it, I won’t do it.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, no, I certainly wouldn’t be suggesting that. It sounds like what you’re
trying to do would be a positive thing. It would take a little bit more research into it and such,
but anything that keeps sediment out of the lake and runoff out of the lake has got to be a plus.
MR. MATTHEWS-That was my thinking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I didn’t mean to steal your show for a second.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. You have a note about the asphalt berms to direct runoff. This is
proposed then?
MR. MATTHEWS-This was another, no one has engineered this to be done like this, other than
in sitting before you several times, this was a suggestion for other projects. So I thought, these
are not there now, and I thought that if it would help keep the water from going directly down
the black top which, when it rains, that’s what it does, and goes directly into the lake at our
launch ramp, but I did read the comment from the engineer that berms actually speed up the
water and it may cause some erosion and what not in the grassy areas. Now, I haven’t made
provisions there for that, but some rock riprap or something like could go in those areas to take
care of that, if, in fact, the berms were deemed necessary.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then there’s a note for the, on the western part. It says buried septic line
for future shop.
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-What is that referring to? Is this the future shop here, or is that another?
MR. MATTHEWS-Future service area is right here adjacent, right above New York Route 9L.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-When I had the new septic system put in, originally this place operated off of
a holding tank which was pumped out on a daily basis all summer long. Four years ago, I had a
system designed and installed, which we’d pump our effluent from this holding tank up to
another septic tank on top of the hill into a septic system. It says a field. At the time we
designed this, I had it designed to accommodate all the bathroom facilities, the facilities in the
store and an additional bathroom which would be required in the shop. So that this system is
designed for that, and, when I was doing this excavation and installing the underground lines, I
ran another line, a pressure line, over partially towards the area where, I’ve been dreaming
about doing this shop now since I’ve had the property, because I just was unsatisfied in having
the operational working on boats so close to the lake. I mean, this is where it’s been for the last
30 years, and so that’s what that line is.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the, just down below you have a 75 foot infiltrator. What is
that?
MR. MATTHEWS-Okay. Adjacent to our service area I’ve also proposed a 30 foot by 60 foot
wash basin where we can do our boat cleaning and boat washing. The drain from that goes into
this infiltrator system and the infiltrators, I’m sure you’ve probably seen them, they’re a plastic
hooded type vented unit that goes in a trench and you backfill gravel and what not around it.
MR. VOLLARO-The same thing they use for septic systems.
MR. MATTHEWS-Exactly. I had this designed by an engineer up in Warrensburg, and he
didn’t mention anything about not putting bends in them. I see a note from the engineer. I
found some right angle connections for these things. So I assumed that that would be okay, and
there’s no reason why I can’t just lay it out differently and get the 150 feet or whatever he
required for that.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Then with regards to the C.T. Male letter, have you gotten a copy of
that?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Have you had a chance to respond to that at all?
MR. MATTHEWS-To them, no?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-But I read it and I’m ready to respond to your questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’ll be it for me for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think Tom has done a pretty good job of going up. I just have one
question on the buried septic line. You’re going to need a pump system down at the bottom
near that service area to get up to the septic tank. I see you have a pressured line, but you don’t
set aside an area for a pump. You’re going to have to pump it up.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. Which will probably be inside, under the floor, in the service
area.
MR. VOLLARO-The service area. Okay. That should be noted on your, that you’re going to
have a pump system to get on up to that septic tank.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct. There’ll be a grinder pump system which will take the
effluent to that tank.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, you know, as I view this, this is pretty much as the site
currently exists, except for putting in the service area.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So you haven’t really, you’ve done a little change on it, but not an awful lot.
Pretty much almost 95% the way it was before.
MR. MATTHEWS-Basically the grades are the same. The only area that’s going to change is
that rocky section off the edge of our driveway there is where the foundation will be for this
area. We’re not going to take any trees down.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the western side of the site where it’s got a riprap swale water
retention, what kind of slope are we dealing with there? Is it a slope? I mean, there’s no
grading on here so I can’t tell.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it’s flat.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s flat. Okay, and all you’ve got is some riprap in there to.
MR. MATTHEWS-It’s about a four foot deep trench filled with three inch cobbles.
MR. VOLLARO-What they usually recommend doing with a trench like that is putting some
filter fabric over it to prevent fines from going down and eventually clogging the riprap.
MR. MATTHEWS-I can do that. That was there when I bought the property.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I would just make a recommendation that, over the top of that, you put some
filter fabric to help that system function better, and, other than that, I don’t have an awful lot of
questions on this site. I think the applicant’s got to answer the C. T. Male questions. I think that
they brought up, you know, some pretty valid points. I read, with interest, Mike White’s
memo, I think it was from him, yes, Michael White, to you on the February 14 letter. He’s very
th
much closer to the lake than I am and closer to the controls they’d like to see on the lake, such as
zebra mussel task force outreach programs and so on that he talked about, and in reading his
letter, he seems to give you a, you know, four stars on this, as far as the changes you’re making
to this particular marina. You’ve got all the variances you require off of Route 9L I see, and so,
other than that, I don’t have an awful lot of questions on this application. Since it doesn’t, one
question I guess I have, when I came in here, is the letter from Mr. Connelly, but that’s been
kind of cleared up with Counsel’s interpretation of that letter, and your conversation with
people at the agency. Other than that, I don’t have anything else, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-And clarifying where Bob left off on your infiltration trench, the stone drain
trench that you have a little detail on, a two foot in depth, four foot in width. C.T. Male
suggests to put the geotextile or the filter fabric on the inside.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, my eaves trenches, I always do that, and I just neglected to.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, Bob said put it on top, but actually the engineer says.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, normally we’d wrap the whole thing. This large swale that’s up here
alongside the road was there when I bought the place. So I just put it on the drawing so he
could see that it was there, but the eaves trenches that I proposed to put along the new building
and they said I didn’t need to do anything with the existing showroom, but as long as I was
doing it along here, I could put them in along that. They were never done when it was built
originally.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, and it’s all helpful. Each little step is helpful. Now I was at the
Zoning Board when you went before them, and you had, well, at least one neighbor asked you
to put additional vegetation up.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, and I have that shown here.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what that one? Because I didn’t have the opportunity of looking at a
map.
MR. MATTHEWS-Her house is over on the other side of the lot where the septic tank is located.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-And the existing shrubs now go up along this parking area on the northern
side, and they end about three quarters of the way up. So she wanted me to plant some more
along the rest of that bank.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you accommodated her.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good. I tried to do a floor area ratio, but I couldn’t find out, you know,
how many acres this was. I did it two ways. I got one, 3.6 acres, and I did it another way and I
got 4.03 acres.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. It’s about 4.1 acres.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-So it’s a little over four acres.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and do you remember, what was your floor area ratio, in terms of
percent?
MR. VOLLARO-He had, the percentage he didn’t have, but he’s got, remaining area potentially
to develop is 28,218. So, you know, I looked at that and I knew it wasn’t any greater than 22%
when I looked at that number.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking about the floor area ratio.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I see you looked at it, too, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. I just had a tough time. Now, is this four different lots, or
five?
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s the way I’m taxed.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Have you ever thought about consolidating?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Just for sanity?
MR. MATTHEWS-No, I will. That’s one of the things I haven’t gotten to.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know how that goes. Another thing, when you do layout parking, I
know a lot of this is pre-existing. I just thought I’d mention this as kind of a footnote, but the
current standards are nine foot in width by eighteen foot in length, and the Town Code likes to
see 24 feet of area in back of a parking space for maneuvering purposes. Just for general
guidelines, okay. The other thing, too, is, and I commend you on trying to do something with
stormwater, and I think you can probably go one step. A lot of your asphalt berms to direct
runoff towards the grassy areas, technically the grassy areas, you’re going to ask them to act as
retention basin for you. So they need to be, and I think you may have addressed this earlier on,
hollowed out, sized, according to how many, you know, cubic feet per minute of stormwater
you, you know, and the surface area runoff, I mean, it does get pretty technical, because your
intentions are good, but the intentions won’t work unless the whole program works.
MR. MATTHEWS-I understand that, and my dilemma is the whole site slopes. So it’s very
difficult to hollow out and make an area for the water that, for instance the first berm as you go
down the hill, that grassy area continues to slope down the hill. So, I mean.
MR. STROUGH-Is there ledge underneath it?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, everything is ledge. I mean, you go down a foot, two foot and it’s ledge.
I mean, it’s just like a pan.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if you could go down a couple of feet and do the same thing, make it an
infiltration type.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, this is what I suggested to do is maybe come down a little ways with
an infiltration trench, just to slow up the water and let it get into the ground and run into the
roots and what not.
MR. STROUGH-Right, yes, as best as you can.
MR. MATTHEWS-As best as we can, if this is, one of the other reasons I thought that this would
help out, too, is it slows down the traffic, having a little bump there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, yes, because your grassy and treed area, any time you allow parking on
it, it’s going to compact it and take away it’s ability to infiltrate.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, we wouldn’t be parking on it if it wasn’t hard. So it’s hard.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, I mean, so that counters what we’re trying to do is to achieve some
kind of infiltration.
MR. MATTHEWS-The grass does grow, too.
MR. STROUGH-I know. It’s a difficult site. I mean, it’s kind of, it’s a difficult site. The parking
layout and everything else, and from what people have told me in the summer, it’s difficult,
but.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, we’ve changed it 100% since I’ve been there.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-I take great pains in going out there with my paint gun and painting lines all
over the place to get people to park in an organized fashion, because if you don’t tell them
exactly where you want them to park, they park every place.
MR. STROUGH-Exactly.
MR. MATTHEWS-However, there’s probably only two weekends, or maybe three, Memorial
Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day, that we would be anywhere near filled to capacity. The
rest of the time, 90% of these places are open. So, I mean, basically it’s there for show, to
accommodate the boats and trailers that do launch at our facility on the weekends.
MR. STROUGH-Well, a new boat that comes in, and is going to launch at your site, do you have
to personally inspect the hull of that boat?
MR. MATTHEWS-We don’t have to, but I make it a policy to check for zebra mussels, and
milfoil that might be hanging off of the trailer.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. So if you saw something like that then they have to go up to the wash
area?
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, the big problem that I have with the whole situation, we have no
enforcement authority at all. So we can’t make somebody go to the wash area, but we can
suggest that they do that, and that’s what Mike White and the people in the LGA and the Park
Commission are looking for are sites like this where someone can pull their boat around. We
have the facility for a hot water wash, which will eradicate the zebra mussels. I mean, it’s not as
though we’re washing dirt and oil and residue. Boats are basically clean except for the algae.
MR. STROUGH-So is it Mike White’s responsibility? Because in here I see a condition. No
person shall launch a vessel into or remove a vessel from the waters of the Park without
inspecting the vessel and it’s trailer, if any, to ensure the detection of marina growth, including
macrofites, weeds, or any other hull contamination or removing said growth and disposing of it
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
so to ensure that it is not discharged into the waters of the Park. Now is that the Park
Commission’s responsibility?
MR. MATTHEWS-They have the authority to tell somebody they have to go get it done.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s too bad that you didn’t.
MR. MATTHEWS-But I can’t, because I’ve asked them on several occasions, because I wouldn’t
let somebody launch once because their boat was just packed with zebra mussels. I said, I’m
sorry, and I know they just went around the corner and launched it some place else, but I
wouldn’t launch it, and they called the Park Commission and said that I wouldn’t allow this to
be done, and tried to cause a stink, but they backed me up.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s too bad we didn’t have a better way of.
MR. MATTHEWS-I agree, because I’d be more than glad to.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t seem right, somehow or other.
MR. MATTHEWS-I mean, this is where.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in reading through your literature, I came across that, and it was an issue
I never really considered, and I guess it’s something we should be considering.
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, I mean, I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m confused
about the applicant’s assertion about enforcement of that condition in the Park Commission
permit. I’m confused about it for two reasons. One because I think the applicant is the permit
tee of the Park Commission permit, and I think that’s who the Park Commission enforces the
permit condition against, the applicant, not the patrons of the facility. The second reason I’m
confused is because, unless I’m not understanding the nature of the facility, it’s a privately
owned, privately operated facility, and if that’s true, then it doesn’t matter what patrons tell the
applicant. The applicant has the legal authority to say to a patron, patron, I will not let you use
this facility if your boat has milfoil or whatever on it. So I guess I’m not, maybe I’m alone on
this, but I’m not understanding the applicant’s assertion in response to your question.
MR. SANFORD-Mark, I tend to think you’re right. I mean, when I used to launch at private
places, they used to check my boat to make sure that my septic systems were all self-contained,
and if I had a boat that might have been able to have sink water or what have you go into the
lake, they could not allow me to launch.
MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. Precisely. So I’m just pointing out I’m confused about the
applicant’s assertion that he doesn’t have, if I understood, he was saying he didn’t have the
authority. I thought one of you asked a pretty good question, which is, if you see somebody
with milfoil on the boat, can you somehow, I don’t remember the exact wording, but somebody
said can you do something about it, and I thought the applicant said he couldn’t really enforce
the condition or prevent somebody from launching, and I don’t think that’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Where I got that from, Mark, was from the Lake George Park Commission.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, I’ve got the permit.
MR. STROUGH-The permit, and it was Number Twenty-six. Now, I’m looking for a part that
says the permit tee has the power, express power, to enforce the following.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You’re not going to find that, but what I’m telling you is, that’s
exactly why I brought this topic, or comment up. What I’m telling you is I don’t understand
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
how the permit tee could suggest that he doesn’t have the authority to enforce condition
twenty-six, because whether it was there or not, if it’s a privately owned, privately operated
facility, which I understand it to be, then the permit tee can say to one of his patrons, patron, I
see there’s milfoil on your boat. You must go wash the boat or I will not allow you to launch it.
Am I making sense?
MR. STROUGH-You are, but I’m getting, the bottom line is what you’re saying, by implication
or otherwise, is the permit tee has the powers to do the following.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think you need to look to the Park Commission permit for this.
MR. MAC EWAN-What he’s saying, the following is not necessarily defined in the permit.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I don’t think you need to look at the Park Commission permit.
MR. VOLLARO-This is privately owned, and he can do what he wants on his site.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And he mentioned he has done that.
MR. MATTHEWS-Which I have done.
MR. STROUGH-But I think what we’re talking about is beyond that, Mark, is that should be,
that should be all marina facility owners should be abiding by this.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, but I think we’re talking about this application at the moment.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we went off on a tangent. It should be obligatory for everyone.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. I don’t have a position on that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, well I do. All right. Well, thanks for the little conversation. When
somebody does, I see you have the bigger slots up on top. Is that for cars with trailers?
MR. MATTHEWS-Cars with trailers, correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that’s pretty much my notes. Thank you.
MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I’m a little concerned about the congestion on the site, but that obviously pre-
exists what you’re trying to do, but you may possibly be adding to it. The block building on
your drawing, which I guess used to house the service department.
MR. MATTHEWS-It does.
MR. SANFORD-If you build this expansion, what do you envision happening to that block
building?
MR. MATTHEWS-The block building is going to be used for my restroom facilities, which are
now in the sheds right out in front of the septic tank. The men’s room and the ladies room and
the, which are locked only for the tenants, and then there’s a separate bathroom which is used
for the transient people that are coming in to launch their boats and when they come in off the
lake. Those facilities will be moved into this block building, and then the balance of the block
building, I want to use as a recreational hall, picnic table area for my tenants.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, I was a little surprised when you said only on three weekends
during the season do you find parking a problem, just because, having not done anything
scientific, it just looks like you have a lot going on there in a very congested manner. I just was
wondering if you’re going to be putting something in operation that’s going to further cause
parking issues, but perhaps it won’t be materially, but if people do utilize that block building?
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Have you ever had a runaway boat going flying down that ramp, into
the launch?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. Thankfully, no.
MR. SANFORD-I also have to say that, you know, I’m not a scientist, but I do agree that where
you’re planning to put your addition certainly that, I would be surprised if there’s any wetland
up there, but the area that you’re talking about down near your docks here obviously may
cause some complications. Even though your intention is to mitigate, you may open up a can of
worms there to some degree. I’m not sure if you might. You handle it as you see fit, but
obviously it’s going to complicate things a little bit because that is clearly wetland area. No,
other than that I think everything’s been adequately covered, as far as I’m concerned. I’m all
done, Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-The only thing I have is the C.T. Male comments that he’s going to have to
straighten out with C.T. Male.
MR. MATTHEWS-Do you want to go down those?
MR. RINGER-You’re going to have to go back to C.T. Male and go over each of them and get a
signoff from C.T. Male.
MR. MATTHEWS-See, I didn’t know what I was supposed to do with C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-The only question I have for you, John, is this parking lot on the west side of
the parcel, the gravel parking. What is that going to be used for?
MR. MATTHEWS-That is used for a weekend boat launch, cars and trailers.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do people get from that parking lot over to the docks?
MR. MATTHEWS-After they launch their boat, unload all their paraphernalia and what not, put
it in their boat, and they drive their trailer up there and park, and they walk back down to the
dock.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do they get to the dock? Do they walk on Route 9?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. They usually walk right up around the hill. I’ve had nobody walk on
Route 9 that I know of.
MR. MAC EWAN-As a thought, would it be something to consider to putting, you know, just
like a gravel walk path from that parking lot, maybe as a deterrent for people who might
consider walking on Route 9?
MR. MATTHEWS-Where?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-It would go from the parking lot and just kind of come up between the
proposed service area and the paved area there.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s a pretty steep bank along there.
MR. MAC EWAN-It really drops off there?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, where that treed bank is, it drops probably 10 feet.
MR. STROUGH-I really feel that that is not necessary. They just walk up the road and right
down the, it’s a nice gentle incline, and to have the extra traffic coming up through our service
area I don’t think would be necessary. Basically, the people that park down here, are people,
for instance, if someone launches and goes for a week out on an island, we have them park
down here. So it’s overflow.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just have concerns with people walking, pedestrian traffic on Route 9.
MR. SANFORD-Well, don’t they walk on this thing called, I think it’s supposed to be gravel
road.
MR. MATTHEWS-Gravel road.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and they walk there and they pick up gravel parking.
MR. MATTHEWS-Exactly, and then right down the hill it’s the way they always have.
MR. MAC EWAN-But didn’t you just say a few minutes ago that they walk down Route 9
because it’s a nice gradual slope.
MR. MATTHEWS-No, no. They walk up the gravel road and around.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I apologize. I misunderstood you. Because I was concerned that
people were walking on Route 9.
MR. MATTHEWS-No, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody walk down.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good. That’s a good thing. That’s really all I had. I mean, you know, he
needs to respond to C.T. Male’s comments and submit supporting information to them.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got one other question. Now the new building, I mean the black building,
the old building, that’s going to have the bathrooms in it and the rec center, how’s your sanitary
line going to exit from there? I mean, how is?
MR. MATTHEWS-The same way it does now.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, but I don’t see any going from.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it comes out on the lakeside, and runs right along the edge of the
building into that tank.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a gravity fed.
MR. MATTHEWS-Been there.
MR. STROUGH-You draw the line going to the old bathroom facility, but.
MR. MATTHEWS-Sorry.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it’s just going to, you’re going to?
MR. MATTHEWS-Gravity feeds out of the.
MR. STROUGH-Out of the black building to where it is now, okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-And then into this holding tank, and then gets pumped from there.
MR. STROUGH-All right. I just wondered.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to give up the table for a minute. I’ll open up the public
hearing, if anyone would like to comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I have a couple of procedural questions and then
a couple of specific questions. This Special Use Permit, is it applicable to just the additional
shop and parts building to the existing showroom and the conversion of a building to restrooms
and the recreation room, or is it the total marina? If I read the Code correctly, marinas are all
going to have to get a Special Use Permit within, what, a five year period? Is this the
opportunity to put this marina under the Special Use Permit, the total facility, that is? That’s a
question I have. I don’t know how you’re going to approach that. The addition of the
restrooms and the recreation area, to me, from our experience, I can tell you, this constitutes
quite a change in the operation, and even an expansion. I really don’t know if you know what
you’re getting into. This recreation room is going to become an encampment. It’s bad enough
people come up and they kind of stay on their boats, use it as a floating camp, if you will, but if
they have a recreation room they can congregate in, it’s really your business, none of mine, but
it does throw a high incidence of load on your wastewater system, and if you’re going to have
showers in your new facility, it’s, I think it’s an incidence of use that has to be quantified. It’s no
longer one toilet on a septic system, as you might have in a home, if you will. This could be
used, you know, hour after hour after hour, especially with your having a well water system.
So I think that aspect of it should be quantified, particularly if you’re going to have showers in
the new facility. I presume this will necessitate a modification to your existing Class A Marina
permit. This could constitute an expansion. If it doesn’t include the total marina in the Special
Use Permit, then we’re not addressing the issue of the docks, of where the tenants are renting. I
think my biggest concern is the septic system and the incidence of load on that from what I
would think is a fundamental expansion or conversion of this facility to something more like
what you have at the Harris Bay Marina Yacht Club, for instance. It’s going to mean more
permanence. The other thing I might just mention, when it comes to the APA, they have a
subject they talk about. It’s called a deep water marsh. I think Staff is familiar with this, and I
believe the APA categorizes lakeshore area up to two meters in depth as a deep water marsh,
and they may claim jurisdiction in this regard. I’m not sure, but that’s worth checking. Those
are the only comments I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. HILTON-I have a written comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-You do?
MR. HILTON-A letter dated to the Planning Board, April 17, “Dear Town of Queensbury
th
Planning Board: We live on Warner Bay, just a short distance from Castaway Marina. It is our
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
opinion that this project, in moving the shop and bathrooms away from the edge of the lake, is a
wonderful thing. As one of the very many residences that get our drinking water from Lake
George, we are very happy that the Matthews have made this decision. In respect to the
addition to the building located away from the lake, we feel that this would be a great
improvement to the quality of the Castaway Marina, which is a positive reflect on our bay and
neighborhood. We are happy that the Castaways want to invest in improvements in their local
business which provides important and appreciated services to our neighborhood and the
whole southeastern portion of Lake George. We also understand that these improvements will
also allow the Castaways to clean the potential dangerous zebra mussels from the bottom of
boats before allowing them to launch. We hope you decide to grant the necessary approvals to
allow the Castaway Marina to go ahead with their plans for improvements. Sincerely, Steven
and Kathy Schoenwetter” That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Would Staff be
interested in responding to the inquires as to what the extent of a Special Use Permit can cover?
MR. HILTON-I guess, you know, certainly this doesn’t seek to, and I’m trying to find the
location of the specific area in the Code that mentions the timeframe, five year timeframe, but
what’s presented on the plans doesn’t address that. It shows a portion of the existing marina
coming in for approval. I guess the short answer is that they’re coming in for possibly approval
for a portion of it of an existing marina, and, you know, not, off the top of my head, I would say
not for the entire property, as called for in the timeframe, as was mentioned before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Does that, I guess I just want to get something clear in my mind. There is a
time period by which all marinas have to apply for Special Use Permits? And that is
approximately a five year period? Do I understand that correctly?
MR. SCHACHNER-We’re not saying that. One of the commentors in the public said that, but
that doesn’t make it so.
MR. MAC EWAN-A question directed to you, John, is can you maybe expand on your concept
of what you want to do with these rec facilities, what they’re going to be all about?
MR. MATTHEWS-Sure. Number One, the bathrooms that are now existing, men’s room, ladies
room, shower facility, and the public outside bathroom facility are going to be moved inside.
They’re not going to be expanded. They’re not going to be any more elaborate, only they’re
going to be nice and neat and tidy and they’re going to be not in sheds alongside the lake. I
mean, it’s not as though we’re upgrading . I mean, we have facilities there now, and that’s
exactly what we’re going to have inside. The tenant’s bathrooms are all, and the showers, are
keyed, and only the people that have docks, boats at the docks, have keys. The transient boaters
are not permitted to use the shower facilities. They are allowed to use the transient bathroom
only. The rec room is, it could be a hangout, but I really don’t see it with our clientele. I’m
really looking forward to having it as a spot. Right now we have a group of picnic tables lined
up across the shoreline there where they will come in off their boat and have their evening meal
at our facility and get together before they go home. On inclement days, they’re going to want
to maybe move inside if it’s raining, but I don’t find that it’s going to be something that’s going
to be used to a great abundance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-And with our staff and me around, it’s not going to be a hangout. Believe
me.
MR. STROUGH-Now, were the Schoenwetters, the people that wrote the letter, were they
misinformed? Because they said that they thought it was great that the bathrooms were being
moved upland, but in reality, they’re not.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MATTHEWS-Well, they’re going to be moved upland from where they now exist into this
more permanent structure.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. As opposed to, I think they were under the opinion that it was
going to go up to the new building.
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
MR. STROUGH-I think that’s what I read.
MR. MATTHEWS-That’s the way the letter read to me also, but, I mean, they know. They’ve
been at the site many times. So they know.
MR. STROUGH-Have you done a load and capacity analysis of the septic system?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, when we put the new system in, that was all done. The engineer
figured it with our.
MR. STROUGH-With the showers.
MR. MATTHEWS-The showers and everything that was there then is still there.
MR. STROUGH-But, you know, eventually when we do a special use marina permit for this
application, for John, there are some issues that, you know, we’re going to be looking at, and he
may want to take care of them now, but, I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he probably, other than some of the special use permits that have come
before this Board, I think this is a Class A Marina as it is today, I would assume, and it’s
probably going to meet the parameters of special use permits for marinas a lot easier than four
docks in front of somebody’s residence.
MR. STROUGH-I’d go along with that, but, you know, he may want to look at what we have to
look at just, you know, while he’s up there milling around making more (lost words). That’s all
I’m saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a response?
MR. SCHACHNER-Based on our review, and we’re open to suggestion if the person who
commented wants to cite as to a particular section of the Code, we’re happy to review it, but
Staff and I are reviewing the Code. The only section we find applicable to marinas has no such
time for compliance requirement in it. Again, if the commentor wants to point us to a certain
section, we’ll be happy to review it.
MR. SALVADOR-Isn’t that in the new Section, Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want me to field these questions, or no? It’s up to you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll let you field one.
MR. SCHACHNER-We’re looking at Section 179-10-060, which is entitled Specific Standards for
Special Use Permits, and Subsection A of that Section does refer to marinas, and all it says is all
marinas shall comply with the various standards. It says it in more words than that, but that’s
what it says. My understanding is that this particular facility is in existence and has been in
existence for many years. That being the case, then one would presume it’s either a, it’s a pre-
existing either a nonconforming or perhaps even conforming use, but that in either event what’s
being applied for now is a modification. That certainly would be subject to this Board’s control
under a Special Use Permit, but basically, in a short sentence, I don’t see, and again, I’m open to
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
suggestion. If the commentor wants to direct us to a certain section we’ll look at it, but I don’t
see anywhere where it says anything like what the commenter said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, obviously we’re going to table this thing tonight.
MR. SANFORD-So, Mark, you’re saying that within five years, marinas are going to have to
come in here for some kind of review?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, I’m saying nothing of the kind. I’m saying I don’t find any such
requirement anywhere in the Code. That’s what the commenter said.
MR. SANFORD-Right. That’s what I’m saying. You can’t find.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and I said if he had a section he wants to cite us to, that’s fine, but
the only section that talks, there’s another section that talks about docks and moorings. I
thought it made sense to look at that. That has no time period for compliance section in it.
Neither does the section I just referenced about marinas, and I’m not aware of any other specific
sections dealing with this issue. There may be one. I just haven’t seen it, and if he has one he
wants to cite us to, we’ll be happy to look at.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Enough said on the subject. What we need to do.
MR. RINGER-Craig, you left the public hearing open, and I think we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-One comment, yes, please.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. MacEwan. Kathleen Salvador. I think the five year
comment that John made pertains to the new Park Commission marina permits which are only
good for five years, and I believe that’s why you’re starting, now, to review these special
permits, via the Hoppers and the Smiths, and the way I understood it, attending all of your
meetings on this Special Use Permit, the Park Commission refused to give them a new marina
permit until you did the site plan Special Use Permit or something like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Permit review, yes.
MRS. SALVADOR-So I think that’s where the five years came in. I’m not sure, but that’s my
understanding on it. I don’t think it was your rules and regulations that were the five years. I
think it’s the fact that the marina permits are only good for five years now, and then they’ve got
to come in to you for that Special Use Permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s about the time the nightmare began.
MRS. SALVADOR-Yes, I think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. SALVADOR-You’re welcome.
MR. MAC EWAN-George?
MR. HILTON-The only other comment I guess I have is obviously C.T. Male comments,
addressing those, but, you know, the applicant has shown some plantings in part of the new
building, and that’s fine. I think we just need to know what’s going to be planted.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s already noted. I’ve got on here planting species, size and quantities. All
right. How about the left end of the table pen a resolution to table.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 3-2003 J & D MARINA, LLC, Introduced by
Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
The reason for the tabling is so the applicant has an opportunity to connect with C. T. Male to
address the issues raised by C. T. Male’s letter of 4/17, and also to show on this site plan, on the
plantings, the size and kind and quantity of the plantings that he has to make, and to apply for
his APA jurisdictional permit.
Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 2003 by the following vote:
MR. RINGER-To apply for his APA jurisdictional permit.
MR. SANFORD-Well, Craig, on that aspect, isn’t that something that’s really, he either has to or
he doesn’t have to do, and it’s not really our business?
MR. RINGER-But he’s got to apply for it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It will benefit him in the long run, and should be part of our record.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, John.
MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
DISCUSSION:
TAKUNDEWIDE HOA APPLICANT IS SEEKING MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING
BOARD.
BILL MASON, JOHN HICKEY, DAN FRASIER, REPRESENTING TAKUNDEWIDE HOA,
PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to provide some Staff notes, Marilyn, comments?
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Discussion, Takundewide Master Plan, Meeting Date: April 24, 2003
“Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to provide comment on the "Master Plan" information submitted
by Takundewide Homeowner’s Association. The Planning Board requested additional
information early last year to better define and anticipate environmental impacts if/when all
Takundewide properties are increased in size/use
Information Reviewed
March 6, 2003 letter to Planning Board from Sam Lightbody, President, Takundewide
??
Homeowner's Association (HOA)
January 31, 2002 letter to Takundewide HOA from Craig MacEwan, Chairman, Planning
??
Board
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
March 11, 2003 Letter to Craig MacEwan from Harold Berger, Consulting Engineer for
??
Takundewide
March 11, 2003 Memo to Takundewide HOA from Harold Berger
??
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, 12/23/84 and amendments
??
7/27/94 and 10/15/01
Letter to William Mason from Harold Berger, Consulting Engineer, dated October 12,
??
2001 regarding "Utility Service" with Percolation Test Results
JB3 Consulting water test results 2/9/02 and 6/10/02
??
Photos of homes with approved second floor additions
??
Build-out Basis
The expected development conditions are summarized here. The build-out is based on a 100%
FAV (Floor Area Variance) of each of the residences, without increasing the footprint of each
building. An additional two bedrooms per residence may be expected as a result of doubling
the living space. All other development conditions are to remain, i.e. parking, utility lines,
roads, green space, etc. The laundry facility and main lodge would remain the same.
Over the summer of 2002 information provided indicated about half of the properties were
rented during some point. Each property owner also owns corresponding dock space. The
vacancy rate is ~22% based on random occupancy checks during the same period. Rental
restrictions are not anticipated. Facility use has decreased since 1985 due to changes from resort
status to individual ownership. These trends are expected to remain the same in the future.
Review
The main concern is whether or not the environment can support the increased impacts
expected as a result of doubling the building size for all Takundewide properties. The HOA
has pointed out that the properties are used as single family residences. Since septic design is
based on the number of bedrooms and not seasonal versus year-round use, engineering analysis
is the same as long as the property remains in residential use.
The HOA does show in its covenants that all applicable permit requirements must be met for
changes proposed.
Water Supply
Water supply capacity is twice that required; considering the additional 2 bedrooms per
home. Drinking water is filtered and disinfected. The engineer stated that any problems
encountered would therefore be addressed. This is true for on-site drinking water supplies.
However, no indication was made about impacts to the lake based on fertilizer/pesticide use
for landscaping,
Stormwater/Runoff
Fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide use and groundwater impacts/lake
impacts have not been addressed.
Septic Systems
The majority of individual systems are quite old (30+ years). Any building upgrades require
that the systems meet current codes. The survey plan shows room for individual
replacement systems. Results of representative soils testing show system placement is
possible with fill. The common area contains less desirable soils, and thus would not be
See C.T. Male correspondence of 4/17/03.
good for a shared community system.
Aesthetics
The HOA has aesthetic concerns, and has put in place an architectural control committee to
address building changes.
APA Jurisdiction
The HOA should be asked to explain how replacement septic systems are viewed by the
APA. DEC purview is noted.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
Docks
Ask about LCPC permits. Have 30 residential dock permits been granted, or is the docking
facility operated under the HOA? Clarification is needed.
The HOA should be asked to
explain the status of current permits and any changes that may be required.
Considerations
The Planning Board may wish to have the HOA provide a matrix consisting of unit # and
corresponding information to facilitate review and serve as a checklist for future changes,
including:
ownership
??
rental history
??
dock space owner assignment and rental history
??
dock /mooring space under HOA control and rental history
??
parking space assignment
??
septic system information”
??
MRS. RYBA-Sure. We do have Staff notes. There’s ones dated April 17, and then just a brief
th
note that was mailed to you April 21. Rather than go through any of that extensively, I think
st
what I’d like to do is clarify and try to summarize why the Board is here, because it has been a
while. The last time, well, let me back up even further. The request was back in September of
2001 to, the Zoning Board had asked the Planning Board to take a look at the Takundewide
development community, specifically in reference to Nizolek application, and the concurrence
was that the Planning Board wanted to have a better sense of what would be the cumulative
impacts, and if everyone in the Takundewide community wanted to do the same thing, which is
request 100% Floor Area Ratio variance, that, would the site be able to accommodate that. So
the tricky thing of all of this, and subsequently the Planning Board did provide a resolution, and
asked that a Master Plan be submitted, so that you would have a better comfort level when
future applications came in. I think that the thing to understand here is that the Master Plan
request was really to provide a comfort level for the Planning Board, and I think subsequently
the Zoning Board of Appeals, but there aren’t really any approvals, per se, required in this
discussion, and that’s why it’s labeled as a discussion item. So any kind of resolutions you may
make I think I would caution you to just make it as more of an acceptance. One way to think of
this is more as an expanded Long Environmental Assessment Form. The other thing, too, is,
while there can be some mutual agreements to all of this, that if you did want to, if there were
changes in the future, then you could ask for additional information either way. It really is
more provided for a comfort level, and with that said, the comfort level was what really are
some of the impacts to the environment, or what can you expect to the area in terms of the use
of the area and would it be able to accommodate year round residences. Is there greater activity
than you might expect for residences at this site, and so there were, there was a submission and
additional questions that Staff provided, and I think that’s all I really have. If you want any
further guidance, certainly legal guidance, Mark is here, Mark Schachner is here, and if you
have any other questions of me right now, you can ask those questions.
MR. SANFORD-I have a quick question. I mean, the way you’re sort of introducing this is that
this is, there’s nothing specific. This is a guideline, I guess, or informal understanding that isn’t
going to have any basis in fact moving forward. In other words, we’re dealing here with just
what we think. The way you described it, is there anything concrete going to come out of this?
MRS. RYBA-Well, I think the benefit is that everybody’s thought ahead that you have the best
available information that’s going to say, all right, anyone who comes in from this point on is
going to be looked at favorably as long as each particular site that’s proposed remains the same,
and I think that was the question that everyone had was, we keeping getting all of this
information on an incremental basis, and if everyone in the area were to do the same thing,
could this site really accommodate those changes. So, the Board wanted to take a look at, what
would be the cumulative impacts.
MR. SANFORD-But in the absence of a resolution or something formal, Board members come
and Board members go. This is very intangible, I guess, is what I’m suggesting.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MRS. RYBA-It is different. I think one of the things is that certainly if the Board wanted to, and
Mark can correct me on this if need be, but the Board could always ask for some kind of, I don’t
know, impact statement. If you wanted to go in a more formal basis, in that case, you’d have to
say, here’s exactly where existing systems are, and right now it’s somewhat of a, I think they
did their best analysis, they put forward their best analysis there, based on their knowledge,
and you might have to do some expanded work on it. It really was more, my understanding, at
least, was to do more of a road map for where you’re going with this. One of the difficulties is
there’s no provision in the Zoning Ordinance that says you have to do a Master Plan. So, what
there is in the Zoning Ordinance, however, is a situation, under SEQRA is one, and Number
Two, the Planning Board can ask for any additional information they feel they need to make an
approval. So that’s really what we’re basing this on, but, in terms of saying that, you know,
there is a specific approval here, I don’t believe that that’s really the case, and that may be more
of a legal question for Mark Schachner.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe I can just follow up quickly on that. In the packet that we have here,
there’s a letter that was sent to the Homeowners Association on January 31, 2002, which was
basically a summary of several discussions we had, what we were looking to try to accomplish
and working with them to establish a plan for this, for all practical purposes, small community,
and the history of it, where they wanted to go with it, what the impacts might be associated
with such an expansion. There were so many unknowns out there we were just trying to get
them recorded. So we knew where we were going.
MR. SANFORD-No. I understand. The difference is that sometimes we have discussion items
on a proposed development, if we give, we have a dialogue established and then a month or
two later they come in for an approval of that, and then they, if they get it, they then proceed,
here what we’re doing is something similar. We’re presenting some sense of guidance, but
there’s not going to be closure on it.
MR. VOLLARO-There will be closure the next time anybody at Takundewide decides they
want to add to their building. We’re, you know, I’m looking at something, in my mind anyway,
very, very similar but not as extensive as The Great Escape, for example, where we did an EIS
on that, and now any time they come before us, so long as they meet the parameters of the EIS,
everything, we usually pass it without any further ado, and I think that, in my view, that’s
where this is going is somewhat in that direction, so that the next time an individual, an owner
of any of the 31 cottages, I think it’s 31, is that correct? Any one of the 31 cottages can just come
in and say, okay, I meet all the parameters that we previously discussed.
MR. SANFORD-And what I’m hearing from Marilyn is that’s guaranteeing nothing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, let me back up a little bit.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like you to jump in right now.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. This is a little complicated, but you need to understand that, as a
practical matter, the practical import of a master plan that you all are comfortable with will
likely be what Bob is describing, meaning that as future applications come in, if they’re in
conformance with this master plan, you’re likely to find them approvable, but as a legal matter,
Rich is on target. As a legal matter, not only do Planning Board members come and go, but
Planning Board members have different opinions in the Year 2003 and in the Year 2005. As a
legal matter, the way this “master plan” exercise is currently structured, it will not be legally
binding on future decision making, so that the difference that while, as a practical matter, you
may view this similar to The Great Escape situation where, as long as the parameters are
complied with in the future, you’re comfortable approving future applications, The Great
Escape went through a formal SEQRA GEIS process, so that, by law, you are obligated to not
have SEQRA problems in the future if those parameters are not met, and Rich’s point is, he’s
absolutely 100% correct. The way this exercise is currently structured, it lacks the formality and
the legal binding nature of a SEQRA GEIS process, and one of the things that Staff and I talked
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
about today, in preparation for this meeting, was exactly this issue, which is how binding or not
binding is this exercise, and for what it’s worth, if I were, not your Counsel, but Takundewide’s
Counsel, I might think very seriously about asking the Board to allow this to become a formal
SEQRA GEIS process, because then it would result, assuming you approved it ultimately, that it
would result in something that I could bank on, with a legal reliance. I mean, that’s not your
position to sell to them, but hear Rich out, because he’s absolutely correct, as a matter of law.
MR. MAC EWAN-To back up onto his comment that he started to make, well, we’ve had
applications before and we’ve discussed with a potential application that they want to put
forward, the difference is, I guess, from those kind of things to this situation, Rich, is we’re still
discussing it. We haven’t gotten to the point where this Board, I don’t think, up until tonight,
depending on how this outcome comes, we’ve felt comfortable with wanting to advance with
any further development on this area up here until we had these uncertainties addressed.
MR. SANFORD-Right, and my comments were made as much for a clarification on my part as
for anything else. I was just trying to get my arms around what we were trying to do here.
MR. STROUGH-I think as an encapsulated history, we’re dealing with a unique situation here,
where, at one time, we had a cluster of cottages, which at one time were seasonally rented, and
one by one they were coming before us wanting to go seasonal, wanting to expand, and we felt
that, or I felt, we were segmenting our analysis.
MR. MAC EWAN-You mean they wanted to go year round.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, as they expanded and wanted to go year round, we’re looking at one
project at a time, in a situation that’s nonconforming. We wouldn’t allow a clustering like this
today. We are concerned about the environmental effects, and so we wanted a bigger picture of
what was happening here, so that the approval process would go along easier, once we got the
big picture, and I think that’s kind of the way I looked at it, and I think that is not in discord
with what’s been said tonight.
MRS. RYBA-No, and Takundewide is, the Homeowners Association is making a good faith
effort to try to comply with the concerns of the Planning Board and the ZBA, so that it will be
easier, and in the future you’ll have a better comfort level, and you may or may not need a more
formal aspect until the point in time when they actually apply for these future variances, but
this was the question, or what I wanted to try to put up front, is that you need a comfort level,
and then go into those questions, and then we can worry about some of the other aspects later
on, which is what I think Craig MacEwan was trying to state.
MR. RINGER-Wouldn’t this have been a better meeting with a joint meeting with the ZBA,
since they’re going to get most all these applications first, before we would get them even.
MRS. RYBA-I think they directed the Planning Board, or they requested of the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what started this whole thing.
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MR. RINGER-The ZBA to us, because they weren’t sure, on the Nizolek.
MRS. RYBA-But they felt that the Planning Board had the expertise to do this kind of
environmental review, which they don’t always do because oftentimes they have Type I actions
which don’t request that.
MR. RINGER-And I don’t disagree with that. It’s just that they’re going to be the first in, on all
these applications that come before us. They’re going to come to them before they come to us,
and, I mean, they should be on board anything that we think, as a Board here, we could
approve or, it just seems, since they’re first, that they should have been here, too.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MRS. RYBA-That’s certainly one opinion, but like I said, they had requested the Planning Board
to take a look at this because of the Planning Board’s expertise, and certainly, if they’re making
that request, then I would hope that they’re going to rely on that expertise.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. With that being said, good evening.
MR. MASON-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you bring us up to speed.
MR. MASON-First of all, I’m Bill Mason, one of the owners of Takundewide, and the Manager
there.
MR. HICKEY-I’m John Hickey, one of the owners at Takundewide.
MR. FRASIER-And I’m Dan Frasier, and I’m also an owner and a member of the Board of
Directors of the Homeowners Association.
MR. VOLLARO-May I just ask a question? Are you all three sponsors? In terms of the
Homeowners Association, are you a sponsor?
MR. FRASIER-By sponsor, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, homeowners associations that are registered, and the Counsel may want
to jump in on me here, but usually homeowners in the State of New York are registered with
the New York State Attorney General’s office, at least in my experience, having been the
President of a Homeowners Association for 31 months. Every homeowners association that’s
registered with the Attorney General has an H Number that’s identifiable at the State of New
York, and once a year, each, the sponsors are obligated to submit what’s called an amendment ,
and that amendment sometimes is very short. Sometimes it’s very long, depending upon what
happens, and those amendments are normally passed and filed, unless the AG has a problem
with them. I don’t know whether Mark wants to get, I’m just trying to get a handle on.
MR. SCHACHNER-I think you’re a little confused about homeowners associations themselves
and offering plans. Most of what you’re talking about is an offering plan, and I think you’re
familiar with HOA’s, which stands for Homeowners Associations, which were actively
involved in sales, and therefore had an obligation to file and offering plan to the New York
State Department of Law and annual amendments, and they’re actually called updates, but
annual updates to their offering plans. I haven’t the faintest idea if Takundewide is or is not a
registered Homeowners Association, or if it has an offering plan, but I think the sponsor that
you’re referring to is actually the entity that owns and controls the majority of the interest in the
Homeowners Association that is selling units or selling shares or selling whatever as part of a
registered offering plan. I think that’s what you’re talking about.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Very often the sponsor, after a number of years, backs out of the thing all
together and the Board of Directors then takes over.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct, but I think that’s what you’re asking about. I’m not sure
what the relevance of it is, but I think that’s what you’re asking.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just trying to find out just what kind of an association I’m looking at
here. That’s basically what I’m asking.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-I can answer some of that. I know that none of us are sponsors, and none of us
ever were sponsors, and I believe, related to this question on the offering plan and so on, that
that’s the reason, because there never was a formal offering plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MASON-If I get in much deeper on that, then I’m way beyond myself, and I don’t have the
benefit of Jon Lapper here with us tonight. So, legal questions like that, I know that the other
two gentlemen here would prefer that we, if we can somehow defer those until we do have our
attorney to answer. We’ve been more or less nominated or appointed by the Board to be here.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, and you do offer property for sale?
MR. MASON-No. There is nothing for sale right now.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing for sale.
MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding was that it’s sold out, and therefore there’s no sponsor.
There’s no offering plan, none of this is happening.
MR. MASON-Right. There was never really an offering plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. MASON-It was fully sold the day it was formed.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and that goes back, that’s not five years ago.
MR. MASON-1985 when it formed, because it wasn’t formed with an offering plan. It was
formed by dissolving a corporation, and all of the assets were distributed to the shareholders,
and it was formed, and there was never an offering plan, and then some of the shareholders, or
some of those who owned then have sold.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So assuming all things the applicant is saying to be true, and I have
no reason to disagree with them, this is a different animal than the type of thing you’re familiar
with, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. Now I’m happy. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours.
MR. MASON-I’ll try. I don’t have much to say. We kind of, in our submission, we broke down
the letter that you’ve referred to, that you had sent to us, kind of outlining the process, and we
broke it down into, I believe it’s 26 points, and we tried to address each point as clearly and as
best we could. We have hired engineers and so on, architects, surveyors, and used their
expertise in developing what we’ve put in front of you, and we feel, for the most part, and
we’ve read the Staff notes, and their review of our documents, and we’re feeling pretty
comfortably that we’re hoping that we’re getting close to having answered, this is now, it’s been
a number of meetings. It’s been a while since we’ve been in front of you, but it has been a
number of meetings on these issues. We’ve discussed a lot this informally. We’re hoping that
this formal document will help to answer those 26 points. I don’t think there’s anything, really,
that we’ve talked about that we want to start presenting, really, unless there’s questions that
you have, specifically, about which points, and then we’ll be happy to try and explain our
answers or prepare something further for you to help to do exactly that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John, we’ll start with you.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, I think we’re two-thirds of the way there, to pick a
figure out of the air. We’re heading in the right direction on this. What I’d like to see
ultimately, and I’m speaking personally, and maybe there’s agreement amongst other Board
members, there’s a one document, there’s a singular package, listing, you know, the knowns
and the unknowns, versus, you know, I realize, I’m just saying what I’d ultimately like to get at.
We have amendments. We have agreements, we’ve had declarations. We’ve had, you know,
the covenants. We’ve got, you know, it’s very hard to follow. I’d like to see something more
comprehensive, a singular package, but that’s the end result I’d like to see, and I’m speaking for
me, and as we go down through the Board, there may be agreement or not, and along with
what you have, and like I said, you’ve made great progress, and I think we’re headed in the
right direction, but I do have some questions and concerns that may already be answered or
not. The building footprint restrictions, now the current buildings, and we’re talking the
cottages, are mostly 24 by 32, for the most part. Is there anything in the restrictions saying that
the footprint will not change. The footprint will stay the same, in every application that is
looking to expand.
MR. HICKEY-One thing I know is you can’t expand out. The 24 by 30.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but I didn’t read that, see, and I read it. So I’m looking for, these are the
kind of things I’m looking for, and, you know, if you don’t pick it up here, I mean, I made a
copy of my notes, but it will also be in the minutes. Yes, I’m looking for, because I want to have
known factors. So if we can agree that the footprint’s going to remain the same, that’s good.
MR. FRAISER-I did, in fact, if I could inject also, expand my cottage. We’re one of the two,
there’s five cottages that have come before you and have expanded. We own two of them, and
it was my understanding, through my builder and my lawyer, when we expanded our cottage,
that because of the covenants, that we were restricted to the current footprint.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, well, I’d like to see that. I didn’t see that worded that way.
MR. FRAISER-You didn’t see it in the covenants?
MR. STROUGH-And I understand there’s five units that have expanded, and we’re not going to
speak to those, other than, well, we’ll see in a minute. Let’s go down through my list and, so
that’s one thing I’d like to see, because we don’t want to be here all night. The second thing,
building expansion restrictions. Now, I heard allusion to, but nothing concrete, in suggesting
that a building, maximum building square footage will be double what is currently there. The
single stories, for the most part, are 768 square feet. It was suggested, but it wasn’t in concrete,
that the maximum square building will be 1,536, for all proposed expansions. Is that, are we in
pretty much in alignment there?
MR. MASON-I think in Number Seven, I believe that we’ve stated that.
MR. STROUGH-Number Seven where? In the build out.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s called build out.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it says that the existing square footage per cottage is 768. After
modification the square footage could double, with the addition of a second story. It doesn’t
say, that will be the limitation. You can only double, okay. It says, well, we could double, but it
doesn’t say that’s the maximum you’re allowed to do, and I’m looking for some definites here.
What are we definitely looking for? I’m not saying, don’t expand. I’m saying if you’re going to
allow expansion, give me a limit as to what you’re going to allow. So that I have some knowns,
because that’s what I need to deal with for the master plan. I need to have more knowns than
what I have now, and I’ll continue going on down the list, and is there any mention that maybe
no further expansion of the main house and the five cottages, which have already been allowed
to expand, would occur? A notation to that effect?
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-Are you asking if we’ll commit to that now?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MASON-There’s no, that’s very difficult to do that, because we’d really need to have all of
those five owners here, or six owners, and have them all agree to that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, keep in mind that I’m looking for knowns. It’s what we’re.
MR. MASON-I understand, and, really, that’s what this document is trying to address, and one
of the issues that I’ve addressed before, I hate to digress, but on the footprint, the cottages that
are 24 feet by 32, and are on a lot that’s 54 feet by, well, it’s 10 feet all the way around, the Town
has incredible control there. You people would never allow an expansion out to the lot line, I
believe, and if you were to allow that, then I guess then that would be all right, and that’s kind
of, that’s the way I’ve always viewed it. There is already an incredible amount of control on
that issue.
MRS. RYBA-If I could interject. The Zoning Administrator did write a determination, and the
definition of “lot” does not, it’s that 10 foot around the building, that’s the definition of “lot”,
and that’s the whole reason why they are going up, and there would be what would be
considered a 100% Floor Area variance. Because they can’t expand out.
MR. MASON-So they can’t expand out, and then you get into the going for more. That would
mean going for a third floor, and now we’re getting into a height restriction that I know we’d
bump up against. So there’s really, within the Town’s Ordinances, that’s locked down.
MR. STROUGH-I know, but, you know, it would be nicer if you just said that in print, in our
master plan, our ultimate final package, that that’s the way it’s going to be, so the people who
reside in Takundewide, everyone that resides around Takundewide who might be impacted by
this, the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, everyone is on the same page, and we don’t have to
go through and filter through a whole bunch of different documents to find out the ifs ands or
buts. Everything’s in black and white, one document.
MR. MAC EWAN-One step farther. Anybody who has the thoughts of maybe purchasing
something that might be for sale.
MR. STROUGH-Right, it’s all very clear to everybody, that if you want to expand this cottage,
you have to keep the same footprint. You can add a second story, and that’s fine, and when the
Nizoleks come before us, and we have the master plan, we say go ahead and do it. Yes, bingo,
you’re out of here. That kind of thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Would that be tantamount to, in other words, I’ve got a list of things, and a
person comes in and wants to buy and I say, well, this is what I offer you. Is it bordering on an
offering plan in some way, or what?
MR. STROUGH-No. I think we’re looking at this in terms of planning, and an unusual
situation, but, you know, you can speak to that.
MR. SANFORD-John, could I ask a real fundamental question? I don’t want to bog down
everything here, but I’m just glancing. This document looks sort of like the by-laws of the
organization, for lack of a better way of putting it, and it talks about how the Board of Directors
has certain roles in regards to members, but and it may be implied, but it’s certainly not stated,
that they can represent the members, maybe in this setting here. So I was wondering if this has
been reviewed, legally, as to whether or not the Association can come in here and basically, for
lack of a better word, negotiate certain terms that may be imposed upon members. I know they
have rights.
MR. STROUGH-You weren’t here at the first meeting.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. SANFORD-That was all discussed?
MR. STROUGH-The master plan was their idea.
MR. SANFORD-But that’s not my point. If it’s their idea.
MR. STROUGH-You originally said, how about a master plan.
MR. SANFORD-Well, John, if the Board of Directors comes in front of here and wants to do this,
that doesn’t necessarily assure that they are legally entitled to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The opening statement, maybe I can cut to the chase. The opening statement
these gentlemen made said that they were elected, appointed, or nominated to be
representatives of the Takundewide Homeowners Association. They’re here tonight on behalf
of that Association. They’re not here tonight on behalf of that Association to agree, arbitrate or
anything else. What they’re going to take is a message back to the Homeowners Association,
who will put it up to a vote of the membership.
MR. MASON-Exactly.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s how it’s going to work.
MR. RINGER-We’ll put what up to a vote?
MR. MAC EWAN-Whatever outcome that comes out of this whole concept of doing this master
plan.
MR. MASON-Certainly if we start agreeing to limiting things.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we want to see revisions in it or we make suggestions to them, this is what
we would like to see on behalf of the Town, for this development up here, they’re not
empowered, from what they’re telling us, to sit here tonight and say, or any time, whether we
get through this tonight or we get through it in another meeting or so, to say, okay, we agree
with what you’re requesting of us, we’re going to act on it right here and we’ll agree to that.
What they’re going to have to do is go back to their Homeowners Association and put it up to
an Association vote. It’s not a complicated thing. It’s relatively easy.
MR. STROUGH-No, it’s not, and I’ll just continue going down through my list and try and get
this done, and we left off with talking about expansion of units that have already expanded. So,
you know, I suggested, well, no expansion, but, you know, you could suggest expansion. I just
want to know how much would you allow. I mean, there’s got to be some kind of a limit, and
that’s what I’m looking for. I want to deal with knowns, not unknowns. Okay. Is there ever
going to be any further increase in the number of units, and the number of units, I believe, is 32
lots.
MR. VOLLARO-Thirty-one plus the cottage.
MR. STROUGH-And then you have the laundry unit. So, you’ve got.
MR. MASON-Well, the laundry room is an accessory structure. There are 32 residential homes
at Takundewide.
MR. STROUGH-With the main house having two units, residential units, in it.
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So is there going to be an increase in the number of units?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-There are absolutely none planned, and I don’t, I think we’ve answered that, and,
I don’t know that we answered that, but again, not planned.
MR. STROUGH-Maybe I missed it. Maybe I missed it.
MR. FRAISER-But on that particular question, I can speak for myself. I’m under the impression
that it wouldn’t be allowed if we wanted to do it. That either the Zoning Board or the Town
Planning Board or the Board of Supervisors would not allow us, or maybe the law won’t allow
us, the APA or something.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and you’re probably right, and so there’s nothing to putting into print
that there won’t be any further increase in number of units. It will remain as they are, just so
that I know it and see it in print in one document. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. VOLLARO-This should be also taken off the drawing where it says reserved for possible
expansion, based on what you just said.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, these are the things I’m looking for. Now that area which is
represented, currently represented and called common area, is that deed restricted to remain
forever common area, and never to be further subdivided?
MR. MASON-No. That’s owned by the Homeowners Association.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MASON-I don’t believe, I think that the 32, currently the 32 homeowners could get
together and agree to buy or sell or do something.
MR. STROUGH-Or just have it, I don’t know the legal ramifications.
MR. MASON-As a forever, you know, I understand why you want to do commitments, but we
get into some of them and it seems to me, I’m looking 50 years down the line, when I’m dead
and gone, and somebody’s trying to do something that might make complete commonsense at
that time, and you and I aren’t here anymore, and a Board would be looking at that group of
people and saying, I don’t know why you ever agreed to do that.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t expect you to make me happy every item on the line. I’ve got my list.
MR. MASON-That’s some of my concerns, is I’m trying to look toward the future, not grand
development plans, but just not tying people’s hands.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, there might be another Planning Board member who says, yes, I think
John Strough’s idea that, you know, there should be some deed restrictions on the common
area, and it shouldn’t be further subdivided, I would like to see that in print. Maybe you’ll see
it and maybe you won’t hear it, and that’s the way that the Planning Board works. Now they
don’t always agree with me, nor do the applicants. I’m used to it. Now the visual impact
analysis, you did mention. I just didn’t think you went far enough with it. You did mention
that you should do a visual impact analysis, and I agree, it was good that you included that, but
you did not address if a proposed expansion of a structure was going to obstruct or hinder the
view of another cottage owner, would it then be disallowed? I mean, is that part of your visual
analysis as to how it impacts, you know, the other Takundewide cottages? If I’ve got one
cottage here, and my neighbor is here, and I’ve got a beautiful view of the lake, and my
neighbor’s just a little bit downhill from me now, and he wants to put a second story, is that
going to completely block my view of the lake? I think that should be assessed, as part of your
visual impact, and I didn’t see the verbiage for that particular issue. Now, there’s more than
one dock rental, okay. So are you classified as a Class A Marina?
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-No. I’ve been discussing with Mike White at the Lake George Chamber of
Commerce, and we’re putting this together now. They are individual Class B Marinas. Each
cottage has one boat slip or one sailboat mooring associated with it, and in fact they are the
owner of that boat slip or mooring, with the exception of one which has two, and there is one
that has two of them, but all of the rest have only one associated with them, and they are
contractually assigned to them, no one else can use them, and the Lake George Park
Commission considers those to be Class B Marinas, individual, and they ask us to register them
together, as one large group, but they’re not certain on that, but I’m dealing with Mike on that,
and I will be happy, once that’s all put together, to forward the documents to you on that.
MR. STROUGH-All right. If that’s their jurisdiction and that’s the direction, you know, then I
have no powers to control, then we’ll live with that. However, should it turn in the direction
that you be Class A Marina and need a Special Use Permit, then we are going to consider
looking at the maximum impact of 32 docks and 5 moorings of which at least you admit, up to
half of them are sometimes rented, and if there’s going to be no restrictions placed on the docks,
then the Planning Board must assume the worst case scenario, and we’re going to be looking for
bathroom facilities, parking facilities, boat maintenance, washing restrictions, etc., etc., etc. that
might go along with 32 docks and five moorings. I’m just saying, if you do get the Class A
Marina, if you get pushed in that direction, we have to look at it in the worst case scenario. So
we may have to deal with that. Maybe we don’t have to deal with it now, and as mentioned in
Item Number Thirteen, between the hours of ten p.m. and eight a.m., there are limitations on
noise. What are those restrictions? Are they encoded, and how are they enforced? I mean, all
you said was there were restrictions, and like I said I’d like to know the knowns.
MR. MASON-That I can answer, and I have answered that before. They are regularly enforced.
They’re strictly enforced, and we don’t have a sensor or anything there to tell us when things
are too loud, and I don’t know, I know the Lake George Village Police have tried that, but I
don’t think with a lot of success.
MR. STROUGH-Do you have a list of rules?
MR. MASON-We do, and that is.
MR. STROUGH-Then just put them in to the master plan. It’s simple.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what I’m saying. I want these included. I want all the knowns in one
package. Okay. Now, since these units are rented, and no reasonable restrictions are placed on
the number of people using each unit, then the Planning Board has to consider a worst case
scenario for parking, noise and other impacts, unless, and you’ll put, I think, a comfort level on
us, unless you put some kind of a limit on the number of people that are allowed to use the unit,
because, you know, you and I know, we’ve been on vacation. You go to a beach in Maine, you
rent a condo. You have two other families come join you. Pretty soon you’ve got like 12 people
in a three bedroom place. I mean, if you haven’t done it, well. It saves a lot of money, and they
didn’t have any restrictions on the number of people, and for us to deal with knowns here, in
terms of water usage and everything else, it would be nice to know what would be the
maximum capacity in a worst case scenario. Now Mr. Berger did a water analysis. Okay. What
he didn’t put into his analysis, and I would like to see, is a current, and I’m talking, you know,
summertime, July/August, peak hour water usage. Worst case scenario. The peak hour. One
hour. What he did was average it over the year, and that doesn’t tell me the worst case
scenario. I need to know the worst case scenario, and in order to determine that, I’ve got to
know the maximum number of people that would be using the facilities, and I don’t know that
either. Also I would like to see a more concrete, I see allusions to it, but some parking
restrictions that you will provide some signage or something showing that parking and other
disallowed uses will not be permitted over septic system infiltration beds, and also.
MR. HICKEY-What was that again, John?
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-Disallow, signage or something that would point out that certain areas are
infiltration beds and like parking on them, for example, maybe some other disallowed uses,
parking on them for sure would be not allowed in this area, because it will ruin the infiltration
bed and take the integrity away from that. So, you know, if we can avoid that, that would give
me another comfort level that I could say, good, now everyone knows that. It’s in black in
white. It’s in print. You do say that you have a pump out, observation and maintenance
program for your septic systems, but you don’t say what it is. You said maybe every two or
three years, well, tell me, what is it, you know, in black and white. Now some of the septic
systems appear to be old. I mean, I’m no septic system expert, as much as I may want to be,
but, you know, some of these are 30 and 40 year old septic systems, and that bothers me, but
then again, that’s my non-scientific evaluation. We’ve got two at 49 years old, 48 years old, 34
years old, three at 48 years old, several of them in the upper 30’s. I mean, you know, maybe
they will last 100 years. I don’t know. I mean, I’d like some kind of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I add to that comment that some of those very old ones you’re
referring to, six of them are cess pools, whch causes me some concern.
MR. STROUGH-And it says drain field, but I don’t know how big the drain field is. Now, if
you came to me and showed me the size of the drain field, and were expanding a unit that’s
two bedrooms to four bedrooms, then I would say, okay, well, I can check here. The drain field
will handle four bedrooms, fine, and if it can’t, we’ve got to expand it. It’s that simple. I’d like
to know a little bit more information about that, and just some miscellaneous items down at the
bottom. In the amendments, of 12/23/86, no boat shall be allowed in the covered dock area
which extends further than the covered area. Well, wouldn’t it be better just to word it, no part
of any boat will be allowed to extend beyond the covered dock area? I mean, the way it’s
worded, but that’s no big hang up for me, and don’t worry about it if you don’t change it. Now
the clothes washing, now you say that the Homeowners Association will review whether a
cottage is allowed to have a clothes washer or not, but shouldn’t that also be reviewed by other
professionals of the Town and the New York State Department of Health? Should they review
that?
MR. MASON-I don’t think that they have jurisdiction. If there is a jurisdictional question, and
they do, then absolutely we would. We were feeling that we were being proactive when that
was written.
MR. STROUGH-And you were, and I’m just saying maybe you should have gone a little
further, but maybe nobody agrees with me. So, you know, like I said, I don’t expect everything.
I just made my list as I read through. I just thought that, you know, I would feel a greater
comfort level if I knew that the infiltration bed could handle the extra capacity or load that a
washing machine is going to put on it. I would feel better knowing that, if that’s the case, it’s
true. The Berger letter of March 11, let me find that. Okay. March 11, Page Three Paragraph
thth
Three, it says, the Town of Queensbury, being in Warren County, does not have a County
Health Department. I think we do. We have a County Health Department. Don’t we?
MR. MASON-He says no.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Not a Public Health.
MR. MASON-You have New York State Department of Health.
MR. STROUGH-But we don’t have a County Health Department?
MR. MASON-I’m relying on his expertise. He says no.
MR. SANFORD-We have a County Health Commissioner.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-I just found that interesting. It says there’s no program or responsibility for
individual sewage disposal systems review and approval in counties that are under the
jurisdiction of district offices like the one in Glens Falls.
MR. MASON-That’s correct, because I called the Department of Health and spoke with them
and they have no jurisdiction over that. They leave that to the Town. The Town has
jurisdiction.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s our Building and Codes people that look at this.
MR. STROUGH-So, ultimately, the Town is in jurisdiction of that.
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, thank you.
MR. MASON-And that’s why every time one is improved, they get a brand new, State of the
Art, septic system, and brings them up to Code.
MR. STROUGH-Well, thank you for your patience, and your time.
MR. MASON-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I’m new to this, but I’m intrigued by the whole concept, I guess. My
understanding is these individuals, the people, they individually own their home. So they’re a
property owner, but they’re also part of an Association that they look to, almost like a
condominium type of a situation, where you would provide a certain standard for aesthetics as
well as common systems, like that might be utilized or tennis courts and things of this nature,
and maintenance. Okay. So, I guess what I, I mean, to me, this is all a legal issue, I mean, more
than anything else, and I think I’m confused as anybody, maybe, more confused than anybody
else, but if an individual homeowner wants to deviate from, wants to paint their house pink,
they go to the Association and the Association either approves it or says no we want it
according to our color scheme, but if the Association approves something, like they want to put
an addition on to a house and the Association says, okay, this is okay. You can go ahead with
this, then I see it as the individual’s responsibility to then do what they have to do, legally,
which is perhaps to go in front of the Planning Board here to get an approval. Listening to this
discussion, I guess it was your idea to come here to try to get some sense of guidance on this or
what have you. No?
MR. MASON-We had a homeowner that wanted to do that, the Nizoleks. We went in front of
the Zoning Board of Appeals and what they did was send us to this Board, because they had
master plan issues, they felt, and I’ll explain it. So we came to this Board, two times, and both
times this Board told the Zoning Board, go ahead on Nizoleks, go ahead, but we agree you have
these master plan issues that need to be discussed about Takundewide, and both times the
Zoning Board said, no, we’re not going to approve the Nizoleks. We have to do this master
plan stuff first. So we were left, for the Nizoleks at that point, with we couldn’t go forward
anyway until this group of homeowners got together and came here for guidance. Now the
Nizoleks currently, I’m not certain if they’re, this has been over two years now and I don’t
know if they still want to do it. So we really don’t have an active application in front of
anybody right now, but we are trying to move forward in the response to the letter from Mr.
MacEwan, so that future homeowners who want to do this can do it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess what my point is, they can do it, whether you have this discussion
or not, and I think that probably legally, and I’m not a lawyer, and we have a good one here,
but I think that if an individual homeowner wants to do an addition on one of these houses,
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
they go to the Association, and your Association says, okay, fine, I think we probably have to
deal with that.
MR. MASON-The Zoning Board two times, at least, has said no.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know, but they might not be right. Okay, and, you know, I think
that there’s no way we could basically say to this individual property owner, no, we’re going to
address this whole thing collectively when I think you have certain issues of who owns the
property here, and it’s not the Association.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can probably answer that question for you real easily. There’s been several
applications over the last few years, and it’s piecemeal. It’s dealing with cumulative impacts,
and where we got stuck was with SEQRA, which has brought us to where we are right now.
MR. SANFORD-Again, I think on the SEQRA you might have to evaluate it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re trying to start with.
MR. SANFORD-Again, but can you, I mean, I don’t know where you draw the line on
something like that, in terms of cumulative impacts.
MR. MAC EWAN-An analogy was made earlier by Bob, in a sense this is a smaller, kind of
Great Escape thing, where it may never get to a point where there’s an Environmental Impact
Statement done, but it’s piecemeal development and expansion of this community.
MR. SANFORD-In one way it is, but in terms of how it’s owned, it is certainly not the same
thing. That’s my point. I mean, The Great Escape is owned by one corporation owns all the
properties. Here you have individual property owners who have come together in an
Association for certain reasons.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand your position, which makes this, this is by far really a very
unique situation.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. Again, I don’t want to be advocating against maybe what is good
planning, on the one hand, but on the other hand, I think that, you know, we could be tying in
an expansion on an individual home to the dock here, and to everything else, and that, I mean,
the linkage I’m not sure is legally clear. Mark, do you have any comments on this you want to
share with us?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think so. I mean, any comments I would make would be repeating
what I said probably now an hour ago, that you’re correct, that there is not as clear a legal
linkage as in The Great Escape situation. Both in terms of the fact that you don’t have one
owner, you have multiple owners, and, from my standpoint at least, because you don’t have a
binding, this whole exercise is not going to end, as I understand its current structure, in a
binding decision. A master plan may be, I don’t think you’re going to end up approving a
master plan. You may end up accepting a master plan, finding it appropriate, whatever words
you want to use, but as Staff said at the very beginning, as Marilyn said, you know, now quite
some time ago, the way this exercise is currently structured, neither the applicant nor the Board
will be formally, technically, legally bound by its conclusions. It’s basically a guidance exercise
or a comfort level exercise, and I’m not criticizing. I’m just making sure that, that’s my only
comment.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, then I wish you well and hope you proceed in a tasteful and an
environmentally sound way. That’s all I have, at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. RINGER-I sat through all the meetings, I even went to the ZBA when the Nizoleks went to
the ZBA to see how they were doing, and I’m still, I’m confused as to what we’re actually trying
to do and I know what we’re trying to do, but I’m having a great deal of difficulty getting the
end result of what we’re going to accomplish. So I don’t have any questions, and, you know,
I’m here to listen, I guess, but I’m really struggling to find out what we’re going to accomplish.
That’s all I’ve got.
MR. MASON-Could I ask a couple of questions, or a question of these two gentlemen, just to be
clear?
MR. RINGER-Absolutely.
MR. MASON-Because we did do, I mean, I don’t want to get frustrated, but we did spend a lot
of time preparing this, and spent a lot of money, and I appreciate your comments.
MR. RINGER-I can see you did. There’s no doubt about it.
MR. MASON-Am I to take those comments that you accept Numbers One through Twenty-six
as a more or less complete document? Because that really was what we were expecting, our
expectations when we came here tonight, was that we were going to examine the document for
completeness, decide where it was deficient, and we were going to take that back and we were
going to spend more money, and more time and bring you something that you wanted, and it
doesn’t seem like we’re really getting close to that.
MR. RINGER-I think you’re getting close to it, but I.
MR. MASON-I don’t know where it’s going to lead either.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t want to sound disruptive here.
MR. MASON-No, I appreciate what you’re saying.
MR. SANFORD-Again, I’m an alternate member and I wasn’t in on the beginning, but at first
blush I’m a little surprised that your counsel kind of thought it made sense to go down this
road. I mean, again, so I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate, just to some degree here. From
our point of view, it’s great. I mean, from a planning point of view, if we can give you ideas as
to how we would like to see things unfold, there’s nothing wrong with that. I mean maybe
that’s what this exercise is meant to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I would like Staff to do for me, personally, is put together the complete
set of minutes and history on this thing and give them to Mr. Sanford, so he can come up to
speed as to exactly how we arrived at where we are today, and he will understand the struggles
that not only this Board went through, but the ZBA as well, the frustration of the people who
live in Takundewide who wish to expand their homes, and how all these things very much
intertwine like a real nasty spider web and for us to get from Point A to Point B, you have to tie
this all in together. It’s just not easy, Rich, to just say it’s okay for there, it’s okay for there, but
it’s not okay for there.
MR. SANFORD-I know. Well, Craig, when we look at Meadowbrook and Cronin Road, and we
approve one multiple apartment complex or senior citizen housing development after another,
and I say, don’t we have enough of them, and the applicant and his attorney say, it’s zoned for
that, and why aren’t we treating that as a comprehensive land use approach, and don’t we have
enough multiple housing units built along that whole Meadowbrook corridor and Cronin Road
for senior housing, and what have you, it’s the same concept, and the idea, the come back I get
is, well, it’s zoned that way, and therefore, you know, we better evaluate it in the same way.
This is the not too dissimilar.
MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I have like a thousand responses already.
MRS. RYBA-Maybe it might help. I’ve been trying to think of an analogy here to try to clarify
things. This whole setup was approved at one point in time. I think 1983 it was approved. The
situation, the best analogy I can think of right now is that, let’s say you had a plan, and this
happens, this happens with subdivisions in Town, you had a plan to do 90 houses.
MR. MAC EWAN-A perfect case in point is across the street.
MRS. RYBA-And you end up doing half of them, and then you find out that, well, we want to
continue the expansion, but there’s some concerns. You find out 10 years later or 20 years later,
that you need to, rather than just going piecemeal, piecemeal, piecemeal, you know, the people
who own these houses or own the properties are wondering, are we really going to be able to
expand. So it’s on the part of the Takundewide Association, I think, as much as it is on the
Planning Board for a comfort level, too, and that’s why I believe there was a mutual agreement
to come forward with this kind of a thing, and I see it more as a cooperative venture, so that
people have a greater assurance, and that’s where there is a difficulty, because we’re so used to
dealing with, here’s the legal issues, and here’s the process, and you do have some discretion, in
terms of what you ask for, and you have the advantage of having a cooperative Homeowners
Association that’s looking at more of a build out. Because the difference in what you were
talking about earlier is they’re asking for variances to do this, whereas, some of these other
developments are based on original site plan or subdivision reviews, and where it’s particularly
different owners, and so we’re, yes, but there’s common area, and that’s where it gets confusing.
There’s that Homeowners area, and that’s where the environmental impacts are, most of, the
majority of them are on these common lands, too.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I actually intend to, and I would encourage everybody to take this
exercise in a very serious way and in the spirit that it’s intended, which is to provide some
guidance and what we’re looking for. However, I can see from the applicant’s point of view
that it may prove to be extremely difficult when you factor in even some of the things that Mr.
Strough is talking about, but okay. That’s fine.
MRS. RYBA-I don’t know if I helped.
MR. STROUGH-One of the problems, Dick, is do a floor area ratio for one of these cottages that
want to expand, you immediately see what the problem is. Okay, but, you know, you haven’t
been there for that, and it is next to the lake, and it’s a sensitive area, but maybe you’ll catch on
here.
MR. RINGER-Well, the problem is it’s so difficult. We’ve got six, but we could have thirty-two.
I really don’t think I’d want to see thirty-two units all expanded here, and that’s where we’ve
got the problem now. We’re doing it piecemeal.
MR. VOLLARO-I view this. When I get my turn, I guess I’ll talk, but I view this as based on
100% increase in expansion. That’s how I view this project right now. That all of those
buildings will eventually be expanded, to 1536 square feet.
MR. STROUGH-And exactly what the Chairman said, worst case scenario.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Absolutely. That’s how I view it.
MR. STROUGH-And if it looks okay, that happens that way, that’s good.
MR. RINGER-But I’d look at it a little differently, that if all 32 developments, and this was a
new development, it would never be approved.
MR. STROUGH-No, it probably wouldn’t.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. RINGER-Under our current zoning.
MR. STROUGH-If all 32 expanded, but only a second floor, and gave limitations on the number
of people and the water supply met their needs, and there would be no negative.
MR. RINGER-Yes, an unenforceable number of people, John. It’s just so many things that are
unenforceable there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what they’re supposed to get together to put something together to
make you feel more comfortable.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the way I look at it, Larry, when the next Takundewide cottage comes up, I
will know, as a result of this exercise, that the only thing they can go to is 1536 square feet. I
don’t even have to think about it. They don’t have to think about it. That’s going to be cast in
concrete.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, not necessarily.
MR. VOLLARO-I view it that way.
MR. RINGER-With you, Bob, but I mean they could put a Homeowners together and say that,
but it has no legal basis whatsoever, and if the next owner came through and wanted to do
larger, and he didn’t get their approval, he still could come to us. We could perhaps turn him
down because of that.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re exactly right, and I listened very carefully to what Mark said, and we’re
not, they are not putting a binding document together which has legal implications, and I
understand that, Larry. Now I’m trying to go along with this.
MR. SCHACHNER-That could be done. I hope you heard me say that also. That could be
done, but that’s not how the exercise is currently structured.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t want to propose that yet, but I certainly heard what you said.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, following on what John had asked you earlier, what you would like to be
able to do, ultimately, is have each cottage expand into a second floor, at this point.
MR. MASON-No, we really don’t know. We’re forced to do, that’s the exercise that we’re
doing, and actually, when we face it, and we polled the members of the Association, we don’t
foresee that. Now 50 years or 100 years from now, who knows. It’s new people, new owners,
children and so on, but right now, certainly not. Our members have no interest.
MR. SEGULJIC-So we really, at this point, have no idea how big the septic system and all the
infrastructure potentially could be.
MR. MASON-Well, for instance, septic system, we’ve addressed that in the survey that we
produced, and the survey map that we produced showed three different options, that there’s
location space to locate three different septic systems on the property, and of course we’re only
going to have one at any one time. He’s got a new system, an expansion system, and a
community, that was the expansion area out back that you mentioned before. That was for a
community system. That’s the expansion.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s exactly right. You showed that you could expand.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-We can do all of those things, well, yes, we have room for three different ones. So
we do have the capability and the Town’s engineer, C.T. Male, also agreed that our, in the letter
that we got, that our septic concerns were handled.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I ask you a question then? Within your notes, your memo, if I’m reading
this correctly, you state that the results of the representative soil testing shows system
placement is possible with fill. The common area contains less desirable soils and thus would
not be good for a shared community system.
MRS. RYBA-That’s what was said in their notes, in their letter.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then you refer to the C.T. Male letter, and the impression I got there is that the
soils would support such a proposed system.
MRS. RYBA-In the large common area, up furthest away from the lake, let me read this.
MR. MASON-And our statement on that, or our engineer’s statement was that those soils are
less susceptible or less good. So they would require additional fill, but they still would be able
to do it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it’s a relative.
MR. MASON-It’s all relative. Yes. The ones, the other soils he found to be very acceptable, and
when we got in that area, and were digging test holes, the perc rate decreased, and the distance
down to the shale and mottled level also decreased. So he said you’d need more fill material, I
believe. I’m not an engineer, but if you look in his report.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what he said.
MR. MASON-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. RYBA-The C.T. Male letter just says as a general note to wastewater disposal system,
there appears to be sufficient area to install back up systems as needed, and I think that was
based on the site plan that was presented that showed back up systems, but not a community
system, and I don’t see where they’ve addressed the community system at all in this, and the
C.T. Male hasn’t addressed the community system.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, they just say the back up systems.
MRS. RYBA-Right, but that’s based on the plan that was shown. No back up system is shown
up in the large common area.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the community system.
MRS. RYBA-And no community system shown either.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that goes back to your comment saying that this would not be good for a
community system.
MRS. RYBA-That’s what their engineer said. The Homeowner’s Association engineer said that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MASON-The engineer told the surveyor how much land area would be needed up in the
back. The engineer decided that the area in the back would work and how much fill it would
require. So that was in the engineer’s letter, and then that information was given to the
surveyor, and that’s where he drew the dotted line and said that would be the reserve area for
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
that expansion, and I just noticed, when I heard that comment, I opened up the sheet to see
what he wrote, because I thought that they wrote for expansion, community septic system and
so on, and I see that they did not, but that was the point of all of the septic work.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what I mistook that square foot possible expansion.
MR. MASON-Yes, I know. That’s understandable. I kind of.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if I’m correct, that would mean you would need a raised system in the
community area, bringing in the fill.
MR. MASON-It’s not really a raised system. You’d have to bring in a couple of feet of fill. A
raised system is where you pump it up. It’s a different technology. It would be a regular
gravity system, and you would raise it, of course, with fill, to do it, but it would feather out, and
you would never see it, like a hump or a mound. It wouldn’t be like that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And, I guess, would that type of system be allowed in this area? I’m not sure.
MRS. RYBA-I don’t know. I’m not an engineer.
MR. SEGULJC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it has implications as far as the lake is concerned. Raised systems have to
have a certain amount of impervious soil between their basin, and it also determines what the
water level is. If it’s closer than 100 feet to the lake. You get into our Code 136, then, is when
our Building and Codes people begin to look at septic tanks, and they use the 136 Sewage
Disposal Code to look at placements of, and rebuild of septic systems. See, we don’t get into
that. That’s a Building and Codes issue. Ultimately, you have to get a disposal system building
permit to do, to expand their system, and then is when Building and Codes gets into looking at
their Code 136, distance from the lake, which is called out in Code 136.
MR. MASON-Well, not only, if we get into a community system, also at that point, DEC gets
involved. There’s additional, right.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of oversight when you get into.
MR. MASON-Right. The area that we were, or the issue that we were addressing was the space
necessary to make certain that we had plenty and outlining it. We did not design the system
and it’s not on there. There’s no way.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Berger talks about that in his letter, on Number
Twenty-four, which I’ll address pretty soon.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, on that note, I’ll turn it over.
MR. MAC EWAN-Pass the wand.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ll try to make this as painless as possible. First of all, I view this, as
I said before, I view this master plan based on a 100% increase in size of any building. That’s
how I view this plan. Whether you do it or not makes no difference to me. It’s just that the
conditions that would be imposed upon those expansions will be a known quantity, and I’m
hanging right on Mr. Strough’s, I think he’s on the right track here. We’ve got to quantify this
stuff so we know what’s happening. Now, I just want to emphasize that the number, the septic
system design should always be based on the number of bedrooms. I noticed that, and I’m
going to go on to Mr. Berger’s Number 24 here, where he uses 91, 9,100 gallons per day, in the
event, it says in the event such a system were ever needed. Now he’s talking about the
community system there, in Number 24. He’s talking about a community system, and he said
that community system, if it were ever built, needed to be 9100 gallons per day. If you use the
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
size of bedrooms, and not seasonal versus year round, I also say we ought to get rid of seasonal
and year round consideration. It’s number of bedrooms will dictate septic requirements,
period.
MR. MASON-I think they do.
MR. VOLLARO-And it’s 130 gallons a day.
MR. MASON-Per bedroom?
MR. VOLLARO-Per bedroom. 130 gpd. That’s correct. Let me go on with that. Now, based on
that, if you’ve got 130 gallons per day, and I look at the 100% expansion as probably looking at
three bedrooms when you expand at 100%. It was probably a bedroom downstairs at one time,
I would guess, and the 100% expansion I look at as being possibly another two bedrooms.
That’s how I’m viewing this. Am I on the right track here?
MR. MASON-That’s the way we figured.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the way you figured? Okay, based on those three bedrooms, that would
be 390 gallons per day times 31 cottages. It’s a 12,000 gallon gpd. Then you take the main lodge
into consideration, if you’re going through a central system. It’s got five bedrooms in it, 130
gallons a day, that’s another 650 gallons. What I see here in the build out, in the total build out,
and in the event we wanted to build a community system, rather than Mr. Berger’s 9100 gallons,
I come up with 12,740, based on the standard of 130 gallons per day. So we’re at odds with of
about 40% here, on that, on his Number 24, and you might ask him about that, when you get to
see him. I’m looking in here at the, and I think the Chairman had commented on this before,
particularly close the lake, it really bothered me, when I looked at these systems that were, in
some cases 49 years old, and in those systems were what I call cess pools or seepage pits or
whatever, being that close to the lake, I’ve got them here, John. I looked at six cess pools, and
then there are metal tanks that have been in the ground for 46 years, and taking, going back
over history on these things, where these things have been rented out, and I know rental people
don’t much care how they use their septics, and maybe they shouldn’t, you know. They’re
there for a few weeks. They do what they do, but I have really got some concerns about the fact
that seepage pits are the kind of thing that takes raw sewage. Essentially doesn’t allow the
septic system to function like a regular septic system. It takes raw sewage and that stuff
percolates into the ground. There is no effective treatment in a cess pool. It is a seepage pit
which drains directly into the ground. It doesn’t have like in a drain field you have
transvaporation, meaning that, if it’s covered with grass, you get about a 60% evaporation rate
over your field, versus a 40% containment in the field itself that tries to percolate into the
ground. When you’ve got a seepage pit, it all goes to the ground, and I was, when I looked at
that, I said to myself, good gracious, we’re talking about preserving this lake and doing all
kinds of, going through all kinds of hand stands to do that, and when I saw that I’m really
concerned about it. That’s just a concern of mine, but they don’t have to be changed until you
go and want to change a cottage. Then they get hit with upgrading that system.
MR. MASON-And they currently are, and I know you don’t want to deal with this issue, but in
this case you really should. All of those that are cess pools are seasonal use. They all are two
bedrooms. They all get minimal use, and I’m certain that that’s the reason why, when you walk
through Takundewide, as our engineer reports, there are no visible failures, and in order, you
know.
MR. VOLLARO-You may be absolutely right, but when I see a system that’s a metal tank in the
ground for 46 years, it really concerns me.
MR. MASON-It would concern me as an owner.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-I know. Part of the problem with a metal tank, though, is Town Code, I believe,
still is you can’t just fix the tank.
MR. VOLLARO-No, you can’t just fix the tank.
MR. MASON-You’d have to replace the whole system.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. If you’re going to upgrade the system, you’ve got to replace the
system.
MR. MASON-No, but I mean, just as a homeowner, the homeowner of a metal tank with a
perfectly fine working drain field I believe can’t just replace the tank with a concrete, 1,000
gallon tank and use the old leach field. I believe they have to replace the whole system.
MR. VOLLARO-I believe that’s true, but that’s up to Building and Codes, and that’s up to the
136.
MR. MASON-Okay, but as a homeowner, that’s what their consideration is, and I can
understand that, when it’s working.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s the one thing you want to ask Mr. Berger is the 9100 versus the
other number in there.
MR. MASON-I’ve got that.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, based on the note on S-1, it says if we’re not sure of the location, this
would happen to be a note that Matt Steves of VanDusen and Steves put on Drawing S-1, we’re
not sure of the location of the septic system, and so my question is, how do we know what the
structure is, if we don’t even know where the tank is, and some of this data is very old.
MR. MASON-The tanks are the easiest thing to locate.
MR. VOLLARO-They are?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because he had on there that not sure of the location of the septic system.
This was.
MR. MASON-I told him to put that there because he was uncomfortable laying it out with
existing and with proposed, not knowing, him not knowing and relying on me walking around
and saying, that’s a tank.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, I understand.
MR. MASON-And I don’t blame him one bit because all he sees is a depression, when I know
perfectly well that when I dug that up that that was a tank. I know what’s there, and we’re not
going to go around. You understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just concerned about.
MR. MASON-But the tanks we know. The drain field locations become difficult and the size of
the existing ones become difficult. Because the people who installed them are long since gone.
MR. VOLLARO-My next question was, on the five units that have been upgraded, and I guess
this is a Building and Codes issue, really, I wanted to know what were the conditions of those
systems when the expansion of the cottage took place and the system was in place, what did the
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
old system look like in terms of performance? And that’s something that probably is in the
Town records somewhere, in the Building and Codes Department I assume.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. Would it be?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-He’d have to update it and put a new one in.
MR. MASON-Yes, they don’t evaluate the old one. In my experience, the Number One reason
would be
MR. VOLLARO-They just toss the old one out.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my question would be to you, though, Bob, is what relevance would
that have of ancient history.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would then know something about the performance of the existing
systems I haven’t dug up yet. If all the systems I took out were really marginal when I looked
at them, I said, boy, these are on the hairy end of failure, then I could make an assumption that
the other systems that were in for 46 years might be in a similar condition. That’s my analogy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and now that you come up with that assumption, what would that do
for you?
MR. VOLLARO-What would it do here?
MR. MAC EWAN-In relevance to this master plan.
MR. STROUGH-Point out an unhealthy situation.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know what it would do with respect to the master plan. I’m going
through my notes. I guess, see, when I did this analysis, this whole EIS thing was constantly
ticking in my head, constantly, when I did this.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I’m looking at from the perspective of trying to refrain from going
through unnecessary exercises that will get us nowhere, nor will it get the Homeowners
Association anywhere. It is probably a very good probability you’ll come up with at least a
couple of those systems up there that are on the very verge of failing, if not already have failed,
especially the ones that are labeled as cess pools. The long and short of it is there’s nothing you
can do about it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the long and short of it I think is when, for example, the Nizoleks come
before us, they have to show that their septic system is one that has the capacity and integrity
to do what they want to do with their expansion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that goes hand and hand with getting a building permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’re going to make them change it anyway. I mean, I think that’s what
happens, when any one of those systems, houses are expanded, the septic system, because
they’re pre-existing, nonconforming.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it probably will trigger that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it will trigger that.
MR. MAC EWAN-The fact that they’re creating more bedroom space will kick it in that they
have to upgrade the septic system to begin with, and that’s a Building and Codes issue.
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. FRAISER-That’s, in fact, what happened with mine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me just go on here and see what else I’ve got. I have explain Article
III, Section IV. I’ll have to go into it and see, and this is the Homeowners Association. I had
something in there. I’m going to take a minute to find that. It won’t take that long. It’s Article
III, Section IV. I think it’s in the Declaration of Covenants that I’m looking at Article III. Section
IV, and this refers to the common areas, I guess, when I look at it. Owners will be responsible to
maintain and repair the sewage disposal systems from their homes, and yet this is coming
under common area responsibilities. I guess that means that, when you go through an
expansion, a homeowner goes through an expansion, they can expand into the common
ground.
MR. MASON-They already are there.
MR. VOLLARO-They already, they expanded into the common ground?
MR. MASON-The systems are all on the common ground.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MASON-And what this is referring to, and I can’t make excuses for the lawyer who wrote
this, but the first paragraph is saying that the Association reserves the right, if you have a
failure, to maintain it. The Association always has the right to maintain every sewage system,
even if they’re out on the common ground. The second sentence is saying the owners are going
to pay for that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MASON-Because we were concerned that we’d get into a.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that sounds reasonable. What it’s basically saying is that if your septic
system fails and you don’t act upon it as a homeowner, the Homeowners Association can come
in and remedy the situation, and you pay for it.
MR. MASON-And then there’s other areas where it would be a lien against your property, if
you won’t pay for it. So, yes, that’s exactly why we’d do that, and again, I can’t, the attorney
who wrote it maybe didn’t quite make it clear. I always understood it, though, when it was told
to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understood what he was getting across.
MR. VOLLARO-And in taking a look at this, this 100% build out, so that we get to where we’re
trying to talk to this master plan, what, in the master plan, would you want to put in, in terms
of foundations, and not basements? I see here we have, under basements, and it’s in, these are
Amendments to the Declaration of Covenants and Conditions of July 2001, and in there they
talk about foundations shall be solid or skirted piers, not basements, not basements is my term,
but in the new homes that are coming up for expansion, what is the story with foundations in
basements?
MR. HICKEY-I guess it would depend upon the individual homeowners desires, and we can’t
foresee that. If someone wanted to expand to have a cottage that was year round, then they’d
have one or two options, but you may have an owner that decides they want to expand simply
to have more space in the summertime, and we’ve had that occur, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would be going up into the two bedroom routine, I think, then, but
I’m looking under Article VII of Architectural Control, in the Amendments. This is
Amendments to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
78
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-And in there it seems to be that foundations shall be solid or skirted piers.
MR. MASON-Where do you see?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s under Section Nine.
MR. MASON-You’re saying that you’re in the Amendments, but then you’re referring back to
Article VII, the actual Article VII. Because I’m looking at the Amendments, and I’m not seeing.
MR. VOLLARO-The actual Article VII. Yes.
MR. MASON-Article VII, and is that of the, it must be in the Declaration?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Article VII. See, I’ve got all these documents from our past meetings that
I’ve been going through, and I noticed that that was on of the things that was of concern in
there. It’s under Exterior Restrictions, and Section Ten.
MR. MASON-Are you looking at it right now?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MASON-Can I see what you are looking at? That’s a different, I know what you’re looking
at. Okay. And it’s under which Section?
MR. VOLLARO-Section Ten. It merely talks to the exterior restrictions of the building, and it
says all residents shall have light exterior clapboard or horizontal, all windows to be shutters
and green, all roof shingles shall be of a slate, etc., etc., all the way through “I”.
MR. MASON-The issue there was, in the original article, we did allow solid foundations. Of
course all of the cottages, when this was written, were piered. There were no solid foundation,
there was one, excuse me, 31. That was built that way. The issue that was being addressed
there is that if the foundations are not solid, we did not want the piers to just be exposed and
showing. That skirting is the thing. We want the skirts to dress them up.
MR. VOLLARO-Does that mean that, essentially, a basement is not allowed?
MR. MASON-No, a solid foundation is all right, and that’s what we’re considering to be, when
you’re looking at the foundation of a building, we either want it to be solid, block.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but behind that solid foundation can be a basement. Is that what you’re
saying?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So when anybody comes before us, a basement is an allowed element of that?
MR. MASON-Of the Homeowners Association? Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, supposing they say to us when they come in, okay, we want to raise,
coming in here to raise the building up to 1536 square feet, we’re going to put two new
bedrooms, and, because I don’t have a basement, I’m going to add one. Where are we with
that? They would excavate it out, four walls, and have a basement.
79
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MASON-Well, certainly they’d excavate it to a depth of four feet anyway, to pour the
foundation, and I know you’re trying to, there is no restriction in the Homeowners Association
against basements.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I need to know, there isn’t.
MR. MASON-That’s what you want to know. There isn’t any.
MR. VOLLARO-As far as this plan is concerned. Basements are allowed.
MR. MASON-Basements are allowed, and basements, it’s a space issue. Again, we’ll go back,
one thing I want to point out here, the 768 feet that they currently are, you also would not
approve that. That could not be approved in this Town, because the minimum building size is
800 square feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. MASON-So these are substandard buildings at 768, and that, of course, if you think about a
768 square foot building is tiny, and space is the issue, and so they do need some storage space,
and they look to basements and things like that for them.
MR. VOLLARO-But then under “I”, we talk about clothes washers shall be prohibited unless
written approval is obtained from the Architectural Control Committee, which must determine
the existing septic system serving said residence is of sufficient design and capacity to handle
the additional flow.
MR. MASON-Right.
MR. STROUGH-That’s why I said that I thought that you should bring in somebody of
expertise to help that assessment.
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely.
MR. MASON-Well, what we were thinking there is specifically the cess pools.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but if you had a professional come in and say, yes, this really needs to be
upgraded, it would only help the Association’s position.
MR. MASON-Absolutely agreed.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think what they were trying to do here, to protect their septic system,
initially, is say clothes washers shall be prohibited in residences. Then they went on with the
caveat that says, unless we get approval from the Architectural Control Committee, well, you
know, that approval a lot of times gets very close to the rubber stamp approval, you know.
MR. MASON-I understand what you’re saying, but where this occurred was the first person
that wanted one was Number 20, way up in the back. They were about 600, 700 feet back from
the lake. They’d put in a brand new septic system when they improved, and they said we’d like
to put a clothes washer in the basement, and it seemed kind of silly, at that point, that our
regulations against it weren’t dealing with that. Our regulation was originally written because
we recognized that the septic systems couldn’t handle that, but they’ve satisfied that.
MR. STROUGH-I see nothing wrong with that, as long as the septic system can handle it, but I
think a professional should help you in your evaluation, but can I ask a question, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
80
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. STROUGH-While you were talking about foundations. Let’s say I bought a cottage in
Takundewide, and I’m going to put in a full basement, which I could do, but I want me cottage
let’s say about four feet higher than what it is. So when I put my foundation in, I’m going to
raise the elevation of the cottage about four feet so I get a better view of the lake or whatever. Is
there any restriction, when I do put my basement in, or the foundation, that there is a height
restriction that it has to remain the original height?
MR. HICKEY-It’s a change that we wouldn’t allow.
MR. MASON-It’s a change that we wouldn’t allow. We don’t have that in.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MASON-As a specific.
MR. STROUGH-But, you know, what I’m saying, the more things you have in print, the easier
things go.
MR. MASON-I know, but at the same time as you walk around Takundewide, you’ll see places
that are kind of down in a hollow. So what would be an appropriate elevation for that person
wouldn’t be another person who already is kind of on a little knoll, and you wouldn’t want
them to go up one inch. So there’s, it is an issue, and we’re dealing with it.
MR. STROUGH-And I can see your point of view. There might, you may not want to put that
in. Okay.
MR. MASON-We wouldn’t allow the four feet. We have a hard time with anything such as
that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-This is just a comment from me. You talked about a 22% vacancy over the last
couple of years, you’ve been taking a look, and I guess that 22% vacancy kind of helps support
the septic system situation a little bit, but does that mean, really, that 78% of the residents
support 100% of the maintenance on the common grounds? Is that a fair statement?
MR. MASON-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No. Okay.
MR. MASON-That just means they weren’t in residence, that as we walked around, those
people support, support meaning financially?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
MR. MASON-No, they’d still pay their dues.
MR. VOLLARO-Even though they’re not there, they pay anyway. Okay. That’s fine.
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, has the APA ever played in this arena at all? In other words, has the
Adirondack Park ever gotten into this thing?
MR. MASON-Bob, I have no idea. Not in my, I’ve been there since 1979, and I have never dealt
with the APA, except to ask if they had jurisdiction, and they’ve never.
81
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Did you have a letter of non-jurisdiction from them?
MR. MASON-Nothing that I can recall. My conversation with the APA today, I spoke to them.
I saw the Staff notes and they asked about APA jurisdiction, and I called and spoke with Brian
Ford, and I asked him about replacement of pre-existing septic systems, and did they have
jurisdiction and did they want jurisdiction, and what was the scoop, and he said the only way
you’ll get a letter out of us is to request jurisdiction, and that will take a number of weeks, and I
could do that if that’s what you want, but there was no, I said is there something you can fax
me. He said absolutely not, but he said I could paraphrase him, that they typically do not
require a permit from the Agency. They’re non-jurisdictional. It goes right back to the Town.
Septic systems are the Town’s.
MR. VOLLARO-I know I live in the Adirondack Park, my house, and I have a letter of non-
jurisdiction from the APA for my property. It’s in my deed, as a matter of fact.
MR. MASON-That they’re non-jurisdictional over the whole property, even though you’re in
the?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct, a non-jurisdictional letter. It’s attached right to the deed. It
absolutely is non-jurisdictional.
MR. SCHACHNER-That doesn’t mean that anything you do on the property is non-
jurisdictional.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true. They still exercise certain setback requirements. I know that they
do, and I comply with those.
MR. SCHACHNER-And other restrictions besides that. This is not your nickel right now, but
don’t rely on that the way you think you should.
MR. VOLLARO-In any event, I guess my last comment on here, as I wrote up my notes, and
this is a comment that I just wrote on the end for myself. I said I feel this project is a candidate
for an Environmental Impact Statement. That’s what I wrote as a note to myself, and I still feel,
and I’m pretty much going along with Mr. Sanford on this one, that without this having some
legal position, I guess I would call it, particularly for you folks, more than for us, so that future
requirements to come in for an upgrade, it’s really pretty much a rubber stamp on this Board’s
property, if you come in underneath an EIS type document. Then there wouldn’t be any
questions at all, because they’ve all been answered. That’s all I have, and that’s the last thing on
my notes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would Staff care to summarize or offer some input? I guess we’re kind of
like wondering where do we go from here? What direction do we offer? You’ve heard our
comments, things we’d like to see added, revised, changed.
MRS. RYBA-There were certainly a number of questions and it may be a good idea to
summarize, have Staff summarize those as per the draft minutes, and I think last time the
Planning Board gave Craig MacEwan, as Chairman, the direction to go ahead and compose the
letter based on comments that the Planning Board members had submitted. So all these
comments are here, and if the Board wanted to do that again, to give the Chairman that ability
to just set something forward, I don’t know, you may want to meet again, based on a couple of
them. Do you really want to have everything addressed? And I think that’s the Chairman’s
prerogative, too. I mean, typically, you’re very good about making sure that everything the
Board members want to have addressed gets addressed. There are a couple of questions I think
got resolved through this discussion. So that would be the main thing I would want to see is,
once the minutes are put together, to try to clarify, all right, what really are the questions and
which ones were covered during this session, and from that point, just see what kind of
response we get.
82
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-My comment would be is the letter we generated here 13 months ago, 12
months ago roughly, went a long ways to getting to what we have tonight, and I think it helped
these people immensely to respond to what concerns we have, and I think John mentioned
earlier tonight that we’re like two-thirds of the way there. I see us a little bit closer than that,
but I guess what I’m looking for, and I agree with Marilyn’s idea and with the blessing of the
Board, is to have Staff compose a second letter to the Homeowners Association with these items
that we have out here that there’s still some concerns or clarifications that we’re looking to get
addressed, let them respond to it, and we’ll have another meeting based on that, but I would
like to have happen at the next meeting is to come to some closure with this. I think we’re
reasonably that close.
MR. STROUGH-Like I said, I think what would help, Mr. Chairman, is, and it would help Mr.
Sanford and everybody, is this is a lot of background went into this, if we could have one
document.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. I agree with you. It needs to be brought together.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I mean, there are things in the covenants that apply to the master plan
and there are things that I don’t want to see again, okay, that refer to Association stuff only, and
there are memos and notations and additions and Article, just get one package.
MR. MASON-I’m comfortable with the list, I wrote down everything that you said, and I’m
comfortable with going back, not necessarily addressing every one of them, because I’m not
certain what will happen when we meet and try and figure some of them out. My problem
with what you’re saying now is that you’re asking me to look through what I’ve submitted and
subtract items, and I don’t know what to take out. I thought everything was important that I
put in.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to drift away from here, John, because I don’t necessarily think
that we should be deleting items, because everything that was presented to us tonight is
something we requested.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I don’t need the witness, whereas.
MR. MAC EWAN-It all becomes part of the plan.
MR. STROUGH-The owner refers to, I don’t need to know who the owner is, and the self
enjoyment, you know, but when it talks about the easement and encroachments and other
things, then I do want to know about that. Membership abutting rights, I could care less.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hey, look, it’s like you buying a car. You get an owners manual with it. You
don’t really care to know how to put the seatbelt on, because you’ve done it for 25 years. The
point of the matter is we asked for the by-laws from the Homeowners Association to
accompany this packet for us to review. They supplied them. They should become part of the
plan.
MR. STROUGH-This is what I’m looking at. The next time we sit down, we’ve got one
document, and we might need to fine tune a couple of words in the language and we’re done.
MR. SANFORD-Here’s what I think you need to do, to weigh in on this. I think what this
comes down to is a quid pro quo. I think you basically want to be able to have some sense of
assurance that when they do an expansion, and have a reasonable expectation that it will be
approved, and I think the quid pro quo is what are we looking for. So I would like to see it
narrowed down into some specific terms, and I think Bob’s right. I think the anticipation being
that all of these are going to be expanded upon, whether or not they actually are, and what
83
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
really does that mean in terms of what we’re going to want, in terms of septic systems and other
types of things, and I think that after that’s done, if there’s sort of a consensus that that would
make sense from both parties to have it done in a way that it’s legal and it’s not just a feel good
exercise, and I think that however, talk to your attorney about how that could be done.
Obviously, the role of the Association in influencing the homeowners, you may be able to
address some of the legal issues that way as well, but otherwise, I mean, in the absence of it
being something that is tangible, I’m not sure what you really gain out of this, other than, while
this present group of people are here and sitting here, there’s an understanding, and I think you
probably would want more than that.
MR. FRAISER-Maybe you won’t.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and maybe you won’t.
MR. FRAISER-I’d have to bring that to the membership and let them give us some guidance
before we talk to the lawyer and then come back and meet with you folks again.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Fine.
MR. RINGER-Well, one of the things that bothers me, you said tonight you have spent a lot of
money on this, and I believe you have, and I’d just hate to see you keep coming in without
getting some results, and I hope you can get some results from this Board. I do sympathize. It’s
costing you guys money.
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what we’re going to do. Staff is going to put together the letter to the
Homeowners Association. Don’t do anything until you get the letter, then you present that to
your membership. It’ll give them the opportunity to respond to the outstanding issues that
came up tonight, and additional information that the members are looking for. In the
meantime, when this letter gets composed, I want a draft given to every member so that we can
be assured that it’s composed with everything we’re looking to have included in the letter.
Then we’ll send the letter. After that letter is sent, I would like Counsel and Staff to sit down
together and give us some guidance, in the form of a memorandum, as to what we can expect
this end product to do for everyone involved. The ultimate goal here is to provide some
guidance, a plan for this Association, so that it can continue to develop what I will label their
small community up there. On the other hand, it’s got to give us some guidance, as a Planning
Board, and help the ZBA out as well in a direction as to where this development is going to. I’m
looking for something, and I hate to use the phrase “binding document”, but I’m looking for
something that’s going to give not only the homeowners some assurance, as to what the future
can hold for them in expanding that property up there, but will also give this Planning Board
and future Planning Board members some assurance as to what can be done and what was
agreed to, as to where we want to go with this thing, and I think that’s important. I mean, the
exercise here is to come up with something, in the form of a Comprehensive Plan, that’s going
to help everybody involved for hopefully several years to come.
MR. VOLLARO-What I see on this is, hopefully, trying to get an application like the Nizoleks
through. If we could understand all of the conditions, and get through the SEQRA, on any one
of these, using the Nizoleks as kind of a test case in a way here, we couldn’t get by SEQRA on
the Nizoleks. That’s what drove us to this point, and I’m wondering if we tried to run a mock,
and I hate to even get into that, but run a mock situation where Takundewide would come to us
for an expansion, and would that better trigger some of the conditions we want to use?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. Maybe the end result out of all this is when Staff and Counsel
sits down together and says, for everybody involved, and for the future of that development,
maybe the best thing to do is to do a GEIS.
MR. VOLLARO-Could be.
MR. MAC EWAN-It may be. We don’t know.
84
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a tried and true procedure that works. We know that.
MR. SCHACHNER-You all don’t know, maybe, but I’m sitting here today and telling you as
Counsel, that we know. You’ve used two words that caused me great concern. One of the
words was “binding”, and one of the words was “assurance”. If you’re talking about legally
binding and legal assurances that the applicants and/or the Planning Board can rely upon, then
the current structure of this exercise will not lead to that conclusion, and if you and/or the
applicant want to lead to that conclusion, then a SEQRA GEIS type format would be the vehicle
to do that with.
MR. MAC EWAN-All I want to do, Mark, is what’s best for everybody involved.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that, and you also used other words that didn’t cause me
concern like “guidance”, for future planning. The current exercise so that it will provide
guidance to both the Takundewide folks and this Planning Board and your successors, but it
will not provide binding, legally binding assurances to either party.
MR. RINGER-How would you do an EIS for something like this with all different owners?
MR. SCHACHNER-Their Master Plan, and I’ve not reviewed the document itself, but I
understand there’s a thorough document, it sounds like a very detailed, very comprehensive,
very thorough document of some 20 something or 30 something principals, and then supported
by a whole bunch of other documentation. It sounds like they’re well on their way.
MR. RINGER-So we could do an EIS, and that could become binding in that way.
MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true.
MR. RINGER-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else anybody wanted to add? Okay. Anything you wanted to
add?
MR. FRAISER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MRS. RYBA-The next item is the Planning Board (lost word) Policies.
MR. MAC EWAN-(Lost words) a draft resolution relative to maximum number of items on an
agenda per month. (Lost words) discussions in recent weeks relative to our Planning Board
Policies and Procedures where we all were under the impression that we had limited our
agendas to 16 items per month. We did, indeed, do that, but we did it in such a way we wanted
to try it out for a while to see if 16 items was going to be workable, whether we needed to drop
down to twelve or we could go up to twenty-two, whatever the case may be. That’s how that
all came to be. It was going to be a trial thing, and that’s why there’s not put into our policies
and procedures, and we were going to come back and re-visit it after X number of months of
testing it. Well, X number of months have turned in to about a year and a half now.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve got a suggestion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me finish out here. This is where I’m going with this thing. The number
one item here, what I want to do is put in “shall be 16”. I want to totally strike out the line that
says specifically the number of new business items should be limited to blank. I want that
whole thing out. Our whole scheme of when we did this was 16 items. It didn’t matter if we
had new or old, whatever. Sixteen max. What I did ask for to be put on to this thing was Item
Number Three at the very bottom. Which would give me, the Zoning Administrator, the
85
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
authority to modify an agenda at our discretion. The reason why I put that in there is if we had
16 items, three of them were for expedited review. One was for a modification of an existing
site plan, all those things are going to take all of five minutes, I know I can put another two,
three items on the agenda for that night. However, however, conversely, in the opposite
direction, if we have an agenda with 16 items, and I see four big boxes coming on here, I know
sixteen ain’t going to do it for us. We’re going to stick to 10 that night.
MR. STROUGH-If you want to put a weight on it. One is for a two lot subdivision, and a three
would be a big box, and two would be something in between.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I want to do, and that’s why I added that bullet item three.
MR. RINGER-Without Three, I wouldn’t vote for it. I think Three is necessary.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would somebody move it?
MR. SCHACHNER-I would suggest you, this is just a final comment, but I would suggest you
take out the words “where necessary”, in the third “Whereas”, only because they seem to infer
that in some applications you won’t be performing comprehensive detailed review, and I think
we do that on all applications.
MR. MAC EWAN-On Number Three.
MR. VOLLARO-The third “Whereas”, delete that.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m proposing you delete the words “where necessary”, because it gives the
inference that sometimes you don’t perform comprehensive, detailed review, and you always
do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have something in here that, the complete application received during
the previous month in excess of the blank limit. What do you mean by that? Could someone
offer some assistance on that?
MR. SCHACHNER-This is the first time I’m seeing it, but I think what it means is, I shouldn’t
speak for Staff, it sounds to me like it means, if in one month you get seventeen applications
and only sixteen are going to go on, letter “D” refers to a complete application that was received
last month but wasn’t on because it was Number Seventeen. Right?
MRS. RYBA-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Say that again?
MR. SCHACHNER-Letter D, this is apparently a hierarchy of how applications will be
considered to be added to a given month’s agenda.
MR. VOLLARO-Where are we on this paper?
MR. SCHACHNER-Two D.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two D. It reads complete applications received during the previous month
in excess of the 16 item limit.
MR. STROUGH-Do we really need 2D? I mean, the limit is 16 applications, period.
MR. HILTON-Well, I didn’t write this, but I’m just thinking like if you just say complete
applications received during the previous month, delete the last half of that sentence, with your
86
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
Number Three, like you said, you’ve got the authority to modify it. I don’t know if that takes
care of it.
MR. SCHACHNER-The point, John, I think you’re missing the point. It’s not suggesting there
will be more than 16 items in a given month. What it’s saying is that in some months there
more applied for than 16, and this is telling how applications will be put on the next month’s
agenda, and this is the fourth in the hierarchy, with the applications that are complete, that are
received last month, but they weren’t put on the agenda last month because the agenda was too
full.
MR. STROUGH-And they get priority for the following month.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what this says.
MR. VOLLARO-How long should we keep a public hearing open after it was opened the first
time?
MR. SCHACHNER-For site plan review you can keep it open as long as you want. For
subdivision you’re supposed to close it within 120 days after it’s opened, but it seems to me the
vast majority of times when you continue public hearings, you do so with the applicant’s
consent. What we’re going to suggest you do it on subdivisions only, not site plans,
subdivisions only, just to make sure we don’t run into any trouble with that provision is, when
you continue public hearings on subdivisions, have the applicant consent on the record to
continuation of the public hearing. Just for subdivisions. Not site plans.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would everybody feel more comfortable if 2D was written complete
applications received during the previous month but not placed due to agenda limits?
MR. HILTON-That’s good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would that make everybody feel more comfortable?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That makes sense.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would somebody move it?
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION WRITTEN BY STAFF APPROVING THE
LIMITATIONS OF AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury desires to adopt a policy with
respect to the number of items to be heard during a typical monthly review period, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has actively participated in the discussion regarding the
acceptable number of agenda items, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has acknowledged the desire to perform a comprehensive, detailed review
of all applications, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that in the interest of conducting such complete and
thorough reviews, it would be beneficial to limit the number of items considered each month.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
1. We find the following as modified in the following way: The maximum number of items to
be considered by the Planning Board during a typical monthly review period shall be 16.
2. Applications will be considered for placement on the Board’s agenda as follows:
87
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
a. Applications tabled to a specific calendar date.
b. Applications referred by the Town Board.
c. Old business previously reviewed and satisfying submission requirements.
d. Complete applications received during the previous month but not placed due to
agenda limits, in excess of the 16 item limit.
e. New applications satisfying submission requirements.
3. The Planning Board agenda may be further modified at the discretion of the Planning Board
Chairman and/or Zoning Administrator.
Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-The next item?
MRS. RYBA-The next item. Just an update on the Karner blue butterfly habitat management
plan, and we did add habitat, for various reasons. The plan, there was a draft plan that was put
together by C.T. Male, John Munsey. What we, based on Staff review and legal counsel review,
we proposed to prepare it as a generic environmental impact statement because there are some
provisions for impact fees and also mitigation fees, and there are two differences there. The
way it would work is it would be an overlay zone for a protection zone for Karner blue habitat.
The overlay zone is this Queensbury Sand Plains Unit, and that would be divided into different
sub zones, in terms of importance. The steps that would be provided, there would be a
biological survey first, that would look at the presence of wild blue lupine habitat, and that’s
where the impact fee would apply, because it would cover everything within this boundary
area. If there were endangered species present, then there would have to be some specific
management protection measures, and depending on those priority sub zones, there could be a
mitigation or some kind of mitigation fee there. So that wouldn’t necessarily apply to every
single item that came through. We we’re really still not sure how the protection measures will
be implemented, but we are looking at talking with DEC about that, and possibly a private non-
profit organization to look at that management and implementation. We’re looking at this
beads on a string format where the strings would be the power lines, the beads would be the
lands that we would want to protect and restore. I think that the key is that this plan really is
an enhancement. It’s a recovery plan. We would really be protecting all of the habitat areas,
but to some degree, we would be asking for areas that may have some habitat or maybe close to
habitat and also asking for additional lands for protection. There is a possibility that some sites
just might not be developable, depending layouts, depending on habitat there, depending on
whether or not there species. So, I know it’s very late, and that was really quick, but what we
will do is we expect to have something in a couple of weeks from C.T. Male, based on the
comments that we provided them, and we want to share the draft with the DEC and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and then what we will be doing is when we get that GEIS, sit down
with the Planning Board committee and with Town Board members to look at the completeness
and start the whole SEQRA process and that’s it for now. I’m sure if there are other ideas you
can share them with us, and I’m not sure if we’ll be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Will this actually go to public hearing may be sometime mid-June?
MR. SCHACHNER-Remember you’re talking Town Board as SEQRA lead agency here, not this
Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I understand that, but I’m just trying to get the time line, that’s all.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. All right.
88
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
MRS. RYBA-I don’t know. I mean, if it’s a couple of weeks, two, three weeks for C.T. Male
come up, really, the essence of the GEIS is there, already. So we don’t think we’re going to have
to do too much more.
MR. SCHACHNER-Doesn’t the Town Board have to fund the rest of it?
MRS. RYBA-Right. The Town Board does have to fund this additional aspect, and they’re
looking, I think, at another $6,000, five to seven thousand dollars, six thousand, right in the
middle. Do you have anything to add, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-Other than I looked at the binder, and I thought where we were going with
it, the direction that everybody wanted it to go. I think it’s going to be actually a very valuable
tool and it’s going to work well. I like where it’s going.
MRS. RYBA-Good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Along the lines of the Karner blue, relative to Western Reserve
(lost words)?
MR. HILTON-Based on past correspondence that’s in the file, both from C.T. Male, Planning
Staff in the last tabling resolution, certain items were asked for that were not received. A letter
went to the applicant yesterday saying that we do not have those items, particularly test pit
information, some other minor. I think the resolution asked to address Staff comments, address
C.T. Male comments, and provide a SEQRA Long EAF, and address those items and prepare
the SEQRA based on the, now I’d say entire build out, not just the subdivision portion, but what
will take place at site plan. I think they presented that, but again, with test pit information
missing and other things, they haven’t provided those items. So that’s what.
MR. MAC EWAN-The plan I looked at the other night showed nothing northwest of that city
pipe line.
MR. HILTON-Right, and they’re not proposing any build out back there, but at the same time,
we need soils information. We need slope information for density. We need.
MR. MAC EWAN-(lost words) game plan.
MR. HILTON-The latest contact I’ve had with them.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean very early on. When they first came to us as a discussion item I
think they were talking development up in the back portion of what I call the parcel north of the
pipe line.
MR. HILTON-North of the pipe line, yes, and I think that’s changed. I don’t think they’re
proposing anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-I was just going to go on record my position is going to be if they have no
plans to develop that and we’re looking at this as cumulative for SEQRA, my position is going
to be that you won’t have a problem with us putting a condition in that, should we approve this
thing, saying no further development on this parcel.
MR. HILTON-Yes, but to answer your question, there are some items missing. I sent them a
letter yesterday. They are not going to be heard in May. If we get the information by the May
15 deadline, we’ll see them in June.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
On motion meeting was adjourned.
89
(Queensbury Planning Board 4/24/03)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
90