2003-08-19
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
LARRY RINGER
ROBERT VOLLARO
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
June 17, 2003: NONE
June 24, 2003: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF JUNE 17,
2003 AND JUNE 24, 2003, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2002 MODIFICATION MICHAEL TROMBLEY TO CORRECT A
DISTANCE ERROR FOUND WHILE SURVEYING
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comment?
MR. HILTON-No comment at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to add?
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves representing Mr. Trombley in this application. It was just a distance
error problem when we were surveying the property immediately to the south tying in to
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
another survey from another surveying outfit, and just decreased the size of Lot One about 22,
23 feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is the map going to be submitted for signature?
MR. STEVES-It has been submitted. If everything is okay with this Board, we’ll bring it back
(lost words).
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to move it?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2002 MICHAEL
TROMBLEY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry
Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 5-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: Michael Trombley
MODIFICATION To correct a distance error found while surveying
Public Hearing: Not required for modification
WHEREAS, the application was received 7/15/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/15/03, and
8/19 Staff Notes
8/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision application 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 affirms the previous SEQR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined there is no significant change in the
Subdivision modification and further finds there is no significant change to the original SEQRA
Findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby granted and is subject to
the following conditions:
1. All previous conditions set forth in the previous approval shall be complied with.
2. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy
sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
3. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION PROVIDENT
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAELWOODBURY AGENT:
IVAN ZDRAHAL ASSOCIATES, PLLC ZONE: HC-INT. & MR-5 LOCATION: WEST
SIDE BAY ROAD BETWEEN 369 & 379 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
RELOCATION OF ENTRANCE BOULEVARD, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND
STORMWATER CONTROL STRUCTURES. ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO
APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE: SP 87-89, SB 11-97, AV 75-95, SP 2-96 TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-32 LOT SIZE:
4.08 ACRES SECTION: 179-9-080
KEN ROTUNDO & JEFFREY MC CARTHY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff comment?
MR. HILTON-No, other than the modification, I guess, is based on some concerns from
Building and Codes and emergency access. Everything seems okay. We anticipate no negative
impacts. We don’t have any further comment at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Questions, comments from Board members?
MR. RINGER-What about the letter from Male? Have you got a signoff on the 14 letter from
th
Male?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I have some questions as well.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so do I.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. For the record, you are?
MR. ROTUNDO-Ken Rotundo from Provident Development Group.
MR. MC CARTHY-And I am Jeffrey McCarthy of Ivan Zdrahal Associates.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, you had questions?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Let me start with the landscaping. Now, is this the same landscaping
plan we originally approved?
MR. MC CARTHY-Other than what had to be shifted because of the driveway.
MR. STROUGH-There was no landscaping on the median strip?
MR. MC CARTHY-Correct. The intention is that that is the emergency access. So (lost words)
boulevard (lost words) closed, you have to be able to cross over it. Vegetation and landscaping
would impede crossing over and entering the other lane.
MR. STROUGH-So what is it, just painted in median strip?
MR. MC CARTHY-Just a grass strip.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-Just a grass strip. That one got by me. Yes, it’s a (lost word) grass strip. All
right. Lighting. What’s the uniformity ratio on the lighting plan?
MR. MC CARTHY-Uniformity ratio?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MC CARTHY-I’m sorry. I don’t know what that is.
MR. STROUGH-That’s the average between your maximum intensity and minimum intensity.
MR. VOLLARO-The definition that we use, I think, George, is the lowest level divided by four.
MR. HILTON-I believe it’s actually the average light.
MR. VOLLARO-The average light level divided by four, and then your lowest shouldn’t be any
lower than that. That’s the formula, right.
MR. STROUGH-So, well, then I just didn’t know what it was. I mean, it doesn’t look to be
extraordinarily bright.
MR. VOLLARO-They make the uniformity ratio.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and stormwater roof drainage. There was some stormwater changes
and I just don’t know how that landscaping got by me, because there’s no perennial beds, no
shrubs, just trees. I guess it got by.
MR. MC CARTHY-Your landscaping plan around the building, all the way around the building
there’s, this area with the dark green and the X pattern on it which is in your plans is a planted
bed area, shrubs, bark mulch, flowers.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because I didn’t see that on the plans. Is that also going to be your
drainage area for your drainage area for your roof?
MR. MC CARTHY-No. The roof will tie in to the storm sewer system.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Just some questions and concerns, I guess. It’s fine with me
for now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have some. My first question I guess is that all drawings show revision
of 7/15/03. per Warren County DPW.
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The plans do not mention changes to the site drive required by Building and
Codes. Now, I didn’t see a letter from Building and Codes to talk to anything on this
application at all. Did we get anything from? Because our motion asked for Building and
Codes, and then I see in your Staff notes you talk about the fact that they’ve already said that
everything is okay.
MR. HILTON-Yes. These changes are driven by them. They’ve been reviewing this with the
applicant all along, and again, because of the emergency access issue they’ve been in constant
contact with them. I know Dave has seen it, seen the plan, that is. If you have any concerns,
you can certainly condition that they be reviewed.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just wanted to know what conditions, if any, Building and Codes laid
on this thing. I saw the, I guess some place in here, let me just take a look for a second, didn’t
Building and Codes, did they request, from Queensbury Central, that drawing of the truck
coming through? Is that connected with this modification?
MR. HILTON-That’s been provided. Do you have this diagram, Bob, this drawing?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the drawing I’m talking about.
MR. MC CARTHY-If I might?
MR. MAC EWAN-Certainly
MR. MC CARTHY-The building, my understanding is that Bast Hatfield met with the Building
and Codes Department and with the contractors, and out of that meeting came the resolution
(lost words) Queensbury Tower One truck had to be able to enter this property. That’s why we
provided the drawings that we did, to show that it could turn in and maneuver in to the
property.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was expecting, when I looked at this, I thought this might have been a
Highway issue, as opposed to a Building and Codes issue, and I didn’t, I couldn’t quite put the
thing together. I know we had asked Building and Codes to look at this in terms of, to review
the septic design based on the number of bedrooms. That’s what was in our motion. That’s
what our motion said, absolutely.
MR. MC CARTHY-I think we’re out of sequence a little bit.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re talking Provident Development.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m looking at something else.
MR. MC CARTHY-This project was before the Board in January, I believe, if not in February,
and it was approved, conditionally, upon review and approval by Warren County, with the
water crossing and the driveway, and that we sought permission from the Westwood
Homeowners Association to access the property to remove the water main that comes on to this
private property, and what was proposed to be in the future, so that we could terminate it
properly.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. You were going to terminate it as close to the “T” as possible.
MR. MC CARTHY-When Warren County reviewed it, they didn’t like the close proximity of the
existing driveway with what was now Lowe’s turning lane. That forced us to move it as far
north as we possibly could, to make the most distance, and it was about 60 feet from that
turning lane, and that’s why (lost words). The fire engine information is provided by Building
and Codes request, the Tower One (lost words) be able to get in there.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s what confused me. I didn’t see how Building and Codes got into
a Highway issue. Maybe it’s just, am I the only one that was confused by that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m very confused about that, that driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-I can see their rationale, you know, of a Queensbury Central Tower One truck ,
and I can understand what was done, but I would suspect that this would have come out of a
discussion with our Highway Department as opposed to Building and Codes. I just didn’t
know how Building and Codes got involved in the fire truck thing. To me, they’re sort of
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
incongruent, and I didn’t understand that. That’s my only question. I thought, didn’t know
how that happened.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m glad that someone looked at it.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the question germane, or am I?
MR. RINGER-The request came from the Fire Marshal to Central. Our chief went up and
looked at it, or looked at the plan with the Fire Marshal, or Assistant Fire Marshal, and
apparently didn’t have any trouble, not with Dave Hatin, but with the Fire Marshal and the
Assistant Fire Marshal, Mike Palmer.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because, you know, okay, I just, so long as I know how it got from
Building and Codes to this, and you’ve explained it, Mr. Ringer, that somebody else got into the
act and it was.
MR. RINGER-Of course they would have preferred not to have the boulevard in there, but we
always prefer not to have the boulevards, but it’s there.
MR. STROUGH-Now, the purpose of the boulevard.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t want to get into it, John, I only said that as a comment.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no.
MR. RINGER-That we put them in for fire and emergency. Fire and emergency really doesn’t
like them.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the reasoning was not so much the that an emergency vehicle could cross
over the boulevard. It’s that the boulevard provided kind of a stoppage. Kind of a way of
preventing an accident from blocking both lanes, that the boulevard would be more likely to
provide, at least one of the lanes would be an open access in case of an accident, an accident was
unlikely to block both lanes, and so if, you know, that was, I think, the original reasoning and so
that should not limit the applicant from putting in appropriate landscaping in that median strip,
but, and I’m sorry to interrupt, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I guess the last question I have is there are several changes that
C.T. Male have asked for in the drawings from August 14, 2003. They were under stormwater,
Drawing E-3, Section 5 of 8, Sheet Five of Eight. Do you have that? Okay. Are you all set with
that? I mean, is that, how did that turn out, or what are we getting from C.T. Male on a signoff
on this?
MR. MC CARTHY-I’ll have to submit revised drawings to them, but as far as Item Number
One, the height reverse flow, the surveyor did not pick up the invert at the most extreme pitch
basin, so I was going off of design information that that catch basin was built for. I did not
realize it was fast draining. I stopped on my way up today and got the measurement down to
the invert. I’m sure that flows positively now.
MR. VOLLARO-And what about the .24% pitch on self cleansing velocity? Is that?
MR. MC CARTHY-I will be able to meet that.
MR. VOLLARO-You will be able to meet that. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-(Lost words) .24 pitch.
MR. VOLLARO-Which does not provide a self-cleaning velocity.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-Proposed height pitch is .24%.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, and I’m saying it’s got to be greater than that in order to provide self-
cleaning velocity, and the other two, I think that what you need, other than a signoff on C.T.
Male, you have to send to them some drawing corrections to respond to their letter. Is that
correct?
MR. MC CARTHY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we really don’t have a complete C.T. Male signoff on this
application, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’ve got one thing that jars my memory is that the Water and Sewer
Department, well, the Water Department was a little bit concerned about leaving that step.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, they’re taking it out.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re taking it out all the way? Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-His opening comment was they had to make arrangements with Westwood
and get their approval to go in there and terminate it.
MR. MC CARTHY-I do have a copy of a letter from their attorney. I will give it to you if you
like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have it on file?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have it on file. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. HILTON-The only thing I want to say is, I mean, I don’t have the previous plan in front of
me. If you have some concerns over landscaping, you could make a condition that no changes
in the previous landscaping plan within that median will occur. I can’t verify if there were
plantings show in the previous plan or not, but, it’s just a suggestion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see that’s something about this set of plans is I don’t have the old set. So
I don’t know what’s changed and what’s not. I don’t even know how the driveway moves
because I didn’t have the old plans to compare it to, but, you know, if I was a doctor and this
was my medical arts building, I’d certainly want the entryway to address my potential
customers in the correct manner, not just a plain old grass strip. I’d like to see some perennials,
perennial beds, at least in the leading edge.
DR. ROTUNDO-I have no problem, and I am a doctor, so.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know what I mean. Just a plain old grass strip.
DR. ROTUNDO-Well, I don’t think, it wasn’t presented there. I don’t think it was intentional. I
think our mission at this point was to accommodate the requests of the County and the road
cut, and to meet the requirements that you folks have stipulated. So if it’s a matter of providing
plantings that are aesthetically pleasing to this Board and the tenants and to the community,
and the developer, we have no problems with that at all.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s good. I don’t know the specifics, but if they want to upgrade their
landscaping, George, do they have to come back to upgrade it?
MR. HILTON-No. I think this Board can specify number of species or what you’re looking for.
You could even say just a perennial bed to line the entire length.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s probably safer to suggest, if you’re going to ask them to do something
along the lines of landscaping, that it conforms with the corridor design standards, and you’re
covered, the species are covered, what you need to have.
MR. STROUGH-How about a perennial bed on both tips or something?
DR. ROTUNDO-That’s fine. Believe me, whatever pleases the Board, that’s what we’ll do.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’s the only hang up I see is, that would make it look nicer,
if we’ve got to be somewhat specific.
MR. VOLLARO-What are we going to do, Mr. Chairman, with the August 14 letter?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Condition your modification approval on the fact that they meet, that they
satisfy the August 14 letter from C.T. Male.
th
MR. VOLLARO-So we don’t need a signoff?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. They have to satisfy the August 14 letter from C.T. Male. It’ll be the
th
same as getting a signoff from C.T. Male.
MR. RINGER-The way I marked it, Bob, was a signoff by C. T. Male before Final Plat is
approved, or signed, I should say.
MR. MAC EWAN-In this case we’re not signing a site plan plat.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is just going to be conditioned on satisfying the August 14 letter from
th
C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s predicated on them getting a building permit. They don’t get a
building permit until all these conditions are met.
MR. STROUGH-And how about this, and let me run this by the applicant just to see if they’re
happy with it. Let’s say the first 20 feet of the eastern end and the 20 feet of the western end get
some kind of perennial beds, okay.
DR. ROTUNDO-I agree with you. I think it should be aesthetically pleasing.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I think they misunderstood why we have the boulevard, and I think I
explained it, and so that’s great. All right. I’m just trying to, you know, at least both ends, but if
you want to break it up, how about if I say a minimum of, and that way. Would that leave it
too open, George?
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a SEQRA on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s a modification. You’ve just got to read your boilerplate at the end.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 6-2003 PROVIDENT
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, 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:
Site Plan No. 6-2003 Applicant: Provident Development Group, LLC
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Michael Woodbury
Agent: Ivan Zdrahal Associates, PLLC
MODIFICATION Zone: HC-Int. & MR-5
Location: West side Bay Road between 369 & 379 Bay Road
Applicant proposes relocation of entrance boulevard, lighting, landscaping and stormwater
control structures. Alterations or modifications to approved site plan require Planning Board
approval.
Cross Reference: SP 87-89, SB 11-97, AV 75-95, SP 2-96
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-32
Lot size: 4.08 acres / Section: 179-9-080
Public Hearing: February 18, 2003, Approved
WHEREAS, the application was received on 7/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/15/03, and
8/19 Staff Notes
8/6 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS a public hearing is not required for a modification; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for MODIFICATION is hereby approved in accordance
with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. All of the requirements of the C. T. Male Associates August 14,2003 letter be complied
with before building permits are issued, and
2. A minimum of two perennial beds will be located on the median strip, at least of 20 feet
at the west end and at least one of 20 feet on the east end, and they can be more if they
want, and
3. The Planning Board has determined that there is no significant change in the site
modification and further finds there is no sufficient change to the original SEQRA
findings.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 SEQRA TYPE II MODIFICATION STEWART’S AGENT:
BRANDON MYERS ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: 977 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT
PROPOSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT GAS ISLANDS FROM 2 PUMPS AND A 24’ X 32’
CANOPY TO 3 PUMPS AND A 20’ X 60’ CANOPY. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWED USE
IN THE NC-1A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2003 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO.
266.3-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-4
TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing for this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, the applicant is following up an Area Variance that was granted
by the ZBA. They propose an expanded gas canopy as well as additional drive lanes. I’ve
included some different light levels for some gas canopies recently approved in the Town of
Queensbury. One question is what are the light levels now that the number of lights under the
canopy have been reduced from six to four. The current lighting plan is the older one which
hasn’t been updated, as far as of this submittal. Consideration should be given to providing
additional landscaping, parking lot landscaping, exterior parking lot landscaping as called for
in the zoning code, particularly the western area along the new drive aisle. Staff suggests a note
be added indicating a future vehicular access to the commercially zoned property to the west,
and as this property is within a design area, consideration should be given to the architectural
style of the proposed canopy. The applicant has submitted a stormwater report which has been
forwarded to C.T. Male, and any comments from them should be considered as part of this
review. That’s all we have at this time.
MR. LEWIS-Good evening. Hi there, yes to almost everything he said. What you have in the
handout is the same as the large one, just on the back, is what we wanted to do, and if I could
just briefly get into why we’re doing what we’re doing, and also let me pass around a photo of
what’s there, if I may. We’ve been on a mission for about the past year and a half, couple of
years, to look at sites that are average or better than average, and is there a way to make it
better. A lot of our shops, I don’t know when this was built. I’m going to guess, you know, 15
years ago, I’m just guessing, were very adequate at the time, and then as the years go on, we
got more business and more business, and we’re looking for ways to fix it and make the internal
circulation work better. Now, one of the things we only learned maybe about five years ago
was how we’ve been doing our gas islands not as efficiently as they might be. What you have
there now are the islands in series. So if I could just, am I allowed to walk over to that board
there?
MR. MAC EWAN-You need to take that microphone right with you.
MR. LEWIS-You’ll see some of the old pump arrangements where you’ve got a gas island here
and a gas island here. That’s what’s there now, and the chances are that everyone in this room,
if you’ve ever gone to a shop like this, not necessarily ours, that you drive up here, and there’s a
car over here, I’m not an artist, and the pump, the hose, goes here, and the car moving in here
isn’t able to fit their car in here until this car moves. Has that ever happened to anybody?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
Okay. So the fix for it was rather than have an island here and an island here, you have an
island here and an island here, and parallel rather than have them in series. So you could have
one car here, two car here, three car and four car. So we’ve had some locations in the Town of
Middleton and Wilton and Clifton Park, and Brunswick where we’ve looked to fix that. So
you’ll see on the back of the 11 by 17 was what we wanted to do, which was in order to make
this thing cost effective, or even nearly cost effective, we needed three islands, one, two, three.
Went to the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board said, guess what, we don’t care about your
money, you have to come down to two, and having some Zoning Board experience, we knew
we had no case and had to come down to two. Now, I understand that it is not the role of a
Planning Board or a Zoning Board really to go into finances. If it was a Use Variance, then the
finance case would have to be made, but we just think, this being a reasonable Board, and we
have appeared before you, at least I should share with you what our thinking is. So you’ll see
all the way on the right hand side this is two pumps and three pumps. So had we been able to
spend more than we might now, we’d be making a $192,000 investment. You’ve got $55,000 site
costs whether we do two pumps or three. We would obviously have to invest more with the
third island, $192,000. We’re getting fairly good at estimating how much gas would be added
by the extra island, and you get a 4.1 return, which is not making a whole lot of sense for our
company. If you only look at the gas, but what this will do, whether we have three pumps or
two, is it’s going to improve the internal circulation much, much better. The times when, if
you’ve ever gone by here and seen there’s a lot of cars backed up. There’s a lot of cars in that
parking lot, what will happen is because we don’t have this issue anymore, there’ll be less and
less cars that are waiting here, they would be able to go in, they leave their car, they go in, they
pay, and they’re out, and they’ll move in and out of the lot a lot faster. We’re also adding more
blacktop area back here. There’s a fair amount of trucks, NiMo trucks, electric, whatever, who
they park here, they park here, they park here, they park here, and we’re hoping that they’re
going to go inside here and this will be an easier way to make the internal circulation work
better. So we think the investment makes sense, not from a monetary point, but if you please
your customers, and they see you’re investing money, you’re looking for a way to make the lot
look better, that that’s the actual return. Now let’s, just with that background, you know, why
we’re doing what we’re doing, do you want to go over the list that I just heard? Item by item?
What’s the Board’s pleasure?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead and make your presentation. We’ll probably start asking some
questions?
MR. LEWIS-That’s it. It’s not any more complicated than that. We want to make the internal
circulation work better, which is why we’re doing this.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I don’t think I have much to add. It makes sense to me. I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I really had was on the light levels underneath the gas
canopies. I don’t recall, in the package, where those were listed, and that’s my question.
MR. LEWIS-We will agree to what the Town Code calls for. So we would either match, I got a
memo this morning from George where he lists maximum foot candles at Cumbies. We will
match that or what the Town Code calls for. We don’t ever need heavily lit canopies, especially
out there. We just don’t need it. Is that a good answer? We’ll do it your way.
MR. HILTON-I guess my point, and I guess I should elaborate on my notes, the most recent
change down at the two islands didn’t include a new lighting plan, and so we’re still going off
the previous one, which was submitted back in February. Hopefully you all still have it. I gave
you the numbers for the Cumberland Farms, as a comparison. I can tell you that in looking at
the lighting plan, which is still the lighting plan of record, the maximum foot candles listed at
33.9, minimum 18.9, with an average of 27.6. So, that’s for your information. Again, we’ve
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
given you the Cumberland Farms figures for comparison. Either way, I think what’s proposed
still exceeds the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, while we’re on the lighting, can we talk about the lighting? Or
do you want to just wait?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m flexible.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the fact that we don’t have the lighting plan in front of us, that
represents this drawing, there’s a conversion that none of us can make here until we see the
lighting plan that matches this drawing. The lighting plan that I have and the one that George
just discussed is the old lighting plan from the old, and that’s 2/18/03, George? Yes. So this
lighting plan and this plan don’t jive.
MR. STROUGH-Well, my point was that it’s hard to judge, you know, for me, an average Joe,
what we’re talking about in foot candles. So I need a standard, something to guide me. So,
since I am very familiar with Cumberland Farms at Kendrick and Route 9, it’s extremely bright,
and Cathy verifies, and their maximum foot candles, as per sheet George gave us, is 31.8, their
minimum 20, and their average foot candle is 27.85, and that’s extremely bright. So, I’d like to
see something considerably less than that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you asking for a revised lighting plan?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t have any lighting plan to go by.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you asking that you want to see another lighting plan?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-You want us to come back next month, next meeting.
MR. STROUGH-Well, not only that, but I was there at the Zoning Board when you were there,
you weren’t there.
MR. LEWIS-No. I’m a lot shorter than I was then. He’s on vacation.
MR. STROUGH-I was at the Zoning Board and they don’t appear to me, and you can correct me
if I’m wrong, this is not a rush.
MR. LEWIS-No.
MR. STROUGH-No. Okay.
MR. LEWIS-We’re very patient people.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we don’t hear that often.
MR. LEWIS-We love coming back here. We enjoy this. This is what we do for fun.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other side the coin with the lighting issue is that, when we talk about the
Cumberland Farms and the Highway Commercial zone versus this and a Neighborhood
Commercial zone, and we’ve talked about development up in that corridor is that we want to
keep that rural character going, and light levels are a big concern with us, and we’ve discussed
this with other projects before.
MR. STROUGH-And I think we made the Getty station, you know, I’d like to see the Getty
comparison when we approved there, I think we made the lower their foot candles quite a lot,
and I’d like to stay consistent, but for comparison, I don’t know what we did, George.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get off the lighting plan, then, for a few minutes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a comment. I have a question to ask about it. Was, remember
when Marilyn sent us the little, the information on the different types of lighting?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Was that in regard to this? It came at the same time. I kind of associated
the two.
MR. STROUGH-I think that was more in line with Wal-Mart, but I could be wrong.
MR. HILTON-I think that’s the general idea. I think she was giving you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just was thinking, even though we know what the foot candles are going
to be, don’t you think we should know what the fixtures are going to look like, too?
MR. HILTON-Sure, and that’s part of the previous lighting plan. They’ve given you some cut
sheets and some information on the fixtures. I guess my point is, asking the question, is that
still the same, and if so what’s the difference now that they’re proposing four canopy lights as
opposed to the six that were shown on the original plan, and I’m just looking for.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it should be less.
MR. HILTON-It should be.
MR. LEWIS-Of course it will be less.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you’d like to get some quantitative data as to what it is, before we,
because if I remember the job we did on Getty, it was significantly lower than what I see for
both of these Cumberland Farm lights, foot candles. So, George, if you could dig out the Getty
thing, we would have a pretty good, because it’s right across the street.
MR. LEWIS-Was that recently upgraded again?
MR. VOLLARO-No, but they came to us for an approved site plan, which.
MR. LEWIS-In the past two years.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In the past year.
MR. LEWIS-You will find us very cooperative on lighting. Lighting is not a problem. We just
need enough light so there aren’t cars running into each other in the dark.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks, Tony.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’m still with you.
MR. STROUGH-Or Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER- No, I didn’t have any other questions. That was the big issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that’s it.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, just C.T. Male, we have a lot of, did you see the C.T. Male letter?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. RINGER-We got a lot of comments on that.
MR. LEWIS-The answer is yes to every one of them. We’ll do it their way. We’ll fix them. Meet
everything they said.
MR. RINGER-Well, outside of C.T. Male, I have nothing else, and the lighting. I’d like to see
some kind of a lighting schematic.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re going to put in more parking spaces than you originally had
planned in the original modification, right? I know that you’re going from 10 to 24 or
something.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 18 on this plan.
MR. LEWIS-We’re going from 14 to 22. We’re adding a.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But with this modification you’re not adding more from the previous,
from what we proposed before?
MR. LEWIS-I think it’s less by two, because there are no extra pumps at what would be the
third island. So there’s six here, and over here that are four employees, which is the same thing
we had when we were proposing three islands. So, with the old one there would have been 24.
Now there’s twenty-two.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Where are the twenty-two? I cannot spot twenty-two on this drawing.
MR. LEWIS-They should be numbered.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they are, right to Number 18.
MR. LEWIS-Here’s Number 10.
MR. STROUGH-Eleven, twelve employees.
MR. LEWIS-Here’s eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen,
nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re counting the ones at the pumps. That makes sense, all right,
and I’m concerned about all the comments from C.T. Male, but as long as you have a handle on
them, no problem, because there were a lot of stormwater issues. A lot, and then refresh my
memory. What is that little addition that buts out there on the west end for?
MR. LEWIS-You mean this thing here?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the bathroom?
MR. LEWIS-Bathroom.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-We love clean bathrooms. I am constantly yelling at my manager, well, I don’t yell,
I ask, keep the bathroom clean. Very important.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, I’m in and out of there a lot.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you for the business.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-On my way up to the lake, but it is tight. I always feel like, I always look
more than I, I mean, I look again, and again and again. Because I just, it’s such a busy
intersection and it’s so dangerous there.
MR. LEWIS-That’s why we want to improve it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-For the average you’ve got, you know, $167,.000 is a lot of money to invest, really
not to get a lot of money back, but I’m not complaining.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, when you guys got ripped off, remember when the Stewart’s
company got ripped off for $400,000 or whatever it was.
MR. LEWIS-It was much more than that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well they raised their coffee five cents, and the joke was that they were
going to get it back sooner or later. Probably sooner than later.
MR. LEWIS-No, that’s not why. We just ate that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was a joke.
MR. LEWIS-No, I knew that, but I’m glad you addressed it. The reason why the price of coffee
didn’t go up when the sales tax went up a quarter of a percent, we used to have everything, this
is how much X is with the tax, and then we had to make it plus the tax.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, thank you. I know it was irrelevant, but I had to put that in.
MR. LEWIS-You’ve got to make light of things.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I have a fundamental problem with this design, and it has to do
with the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback, and I understand there’s been a variance applied here
and granted by the ZBA, but I’m going to talk about it anyway. The new canopy right now is
3862 from the road, versus the 75 required. Now the pre-existing canopy was 52 feet over.
Now, what I’ve done is I’ve taken the measurements from the canopy on the drawing that you
gave us, the new extended canopy, 26 by 53, as I measure it on my 20 to 1 scale.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I think that’s the bottom part.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the whole thing. I’ve taken this piece here matches that piece there,
John, and I know where.
MR. LEWIS-The canopy is 20 by 46. You might have been measuring the concrete pad under
the canopy, which protrudes out.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, what I’ve done, so that you understand what I’ve done, I’ve
taken your canopy, okay, you might as well take the microphone with you if you’re going to
talk.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer the applicant stay at the table.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let the applicant stay at the table. I’ve taken the canopy and turned it
around, like this, same size as that. The whole thing represents the block and the inside piece
itself. Now, there’s a reason why there’s a 75 foot corridor overlay on that road, and I don’t like
to see those kind of things violated unless they absolutely have to be. Turning the canopy
around this way sets you from the road now as opposed to 38.62, about 50, at the corner. The
corner is the only thing now that’s facing 149, and instead of being whatever you are, 35.7,
you’re now 40 inside the setback.
MR. LEWIS-Another four feet away.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think this makes a lot of sense. I’m going to take a parking space away
from you, too, because when I look at our Code Book, under convenient store is what I looked
at, and you’ve got a 2300 square foot shop here, and we allow one parking space for every 150
feet. It gives you 15. You’re running 22, if you include the ones around your, so I think if we
could take that one parking space, if I turn this canopy around, that would block that space.
People can’t get in, can’t get out because the corner of the canopy is going to be blocking it. If
you take that one space out, turn your canopy around this way, same size, just spin it 90
degrees, you don’t impact the setback anywhere near as much as you’re impacting it now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but so what way are the cars going to face?
MR. LEWIS-Thank you, Mrs. LaBombard. You’re asking my question.
MR. VOLLARO-Car comes in here and pulls up to the pump, okay. Car comes in here, pulls up
to the pump.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So in other words, you’re going to put the pumps like this, one, two,
three,
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Instead of one, two, three. You’re going to put one here, then here and
here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That’s in parallel. That’s what he’s trying to get away from though.
MR. LEWIS-See, that’s what we have now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because that way.
MR. LEWIS-I could save $167,000.
MR. VOLLARO-Essentially, you’ve got a much smaller, I’m giving you a much larger pump.
I’m giving you the same size pump canopy that you had before. It seems to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re out on that limb by yourself there, Robert.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I knew I was going to be out on that limb by myself, but I think it’s so
easy for everybody to constantly violate that 75 foot setback.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-From what I’m looking at on face value that you’ve got there, I see issues
with circulation there by reorienting that canopy that way.
MR. LEWIS-That would be the difficulty. I mean, this is about improving the circulation.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s think out loud for a little bit. Talking about circulation now, currently,
and correct me if I’m wrong, you can’t, I don’t think it’s paved. So you can’t drive on the north
side of the building now, if I remember right, right now, as the building sits.
MR. LEWIS-I think that’s correct. Yes. I’m not sure. On the little one you can see much easier
where we have extra pavement, all this dark area here, this is extra pavement.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just going from memory, but I don’t remember any pavement in the
back of the store.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, back here, on the west there is no pavement.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to pave that.
MR. LEWIS-That’s right. So that we could get this circulation around the outside.
MR. STROUGH-All right. That will improve circulation by itself.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, sir, it will.
MR. STROUGH-And trying to go along with kind of what Bob was saying. Well, what I’m
trying to do, you know, I’m trying to deter traffic from cutting between the front entrance of the
store and the canopy, which is really tight, especially if there’s cars parked there. I’d like to
deter that. Especially now, with your new plan, you have a drive around, and if they want to
get out onto 149 or vice versa, 149 onto Ridge, they can drive around the back of the store with
your proposed plan.
MR. LEWIS-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And I would not want to see them driving where people are coming right in
and out of the front door. So my thinking was why didn’t we, and I see many other gas stations
do this, attach the canopy to the store, so it not only acts as a covering for the front entryway, it
also acts as a canopy for your gas stations, and you could pull them a little bit closer to the store.
A little bit, not much, but a little bit closer to the store if you did that, and that would also work
to deter traffic flow in front of that front door, which is what I would like to do. I would like to
deter traffic from going, trying to squeeze in there. You see what I’m saying?
MR. LEWIS-Yes, I do, sir. I know exactly what you mean.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-And, you know, when I began doing this in 1992, we had 189 stores, and we’ve got
316 stores, and I realized about a year ago, I’m now beginning to feel as though I think we know
what we’re doing, and we have exactly the right amount of space between the inside island and
where the cars can go. You could have one car here, nice and comfortably, and one car to pass
through and not two. We have exactly the right amount of distance between here and here, to
avoid just what you’re talking about. If it was another five feet more, another four feet more, or
another four feet less, you have accidents. This is exactly the best way to do it, in our opinion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m also trying to fulfill that 75 foot setback, and trying to kill two birds
with one stone. I just got the feeling that, I don’t know, that you could set it a little bit closer to
the store and it would help to deter traffic from trying to go through there.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. LEWIS-See, Mr. Strough, I was fairly certain, when my partner Brandon Myers was at the
Zoning Board meeting, the time before he got approved, I was fairly certain Mr. Dake would
look at these numbers, because he’s like a numbers guy, and say, without the third island, this is
just not worth doing. I was pleasantly surprised when he said, you know, let’s just do two.
Because he’s really looking to improve what’s there now, and I hope we have the opportunity to
make it better. I’m very confident that this solves exactly what you’re concerned about, in a
very efficient way.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then why don’t we extend those flower beds out towards the island and
make sure cars can’t go through there.
MR. LEWIS-I’m not sure what you mean, where.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just a little bit concerned, we have our front entrance, and we have a car
parked under the canopy.
MR. LEWIS-Right.
MR. STROUGH-There will be cars.
MR. LEWIS-There will be one car that will go between the building.
MR. STROUGH-Well, this is the entrance where people are moving in and out of. I’m not
comfortable with cars going through there, and who knows at what speeds. I’m more
comfortable with providing the cars that go around the back of the building, rather than trying
to negotiate this area. So what I’m trying to say, to deter cars, killing two birds with one stone
here. To deter cars from going through here, and to make Bob and myself happier. Move this a
couple of feet this way. It’ll get it a couple, you’ll get it 40 feet away from the road. It won’t
make Bob completely happy, but I think it will deter, I want to deter traffic from going through
there, especially since you’re presenting an alternate route from going.
MR. LEWIS-Except that it is my opinion, I may be wrong, but I don’t think so, that at most 10 to
15% of the cars that enter this lot will actually use this back here. Almost everyone’s going this
way. They’re going to park here. They’re going to get out here. They’re going to park here.
We really understand our customers.
MR. STROUGH-Well, do you agree with me that there is potential.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, have you been to the Stewart’s on Corinth Road?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-The same layout.
MR. LEWIS-Same layout.
MR. MAC EWAN-It moves very efficiently through there. Circulation is very good at that site.
I go to that site quite often.
MR. STROUGH-Well, this isn’t the same layout.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s so darn close, it’s pathetic.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have the 75 foot setback on Corinth Road.
MR. STROUGH-Well, now, wait a minute, I look at the pictures here, Craig, and those cars are
parked 50 feet.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s existing.
MR. LEWIS-Yes, that’s existing. We’ve got to fix that. We’re going to fix that.
MR. STROUGH-Exactly, and these cars are still going to be, say, 50 feet from that front entrance,
with the proposed plan?
MR. LEWIS-I’m not sure what the distance is from what’s existing, but I know what we have
here is the ideal situation to move cars in and out.
MR. MAC EWAN-You guys are both out on that limb by yourselves.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s close it, John.
MR. STROUGH-Don’t want to beat a dead horse.
MR. LEWIS-I think we have a more difficult limb coming up.
MR. STROUGH-Not the lighting.
MR. LEWIS-No. Lighting, we are Mr. Agreeable here. We’re going to do it your way,
whatever your way is.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Thanks for your patience.
MR. LEWIS-Any time.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? Robert, we were on you, weren’t we?
MR. VOLLARO-We were on me. I just, to reiterate what Larry said, there’s a fairly extensive
stormwater, the thing that impressed me here, I guess. When I go back to the August, the last
time you came before the Board on August 14, there was a fairly extensive letter from C.T.
th
Male, and then I take a look at this August 14, this letter that just came in, March 14 previous
thth
letter, August 14 this letter, and they almost read the same. It looks like somebody never even
th
read the March 14 letter regarding stormwater. They’re the same pieces of information,
th
almost. It looks like whoever does your engineering work didn’t really take a good look at the
March 14 letter from C.T. Male.
th
MR. LEWIS-If it says you’ve said it, you’re 100% right. He wasn’t very smart. It may be just
thinking, you know, why wouldn’t Brandon deal with that. Maybe he didn’t think we were
going to pass the Zoning Board because I mean, I told him, you’ll never get a variance on the
third pump. It just won’t happen. Because then you really would have been angry. You’d
have more people out there on that limb.
MR. VOLLARO-I have no comment on what that Board does.
MR. LEWIS-So we’re very agreeable to being back next month. We should have addressed
more of those, maybe the filing date, I don’t know, Mr. Vollaro, I’m just guessing, but we’ll, my
engineer this morning said, yes, we could address everything in that C.T. Male letter, and so I
am confident he’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-I had a couple of other things. I see the new canopy is going to be bronze metal
fascia.
MR. LEWIS-I hope not. We want, want to hit the difficult one now?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll stick my neck out. Come back with a different design. Something that’s
more conducive to that corridor design standards, and that’s important, because that’s a very
rural section of Town, and it’s important, this Board has really lead the way, I believe, in trying
to get developers, and any kind of commercial development to adhere to those design
standards, and I can pretty much tell you that won’t fly.
MR. LEWIS-And I’ll bet you’re not on that limb by yourself. Now, what happened less than a
month ago was that our company purchased the Congress Gas and Oil business, and a part of
their assets was being a Mobil distributor, and so as I discussed this with Mr. Dake this
morning, he made it very clear that we have a real obligation to see whatever we could do now
that we’re a Mobil distributor to get what we’re seriously supposed to ask for. A month ago I
didn’t care. So I wonder whether there isn’t some way to add more landscaping or do
something that would make this Board be amenable to what we’ve just passed out. Is there
another way to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you asking me to speak on behalf of the Board? I’m sure Mobil’s got
more than one canopy design available. All you need to do is look at the design standards for
that corridor, which is in our Zoning Ordinance book, and I’m sure that you can approach
Mobil and find out what they have for canopies. Because I can tell you, you can go to Vermont
and you won’t find something like that. You won’t find something like that in New Hampshire.
You won’t find it in Maine. There are alternatives available.
MR. STROUGH-I was in Middlebury last weekend, and guess what, I got about five pictures of
that Mobil station.
MR. LEWIS-I can’t wait to see them.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-Well, let’s, since we have to come back next month anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll be on in probably October. Submission deadlines for the month of
September were the 15 of this month. We’re three days beyond that, four days beyond that.
th
So submission to get on the October agenda will be September the 15.
th
MR. LEWIS-September 15, but as long as I’m here, well, do you really think Mobil has other
th
stuff like that, that’ll meet your Code? Because I read your Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t like to use the word “guarantee”, but I’m pretty confident you’ll find
alternate designs that are more conducive to our design standards, yes.
MR. LEWIS-Okay. Let’s us do our homework.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we can get Wal-Mart to do it, and Lowe’s to do it, and Home Depot to do
it.
MR. LEWIS-Have those guys got gas?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, design standard criteria, alternate building design.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. LEWIS-Design standard, we usually work with you guys. Look at the one on, off Exit 18.
You made that happen. I think we have a fair, reasonable history of working with this Board,
and we certainly don’t want to do anything to.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Maybe just to recap for the Board, what I’m seeing is three issues. We
want another design of the canopy.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not done yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize. Go ahead. I’m sorry.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Another thing, question I want to ask. When a field truck comes to refill
your tanks, how is that going to line up? Where is it going to park to fill up the tanks?
MR. LEWIS-The underground storage tanks aren’t being moved. So it’ll be the same way they
are now.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know if the canopy. Go ahead, but you’re going to have to
explain to me where it (lost word) now.
MR. RINGER-They’re all in the front, John, right on Route 9, on Ridge. See them on there?
MR. LEWIS-Right, right along here. Here’s the underground tanks. Do you want me to walk
over to the big thing there, Mr. Chairman? Does that work?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Take the mic with you.
MR. LEWIS-Right here. He unloads here. Goes in here, out this way or out that way. Same
way it is now. Whether we fix this or not, whether you allow us to make this work better or
not, it’ll be the same.
MR. STROUGH-The truck’s going to be going right in front of your entrance to the store?
MR. LEWIS-The same way they do now.
MR. STROUGH-I just think that, by the look of the picture, they’ve got a lot more room. I don’t
know. Okay.
MR. LEWIS-Why would we want to make it harder on ourselves? Why would we do that?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. I don’t know.
MR. LEWIS-Why would we want to frustrate our drivers?
MR. STROUGH-All right. I was just, other ideas, access, do we have in and out indicators
anywhere on there? I don’t see where the access areas are broken up into lanes or anything. So
you don’t have any plans to put any in and out indicators on those access points?
MR. LEWIS-We think, none of our customers have difficulty going in and out right now. It
works now.
MR. STROUGH-They don’t block one another because there’s no lines delineating where (lost
words)?
MR. LEWIS-Well, once in a while, you know, no matter where all sites everywhere, you know,
someone is wacky, whether there’s a line there or not. If this Board wants a line down with an
arrow.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, people need those lines, so that they’re out of the way of the
incoming traffic, or the out flowing traffic, one or the other, they’re out of the way, if there’s
some indicators and a line there, okay. I may be by myself on that one, too. All right. What are
the State plans for this section of 149 and this intersection, do you know? What are the State
plans?
MR. LEWIS-They’re on the plan now. What the State will be doing is how we were asked to
show the road now. That is what will be done. The way the road is on the plan.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. LEWIS-We got the specs from the DOT, and one of your, someone must have told Brandon
that’s how we want you to do the plan, so that’s how we did it. One of your crack Staff.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I don’t know how the Board feels about in and out indicators
somewhere, but I’ll leave it out there. I’m done, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Then to recap, where I think we are is redesigning the canopy to
match the corridor design standards. We want an update to the lighting plan to show actual
lighting levels for this proposed canopy, and the site entirely. We want Staff to supply us with
the lighting that’s used on the proposed Getty site across the street. The applicant has to
address, get a signoff from all the C.T. Male comments of both the March 14 and the August
th
14 letters, and the applicant will place ingress/egress markings at both entrances on the site.
th
MR. LEWIS-So you mean you want an arrow here and an arrow there, in the pavement, painted
things?
MR. MAC EWAN-However you want to do it. Just provide us with something.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, wait a second. You’re not saying that the 9L one is going to be the
ingress and the?
MR. RINGER-No, no, just an arrow, Cathy.
MR. LEWIS-They’re both unrestricted curb cuts. Because they work well. What I think I heard
was an arrow here and an arrow there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like an arrow on the pavement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sometimes they strip medians in between.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-To make sure they keep to the right when they turn in.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s probably not a bad idea.
MR. MAC EWAN-Come up with some sort of striping plan, I guess. Is what we’re looking for.
MR. LEWIS-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. LEWIS-Well, there are other comments in the Staff’s letter, addressing access to the lot on
the west. So why don’t we deal with that now, so I know where the Board is on that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I had trouble reading the landscaping plan. So I was giving you the
benefit of the doubt. I couldn’t read it.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. LEWIS-There was a note by Mr. Hilton for a shared access of a lot on the west of us, asking
whether we would, or if the Board wants to, at some future date, have an access between our lot
and the next one west. Is that correct?
MR. HILTON-Typically with commercial developments, we have asked for some kind of
indication of a future access easement, one to the west, the west of this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes.
MR. HILTON-And we were just looking for some kind of notation to be added to this plan, and
then if there’s any future development of the lot to the west, we’d get the similar note from
them, and have an interconnection at some point in the future.
MR. MAC EWAN-The note you put on the drawing showing where a proposed interconnect
would be, it’s in the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. LEWIS-And it’s in the Ordinance requiring us to do that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-We’re going to do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not required to build it. You’re required to show how it could work.
MR. RINGER-Show where.
MR. LEWIS-I understand, but we’re not going to show where this might be, because that’ll be
determined at some later date if it ever happens. Right? You just want a note that says we will
allow an easement for access.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically what they do is they show a phantom line on the site plan where a
proposed interconnect could be located on the site.
MR. LEWIS-And so where does this Board think that phantom line ought to be, back here
somewhere?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s up to you, where you want to show it in the future, if it should
ever become necessary that you’re going to have something that’s going to internally work for
your site.
MR. LEWIS-Is that how we should do it, George, we should show it? We should decide?
MR. HILTON-You’re going to want to show it, but, I mean, in looking at the plan, you’re not
going to want to have it too close to the building, so that people are going to have to maneuver
around the building. You might want to try to line it up with that front aisle, or what you
would consider a front drive aisle.
MR. STROUGH-But you don’t want it too close to the front access.
MR. HILTON-No. Absolutely.
MR. LEWIS-You mean over here rather than here?
MR. HILTON-I would say somewhere in that area, yes. I mean, you could do it behind the
building as well.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. LEWIS-I think we would rather, I think it would be safer behind.
MR. HILTON-That’s fine.
MR. LEWIS-Okay, and then there was also a note about landscaping on the western side, and
when I phoned George this morning to get his, just, you know, what that meant, I think you’d
add some more landscaping along here.
MR. HILTON-We’ve got an expansion of the pavement and the drive aisle here, and the
exterior parking lot, landscaping standards apply.
MR. STROUGH-Are you talking about this, George?
MR. LEWIS-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Yes. In that general area along the west line. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but like I said, I’m sorry I was on the wrong copy, but I had trouble
reading your landscaping plan, but I, for one Planning Board member, agree that that island
could be upgraded as far as the landscaping goes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The more the better.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. LEWIS-I think that’s a great idea. Okay. Are we done?
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. LEWIS-And if we file by the 15, an October meeting will be when?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-In order to get on the October agenda, you need to file your application by
September the 15.
th
MR. LEWIS-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Provided it’s complete, and provided it’s everything we’re looking for, you’ll
be placed on the October agenda.
MR. LEWIS-Which is October when?
MR. RINGER-21 or 28.
stth
MR. HILTON-The third and fourth Tuesday of the month.
MR. LEWIS-And you’ll let me know at some later time whether it’s the third or the fourth.
MR. HILTON-Yes, we will.
MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 35-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES
AGENT: SCHODER RIVER ASSOCIATES ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 51 BIRCH
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOME AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH RECONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS
AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. REVISED INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS
REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 44-89, AV 6-03, BOH
6-03 TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-29 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-060
CARL SCHODER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was tabled on the 15 of July, and it is still open.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The plans, since the last time we met, have been revised per the Board’s tabling
resolution. Staff has given you a copy of all deeds that were contained in the file. C.T. Male has
provided a signoff letter. Building and Codes has reviewed the septic and is comfortable with
the design based on the number of bedrooms. That’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SCHODER-Good evening. I’m Carl Schoder, agent for the applicant. I believe pretty much
that says it all. We made the modifications that were requested. C.T. Male’s signoff letter is on
file. They were pleased with what was done, and I guess we leave it to you to make a decision
at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, they’ve complied with everything we’ve asked them in our tabling.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, everything seems to be addressed, that C.T. Male has signed off.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any questions, except I would like to see a letter in the file from
Building and Codes that says that they, based on our requirement from the motion to table, that
something be put in the file from Building and Codes that says that they are satisfied with, I see
that it’s going to be an Elgin system.
MR. SCHODER-That is correct, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-Seeing as it’s going to be an Elgin system, I’m just saying from a protocol point
of view, when we ask for somebody to do something, it would be nice for the file to show that
they responded.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a memo or something from Building and Codes in the file?
MR. HILTON-No. There’s no memo. I spoke to Dave personally. I can tell you that he’s
comfortable with it. If you want to condition, place a condition that they give him a final
signoff, that’s fine.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We will. John?
MR. STROUGH-Just a couple. With the recent blackout made me think. What happens with
this system if the power goes out? Because everything’s got to be pumped uphill.
MR. SCHODER-The septic system?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCHODER-The same thing that would happen with any pump system. There is a reserve
capacity, of course you have no water supply either, when your pump goes out. So you have
no inflow. If you have no inflow, the only water that’s going to be flowing out would
effectively be what water would be in tanks and that kind of thing, and you have, certainly, the
reserve capacity within the pump tank to be able to handle a lot more than that. Actually it’s
sized for I believe it was one day additional flow. So it’s not an issue.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay, and one other question, too, because I was at the Zoning Board
meeting when you were, and they asked a question, but I forgot the answer. So I hope you
don’t mind me asking again. Did you check with the pump out, you know, every so often
you’ve got to get your septic tank pumped out every three years or four years, whatever it is.
Did you check to make sure the hoses are long enough to be able to reach this?
MR. SCHODER-Yes, as I noted at that variance meeting, because that issue did come up, there
are several approaches that can be taken to that, and I have assurances from several pump out
manufacturers, or suppliers. One thinks they can do it just as is. It’s actually not the length of
hose that’s the issue. It’s rather the height of lift, such that you don’t gavitate the pumps.
There are systems that can be utilized that have an interim mud sucker basically that pumps to
an interim position and then hauls up from there. That would be the worst case. Several
haulers think that they can do it directly, and that they have situations that are as bad as that, if
you will, and have been able to accommodate it, but we actually did talk to several sewer
haulers. I could dig back through my notes and tell you who, but it would take a while.
MR. STROUGH-No, that’s fine.
MR. SCHODER-Yes. No, we were sensitive to that issue, and we recommend pumping out a
maximum of three years on a septic, on a residential septic tank.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, thank you. I’m a bad boy.
MR. SCHODER-Most people are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comment, they wanted to add? Anything else you folks wanted to add?
MR. SCHODER-I think we’re pretty well set.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I heard just tonight that this is going to be an
Elgin system. An Elgin system is an approved alternate system, approved by the Health
Department as an alternate system. All alternate systems require approval of the local Board of
Health, and I think that’s the approval that’s needed here.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else want to comment? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Looking through our draft resolution Staff has prepared, I’m looking at a
bullet item under additional information on 1/27 the Board of Health resolution 6-2003
approved this Elgin system. Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-2003 KENNETH & LEIGH SEARLES,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 35-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Kenneth & Leigh Searles
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Schoder River Associates
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 51 Birch Road, Glen Lake
Applicant proposes demolition of existing home and construction of a new home with
reconstructed retaining walls and new septic system.
Cross Reference: SP 44-89, AV 6-03, BOH 6-03
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-29
Lot size: 0.21 acres / Section: 179-6-060
Public Hearing: July 15, 2003, PH left open
WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/16/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/15/03, and
8/19 Staff Notes
7/23 C. T. Male Associates Sign Off
7/16 Revised information
7/15 PB resolution, Tabled
7/15 Staff Notes
7/14 Response to Staff notes and C. T. Male Associates eng. comments
7/8 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments
7/8 Notice of Public Hearing
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/20 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments
1/27 BOH resolution 6,2003
1/22 ZBA resolution
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 15, 2003 and August 19, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application 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 Agency 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. Have Building and Codes provide a written statement for the file based on the approval
of the system based on the number of bedrooms.
Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2003, by the following vote:
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. SCHODER-Might I ask a quick question on that resolution?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. SCHODER-Our owner is looking to move ahead on this project fairly quickly. Are there
any assurances that we can have, because that is really kind of an internal matter within the
Town of Queensbury out of our control.
MR. MAC EWAN-Assurances for what?
MR. SCHODER-We want to be able to pull the permits and get this project moving.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something you’d have to take up with Building and Codes. It’s not
part of this Board’s duties.
MR. RINGER-He’s got approvals. All he’s got to do is get a written thing from them.
MR. SCHODER-Okay, because we are getting a permit from them anyway.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-He should be able to just give you a one liner for the file.
MR. SCHODER-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2003 SEQR TYPE: Y. OZBAY, USA GAS AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES
ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 651 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONVERSION OF EXISTING GAS STATION W/REPAIR BAYS TO A SELF
SERVICE GAS STATION/CONVENIENT MART WITH NEW GAS ISLANDS AND
CANOPIES. GASOLINE STATIONS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD
IS HEARING THE APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING A SEQRA
REVIEW. RESOLUTION SEEKING LA STATUS: 7/15/03 RESOLUTION
ACKNOWLEDGING LA STATUS: 8/19/03 SEQR & SP REVIEW: 8/19/03 CROSS
REFERENCE: AV 65-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-32, 31
LOT SIZE: 0.14 AC., 0.20 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020, 030
RICHARD JONES & PAUL HUMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight because the one on July 22 was
nd
tabled and left open.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-Real briefly, the applicant has revised the site plans to show increased green
space and street trees along Route 9 frontage, updated stormwater plans, plus the two new
drywells, lighting statistics have been provided by the applicant. As a comparison, I’ve given
you the figures for the Cumberland Farms Kendrick Road and Ridge and Quaker. The street
trees along Route 9 and the additional green space is an improvement to the site which brings
permeability above the 30% zoning requirement. The two new drywells, as well as the 12 inch
diameter pipe, will be used to collect stormwater and a new revised stormwater plan has been
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
forwarded to C.T. Male has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. In
terms of the SEQRA issue, this is a coordinated review between New York State DOT as an
involved agency and the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals because there are some
Area Variances required. The public hearing has been opened. The site plan is currently under
review. However, tonight this Board can only really act on the SEQRA and come to a SEQRA
determination. This is scheduled to go before the Zoning Board tomorrow evening to hear the
variances. The Zoning Board cannot act on the variances finally without a SEQRA
determination, which this Board, as Lead Agent, would supply. So tonight it looks like what
you’re doing is if you are so inclined coming to a SEQRA determination and then this will be
on, it’s scheduled already to be on before you again August 26 for you to potentially act on the
th
site plan. So, I hope that clears it up, but, you know, you’re certainly free to ask questions about
the site plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s issues that come up, and I don’t know what any particular
member’s thinking is going to be on this, that they don’t feel comfortable moving on without
having additional information provided to us, we certainly can’t move forward with a SEQRA,
and come up with a SEQRA conclusion. Therefore, they wouldn’t be going in front of the ZBA
tomorrow. Conversely, it sounds to me like the old proverbial cart before the horse deal.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t understand the second part. I understand the first part of what you
said, but as far as the cart before the horse deal, you’re the Lead Agency. So as you know, there
sometimes is the back and forth where an applicant has to come before you for a SEQRA
determination prior to you concluding your site plan review. This would be an example like
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s probably a good chance, and maybe I’m just speaking out of
line, there’s probably a good chance we won’t complete the site plan review tonight.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can’t complete the site plan review tonight. There’s not just a good
chance, you can’t complete the site plan review tonight because the applicant has not yet
obtained the variance or variances that it needs. So nobody’s suggesting that you should
complete your site plan review tonight. What you can do, if you are so inclined, as George put
it, is conduct and complete your SEQRA review tonight. That’s not to suggest that you must,
but you can. In reference to the first part of your comment, the gist of which was, if there’s
anything missing in information, you won’t be able to complete your SEQRA review, that’s not
necessarily true, if what was missing was really trivial, really minor, really administerial. Just
by way of example, if you didn’t have an agent authorization form that you needed or
something really trivial, you’d certainly be able to complete your SEQRA review, to enable the
ZBA to move forward tomorrow night. On the other hand, if what’s, if you feel there’s
information missing that relates to your review of potential environmental impacts, then you’re
correct. Then would not be able to complete your SEQRA review tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? In our packets there’s a
letter from Soil and Water dated July 21 from Jim Lieberum, where they talk about having a
st
status of discussions between Jim Houston and C.T. Male and the Town, and Soil and Water,
and until some of that information is known, I don’t know how we’re going to do a SEQRA,
because periodic maintenance of the structure by the landowner will be required to maintain its
effectiveness as a water quality improvement structure. It’s a letter saying that they’re going to
get together and they’re going to do something, and until we know what that something is, and
how that’s going to work, I think that might effect our ability to do a SEQRA.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll agree with Bob, because stormwater is probably the only thing in my
mind that might trigger something substantive in SEQRA, and that’s what Bob talks to is the
stormwater situation. Now, maybe the applicant can give us an update on that and where
that’s going, but I’m going to have difficulty.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. HILTON-Well, I can tell you, if I may, the previous plan that you had before you showed
an infiltration basin that was proposed to be used for stormwater management. After meeting
with Soil and Water on the site, the applicant met the Soil and Water people, Jim Lieberum in
particular, I believe. The proposal was for the two drywells which are shown on the plan now.
This is based on the discussions, like I said, between Soil and Water and the applicant. It’s a
major change to the stormwater plan. It’s something that Soil and Water is comfortable with.
I’ve spoken with Jim.
MR. STROUGH-But do we have a copy of this updated plan?
MR. HILTON-Yes you do. You should.
MR. STROUGH-And has C.T. Male reviewed it?
MR. HILTON-Yes, they have.
MR. STROUGH-And have they signed off on it?
MR. HILTON-They have provided comment, which I think the applicant can speak to, but, you
know, the two drywells go a long way. It’s a difference, let me at least say, in what you had on
your original plan. You should have the drywells represented on the plan, in some kind of.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I have to admit that I thought we were just doing Lead Agency
Status, and I misinterpreted that, and so I’m looking at this kind of fresh.
MR. HILTON-You already passed a resolution seeking Lead Agency Status.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s my mistake. I apologize.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. With that, we’ll turn it over to you, Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project. This is Paul
Human from Valley Equipment, the consultant for the gas services on the property. Basically
what we’re proposing is a conversion of an existing multi bay gas station, service station, into a
convenient mart with two remote canopies with new pumps underneath them. The existing
tanks will remain in the ground. We’re looking to upgrade parking, landscaping and the
general sheet flow of site drainage across the site. Currently, the drainage heads toward US
Route 9 to the west, and there’s a large infiltration trench across the entrance closest to
Glenwood Avenue that is collecting the majority of the runoff from the building area. The
lower, or the north end of the property actually flows toward Halfway Brook. There’s a
pavement swale that’s actually partially on the property, partially off the property, adjacent to
the northerly most curb cut that directs the water into a green area and then directly into a the
brook. The first submission that we had made to the Town in reference to the project, we were
collecting and infiltrating stormwater runoff from the back side of the building. Right now,
currently, the pavement runs from the adjacent driveway on the back side right to the back side
of this building. We would be proposing to remove that pavement area on that general back
side which is the east side of the building, basically providing green space for infiltration of
runoff. The basic front side of the building, this is where canopy number one is being proposed,
which is closest to Glenwood Avenue, basically as I said, everything sheet flows to US Route 9.
We’re looking to convert that first entry closest to Glenwood Avenue to a one way in only, for
access to the pump islands from the northern lane of US Route 9. So traffic heading north
would be able to meld and yield onto the property to actually access the gas pumps. The sheet
drainage would continue across and be collected still on the west side where the trench drain
currently exists in that one way drive that we’re proposing. The canopy areas we’re collecting
that with roof drains and piping that to the culvert that runs along Route 9 in that general area.
The northerly most portion of the property, which is from the north end of the existing building
to the northerly most property line toward Glenwood, or Meadowbrook, we’re basically
collecting, we’re proposing a culvert with a grate top on it that would run across that existing
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
two way access onto the property, ingress/egress. We would be collecting, at that point,
basically then piping it to a chamber to settle out any solids and silts. We would then be piping
it into the two drywells that would be located along the north end of the property adjacent to
the grass area. Basically, we have been in discussion with C.T. Male. We resubmitted the plans
to them. We did get a revised letter from them today with several comments, and I’m not sure
if the Board received that or not, but basically, everything was addressed, with the exception of
three items in reference to the stormwater, which I’ll discuss, and two items in reference to the
lighting which I’ll also discuss. What Jim Houston is looking for us to place on the revised plan,
which would be Drawing SP-2, would be spot elevations for the four corners of the proposed
pump island, and we can certainly do that. We did provide spot elevations in the center
portions between the pump islands, and then we did re-grade around that. Basically, we can
add the spot elevations. That’s not a big deal to do. The next item was consideration should be
given to replacing the drywell grates. We were basically proposing open grate tops on the two
drywells that we were proposing on the north end. Our thought was that any sheet flow that
was going that way, that was not collected by the trench drain along the opening to Route 9
could be collected in those general areas at the drywells. He has a concern in reference to any
potential contamination entering the drywells through the open grate tops. We can certainly
provide solid tops and re-grade that general area to basically get it to shed more toward the
trench drain that we’re proposing along the entrance. That would not be a problem. The other
item that he’s asked us to do is look at the grading adjacent to the western pump island and
basically slope it away from the island more toward the swale, or the trench drain that we’re
creating from the northwest corner of that proposed canopy where the island is. Those three
items basically are minimal. We have, I think, resolved all of the on-site drainage issues. In
working with Warren County Soil and Water, basically they had asked us to meet them at the
site. We have done that. We have revised and actually reviewed several options with them.
The option that we actually decided on was the drywells. We felt that was the best form of
infiltration on site. It enabled us to basically accommodate the sheet flow from the
northernmost portion of the site, collecting it before it hit Route 9 or Halfway Brook. By
providing the settling chamber that we have, we’re basically able to filter out any sediments and
silts before it hits the drywells. Our thought was with the open grate tops originally that we
could collect sheet flow heading in that direction, but it also enabled us, if there was an overly
large rainfall, it also allowed us to have the ability for water to come out of the top, rather than
just have it blow the top off. So there’s several reasons why we had gone to the grate top, but as
I said, if C.T. Male would like us and the Board would like us to go with the solid top, we could
certainly do that. He had also asked us about the, we’re proposing a flat valve on the first
drywell, and the rationale for that is so that if there is a spill of any type, if a vehicle comes in
and starts fueling and pulls away and pulls the hose off of the pump, and there is loss of fuel,
and it does start to sheet toward the trench drain, Staff at the building would have the
opportunity, basically, to close the flat valve on the drywell to basically stop any potential
infiltration of contamination into the drywell system. We have enough capacity, between the
drain inlet and the culvert itself with the grate top, basically to be able to collect what would
come off of the island. By doing that, we could then stop, as I said, the infiltration of any
potential contamination. He had asked us, in lieu of that, basically to do it with a “T”. The flat
valve was actually a request from Warren County Soil and Water. They had used it on other
projects, and found it to be successful. They did not have any apparent problems with winter
operation, under winter conditions. So, again, we can do it either way. It does not matter to us
one way or the other. Their last concerns were in reference to the lighting for the project. We
had duplications of the tables on the second sheet and they asked us basically to delete one, and
his one comment where he talks about the ratio being 68 to 1, the ratio that he’s looking at is the
minimum to maximum, and the Uniform Gradient, the UG factor, is actually the one that he
should be looking at, and our Uniform Gradient for the site is 10.5 to 1, not 68 to 1, or 64 to 1, as
he’s indicating.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you had discussions with him about that?
MR. JONES-I have not. I just got these today. So I have not discussed that with him.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. JONES-Basically, as Mr. Hilton had indicated, we have converted the islands, which are
actually not on our property adjacent to the DOT right of way for US Route 9 to green space.
We’ve converted them to lawn areas. We have continued the sidewalk along Route 9 with a
curb drop at Glenwood Avenue. We have then planted, indicated the planting of street trees
along that frontage. Originally we had proposed, and this was on our property, toward the
corner of Glenwood, a green space where we were actually taking out part of the pavement
adjacent to our canopy number one. We are doing some low bed planting in that area, but we
were trying not to do that type of thing out in the islands because of snow from Route 9, plus
snow from the site, and just the maintenance issue. We didn’t want to restrict basic visual
observation in either way on Route 9 for visual control, either on Glenwood or coming in or
going out of the site. We are proposing additional landscaping for the buffer on the east side
adjacent to the parking, where we’re re-striping, and in reference to parking on the site, and I
hate to bring up Stewart’s, but they were talking about having parking spaces under the
canopy. We had discussed that subject with Craig Brown from the zoning, and we were told
that we could not include the parking spaces under the canopy as part our parking. We had an
issue originally with back up space with separation between the vehicles that would be sitting
under canopy two and the adjacent parking spaces. In looking at the Zoning Ordinance, we
had figured the gross floor area of the building, originally, which required 13 spaces. In reading
the Zoning Ordinance, you can actually do it inside of the exterior walls, which we did, and
then you can also deduct out mechanical and storage space from that, which we also did, which
got us down to 11 spaces, and basically enabled us to rearrange the parking to make it work,
but if there is a consideration from this Board that we can use parking underneath the canopies
to contribute toward our parking requirement on the site, we would certainly like to be able to
do that and reduce some of the paving that we’re proposing on the east side.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get that in writing from Craig Brown?
MR. JONES-No, I did not. It was a telephone conversation that I had with him, about a week
and a half ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-On behalf of the Board, I’d ask you to ask Craig to give a written
determination as to whether you can calculate your parking calculations by utilizing spaces
underneath the canopy, and send it to Mr. Jones and cc Tom from Stewart’s. Because if it goes
the way Mr. Jones is saying, that Craig Brown indicated, that effects Stewart’s parking.
MR. HILTON-Except, and not to go back on Stewart’s, but I think if you deduct those spaces
under the canopy, they still met the requirement.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is just to clarify the record.
MR. HILTON-But we can certainly do that.
MR. JONES-Just for the record, too, we have provided parking exclusive of the canopy parking
which meets the requirement. So we have enough parking on site without the canopy parking.
If we were allowed to provide a portion of the canopy, the area under there for parking at the
pumps, we’d certainly reduce the amount of blacktop on the site, and basically increase the
permeable area on site as well.
MR. RINGER-Do you feel you could get by with less parking?
MR. JONES-I think so. The USA Gas, the majority of their traffic is strictly gas sales. They’re
not, and I know one of Craig Brown’s comments to me was, well, at some point in time,
Stewart’s may buy this, so it may turn from someone who is basically providing gas to 70 to
80% of their customers to Stewart’s, where people are coming and buying milk and ice cream
and that type of thing.
MR. RINGER-It’s just that we have the prerogative of reducing the parking spaces, too.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. JONES-Yes, you do.
MR. RINGER-We could take a couple of parking spaces out of there, and give them the green
space.
MR. JONES-Yes. He certainly feels that he could do with less if we can do that.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t mean to interrupt you.
MR. JONES-Yes. It would be nice to be able to convert that to green space.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Dick?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-No, I have nothing right now on this. I’m sorry. How much water, or how much
stormwater would go into the Brook, Halfway Brook, with your proposal? How much is going
in there now? I mean, how much are you going to reduce it to what’s going in there?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. RINGER-When we were up there, it seemed like, we were up there quite a while ago, but it
seemed like everything was going into the Brook.
MR. JONES-Yes. We’re basically controlling about two thirds of that northern area, from about
halfway through the canopy number two to the back corner of the building, the northwest
corner, or the northeast corner, toward the residence on the back side. If you drew a line
through there, we’re basically controlling that amount of sheet flow on the north end of the site.
And I did the calculations for C.T. Male, if I can find my calculation sheet here. We’re
controlling about 280 cubic feet of water that’s at a four inch per hour storm, which would be
typical for.
MR. MAC EWAN-This summer that’s a pretty common rainstorm.
MR. JONES-Yes, it is. The thing that’s a little bit troublesome is the fact that everything along
Route 9 that they have for drainage is dumping in to Halfway Brook.
MR. RINGER-That’s what it looked like when we were up there.
MR. JONES-Yes, and we have no control over their culvert system. As you can see, there’s
numerous amount of culverts on that north end of the site that DOT has installed, one running
from the north side of, I think it’s actually the west side of Route 9 over near Price Chopper,
coming back through, and I assume it’s from the parking area over there by the islands. There’s
also another culvert coming from the west side of Route 9 that comes in almost to our property
line, and I have no idea where that’s coming from, but I assume it’s from the tire shop on the
opposite side of the street. So they’ve got a lot of their own stormwater, but we’re able to
control most everything from the north end of the site, which basically is the majority of the
area where, if you look at that paved swale that’s there right now, you can evidence the amount
of silting that was going on and the amount of silts. There’s actually probably a silt barrier, it’s
a good six to eight inches high, at the lower end of that paved swale, that’s now restricting flow.
So there’s an abundance of sand and silts that are washing right into the Brook, and that’s one
of the things that we’ll be able to basically do away with on that end of the site. We’re going to
be able to control that. It’s going to be a maintenance thing for the owner to be able to have to
clean out the one drain inlet where we have the drop to collect that, and then also to maintain
the drywells.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. RINGER-Thank you. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think you’ve really done an excellent job designing this site for the
change in use, and just as long, I mean, if we can get anymore green space in, that would be fine
with me, and I think it’s going to really be good, and my only question is, we really can’t act on
anything this evening. I mean, we can’t really do a SEQRA until the ZBA is finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we have to do a SEQRA before the ZBA even starts.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they can do their portion.
MR. MAC EWAN-They can do their portion.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I wasn’t sure about that. Okay, but then that’s where we stop,
though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, supposedly, if everyone felt comfortable, we could give it an
approval tonight, if everyone felt comfortable with it, but that remains to be seen.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what did Mark say earlier?
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me retract that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. What Mark said earlier was very similar to what George said earlier,
which is it’s been your practice, and it’s generally considered a very wise practice, to not grant,
or deny, actually, but to not issue any final decision on site plan review when something, when
an applicant needs a variance before your decision.
MR. MAC EWAN-From the ZBA.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So what I said earlier was, and what George said earlier, was that
you could, if you feel you have sufficient information, make your SEQRA determination
tonight. Then the applicant would return to the ZBA seeking its variance decision. If they get
that variance, they would then be before you for site plan from their perspective hopefully
approval.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they have to have this neg dec before they can do a?
MR. SCHACHNER-The SEQRA determination should be rendered prior to the ZBA’s
consideration.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, okay, but, no, Richard, I think you really have a handle on all the
issues, and I think what you had said about the flow valve there, you’ve really looked at all the
adverse impacts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, looking at what C.T. Male put out in their letter regarding stormwater,
looking at all of this, it seems like if all of this could be, if the results of Soil and Water and the
C.T. Male letter could be condensed down into what amounted to a short stormwater
management report, which I don’t see one of those here. I didn’t see that.
MR. JONES-There is a stormwater management report that was submitted. There’s also a
revised C.T. Male letter from today. I don’t know if you have a copy.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I have July 16.
th
MR. JONES-There’s one of August 19, today.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t have that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically we won’t because we do not get information the night of a
meeting.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So I’m trying to look for something that kind of condenses a lot of what you
said, Richard, into some words that I can lean on, in terms of trying to satisfy my requirements
to determine SEQRA, and I don’t really have that. I’ve got a lot of disjointed stuff, but I just
don’t know how to really put it together, in terms of, particularly Jim Lieberum’s letter. He
says, Mr. Hilton says well this has all been discussed and everything is okay, and that’s fine. I
think you need a letter to that effect from Jim Lieberum that says reference my letter July 21,
st
meeting with Mr. Jones, resulted in the following, boom, boom, boom, boom. I don’t have any
of that to be able to determine to answer SEQRA questions. So I would like to have, I guess, a
condensed version of the upgrade stormwater management plan that results from these
discussions.
MR. JONES-The plan that you have before you, with the stormwater management plan, is a
result of all of those meetings, and that was what was reviewed by C.T. Male in its latest letter.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have a letter dated in August?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have in front of me. So it would be nice if I could compare that, but I
know I’m going to be asked some questions tonight in SEQRA that I’m going to be stumbling
on. I see them in my mind, without being able to come up with a positive no.
MR. JONES-If I were to address each item in that C.T. Male letter, would that help you, based
on his comments in this letter today?
MR. VOLLARO-Of the August letter?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Probably would help a lot.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What I would try and do is take what Jim Lieberum wrote, the July 16 letter
th
from Male, and Male’s August letter, and try to condense that into one document that says,
here’s what’s happening.
MR. JONES-Basically, in reference to his comments one through eight in that July letter, he has
agreed with us on Item Number One, he’s looking for us to add some spot elevations to the four
corners of the pump island, and on the top of the drain that we’re proposing at the western
access drive. We had shown some spot elevations. He would like us to provide more along
that trench drain and several more around the canopy.
MR. VOLLARO-When you talk to the spot elevations, what drawing are you on, SP-2?
MR. JONES-On Drawing SP-2, yes, I’m sorry, Bob.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JONES-Are you on the revised? No, you’re on the original.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the original? There’s another drawing I should be looking at?
MR. RINGER-Yes, we didn’t the other drawing. We’re on the 5/10.
MR. HILTON-You didn’t get these drawings?
MR. RINGER-5/10 is the one we have.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got 5/10/03.
MR. JONES-You should have one that has revised 8/8/03 up in the upper right hand corner.
MR. RINGER-We didn’t get that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that your date? Is that where you mark your revision dates?
MR. JONES-Yes. Right here.
MR. VOLLARO-I think I’m looking at the older plan.
MR. JONES-You’re looking at the original. That’s why you were asking about what you were
asking. Now I understand. I didn’t realize.
MR. HILTON-Which, you know, in the applicant’s defense, I guess, not that he needs any, he
did submit it, and, you know, I apologize for the fact that you don’t have it, but they did submit
it, and it was supposed to be distributed to you. We have one in the file.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s do this. Obviously we’re going to table this thing. The ZBA
meets again next Wednesday. So push them on to ZBA’s agenda for next Wednesday, back on
this agenda like tonight’s for next Tuesday night. Put that condensed version that Bob’s looking
for in the stormwater thing, and have it to Staff by Friday, for distribution to us over the
weekend with Staff notes, because they come out on Friday. I guess that’s a fair thing to do, at
this point. Are there other issues that he needs to address before Friday so we can cover all
uncertainties?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John has got a couple of things.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t we just keep going with our comments, and if we can get
Mr. Jones to respond to the stuff by Friday, so that it can be distributed to us. Robert, do you
have anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. Just one quick one, Mr. Jones, on your site development data, you
might as well go to your Site Development Data sheet, where you talk about percent non-
permeable. I think there’s just a slight mistake on that.
MR. JONES-Yes. We had it backwards.
MR. VOLLARO-You had it backwards.
MR. JONES-That was pointed out to us by Staff, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The 30.5 or the 69.52 ought to be in that slot.
MR. JONES-Yes. It was correct on our SP-1, but it was incorrect on the other one.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I noticed the permeability requirement here is 30%, and we’re just
sneaking by with 30.5 here. It’s tight, and that’s what I.
MR. JONES-We’re actually at 31.9 now.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve moved up?
MR. JONES-Yes, we keep moving up.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then what I had to go on in my review was 30.5, and my notes say, you
know, this is plus or minus. We’re in that plus or minus region here.
MR. JONES-Yes. We actually computed it in the computer, which is pretty darn accurate. The
other thing, too, in defense of that percentage, is that fact that those two large islands toward
Route 9 are now totally green. Granted they’re not on our property, but they’re now green
space which is adjacent to our property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but this calculation is based on your parcel area of 21,692. Right?
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything else, other than that
correction, but if he’s corrected it already, that’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. You mean by green space, Mr. Jones, you mean grass?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes. Other than stormwater, my other big concern is, and this is hard to
describe using words, but if I’m accessing your site from the northern entrance, which is the
two way exits, and I pull up to the gas pumps, which are in parallel, and according to Stewart’s
aren’t the most efficient, but, nevertheless, I pull up, I fill up with gas, I go in and pay. Now
how do I exit?
MR. JONES-You come out on Glenwood Avenue.
MR. STROUGH-I drive all the way over to Glenwood Avenue?
MR. JONES-Yes. If you’re coming from the north, the easiest way to get off the site is to go to
Glenwood and hit the light.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to take a right and go out
your one way street onto Route 9.
MR. JONES-I wouldn’t advise that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I’m going to do, because that’s what they do at the
Cumberland Farms on the corner of Ridge Road and Quaker. Right next to the intersection,
where I didn’t think it was a good idea to put one, and that’s a one way, and people are coming.
I think I’ve got to agree with Staff, you know, to keep this less confusing, I’d like to see that one
way eliminated, not only because of the problem I pointed out, there’s an internal possible
traffic flow conflict. There’s also external traffic flow conflicts, being as close to that intersection
with Glenwood Avenue. I think I have to agree with Staff on this one. I have a problem with
that one way access.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. JONES-That one way access does conform to DOT standards, as far as distances to
Glenwood Avenue. So I know DOT. I know what you’re saying. The purpose of the one way
is to collect the traffic heading north. If the person has to go all the way to the northernmost
entrance, they’ll go to the next gas station.
MR. RINGER-It also could create confusion if he does go up there, then he’s got to come
around.
MR. JONES-Yes, he’s got to loop around.
MR. RINGER-I kind of like the one way that you’ve got there, only I’d really like to make it in
such a manner that it would almost prohibit a right hand turn coming out of there, and similar
to what Price Chopper has done, even more so than what Price Chopper has done for their
southerly turn off.
MR. STROUGH-Well, possibly additional signage could do that, Larry. I mean, because during
the winter, a lot of times that’s going to be snow covered and people aren’t going to see that it’s
one way.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t say signage, John, I said make it in such a way that it almost discourages
a car from making a right hand turn.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you might convince me there, Larry.
MR. RINGER-I mean, people are going to do it anyway, John. I mean, they do it at Lowe’s.
MR. STROUGH-Or you could eliminate it and they won’t do it.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I think by eliminating it and making that one up there it’s going to create
more problems for the people coming in north and then trying to come back around to the
pump.
MR. JONES-Yes. They’re going to almost have to stop to make the right turn.
MR. RINGER-Right, and then come around, and they could meet people coming out of there. I
think it’s good to have it there, and I think they’ve just got to make it in such a manner.
MR. JONES-And we are proposing signage from Route 9 that says one way in, and then signage
from the back side that says do not enter, and it is post signage that would be five foot.
MR. RINGER-You’re not going to stop everybody. I mean, Burger King is the same thing.
They’ve got a sign don’t do it, but the people do it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’ll give the Board something to think about until next week. So I’m
going to drop that, Mr. Jones.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to stay on traffic for one more question.
MR. STROUGH-Go ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-The in and out on Glenwood Avenue, the other day I parked in this lot, and I
tried to make a left going down toward Quaker out of here.
MR. JONES-Okay.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Very hard to do. When people are coming southbound on US 9, a lot of them
make that right turn at this light on Glenwood, even if the light is red, they stop and make that
right. You’ve got a continuous flow of traffic here almost all the time, trying to make a left out
of here, going down toward Quaker, is very hard. I waited. It took me about four minutes to
get an opening to go through, and that’s on.
MR. STROUGH-Exit over here on Route 9, and try and go south.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a similar problem, cross traffic.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s why you’ve got to go up Glenwood.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’re giving the Board something to think about.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Now, what do your canopies look like?
MR. JONES-There’s elevation drawings on there. They’re similar to, they’re what they call a
colonial design.
MR. STROUGH-Did I miss them?
MR. JONES-They’re on Drawing SP-2.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re on SP-2, yes. That shouldn’t have changed.
MR. JONES-I don’t believe it did. We might have moved them around a little bit, because we
added some details. It’s basically what they call a colonial design. It’s similar to Cumberland
Farms, down across, no, down further on Route 9 heading north.
MR. STROUGH-It’s similar to that Mobil picture we had.
MR. JONES-No, it is not Mobil.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got different drawings up there than I do on SP-2.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he’s got the updated drawings. We don’t have them.
MR. JONES-We added details to the sheet and rearranged them.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I’m going to wait until I get the updates, because everything’s
running into that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-You weren’t alone on your questions on the canopy, John. Because I had the
same questions. During your presentation, you said that C.T. Male didn’t want open grates
over the?
MR. JONES-They did not want them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because they were concerned about contamination. How would any
contaminants get into there? And what were they thinking would?
MR. JONES-I think they’re thinking about a car leaking fuel in the driveway. Basically the slope
of the site runs from Glenwood Avenue to the south, all the way to the north. It’s basically a
slope across the entire site. If someone were to park at one of the pumps or in one of the
parking spaces along that east property line, basically and they were leaking fuel and it was a
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
rainstorm or a snowstorm, it’s going to sheet in that direction, and I think they were concerned
in that regard.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’re going to get some of that anyway. Just by the nature of
automobiles and the site.
MR. JONES-It’s going to be tough to mitigate that, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess really my specific question was about the actual drywells
themselves. Because they’re, if I understand the plans correctly, they’re actually on green space.
MR. JONES-They’re right adjacent to the green space. That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So you’re not going to have a car parking over the top of the drywell.
MR. JONES-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just a curiosity question more than anything. I would guess I would agree
with the rest of the Board. It’s kind of hard to ask questions when we don’t have the up to date
information. Nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Metivier?
MR. METIVIER-I guess I have a question about the tanks. Are you sure that those tanks were
replaced, and that they’re fiberglass tanks?
MR. HUMAN-They don’t need to be.
MR. JONES-No.
MR. HUMAN-As a matter of fact, New York State requires that only all new tanks after
December 1, 1986 be a double wall, that’s a tank over 1,000 gallons and larger, and is corrosion
resistant. It doesn’t need to be fiberglass. It could be a corrosion resistant steel tank. It (lost
word) have to be protected, internally, externally coated, etc. Those tanks there are (lost words)
protected steel tanks. They do meet current standards. As does the piping. The existing, the
dispensers that are there now.
MR. METIVIER-I just don’t ever remember it being replaced in all those years. Because the
pumps are old. So I thought if the pumps were old the tanks would be old. Okay.
MR. HUMAN-Yes, but the current regulations call for tanks, certain gas companies, go back in
history, certain gas companies installed tanks that were more environmentally friendly than
what was required, (lost words) steel tank in the ground, prior to those regulations coming out,
and those tanks, those three tanks, were of the same type. There are a Stip Three tank, steel tank
institute, three way protected, they have a coating on the outside, (lost words) anodes. They
were updated with an oppressed current corrosion resistant system, and they also have a State
of the Art tank monitoring system, leak detection system installed, as a daily in tank test, static
test. So you’ll see sites that have these tanks that are installed by the majors years ago that meet
the current regulations because they were far ahead of the time at that time. There was
companies back in the 70’s installing fiberglass tanks, whereas it didn’t become very large, you
know, standard practice until the mid eighties, or corrosion resistant steel tanks until the mid
eighties, but there are manufacturers, or major oil jobbers that insisted on that, on one of those
sites, and that was one of them.
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from the Board members?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Just a real quick analysis on something, so that I make sure I’m on the right
track. With respect to the four to one ratio, Mr. Jones, under canopy one we have an average
light level of 23.8. At least that’s what Staff has given us as an average light level.
MR. JONES-Yes, that’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Now what I usually do is divide that by four and make sure that the minimum
is no lower than that, and that’s the four to one ratio. That’s how you arrive at it. So in this case
your minimum is 18 from canopy one, and it’s 11.5 for canopy two. So I think you’ve met the
four to one ratio. Do you agree with that?
MR. JONES-Yes, in terminology I do, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s all I wanted to make sure. I wanted to make sure the Board
understands how we arrive at four to one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. For tabling purposes, we’re looking for the new drawing to be
submitted to us. We’re also looking for the comments from C.T. Male, Warren County Soil, to
be combined, I guess, in a report form, relevant to the stormwater plan. Am I correct?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct. So there’s three documents integrated together, the July
16, the August, and the letter from July 21 from Jim Lieberum.
thst
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-We need a set of updated drawings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff has them already. Are you planning on updating your drawings again
based on the C.T. Male letter of today?
MR. JONES-We’ll be adding some spot elevations, that type of thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it something you can get to Staff, get to Town Hall by Friday noon?
MR. JONES-What’s today?
MR. MAC EWAN-Tuesday. You’ve got all of tonight, all of.
MR. JONES-Yes. I’m sure we can.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. See if you can supply that report and revised drawings, because
they’ll be delivering Staff notes to us Friday afternoon. That’s why I ask.
MR. JONES-Yes. It’s basically just SP-2 where we have to add the notations, and we’ve already
revised SP-1.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Very good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does the revised drawing have the canopy?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the revised drawing will be what’s on the board, I think.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you guys looking for architectural details, colors and stuff like that?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking for a nice looking canopy. I said that last time, but is this
canopy going to be lit?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. JONES-No, it is not a lit canopy. It’s a white material with colonial moldings and like a
raised panel, in between the verticals.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does the detail on that, it’s hard to see from here, show that, or do you have
another detail of that canopy?
MR. JONES-I have a set of shop drawings, but they don’t really show what it looks like. We
can, it looks like the Cumberland Farms that was approved down on Route 9 toward the drive-
in theater.
MR. RINGER-Route 9 and Kendrick.
MR. JONES-Yes. Similar to that white fascia.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe it’ll answer some questions. Can you copy those shop drawings and
put them as part of your packet with us?
MR. JONES-Yes. How about if we, can we get some pictures of what it looks like?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave that up to you. If you guys supply us some additional information.
We’ve got to stay ahead of the curve here.
MR. JONES-Yes. We’ll supply additional information as far as what it looks like.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Very good.
MR. JONES-We can do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I apologize on behalf of Staff for the mix up, but in their defense, their
workload is pretty well stressed out these days. Things slip through the cracks every once in a
while. Very good. We’ll see you then next Tuesday night.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY
AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10A LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF LAND [11.16
ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WITH THE BALANCE IN LAKE LUZERNE]
INTO FIVE (5) LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE:
NONE FOUND APA TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47 LOT SIZE: 11.16 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is not a public hearing scheduled for a Sketch.
MR. RINGER-Okay. George?
MR. HILTON-Okay. Really quickly, just to summarize my notes, as you mentioned, it’s five
lots into approximately 10 acres in size, 38.84 acres in Lake Luzerne, 11.16 in Queensbury. At
the time of Preliminary and Final, it’s anticipated that this will be reviewed as a SEQRA
Unlisted action, requiring a Full Environmental Assessment Form. This is a unique application
in that it involves land in two municipalities. It’s quite possible that the Town of Lake Luzerne
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
or the Adirondack Park Agency could be Lead Agent, in terms of SEQRA review, at the time of
Preliminary and Final. We would suggest that some comment from the APA or Lake Luzerne,
Town of Lake Luzerne, be provided at that time. Also it appears that there are some areas of
the site with slopes in excess of 25%, and this information should be provided at the time of
Preliminary, in order to calculate an allowable residential density, and just in looking at the
Sketch Plan, the boundary between the lands of Newbury and a parcel to the east as shown as
the Lake Luzerne/Queensbury Town line. However, on Map S-1 that boundary has been
relocated, and I guess just a question, is that a boundary line adjustment or is that based on a
survey? If it is a boundary line adjustment, the area of the parcel off site shouldn’t be reduced
or cannot be reduced below 10 acres as the zoning requires. This land is zoned LC-10A. That’s
all we have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Thank you, George. Okay. When Bob and I sat in on the completeness
review, the question came, Bob and I both had questions about the two Towns involved, and we
asked you to contact counsel. Did you get an opportunity to talk to counsel about this, have
counsel educate us on how we work?
MR. HILTON-Personally I didn’t. I know our Zoning Administrator contacted the APA, and
they gave them just a rough answer that, yes, they will have the input, and they’ll be involved,
and that it is quite possible that they would be Lead Agent, and that’s all we really have at this
point. That’s really all we have. That’s all we found out.
MR. RINGER-Well, I thought. Okay. Go ahead, Mark.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t believe Staff has indicated that they’ve contacted counsel, and I
don’t believe Staff has contacted counsel, but I’m not unfamiliar with similar situations, and I
can make some comments, if you like.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, we were, you know, Bob and I had never seen this before, and we
thought if counsel could, you know, let us know a little bit about what we do with situations
like this.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it’s situations like this in which properties are located in more than
one municipality are sort of classically ripe for coordinated SEQRA review. It doesn’t make
much sense, practically or legally, in my opinion, for each Town to pretend that the other
doesn’t exist, and that the property doesn’t extend beyond the municipal boundary. For
example here, as I understand it, if we only look at the Queensbury portion, I haven’t seen the
map, but it sounds to me like a number of the lots are divided by the municipal boundary, in
such a fashion that most, if not all of the lots would not meet our minimum lot size if we only
look at the Queensbury portions. I’m sure it’s not come up a whole lot here, and I don’t
remember it coming up a whole lot here in front of this Board, but it’s not unheard of in the
world. Obviously municipal boundaries don’t always respect property lines. So it sounds like
Staff has contacted the Adirondack Park Agency which has given what at least to me sounded
like a somewhat non-definitive answer as to its jurisdiction. I don’t know if the applicant has
anything to enlighten us with about APA jurisdiction, but at the very least, a coordination
between the two municipalities would seem very appropriate.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. Back to Craig.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. RINGER-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Mr. Newbury who’s with me tonight. A
couple f things that had Staff had brought up, that this is property located on the west side of
Cormus Road, and it does incorporate into two municipalities, Queensbury and Luzerne.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
Staff’s comments, as far as Sheet C-1, which is the location map based upon tax maps, and the S-
1 is the actual survey of the property, and the depiction of the Town of Queensbury, Town of
Lake Luzerne line is correct on the survey. There is approximately 18 acres in the Town of
Queensbury, and the remainder in the Town of Luzerne. If you look at S-1, that line is basically
the back of Lot 2, which would be the westerly side of Lot 2, and then traverses right through
basically the middle of Lots 4 and 1, and then about, as far as depth wise, about half way back
through Lot 5, but it takes in about a third of the area of Lot 5. As far as coordinated review,
yes, contacting Luzerne, because it fronts on Cormus Road, that is in Queensbury, come here
with a conceptual plan, told them that we were going to be doing five lots in both Towns, and
they don’t really have a problem, but I wanted to come to this Board, first to get some input
from them, of how they wanted to proceed with this. Luzerne would be more than happy to do
according to review or pass it on to you. I will go back to them after I have comments from this
Board, and as far as APA is concerned, every application that’s within the Adirondack Park
Agency has to be sent to them. That’s correct. So we will be sending that to them, as well as
after comments from this Board at Sketch Plan, taking it immediately over to the Town of Lake
Luzerne.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, based on my experience, I would think you’d really want to hear
from APA before you go much further, because APA is likely to, I mean, I can’t make a
prediction here, but APA certainly may have input that substantially effects the configuration of
the proposed subdivision. Again, I’m just speaking from past experience, including
subdivisions that have and have not been on municipal boundaries, and I think Staff indicated
that APA indicated some possible Lead Agency role. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,
only because if it’s subject to APA jurisdiction, it’s probably going to be exempt from SEQRA,
and APA will take the lead on environmental review, but it won’t be SEQRA reviewed, per se.
So, to my way of thinking, at least, there’s an awful lot of jumbled up here, without knowing for
sure if it is or isn’t subject to APA jurisdiction. I don’t know if Mr. Steves meant specifically or
explicitly what he said but it’s not the case that every single application in the Adirondack Park
needs to be submitted to the Adirondack Park Agency. There are some that are non-
jurisdictional, but I believe the applicant is stating that this is jurisdictional, and I think he’s
right.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So we’d suggest that you, have you submitted anything to the APA yet?
MR. STEVES-No. In conversations with the APA, as you will recall on other applications that
I’ve had, and numerous other applications that have been in front of the Board that are within
the APA, the APA kind of waits to see if a Preliminary approval, they kind of put the cart in
front of the horse. They play a Catch 22 lots of times. I can’t get an APA approval without a
Town approval. Town says I can’t get an approval from them without an APA approval. I
understand that I get caught in the middle of that frequently as this Board realizes. I will gladly
write a letter, send this copy to the APA, and ask for the input prior to coming back to this
Board with any kind of Preliminary application, with some kind of a definitive answer from the
Adirondack Park of how they’re going to look at this application, but right now I guess what
I’m looking at from this Board is we understand that there is at least two entities, most likely
three, review agencies that will be involved, being Luzerne, Queensbury, and the Adirondack
Park Agency. I will contact the Adirondack Park Agency, but most of the time they want some
input back from the Town, as far as they don’t want to take the time to review and act upon an
application that they know that this Board will never approve. So, I guess what I’m looking for
conceptually is whether or not, and that’s why we’re here only as concept, to see if,
conceptually, does this subdivision work for you, and if it does, then I can continue on.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I think that’s not inappropriate. The way Mr. Steves has now
expressed that desire, I don’t think, is inappropriate. I mean, APA, it’s likely that APA would
not issue any, he’s right, would not issue any decision prior to having more formal input from
this Board, but again, I’m going to reiterate, I think for this type of subdivision, with the two
municipalities involved, and just to add a wrinkle, our municipality has what’s called an APA
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
approved Local Land Use Plan. The Town of Lake Luzerne does not have what’s called an APA
approved Local Land Use Plan. So that will likely enhance or increase the amount of APA
involvement in the overall subdivision review, but certainly I don’t disagree with the notion
that, to the extent that this is just an informal Sketch Plan item anyway, it’s certainly not
inappropriate for you to provide any informal feedback you may have so that the applicant
knows, you know, if this is something reasonable to go to APA with, or not reasonable. Those
are my words, but I think that’s essentially what the applicant’s looking for.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s not inappropriate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Comments relative to the subdivision design? We’ll start with Cathy.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I have a couple of things here. Set me straight on this, Matt.
Inside the Adirondack Park Agency, I thought, now, that you could not have a dwelling on less
than 40 acres of land, but this is zoned LC-10 within the Town.
MR. STEVES-Correct. As Mark has stated, the Town of Queensbury has an approved plan, and
so the zoning in the area that is approved by the Town is part of the approved plan with the
APA, Luzerne does not. I believe the overall density in this area of 8.2 acres of the APA, this
would conform with, but we will send it to the APA immediately after this Board. What I want
to know from you is whether or not you see any significant design problems. There’s no new
roads. We’re trying to create the lots in the conformity of where the housing sites would be
placed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was my second question.
MR. STEVES-The Staff did have some comments about steep slopes. We will provide that
information, but based upon USGS topography, looking at the way we cut this up, this is what
works, and like I say, no new roads. All off the existing road, and the majority of those steeper
slopes are a little bit on the western side, but predominantly on the south end. If you head over
Luzerne Road, and you hit Cormus Road heading over to Luzerne, you know you flatten right
out there. You do drop down slightly as you’re heading on Luzerne Road to the west, but the
more the change is back in the southwest corner, and we will denote all that. There might be a
slight waiver we might need from this Board, because of the fact that most of the lots are over
10 acres, 10.61, 10.28, 10.29, 10.93. I don’t think we’ll have a problem meeting, even if we take
out the 25% slopes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now my second question is, what’s this land right here, that’s not
striped? Right here.
MR. STEVES-That’s another parcel owned by somebody else along Luzerne Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, that’s what I thought you were going to use this to be
accessible with the Luzerne Road, or you’re going to use Cormus Road?
MR. STEVES-Cormus Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. My next question is, down here there’s a logging road where the
school bus turns. Is that quite a bit, another 100 yards or so down?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, and my fourth question is, does the Town of Lake Luzerne have
a Planning Board, or would we be working with their Town Board?
MR. STEVES-They have a Planning Board.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They do have a Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s required by law.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is required by law?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there are towns. It’s not necessarily required by law. It depends
what regulations you have in place. The Town of Lake Luzerne does have a Planning Board
and you’d be working with the Town of Lake Luzerne Planning Board, but again remember
that it’s, and it does have zoning and it does have subdivision regulations, but unlike
Queensbury, those are not APA approved. So it’s not an APA approved local land use plan.
Just before we leave this, I just want to make sure Cathy doesn’t leave this meeting thinking that
whatever you said about all land within the Adirondack Park has a minimum lot size of 40
acres, that’s not correct. So I don’t want you to think that. That’s not correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I guess it’s not all, but I know people that have bought parcels of land
in the Park.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. There’s one zoning classification that has that, but you said
something about all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. All right.
MR. STEVES-That zoning classification doesn’t pertain to this site.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. I understand. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just have one comment. Four fifths of this land lays in Lake Luzerne and
about a fifth lays in Queensbury?
MR. STEVES-No. Well, about 18 acres lay in Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 18 and 38.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thirty-six percent.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. STEVES-Right. It’s about 30, not a fifth.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, about 30. Under that basis, it seems to me that Lake Luzerne has a
fairly large concern here. They would probably be in the Lead Agency role, or not?
MR. STEVES-Basically, talking to them, to come here first, because it comes off Cormus Road.
Lot Two is all of Queensbury. So the residence, and Lot Two would be in Queensbury. The
cleared area that exists on Lot One might most likely would be the residential portion of Lot
One, which is in Queensbury, and as you’ll see when the topography is placed, that the
developable area of Lot Four is predominantly in Queensbury. So I mean there is a coordinated
review, no question. We’re not denying that, and when we get to the next step you’re going to
see, you know, all the engineering, the topography, the soil tests, the house layout, the clearing
limits, and you’ll see why this configuration has developed, but I didn’t want to get to that
extreme and spend my client’s money until we had some kind of an idea from this Board, you
know, the one fact that there’s not any new road, new infrastructure, new utilities, we’re using
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
the existing Cormus Road. Do you have any problem with traffic on Cormus Road with five
new lots? Do you have any concerns with the separation on driveways, shared driveways with
two of the lots, that’s the kind of input we’re looking for. So then I can sketch this on and send
it to the other two agencies.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, in other words, you have ideas of what kind of road system you want,
but you haven’t really?
MR. STEVES-They’re all just going to be driveways off Cormus Road.
MR. RINGER-No new roads.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but there’s the ones in the back have to go to the other lots, unless
you make double.
MR. STEVES-No. Every lot here fronts on Cormus Road. They will all have access on Cormus
Road for their own driveway.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. Okay. That’s right. That dotted line threw me off. Okay. Gotcha.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I guess that’s it. As far as the Sketch Plan is concerned, do you have any
idea where you’re going to set anything on this?
MR. STEVES-Bob, the cleared area on Lot One, I’ll go over that, is the site that will be used for
the house. I mean, it’s there. Lot Two would be basically the same distance off of Cormus
Road, basically right smack dab in the middle of Lot Two. Lot Three the predominant spot
there would be on the southerly third of that property, in the Town of Lake Luzerne.
MR. VOLLARO-Is the frontage for Lot Three that 75 feet?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And the Lot Four would be basically right around the Town line, and Lot Five
would be in Luzerne. You could build up close, but I would imagine (lost words). Jim would
probably know a lot more about the lay of the land, but, all right, you could place them about
anywhere, but if you’re asking me for the optimal spots, that’s where they would be, but I will
fine tune that once we put the topography on.
MR. VOLLARO-Because you talked a minute ago about maybe shared driveways. Do you
think that’s going to be practical here?
MR. STEVES-No, I don’t, but that’s why I’m asking the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I don’t, either, just looking at it.
MR. STEVES-I mean, you know, there’s only, dead end road, there’s only a few other residents
on the other side, and it’s not a high traffic area. You have two driveways that are now, so
you’re talking the additional three driveways. I don’t see a major concern.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see a major concern either.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STEVES-I know it’s sketchy, but that’s why it’s a Sketch Plan, but like I say, I want to have
some information from this Board, unless you see something that jumps right out at you and
says no way. I assure you this will work. I might have to fine tune a line or two between one or
two of the lots, after the topography is placed on there, but this would be basically what you’re
going to see, and that’s what Sketch Plan’s for. We’re looking for five lots, all fronting on
Cormus Road, basically three of them will have their residence within Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems to me that the owner of Lot Three has got to have himself some pretty
good traffic. He’s going to have to plow 500 feet.
MR. RINGER-Look at Lot Five.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four will, too, if he wants to go on the, by the Town line.
MR. STEVES-When I build on Lot Three, I’ll buy myself a big truck.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Exactly. That’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, have you got anything?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I have a list of concerns, but they wouldn’t be so many concerns. It says
here in our Subdivision of Land Chapter A183, what’s supposed to be in a Sketch Plan. 183-6.
Sketch Plan. I’ll go over a few things. The scale should be one inch equals 50 feet. Include all
the topographical features, grade contours and two foot intervals, existing water courses,
wetlands, etc. What’s wood, what’s open, flood plains, I don’t think that applies here, right of
ways or easements, all contiguous properties and the names of the owners, and blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah. I mean, it goes on. I’m not going to read the whole thing, but just for a Sketch Plan,
where it’s supposed to include all that.
MR. STEVES-And I asked for waivers from most of that, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you gotten them yet?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-But that’s why I’m at Sketch Plan. As I stated before, and as I’ll state again, I
understand what it is for, especially when you’re looking at a new development with a lot of
internalized road. When you’re looking at a piece of property like this, that you’re asking Mr.
Newbury to spend, you know, an eight, ten thousand dollars worth of topography and stuff
like that just to get a feel of whether or not five lots in this configuration are even feasible, we
come up here and you say, no, that’s an awful lot to go through, and that’s why we come up
here with a Sketch Plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-But, conversely, you’re asking us to give a conceptual idea to a subdivision
without enough information in front of us to make an intelligent decision. You walk out the
door and you come back with Preliminary, and the first words out of your mouth are going to
be, well, you guys didn’t have an issue with it at Sketch Plan.
MR. STEVES-No, and what did I ask for first, Mr. Chairman, I asked for your input from this
Sketch Plan so that I can move forward.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re getting it.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-All right. So, for example, I can’t tell you if I like the lot layout because I don’t
see the contour layout. I don’t know what are wetlands and what are not. I mean, I can’t tell
you anything. So, I’m, you know, I’m only one person.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m in agreement with you on that, at least the contours, because Staff is
making comments in their notes to us, there’s some real steep slopes on there. So how do we
know what the builder.
MR. STEVES-That’s fine. That’s what I want to know. I’ll put that on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not only that, but our site visit confirmed that there are steep slopes.
MR. STEVES-Yes, no question.
MR. STROUGH-And A183-1 Paragraph B, I’ll summarize, and shall be of such width, grade,
location as to accommodate, facilitate fire protection and to provide access of fire fighting
equipment to buildings. We can’t tell that unless we see the contours, if that’s going to be a
concern, but I do have a couple of other questions. Now, is this all in the APA? The entire
project?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s all zoned LC-10 acre?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-In Queensbury.
MR. STEVES-In Queensbury.
MR. STROUGH-In Queensbury. What is it zoned in Lake Luzerne?
MR. STEVES-I believe it’s also ten acre.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So, in other words, Luzerne wouldn’t be able to subdivide this any
further, would they?
MR. STEVES-No. Well, we could put a condition on that, if we ever move forward, that it
wouldn’t be subdivided any further, but, no, it could not. That would be irrelevant to put that
in there. No. It could not go any farther.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, that’s all I have. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just kind of want to agree with John. I think he made some good
comments. I mean, just looking at this as a flat piece of paper, and ignoring any potential
contours, you know, we sort of joked about some of the driveway lanes, you know, that was
really my first thought, concern when I looked at some of the proposed lot lines, particularly
Lot Three and Lot Five. I actually think Lot Five would have the longer driveway of the two,
but, you know, thinking out loud, you know, why you didn’t draw the line differently between
Lot Two and Lot Three, so that, you know, you wouldn’t have a six or seven foot long, six or
seven hundred foot long driveway, but without the other information and details, you know,
you can’t make that determination. Other than that, I don’t have much else to comment on. It’s
beautiful property. I love going up there, but I don’t know how I would feel, personally, about
trying to get up there in the wintertime.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I guess I would have an issue, issues with Lots Three and probably Five. I
mean, what happens with fire, schools, stuff like that? I mean, if you have a fire, who would
have to respond to a house on Lot Three?
MR. STEVES-What’s your concern with that? If you had a driveway that was accessible, 16 feet
in width, all the way to the house, what would be the concern? It’s not like you have traffic on
that road that a truck would get into.
MR. METIVIER-No, no. I’m saying, would Lake Luzerne have to respond because the house is
in Luzerne?
MR. STEVES-That I do not know.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good question.
MR. STEVES-I could find that out for you.
MR. METIVIER-I just don’t know. I apologize if I missed this. Why aren’t these more divided
so you could have every house in Queensbury? And I mean, again, I do apologize if I missed
that.
MR. STEVES-Well, the existing farm is basically on Lot Two, and we couldn’t really divide out
that existing house and barn that’s on there, creating straight, you know, evenly spaced lots.
You couldn’t do it, and what would happen if you try to get around the existing house and
barn, and keeping them on one lot, and keeping the existing cleared area on Lot One that you
can tell there’s going to be a house sit, then what happens with the rest of them, then you end
up with a nonconforming lot of less than 10 acres.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe you can only do four lots.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I would look at this, the only thing I would look at is the issue of fire
with who would respond. I know, you know, it might not be a huge deal, but, you know, you
just have to decide, I guess, and I don’t know what the, maybe Larry knows. I don’t know.
MR. RINGER-The chances are it would be an automatic mutual aid, on a 911 system, and so,
you know, an alarm on Lot Four would probably come out to West and Luzerne, and they’d
both respond. We do that now with a couple of places in the Town where the, you know,
they’re on the borderline of both Companies, but I would guess that’s the way they’d handle it.
If 911 came through, it would be flagged that when this one showed up, because (lost words)
come out to both Luzerne and West. I assume this is a West Glens Falls Fire.
JIM NEWBURY
MR. NEWBURY-They have had a drill on my property and dumped some serious water in the
side pasture.
MR. METIVIER-Would you be up for just four lots, or are you adamant about having five?
MR. NEWBURY-I would like to do the five, and just the way, like Lot Five is flat. The driveway
for Lot Three is flat. The only slope of a driveway is Lot One, which is all views. It’s 360
degrees of view.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. METIVIER-And we drove over there. I mean, I think that’s where we were. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-I would think so, yes.
MR. NEWBURY-Everything’s flat except for the driveway for One.
MR. RINGER-Could you show us a plan with four?
MR. STEVES-I think your concerns with the topography to note, as Jim just stated, the steeper
areas in the back of Lot Five, which don’t affect the driveway, and on Lot One, because of the
views there, and that’s the existing cleared area, they’re going to be all very level driveways on
the rest of the three lots, four lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-I look at it from a different angle. Our Subdivision Regulations tell us that
we should not support the development of flag-shaped lots. As you have it now with five lots,
you’re creating at least two flag-shaped lots. If you went to four lots, you would alleviate that
problem.
MR. STEVES-I’d still have a flag-shaped lot, no matter what I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d request you to demonstrate that for us.
MR. STEVES-Because of the property, the bulk of the property on the south end of this does not
front on Cormus Road, I have to make an “L” no matter what I do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the other concern I have is Lots Five, Three and Four, the closeness of
each one of those driveways and the narrow strip where you’ve got to come out on Cormus
Road. Those driveways are all going to be right on top of each other.
MR. STEVES-We can make adjustments for that.
MR. MAC EWAN-My preference is to see four lots that are not quite as flag-shaped. That’s my
preference.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to see the contour lines. The question I’ve got for you is the Luzerne
portion of these lots, are they landlocked on the back side? You can’t gain access to them in any
way from Lake Luzerne?
MR. NEWBURY-It’s 1,000 acres of nothing behind there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Who owns that, do you know, off hand?
MR. NEWBURY-Mike Brandt, an estate.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They log it all the time back in there. They log it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are you people looking for to be on this plat? The contours are a must.
MR. VOLLARO-Contour lines, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We could have some flexibility in that.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, the contour lines are a must. Any wetlands, if there’s any
wetlands.
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of us are talking about our preference is, yes, a four lot subdivision
versus a five lot subdivision. What’s the consensus of the Board?
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, you mentioned flagged subdivisions, and we have two lots,
and there’s twenty plus acres here.
MR. STEVES-It would be right in the middle of the existing house, would be one straight.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, I don’t know because.
MR. STEVES-I’m just telling you that. We will come in with an alternative design besides this
one. We will come in with a four and five lot design, and that way if we can persuade the
Board for five lots, with our design, once we have all the information, otherwise we’ll have the
four lots to show you also.
MR. RINGER-Once we see it, you know, you’re right, but show us.
MR. MAC EWAN-At Sketch Plan, Matt, it seems like if we can get you to put on there the
contours, and any wetlands that are on the property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And give us an idea of who owns the adjacent property.
MR. STEVES-I have all those names. I’ll place them all on there.
MR. STROUGH-I’m willing to give you the waiver on the one inch equals 50 feet, because I’d
rather look at it on one page, like you have.
MR. STEVES-And as far as contours for Sketch, do you want to see like five or ten footers,
instead of two foot, and then we could just do two foot?
MR. MAC EWAN-Ten foot contours, I think would be satisfactory.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, ten.
MR. MAC EWAN-For Sketch. Saves you some work.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Two would be really difficult.
MR. STEVES-And as far as wetlands, we’ll give you copies, when we have copies, from the
Adirondack Park Agency, that there’s no wetlands on the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-The entrances to the flag lots, one has got a 75 foot width and the other is 80. It
seems to me that, even though they’re flag, they’ve got quite a bit of Cormus Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-The first thing that jumped out at me was the design of flag shaped lots,
which our Subdivision Regulations say we should steer away from, shouldn’t encourage them.
MR. STROUGH-Well, as long as the driveway can be straight, but if there’s terrain where the
driveway has to.
MR. STEVES-And I wholeheartedly understand. We’ll come up with those, and we’ll show you
the reasons why.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and.
MR. STEVES-And we’ll come back with a plan that shows all that and we’ll submit that plan
with a cover letter to the APA and a carbon copy to this Board as well as to the Town of Lake
Luzerne
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, Matt, also could you give us an idea of where the dwelling would
go and how much you would propose to cut?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good. Thank you.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A
LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 +/-
ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 5.09 ACRES AND 3.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE:
SB 13-2001, AV 53-2003, APA TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-39 LOT SIZE: 8.62 +/- ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF INGLEE, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-2003, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, Meeting Date:
August 19, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 13-2003 (Preliminary & Final Stage)
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Inglee is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.62 +/- acre property into 2 single-
family lots of 5.09 +/- and 3.53 +/- acres.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on Tuthill Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned RR-5A, Rural Residential Five Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full
Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: Area Variance 53-2003, approved by the ZBA on 6/25/2003 granting relief
from the five acre minimum lot size for the RR-5A zone.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide an 8.62-acre property located
on Tuthill Rd. into two lots of 5.09 and 3.53 acres in size. The property is located on the east
side of Tuthill Rd. between Clendon Brook Rd. and Luzerne Rd. Site topography slopes to the
east, with some areas of steeper slopes in the eastern portions of this property. USGS and
NYSDOT topographic maps indicate an intermittent stream on the eastern portions of the
property. Water service and wastewater systems are proposed as private systems.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested a sketch plan waiver as a part of this
application. No additional waivers have been requested.
As previously mentioned, this site slopes to the east with some areas of steeper slopes on the
eastern portions of this property. A review of GIS data available to the Town indicates that
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
there may be some areas of slope greater than 25% on the eastern portion of this property.
These areas should be identified in order to calculate an allowable residential density as
described in § 183-22, unless otherwise waived by the Planning Board.
Have any test pits or perc tests been done to verify soil conditions in the area of the proposed
septic field?
Is there any grading or clearing proposed with the construction of the proposed home? Any
proposed grading or clearing should be identified on the proposed subdivision plat.
Topographic contours provided on the subdivision plat are in 10 ft. intervals and only cover the
front portion of the property. If any clearing, grading or construction is proposed at the rear of
the property, more detailed topographic contours may be necessary.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really briefly, the applicant has requested a Sketch Plan waiver as part of the
application. No additional waivers have been requested. Site slopes, this site slopes to the east,
with some areas of steeper slopes. A review of data available to the Town indicates that there
may be some areas greater than 25% slope on the eastern portion, and these areas should be
identified in order to calculate an allowable residential density. Question would be, have any
test pits or perc tests been done to verify soil conditions in the area of the proposed septic fields.
Is there any grading or clearing proposed with the construction, proposed construction of the
new home. Any proposed grading and clearing should be identified. Topographic contours
have been provided at 10 foot intervals, and only cover the front portion of the property. If any
clearing or grading is proposed in the rear, more detail, topographic contours may be necessary.
Just as a note, parcel history, Area Variance 53-2003, approved by the Zoning Board, granted
relief from the five acre minimum lot size for this zone for one of the lots proposed as part of
that subdivision. That’s all we have at this time until the public comment period. We do have
some comment, and if you have any questions. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Again.
MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves, and Jeff Inglee, representing this application. This is property
located on the east side of Tuthill Road. The existing house is Mr. Inglee’s current home,
proposing to create two lots of 3.53 with the existing home and 5.09 with the proposed. The
comment from Staff, any clearing, if you’ve been up there, it’s predominantly open up in that
area, but the clearing limits that would be imposed on the Lot Four are shown. The proposed
house location is exactly where Mr. Inglee would like to place that home for his daughter, and
as far as any clearing or development on the easterly end of the property, no, there isn’t any
proposed. There’s nothing that’s going to be done way in the back. All the work will be done
up in that flat area. It drops down off of Tuthill Road, as you’ve been up there to see, and then
the house would be placed with the well and the septic in that flatter area just about 100 feet off
the road. As far as perc tests, yes, perc tests have been performed on that lot, with a sustained
rate of four minutes. Soils range, they’re sandy to medium sands, a little bit of gravel, to a
depth of about five and a half feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. INGLEE-I have an opening statement I’d like to make. Members of the Board, I would
basically like to reiterate what I’ve stated to the Zoning Board. I’ve been up on Tuthill Road for
27 years, and you folks, last year, granted me permission to subdivide my lot across the road,
which I will be under construction late this summer, which leaves me with a decision to make,
what to do with my properties on the east side of Tuthill Road. Seeing as how it’s one of the
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
flattest pieces of land on Tuthill Road, I could, no doubt, sell this piece of property and probably
generate enough income to build my home free and clear, but my heart really tells me, after
spending 27 years of diligently turning this piece of land into what it is, my heart tells me I want
to pass this land off to my children. So with that in mind, we approached the Zoning Board for
relief, and, with that in mind, the last meeting with the Zoning Board I submitted, I think it’s
eight or possibly nine letters from surrounding neighbors, voicing very strong support in my
favor. I’m hoping all the members of the Planning Board have had a chance to review those
letters, because that’s pretty important with the decision making that we have to do here this
evening, but, in closing what I would like to say is that the agreement that we made with the
Zoning Board members and the neighbors, that this old house that I’m living in now has been
built in the early 1900’s. We built an addition on to the front. We built an addition on to the
back. I’ve been in the construction business for many, many years, and I do realize that this
structure holds not a lot of value. The agreement that we did make with the Town and the
Zoning Board, and the neighbors, that once the completion of both my daughter and my son’s
home was completed, that this old house would, in fact, be demolished, which would do
nothing but to increase the property value of our property, and the surrounding properties as
well, and with that, they did vote in favor to grant us permission on the relief.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you, I looked at this as, this an area of Rural Residential Five acre
zone, and I’m really having a problem, even though, again, even though the ZBA granted a
variance here, that’s essentially a re-zoning, by the ZBA, and I just don’t know that I like the
idea of a three and a half acre lot, I think a 3.5 being allowed up in that area, where it’s Rural
Residential Five acres. I’m having a basic struggle with that, because I just don’t like to see
zoning changed, if it doesn’t have to be, and I couldn’t see a benefit to the Town for this zoning
change. That’s what I was looking for. What benefit does the Town get to zone, to allow a
zoning change like that? Even though the ZBA granted it, I think, as a member of this Board, I
certainly would like to challenge that, I guess, to get a better reading from the ZBA as to what
their basis for doing that was.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of the ZBA’s approval?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I saw it. It wasn’t a unanimous one, by the way.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four to two, wasn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-Four to two. Just for the record, the ZBA’s granting this variance makes no
reference whatsoever to the existing house to be torn down after any other building activity. It
doesn’t make any reference to any building activity in their variance granted. So there were no
conditions in their granting of a variance that the existing building be torn down once
construction is completed. Anything else, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Not until we cross this bridge, I guess, until I find out how the rest of the Board
feels about this, essentially rezoning this property, because, for example, I don’t see, on Lot
Number Five, if you want to talk about the future, where, there’s an existing house that Mr.
Inglee talks about tearing down, and I don’t see where the new house would be as it’s proposed
on Lot Number Four, there’s a proposed area for the new house. Where would the proposed
house be for Lot Number Five, for example, I don’t see that on here.
MR. INGLEE-Okay. The house would be probably about 150 yards, or 150 feet off the road.
There’s like a little flat knoll that sits behind the house. That would be an ideal setting for a new
home up on the hill behind the house.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but if the agreement was to tear down the old existing house that you
presently occupy.
MR. INGLEE-Why they didn’t put that in their notes I have no idea, but I’m sure it is in the
minutes, and that’s exactly what we had agreed to do at the Zoning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-The written approval is what’s the record, and what may have been said in
the minutes is not reflected within their motion to approve the variance. So what’s is this two
page document is what’s got the teeth in it to, the decision-making.
MR. STEVES-I believe basically what was made in the motion to approve is because of the
density issues with across the street, all the land that Mr. Inglee owns, that we’re well within the
five acre average, including the three lots on the other side with 40 some odd acres, and I
believe that was the key factor for the decision by the Zoning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t necessarily agree with that, from what I’m reading.
MR. STEVES-That was the statement that was made by the Chairman at the time, just before
they called the vote.
MR. MAC EWAN-But again, Matt, what we go by is what’s written here.
MR. STEVES-I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-What may have been said in their minutes is not reflected in what was the
actual decision and the criteria they made in granting that variance, and cut to the chase, they
basically are saying that a three and a half, 3.53 acre lot is still a substantial piece of property,
you know, to kind of really basically summarize their position on this. Anything else, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess at this point, I would like to ask the Counsel for an opinion on
something. I don’t know where I stand on this. When the ZBA renders a decision to grant a
variance of this type, a zoning variance, does the Planning Board have to sort of honor that, or
are we on our own?
MR. SCHACHNER-No, you have to honor it. It doesn’t mean you have to approve the
subdivision, but you can’t, for example, lawfully deny the subdivision on the basis that you
disagree with the ZBA’s variance. It’s their authority, and by way of analogy, I’m not criticizing
you for your subjective opinion, but you will recall in the past, on occasion, from time to time,
there could be an actual rezoning, not a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, but a
rezoning by the Town Board of a piece of property, against your recommendation as a Planning
Board. That’s a situation where you actually get to make a recommendation. The Town Board
could rezone a piece of property, against your recommendation, and you’re then duty bound,
assuming it’s subject to site plan review thereafter, you’re duty bound to apply the criteria of
our zoning law as to site plan review, and you can’t deny it because you disagree with the
rezoning. These Boards have their own autonomy, and their own autonomous authority, and
you don’t have the right, legally, to basically object to them.
MR. STROUGH-You could deny it for your own reasons, as long as they’re well founded.
MR. SCHACHNER-As long as they’re in the site plan, or in this case the subdivision, criteria,
right, separate and apart from minimum lot size, correct. If you had some basis for denial,
based on the criteria for subdivision review, other than lot size, that would be a different story.
That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what if he thought that lot size was out of character with?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess the lot size you’re just going to have to buy. It sounds that way to me.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I’d be very concerned there. Because of the, I mean, I understand
where you’re heading, that character of the neighborhood is one of your criteria, but the lot size
issue has been determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They’ve got the variance. I mean,
be careful when, let’s not throw around the term rezoning too loosely, and I appreciate that Bob
has said it’s like a rezoning. It’s not actually a rezoning. Obviously it’s specific to the
subdivision and all the rest of that, but the Zoning Board of Appeals has made the decision,
rightly or wrongly, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any potential detriment to the
community. That’s it’s overriding standard on granting of an Area Variance, and it has
furthermore gone through the five specific criteria for granting of an Area Variance, and again,
rightly or wrongly, it has made the determination that those criteria weigh in favor of granting
the variance, which in this case allows the potential subdivision, with a lot smaller than the
otherwise prescribed minimum lot size, and again, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. I’m just
saying that’s their province to decide.
MR. STROUGH-Well, how about, too, if you feel, as a Planning Board member, that it’s not in
accord with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it’s not in accord with the Zoning Code, it’s not
in accord with the Open Space Plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-When you say it, if you’re referring only to the size of the lot, I’d be very
careful. I think you’re treading on, or walking on very thin ice. If you find other aspects of the
proposed subdivision to not comply with it, other than the minimum lot size, then you’re on
much safer ground.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what if you don’t mention the lot size, the way it’s subdivided, that you
don’t feel it’s in accord with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or the Open Space Plan?
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not going to beat a dead horse here, but if there are aspects of the
subdivision, other than the fact that one particular lot is three and a half acres in size, that you
feel don’t meet those criteria, then you’re on much safer ground.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I guess what I would make a comment on that, and Counsel can help me, is the
Board has to look at this as a subdivision of conforming lots, and if there’s a portion of the
Subdivision code that you have a problem with, as far as, you know, Subdivision Regulations,
then that’s what we have to talk about tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Is there any perc data here, you have a proposed septic system. Do you
have any percolation data to go along with placing the proposed septic system in that area?
MR. STEVES-Yes. We did a perc test at exactly in the center of where the proposed system is
and it had a sustained percolation rate of four minutes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that something we got to look at here?
MR. STEVES-I will gladly give copies to the Board, to the Staff, whatever you want, but, yes, we
had a four minute perc rate.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why wasn’t it supplied? Why wasn’t it provided to us in your packet?
MR. STEVES-I have it, but it wasn’t supplied to Staff. I apologize, but it’s been.
MR. RINGER-Two lot subdivision, we wouldn’t normally do it anyway.
MR. STEVES-But the soils are suitable, and the perc rate is suitable.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-If you have a proposed position for the house on Lot Four, is there a proposed
position for the house on Lot Five?
MR. INGLEE-Yes, we do have a proposed, but it’s not on the drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. INGLEE-That house right there, Bob, is going to be there, probably, my son’s going back to
college to get his master’s degree. So, consequently, it’s probably going to be three or four years
down the road before this old house is torn down anyway. So I’m just trying to set the stage
here and get things lined up to where, once my children are in a position where they can
financially afford to proceed with building their homes, that they have got these sites ready.
MR. STEVES-I would just say that there’s an existing, well, septic and house on Lot Five, and
that any new home would conform with the setbacks where the existing one does not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, I’ve got a question for you. Mr. Inglee commented that in his
agreement with the ZBA, granting of the variance, the existing old house would be torn down.
Obviously it’s not in the ZBA’s motion that that was an agreement to the condition of approval.
Is that something that’s actually could be made a condition of approval for a subdivision and
that could be enforceable from the Town?
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don’t see why not.
MR. INGLEE-We would be more than willing to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s highly unusual. I’ve never actually heard of it. Never had any
experience with it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t disagree with you, but if an applicant volunteers it, and the Board
wants to take the applicant’s representation and make it a condition by agreement, I think it
could be done, and I think it could be enforced.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Not now. Let’s hear from some of the other members of the Board. I don’t
have any other questions on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know, you know, Mr. Inglee, I kind of bent over backwards and
got your last proposal approved. I’ve taken some grief for that, but if I was to do it again, I’d do
it the same way.
MR. INGLEE-I appreciate that.
MR. STROUGH-But, you know, there’s something that bothers me, and you have, what, three
kids?
MR. INGLEE-I have three children.
MR. STROUGH-And this is five lots. You have more than enough to suit your family’s needs,
but that’s j just an aside, and, you know, like I was trying to suggest, you know, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the zoning committee, the Open Space Plan, you know, all duly
taken serious consideration of this, and they came up with, you know, Rural Residential Five
Acres, not Rural Residential Three acres, and then for some reason they decided not to pick
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
Rural Residential Three acres, and neighbors bought in the area, feeling comfortable that they
invested in property where the zoning would be fairly stable, and so they want to protect their
investment, and they want to protect their lifestyle. I think zoning is pretty sacred. I just think
that, you know, three acre is a little bit out of step with the character of this part of our Town. I
think Counsel said that’s not a good reason to deny it, but that’s my gut. I like to be personally
consistent, too. I don’t like to see things rezoned, and I voted against them when they appear to
be a rezoning, and, you know, this looks like it could be a rezoning, but it’s obviously not.
Aesthetically, I think the three acre lot is different and in contrast to the surrounding land
patterns. As far as character, I think it’s out of character with the existing character in this part
of our Town, and I think it’s contrary to our community’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, our
Open Space Plan, and our Zoning code. So, you know, to use my Chairman’s expression, I
don’t get the warm and fuzzies from the proposal, but, I’d like to see what my other Planning
Board members have to say, and I’d like to see what the members of the community have to
say, and put all the cards out on the table ultimately make up my mind.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you do your mailings?
MR. STEVES-What mailings?
MR. MAC EWAN-Notifying all the property owners of the?
MR. STEVES-No, the Town does that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does the Town do it? Have you got all the receipts back and everything?
MR. STROUGH-Well, another thing is the plat, the plats are supposed to include the names of
the surrounding property owners.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I was going to get to that, John.
MR. HILTON-We don’t have any receipts to file. I don’t think we do a return receipt. We just
mail it out. It’s not a registered mailing.
MR. MAC EWAN-When did that policy change? I’ve served on this Board for over a dozen
years, and that’s been standard operating procedure.
MR. STEVES-Two or three years ago when the Town took it over.
MR. HILTON-I can honestly say I haven’t seen return receipts.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do you know everybody was notified?
MR. HILTON-Well, we send it out, and if it comes back return to sender, then, you know, we
know that it didn’t get to them, or something’s happened with that address, but otherwise, just
the mailing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. My next question is, how come this subdivision plat, Matt, how come
this plat in the previous application you had in front of us doesn’t meet the minimums that we
need to have for our subdivision review? I mean, there’s criteria that you need to put on these
drawings that I’m not seeing on these drawings, from this application and the one previous.
Why not?
MR. STEVES-Okay. In what respect, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I don’t see the neighboring property owners listed on the plat. I don’t
see the two foot contours. I mean, John rattled you off a whole list of things under the Section
183 that you need to have on the drawings. Why aren’t they on there?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. STEVES-I submitted this to the Board, to Staff, I mean, reviewed it with them. The Staff
submits all the mailings, like we used to have to do, now the Staff does that. It’s been in front of
this Board before with names, and they said it’s kind of irrelevant since the fact that the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, who’s saying it’s irrelevant?
MR. STEVES-The Staff has said that because of the fact that in previous submissions they have
to mail all these notices out to the neighbors. I mean, I can gladly put all the names on the map.
I have no problem with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re making application to this Planning Board, not to Staff, and if the
requirements are within the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, you and
anybody else that’s making application has to meet those requirements. If there’s conditions
that you need to have to put on this drawing or any other drawing that you do, that’s required
in our Town law, you have to do it.
MR. STEVES-Fine. I will revise it if that’s the Board’s wish.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else to add. I was under the misimpression that we
could turn it down simply because it doesn’t meet the five acre requirements of the zone. I
didn’t realize that we were so bound by the zoning approval. So, you know, that puts a whole
different mindset of thinking about the project. No offense, I understand and appreciate what
you’re trying to do, but I agree with the other earlier comments that, you know, I see a huge
difference between a three and a half acre lot and a five acre lot. It’s not in character with the
neighborhood, and it’s not consistent with other development in that area. Do you know, in
looking at your S-1 location map, do you know what the acreage is of the site that’s
immediately to the north?
MR. STEVES-Immediately to the north?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, on Tuthill Road.
MR. STEVES-It’s about, you have about four acres on either side of the road.
MR. INGLEE-Four acres on the east side and four acres on the west side which is all swamp.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is it an eight acre site, or is it a four acre site?
MR. STEVES-It’s an eight acre site divide by the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought it was probably one of your properties, which is partly why
I asked.
MR. STEVES-There are other ones, if you go around the sharp bend as you head up by Clendon
Brook Road, you have a 2.79 acre, a 1.2 acre, one that’s less than an acre. I mean, there is a
spattering of small lots up there, in the tune of within five, six hundred feet, as you can see on
that location map. That’s why I went to the Zoning Board, ladies and gentlemen of the Board
here, and as far as I’m concerned you have two conforming lots and you’re looking at it for
Subdivision Regulations only, not for lot size. That’s my opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, Counsel confirmed that.
MR. STEVES-And if the Board has a consensus of opinion on this that they want to see the
adjacent landowner, if that’s a major concern for review of this subdivision, and that knowing
the site, that it is predominantly flat, that the two foot contours are mandatory, I will gladly
provide those and come back in front of this Board.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a matter of something being of a major concern. It’s a matter of
everybody plays by the same rules. That means that anybody that comes through the door,
makes application to this Town, Matt, and you’ve been doing it long enough to know the
difference.
MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, I do understand that, and I’m not trying to pull the wool over your
eyes. I come in to this Board with this map, and I show exactly what’s on it, and I submit it to
Staff with exactly what’s on it, and I sit down and I have a pre-submission conference with
exactly what’s on it, and they’re the ones that submit it to you, after they review it and deem it
complete, not me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff doesn’t make the approvals. This Board does. That’s the long and short
of it.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may. Personally, I have not instructed the applicant to not
include requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, and in fact, in looking through the file, I
can find no record of a pre-application conference. I know I did not meet with this applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who did you meet with, Matt?
MR. STEVES-Mr. Brown, and I think the Chairman’s comments, I have no problem with that,
but that’s why I go in and meet with the Staff prior to coming to this Board, and, you know, so
maybe there’s a gap or a problem there.
MR. MAC EWAN-I will speak to Mr. Brown tomorrow morning about his procedure and what
we do in pre-application meetings, so that you, in the future, will know what the procedure is,
or any other applicant will know what they have to sit down.
MR. STEVES-Or ask for a waiver.
MR. MAC EWAN-Or request a waiver to this Board for that.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Just one question for Mr. Inglee. Can you clarify, do you live in the house
that’s there right now?
MR. INGLEE-That’s correct. The old house.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. So after, you’re going to tear it down?
MR. INGLEE-Well what I’m going to do, Tony, is like I said, you folks gave me permission to
build my home up on the side of the mountain. That project is probably going to no doubt take
me a couple, two or three years to complete, I’m hoping, at that point, my son will have gotten
his masters degree and be settled down and have an income coming in to the point where he
can start his new house. So, yes, my whole idea, and again, this structure is not worth a whole
lot of money. This structure, I think this piece of property would be worth a whole lot more
with that house torn down than it would be with the house standing there, to be quite frank
with you. So the whole idea would be to, yes, demolish the structure once my two children
complete the construction of their new homes. So no doubt that old house will house my son
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
while he’s building his new home, and then at the time when that house is completed and an
occupancy permit is submitted to him, that old house will, in fact, come down.
MR. METIVIER-I guess I was just curious as to why you’re going through all this if you’re
going to tear the house down. Why don’t you just give them the house and let them do what
they want to with it?
MR. INGLEE-Well, the house is housing me until such time as my house is completed, because
I’ve been in that house for 27 years, and at that point, once these houses are completed, then the
house serves no more value, and again, the property, once that old house is torn down, and
there’s a new structure sitting up on top of that hill, again, it’s not only going to tremendously
increase the value of that piece of land, but it will also increase the value of the surrounding
lands as well. I mean, I really think it’s a tremendous trade off.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s important that the Board understand that any plans he has for that parcel
that requires giving it to children or selling it down the road is material to our review.
MR. METIVIER-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-But I have a question, probably for Counsel. We do do a SEQRA on this, and
in SEQRA we have to address impact on aesthetic resources.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And we have to address impact on open space.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-And we have to address impact on community or neighborhood.
MR. SCHACHNER-All true.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
MR. METIVIER-I’m done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I’m having the same difficulties that everyone else is having up here, and this is
about the fourth or fifth request since I’ve been on the Board for this type zoning in this
particular area, to change it. Most of it the requests have come for clustering and stuff that
weren’t really clustering. This Board, in all cases that I recall that have come before, has turned
them down. We’ve stuck to the five acre or ten acre zoning in this area. I believe we should do
it here. I’ve read the ZBA resolution here, and I think that I’m, you know, not going to debate
what they do or challenge what they do. I do feel that as they looked at it, they looked at one
parcel here. I think that we have to look at this as a whole picture, a whole area, and I think that
if this Board does feel inclined to turn it down, that we can turn it down based on the
neighborhood character, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and, you know, if we’re challenged,
we’re challenged, but I do think that we could go that route if we so desire, and those are the
only comments I have.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve been driving that road, or the Luzerne Road to Lake Luzerne for 20
years now, 21 coming up, and it’s amazing in the past 21 years the change that has taken place
up there, and it’s been a good change because there’s been some nice homes that have been
built, but it doesn’t seem like it’s overly crowded because the homes are on the zoned amount
of land, which is five acres. So, you know, you got your zoning change from the ZBA, but to
me, if other people came in, and more people, you know, even more people came in with the
same request, then that whole landscape up there would not be what it is today. I think the
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
way, like John said, I looked at this. I looked at this, I said, oh, yes, Lot Number Five is wider,
and it sets better. Lot Number Four is very narrow. Then there are the two lots behind Lot
Number Five that border on Clendon Brook Road. So you have their back ends there, and I
said, gee, it’s too bad that it couldn’t have been divided differently, years ago, but the thing is is
that people buy property, and I said this way back when the people around Fox Hollow were
coming in, all upset about Indian Ridge, a long time ago, when that first came to us, and I said,
you know, the biggest investment anybody can make is in their home, and that’s the biggest
investment that probably 95% of the people make in this Town is in their home and where they
live, and I can still remember this person coming in saying, you know, this was zoned three
acres, and now you’re zoning it, you’re changing the zoning to one acre, and I waited all these
years to save my money to be able to afford this piece of land and I’ve been in there, built my
house, and I’ve been in there for two years and all of a sudden it’s not zoned three acres
anymore, you’re trying to change the zoning and make it smaller. So, I have a problem with
that, and my next question is, Mr. Inglee, I haven’t been up there because it’s been summertime.
I’ve missed site visits, but refresh my memory. The land across the street, I remember going up
there a long time ago, we went way up, and up, and up, and there was a camper, and a
fireplace, and it was like, what is going on up here.
MR. INGLEE-That’s where I’m building my home.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that was a long time ago.
MR. INGLEE-It’s taken me two and a half, three years to get the approval from the Town to go
ahead and build up there, and I’ve recently submitted all my blueprints and plot plans and
everything to the Town yesterday for my construction to start hopefully by the end of the
month.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you’re planning to take four years to build that?
MR. INGLEE-Well, probably three years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Before you tear this one down. Okay. Now I would like to hear from the
public hearing, before I make anymore comments.
MR. RINGER-I’d just like to add, you know, Craig, it seems to me that if we approve something
like this, it’s just a Pandora’s Box. We’re just opening it up and we’re just going to, it’s going to
present some real problems.
MR. VOLLARO-Larry, I tend to agree with you 100%. There doesn’t seem to be any, in my
mind, any good reasons why we can put together for.
MR. RINGER-I think we can with Comprehensive Land Use, neighborhood character,
Pandora’s Box thing. I don’t know if they’re legal terms or not, but we can do it, and if we’re
challenged, we may win or we may lose, but I think we can do it. We’ve still go the public
comment to go.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we have SEQRA, and I think Cathy hit a nerve, too. Approving this
would set a precedent, allowing three acre lots, for other people who would come and say, well,
we allowed it for Mr. Inglee, you should allow it for us as well, and they’ll use that argument
before the Zoning Board, I’m sure, would be in discord with the Open Space Plan, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and our zoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to make it sound like I’m not on my A Game here, but are these
Subdivision Regs up to snuff, or have they been revised and we don’t have a copy?
MR. HILTON-I think you have the most recent one.
MR. MAC EWAN-We do have the most recent copy?
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. HILTON-I believe so.
MR. MAC EWAN-183-10D, under Notice, Sub Section C, the subdivider shall provide proof of
service of notification by certified mail on those landowners required to receive notice pursuant
to this Article. If Staff, or the Town had made a policy change and took over that obligation, I
would think that you’re stepping out of your realm of authority. It’s still incumbent upon the
applicant to do that.
MR. SCHACHNER-183-10, what Sub Section, please?
MR. MAC EWAN-183-10 D, under Notice.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sub Paragraph Two.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, was amended in the Year 2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just asked if we had an updated set of Subdivision Regs.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand. I’m sure you recognize that we have nothing to do with
providing you with those, but 183-10D no longer has Sub Sections, and it does say in the Code
Books that it was amended in March of 2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-And what does it say?
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s only about the sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s only about the sign.
MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. It says, “The subdivider shall display prominently on the subject
property, for 10 days preceding the date of the public hearing, at least one sign, two feet by
three feet in size and carrying a legend”, etc., etc. I can read it if you want, but I promise you it
only has to do with the sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-You can rest assured I’ll take that issue up with the Town Board.
MR. SCHACHNER-Understood.
MR. MAC EWAN-And get that put back the way it’s supposed to be.
MR. SCHACHNER-C is currently Entitled “Public Hearing”, is what’s, is that what your D is
entitled?
MR. MAC EWAN-Public Hearing is under C, which is the paragraph above it, within 45 days
after date of official submission of preliminary.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and your D is entitled, what, “Notice”?
MR. MAC EWAN-Notice.
MR. SCHACHNER-And it still is, but it only now relates to signage.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-This is not, I mean, the seriousness of your tone is very appropriate. If you
all don’t have, you know, I encourage you to pursue that.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I just did. New copies for everybody.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Mr. Chairman, just in that sense we were notified, I don’t have a particular
notice in this file, that the Town will be taking care of all notices as far as mailing notices from
that date forward. We haven’t been doing them for the last two and a half, three years.
MR. MAC EWAN-I will be pushing that to be changed post haste, going back the way it should
be. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. STEVES-No, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table, we’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CARA BEAMES
MS. BEAMES-My name’s Cara Beames. I live at 78 Tuthill Road. First I want to comment on
the mail thing. There has been times that we have not received our mail. Our mailman’s pretty
good, but not all the time. We don’t get our mail, and the neighbors are not notified. They used
to put up the sign, and all the neighbors knew what was going on, or had an idea and could
attend the meetings, and there hasn’t been any signs. The last subdivision that was done, there
wasn’t a sign put up. This one there wasn’t a sign put up. The neighbors up there are just not
aware of what’s going on. When you said letters, too, I mean, there’s like four of us, you know,
and it’s not large in number, but we are adjacent to that property, and if there’s not signs up,
then the other neighbors don’t know because we don’t have contact with them every day. So I
do think that’s important. That needs to be looked at. I mean, have they eliminated putting up
signs? Is that the way I understood it or no?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The requirement is that they’re’ supposed to post prominently a sign,
that there is a pending application that’s going to be appearing in front of the Planning Board
for subdivision, and whether that sign was ever put up or not, I don’t know.
MS. BEAMES-No. It hasn’t been. Okay. Well, I don’t know who is supposed to enforce that,
but, and I think that’s, you know, at the Zoning Board, we didn’t have a large turnout because
of the fact neighbors didn’t know, people didn’t know. I didn’t go around to the neighbors at
that time, and I did this time, and I’ll get to that, but I think it’s important, in our area that, you
know, we need to be notified when there’s going to be such a drastic change. I think it’s just a
good policy, and I was surprised that it had stopped.
MR. RINGER-It hasn’t stopped. It’s the signed receipt, the notices are still going out. Part of
the problem I think you get up there is 500 feet, and because the lots are so big, 500 feet isn’t
necessarily very many neighbors.
MS. BEAMES-Well, that’s why I thought the visual sign out, though, is also helpful.
MR. RINGER-Yes. That should be displayed, and we find ourselves that they’re not displayed,
when we go looking for the sites sometimes, but there’s no one enforcing that.
MS. BEAMES-There should be.
MR. RINGER-Perhaps.
MS. BEAMES-It does help, and it does, from what I understand, the more you hear from the
community, it does determine your answers, one way or the other, or your decision, so I do
think it does have a big weight on how many people know and obviously today, because we
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
made it aware of what’s going on with our neighbors, we do have a large turnout. So I do think
it’s important that it does.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll address that issue and get it squared away, hopefully.
MS. BEAMES-Thank you. Okay. I am, I actually had written you a letter, before you were
going to the site, and it got put into the file. So I think you’re going to probably read it later. I
was hoping that you would read it before you came up so that you could, I know you’re not
supposed to come to the neighbors or talk to the neighbors or whatever, but I really felt that it
was important that you did come to my home to see that, even though we look like we have a
barrier of woods in between our property, we can see, sitting in my living room, I can see the
brown boards of this home. If you build a house any closer, I mean, in the fall the winter and
the spring, I’m going to have a full view. So, to me, I’m really concerned with the buffering of
this. He clear cut his eight acres. He chose to do that, and there’s just, there’s no buffering there
now, if he builds any closer to me, and I don’t want to wait five or ten, twenty years for
whatever he may want to plant to help buffer in between our lots, and we do have constant
trees coming down. Did anybody, did you ride by, or did you see where I live with white lines?
MR. RINGER-Well, we don’t know where you live. We rode by the location.
MS. BEAMES-But you didn’t come down. Right? It just, it looks like there’s a lot of wooded
area there, but there really isn’t. So I was really concerned about that, and I was really hoping
that you were going to read this letter before your site, but it didn’t. The other concern besides
buffering was his intentions. You all, most of you, he has reminded you of across the road, that
he was building, this was going to be for his kids, and that’s great, but history hasn’t played
that role. His actions certainly haven’t done that. He, as you know, he rents out the house that
he renovated, he rents it out on a weekly, daily, weekend basis, that he had stated in his
minutes before, that his son resides in, which has not been true at all, and now he’s, I think
when he gets an overflow he’s renting out his house now, and the trailer that you talked about,
that’s where he stays when he’s renting out his house. So now we’ve got two houses up there,
that when it’s busy on Americade weekend, Fourth of July or this past weekend, you know, we
have two homes up there that are not being used in a residential way. It’s more, I feel his
intentions are more commercially geared than they are residential, and this is a residential area,
and I’m really uncomfortable with all the tourism up there. We have vacationers coming down
in our yard claiming they’re just looking. We just don’t know who’s walking down, and I’d like
you to try to put yourself in our shoes, if it was your neighborhood. I know we’re a bigger, you
know, broader area with land, but if it was even in your neighborhood five houses down that
you drove by every day that you saw somebody different going in and out, walking your road,
you know, that’s not why we moved up there. That is just, you know, it’s residential, and that’s
not being rented as residential, and I don’t care what the law says about, if it’s 10 people or how
many it has to be for a commercial, we all know that that’s not residential living, you know, up
there is for a home. Sure you can rent out your home, but you usually rent it out, you have six
months or a year lease. You get to know your neighbors, and the neighbors that are up there,
that one in particular that has rented, Mr. Harold rents to, they’ve been there for two and a half
years, because they want their home there, and that’s the area, and I want to stress that, you
know, it’s all in the way it’s used. It’s just a negative impact on the community. We live in a
unique area of Queensbury, and we paid more money for the acreage, to live there. They have
zoning codes. This is against the zoning code, the three acres. It used to be 10. It went down to
eight, and now it went down to five, I mean, you know, when is it going to stop? If it goes to
three, like you say, you set a precedent, and we’ve got a lot of families up there that have
children who would love to live up there. I know my kids would love to live up there. So
should I subdivide mine and turn my garage into a home for them? That’s not the area, and I
hope that someday my kids can live in an area that we have, and if it keeps getting
overdeveloped, there’s not going to be any areas like that in Queensbury for any children to live
in. The people moved there for these guidelines. We just have a few more people that just
moved up and they’re very concerned about the fact that when they bought this area, in the
area, they said it was zoned five acres, and that’s what they expected. They’ve been there only a
couple of months and they were shocked to think that the Zoning Board approved for a three
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
acre, you know, they just couldn’t believe that, you know, what happened to the laws, you
know, why do we have them if we’re not going to stick by them. So, having said that, basically,
what I did, because of the fact that our neighbors haven’t been notified of what was going on, I
went to our neighbors, and I’m glad to say that they all feel the same way that I am speaking
now, and I have a petition I’ll hand you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you, Ms. Beames, to give it right to George Hilton. Because he’ll put
it right in the official file.
MS. BEAMES-Okay. Do you want to see the original, do you want the original?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, you can give him the original if you would.
MS. BEAMES-Just so you have an idea, I had everyone on Clendon Brook Road.
MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, when you have a minute, I have a question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead and ask your question right now if you want.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I’m wondering if the Board is concerned, or I guess I’m going to
share my concern as your Counsel, about whether or not the sign was or was not posted. I see
that obviously at least some neighbors are aware of this proceeding, but the fact is that the
Subdivision Regulations require posting of the sign. Now if the sign wasn’t posted, I’m
concerned about the procedural integrity of the proceeding.
MR. MAC EWAN-I am as well.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the point I’m making here is, you can conduct public hearing as long
as you like or not, but I don’t know if the applicant has the position that they did post the sign.
I know at least one neighbor has indicated they didn’t post the sign, but my point as your
Counsel is that the biggest part of my job is to make sure the “T’s” are crossed and that “I’s” are
dotted, and if that hasn’t happened, I’m concerned that our whole proceeding is subject to some
neighbor saying, I didn’t know about this. There wasn’t any sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can answer your question in 10 seconds whether the sign was up or not.
Did anybody see a sign when you went on site visits?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. SCHACHNER-As your counsel, I’m concerned about the legal propriety of the proceeding.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you want to do?
MR. RINGER-Well, we have to ask the applicant if he did post a sign or not.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’d be curious to know if the applicant has a position on that.
MR. INGLEE-There was no sign posted this time around. The Zoning Board gave me a little
thing, I think it was a pink sign to put in my front window. This time around, last year when I
applied for my subdivision, they did post a big sign out in front of my house.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who’s “they”?
MR. INGLEE-The Town of Queensbury.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Town of Queensbury does not post signs.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. INGLEE-They’re the ones that came up and posted the sign, back two years ago when we
started those proceedings.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Town of Queensbury does not post signs. It’s either for the applicant or
the applicant’s agent to put up.
MR. INGLEE-Did you put the sign up in front of my house?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. INGLEE-I came home one day and there was a big sign right smack in the front of my
house, announcing the subdivision. I was under the impression that the Town of Queensbury
put it there.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. INGLEE-Last time the Zoning Board gave me a little green sign, or a little pink sign to put
in my front window to notify the Zoning Board members where the residence were. That’s the
only signs that have been delivered to my place.
MR. RINGER-Who gives them the sign when they fill out the application for us, George?
MR. HILTON-They’re in the packet with the ZBA.
MR. HILTON-How about the Planning Board?
MR. HILTON-I honestly can’t answer that. Since I’ve been with the Town, I don’t think we’ve
distributed signs. Obviously we should be, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Planning Board has two signs that we use. We use an orange one for
subdivision, I believe, and a green one for site plan, and quite honestly, I can tell you I haven’t
seen those signs up in a very long time on a lot of site visits.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, then I’m concerned about that generically, but here we have, you
know, a neighbor who says that they went and there wasn’t a sign. The applicant apparently
doesn’t contest there wasn’t a sign. The Subdivision Regulations are pretty clear. Part of the
required notice is the signage, and I’m concerned about the legal propriety of a proceeding
where we know, and nobody seems to dispute, that proper signage was not posted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you suggest or recommend we pull the rug on this and have it re-
advertised, re-notified, I should say?
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I’m not sure what you mean by “pull the rug”, but I do believe that
you should not render a decision without having that provision complied with. I don’t care
whether you continue with the proceeding or not, in other words, I’m not suggesting you have
to stop everything and not conduct public hearing all that. You can if you want. That’s up to
your discretion, but I am going to say, as your counsel, that I’m not comfortable with you, if in
fact you’re heading toward making a decision, I’m not comfortable with you doing that, when I
can sit here as your counsel and identify a legal, procedural problem with the manner in which
the proceeding was conducted. Not your fault, and I see some neighbors are here, and that’s
not really the point. The point is that the signage requirement doesn’t seem to have been met.
MR. MAC EWAN-If we were to table this thing tonight and request that the applicant post a
sign.
MR. SCHACHNER-As long as it’s ten days before whenever it’s tabled to I’m comfortable with
that.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Because we’re not going to do this for, obviously we wouldn’t be able to do
this for next Tuesday. It would have to be for September.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The reason I say that, just so it’s clear, I’m not making this up. The
sign requirement has a ten day provision.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that would be the most appropriate way to go.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m comfortable with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I think that’s what I’d like to do. Instead of continuing to take comment
tonight, I would like to give the opportunity for all the neighbors to be noticed. So everyone
can be here.
MS. BEAMES-Okay, but I did that. I did that job.
MR. MAC EWAN-I realize you did that, but legally, from the standpoint of the Town, how do
you phrase that, it’s not your obligation to do this.
MS. BEAMES-I think, though, if it was done for the zoning, it would have been different. If you
notice on some of these signatures, he had letters wrote for the zoning, and when they found
out exactly what was going on and it wasn’t quite the pretty picture that they were presented,
they signed this petition, and I really, I mean, I understand the table part and the legal stuff, but
I don’t want to keep doing this, you know, over and over again. We notified, I notified.
MR. MAC EWAN-Nor do we.
MS. BEAMES-I know.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we want to do things that are right and legal.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I’ll be the heavy here. I mean, from my standpoint this is not a
difficult or complex question. Part of my job, the biggest part of my job, is to advise you how to
make decisions that are not likely to be subject to attack, or successful attack, and my concern is
that failure to comply with this provision in a contested proceeding could lead somebody to
raise this in some kind of proceeding that I can’t say the sign was posted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think that’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to table this thing.
I’ll leave the public hearing open, and have it advertised to another day.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. Cara said that the sign wasn’t there before the ZBA
made their decision.
MS. BEAMES-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So couldn’t that be that the ZBA may have had, it may have had a
different outcome if there were a lot more people for the public hearing at the ZBA meeting?
MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess I’m going to say as your counsel, I think that’s beyond your
consideration. First of all, the ZBA has different notice requirements. There is a mailing
requirement at the ZBA that’s different than at the Planning Board, and I think that’s beyond
your concern. That’s a ZBA issue.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MS. BEAMES-So if you tabled this, could I still use this as a submission towards?
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MS. BEAMES-So I don’t have to keep going back. I’m going to let them know what’s going on,
but I don’t want to keep, this is, I don’t want to go neighbor to neighbor again and just, you
know what I mean. They sided. They gave their opinion. They stand by this.
MR. MAC EWAN-You submitting that tonight became part of the official record, and I would
encourage anybody who has any additional information they want to submit regarding this
application, they’re encouraged to do it. It doesn’t stop any of these proceedings. We’re
postponing it, I guess you could say, until we’re sure that this thing has been legally advertised
in the way that the Subdivision Regulations say it should be. That’s what we’re going to do.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s all I’m saying, and I’m sorry for interrupting and I’m not trying to
cause delay here. I’m just trying to avoid having to do this all over again some other time.
MR. MAC EWAN-You did the right thing.
MR. RINGER-You’re saying that if we approve it, we couldn’t approve it that way, but we
could deny it.
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not comfortable with that either. Because the public hearing has to be
noticed in a certain manner, and in theory, in theory, there could be people out there that would
say something in support of the application that might sway you toward approval. As your
counsel, you know, again, I understand people’s frustration and I apologize for that. I’m not
doing this to delay anybody or anything else, but from a legal standpoint, as your counsel, this
is not a complicated, gray area question.
MR. RINGER-All right. I accept your answer. It’s just, it is so damn frustrating.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand.
MR. RINGER-I mean, these people have gone to the ZBA. I don’t know how many meetings at
the ZBA.
MS. BEAMES-And we’ve sat here.
MR. RINGER-They’ve come here. They’re going to have to come back again, possibly even a
second time after that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for what it’s worth, remember that nobody has to do that. I mean,
what they say tonight is part of your record and what they submit’s part of your record.
MR. RINGER-I know, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess this support’s my position to revert back to the old Subdivision Reg’s
regarding notifications. It would have alleviated all of that problem. Henceforth, that’s what
we’re going to do. Okay. We’re going to table this thing. So, just hang in there. We’ll notice
you. Can I get you two gentlemen to come back up. I’m tabling it. I’m not taking anymore
comment until we re-notice. We’re going to table this.
MR. STEVES-Understood.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to post your sign. I’d ask Staff to re-notice via mail. I would
take it one step farther. Certified Return Receipt, please. Okay. You’re going to revise your
subdivision plat to conform with 183-6 requirements.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else that the Board’s looking for? I guess that’s it.
MR. STEVES-One question is, did you have a meeting date, so that I would know what date to
put on the sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll be on in October.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but the applicant’s point is well put. He has to be able to put it on the
sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-Put him on for the first meeting of October. We will not retain our plat, but
everything else relative to the subdivision we’ll keep.
MR. STROUGH-The first meeting is the 21.
st
MR. STEVES-The first meeting is the 21?
st
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. STEVES-I will post that sign at least ten days, most likely two to three weeks prior.
MR. MAC EWAN-I left the public hearing open to the next meeting, which will be October the
21. If you want to come on up, we’ll take any comment that you want, relative to planning
st
procedures. I’m not going to take anymore comment relative to this particular application.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-It’s not about that. No. All I wanted to say, not even about this
application, is that, to my knowledge, and from what I’ve seen, of every request for the
Planning Board for anything on the mountain, I have never seen a sign. His or anybody else’s.
So you’ve got more problems than just one.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s good to know.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-I have never seen a sign, including, I was here probably six years ago,
seven years ago.
MR. MAC EWAN-Probably about five or six years.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC-Five or six years ago, didn’t know anything about signs.
MR. MAC EWAN-There was a requirement, and it has been a requirement, that when people
come in and pick up their application packet, there used to be an orange sign and a green sign
in there. The orange sign was for subdivision and the green sign was for site plan. We noticed
probably, it was probably about a year or so ago, especially when we got up around the lake
area, it was very difficult to find camps and houses on some of those road by use or easements
up there. We couldn’t find sites. It was difficult for us. So I will certainly address that issue
with Staff, and hopefully we can get the Town Board to revert back to the zoning, Subdivision
Reg’s the way they should have been before it was stopped, to prevent this mix up that we have
right here tonight.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Gomes, did you want to say something?
RUI GOMES
MR. GOMES-Yes, please. Members of the Board and Counsel, I was here for the ZBA meeting,
and I wish the ZBA meeting would have been as professional as you do it tonight, because if
that was done, with your concerns, every one of your concerns, which you have the right
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/19/03)
concerns, not because it’s me, because you are on my side or vice versa, it’s got nothing to do
with this. The ZBA meeting, I want to go on record, was an absolute unprofessional, without
counsel to protect the people, and what has happened is, tonight you find yourselves with
counsel warning you that you are treading in a very funny, gray area, when it comes down that
you can not make up your mind because the acreage has been approved by the ZBA, but the
ZBA, by the way, during the meeting at the ZBA, the microphones kept getting cut off because
the batteries ran a little short, and what has happened is, you have missed quite a bit of what
was said in this meeting, and what’s said there is it was supposed to be opened again because
what happened is Mr. Steves, this is not a personal attack, by no means, please, mentioned one,
two, three, four, five, and some of the members create in their own minds, and it’s the truth,
that he has 40 acres for this subdivision, and that’s not true, and what they’ve come up with
was that any member that was in this particular, in the ZBA meeting, said, oh, if he’s got 40
acres, that’s really not uncommon to subdivide with five houses because it gives them an area of
eight acres, and that’s how the vote went, gentlemen, because some of the members that did not
visit the area, they didn’t do their homework, all of a sudden was under the impression, later
on, off the record, they have met me in supermarkets and some people have said, if we only
knew what we know today, we would have never voted yes for this subdivision. This
subdivision is faulted. There’s a fault in it. Any one of you will see that 3. something, the
Gereaus tried that and didn’t get it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Gomes, I’d ask you to speak not relative to the specific application.
MR. GOMES-Not relative. I think the ZBA is at fault here. Okay. Thank you, and I’m sorry
that you have to be, you know, victims of that situation. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Craig, I appreciate your comment about it being irrelevant what he plans to
do with the land, because I was reminded very quickly of a subdivision that we approved on
the corner of Meadowbrook and Cronin, where the applicant sat there and said, oh, I want to
subdivide my property because I want to build a house for my daughter. Two weeks after we
approved the subdivision, there’s a For Sale sign in front of the house, and it was sold to
somebody else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there any other business that we have to do here? I’ll move we adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
73