2003-07-22
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
JOHN STROUGH
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW:
SUBDIVISION NO. 12-2003 SKETCH PLAN QUEENSBURY ECONOMIC DEV. CORP.
PROPERTY OWNER: WARREN COUNTY AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI
LOCATION: EAST SIDE QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 9 LOT
INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION ON THE EAST SIDE OF QUEENSBURY AVENUE AND
SOUTH OF THE WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND
TAX MAP NO. 303.12-1-9 LOT SIZE: 72 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This application is a Sketch Plan which proposes the subdivision of a 72 acre
property into 10 lots, 9 of which would have access on a yet to be built cul de sac, an additional
lot, according to this plan, appears to be landlocked. The applicant has indicated that this
property would be merged into other existing Warren County lands, and that seems to satisfy
the requirement for providing frontage on a Town road for that parcel. The cul de sac that’s
proposed appears to exceed the 1,000 foot limit, and the applicant is seeking a waiver from the
requirement that the cul de sac be 1,000 feet or under. The Sketch Plan also shows a portion of
the cul de sac and some stormwater improvements to be built underneath or within an existing
Niagara Mohawk right of way, and I guess at the time of Preliminary and Final some comment
from Niagara Mohawk on construction on their property should be provided to the Board, and
that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, representing QEDC.
This is a subdivision of land that was originally Silver Bow Resources property, was taken over
by Warren County several years ago, and is now under negotiation for purchase by QEDC for
an industrial park. We’re looking at establishing the lots that would be salable in the two to ten
acre range. We’ve looked at various means or various alternative layouts for the park. The real
constriction, or constrictions are three. The power line, the existing Corps of Engineers
wetlands, and the access, road frontage access. We had looked at a second alternative that we
actually preferred, in some ways, which would have had two road entrances, but it required
working with NiMo to have them release an easement across their substation property, and
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
after meeting with them, we found they were totally unwilling to do so. So we’re really limited
to the one road access and in order to gain access and use the rear of the property, we really
have no choice but having the long cul de sac.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, my first note is addresses the cul de sac which exceeds the 1,000
foot Subdivision Regulation. Again, our concern with this in the past has been its limited access
for emergency vehicles. I was especially concerned since this was going to be for industrial use,
where you have the sincere potential for hazards and accidents. So, you know, I was just a
concern I noted here. I wouldn’t mind having emergency services review this. This is just a
Sketch Plan. I have a question about, what are the adjacent uses?
MR. NACE-The properties adjacent on Queensbury Avenue are the NiMo Substation,
residential, residential and residential, and County vacant. On the opposite side of Queensbury
Avenue, it’s all either vacant or a couple of farm fields.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Those lots that would abut a residential unit, are they big enough to
allow for buffering zones?
MR. NACE-Yes, they are. This one and this one. They do have the residential, I’ve shown, the
set back lines show the residential/industrial buffer.
MR. STROUGH-Which is 30 feet, I think, 20 feet?
MR. NACE-No, it’s 50 feet, I believe.
MR. STROUGH-Fifty on the frontage.
MR. NACE-No, on the zone, on the zone line.
MR. STROUGH-Between the uses, you mean.
MR. NACE-Between uses, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, and I was wondering why the contour lines kind of
disappeared, maybe just because it’s a Sketch?
MR. NACE-Just because it’s Sketch. We had done the contouring down here where it was
critical, to make sure we can get underneath the power lines. We’re continuing the work on
across. We’ve done enough fieldwork that, you know, it’s relatively level. There’s no issues
with the elevations. We just need to finish the fieldwork.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and we’re going to get a road profile eventually?
MR. NACE-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-And is it 52 acres or 51 acres?
MR. NACE-Good question.
MR. STROUGH-I saw both.
MR. NACE-It’s probably 51 and change.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, 51.27, but, okay, well, not a big deal.
MR. NACE-If it says 52 somewhere, there’s a typo then, I guess.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the 9.23 acres are the Army Corps of Engineers identified wetlands?
MR. NACE-Is that the right number? 9.23, yes, that includes within the power line right of way.
MR. STROUGH-Right, and that’s the shaded area.
MR. NACE-That’s the shaded area.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-A lot of that’s out in the middle of a farm field. It’s just hydric soils.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and my other concern was access to Lot Number Three. It seemed to be
rather limited.
MR. NACE-It is. It’s, you know, right on the turn here, and it’s just a, I suppose it’s what you
might call a flag shaped lot because of that. Again, we divided them in to fairly small lots now,
with the thought that, depending on what industry wants to locate there, some of these might
get combined.
MR. STROUGH-I just thought Lot Three might be tough to get a driveway in there.
MR. NACE-No, there’s plenty of room for a driveway.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay, and then Staff had their concerns with the agreement with, well, I
guess it wouldn’t be NiMo anymore.
MR. NACE-It’s National Grid.
MR. STROUGH-It would be National Grid.
MR. NACE-Yes, we will be negotiating with them obviously.
MR. STROUGH-That’s all I had. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Are all of the wetlands Army Corps, or are any of them DEC?
MR. NACE-Army Corps.
MR. VOLLARO-Army Corps. So we don’t have a freshwater wetlands problem, because some
of the road intersects some of those wetlands.
MR. NACE-Yes. We are going to be taking our, you know, nine hundredths of an acre, or very
close to that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we don’t see any freshwater permits required on this one, at least I
don’t, because of the amount they’re taking.
MR. HILTON-Yes, no, not from Army Corps. The Town permit.
MR. NACE-Yes, we’ll still have the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have much to talk about. As far as the cul de sac is concerned, I don’t
see any other way of doing it, and still getting that many lots. I don’t really have a problem
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
with that. You’re going to have a force sewer main coming up. Where do you plan to put the
pump station to get it up there, or is that all gravity fed?
MR. NACE-When they put the sewer in on Queensbury Avenue recently, they left us a
connection to the force main, which is right here, adjacent to the NiMo right of way, and we will
be connecting to that with a force main that comes down to a pump station at the low point of
the project, and everything will come to that pump station from the lots by gravity.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So everything feeding the pump station will be a gravity line.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t have anything, Mr. Chairman. I think that’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-My only concern was just the one way in, and Tom has explained that there’s no
alternative to getting out of that.
MR. NACE-We wish there were. We’ve sat down at a meeting with NiMo fully intending to be
able to negotiate a right of way across their Substation property, and they made it evident that
it’s just not feasible.
MR. RINGER-We get these, but not normally with 18-wheelers down in and out of there. I
didn’t have anything other than, that was my only concern about this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Sorry I’m late. My big concern was the length of the cul de sac, and I’m
sorry I missed your discussion.
MR. NACE-Okay. The discussion, real briefly, was we had looked at several alternatives for
developing this parcel, and one of them included two road access points. One of those would
have been on the north side of the NiMo Substation, but we don’t have road frontage in the
County property at that location. It would have required NiMo to give up an easement to us,
across the Substation property, and even though they aren’t using it, and really don’t anticipate
using it, they refused to look at that, or they didn’t refuse. They just said it would be almost
impossible for us to get that easement.
MR. RINGER-I would think, when you come back for Preliminary and Final, maybe you should
have a letter from NiMo to that effect, that you tried, because that question’s going to come up
again, and we might as well have it.
MR. NACE-Okay, and like you say, we’d also, we’d be happy to meet with emergency services
and maybe discuss the issue further.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, is there any reason why the County wasn’t willing to provide a right
of way across their property?
MR. NACE-The County, on up to the north?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. NACE-Well, that would be way up, the existing County property doesn’t front on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, the comment kind of threw me off when you mentioned it.
MR. NACE-The County property doesn’t front on Queensbury Avenue. Okay. That would be
way up here, and it’s shallow bedrock up here, and not really usable for our purposes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Along those lines, is there any interest in the County wanting to
incorporate some of their remaining holdings of County property into this industrial park,
making it larger?
MR. NACE-Again, we looked at that, and the northern portion of the property, once you
proceed north of about here, becomes relatively shallow bedrock, i.e. two feet or less. So these
lots we particularly arranged so that there was some good land where they could build a
building and the services, get underground services in, and then possibly use the northern part
of those lots for parking for facilities that didn’t require deeper excavations, but once you get
north of here, it’s all shallow bedrock, and this parcel up in here is an old quarry, with wetlands
and water and not usable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re basically saying that the northern lands are just not likely to be
developed.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions?
MR. STROUGH-Just one more, they call it Golden Arrow Industrial Park. There’s no known
archeological significance?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. STROUGH-I had to ask.
MR. NACE-I’m not sure where that name came from originally.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Staff?
MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2002 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION PYRAMID CO. OF GF
AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL,
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SUBDIVISION BY RELOCATING LOT LINES TO ACCOMMODATE A
FUTURE ADDITION AT THE AVIATION MALL. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SUBDIVISONS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 64-2003 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2, 5.3
JON LAPPER, DAVE CARR, AND ERIC GOETZMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no public hearing required tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The proposal is really a modification of an existing approval to relocate a
department store approximately 130 feet to the east, and along with that a modification to a
previously approved subdivision to accommodate this new construction. The main issues
appear to be engineering and really any comments from Sear Brown should be addressed. The
proposed changes appear to be consistent with the previous SEQR and if the Board feels that
way, it should reaffirm the previous SEQR findings. Other than that, I don’t have any
comments at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Eric Goetzman from Pyramid and
Dave Carr from the LA Group. We can give you the long version or the short version, but for
good or bad, this is the third time that we’ve been here for this exact store at the Mall, and in the
final negotiations with this major anchor retailer, the building has moved 130 feet from when
this was approved by the Board last fall. I’ve been told I can assure that this time it’s really,
really quickly going to get built, and they actually want to, and are obligated, if we can get this
through tonight, to deliver the pad for construction on November 1. So this is ready to go,
st
after all these negotiations over all this time. The size, the square footage of the building is
identical to what this Board approved last time. The site changes are minor and were just done
to accommodate the relocation. So we’re here for the subdivision approval, because this
department store requires owning their own footprint, and last week we were at the Zoning
Board, and they modified their previous variances to slide everything 130 feet so that this could
be owned. So to subdivide it and get the site plan approved, there was Sear-Brown, who was
your consultant on this one, gave a short review letter, which mostly dealt with stormwater
issues. We responded to them. The LA Group responded to them last week, and a few hours
ago Frank Palumbo met with Dave Carr at the LA Group and what that came down to Dave can
explain in more detail, but Frank was just interested in a couple of more catch basins,
potentially, right in front of the store entrance, and changing the grading slightly to just make
sure that the water that’s coming down from the parking lot gets picked up before it reaches the
front of the store, and what he said he would be here if Craig Brown asked him to be here, and
he called and I assume that Craig said it wasn’t necessary for him to come, but we would hope
that this could be approved with the condition that, just on that issue, that Sear-Brown sign off
on the Final, just like they did last time on the parking configuration, but that’s the only issue
that we’re aware of, subject to the issues that this Board may raise. I guess I’ll ask Dave to just
quickly go through the plan and show you what’s changed, if you’d like to see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. CARR-Okay. What I have here are two plans. The one along the floor is actually the
approved plan of September of last year, and this the proposed plan, and I also took the liberty
of putting in light blue, which is probably difficult to see, but I can bring the board closer.
Basically, this modification entails taking the proposed store and moving it 130 feet to the east.
So, basically what that does is it leaves Kleins intact, and it adjusts the parking in the front of
the store. As Jon said, the impervious area doesn’t change. The drainage sub-catchments
change slightly. We had to adjust some of the lighting slightly in front of the store, but, really,
that is the major modification. Another modification, though slight, was that the last approval
included extending this access road to this point that has been removed, and it would remain as
it today, and I believe that’s precipitated by the fact that the loading area has also moved 130
feet to the east. Beyond that, the new store replacement area of approximately 9,000 square feet
will be added in this location, in front of the JC Penney store, the old JC Penney store, excuse
me, and that’s really it. As far as parking, the parking count was reduced by 10 cars, and really
that’s the extent of the proposed modifications.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-I can start with trying to correct the Site Development plan a little bit, Site
Development Data, I went over it, and I think really the bottom, you’re not giving us non-
permeable, but you’re giving us a permeable of 21 and 17.
MR. CARR-Are you speaking of this, site statistics?
MR. VOLLARO-Site Development Data.
MR. CARR-Right. Okay. There was one mistake, it’s not really a mistake, but what we showed,
and it’s a little confusing, is that what we showed as existing is approved. So, basically, what’s
approved and what’s proposed is exactly the same. It differs from what’s existing today, and
that may be where the confusion is.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got approved is 661,000.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. CARR-Well, what’s approved under the SEQR expansion is 661,000. The last approval was
for 640,299, which is exactly what we’re proposing.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problem with that number. What I’m having a problem with
is if you get to the proposed addition.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, it’s 83,259, and then you come up with, are you working from the same
sheet of paper that I am, because it might be hard for you and I to get together on this. This is
what’s been submitted.
MR. CARR-In the application? Do you have the application?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you’ve got a copy of that, we can work.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Now that proposed addition, though, can I interject, just for a minute?
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get the math straightened out here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I’m working on.
MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So we’ve got 74,150 feet for the proposed addition.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And then the 9,079 feet for the store replacement.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So I added those up twice. I got 83,229, rather than 83,259.
MR. CARR-Okay.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-All right. So that’s going to throw our total square feet is going to be 640,259,
not 640,299.
MR. VOLLARO-640,259 is what the right number is. Is that what you got?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So did I. I got the same number, 259. Yes. I was going to bring that up.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I thought if you were dealing with the math, maybe we’ll get that
straight, first.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I was going to come along with that. I think what you’ve got to get
to, the total non-permeable, if you add the vertical and horizontal, should be 2,034,899. That’s
where your total.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you put that over your 56.52 acres, and you convert that acreage down
to square feet, I come out with a non-permeable of 82.7. The total non-permeable, over the
parcel area.
MR. CARR-17.3, so it would be 17.3 permeable.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. Actually, what ought to be in that slot is the non-permeable
number, not the permeable number. You’ve got that backwards, I think. That slots asks for
non-permeable data.
MR. CARR-Okay. I see what he did, yes. So he’s giving you the permeable and not the non-
permeable.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Just so that the record shows that it’s.
MR. CARR-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, down below, where it says 2.9% permeability for Parcel B, I couldn’t
resurrect that one. How does that figure in to the overall permeability? Where does that 2.9%
fall?
MR. LAPPER-That was done for the purpose of the Area Variance. Because Parcel B is the new
department store with its associated parking field, and our argument at the Zoning Board was
that if you treat the, if you look, the site functions as one site, and if you treat it as one site, it
complies, but the lot for this department store doesn’t comply, and that’s why we needed the
variance. So this, because what this department store gets is the building and the parking lot,
it’s mostly non-permeable. So that’s why this particular lot just has some islands. So that’s
why, but the whole site works. It’s just that it’s sort of arbitrary where you draw the lines, and
that’s how you get to the 2.9%.
MR. VOLLARO-You have to have been on the inside of that to know the answer to that 2.9.
There’s no way in the world you could figure that out.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Only on the CAD.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-The number of parking spaces is pretty close. I added them all up on the
drawings, and I couldn’t match your numbers. I tried to add them a couple of times.
MR. LAPPER-Did you include the lower parking field in everything?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I included what was on the drawing, and I made notes on it, not that it’s
going to make an awful lot of difference. I counted 3084. Taking a look at the executive spaces
and the reserve spaces, and then went around a picked up all the parking spaces, you have
shown in squares.
MR. LAPPER-Is it possible that some of the handicapped spaces that you counted, even though
they’re striped spaces?
MR. VOLLARO-No. I’m not doing a point count. What I’m doing is going to your drawing
Number S-3, and in that drawing you actually define your spaces in those areas in a rectangle.
MR. LAPPER-Gotcha.
MR. VOLLARO-Adding all those up, I get 2856, and then 228 come out of the executive space
and the reserved. So I got 3084.
MR. LAPPER-And we have 3045.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s 3045, versus the drawing count of 3084. Not that it makes an awful lot
of difference, but in order to get everything into one basket, and do it correctly, I think we ought
to look at that anyway.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-If somebody wants to quickly do it, I can, I think I’ve got a calculator, I can run
it out for you, but these are my numbers. I put them down.
MR. MAC EWAN-How much are you off with them? By four spots?
MR. LAPPER-Thirty-nine, I think.
MR. CARR-Thirty-nine more.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s going to, you know, amount to much, Mr. Chairman. These
are fairly large numbers we’re dealing with here, and I don’t know that the difference in that, I
just wanted to get it in writing so that the drawings reflected the correct amount. If you want to
get to S-3 and go over it with me real quick, I’ll go over the numbers with, and then you can add
them up yourself.
MR. LAPPER-If you want to go on to the next issue, we can have one of Dave’s associates
calculate it from the map that he has and let you know what we think.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I had a comment, I guess this is for Staff more than it is for the
applicant. When you did your preliminary reviews, there’s a comment on there that we did not
review the site plan submission. Is there a reason for that?
MR. HILTON-You’ll have to point me to which page you’re referring to.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I knew you were going to ask that question. I’m looking at the pre-
application conference.
MR. HILTON-I see.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-It says we did not review site plan submissions. I don’t know why that’s there,
and I didn’t understand why Staff put that note there to begin with. Is there a reason for that?
MR. HILTON-Yes. I think that’s a note that, at the time of the pre-application conference, we
looked at the subdivision modification that they were considering, and also the Area Variance
application that they were considering, but a revised site plan, which is before you now, wasn’t
presented during that pre-application conference.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this is what took place.
MR. LAPPER-We had the pre-ap meeting about a week before submission, just so we could see
if there were any other issues that Planning Staff wanted us to address.
MR. VOLLARO-But since that time, Planning Staff has looked at these?
MR. HILTON-Certainly, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess one other thing I’d like to have somebody do for me, I think I
understand this application, but would somebody try and help me out with this drawing. I can
never understand these dark line drawings. I looked at them and I said, what the heck does this
mean.
MR. CARR-What this is is a sub-catchment map for stormwater that was put together by Kevin
Hastings who’s the project engineer on this job, and basically what those black lines depict are
individual drainage areas going to structures.
MR. VOLLARO-So that basically is schematic of what, under the ground.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know as I’ve got anything else on this. The Sear-Brown letter is still
hanging out there, is it, as far as responses are concerned? Are we looking for a sign off from
Sear-Brown on their letter?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-Of 7/15.
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-What was your last conversation with Sear-Brown?
MR. CARR-My last conversation with Frank Palumbo was at four o’clock today. He was in our
office and when he left the office, for this purpose, his intention in leaving the office was to
speak to Craig Brown, and what he was going to say to Craig was if he wanted him at the
meeting, he would come, but basically what he told us he would tell him is there’s, basically,
the only concern he has left is that he felt the grade in this area right here, coming away from
the store, is a little steep. So he would like us to lessen that, and pick up these top of frame
elevations a little bit, and possibly add a catch basin, but that was basically his last remaining
comment that he was going to forward to Craig Brown, when he left our office.
MR. MAC EWAN-And your position is you’re going to make those changes for him?
MR. CARR-Yes. Our position is we were going to make, we’re going to those changes for him,
send them back to him directly, and what he said he would do is that he would look at them
and then he would either agree to disagree, and we would revise and then he would issue the
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
Town a letter. Basically, I’m actually standing in for Russ Pittenger who’s on vacation, but he
basically said that was what took place at the last approval. There were a couple of small
adjustments that needed to be made, and they were done between him and our office, and then
he forwarded a letter to the Town saying that he was all set with everything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I think I did see one other thing I wanted to ask about, and that was, there’s a
draft resolution here that covers, there was a preliminary and final submitted with this
application, but I only see.
MR. STROUGH-I think one was for the subdivision and the other one was for the site plan.
MR. RINGER-One’s for the site plan and one’s for the subdivision, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-This is for Site Plan No. 44-2002.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I think it’s mislabeled. That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what it is. It’s a mislabeling on it. This is subdivision 14-2002,
and one is 44-2002. I just want to make sure that when we do and if we do these resolutions,
they reflect the correct information.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The resolution says Subdivision No. 14-2002.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the one you want.
MR. VOLLARO-But there was a Preliminary and a Final submitted for the subdivision, and we
only have one draft resolution. Normally there’s a draft resolution that addresses the
Preliminary and the Final.
MR. LAPPER-I think this is a modification.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is a modification to it, Bob.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is modification. So we’ve already approved it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re just modifying our Final approval on this thing.
MR. STROUGH-I just interpreted that as a mislabeling.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. I just wanted to make sure that all those issues were addressed
and basically out of the seven concerns that Sear-Brown had, the only one we have to worry
about is Number One, which is the steepness of the slope there coming out of the entrance. So
everything else has been.
MR. CARR-And that’s directly tied in to the drainage right there, yes, and that’s it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m all right.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. LAPPER-I talked to Frank Palumbo this morning, and said the same thing, and that he had
scheduled to go up and meet with the guys at the LA Group today and again, that he was
available to come to the meeting, but apparently Craig told him not to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So as far as changing that grading differential, does it have to be done on
the final plat?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We would ask that it would be subject to Sear-Brown sign off on the final.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because it does have to be on paper.
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, can I back up a second?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, go ahead.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-The number of parking spaces, Bob. You’ve got 3,085. Is that the number
you said you came up with?
MR. STROUGH-Eighty-four.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Eighty-four.
MR. VOLLARO-Eighty-four.
MR. HUNSINGER-Eighty-four. I got 3,085, which is still different than what was shown on the
plat.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris, I used the numbers on S-3.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so did I.
MR. VOLLARO-Did you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you use the proposed expansion as well?
MR. VOLLARO-What I picked up there was the 165 executive spaces and 63 reserve parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I added those in. Is that what you’re talking about?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The only thing I looked for, especially on this project, is consistency
with numbers, which, you know, as Bob and I have shown is a historical problem and remains.
Another example besides the addition is, on some tidbits of information that we have referring
to the project, they refer to the project at 56.72 acres, and that’s on the general information sheet.
MR. LAPPER-I’ve got 56.52.
MR. STROUGH-And then on the Site Development Data Sheet and on the S-3 plans we’ve got
56.52. So, you know, it’s only a half an acre, but, still, I mean, I just want it to be consistent.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, John, where is the higher number?
MR. STROUGH-The higher number you’ll find on the general information sheet.
MR. LAPPER-On the front of the plans, you mean.
MR. STROUGH-No, which is right here.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Yes. The Site Development Data Sheet, which is the next page after that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. That says 56.52.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That must be an error on the first one. It’s 56.52.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s what I mean. Okay. Next would be S-1 and S-1A. Why is
this area different, and this, I’m showing S-1A, and here is S-1. They’re different.
MR. VOLLARO-I think they were meant to be.
MR. STROUGH-Well, they probably are. I just didn’t understand.
MR. LAPPER-Are you looking at this subdivision parcel by Friendly’s? Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. See the area that’s circled in pink.
MR. VOLLARO-If you do an overlay of the two drawings, one is different than the other.
MR. LAPPER-What are the dates on those two maps?
MR. STROUGH-They’re both the same, June 20, 2002.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that as a correction, that S-1A was correcting S-1, but maybe that’s
wrong.
MR. STROUGH-That’s an assumption, but I wanted you to tell me that that’s the case, because
it wasn’t made clear.
MR. LAPPER-I think that it was a correction that was done by VanDusen and Steves, after
Pyramid looked at that.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m going to assume that S1-A is the correct one?
MR. CARR-S1-A is the lower one?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. It doesn’t have the jut. See the jut in.
MR. CARR-Yes, S1-A is the correct one.
MR. STROUGH-This one just goes straight.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And the curves are a little bit different in this area.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-John, if I could just interject for a minute. I guess I did have another question
concerning S-1A. Does that correction affect any of the parking up in that quadrant at all?
That’s right in the middle of the parking area, I believe. Right up in here, John. Right up in that
corner.
MR. STROUGH-How does that fall?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I would have to overlay that to see it.
MR. LAPPER-You know what the difference is? I was referring to, last time there was one issue
after the Planning Board approved it, that we had to, subject to Sear-Brown approval, was just
that canoe island, they wanted us to make a change where the Friendly’s entrance comes in to
the parking lot, they wanted that curve, the canoe island to be much longer. That was a design
issue for safety. That intersection got re-done, and Matt Steves, when he did the first set of
drawings, didn’t have the final final from the last time, and that’s the difference. That the new
configuration, it’s right at that intersection where you come in by Friendly’s the Mall
intersection, that double driveway. So unfortunately, he had used the preliminary plan from
last time rather than the final plan. So S1-A reflects the final approval that was done by this
Planning Board after Sear-Brown signed off and we’d agreed to make that change that Sear-
Brown wanted last time, and that was the last issue on the table. So that’s what happened.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s fine with me, it’s not an issue, as long as we make a note that S1-A
is the accurate representation. Okay. The outdoor sales area, 170.66 feet by 11 feet, as depicted
on Site Plan S-4.
MR. CARR-No. It’s two parking spaces wide, which would be 36 feet, by, what you’re seeing as
11, it would be island dimension.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. CARR-It would be 36 feet by, which looks to be 120 feet, approximately.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it says 170 feet eight inches.
MR. CARR-No, 170 feet eight inches is the dimension of that entire parking lane, end to end. I
believe what they’re showing as outdoor storage is just that hard, that heavy dashed area. The
170 feet eight inches is that entire parking row. So it’s only a portion of that.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I don’t remember that on the original plans. That looks brand
new. I think I’d remember that, because that’s retail sales area.
MR. LAPPER-That was not on the last set of drawings, you’re right.
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s something that the department store asked for.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I saw none of that in the strip describing the proposed modification. I
mean, if your numbers are right, we’re talking about 4,320 square feet of de facto retail sales
area.
MR. LAPPER-The details of that are something that this store either really wants or doesn’t
really want and what I’d say is for tonight, we could just pull that off, and if they want it, we’ll
come back and talk about it, and that’ll be up to the Board, but we could just pull that off for
tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, you’re on the agenda just to move that building 130 feet.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. Let’s just get rid of that, then.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That takes care of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you an A for effort, though.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and I’ll also give you an A for the drainage plan modification, because it
is a reduction of runoff and discharge to the Aviation Road discharge system which means
there’s more on-site infiltration, which I like to see. So that’s an A, but, okay. That seems to be
it, for me, with the exception of some conditioning discussions. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What your final numbers, Dave?
MR. CARR-I came out with 3084, is what I came out with. The same as Bob, if you add up those
numbers. The only thing that confused me a little bit, by looking at the plan, and as I said, I’m
kind of coming into this new, is that if you look at that S-3 plan that you took the numbers off
of, the only part that’s confusing is that executive area where it mentions the 165, and then
there’s a notation about 67 reserve spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I added those in.
MR. CARR-So did I, and I assumed that you would. So I came out with the same number that
you did, 3,084.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s basically against the 3045 as stated?
MR. CARR-Right. Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think it’s a great amount.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a matter of getting the numbers right. That’s all. Ten years from
now when someone goes back to review this thing, I want the numbers to add correctly. Any
other questions from Board members? Anything you guys wanted to add?
MR. HILTON-Just a couple of comments, the changes or modifications to the Site Development
Data, certainly if you note them in any resolution, but also if we could ask for a new Site
Development Data sheet be provided at the time of final submission, so that we can include it in
the records. Secondly, in terms of Sear-Brown, I spoke with Craig Brown this afternoon, and he
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
had a conversation with them, and they seem to indicate, this is what I’m hearing, that the
issues weren’t huge issues. You could act and condition it on a final signoff from Sear-Brown.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Does someone have something they want to draft up, drafted up
already?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re working on it at this end.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m thinking of three things, your Sear-Brown, we want a new site data sheet
that’s going to reflect the numbers correctly, and I would ask that a footnote be put in this
modification that we in no way are granting any approvals for any outdoor display areas for the
proposed store. Clearly indicating that we’re not granting any approvals for an outdoor display
for the proposed store, is ample enough.
MR. STROUGH-And one other thing, Mr. Chairman. Now the Zoning Board, the ZBA, put in
that they wanted the reciprocal agreement between the two parcel owners to be filed in the
County Clerk’s Office. Do we need to reinforce that, or is it enough that the ZBA?
MR. MAC EWAN-If that was a condition of their approval, for this modification, that should be
fine with them.
MR. STROUGH-Well, sometimes we like to be redundant. I didn’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that all the conditions?
MR. LAPPER-I have just one comment, one question. I noticed on the Staff resolution, you’re
confirming SEQRA. This was a Full EIS originally, which you modified you were Lead Agency,
and they put it in a Whereas that you had previously done the SEQRA and that this is not
substantially different, and I guess my suggesting, subject to Cathi agreeing, is that that should
actually be in one of the operative provisions of the resolution, rather than just the Whereas,
that you’re actually resolving that this is not a change for SEQRA, which is important.
MR. STROUGH-It’s in the draft resolution.
MR. LAPPER-But I think it’s in the resolution as a Whereas, rather than in the body, rather than
as a provision.
MS. RADNER-I think if anybody on your Board feels that anything that’s proposed in this plan
makes any significant changes to the environmental review that you’ve done, you need to
address that. You need to consider that now. If you don’t feel that anything here changes what
you’ve done, then you should make that a part of your record, and I don’t think it particularly
matters whether it’s one of the Whereas or as a conclusion, as long as you’re all comfortable
with the SEQRA review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce it, please.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re not ready to, at least I’m not, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LAPPER-It also should say that you’re the SEQRA Lead Agency. It said that you granted a
Neg Dec last time, and it wasn’t a Neg Dec. It was a Findings Statement after a Full
Environmental Impact Statement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Which of these draft resolutions are we working on here?
MR. MAC EWAN-The one related to 14-2002.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-On the last Whereas on the second page, Bob, I would ask you to strike out
the Whereas and strike out where it says SEQRA Negative Declaration, replace Negative
Declaration with a Findings Statement.
MR. LAPPER-And throw in Lead Agency.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to take Negative Declaration out?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Replace it with a Findings Statement.
MS. RADNER-And I think Craig was also saying strike out the Whereas. So you’re going to
move it as part of your resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-And so you’re taking the Whereas out, and it’s following on the last Whereas
on the first page.
MR. STROUGH-Cathi, would you put that in when you mention conditions?
MS. RADNER-We find the following, and then Number One says the requirements of the State
SEQRA have been met, have been considered, and that you don’t feel that there’s been a
significant change to what you found in your Findings Statement. I’m paraphrasing, bur you’re
basically moving that paragraph to your Number One, after your Now Therefore Be It
Resolved. Do you follow me?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Wouldn’t that actually be Number Three?
MS. RADNER-Well, it doesn’t matter what number it is, but you’re going to move it to one of
your resolutions, not one of your recitals.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MS. RADNER-The important thing is that you’re all comfortable with that. That if any of you
feel that anything significantly impacts what you’ve decided in the past, what you’ve found in
the past, speak up now.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think there’s anything significant. That’s my feeling on that.
MR. STROUGH-I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s the consensus of the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Go for it, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 PYRAMID CO.
OF GF, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 14-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: Pyramid Co. of GF
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
Previous SEQR Agent: Jonathan Lapper
Zone: ESC-25A
MODIFICATION Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road
Applicant proposes to modify the previously approved subdivision by relocating lot lines to
accommodate a future addition at the Aviation Mall. Modifications to previously approved
subdivisions require approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 64-2003
Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2, 5.3
Public Hearing: Not required for modification
WHEREAS, the application was received 6/16/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/18/03 and
7/22 Staff Notes
7/16 ZBA resolution
7/15 Sear Brown engineering comments
7/8 Revised map received: S-1-A revised 7/2/03
6/27 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing is not required for 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 as Lead Agency previously adopted a SEQRA Findings
Statement; the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby granted and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the S-1A is the correction depiction of the layout of the subdivision.
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 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-He only needs to condition what applies to the subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And some of the other conditions are going to go to site plan.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-The new site data sheet goes to site plan, I would think.
MR. HUNSINGER-The outdoor sales goes to site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-And then no approval for outdoor sales is a site plan issue. Parking, I think, is
probably a subdivision issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that also site plan?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The S1-A drawing to be the correct depiction is site plan.
MR. STROUGH-No, that would be the subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Subject to Sear-Brown approval is site plan also, I would guess.
MR. HUNSINGER-Site plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Site plan issue. So really the only thing that we have as a condition for the
subdivision is the S1-A is the correct depiction of the layout.
MR. STROUGH-And the SEQRA notation.
MR. VOLLARO-And the SEQRA notation. Right.
MR. LAPPER-Could you just refer to yourselves as the Lead Agency, in the SEQRA. I think
that’s important, because you were.
MR. STROUGH-Right after Planning Board, as Lead Agent.
MR. LAPPER-As Lead Agency, yes, thank you.
MR. STROUGH-Right after “Planning Board”, just include “Lead Agent”.
MR. VOLLARO-And the Planning Board as Lead Agent.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I’d ask you to give a copy of your notes to George. So he has them.
The notes you made for introducing this resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They’re basically scratched on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Give them to him, just so he has them, if you would, please.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, do you want to go to site plan.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2002 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION PYRAMID CO. OF GF
AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL,
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED SITE PLAN BY
SHIFTING THE LOCATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STORE ADDITION 130 +/-
FEET TO THE EAST. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS
REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 64-
2003 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2, 5.3
JON LAPPER, DAVE CARR, ERIC GOETZMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And no public hearing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion on this one, since both of them were intertwined together.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, Bob, if you want to continue.
MR. STROUGH-The only thing you’re going to have to do is use the same SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The same SEQRA’s. The same conditions.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Right here, you mean. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 44-2002 PYRAMID CO. OF
GF, 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. 44-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: Pyramid Co. of GF
Previous SEQR Agent: Jonathan Lapper
Zone: ESC-25A
MODIFICATION Location: Aviation Mall, Aviation Road
Applicant proposes to modify an approved site plan by shifting the location of a previously
approved anchor store addition 130 +/- feet to the east. Modifications to previously approved
site plans require approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 64-2003
Tax Map No. 98-1-5.2, 5.3
Public Hearing: Not required for modification
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 7/18/03, and
7/22 Staff Notes
7/16 ZBA resolution
7/8 Sear Brown engineering comment
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/24 Water Dept. comment
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing is not required for 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
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
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, as Lead Agency previously adopted a SEQRA Findings
Statement; 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 for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with
the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to Sear Brown approval and a final sign-off against their letter of July 15, 2003.
2. That the parking be corrected to 3,084 versus the stated 3,045.
3. A new Site Data Sheet be supplied with the correct information.
4. There is no approval in this resolution for any outside display on the properties.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Metivier
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 40-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JIM & NANCY WHITE AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 52 ½ RUSSELL HARRIS
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY OVER A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 61-2003 APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX
MAP NO. 240-5-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-2003, Jim & Nancy White, Meeting Date: July 22, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 40-2003
APPLICANT: Jim & Nancy White are the applicants for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 508 sq. ft. second story addition,
as well as a 56 sq. ft. expansion of the first floor of an existing dwelling.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 52 ½ Russell Harris Rd., off of Cleverdale Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a
SEQRA short EAF.
PARCEL HISTORY: Area Variance 61-2003 will be reviewed by the ZBA on 7/16/2003
[resolution attached].
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 508 sq. ft. second story
addition and a 56 sq. ft. first floor expansion to an existing residence.
STAFF COMMENTS: As proposed, this application requires side yard, shoreline, and floor area
ratio relief, which will be reviewed by the ZBA on July 16, 2003. Site Plan Review and approval
is required because of the more than 50% residential expansion within the Lake George CEA.
The site plan also proposes two stormwater retention basins at the front and rear of the house.
Warren Co. PB recommendation: NCI [7/9 resolution attached]”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Our original Staff notes which were drafted prior to the ZBA granting of
relief for portions of this application kind of talk about some numbers that have obviously
changed. I think what we’re looking at right now is a maximum height of 25 feet 8 inches for
the building, with one foot eaves, eliminating the 56 square foot first floor addition and the
applicant has submitted revised plans that show, or I guess conform with what the ZBA
approved, and I guess that’s what’s before you this evening, and I don’t have any additional
comment at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law
firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m here representing Mr. and Mrs. White. With me at the table is
Mr. White. In the audience is Mrs. White, and with me is Tom Jarrett from Jarrett-Martin. This
has been a long road. We started this process probably about two years ago, and I’ll just bring
you up through a little bit of the history, to give you a feeling for what the applicants have gone
through to try to make this as compliant as they can and still usable. They started with a septic
system that was considered a conventional septic system but still required variances, and
applied for that with the Town Board approximately last summer, early part of last summer.
The Town Board did not approve that because there were objections that the system would be,
in effect, a fill system, a mound system, or semi-mound system, and might disturb drainage
from upland on the property. We went back to the boards to try to look at other alternatives
and came to the conclusion that there were really no alternatives for a conventional septic
system on that property that wouldn’t require a number of variances. Came back to the Town
Board and applied for a variance to allow the use of holding tanks, which was approved this
summer by the Town Board. So the septic for this property will go on holding tanks. The best
we can tell is that the septic is a very, very old system. It looks like it was built when the first
part of the building was built, the front part of the building, and actually is under the back
addition. We had somebody trying to locate the septic system so we could better describe it,
and we can find it, or follow it as far as under the building itself, whatever is there. It certainly
isn’t an up to date septic system. When the second septic system was approved, we then went
forward with the plans. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming small lot. Anything that’s built
on this property is going to require some variances. I think your side line setback requirements
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
are 12 feet. The building that is there right now on the north side is one foot eight inches, and
on the south side is five foot seven inches. We proposed, in our application for the side line
setback variances, to maintain those and in part extend the wall that’s on the south side so that
it would be squared out. That was a two foot by fifty-six foot addition to the footprint, if you
will. In negotiations with the Zoning Board of Appeals, we indicated that we would withdraw
that and submit plans that showed that we were not going to ask for that. We were going to
build simply on what is the existing footprint, and I should say some place down the line this
application also went to the County Planning Board and was given No County Impact or
approved with No County Impact, because of no County impact. They did not take a position
on it. So basically that’s what we’re talking about is reconstructing the house that’s on this lot
within the same footprint. We’re not talking about moving it closer to the lake. The piece that
is the covered porch that is nearest to the lake will remain as it is. It probably will get new
roofing on it, roofing material only. There’ll be an A-Frame behind that. If you look at the floor
plan, it’s a very modest floor plan. It is not an expansion of major means in any sense.
Somebody at the Zoning Board commented that there were going to be two bathrooms. Well, if
you look at the bathroom on the first floor, as it’s laid out, it’s three and a half feet wide, and it’s
not a full bath. I mean, the rooms are small. The bedroom on the first floor is eight and a half
by eight and a half. The number of bedrooms in the new dwelling is no different than the
number of bedrooms in the old dwelling. It is an attempt to modernize the structure,
modernize the use of the structure, and we think that it will be an improvement to the
neighborhood and not a detriment. We specifically, when we went to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, got into discussions of what compromises we could make or not make. One of the
compromises that we made was to make it less than a compliant height. I think the statute
allows you to go to 28 feet, and we have agreed to go to 25 feet 9 inches, I believe, 25 feet 8
inches. In addition to that, on the side walls of the second floor, and the second floor is only in
the back portion of the building, we’ve agreed to make the side walls six feet tall. So that the
roof will sit flatter on the structure itself. You will have to come in to the room probably about
two feet before you get to an eight foot height. There are different terms that you call that, but
it’s like a knee wall just a little bit better than a knee wall. Any questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. Yes. I had a question, and I just lost it. Do you
want me to come back to you?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I thought of something else and it just escaped me while you were
talking. It’ll come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-We were up there today looking at that, and boy it is a very tight site. There’s not
room on any side. The approval from the Health Department or from the Town Board on the
septic, we didn’t get a copy of that? It’s not in the packet that I saw, George.
MR. HILTON-If we have anything in the file, I don’t recall seeing that submitted as part of the
information.
MR. RINGER-I really don’t have any questions. I don’t have any questions other than to see the
approval on the septic.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I just thought of mine. Is the cottage right now operating on the
septic system that is defunct, or it’s not working well and now with the renovation we’re going
to put in a holding tank?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s operating on a septic system that we don’t know how it functions. We
don’t know whether, we know that it’s probably maybe 40 years old, and it’s underneath the
back portion of the structure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And how many gallons? You have no idea? It’s probably just not even a
septic tank like you’d buy now. It’s maybe just a drum or whatever. Okay. So, in other words,
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
right now it’s operating on something that’s 40 years old, and the new proposal will be holding
tanks that you’ll pump out how regularly?
MR. CARR-Well, there’ll be an alarm system.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. CARR-That was set up, I think Tom could talk to that a little bit more, as far as the alarm
system, but I think that halfway alarm will go off, and when it gets pretty much two alarm.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what capacity are those holding tanks, Tom?
MR. JARRETT-Well, we have two 1250 gallon tanks proposed and approved for 2500 gallons
total. There’s an alarm at half capacity, to warn the homeowner that pump out is imminent or
needed soon. There’s another alarm, just below the top of the second tank, that will shut off the
water supply entirely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha.
MR. JARRETT-But Jim plans on setting up, in fact you have set up a contract with IBS to pump
out, on a regular basis. So the alarm system should be a moot point, but it’s there as a back up.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then just run this by me one more time. Why was that extra 59
square feet put on the bottom? I know you were going to do the cantilever for the second story.
Why did you, if it was a cantilever on the top then why did you need that extra 59 square feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-Because without it it’s only 16 feet wide, and we were trying to make some of
those rooms a little bit wider.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha.
MR. O'CONNOR-The bathroom, if you take a look at the floor plan, I mean, you open up the
door, you don’t have a lot of space with three and a half feet in that room. We could make that
room probably five feet if we had that extra two feet, but the neighbor felt that that would
create a tunnel effect when he walked down to his property. So we backed off the two feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t really have any question. The one question I had was about the, if
there was an alarm system on the holding tank, and you already addressed that. That’s a tough
site, but I think you’re doing about everything you could possibly do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Could you just state what you said about the bathroom downstairs? You said
it was going to be just a?
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me look and see. Okay. It is a lavatory toilet and a shower.
MR. METIVIER-It is a shower?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there is a shower.
MR. METIVIER-That’s what I thought.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s three, I equate to it by size more than anything else.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I apologize.
MR. METIVIER-All right. I just wanted to make that clear, that I saw that there was a shower in
there.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s three quarters, I guess you would say, instead of full.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. I really don’t have any other questions. This is obviously a tough site. I
was surprised that they’ll allow holding tanks, but it most likely is better than what you have
now. So, I mean, it’s just a tough situation. Obviously, if you have a 40 year old septic system,
I’d question if there was one at this point. So, you know, it sounds better than what you have.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. As Larry stated, we were up there today. Gave the site a good look over.
I don’t know what else you could do. I mean, you can’t make the house any narrower. It’s a 25
foot lot width and 18 foot lot leaves a seven foot extra. You’re staying in the footprint, and I can
see you’re basically going to have to replace everything. The foundation doesn’t look in very
good shape either. So you’re really going to upgrade everything. Now is there going to be a
basement?
JIM WHITE
MR. WHITE-At this point we haven’t planned on it. We’re going to have to find out what
actually is under that back porch area as far as the septic, we might have to dig that out, but we
do have to update the foundation, for sure.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. WHITE-It’s on piers right now. We’d like to put it on a block foundation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the only reason why I ask is some people are going to show concern that
some people make the basement areas living areas, and we can’t afford any more living area.
We’re maxed out here, I think.
MR. O'CONNOR-We would acknowledge that, and I think the difference in the grade also
would probably prohibit that.
MR. STROUGH-And my other concern was, do you plan on putting up gutters on the roof?
Because the way the houses are and the sidewalks between the houses, and not only that, but
there’s a good stormwater reason for putting gutters on the roofs. Tom, I guess you’re ready to
answer that.
MR. JARRETT-Well, we had planned gutters definitely, especially on the south side to facilitate
stormwater management, but actually we’re looking at gutters pretty much all the way around.
MR. STROUGH-I would strongly recommend that. Now, are you going to direct the gutters
into your drainage retention basins, or are you going to use the drywells?
MR. JARRETT-We don’t want to use drywells here because we’ve got tight soil conditions at
depth. We’ve got permeable soils, very shallow. So we’re going to use a shallow basin.
MR. STROUGH-It will be directed towards the retention basins?
MR. JARRETT-Correct. Right.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s good. That’s a big concern of mine, and I’m glad to hear
that you’re going to gutter the roof, and that’s about it for me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess we’re down into these Floor Area worksheet ratios again. I think that’s
got to be corrected. I’ll go over that with you if you’d like, Tom. You’re now using 862 square
feet as opposed to the 910, the removal of the 56 square feet. That’s gone now, right?
MR. JARRETT-We’re keeping the first floor the same as it is now, 862.
MR. VOLLARO-Eight sixty-two. The second floor is 508, and the covered porches are 128. So
that gives you a total of 1498 as opposed to 1554. Correct?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. You’re looking at the plans that were prior to the ZBA meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’ve got your new plans. I’m saying that the Floor Area worksheet wasn’t
revised to reflect your new submission.
MR. JARRETT-I see, in the application.
MR. O'CONNOR-The map was, but I think that we would acknowledge that the map was
revised but the floor plan or that sheet in the application was not.
MR. VOLLARO-Floor Area, what we call the FAR worksheet. So that leaves you a proposed
area of construction of 508.
MR. JARRETT-That would be the second floor area.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which is reflected on Drawing C-10.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Some of the drawings reflect the correct. I think if we’re looking at the
new drawing I think now picks that up, I believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-It does. I just went down the numbers as you were reading them off.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the only thing that has to be done is the FAR worksheet has to match
the new drawing. I think that’s what I’m really saying. Now, the retention basin, that retention
basin was really based on the 56.5 square foot. Isn’t that why we put that retention basin in
there, or is that?
MR. JARRETT-Well, by Code, there’s no stormwater management required, but we felt it was a
good idea. So we sized it as a minimum to handle that extra roof area.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-In reality much of the roof is going to run through there, and it will take out any
sediment that, you know, shingle debris, whatever, that’s on the roof. It’ll act like a buffer as a
filter strip in a sense.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a good idea to leave it in. I just, I didn’t know whether the design of
that stormwater basin reflected the 56 square foot position, and that’s why you put it in there.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will leave it in.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-It would be a good idea to just let it be.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We have no intentions of removing it, simply because of the ZBA action.
MR. O'CONNOR-The roof is still the same.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s it for me, Mr. Chairman, unless we have some controversy here
about 56 square feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just have a question that, these are the new drawings that we got,
and I was wondering why the 56 square feet wasn’t put in to the new drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s going to be removed.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought you were adding it.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. We agreed to remove it so that the footprint at the first level is identical
to what the footprint is now. We had proposed to square it off, and it didn’t seem to fly.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, good. Now I’m on the same page.
MR. MAC EWAN-George?
MR. HILTON-Larry, to answer your question, we did not have anything, and we still don’t
have anything in the file concerning the septic variance 17-2003. Tom just provided me with a
copy. On June 3 the Town Board of Health did approve a variance to allow a holding tank
rd
2500 gallon capacity. I’ve got a copy of that. You can take a look at it if you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’ll trust you.
MR. HILTON-Also Tom’s given me what appears to be a contract between IBS and Jim White,
stating that they, IBS, would pump the holding tanks on an on-call basis, and they say they’ll be
available seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
MR. HUNSINGER-How often do you think you would have to pump them out?
MR. JARRETT-It all depends on usage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I realize that, but.
MR. JARRETT-Probably no more than say once every couple of weeks under normal operation,
but they get a lot of parties, and they’ll be pumping them out more often.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, George? Any other questions from Board members?
Anything you wanted to add? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll
open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GARY SAMPSON
MR. SAMPSON-Good evening. My name is Gary Sampson. I have the property just to the
south of the White’s property. I’d like to start with a couple of concerns I have about the actual
building of this renovation. For those of you who have been out to the site, you realize you
drive down a one lane road, through the woods, and that’s the only access to these houses. I’m
fairly familiar with construction techniques. There’s going to be heavy equipment coming in
there, especially for the holding tanks, maybe for the footings. There’s going to be a lot of
construction traffic, and that is a public road, and there are like five houses on the other side of
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
the Whites that need that road for access, and God forbid emergency services. What we can’t
afford is for it to be tied up with construction vehicles, which quite often will arrive at a site and
sit for an hour or two before they’re needed. If we have them parked on that road, I’m not
going to be able to get out, or in, and neither will any of the other people. Now both sides of
this road are private property all the way back. Pretty much to the fields. I think they’re
private property also. They’re probably less critical, and I’d like to see something directing
whoever is in charge of building this thing to ensure that construction vehicles and the workers.
If you have 15 guys working on this place at a time, let’s say, there’s no place for them to park.
You’re not going to fit them on the White’s property. Not that many vehicles, and so I don’t
know where you’re going to put all these trucks and other vehicles while you’re building this
thing, and one thing I don’t want is for that road to get closed off because if I have an
emergency, I want the emergency services to be able to get to my house, or if I want to leave, I
want to leave, and I don’t want to sit there and wait for some guy who’s running a dump truck
until he gets good and ready to move it. So that’s one concern, is the access to the site. Second
is whether I’d like to or not, actually, I cannot allow my property to be used to assist in the
construction. I’ve already consulted my lawyer, and he says if I give permission to anybody to
come on to that property, I become liable for them, and if they get injured on my property, I can
get sued for it, and in today’s world, I am not willing to take that risk. Now, I have a paved
driveway, just to the south of the White’s. It’s a very attractive spot to park. From what my
mother told me today when I got home, some of the Zoning Board members were parked on it
this very day. It’s convenient. Well that’s fine, but the driveway was not built to highway
standards. If a piece of heavy equipment, a dump truck, whatever, pulls over in my driveway,
it’s going to get busted and cracked, and I’m going to come out and I’m going to find that, and
then what do I do? Who do I talk to about that? So, from a legal basis, I cannot allow anybody
from this construction to enter my property whatsoever. To that effect, I would like some
direction given to whoever the general contractor is ensure that he will not allow anybody to
park on my property or to cross over my property. Like I say, I’m somewhat familiar with
construction, and I know if a guy brings a dump truck in there, and he has to pull in to the
White’s property, he’s going to take the path of least resistance and if that goes over my
driveway, he’s going to use it, unless something’s there to stop him. Now I’m not there all the
time to stop him. So what I would like to see done is, if you remember the house, in the back on
the roadside, there is a fence there right now. I would like to see that fence maintained in its
current status, throughout construction. As soon as construction is over, he can do anything he
wants with the fence, but I’d like to see that fence kept there during construction, and I would
like to see a temporary construction fence, you know, maybe some of those posts with the
orange webbing that you see at construction sites, from the end of that fence, to the edge of the
12 foot right of way, which is the road, to be put up along the side of my driveway. To prevent
the construction vehicles and people and everything else from going on to my property. It’s
going to be very difficult to do this renovation in 25 feet, but from a legal basis, I can’t afford to
say, yes, go ahead and use my property because I become responsible for them the moment
they step on it, and that’s a risk I cannot take. The third item I have concerning the construction
is that there is currently a right of way agreement between our two properties for the path that
goes down between the two, and one thing that concerns me is the use of this path by
construction crews and for whatever they’re going to use it for. To quote the agreement
between the two parties, we’re allowed reasonable use and utilization of the private right of
way and shall obstruct, impede or interfere with the reasonable use and utilization. One
second, please. And that both parties shall be responsible for keeping the walkway and stairs
free from debris and obstructions. I don’t want to see wood piled up on that path so I can’t
walk down it, and I know that contractor’s going to want to do it. He’s going to want to use
that area as a staging area where he sticks his trusses before he puts them up and sticks his pile
of wood and anything else he’s got, and I don’t want to see it happen, and there’s an agreement
between these two properties to say they’re not allowed to do it. So I would like something,
some kind of direction, given to the general contractor, again, saying, hey, you’re not going to
do this, and if you do do it, we’re going to shut you down, until you stop doing it. Because
otherwise the use of my property gets jeopardized. So, that’s all I have to say about the actual
construction. I must admit, I’m at somewhat of a loss here. To a great extent I don’t know what
this panel does, other than they give a final review, I guess, to a project. I do not know what
authority or power this panel has. Suffice it to say I was very disappointed at the Zoning Board.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
I read through the Queensbury Code, and see words concerning the intrinsic character of the
neighborhood. This is a very big addition they’re putting on this house. Now I agree totally, I
would love to see them renovate the house and put a second story on, add to it and make it as
nice as they want, but I think we’re overbuilding. I think we’re overbuilding a lot, and what
concerns me is that if one house overbuilds on this sequence of houses we have here,
everybody’s going to be affected negatively, all the other properties, and since they’ll look out
of place, if this one’s correct or the one that’s being renovated will look out of place, and what
I’ve done is, I apologize for the crudeness. They’re quite crude because that’s the limit of my
graphics ability, but the first page you see what they’re after right now, and how it is next to my
house, and that has the outcropping, the cantilever on the south side. The second page shows
the same thing next to the northern neighbor. All of the houses in that row, the peaks on all the
houses on that row sort of line up. Well they’re bringing their peak out about 10 or 12 feet in
front of everybody else’s, and that plus the cantilever on the south side, I get the impression
that that goal here is to enclose every physically possible cubic foot into this house, and I don’t
think that’s what the goal is, and I think it does detract from the intrinsic character of the
neighborhood. Now I put two other pictures in the back. The third one, which is again next to
my house, is without the two foot extension on the south side, and it moves the peak back to the
top of the porch, which is in line with all the other houses along that street. It’s not sticking out.
It’s still very high. It’s still the tallest peak in the road. It will be when it’s done, but it moves
that peak back so it’s line with the other houses. I think where it is now it’s going to be sticking
out, you know, like an albatross out there, and it’s going to look silly. That’s why they required
so many variances to shoehorn this thing into this lot, because they’re overbuilding it. I would
like to see them improve the house. I would like to see them enlarge the house, and what’s, the
question I have now is what is reasonable? And I think we’ve gone beyond reasonable here, to
extreme. I also read in the Code where the Zoning Board, if a hardship is proven by the
applicant, that they are required to approve only the minimum variance necessary to alleviate
that hardship. At the Zoning Board meeting, at no time, if you restricted the second floor,
which is going outside the footprint that exists today, they’re expanding it, to 18 feet wide from
16 feet, with that cantilever, if you bring it back to 16 and keep that wall straight, it brings a lot
more sunlight into, between our two houses, which is my entrance, because my entrance is on
the side. It’s not on the end, and at no time did the applicant ever show a hardship that would
be caused by keeping the second floor 16 feet. So a straight wall up that side is the minimum
variance. Coming out two feet is not minimum. You’re increasing the variance, which is in
direct violation of what the Code suggests. So I would ask that this Board, like I say, I don’t
know what authority you have. I’d like to see you kick it back to zoning and say, hey, look, you
messed up on this one. You didn’t give the minimum variance as required by the Code, and
you need to look at this thing and keep it more reasonable, and if they did what I have in those
pictures there, if they made those two restrictions, you not only get rid of that controversy, the
floor area requirement variance would go away. The expansion ratio variance would go away.
I mean, there’s a reason you need all those variances to build this house, because it’s too much
house for that lot, and I’d like to see it just made more reasonable, and then, go ahead, build
away.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Your house is the gray house?
MR. SAMPSON-Yes, that’s mine.
MR. RINGER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how tall your peak is?
MR. SAMPSON-The best estimate we had, and I was here last time, was just under 20 feet. So
from what they say, it would be about six feet below what they’re proposing here. In defense of
the White’s what they said before, when these two houses were built, the front half of both
these houses were identical, when they were first built. In the mid 1950’s, the back half of my
house was built, by a Mr. Al Carponella. I don’t know when exactly the back half of their
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
house was put on, but I believe it was also back in the early 50’s. It was shortly after that. So
the odds are their septic is probably over 50 years old, which is the point I was trying to make
there. It’s probably older than what they think it is. I had a number of discussions with Mr.
Carponella why they did what they did, and one of the difficulties is that, for whatever reason,
and it doesn’t look good now, but my entrance is in between the two houses. It’s not at the back
end like it is on their house. So the width of that gap, especially the back half of that gap, is
critically important to me, because that’s how I get into my house, and if you start closing that
in, it does detract from my house, quite a bit, and anybody that would want to buy my house
would come walking in and say, boy, do I want to live next to this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But your entrance is on the north side of the house?
MR. SAMPSON-Yes, in between the two houses, just at the, almost centered in between, right
where it cuts in from 18 feet to 16 feet, the second floor would be built.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And when did you say your septic system was done?
MR. SAMPSON-It was re-done in the early 70’s, mine. So we do have a difference there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have yours pumped out? Do you have a holding tank?
MR. SAMPSON-No, I have a septic tank, and there’s a leach field out there. I’m not quite sure
where, because my stepfather put it in back in the early 70’s, and he’s no longer with us, but I
think I found parts of it, when putting in some fence posts. I think I found some, where it might
be, because I found some gravel with some not so pleasant odor to it. So I know it sort of runs
down the side of my driveway, in front of the shed, somewhere in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-What runs down by your driveway?
MR. SAMPSON-What there is of a leach field.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask Code Enforcement to take a visit up there this week, take a look at
that, please. It sounds like you’ve got a failed septic system.
MR. SAMPSON-No, no, everything works fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got running down the side of your driveway?
MR. SAMPSON-No, no. No, sir. I did not say that. I did not say that. I’m saying when I dug
some holes for some fence posts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. SAMPSON-In digging it out, yes, down a foot and a half or so I found some gravel that
didn’t smell too good, but nothing has ever come out of the ground. No, no, not at all.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What you need to do is put some of that dye through it and you’ll know.
MR. SAMPSON-Yes. No, we’ve never had any odor or anything coming out of the ground.
That’s never happened.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SAMPSON-I’m sorry.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I misunderstood you. I apologize. Thanks. Anyone else? John, did
you want to?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I attended both the Town Board meetings when
they conducted the hearing, as a local Board of Health, as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting where they heard this variance appeal. Fundamentally, we have here an unbuildable
site. I question that what’s on the site and the very subdivision are legally pre-existing uses and
structures. It’s my understanding that this land was created, this 25 foot wide parcel of land
was created some time in 1950, through a subdivision of what was there as a 50 foot lot. Now
even back in those days, the New York State Health Department regulated subdivision of land.
I don’t know if a map has been filed on this subdivision, but if it hasn’t, it’s not legally pre-
existing. The first, the very first Queensbury Town Zoning Ordinance had a requirement that
seasonal uses be registered. This Ordinance goes back to 1967, and all seasonal uses were to be
registered. I have searched for many years to find such registrations. I find none. In 1988, there
was a requirement, as a result of the Lake George Park Commission wastewater regulations,
that all on-site wastewater systems in the Lake George basin be registered, and the Town of
Queensbury took over that role for the Park Commission in our Town. I don’t know what
exists for the documentation and registration of that on-site system. This has been billed in the
program as a renovation, within the meaning of the Uniform Building Code of the State of New
York, this does not qualify as a renovation. This is new construction. When the application
came before the Town Board, as the local Board of Health, it was billed as a seasonal use, and
that seasonal restriction was removed by the ZBA. I don’t know what power they had to do
that, but the very approval of the holding tank was based on seasonal use, and now that’s no
longer a restriction. I’d like to address the holding tank issue, and it would be my
recommendation that you table this application tonight and you send it back to the local Board
of Health for re-review, based on the information I’m going to make available to you at this
time. This issue of holding tanks came up very early in 1998, 1997, 1998, when the Morse
property on Assembly Point was approved based on using holding tanks. To this end, our
Town Attorney was requested by the Town Board to initiate an inquiry to the local Board of
Health, to the, excuse me, the District Office of the New York State Health Department. Mark
Schachner received this reply from the District Director, concerning holding tanks. I’ll read you
a few sentences from this reply. On behalf of the Queensbury Town Board, you wrote a letter to
the Department, under date of April 30, 1998, requesting that the Department of Health
authorize the Town of Queensbury to allow the use of holding tanks in certain situations
deemed appropriate pursuant to Town Code, local laws, or Ordinances. 10 NYCRR Appendix
75A, entitled Wastewater Treatment Standards, Individual Household Systems, contains the
minimum standards for the design and construction of new individual household wastewater
systems. Those standards clearly indicate that holding tanks are not acceptable for long term
use on year round residences and for new home construction. When an existing subsurface
wastewater treatment system fails, and site conditions are unsuitable for construction of a
replacement system, local officials may authorize installation of a holding tank to address the
problem. This does not say that we can support development, expansion, using a holding tank.
This says if you have a failure, you have no other way out, use a holding tank. The Department
has not issued a general waiver addressing holding tanks since the same would be directly
contrary to the letter and intent of Appendix 75A. Section 75A10A, Home Construction in
Areas Where Site Conditions Cannot Support Subsurface Wastewater Treatment, should not
occur until public utilities are available. The last sentence of his letter reads, I regret that your
request for a holding tank waiver cannot be honored. Now I don’t know how deeply this letter
is buried in the Town files, but it was not available before the local Board of Health when they
approved this holding tank. There was discussion. There was concern expressed by the Town
Counsel present, but this letter, I don’t think, was available. In any case, my recommendation
would be to table this application, send it back to the local Board of Health, and address this
issue of holding tanks. Now I’ve pursued this with the Building and Codes Department, and I
FOIL’d once, for my own interest, a list of the holding tanks in North Queensbury. Do you
know what I got for an answer? John, they’re too numerous to count. Again, I recommend that
this be tabled.
MR. VOLLARO-John, before you leave, what’s the date of that letter?
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. SALVADOR-June 8, 1998.
MR. RINGER-Would you give a copy of that to George, and George could just give it to us, if
you would.
MR. SALVADOR-I’ll be glad to. A couple of other comments. Whoever heard of a second story
camp? That’s all this land will support is a camp, and you can improve the building to make it
a better camp. Another thing you should consider when you do your environmental review,
all these septic pumpers running around the countryside, Sunday, Saturday, heavy traffic, loud
noise, odors that are unacceptable. That has to be a part of an environmental review. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
LEON SPATH
MR. SPATH-My name is Leon Spath. I have two pieces of property south of Gary’s, and Gary
had brought up a very important point. It’s a single lane road. The Town claims on their
annual report that it’s 20 feet wide. It isn’t. It’s 12 foot wide. It’s a road by use, and it runs
right through our properties, and I’ve been around and around and around with the Town. I’ve
had all sorts of problems with the Town on that, of course most of you are familiar with Mr.
Naylor, and Fred Champagne. I had everybody there, and I do not let the plow turn around.
There is no turn around on the end of this road. I do not let the plow even come on my
property. They have to either back down. They have no right to come on my property, and I’ve
got lots of room, and what’s going to happen is these construction people, they’re going to see
all that room there, and they’re going to want to use it. I have two sons. They live down there,
year round. I moved down there in 1967, and we dug out pictures from 1943, 1944, this camp
was there then, or shortly after, and the character of the neighborhood is basically the same as it
was back when I moved there in ’67. We’ve got a two car garage up in back that was put in
there with a variance, and we ran into all sorts of problems with it, with the drainage, and I
went around and around and around with the Town. My attorney did, and never got any
response from them. I don’t have anything good to say about Mr. Champagne, and I had
meetings with, the whole Town was there, and things were said and things were guaranteed. A
week later I got letters that said just the opposite. So I got my attorney involved, well then they
didn’t know what to do. They never addressed the drainage issue on the west side of this road.
Right now the drainage, and I had to take situation into my own hands. It was going right
through my cellar, coming right out the front door. Right now it goes right down my driveway,
and it exits, discharges on my front lawn. This is stormwater, rainwater, and it was the only
option I had. My attorney wrote the Town, tried to find out what they were going to do, never
got a response. So there is a problem here. There’s a problem with drainage. There’s problem
with the road, and I’m going to say, they’re going to have problems getting work done because
they aren’t going to have room to put their vehicles, and both my boys work. They’re in and
out, and they don’t want that blocked. So there is a problem here, and I don’t know how you’re
going to solve it, and that’s about all I’ve got to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kathleen Salvador. A couple of things that I
would just like to reiterate that John said. According to the New York State Building Code,
when you disturb a septic, sewer system, that makes it new construction, new construction. So
again, this is not a renovation, it is new. According to the New York State Building Code, then,
for year round use, a holding tank is not allowed. Now I know this is going to be hard to
swallow, but that’s what it is. Also, have you given any thought, has anyone given any thought
to the health, safety, and welfare of all the other neighbors on this street? These are very small
lots, would not be allowed to be built on today. I think you have to think of that also. Again, I
believe you should send this situation back to the Town Board, the local Board of Health, and
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
let them re-think their decision on putting in the holding tanks. I also think it should go back to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. It’s obvious that they did not do their job correctly either. Thank
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
MICHAEL SHEARER
MR. SHEARER-Michael Shearer, 52 Russell Harris Road on the north side, the red house. The
only two comments is, one, I think the building is too large, okay. I’ll give it to the Whites.
They have given us concessions. They’ve come down two foot on the top. I’ll lose a lot of
sunlight in my back yard. Plus they’re extending (lost words), which kind of doesn’t go with
the flavor of the neighborhood. Number Two, and feel free to correct me on my numbers, I’m
going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe he has one foot eight inches from his
foundation to my property line. I don’t know how you can get a construction worker in that
space to do work, without encroaching on my property. Based on what Mr. Sampson said
about liability, I have a problem with that. So I don’t know whether we can work something
out or not.
GABRIELLE SHEARER
MRS. SHEARER-I’m his wife, Gabrielle, and my only comment was, because if I was them I
guess I would want to improve the property also, but we have people that rent the place, that I
don’t want this construction going on the same time that people are renting, or I’m not going to
be able to rent, and I’m going to lose that, and I am concerned about that, and we only have
renters in there for the summer. So, you know, come September, the middle of September, it’s
not a problem, but if the construction is all during the summer season, it kind of ruins the usage
of our place all summer, that we have. That’s my concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? All right. For the time being I’ll leave the public hearing left
open.
MR. O'CONNOR-My comments, I guess, is that, with regard to Mr. Sampson, we’re not asking
this Board for permission to do anything with construction vehicles. We understand our
obligation. We’re not asking this Board for the use of his property. We’re not asking for this
Board to vary the right of way from the common walkway that’s down through the site,
between the two properties. We understand that. We understand the constraints that we’re
going to have. As to his other issues, you know, they were the same things that the Zoning
Board of Appeals argued, or he presented and argued with at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
with due respect, I don’t think this is the Board to appeal with, if he disagrees with the
variances that were given. The variances that were given, and the only thing I will make a
comment are that they were really miniscule as to percentages and as to footage. We came in to
vary, we made this building and designed this building to get it as closely in compliance as we
could. There were a couple of areas that we did go beyond that, but we’re talking 1.3% over the
22% for the Floor Area Ratio. We’re talking I think two feet on the front of the A-Frame,
because we’re trying to build the A-Frame where the roof on the porch stops, and that two feet,
that A-Frame is closer to the lake than what it should be. The rest is side setbacks, or side line
setback variances. I think the Area Variance of greater than 50 foot expansion was like 50 feet,
50 to 75 feet, I forget, when we cut back the 56 feet, it got to be miniscule. So the Whites have
tried to accommodate the neighbors the best that they can, and still have something that’s
reasonable and usable. As to Mr. Salvador’s comments, again, this is not the proper place to
appeal a decision by the Board of Health or the Town Board acting as the Board of Health.
There was discussion as to the limitations within the Department of Health rules and
regulations, the use of septic tanks, and Bob Hafner was the attorney that sat there during that
meeting, and he was satisfied, when the meeting was over, that we had given proof that there
was no reasonable alternative on this site, except for a holding tank, which is, even in the letter
that Mr. Salvador quotes, is an exception that allows the use of holding tanks. I have holding
tanks two houses away from me, on Glen Lake. I don’t know if you remember the variances
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
that we obtained for the house of Mike Hogan. I’ve been up there all summer. They’ve been
there. I don’t know. Maybe they come during the day time when I’m not there or whatever.
I’ve not noticed anybody coming and pumping those tanks or whatever. He’s got the double
alarm system. So I don’t really even know how to answer part of that. As to the other
neighbor, you know, we’re not asking this Board for permission to use his property for a turn
around. We’re not asking this Board to expand whatever is the Town road that runs through
this property. We recognize that we have some constraints. As to the neighbor that’s next to us
with the one foot eight side, we can accommodate that handicap, if you will, during
construction if we have to. He has been reasonable in his discussions. We probably will
present to him certificates of insurance and ask him to accept that, maybe a letter of
indemnification, but we can work out something with him. That’s a private agreement. I don’t
think that’s your concern or should be your concern. We think that the White’s have bent over
backward to make the this project as compliant as they can, and still make it something that’s
worthwhile doing, and that’s really my comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question. I guess it’s really maybe more directed towards Tom. The
height of the building, it’s 25 feet 8 inches, if you measure from the west side, where the ground
slopes down. What would the height of the building, the essential height of the building be on
the east side?
MR. JARRETT-I knew you were going to ask that question. I can’t give you an exact figure. It’s
obviously less than the 25, 8.
MR. HUNSINGER-Obviously.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t know offhand, and I’m not sure, I can’t answer you exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, plus or minus 4 to 6 inches, 21 feet maybe?
MR. JARRETT-I had three feet in my mind. I don’t know what, just from visiting the site, I
would guess roughly three feet less.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, you could probably scale it off.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know, Rob Needlemeyer from Northern Designs, he’s really good,
and he’s the old Northern Homes guy, and I love his architecture, and I know where he’s
coming from with the slopes on these roofs. Maybe instead of that 12/7 pitch, he could do a
12/5. Is that the minimum? And that would bring it down a little bit.
MR. JARRETT-We actually discussed this quite a length at the Zoning Board meeting, and we
decided to lower the entire roof two feet. I don’t know if you got confused with what we.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I’m just saying even take the pitch, too, take the slope of that roof
and change it too a little bit. I mean, it’s going to detract from the architecture, but, you know, it
would still bring it down a little more.
MR. JARRETT-We felt reducing the entire roof, rather than flattening the slope, would do just
as much or more for the sunlight.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why we made the knee walls on the side, to bring it down on the side,
so that there’d be less blockage.
MR. RINGER-If you were to get approval, when would you be looking to do the renovations?
MR. O'CONNOR-In the off season, after Labor Day.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. METIVIER-I notice it was Northern Design. Is that house going to be, and I can’t think of
the right term.
MR. O'CONNOR-Panelized?
MR. METIVIER-Thank you. Yes.
MR. WHITE-Not necessarily. We’re going to talk to a couple of different contractors.
MR. METIVIER-I’m going over in my mind if that’s good or bad, to have a panelized house.
Because I had, at length, discussions about that with somebody once and in some instances they
can bring in and put up the house in sections in a day. So you can, you know, virtually have
very little construction going on, and typically it takes usually two guys to do it. I have heard,
however, that if they bring them in, sometimes they don’t put the panels in the right order. So
you have to unload everything, and it’s just like a big jigsaw puzzle. So obviously that’s
something you could discuss with them if that was the way you would do it.
MR. MAC EWAN-The other thing, too, whatever delivers it is going to be using a crane of some
kind. It’s going to put down.
MR. METIVIER-Actually, they don’t always use cranes. I actually saw them unloading one
once and they weren’t using cranes. They were actually just some guys pulling them down,
because they’re just panels, and they fit, they can’t be any wider than eight, six panels. So, in
order to transfer, or, you know, transport to the site, so, you know, they’re not necessarily that
heavy. They literally just two guys were pulling these things off. So I think when it gets to the
trusses that’s different, but they even pre-fab, I shouldn’t use the word pre-fab, but, you know,
do that as well. So I don’t know. I can’t decide.
MR. O'CONNOR-We understand the constraints that we have, as to we can utilize only our
own property for construction. The people can’t be a nuisance on the road or else they’re going
to have their own problems. I mean, the Town can get involved with that through other areas if
they’re blocking it off. We will do this during the non-seasonal, period. If we get the
opportunity to start it this fall, we’ll be done well before the summer, or the spring of next year.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Why can’t the second floor be the same size as the first floor? I mean, I’m
looking at the plans, and if I took two feet off of each of the bedrooms, I’d get a ten by thirteen
and I’d get a ten by ten bedroom. I mean, it is a camp. It’s, right now, been used from time to
time, year round. It’s a camp, but it’s a year round camp. It’s not necessarily a seasonal camp.
The seasonal definition is whether or not it has a, according to Craig Brown, whether or not it
has central heat, or capability of central heat, and this building right now does have that and the
new building will have that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in light of the 25 foot width of lot, buying that lot, you’re going to go into
this knowing there are going to be limitations. I mean, you want to be on Lake George. You’ve
got a 25 foot lot. So you’re going to have to live with some limitations. It would make some of
your neighbors happier if you took off that two feet off the second story.
MR. O'CONNOR-We left the two feet on and compromised the height of the building, and we
thought that that was a fair trade-off. You’re entitled to build up to 28 feet in height. We did
not ask for a variance on the height, but we came down two feet at both the peak and at the
eaves as a compromise for that two square feet on the second floor. The Zoning Board thought
that was a reasonable compromise. I think last night there were six, or not last night, last week,
all but one Board member thought that the Whites had done what they could reasonably do to
make this as compliant as possible, in a reasonable manner, and most of them applauded his
offers and compromises, not most of them, all except one did. Even he did, but he had I guess
another reason that he had a hold back.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. O’Connor, I would like, from one Board member sitting here, I listened to
Mr. Salvador’s presentation pretty carefully, and it seems that there’s a lot of evidence here that
says that a holding tank is based on seasonal use, and not full time use, and I think we just
heard that this building is sometimes used as a full time occupancy. I would like this explored,
frankly. I don’t think I could go forward, comfortably in my mind, until this was explored and
the answer was, you know, put on the table, based on the rules and regs and so on. I’d hate to
see that we sit here and approve something that, where information has been raised to the point
where some further investigation is required before I would be satisfied to approve this, based
on the holding tank. That’s how I see it. I think there may have been some errors along the line
upstream, and I don’t think we ought to compound them on this Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think you would be compounding them, Mr. Vollaro. I think there has
to be some finality to the application process, and each step of the application process. We
make an application to the Town Board, sitting as the Board of Health, with regard to septic.
We do not make an application to this Board.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. O'CONNOR-If there is a difference of opinion as to whether they have acted correctly or
not acted correctly, there is a method of appeal, available to anybody who has that objection.
I’ve listened to Mr. Salvador, every time I’ve talked about holding tanks, with the same
argument, but he only reads the top part of the State regulation, and not the bottom part. The
letter clearly says that under certain circumstances, the Health Department recognizes holding
tanks.
MR. VOLLARO-But he said if the existing system failed, I believe that’s what Mr. Salvador said.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure, but I believe that’s correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We’ve got a system that is 40 years old. At the initial, or 40 years plus
old, that we can’t even uncover without tearing the building down. I don’t know how you
would say that that’s, do we tear the building down first, and try and determine whether or not
that system is functioning? I mean, the dye test is a superficial test at best. Any engineer, and I
don’t mean to speak for Tom, but any engineer will tell you that when you have a subsurface
system, the only way you can tell whether or not it will work is to dig it up, and when you dig it
up, you ruin it. So, you know, where is the cart and where is the horse? These people went
forward and said, we’re not even going to try and sell the existing septic system. We’re willing
to go forth and put in a septic system that will be in compliance, will be environmental benefit,
and then we will try and comply with the rest of the Code. I think they should be applauded
for putting in a holding tank, and I really think that the appeal, if you have a reservation on
that, is through the Planning Board, or through the Town Board or through an Article 78. I
have no problem if you want conditioning your approval that the Town Board look at it again,
but I don’t want to come back, have to go to them, and then come back to this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi?
MS. RADNER-I want to clarify a few points. I think you folks already know it, but I want to
make sure it’s clear on the record. Your Board has no appeal authority over either the ZBA or
the Town Board. They made their decisions based upon the criteria that’s before them for
granting the variances that were requested. You have a very different test. Your test is site plan
review. You are also not bound by the ZBA or by the variances granted by the Town Board. So
the fact that they approved the project for variance purposes doesn’t mean that you are
required to approve the project. You have your own criteria that you need to apply. You do
not have authority to send this back to either the Town Board or to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. If you do not understand the project, or you are not comfortable performing the
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
SEQRA or approving the project based upon the information before you, you certainly have the
power to seek clarification from them of what they did and why. So that you understand
what’s before you and you feel comfortable moving forward. This Board, similarly, does not
have the power to enforce right of way agreements or private property agreements. You
certainly have the right to consider impacts on those sorts of agreements and on adjoining
property owners. You certainly have the right to impose conditions during the construction
phase that will address some of the concerns that were raised tonight, but you certainly don’t
have the power to require policing of right of way agreements or private property issues. Mr.
O’Connor made a comment that I might have misunderstood, having to do with stormwater
runoff and there not being a requirement for stormwater for this project. There is a requirement
for all development that stormwater runoff after the project not exceed stormwater runoff
before the project. I just want to make sure that point’s clear, and I think that’s the extent of the
comments I had to make.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Discussion amongst Board members?
MR. METIVIER-If you didn’t go ahead with the project right away, do you still have the right to
put the holding tanks in?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I was at the Town Board meeting when they went through this process with
the septic systems. I mean, you have a landowner, and they certainly have to have some kind of
a septic system, and you know the very difficult situation that they’re in. You don’t have a
whole lot of options, and when you’re in a situation like that, you get an engineer like Tom
Jarrett, and you say, what can I do, and your options become very narrow as to what you can
do and you end up with your only option, in this case, which is a holding tank, and the Town
Board realized that, and they were not comfortable with approving this. I talked to some of
them, but given all of the situations that we’re dealing with, that was the bottom line. That’s
about the only option available. There just isn’t option two. So that, to me, is not a concern, but
I do think that you could satisfy most of the concerns of the neighbors and just about everybody
a hand, and give the owner most of what the owner wants by limiting that second story to the
first story footprint, which wouldn’t exceed 16 foot in width. I think that we could add another
condition, as suggested by Cathi, that the applicant could provide and install signage to
reasonably ensure that construction equipment, vehicles, supplies, will avoid blocking or
encumbering Russell Harris Road access paths or parking areas, to the extent that is reasonable
and practicable. Those are a couple of my thoughts.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problem with the signage, if that’s the condition of the Board.
Again, I get into which is the horse and which is the wagon, or which is the chicken and which
is the egg. We honestly did give up two feet of height. We made the side walls knee walls or
similar to knee walls by, as a give up, if you will, for that two feet on the second floor, which
means that if you don’t go back to the old roof system, you have a room or rooms possibly 16
feet wide, and probably only 12 feet of that at eight foot height.
MR. STROUGH-Mr. O’Connor, I’m trying to create a situation for you where you’re going to
get the yes votes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but this is, well, this is what we did last month, last week with the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and I agree with Town Counsel. I thought we made a fair
compromise, by giving one and keeping the other. I don’t want to have to go, I think I’d
probably have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals if I were going to make the upstairs
narrower and go back to the old height.
MR. STROUGH-Well, is the height within Code?
MR. O'CONNOR-The height is within Code, but because you’re extending a wall up within the
setback variance area, it’s part of the variance. So you’d be modifying that variance, and I’m
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
not being facetious. I understand what you’re saying. We don’t think that that, that’s 28 feet
long, that cantilever, by two feet. We don’t think that that’s going to materially affect anyone.
Even the person that’s immediately to the south of us.
MR. STROUGH-You may have persuaded enough members to vote your way. I think, Mr.
Chairman, I don’t know if you want to take a consensus before we go on.
MR. VOLLARO-Before we do that, I’d just like to clarify what our Counsel had to say, Mr.
Chairman, about at least getting clarification from the Town Board and the ZBA. Is that
something that we can do, clarification in terms of how they made their decision and why and
so on?
MS. RADNER-Certainly.
MR. VOLLARO-We can do that. I would feel more comfortable knowing how that decision was
arrived at, before I can even consider a vote, Mr. Chairman. That’s my position on the thing. I
think that, in terms of signage, I mean, looking at this lot, you put signs up you can’t go here
and the trucks can’t go there, you know, that’s not practical based on the size of this site. It just
isn’t.
MR. STROUGH-I said what’s practicable. For example, there’s no way you can get a cement
truck in there to pour the footings, I don’t think they should have a basement, but a footings
and the support walls and not block the road. You’re going to have to block the road for the
cement truck.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they said they were going to use a laid up block foundation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you’ve still got to pour the footings.
MR. VOLLARO-And you’ve still got to pour footings, and, you know, there’s a typical example
of the road being blocked for usage by.
MR. STROUGH-But it’s only going to be for a couple of hours. You’ve got to be reasonable
here.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, supposing that, the worst case analysis, you’ve got a vehicle that’s got to
get in there for medical purposes. What do you do now? I mean, that’s a problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You just move it, and you might have to start your project over again and
it’s going to be expensive.
MR. STROUGH-I think you’ve got to be reasonable here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that’s what’s going to happen, and the traffic will be mitigated if it
happens at the end of the season.
MR. VOLLARO-I think, Mr. Strough, with all due respect, I really feel that I would need some
clarification from both the Town Board and the ZBA on how they arrived at their decision.
MR. MAC EWAN-What specifically are you looking for, Bob?
MR. METIVIER-What decision are you looking for, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for how they arrived at granting the use of a holding tank, on what
appears to be a full time use building.
MR. METIVIER-Versus a tin can? What they have now? I mean, think about it. I don’t
understand why we’re arguing over the fact that they cannot put a regular septic system in
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
there. What’s the option? Leaving it the way it is now, it’s a tin can in the ground. If that septic
system pumped out for 50 years, you have to wonder where the crap is going.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, come on. Be realistic here.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want clarification. That’s all I’m asking for is how did they arrive at their
decision.
MR. METIVIER-It’s based on the fact that there’s no other choice. It’s clearly stated. Mr.
O’Connor stated it. Come on. It’s clearly stated. There is no other choice, and he said that. I
mean, on a seasonal dwelling you can do it, yes, unless, on a year round dwelling, if you have
no other choice, what do you want to do? Keep it as it is? I mean, it makes no sense. We could
argue this all night. Where are we going to go?
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll all come down to the vote, Tony, you know, that’s what it’ll come down to.
I’ve sort of drawn a conclusion in my mind that I think maybe the Chairman ought to get on
with whatever he wants a poll for the motion here and vote by the Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re not quite there yet, but I’m listening to opinions going up and
down the Board of where we are so we can get a better handle on where we think we’re
heading with this thing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think there’s a lot of properties on the lake that are old, and that have
not, are not year round, and that people, you’ve read what’s in the Post Star recently, and
you’ve read about different things and different real estate deals around. You’ve had friends
and things that have happened on the lake over the past 10 years, where land, where projects or
pieces of property can be bought for a lot less, and then people want to renovate them, and, you
know, you hear about the big, the trophy homes on the lake, where you get these five and six
thousand square foot homes on very small parcels. Well, now we’re talking not a five or six
thousand square foot home. We’re talking one a lot less, but again, the proportionality is the
same. It’s still a very small piece of land, and, you know, maybe it should remain a camp, but I
understand that you want to upgrade and you have the means, and you want to upgrade what
you have. I think that, you know, looking at some of these little inserts here that, I don’t
remember his name, but when he came up, I’m not saying that these are, they’re not done
professionally, but they can give me some idea. Maybe the upstairs floor should be made
smaller by taking out that cantilever, and I know that you have reduced the height of the roof,
which is good, but you’ve got to also remember that you don’t have that much property to
work with, and I would feel better about voting yes if the cantilever was taken off, and another
thing I do have concern about is nobody’s going to be there at the end of the summer when this
construction is going on, and I feel that people have a right to no infringement on their own
private property, and I have a problem with, workers are workers, and if nobody’s around,
they’re going to try to get to the work site as easily as they possibly can, and I don’t know how
that is going to be monitored.
MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is that Mr. Sampson lives there year round in his camp.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And my understanding is I think somebody lives in this (lost word) which is
also a camp year round.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then he’ll be there policing it, I’m sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to disagree with you, Cathy, I certainly agree with your
comments, but, on behalf of the applicant, I mean, I think it’s pretty easy to enforce. You put it
in to your construction contract, and if they violate it, then you, they’re violating their contract.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know, but you’ve got to have somebody there to prove that it’s
been violated, and if, that’s what I’m saying, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see what you’re saying.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The thing is, workman are workman, and, you know, if they’re there at
six o’clock in the morning on the job.
MR. O'CONNOR-What difference would it make if there was a two foot cantilever or not a two
foot cantilever as to your concern? I mean, the same amount of material or same type of
material, same type of trucks, same type of workmen are there, and I think that’s what the
Planning, Zoning Board.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s two different issues, Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you say seem to say that you would approve it except for the two foot
cantilever.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, right now I feel that if that cantilever is encroaching upon
somebody’s entrance way, and that that would be tough to approve, if it really is encroaching
that much.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Zoning Board went through that, and came to the conclusion that it was
not a significant impact upon the neighborhood, on adjoining properties or the community. It
was not to their detrimental effect. They went through the test for area variances.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know that, Mr. O’Connor, except we have the option and the right to
also take that same consideration into our site plan review. I’m not saying that what the Zoning
Board did was right or wrong. They had their reasons, but we can still use that in our site plan
here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments from Board members?
MR. RINGER-I say if we’re going to approve it, I don’t see too much difference in two feet, that
it does or doesn’t make it, if we’re going to approve it.
MR. METIVIER-It’s a small thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does everybody feel comfortable enough moving on to a SEQRA? Yes, noes,
maybe’s? All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or
flooding problems?”
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. That’s my answer.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Which one?
MR. MAC EWAN-About three or four of them there on that list.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Let’s hear them.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s take it one by one.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Air quality?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Noise? Traffic patterns?
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute, jump back to noise. You’ll have noise relative to the
construction, but it won’t be after the construction.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think noise is an issue because there won’t be the, I mean, you
have construction, I mean, if you live in a subdivision and you build a house, and they put a
house up, and then the next house is going up next door, you’re going to live with the noise.
That’s the way it is, but I don’t think noise is an issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How about existing traffic patterns?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s also, all of this is a temporary issue, the traffic patterns. When
this job is done, a good deal of that, I agree, will go away.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-There is an inconvenience proposed during the time that this construction
takes place where the neighbors have to contend with that inconvenience, and probably with
some safety issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-So what would you say to that, Bob, no or yes?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but it’s going to be mitigated when the project is done?
MR. VOLLARO-I would say yes. Now we can talk about what kind of mitigation you want to
use. Do you want to use construction contract that has something to say, that’s a different story.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s relative to traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s relative to keeping construction vehicles shall be used to allow a
complete right of way along Russell Harris Road, a thoroughfare, but I don’t know whether the
words will do that. I mean, I’ve been around construction sites, and I don’t think the words are
going to do that at all. I mean, there’s a nice contract and it’s all nicely knit and tied up, but that
doesn’t mean anything, to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Potential for traffic impacts is only relative to the construction phase of this
application.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I agree. Once the construction is completed, then all of these traffic issues
will go away. I agree.
MR. STROUGH-No long term impacts.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So no long term. Solid waste production or disposal?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes on that.
MR. STROUGH-Well solid waste.
MR. VOLLARO-Aren’t they talking about garbage kind of stuff?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it pertains to the effluent.
MR. STROUGH-Right, I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you want to say no on that?
MR. METIVIER-It’s an improvement.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, solid waste. They’ll get a garbage service to take it away.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think there’s any potential for erosion.
MR. VOLLARO-I think with the swale put in there there probably won’t be any flooding. If it’s
sized correctly, and I’m sure Tom has sized it correctly, that ought to hold it.
MR. STROUGH-And when all is said and done, it’ll be better than it was before.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think so.
MR. METIVIER-Absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So we still have surface or groundwater quality or quantity.
MR. STROUGH-Well, like I said, their proposal actually makes the plan better than what’s
before.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree.
MR. STROUGH-Their floor area, the size of the, the roof rather, is not significantly larger than
what it is, and they’ve agreed that they will gutter the roofs and direct the drainage into
retention basins. So their mitigation plan actually makes good management.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then we can go on. We’re all set with Number One. Seven, “Other
impacts, including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy”.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. RINGER-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, do you think the fact that there’s not much room, like a foot and a
half, in order for the workmen to have to stay on the property and not encroach, or go on the
neighboring property, do you think that that could be an impact?
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Read the question again.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It says other impacts that could have an adverse effect.
MR. MAC EWAN-Relative to environmental impacts.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. You’re right. Excuse me. You’re right.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 40-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JIM & NANCY WHITE, 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 22 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion. Conditions?
MR. RINGER-If we get to a motion to approve, then I think one of the conditions should be that
the construction should be in the off season, starting after Labor Day or something like that.
That would be one of the conditions if we decide to get a motion to approve it.
MR. HUNSINGER-That was the comment I was going to make as well.
MR. O'CONNOR-September 10.
th
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-What would be the?
MR. O'CONNOR-It would be completed by.
MR. RINGER-Started, to get started, and then we’ll go to completed.
MR. O'CONNOR-Not started before September 10, completed substantially before May 15.
thth
MR. MAC EWAN-You worry me with your substantially.
MR. O'CONNOR-They may do inside painting. They may do some, you know, roof on,
enclosed, the heavy.
MR. JARRETT-Can we say no construction between Memorial Day and Labor Day, and leave it
that?
MR. RINGER-No exterior construction, how about that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Basement not to be made into a living area.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s not a problem.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And gutters.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Added to the roof.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want signage? Okay. Mr. White thinks that there are a couple of
neighbors that will accommodate even some of his parking, during the off season.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what did you do with the wording I had before? The applicant will
provide and install signage to reasonably ensure that construction equipment, vehicles, nor
supplies will avoid blocking or encumbering Russell Harris Road access paths or parking areas
used by adjacent land owners to the extent that it’s reasonable and practicable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just hypothetically to be the devil’s advocate, so what if he does, he
doesn’t?
MR. STROUGH-Well, what else can we do?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I’m asking the questions. You’re making it a condition of
approval, and it happens.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying we’re going to try and do something better than doing
nothing.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not disagreeing with you.
MR. STROUGH-I understand where you’re going, and I don’t have an answer for you.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. O'CONNOR-If it’s a condition of approval, and it’s violated, doesn’t Staff come out and
say, we’re going to pull your building permit, stop or give you a Stop Work Order until you get
it into compliance? I mean, that’s an extreme possibility.
MR. METIVIER-Well, if they’re encroaching on somebody else’s property, technically they’re
trespassing.
MR. O'CONNOR-The condition was as to blocking of the roadway.
MR. METIVIER-But honestly is a construction worker really going to block the road? And if
they do, it would be to back in or to turn around on the property or to drop something off, but, I
mean, it’s just reality.
MR. RINGER-We don’t want to put a condition in there that’s going to create problems for Staff
to run up there every time somebody, I mean, we want to be careful of what we do, because
neighbors could call every time a truck came up there.
MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to the condition as suggested, if you don’t think it’s
necessary, that’s fine.
MR. STROUGH-I have the roof eaves will be guttered and drainage directed towards retention
basins, and I have all final submitted worksheets and plans will be updated to reflect the most
recent changes, which there doesn’t appear to be too many, and I agree Cath that we’re not
approving a full basement. We’re approving footings and support walls, and no exterior
construction between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
MS. RADNER-(Lost words) certain fencing remain in place at least during construction. I don’t
know if that was something you wanted to entertain, or if it had been overlooked.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think that was a path, wasn’t that a pathway?
MS. RADNER-Well, there was also a fence that was discussed, that you wanted to remain.
MR. MAC EWAN-He was looking for a construction fence to basically buffer his property that
abuts Russell Harris Road, having anybody parking in front of it and blocking it. That’s one of
the things that he was looking for. I think that’s something that the applicant needs to work out
with his neighbors.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I don’t know how I would word that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s something this Board should entertain. I mean, as part of
being a good neighbor, you work out your differences with your neighbor, to try to resolve
them.
MR. STROUGH-I think Jim is kind of in a fix with his neighbors, now, and any extent that he
would do to make his neighbors happy I think he’ll do it, and like I said, I don’t know how to
word that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t either, John.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry just told me that the fence that’s shown on the plat, on Drawing C-10,
right next to the macadam driveway, runs like three quarters of the length of the macadam
driveway, I think that’s the fence that the neighbor is referring to, do you have any plans of
taking that down?
MR. O'CONNOR-We will maintain it during the period of construction. I don’t know if
permanently.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Add that as a condition, that they’re willing to do that.
MR. STROUGH-I’m still not with you on this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s that? Anything else? John, do you want to run with it?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I can. I’m still working on your fence here, Mr. Chairman. All right,
where is it located?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right next to the macadam driveway.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s along the southern edge of the property, John.
MR. STROUGH-So the fence along the southern property line will remain during construction?
MR. RINGER-Chain link, it’s a little chain link fence.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a wire fence, I think, not chain link. Is it chain link? Okay. It’s chain link.
Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Chain link fence along southern property line remain during construction?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you want me to run by what I’ve got?
MR. MAC EWAN-Go with it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2003 JIM & NANCY WHITE, Introduced by
John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 40-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Jim & Nancy White
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 52 ½ Russell Harris Road
Applicant proposes renovation to existing residence and addition of a second story over a
portion of the existing residence.
Cross Reference: AV 61-2003
APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 240-5-1-7
Lot size: 0.14 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
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 7/18/03, and
7/18 Staff Notes
7/16 ZBA resolution
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
7/9 Warren Co. Planning
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
6/27 Meeting Notice
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 22, 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. The applicant will provide and install signage to reasonably ensure that construction
equipment, vehicles or supplies will avoid blocking or encumbering Russell Harris Road
access pad or parking areas used by adjacent landowners to the extent that it’s
reasonable and practicable.
2. Roof eaves will be guttered and drainage directed towards the retention basins.
3. All final submitted worksheets and plans will be updated to reflect the most recent
changes.
4. A full basement, if built, would not be used for living space.
5. No exterior construction will occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
6. The chain link fence along the southern property line will remain during construction.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-Four, a full basement is not part of this approval, only footings and support
walls.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Strough, you’re saying basement area for living.
MR. MAC EWAN-We said basement area would not be used for living area.
MR. O'CONNOR-Living space.
MR. STROUGH-Full basement, if built, would not be used for living space.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-That’ll be Condition Number Four. Number Five, no exterior construction will
occur between Memorial Day and Labor Day, no, well, I should put no substantial exterior, I
mean, if you’re going to pound a nail.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Let me amend that by saying no substantial.
MR. RINGER-Substantial is broad. Why don’t you.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not what the Board agreed to. You said no.
MR. STROUGH-No is pretty absolute.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. No exterior construction.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. If that’s what you want. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is until this thing gets built. I mean, the next year he could do something
out in his yard, can’t he?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STROUGH-That’s what I mean. All right. No exterior construction between Memorial
Day and Labor Day.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to qualify my no vote in the following manner. My no vote is based
on the fact that this, in my opinion, this site would be overbuilt for the .14 acres that exists, and
that I’m not comfortable with the use of a holding tank without getting clarification from the
Town Board of Health on the use of a holding tank for a full time residence as opposed to a
seasonal use.
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Vollaro
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you, gentlemen.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE: PZ 3-03 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
RECOMMENDATION RUSSELL & JAMES O’CONNOR AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER
CURRENT ZONING: LI, SR-1A, WR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: MIXED USE [MU]
LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE A 23 +/- ACRE
PARCEL FROM LI TO MU. THIS APPLICATION AS BEEN REFERRED TO THE
PLANNING BOARD BY THE TOWN BOARD FOR COMMENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 49-96, SB 5-96, SP 50-96 TB
REFERRAL: 6/16/03, RES. 295.2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO.
309.14-1-86, 89 LOT SIZE: 3.79 AC., 17.63 AC. SECTION: 179-15-020
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing that’s required for a recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-I guess rather than read the Staff notes, I’ll just summarize. A couple of things
you’re doing tonight, one is, hopefully, I guess, passing a resolution acknowledging their, I
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
guess accepting that the Town Board would be Lead Agent for this re-zoning request. Typically
the Planning Board is Lead Agent for SEQRA purposes. You do have a resolution in front of
you consenting to the Town Board being Lead Agent. Secondly, forwarding a recommendation
based on the applicant’s request to re-zone this property, and I guess for clarification, we’ve
included in our memo the fact that there are two parcels here, and that they are not only zoned
Light Industrial, I guess, but Suburban Residential and Waterfront Residential as well. That’s
all I have at this time, and we’ll take it from there.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, with my associate Stephanie Bitter
who for some reason wants to spend her evenings sitting around Planning Board meetings and
helping me out. I’ll give you the quick version and then get into as much detail as you’d like.
I’m sure you’re all familiar with the parcel. We’ve been working with the Town, with Chris
Round and the Highway Department and the Town Board on this for really a couple of years.
The property is adjacent to the parcel that the Town Board, or the Town has acquired and is
going to use to relocate the emergency squad to create, in the bigger picture, to create a cut
through from Main Street to Luzerne Road, and the intent here is to re-develop this property in
a way that creates a four way intersection as part of the Main Street project. Right now, as
everyone is aware, Big Boom Road is not signalized because it’s too close to the signal for the
northbound ramps for the Northway. I’ll show you on the map. Right now, Big Boom Road
intersects with Main Street right here. Carl R’s is here. The Mobil station, the existing Mobil
station is in a location of where we propose the road. So the big picture here is to swap
property with Mobil to incentivize them to relocate their facility, which they have agreed to,
relocate the road so it can be a four way signalized intersection that’s enough separation
distance from the northbound signal so that the two signals will work together, and now you’ve
got all the UPS trucks and all the industrial trucks and the trucks from, and the traffic from the
park coming out to the unsignalized intersection, which is really tough to make left turns either
way, and it’s a way to clean up the traffic. In terms of the development on the site, the corridor
is the mixed use corridor that the Town would like to see redeveloped under the new rezoning.
So we’re asking that this property be rezoned into the Mixed Use zone so it conforms with
what’s on Main Street. We envision perhaps a restaurant. Perhaps a hotel. There have been no
offers. It’s not listed, but those are the types of uses that we would think would be typical
Northway interstate exit type uses, but they would be built to the new Town standards with the
pedestrian access in front, building the buildings close to the frontage to make it look more
urban, as the design guidelines of the Code recommend. The golf driving range was put in a
number of years ago to justify the cost of filling what was a ravine, and that was moderately
successful, and it really wasn’t worth their efforts to keep running it. So the O’Connors don’t
expect that they will develop it themselves, but they’re going to get this approved and market it
so that it can be developed and the Town Board has been very supportive of this project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now on this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think the whole concept is a great idea. I think it’s really good
planning, but the only question I really have is I’m sort of unclear in my own mind why the
overall concept of relocating the road and changing around that intersection necessitates a zone
change.
MR. LAPPER-Because right now it’s part the residential zone and part the light industrial zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Even though, potentially, you could get a light industrial user that wanted to put
a factory or assembly plant in that area, that part of the zone is only three and a half acres, the
Light Industrial zone is pretty small, and that’s not really typical uses for a Northway, right
next to the Northway exit. Commercial is more, probably just a better use in terms of what’s
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
marketable, what would service the public in that area. There’s already a lot of industrial,
which is a lot of truck traffic by UPS and the cement batch plant on Big Boom Road. They’re not
particularly attractive, and it just seems that the Mixed Use zone, which allows for office use, for
commercial use, office use and residential upstairs, it’s just more appropriate in this part of
Town, and it’s what is already there under the new zoning, the Mixed Use along Main Street.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess in my own mind I don’t really see them as being just, I think they’re
mutually independent of each other, the road realignment and the zone change. I understand
the applicant’s desire for the zone change and again, I think it’s good planning. I just really
don’t see that there’s a specific connection, that one has to happen in order for the other to
happen. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I don’t see that, in the back, the Suburban Residential zone, that this is an
area where people would want to build houses.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree.
MR. LAPPER-And the Light Industrial zone is really part of that would now be split by the new
road. So you’d have two little Light Industrial pieces, and I don’t think that’s really something
someone’s going to want to build on for Light Industrial in that location.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Again, I don’t disagree with you. I just, I don’t know.
MR. LAPPER-It’s really a planning concept.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, absolutely.
MR. LAPPER-Like you said, what’s a good idea to put on this property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Just so I get everything clearly understood, you want to take, there’s
currently three zones.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Light Industrial, Suburban Residential One Acre, and Waterfront Residential
One Acre.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And rezone everything so that on these two parcels we’re questioning right
now, will be MU, Mixed Use. Do I understand that?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, and you’re also saying there’s one land owner, well, the
O’Connors, two land owners.
MR. LAPPER-Russ and Jim O’Connor.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, they’re willing to deed to the Town part of their property to allow
the Town to put in this re-routed Big Boom Road?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. STROUGH-So that it accommodates a potential intersection with the new connector road
going to Luzerne Road from Main Street?
MR. LAPPER-Right, and it benefits this property because it creates more lots with frontage that
can be developed.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now the property, the property to the southeast, is that landlocked?
How do you get access to that?
MR. LAPPER-You mean the big parcel in the back?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, the big parcel, adjacent to the river, along the river.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not along the river.
MR. STROUGH-No their property isn’t, but the parcel that’s between the river and their
property.
MR. HILTON-I think just to the south of this piece, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t have a larger map, but there are some roads. There’s some development
down there.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m looking at that, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I think there’s a grade issue, in terms of some of those parcels, and I don’t
really have the answer as to whether they have access or whether they’re landlocked.
MR. STROUGH-I just want to see how developable they would be and what type of
development that would be, to see the compatibility of what you’re proposing with what might
be there. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Okay. You’re pretty much surrounded by industrial
uses. Now, Staff notes, and I think most of the Board supports this, I know I do, is that Mixed
Use districts should be aesthetically pleasing and have safe pedestrian circulation. I mean,
that’s part of the concept of.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We would, of course, be back to the Planning Board for site plan and
subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-But the owners are in accord with that?
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely.
MR. STROUGH-And that we would expect, when we come to some kind of site plan
development, some kind of bicycle and pedestrian provisions, and that we want to try and
avoid, as long as we understand this from Day One, we want to avoid a big box type of
development.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s why we’ve got the subdivision proposed with the two, two and a half
acre lots.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and also noticed that, Mixed Use, I’m fairly, you know, talking from
Planning Board position, I’m comfortable, I mean, you could have asked for a Highway
Intensive, Highway Moderate, I mean, there’s a lot of things you could have asked for, but you
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
asked for Mixed Use, and in my mind it seems to be appropriate. There’s so many things that I
wouldn’t want to see, amusement centers, auto body repair shops. They’re not allowed under
Mixed Use.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, if you go through the list, you see what is not allowed in Mixed Use,
you know, it might allay a lot of adjacent land owner’s concerns. That’s it in brief. So that’s my
thinking for now anyways, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-I can tell you, John, that the Mobil relocation is not part of this proposal yet.
We’d come in with a site plan after, for them, after the rezoning, but they’re aware that the
design guidelines call for the building with a streetscape, with a building in front, and the
pumps in the back, you know, so they understand what the Town calls for.
MR. STROUGH-But I think you said that, in your presentation to the Town Board, that the
O’Connors have worked out a deal with Mobil?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-So we can get this rerouted from Big Boom Road out?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, we would be providing them land.
MR. STROUGH-So they’ve made a lot of extra effort.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And it seems like they’re not asking for an overwhelming, I mean, not asking
for Highway Intensive.
MR. LAPPER-Right. It’s definitely not a big box. I mean, I don’t think the site could support it
anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d just like to make one statement, John, that, on the Mobil station, that
gasoline stations are only allowed in the MU zone by Special Use Permit.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right. That’s an existing use right now.
MR. VOLLARO-So, when that comes in by site plan, it’ll have to be by Special Use Permit.
MR. LAPPER-Right. I mean, I assume that it would, but it’s an existing use on the site now, but
I assume that it would probably need a Special Use Permit anyway because they’d be
renovating it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, because it wouldn’t be on the old site. It would be on the new site.
MR. LAPPER-Well, right now they’re on both parts of it, but, you know, certainly they’d be
moving in.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see the big issue.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to raise the point that in the MU zone that requires a Special Use
Permit.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, you’re absolutely right.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I just wanted to say that I think the Planning Board action this evening, if
I’m not mistaken here, is to consent for the Town Board to be Lead Agency. We are not
reviewing anything on subdivisions tonight until the SEQRA determination is made by the
Town Board, and that we would recommend the change to MU as it’s prepared by Staff, in
other words, make a recommendation for zone change to Mixed Use, and those are the only two
actions I think this Board’s taking tonight. Am I right on that, Staff?
MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. Typically the Town Board is Lead Agent on any rezoning
application.
MR. VOLLARO-So I would like to make a motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-We aren’t done with the questions yet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just think that the options that are included under Mixed Use are really
what we’re looking for in this site, like John said, but, John, I have a question. What is, on this
aerial photograph, right there where the Mobil station is, there’s a little red arrow, and then it
looks like a power line.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that what it is?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s on, there is a NiMo transmission line. It’s not a huge structure, but, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then another thing, the other property that is outside the area that
we’re discussing, you get down to it when you go off Big Boom Road and then you can take a
left and go down to the Hudson, and this is all zoned Waterfront Residential One Acre, but the
dwellings end right here, but it looks to me like, because this is still all zoned WR-1 Acre, that
maybe there could be further development along there.
MR. LAPPER-For homes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-For homes. So, and they do have accessibility.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I’m not aware what’s behind there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. That has nothing to do, it’s irrelevant, but as far as the site plan
goes. It’s just that I wanted to just kind of clarify that, just to get myself in balance here, but, no,
I think this is great, and I’d like you to go forward with your.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff wants to make some comments.
MR. HILTON-Thank you, Craig. I guess the one comment I had is these two parcels, I believe,
are not in the Main Street design area. The Mobil parcel is, but these two parcels are not.
Rezoning them to Mixed Use is one thing. Including them in the design area is another thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would think that would be part of our recommendation tonight.
MR. HILTON-There you go.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That would? We could do that. That would be great.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? Okay. Now
you can go, Mr. Vollaro.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to defer the motion to Mr. Strough.
MR. STROUGH-Well, just because I wanted to make an addition. So maybe I better talk it over
with the Board. I just wanted to say that we’re approving the recommendation, or making the
recommendation for the Town Board to approve.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, don’t use the word “approve” in there. We’re just making a
recommendation.
MR. STROUGH-I corrected that. With the understanding that, in the future, traffic impacts will
be considered, that aesthetics and pedestrian circulation and bicycle circulation will be things
that we will be taking a hard look at, or a serious look at, just to send a message to the Town
Board that, you know, we are going to address those concerns, and I see by the frown on your
face.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we conditioning our recommendation?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re making a recommendation either thumbs up or thumbs down on this
thing. The only thing you want, if anything, stress on our recommendation to the Town Board
is that we want the entire properties in question to be part of the Main Street corridor design
standards. That’s what this whole Board agreed to. I mean, it goes without saying, part of our
duties on this Board is to take into account traffic, alternate means of traffic circulation.
Aesthetics, the whole nine yards. It goes without saying that we’re going to do that. Why do
you want to tell the Town Board and emphasize that we’re going to do that. If you need to tell
the Board that we’re going to do that, it may sound like we’re not doing our job to begin with.
MR. STROUGH-Well, then what you’re saying is, you’re also suggesting what I suggested, only
something different. You’re suggesting that, yes, we are recommending that the Town Board
approve this zone change, as long as they keep it in the Main Street overlay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s wrong with that? Part of the duties that bind you as a Planning
Board member is to look at things such as traffic, aesthetics.
MR. STROUGH-And we will. Okay. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s part of it. All we’re doing is saying that this property that’s in
question is not currently part of the Main Street corridor Design Standards. We want to make it
part of it. We’re suggesting you make it part of it. That’s the difference between what is and
what isn’t.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE
TOWN BOARD FOR THE REQUEST BY RUSSELL O’CONNOR AND JAMES O’CONNOR,
PZ 3-2003, FOR THE REZONING OF THEIR PROPERTY FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
The Planning Board would also like to note to the Town Board that we would like to see that
this property under question be part of the Main Street Corridor Design Standards overlay.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD FOR LEAD AGENCY
STATUS FOR THE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY
RUSSELL O’CONNOR AND JAMES O’CONNOR, Introduced by Mr. Hunsinger who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED GARY & JILL WILSON PROPERTY
OWNER: GREEN MALCOLM TRUST, HOYT’S CINEMA CORP. AGENT: EDWARD
ESPOSITO, BAST HATFIELD, INC. ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 3201 ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF FORMER CINEMA FOR INDOOR SPORTS
AND YAMAHA COUNTRY SPORTS DISPLAY SALES & SHOP, AS WELL AS THE
ADDITION OF A 24,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-2 LOT SIZE: 3.73 ACRES SECTION: 179-
4-020
EDWARD ESPOSITO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-2003, Gary & Jill Wilson, Meeting Date: July 22, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 36-2003
APPLICANT: Gary & Jill Wilson are the applicants for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to renovate the Hoyt’s Cinema building on
Route 9 and use the building for indoor sports and motorcycle display and sales shop. In
addition, a 24,000 sq. ft. addition is shown as a future expansion.
LOCATION: The property is located at 3201 Route 9.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a
SEQRA short EAF.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no prior Planning or Zoning Board
actions for this site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to renovate the Hoyt’s Cinema building and
reuse it as an indoor sports and motorcycle display shop. The plans also show a 24,000 sq. ft.
addition proposed behind the existing building.
STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan proposes to eliminate a curb cut on Hidden Farm Rd. just to
the west of the Route 9 intersection. In order to better manage traffic entering and exiting from
Hidden Farm Rd., consideration should be given to consolidating an additional driveway just to
the west of the curb cut that will be consolidated.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
Staff suggests that the landscaping proposed along street frontages be revised to include shade
trees recommended in the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping within the interior parking area is
also required per §179-8-040 D of the Zoning Code.
The applicant’s lighting plan proposes some light poles at 25 ft. in height. The Zoning Code
calls for pole heights to be 20’. The lighting plan also shows cut-off fixtures to be used, with
some spill onto adjacent properties.
Staff suggests that the 24,000 sq. ft. addition be reviewed as a future 2 phase. Such a review
nd
will allow the Planning Board to address any issues that may arise with the site before
considering a new use that would be located in the future addition.”
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.
Warren Co. PB recommendation: Approved [7/9 resolution attached]”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The site plan that’s before you proposes to eliminate a curb cut on Hidden Farm
Road, just to the west of the Route 9 intersection, and in terms of access management,
consideration should be given to eliminating additional driveway just to the west of this curb
cut. Staff suggests that the proposed street landscaping include shade trees recommended in
the Zoning Ordinance and that landscaping within the interior parking area be included in the
site plan as required by Code. As far as lighting, some light poles that are proposed are 25 feet
in height, and cutoff fixtures are shown with some spill onto adjacent properties. As far as the
24,000 square foot addition, Staff recommends that this be reviewed, I guess, in the future, as a
second phase, just to make sure that everything’s functioning with the site correctly, at the time
that that addition is proposed, or will be built. Any comments from C.T. Male should be
addressed during the review of this application, and it should be noted that Warren County
Planning Board recommendation was for approval. The July 9 resolution is attached. That’s
th
all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
GARY WILSON
MR.. WILSON-Hi. I’m Gary Wilson, and this is Ed Esposito from Bast-Hatfield.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, gentlemen.
MR. ESPOSITO-I’m here to assist Gary and Jill Wilson this evening, and this is pretty much
what they want to do. They just want to renovate the façade of the existing old cinema
building, do some landscaping and in and amongst with the application for the back addition,
which is not to occur until late Fall of next year, I think we’ve got some comments that I’d like
to maybe take some time this evening to address, but pretty much we’d like to emphasize the
renovation of this existing footprint. They have agreed with all of the Staff comments to add
the red maples or trees of your choosing, and realign strip the existing parking at the time of
Phase II. We’ve got some comments from C.T. Male that recommend repaving. We’re really
suggesting that perhaps the Board could look at not having the DOT improvements because we
did get a letter from DOT stating that the driveway was acceptable as is, but we are showing the
34 foot radius standard for DOT. We have comments from Jim Houston of C.T. Male regarding
the drainage improvements. There is no runoff that goes to Route 9, and we’ve updated two
sets of plans that we could leave or re-mail them appropriately to C.T. Male, in hopes that some
action could be taken to grant Gary and Jill at least the early renovations, and see what content
or agreements could be made this evening for the Phase I only. Phase II, which we could show
you conceptually what the building looks like, it’s really a pre-engineered metal building. It’s
got some glazing at the front entrance. The parking seems to be overwhelming for the old
cinema. There’s 285 cars. Only 99 of which at the one per 200 square foot derivation would be
required. Such that Gary will be renovating the old cinemas for sports fields, to get the kids off
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
the street, and reclaiming this other front portion that I showed you earlier for Yamaha Sports.
Now in the eventfulness we could advance our review and comment to consider this addition it
does fit well. We’re pretty close to making all the submission requirements that are in the
revised application. The parking is, if it were to be during the use of when the first phase is up
and running, Yamaha Sports would not be operating during, on Sundays and during the day,
such that we would have a surplus of parking for both, orchestrate both sites, but again, this is
for a future phase. We’d like to re-visit full civil engineering for this at, you know, next year
and perhaps consider any conditional approval for Gary this evening, just to move along with
the renovation of the front portion of the site, whatever content it may have. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, you said that you would agree with most of the Staff comments
regarding landscaping and the curb cut you said you addressed. How about the lighting plan?
MR. ESPOSITO-The lighting plan we would have to resubmit. I only got the comments last
Friday. So we would promise that we would have an updated lighting plan. I think the
comment was specific that we didn’t show the existing lights on the building. So I don’t know
if that, that may or may not pertain to Gary, just because the building does exist. All his
parking exists as is. The old cinema had Niagara Mohawk lighting on the existing power poles
there removed. So Gary would reinstate the lighting and come up with the appropriate plan, if
that could remain as a condition to the approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, there was a couple of issues with lighting. The one you
mentioned was that the lighting from the existing buildings wasn’t shown on the plan, but the
other one was relative to the light pole height, where the Code recommends 20 feet and your
plan was showing 25.
MR. ESPOSITO-That has since been changed. I’d be happy to resubmit to the Board or C.T.
Male for their review and content of the lighting, as well as another longstanding point of the
fire access and easement that I know Gary was trying to get that in a written form, but there is a
word of mouth agreement for fire access to allow with Keith Ferrara at the Skateland property
for fire access and connection, because some of the lights do overlap his property, and that was
not seen as being a point of disagreement. We would like to come through with an appropriate
lighting plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about some of the engineering comments that C.T. Male commented
on. One of them was the location of test pits and the percolation test results.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. On our existing conditions plan we’ve named, I believe Jim Houston had
mentioned that the drywell concepts seem feasible. We’ve got the data on our resubmitted
plan, and we’ve taken, for example, his comments with regards to the drainage new (lost
words) rates to show that the runoff doesn’t go to Route 9. We’ve corrected some of the existing
parking layout that was questionable to allow for a new organized count with radiuses on all of
the new interior landscape items and turning lanes. To move down, with the parking issue,
we’ve eliminated the corner front parking, and one of the parking spaces at the side that
interfere with the egress. So all this was done on this newly revised plan, which we would like
to resubmit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not to interrupt you, what do you keep talking about a resubmitting of a
plan to C.T. Male? Have you already responded to C.T. Male’s letter and revised drawings and
sent them to them or something?
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, we would like to. We’ve taken all of the comments, and we have a
revised plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-They have not been submitted to C.T. Male?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. ESPOSITO-Not as of yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. ESPOSITO-And there was a comment from the Staff that had the closure of the driveway,
there is a closure of the first driveway at Hidden Farms Road that prevented queuing and
exiting on to Route 9, and then the Staff had recommended replacing that driveway somewhere
else. I was not too clear on that.
MR. HILTON-I guess my comment was recognizing that you are eliminating the one closest to
the Route 9 intersection. Just to the west, you have an additional curb cut there, and then
another one even a little farther west of that one. I guess that first one I was just saying
consideration should be given to eliminating that, and using possibly the one, if not two, curb
cuts that you have on Hidden Farms Road, the one being the one near the building, and the
second one being back by the proposed addition, just to, you know, again, for better access
management on Hidden Farms Road, or Hidden Farm Road.
MR. ESPOSITO-Okay. We can explore whichever you believe would cause any benefit.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Again, I don’t have any reason to believe that there’s a high volume of
traffic on this road, but any time you can, you know, better manage a site’s access by
consolidating drives, that’s something the Zoning Ordinance kind of points out as something
we should strive for, and I was thinking that first access point the west of the one that you’ve
proposed to close. That was my thinking.
MR. ESPOSITO-Okay. All right. So, again, if there’s anymore questions on the.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any further questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I just want to get into some of the building renovations on the front. What are
your plans for the building?
MR. ESPOSITO-Gary could tell you more on that.
MR. WILSON-The side to the north, the add on Cinema Five, I guess you would call it, that
would be the shop for the Yamaha, shop storage. The next section over we would be removing
the freestanding partition that’s in there now, make it one big room. That would be showroom
for Yamaha, a showroom display. We’d be leveling the floors, obviously, and doing that. The
next section over, same thing, removing the freestanding partition, and that’s going to be indoor
athletic field, as in soccer, lacrosse.
MR. METIVIER-And as far as the outside, are you going to paint it, are you going to? It looks
like there might be some awnings.
MR. WILSON-Yes. The outside, yes, we need an uplift, definitely, a face lift.
MR. METIVIER-All right. So let’s get into that. What color choices, awning choices?
MR. WILSON-Color choices, I’m kind of trying to stay with the blue, the same as Fun Spot,
Skateland is. Keep everybody kind of the same there.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. WILSON-I mean, I haven’t gotten down to picking out colors. Blues I guess is where I’m
trying to get to.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. METIVIER-Blue’s not a good color.
MR. WILSON-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-That’s just personal preference. How about taking that sign down at the road,
or is that going to stay up? You’re not going to use the existing?
MR. WILSON-I haven’t gotten in to signage, at this point. We can take it down, sure.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, the cinema sign.
MR. WILSON-I mean, if it’s there, I’ll use it. I mean, I don’t need to change it. If it doesn’t fit
Code, then it shouldn’t be there anyways, I guess.
MR. METIVIER-This is our only opportunity to improve an existing structure that’s.
MR. WILSON-And that’s great, I’m all for that, to a point where it doesn’t get too bad, I guess.
MR. METIVIER-That’s where I’m going with this. I mean, you know, I’ll revert to the purple
building in town. You know, we want to prevent things like that from happening. At the same
time the sign that used to show what movies were playing. I mean, do you still need it? I’d
love to see it come down type thing. So that’s where I’m going with all this.
MR. WILSON-I could use it, yes. I mean, I could use it to list tournaments, that kind of stuff,
sure.
MR. METIVIER-Okay. All right.
MR. WILSON-Would I add to it? No. Obviously not. It’s plenty big enough, by far.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for curiosity’s sake, is something like that up for grabs as needing a
variance because it’s a use that’s no longer being used for what it was? I’m sure that sign
exceeds our Code. Do you know where I’m going with that?
MR. HILTON-Yes, well, I think it certainly does exceed the size requirements, and I would also
think that quite possibly the time period for that sign to come into conformance has long since
expired. So quite possibly it’s a nonconforming sign that, for whatever reasons, should have
been taken care of, but for whatever reason hasn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, I know John will. So I’ll just move on to him, and touch on the
exterior portions. So, without any further ado.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think you were on the right track, Tony. Yes, well, you know, the blue
wasn’t real popular with the O’Toole’s. Yes, I’d rather see some earth tones, when you get to
finalizing your color scheme. Are you going to be doing the motorcycle repairs?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Right there?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is it going to be all interior?
MR. WILSON-Correct.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Now, I’d like to see the floor plans, too, when you get there. The reason why, I
want to see where the pedestrian flow is going to be, because one of our things is to make sure
we check out pedestrian safety and things like that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just to clarify, you’d like to see the floor plans when you get there, what are
you talking about?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m getting the feeling that we’re going to be going to stage two here, but,
so I’m just.
MR. VOLLARO-You mean Phase II, we’re going to?
MR. STROUGH-Well, no. Are we going to be at the point where we’re going to make a motion
to accept the project?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see any approvals being made tonight, no. Not with a two page letter
of 14 items.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t, either.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s why I’m saying if next time they come before us I could see a floor
plan if they’ve gotten to that point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I just want to get a handle on what you’re looking for.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You mean a floor plan for the building number one or the?
MR. STROUGH-Well, Phase II, I’ll wait until Phase II. We’ll look at Phase II separately. Yes,
the first building, how they’ve got it laid out, where the pedestrians are going to be accessing
the building, where the exits will be, that kind of stuff, so that I can see the, you know, public
safety issues addressed.
MR. WILSON-I mean, right now we’re going to use the existing doorways that are there.
You’ve got two sets of doors in the front, two entrances into each part. You’ve got two exits to
the rear of both parts.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. WILSON-Additionally we’d be adding overhead doors.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, I like the curb cut as you’ve got designed on Route 9. I’d like you
to keep that, and I agree with Staff of eliminating the eastern most entry on Hidden Farms
Road. The only entry you should need I think is the one that would flow in front of the
building for drop offs, and then the cars would circulate around and possibly go to Route 9, if
they entered Hidden Farms Road, or vice versa if they entered from Route 9. It just seems to
present a good flow that way without too much conflict. Landscaping standards, yes, we have
a Route 9 Corridor Overlay Standards for landscaping and parking lot landscaping. You
should try and get close to what the standards are. Why the use of the Honey Locusts out by
Route 9?
MR. WILSON-That was changed from the Staff comments. We’ve got maples in the parking
end, along Route 9.
MR. STROUGH-Good. All right. Well, a lot of this I don’t know because we haven’t seen the
updates, and you and Staff have obviously made progress. Okay, and that’s about all. Now,
that’s all my thoughts at this time. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll just go down through my notes as I wrote them when I reviewed
this application. We’re talking about Phase I now, primarily?
MR. WILSON-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In Phase I, there’s a note on your Drawing L-1. It says to discontinue
the gravity sewer and to connect to the lower pressure sanitary design. Just exactly what do
you mean by that?
MR. ESPOSITO-Well, that’s a note that would pertain to Phase II, and we’re told.
MR. VOLLARO-But it’s in the Phase I building. The note’s in the Phase I building.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. We wouldn’t need to do that until we’re building the second building. So
the Phase I, I didn’t want to confuse the timeliness of when the sanitary would be made
available for the back addition.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Having said that, now that we’re not going to be able to utilize that
until 2004, when the sewer line comes up Route 9, just what do you have as a septic and drain
field location?
MR. ESPOSITO-I’ve got a full set of plans and work with a pump station that’s dosed to the
back. I have those plans. It was designed for the cinema, and will be maintained during these
renovations for Phase I.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t see it on the drawing anywhere, though. Maybe I’ll just go on for
a minute. What do you mean by the, a hold and haul tank? What is a hold and haul tank?
What is the definition of that, that appears on the drawing in Phase I?
MR. ESPOSITO-We had in mind, since Gary will have a floor drain, that that gray waste will be
better met in a grease trap arrangement, where it would be held, and with a certified hauler
would just be taken off the premise.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is having to do with maintenance of the motorcycles and stuff like
that, this is grease and stuff, oil?
MR. WILSON-Correct. Washing of it, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Whatever. So that stuff would go into a solid tank. Okay, but still, I don’t see
on this drawing anywhere or on the other drawings, what provisions for sanitary sewer are
provided, a septic tank or drain. There is nothing here to show me where that is or how it
functions.
MR. ESPOSITO-We didn’t feel a need to show you redundantly what the existing system was,
although we have those plans that were given to Gary for the existing facility.
MR. VOLLARO-In order for us to approve something like this, I would assume we should
know something about how the sanitary system works, currently, where the septic is, where the
drain field is located, a pump if necessary, so that we can understand how that particular
portion of the site functions. Otherwise, we don’t know. I don’t know how the other Board
members feel about this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good point.
MR. RINGER-Keep moving with your other questions.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Getting down to the LP tanks, the liquid propane tanks that are on, it
looks like they were, are they existing liquid propane tanks?
MR. WILSON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They’re not something you’ve put in as, to support Phase I?
MR. ESPOSITO-No. The tanks exist as they are.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just wondering, do they, or have they ever obstructed traffic in any way?
Are the out in the open, or are they fairly well protected? From this drawing I can’t tell.
MR. WILSON-They’re in the treed area.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re in the tree area?
MR. ESPOSITO-They’re on the tree line with some pipe bollards. That’s the existing gas supply.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I see that’s also being piped over to the new building?
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-To Phase II if Phase II goes.
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-How does it get to the Phase I building?
MR. ESPOSITO-I don’t have the line shown, but that is the only.
MR. VOLLARO-So these propane tanks are intended to fuel both Phase I and the proposed
Phase II?
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes, that’s the tank location. That won’t change.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I searched high and low here for the potable water line that
enters into the property. Can you show me on this drawing or does the drawing show a
potable water line entering the building?
MR. ESPOSITO-I didn’t have the data. The existing water will be utilized in the existing cinema
building.
MR. VOLLARO-Where does it enter the building? The drawing ought to show where that
enters the building, I would think. The reason I want to know that is not because I’d like to just
know it. I just wanted to know if it’s in any way interfering with a sewer line of any kind, or a
septic system or whatever you’ve got, whatever it is, it doesn’t show on the drawing that there’s
no interference between the water line and the septic system. That’s my primary concern.
MR. WILSON-That enters on the right hand side of the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, it needs to be shown on the drawing. Otherwise, there’s no way for
us to determine whether there’s an interface between those two or not. It’s not here. So I need
to know where the septic drain and the field location is and where the water line comes in to the
building. We should know where the water line comes in to the building, only because I want
to see if it interfaces with the sewer or not. Now the Phase I parking is 102 cars that you’re
asking, in the parking area, is 102 for parking, versus the 99. That doesn’t seem like a big deal
to me. You’re pretty close in parking. On the south side of the building, is that an
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
interconnecting drive with your next door neighbor to the south? If you go along your southern
property?
MR. WILSON-Yes. It’s a graveled area.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Is that an interconnect to the property to the south?
MR. WILSON-Yes. I believe there’s one spot where it interconnects. The rest of it’s grass right
up tight to the building.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that used customarily as an interconnect between the two, do you
know?
MR. WILSON-It’s used for parking right now. He uses it as parking.
MR. VOLLARO-The pre-use of this used that as parking?
MR. WILSON-They used some as parking, getting back and forth to the water slide behind it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the neighbor to the south doesn’t mind that? That’s been an ongoing
exchange?
MR. WILSON-Yes. I contacted, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. When you get into the lighting area, I think that Mr. Hunsinger’s
already talked about lighting, and some spillage off the site, but I think you’ll want a uniformity
ratio shown as well. The four to one uniformity ratio for lighting is not shown in the lighting
plans. You want to make sure you do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, take that one step farther. We want the lighting to conform with the
Town design standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In looking at that, considering, yes, I think that the overall lighting plan
has to be modulated or fixed so that it’s in conformance with our Code. Those are about the
only comments I had. You say you have all of the septic information in another place?
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. I have it right here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the problem is it’s not right here. So I can’t see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, anything?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just think this is a great use for this site. It’s nice to have somebody
come in and take over some of these empty buildings in Town, just as long as you address all
the issues from our Town engineer, and one of the things that I think is a good suggestion by
Staff, that we take the projected 24,000 square foot playing field as a separate phase, and maybe
with that sign, in lieu of taking it down, you might be able to maybe redesign it by putting it,
maybe getting some, putting it into a wooden frame or just to make it a little more aesthetic that
way.
MR. WILSON-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t go too far down that road, because my guess is the sign is not in
conformance with our design standards right now. So if that’s the case, he’s going to need to
either, A, seek a variance, or, B, take it down and start over.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Gotcha. All right, but I’m just saying the sign is there, though.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t meet the Town Code anymore. They all had to
come into conformance in, what, ’99, 1999, by end of?
MR. HILTON-I’d have to look.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just roughly off the top of your head. I mean, it’s been a couple of, two, three
years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right, but I thought, because it was already there, that it was
grandfathered in.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. All signs in the Town, throughout the Town, had to come into
conformance.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then this one never was because.
MR. MAC EWAN-It was never brought into conformance for whatever reason.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’ve got you. That’s what kind of confused me, and I do want to
let you know that the colors are going to be very important, as far as the way I perceive this
final project, and I think it’s going to work nicely.
MR. WILSON-I mean, a good portion of it right now is white brick, which I, I’m not going to
change, obviously. I’m not going to paint the brick. So, I mean, as far as colors are concerned,
yes, I mean, all I was doing was trying to keep in tow with everybody else.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand.
MR. WILSON-That’s all I was looking to do. That’s not an issue.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think when it’s landscaped, boy, you’re going to have a nice parcel
there.
MR. WILSON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Esposito, I’ve got one for you. Your revised drawings that you have
there, that you plan on submitting, are they done in CAD?
MR. ESPOSITO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we make a request and ask you to put them on CAD? The only
reason why I’m asking that is the drawings I’m looking at that are in this packet are very
difficult to read as far as the notes and stuff on them. 99.9% of all our applicants come in here
with something on CAD. So it certainly would be helpful to us, and you’ve had discussions
back and forth with C.T. Male relative to our comments that we have here, the Staff notes from
him, or his letters to Staff?
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes. We would follow-up with them.
MR. MAC EWAN-And how was it left with him? The last time you spoke, I’m assuming that
you were responding to all fourteen of these comments that he had in here?
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Has he received copies of those drawings yet?
MR. ESPOSITO-No, we haven’t mailed them out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-How much of the landscaping and the lighting is going to be done in Phase I and
how much is going to be done in Phase II?
MR. ESPOSITO-I think primarily the front of it we’ll do with Phase I.
MR. RINGER-So the lighting and landscaping will be done in Phase I?
MR. ESPOSITO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members?
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Wilson must be on to a pretty good idea. This is, I think, one of three, and
I hear they’re very successful elsewhere, and I guess there’s a real need for that in the
community. So, I, for one, would be glad to see you make good use of this, and it seems like an
appropriate use, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? I’d ask you to give up the table for
a couple of minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Has anybody got a laundry list?
I do. All right. Number One I’ve got on the list is the issue of the sign, whether it’s conforming
to the Town Code or not. I guess that may be aiming that one towards Staff, and to let the
applicant know what the deal is with that. The Board is looking for a little more information on
what you plan on doing with the building’s current façade as far as color schemes and any
changes you want to make to it, whether you’re going to stone or something else. We’re
looking for a Phase I floor plan of the building. We’re looking for this project to meet the design
corridor standards, inclusive of not only the planting schedules that are in the Ordinance book
but as well as lighting. Mr. Vollaro made some general comments relative to the deficiencies on
the plats, as far as like showing existing lines, water lines, notes, etc., and I took that one step
farther. My preference is for the Board to have a new site plan that you’ll be submitting that
will be done in CAD, and obviously address all the C.T. Male comments that are dated in the
letter of July 17 to the satisfaction of C.T. Male. Anything else?
th
MR. STROUGH-Floor plans?
MR. MAC EWAN-I asked for it, Phase I floor plan.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about specs on the sanitary system.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We don’t have anything at all on Phase I where it shows a septic system
design. There isn’t anything there at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking for additional information on septic system that’s there
currently, and/or proposed? Okay. Anything else? Is everybody satisfied with that?
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to go along with the Phase I parking, 102 versus 99. I think that’s,
we can just give them that waiver without much trouble.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems like it warrants it.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, one of the other comments was closing the easternmost curb cut.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which one are you talking about? I mean, when he’s talking easternmost
curb cut.
MR. STROUGH-Well, on Hidden Farms Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re looking at this first one coming out here? Okay.
MR. HILTON-Just, again, to clarify my comment, was that the one, I mean immediately west of
Route 9 has already been proposed to be consolidated. We were taking it a step further, and the
one directly to the west of that, on the south side of Hidden Farms, potentially consolidating
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Six of one, half dozen of the other.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the one east of that, George.
MR. STROUGH-Eliminate this, right, and keep this one.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what he’s saying, but I don’t know.
MR. HILTON-See, if you look just to the north of the existing building, you have two curb cuts
in close proximity to each other, and the one that’s farthest to the east is a concern that I had. If
you have traffic coming in and out of both of those, in close proximity to each other, again, not
to say that it’s a high traffic, high volume road, but in the interest of good planning and access
management, my comment was to consolidate the one to the east.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, one could maybe look at it the opposite way. If he’s proposing
to have some sort of indoor sports activity there, and you have several people there, it would
help probably funnel off that parking lot a little bit quicker, too, by having both the curb cuts.
MR. STROUGH-Being the soccer moms and dads a lot of times are going to drop their kids off,
and so I was looking at traffic flow in a sense of drop off, you know, going in, exiting, two way
flow, dropping off their kids, for an hour or whatever the case may be. So the Hidden Farms
access should be at a point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a big deal? It seems like it’s not an issue for the majority.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t think so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So just basically we’ve got those eight items. Right? Okay. Very
good. We don’t need a motion to table, as long as we gave them our list, what we’re looking
for. I guess just get your stuff together and get it in, submit it to Staff. Hopefully we’ll put it all
together for you.
MR. WILSON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve left the public hearing, and I’ll leave it open.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought you had to make a motion to table it.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we don’t have to make a motion to table it, contrary to what Mr.
Schachner told us just a week ago.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He said you don’t have to do that, as long as you give the applicant a list.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought we did use the motion but we had already used what we had
already said. Okay. Here we go.
FWW 6-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC. GUIDO
PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, TOM NACE ZONE: P O LOCATION: LOT
4, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2
STORY 10,050 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH CONSTRUCTION AND/OR
DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FT. OF A REGULATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE:
MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-27.6 LOT SIZE: 1.00
AC. SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, FWW 6-2003, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: July 22, 2003
“Project Description:
The applicant is seeking a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit in order to allow
construction/disturbance within 100 ft. of existing regulated wetlands. Proposed construction
activities are in association with a planned 10,050 sq. ft. office building to be built at this
location.
Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit according to Section 179-6-100 E of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
Staff comments:
The applicant’s proposal requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit because
the plan proposes construction within 100 ft. of existing wetlands.
The requirements for granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit are outlined
in § 179-6-100 E (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are:
1 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter to preserve,
protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived there from, to prevent the
despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such
wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetland, consistent with the
general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the town.
2 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations applicable in the
town pursuant to § 24-0903 of Article 24 of State Environmental Conservation Law.
3 – The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare
4 – The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary
5 -There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a
freshwater wetland or adjacent area.
6 – The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulated activity
will be in accord with the standards set forth in this subsection.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted; Applicant has submitted a short form EAF.
Other:
Warren Co. PB recommendation: NCI”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, I’ll give you my comments for the Freshwater Wetlands as well as
the site plan. The Planning Board is reviewing a Freshwater Wetlands Permit given that this
proposal is within 100 feet of a regulated wetland, that being an Army Corps of Engineers
flagged wetlands. Outlining the six criteria from Section 179-6-100E(2), for considering
Freshwater Wetlands Permits, as far as the site plan goes, the only comment I have is that C.T.
Male comments should be addressed during review of this application. That’s really all I have
at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace.
Very briefly, this is the fifth building in Rich’s Baybrook Professional Park. As you’re all aware,
the hospital building has now been occupied, since we were here last on this project. So the
daycare building is built. The hospital building is built. The office building north of the
hospital building is under construction. The site work is all done and the building is under
construction. We received approval in the spring for the lot behind the daycare building, which
is Lot Six, another office building, and we now have negotiated leases for the new building for
the medical tenant and the professional office tenant. So the leasing of this park has gone very
well. The design of the building is similar to the architecture of the others, and landscaping as
well. I’m sure that the Planning Board is aware, when you drive by the hospital building, of all
the landscaping that you asked for, the extra stuff, and how nice it looks. In general, just a
minute on the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. The DEC Wetlands, State Wetlands, have a 100
foot buffer requirement, and Federal Army Corps Wetlands don’t have a 100 foot buffer. We’ve
stayed outside of the Army Corps Wetlands completely. So there’s no wetland disturbance, but
under the Town’s Freshwater Wetlands Regulations, all wetlands require a buffer, even Army
Corps. So the permit that we’re seeking for the Freshwater Wetlands is that we’re within 100
feet of the wetlands, but we’re not doing any disturbance to the Army Corps Wetlands at all,
and that’s what, in order to develop this site, we do need to develop within 100 feet of the
wetland. That’s my general description. Let me turn it over to Tom to go through the details.
MR. NACE-I think Jon covered it fairly well. I’ll cut this short. For the wetlands, I don’t have
anything to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-For SEQRA purposes, we’re going to combine the two of these together. So
has anybody got any questions regarding the Freshwater Permit?
MR. VOLLARO-No. Being that these are ACOE, Army Corp of Engineers wetlands, we don’t
have to stick by the 100 foot buffer for that. This is just a Town permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move right on to the site plan, then.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second, let’s go back to this wetland thing. Why did the Town
even make a stipulation that you’re not supposed to go within 100 feet?
MR. HILTON-I don’t know why. I can tell you that it’s in the Code that any disturbance within
100 feet of not only DEC, but Army Corps wetlands requires a Town Freshwater Wetlands
Permit.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I think what the Town did was just mimic the DEC requirement and add it to
the ACOE requirement. That’s what it looks like to me.
MS. RADNER-It gives you the opportunity to make sure that during construction you’re not
going to have construction runoff, things like that. So even though there’s not going to be
disturbance of the wetlands themselves, you can make sure that safeguards are in place to
protect the wetlands during construction or upon completion of the project. It gives you an
opportunity to consider that in terms of SEQRA review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does that answer your question?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not really, but, Cathi’s statements, the statements you made, Cathi, make
a lot of sense, but as far as answering the question as to why the Town has this law and can skirt
around it, I haven’t gotten that answer yet.
MR. HILTON-I don’t know if it’s a question of skirting anything. I think it’s actually giving an
extra layer, if you will, of protection. If you, as the Board, felt that maybe you wanted to stick to
the 100 foot buffer around the wetlands, you saw some compelling need or some reason to
protect or keep that buffer, you can do that with the Town Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I hate to be blunt right now, but I have been told, in the past three
months, by more than one person, that, and you know I hate to hit below the belt here, Rich, but
I’ve been told that whenever Rich Schermerhorn comes in front of this Board, he can build on
all the wetlands he wants.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not building on any wetlands.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you’re not building on the wetlands, but these are the things that
people are perceiving, you know, and I have to take the defensive and say, no, that’s not really
happening, oh, but the wetlands are this proximity to this development, and they’re close to this
one, and all I feel like I’m doing is defending Rich all the time, and I had to get this out in the
open right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Hold it. Well, I have a real problem with any member of this Board making
comments to that degree. I would suggest that if anybody’s out in the public, anybody that’s on
this Board is out in the public and gets comments like that from someone in the public, I would
only encourage any member on this Board to direct them to that Planning Office where they can
open up any one of the files that we have on any application that’s sitting in front of us, and
then get the answer themselves instead of looking through things, hearsay, piecemeal,
innuendos, and part of the information, and I have a real problem with that, and that’s not
directed to Mr. Schermerhorn or anybody else. I’m talking about any applicant that comes in
front of this Board. Everyone plays on the same level playing field.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I tried to say.
MR. MAC EWAN-And when people gossip on the street, people usually gossip because they
don’t know all the facts, whether it’s being naïve or misinformation. That’s why we have a
Planning Department, so they can come right in to our Planning Department and get any
information they want.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what I tried to tell them, but it does, you know, this is just
something that, it just is a negative connotation.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Cathy, if I may, just quickly, I think maybe part of the problem like
some people think, for whatever reason, that maybe my applications, they seem to go through
successfully, maybe quicker than others. I think reason being that I’ve been doing the process
so long with the Planning Board that I’m coming in with complete applications. I spend hours
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
and hours before I get to this point, and I, at all costs, avoid wetlands. In the 15 years I’ve been
in business with Queensbury, I think I’ve only had to get one variance ever. I mean, I’m never
asking for relief of lot lines. I’m not asking for, I think what I’m getting at is my applications
are, I’m following the Code and I’m following what’s requested of me of the Planning Board,
and I think sometimes maybe there’s a little resentment that that maybe, because I’ve heard this
before. People think, well, gee, you know, one meeting you got that through, well, yes, I got it
through in one meeting, but I spent a lot of time and hours before I got to that one meeting to
make sure that my application was 100%. Not 80%, 100%, and that’s the way I generally feel
when I come to these meetings, I’m comfortable that I’ve answered all the questions. Like I
noticed the Staff comments that I received, if you’ll notice the Staff comments, there’s no issues,
and there’s nothing wrong with that. I think we’ve answered all the comments. We’ve
addressed C.T. Male. Because we know what’s expected of us. I think when I come in front of
John Strough now, the landscaping requests are getting less and less of me, and just for an
example, you know, and I’m proud to say that I think I do have projects that have probably the
most landscaping. I see a project that went up behind my Hunterbrook apartments, which I
think is, the building’s beautiful, but the bushes I think if it was me it would probably be twice
the amount of bushes for the building that’s behind my Hunterbrook apartments, but that’s
neither here nor there. I’m not a complainer. I’m just, I do what’s asked of me, and I think, you
know, the reasons I’ve been successful on, I’m not saying all, but some of my applications is just
because we do come in complete, and I know what you’re asking for.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I appreciate your comments, and I’m glad that this got on the
record.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-With that, we’ll move on to site plan.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, TOM NACE
ZONE: PO LOCATION: LOT 4, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 STORY 10,050 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
WITH REQUIRED PARKING AND SITE WORK. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES IN PO
ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-
27.6 LOT SIZE: 1.00 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-2003, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., Meeting Date: July 22,
2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 39-2003
APPLICANT: Richard Schermerhorn is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,050 sq. ft. office building on
Lot 4 of the Baybrook Professional Park subdivision.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on Lot 4 of Baybrook Park Subdivision, on the
north side of Willowbrook Drive.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned PO, Professional Office.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a
SEQRA short EAF.
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
PARCEL HISTORY: Previous Planning Board activity for this site includes SB 9-2000, Baybrook
Professional Park Subdivision.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site plan shows a 2-story, 10,050 sq. ft. office building to be built
along with parking, landscaping, lighting and stormwater management facilities. The site plan
shows vehicular access off of Willowbrook Rd., with an additional interconnection to the
adjacent lot to the east.
STAFF COMMENTS: The submitted lighting plan shows light fixtures that are consistent with
other lots within this subdivision. Proposed landscaping appears to meet Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.
Warren Co. PB recommendation: NCI”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes for site plan?
MR. HILTON-No. As I stated, I think the only comments we have are address C.T. Male
comments.
MR. LAPPER-Tom, do you want to walk them through the site plan?
MR. NACE-Well, in lieu of time.
MR. MAC EWAN-We have to combine the two for SEQRA purposes. So you might just as well
go through the site plan.
MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. Real quick. It’s a single building on the site. We have 36, I believe,
parking spaces, 33 and a half required by Code. We’re taking the drainage into infiltration
chambers. There’s really a little bit of infiltration. Mostly storage, and then metering the
outflow of those back out to controlled outlets into riprap channels leading down toward the
wetland, which pretty much emulates the way the site drains now. The soils in here are typical
of the rest of this property. Silty, light sand on the top and then silty clays underneath. What
else can I tell you about it? Water, sewer, both connected to the road. The pump station and
sewer that Rich is doing are right here adjacent to the property. That’s it in a nutshell.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, I’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I really have no questions. The medical complex on Bay turned out very nice,
by the way. The landscaping is very nice. We’ll thank John Strough for that. No, I really have
nothing to add. I like the elevation, the front elevation. When I first looked at it, I kind of
thought that, you know, there’s a theme going on here, and I’m sure that the other end of the
table might ask for colors, but for the most part, you know, what can I add? I mean, so far, so
good.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No. For one, I’m proud of what we’re doing over there. I’ve had people make
comments about what Cathy said, and I’ve said, well, you know, we’re developing a piece of
property that could be developed in many different ways, and I think we’re limiting the
impacts on the wetlands, and I think through engineering, both Tom Nace’s and C.T. Male’s,
we’re doing as good a job as humanly possible in taking care and maintaining your stormwater,
but what I like about this, I like the layout here, and Richard and his team has kept consistent
with what we’ve wanted to do from the very beginning is make this a village like appearance. I
see he’s got the same light fixtures he’s been using elsewhere and the same kind of architectural
mode that he’s been using elsewhere. It’s really taking on a village appearance, just what we
wanted, and I’m proud of what Mr. Schermerhorn’s doing. The landscaping upgrades, I mean,
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
he hasn’t fought us. He’s gone right along with us, and so if it seems like he’s having an easier
time doing it, it’s because he’s been willing to do what we’ve asked him from the very
beginning. Now, I do like the design of your new building, you know, and I like the dynamics,
and variations in the roof slopes, and it’s going to be a nice looking building. Now, the color
scheme, it’s earth tones, you know, as long as you keep it there, whatever you do, it’s looking
good so far, and I try and give these a critical look, and you’re just giving me a hard time, but
are they going to have a dumpster?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The professional people that I have going in here, I don’t think they’ll
have a dumpster because they don’t have a lot of waste, but they’ll probably have trash
containers. If they do have a dumpster, I do know the requirements. We can condition it that if
they do add one, that I’ll screen it like I’ve done my other ones, and landscape around it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t most of these places, though, really have like janitorial services that
come in and do it and they just haul out the garbage at night anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I didn’t see one, and sometimes we’ve seen them, you know, the big
places.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, but the only reason the hospital has one, that building was 37,000
square feet. I mean, in the whole building there’s only a six yard dumpster for the whole
building.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s screened out front.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s screened as well.
MR. STROUGH-So no dumpsters. What’s the height of the retaining walls? You’ve got two.
Right, one on the north and one on the west.
MR. NACE-The one on the north is a foot and a half, two feet. The south is up about four to
five feet.
MR. STROUGH-You mean the one to the west?
MR. NACE-The the west, correct.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, the first one doesn’t give me any public safety concerns, but
the one to the west might, if it’s at night.
MR. NACE-Well, there are lights right adjacent to that wall. So it’s well lit.
MR. STROUGH-Do you think maybe that should be a split rail fence or something there? Some
kind of public safeguard to keep people from walking right off of that? I mean, one and a half
feet, I don’t think anyone’s going to get seriously injured, but four or five feet is a concern.
MR. NACE-It’s a ways up. It’s may be three or four feet off the edge of the pavement. (Lost
words).
MR. STROUGH-You said it’s higher than the pavement?
MR. NACE-Well, no, it’s about three feet, three to four feet away from the edge of the
pavement.
MR. STROUGH-That’s not a whole lot. The rest of the Board may not share my concern, even a
hedgerow or.
MR. HUNSINGER-John, they do have plantings going in between the parking lot and the wall.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. NACE-Yes. There is a hedgerow there.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, there is a hedgerow there. Okay. All right. So it would create some kind
of a barrier. All right. Okay. Never mind. No, I ran out of gas. That’s it. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I would just like to make a comment that the reason I think Rich’s stuff
goes through like it does is he’s got excellent technical support, and I think that makes these
plans adhere to the Town Codes, and I think that that’s the thing that puts you through. All
right. I have a question, I guess, for Tom, and it has to do with C.T. Male’s Number Six, and I’ll
read it so you don’t have to go jumping into it. “Consideration should be given to providing
deeper sumps on the catch basins to provide greater protection to the buried system and the
wetlands.” I just have a little note in here, what about depth to groundwater. Are you going to
be getting close to groundwater by driving those things in deeper than they are? That’s
something you’re going to have to talk over with.
MR. NACE-I’ll have to look. We had increased them to two feet, which is a foot deeper than
normal. Even if the base of them were into groundwater, it probably wouldn’t matter because
the structure itself is heavy enough not to (lost words). I’ll look at it and make sure, but (lost
words) that concern.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think for the lighting all we want to do there is get a uniformity ratio,
the four to one uniformity ratio in lighting, unless it’s already there. I didn’t see it.
MR. NACE-That, I didn’t see Jim when he put the comments together. I know he changed it on
the plan, but he did not include a copy of that area.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s something, in order to be in conformance with the Code, we ought to
have that four to one ratio. I was down on the site today, and I went around, and is the pump
station that’s down there now the master for Bay Road, if it ever becomes a master for Bay
Road? That’s the pump station that’s down there now.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, that is the actual pump station.
MR. VOLLARO-That is the pump station. That’s the one that’s sized, basically, to look at the
entire Bay Road?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. (Lost words) substitutions from the original plans.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the old rough?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The Gorman rough, yes.
MR. LAPPER-That was designed to accommodate the whole Bay Road corridor.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know that. I’m familiar with that. Now, on the corner of the drive and
Bay Road there’s a sewer inlet right there. There’s a drop inlet or manhole right at the corner.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now that would be where somebody else would have to tie in to your
system?
MR. NACE-No, that’s the air release valve on the force main. That’s the high point of the force
main, and there’s an air release valve there that needed a structure.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. VOLLARO-So where is the connection on Bay Road now? Where does that, in other
words, on your site someplace there’s a.
MR. NACE-There are two places. One is north of the hospital.
MR. VOLLARO-North of the hospital.
MR. NACE-Okay, right adjacent to Bay Road, and the other is along Willowbrook Drive about
100, 150 feet in from Bay Road.
MR. VOLLARO-I thought that was that.
MR. NACE-No, it’s in the center of the road.
MR. VOLLARO-The center of the road. Other than that, I don’t have any comments on this
thing, other than Tom’s (lost words) answer to C.T. Male’s questions of the July 17 letter.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for
a couple of minutes and I’ll open the public hearing relative to both the Freshwater Wetlands
Permit and Site Plan No. 39-2003. Any takers?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DENNIS PHILLIPS
MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips, and I’m here with Dan Valente, and
of course, as you’d expect, our position normally is in favor of development, and we’re not
opposed to any development, for the most part, but we do think that even though this
application appears to be complete before the Planning Board, one thing that we did not hear
from the Planning Board was any question relative to the sewage in this area, and I’m sure that
that question was not asked because it probably is the understanding that Mr. Schermerhorn
has his sewers in place, relative to his project, as an out of district user, and that is partially
correct, he does. However, I don’t think that this Board has in its possession as part of this
application, a 21 point letter which has been written to the Town Board by the Town Attorney,
with copies to Mr. VanDusen, copies to Mike Shaw, copies to Henry Hess, and that letter rejects
any transportation corporation proposal that has been submitted to the Town Board by Mr.
Schermerhorn, and as this Board knows from other dealings that it has had, Mr. Schermerhorn,
to a large degree, is leading the sewage on Bay Road, and as he is leading the sewage on Bay
Road, he has proposed a number of things to the Town Board, the last being a transportation
corporation, but as I mentioned in this letter to the Town Board, and I’d ask that you get this
letter, so that you can make it part of your record, and this letter, in addition to the 21 points
made, there is a recommendation that Mr. Schermerhorn work with other major parties
involved in the area and come forward with a plan that’s acceptable to all parties for the Town
Board to consider.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll tell you something, my blood’s starting to curdle right about now.
MR. PHILLIPS-And the letter goes on, and it says, I quote, “Also we want to remind you that
your client’s agreement with the Town permits him to connect to his line only to his large
medical building, and he cannot discharge wastewater to or through this line from any other
building or property, and our blood has curdled, too, in the sense that we have been waiting for
an extremely long period of time to be included in a process relative to sewage on Bay Road. So
we bring this to your attention because we think that sewage on Bay Road continues to be an
issue for the Town, continues to be an issue for this Planning Board, as it looks at the
development of the Bay Road corridor, and so we are not opposing any development. We are
in favor of development. We are opposing a process that has stalled. We’re opposing a process
whereby we have been excluded by a person who has been given that responsibility by the
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
Town Board, and so we would like our thoughts to be considered as you look at Mr.
Schermerhorn going ahead with his project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. PHILLIPS-That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to add anything?
DAN VALENTE
MR. VALENTE-I’m not opposed to Rich at all doing what he’s doing. All the power to him, but
as I sat here and you well know that you denied my project across the street, and not only for
the reason, there are other reasons other than sewage, but the main issue was sewage, and you
have a private individual holding back what other individuals are doing, and that’s the problem
here, and that’s why we fought this from the get go, on a private developer doing a sewer
system on Bay Road, but I’m not opposed to what Rich, let him build, but let’s have the
infrastructure that’s supposed to be there first, as is mandated, and time and time again, he’s
allowed to continue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-Very simply, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Rich has gone out of pocket
personally approximately $300,000 to put in a sewer line, not only to provide sewer service to
this development, but to the whole Bay Road corridor. It was designed for that, and legally, in
order to provide service to the corridor, two alternatives, one of two alternatives has to happen.
Either we can form a transportation corp., which means the Town gives him a franchise so that
he can sell sewer capacity to the other users, potential users in that district and then recoup a
portion of his construction costs with connection fees over time, and we’re in discussions with
the Town about how that should be structured and if the Town wants that to happen. The other
possibility is the Town could buy the line from him and make it a district extension, and we’ve
had discussions with the Supervisor and the sewer, Wastewater Department about that as well.
So Rich oversized the line to accommodate not just his needs, but the needs of the corridor. The
only way he gets some of that investment back is by selling the line or selling service. He has
every hope that that will happen, and we did get a letter from the Town, after we had made our
first proposal. We think that some Staff in the Town didn’t understand what we were doing.
It’s the first time anybody in Queensbury has done a transportation corp. We retained an
engineer in Saratoga County who has represented about a dozen transportation corps., sewer
and water, in Saratoga County, for how we structured it. I’m not sure what the timing is on
that, but we did everything we said we’d do. The line’s in the ground. The capacity’s there to
accommodate everybody, and it has to be worked out with the Town Board, but Rich wasn’t, as
was just stated, given the responsibility. He’s the one who went and put the money in the
ground and put the line in the ground and sized it for not only his needs, and this will, I expect,
get worked out with the Town Board, and that’s the story.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where it basically is, right at this stage, is over usage fees, is really where it
is, seems to be right now.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Coming up with a fair price for everybody involved.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, operation expenses, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Yes.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. LAPPER-And when we had that discussion with the Town, you know, they acknowledged
another alternative was maybe the Town wants to buy the line from Rich and asked us to talk
about that. So I don’t know which way it’s going to go, but stuff’s in the ground. It just needs
to get worked out, but certainly, for why we’re here tonight, he put the line in the ground. It
has the capacity to service his buildings, and he doesn’t need a transportation corp. to provide it
to his own buildings.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-And if I may just add, I’ve made not only verbal and written
responses, for example to the Baybridge Homeowners, which are in desperate need of sewer
service. I have offered, more than three times on the table to put, when I was doing the
directional boring all up through Bay Road, on the access road, that they retain easements for
where they wanted to run their sewer line. I offered, free of charge, no reimbursement,
absolutely no risk to them, I was going to drop a line in, so at the very time that we, the Town
Board and myself have agreed on the transportation rates, they would be ready to tie in at a
moment’s notice, and, you know, they opted for their own reasons I guess not to do that, but
there was no risk involved. There was no catch. If nothing ever happened with the sewer line,
with myself and the Town or whatever, they’d just end up with a free line that’s sitting in the
ground that would be used for whatever reasons some day, but I have gone out on a limb to
help everyone, and I just want to assure everybody that, I didn’t get any, I’ve spent over
$300,000 on this sewer line. I didn’t get grant money. I didn’t get any housing or public
assistance on this. This is just hard, this is cash, and I don’t get any of this money back until I
get customers. I need customers more than people know. I can’t, I’m not independently
wealthy where I can carry the burden of this for however long. I do need customers to get my
money back. So I am in no way trying to hold this up, or to slow this process down. There’s a
long, I mean, I don’t think this is the time or the place discuss it with the Planning Board, but
there’s a whole history to this sewer line, and I think some people are very aware of it.
MR. MAC EWAN-No problem.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We need to do a SEQRA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the question, Mr. Chairman, though, the other comments that
were made question whether or not this new building could tie in to the existing sewer, and I
guess I’d like to hear you address that.
MR. LAPPER-I just sent a letter to Bob Hafner this week saying that we’d like to amend our out
of district contract to include all the other buildings.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Mike Shaw, the way it’s explained to me, and, as a matter of fact, this
is how the transportation corp. came up. I can only, I cannot sell these buildings. I can’t build
this and then sell this to somebody, a contract user. I can only tie in at this present time only my
own buildings, my buildings that exist. So if I decide to sell that building, I couldn’t do that
until the transportation corp. was formed. So it’s not, we have the ability and the.
MR. HUNSINGER-So as long as the building is still owned by you, and you lease it out.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. It can’t be owned by a separate entity. It’s owned by me.
MR. LAPPER-And that’s the case.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-The State treats you as a utility, if you’re going to sell service to somebody else,
but if you do it for yourself you’re not a utility.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. Thank you.
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Ready for a SEQRA?
MR. PHILLIPS-The fact that he sends the letter doesn’t mean anything. He has to have an
agreement from the Town.
MR. MAC EWAN-The public hearing is closed. We’re ready for a SEQRA. Let’s go.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. FWW 6-2003 & SP 39-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., 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 22 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-The site plan.
MR. STROUGH-No, the Wetlands first.
MR. RINGER-The Wetlands first.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Wetland permit. I’m sorry, yes.
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MS. RADNER-If you look at the Staff comments, the Staff comments go through the
requirements for granting of a Wetlands Permit, and I know you don’t do the Wetlands Permits
as often as you do the other things, so I just want to direct your attention there, make sure
you’re comfortable that all of those criteria have been met, because those aren’t specifically
addressed in the draft resolution as prepared by Staff. Of course you can do your own
resolution, but the items you need to address are addressed in the Staff comments.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the laundry list of stuff.
MS. RADNER-Right, what your findings need to be in order to grant the Freshwater Wetlands
Permit.
MR. VOLLARO-We have to get those in front of us. I don’t remember them now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you waiting for a motion?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m waiting.
MOTION TO APPROVE FWW 6-2003 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC., Introduced
by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
FWW 6-2003 Applicant: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli
Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Tom Nace
Zone: PO
Location: Lot 4, Baybrook Professional Park
Applicant proposes construction of 2 story 10,050 sf professional office with construction and/or
disturbance within 100 ft. of a regulated wetland.
Cross Reference: Many
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.6
Lot size: 1.00 ac. / Section: 179-6-100
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
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 7/18/03, and
7/22 Staff Notes
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
7/9 Warren Co. Planning
6/27 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on July 22, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Freshwater
Wetlands 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
78
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
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.
Duly adopted this 15th day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Any issues with site plan?
MR. RINGER-C.T. Male, that’s it.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, where are we with C.T. Male comments?
MR. NACE-There’s a signoff letter as of last Friday from C.T. Male. That’s not in your file?
MR. HILTON-We received it past, I think later than Friday, and for the Board’s wishes, didn’t
drop it on them tonight, but, yes, in the file we do have a signoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Just condition it upon C.T. Male signoff, which we already have in-
house, but condition it anyway. Does someone want to introduce it?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2003 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, INC.,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 39-2003 Applicant: Schermerhorn Properties, Inc.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli
Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Tom Nace
Zone: PO
Location: Lot 4, Baybrook Professional Park
Applicant proposes construction of 2 story 10,050 sf professional office with required parking
and site work. Professional Office uses in the PO zone require site plan review and approval
from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: Many
Warren Co. Planning: 7/9/03
Tax Map No. 296.12-1-27.6
Lot size: 1.00 ac. / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 6/16/03; and
79
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 7/18/03, and
7/22 Staff Notes
7/ C. T. Male Associates engineering comments
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
7/9 Warren Co. Planning
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/24 Water Dept. comment
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 22, 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 condition:
1. C. T. Male Associates concerns have been addressed and sign-off obtained.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED MICHAEL DICKINSON, CONTRACT VENDEE PROPERTY OWNER:
RICHARD & SANDRA BAKER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: SR-20
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVE., JUST EAST OF POWER LINES AND
OLD DAY CARE BUILDING. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 11.30 +/-
ACRE LOT INTO 15 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 4-1998 TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-27,
28 LOT SIZE: 11.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
80
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-2003, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Michael Dickinson,
Meeting Date: July 22, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 08-2003 (Preliminary & Final
Stage)
APPLICANT: Michael Dickinson is the applicant.
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.05-acre property into 14 single-
family lots. **(Current Tax Map information for this lot lists the acreage as 11.30 acres)
LOCATION: North side of Sherman Avenue, just east of the Niagara Mohawk overhead lines
that cross Sherman Avenue.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SR-20, Suburban Residential 20,000 sq. ft.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full
Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: Previously SB 4-1998 was heard by the Planning Board, no action was
taken.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.05-acre property into 14
single-family lots. The proposed lots conform to the 20,000 sq. ft. requirement of the SR-20
zone. The lots are all shown as fronting on a new cul-de-sac off of Sherman Avenue. Site
topography is generally level. The subdivision plat indicates on-site septic systems to be used
for sanitary sewage disposal. Connection to municipal water service is proposed for the lots
within this subdivision. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan as part of
the subdivision. The stormwater management plan has been referred to CT Male for their
review and comment.
STAFF COMMENTS: NYSDEC has provided a signoff on potential Karner Blue Butterfly issues
related to this site.
Clearing limits for the proposed subdivision have not been shown on the proposed plat. To the
extent possible, as much of the existing vegetation should be kept, especially in areas closer to
the existing single-family homes located to the north of this site.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary. The 14 lots proposed conform to the 20,000 square foot
requirements. Access is proposed for a new cul de sac. New York State DEC has provided, I
guess, somewhat of a signoff letter concerning Karner blue, potential Karner blue issues at this
site. One thing to note, clearing limits have not been identified on this plan, at least they appear
not to have been identified, and to the extent possible, as much of the existing vegetation should
be kept, and especially in areas closer to the single family homes, to provide some kind of a
buffer to the north. We’d be looking for something along those lines, and any C.T. Male
comments should be addressed during the review, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace representing Mike Dickinson. C.T. Male
comments have been addressed with them. They went out Friday late. C.T. Male, I understand,
has talked to Staff this afternoon with a verbal signoff, just to let you know that we have
81
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
addressed the comments adequately. The one Staff comment on the clearing limits, I didn’t
show an actual clearing line, but I believe I provided some verbiage that says proposed clearing
will consist of road right of way and only the portion of the lots necessary for construction of
the houses, driveways, septic systems and lawn areas. Basically, it’s a simple subdivision. A
short cul de sac, 14 lots, drainage is being handled by drywells and infiltration pipes between
the drywells, on-site septic, Town water. It’s a relatively flat site. Completely wooded at
present, and Kathy O’Brien’s looked at it and concluded that there’s no available habitat.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I know there’s going to be some public comment. So I’m going to hold
off here, with what has to be said, and then I’ll have some questions. For now, I’m fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I wanted to just ask a question. I won’t open up my drawings because I
have it written down. I’m looking at Lot Number Seven, and I’m looking at the grading that,
from Lot Seven. It looks like those lots border on Queen Victoria’s Grant.
MR. NACE-Lot Seven?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Queensbury Forest, is it?
MR. NACE-It would be, I think it’s, there is, a portion of Lot Seven borders the back of the HOA
land on Queensbury, or Queen Victoria’s Grant, and the rest of it borders Queensbury Forest.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just looking at the flow there. You take a look at, you’re going from
410 to 404 in your grading up there, and I just want to make sure that sort of an infiltration bed
to the rear of Lot Six and Seven wouldn’t be beneficial to those lots to prevent any stormwater
runoff through their lot?
MR. NACE-You mean from coming from the adjacent properties?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-The soil there, the surface soils are very sandy, and there is no, if you walk out
there, there’s no drainage pattern at all.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I haven’t been on that portion of the site, so I couldn’t tell. I know most
of that area out there, including where I live is, I throw a pail of water and it’s gone. Okay.
That was my really only question that I had concerning that, and I’m sure there’s going to be
some discussion on buffering between the two, and I think that John is on the right track. We’ll
listen to what some of the people have to say about that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think, as long as all the concerns are addressed by C.T. Male and
whatever, and Kathy O’Brien doesn’t have any problem, we’re all set.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-There’s no way to connect that to the other developments up above?
MR. NACE-No. Remember we looked at this at concept to provide.
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t here for Sketch on that.
82
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. NACE-Not necessarily to provide connection to what’s above, but to provide future
connection for a loop and the geometry in the land is just not there.
MR. RINGER-It would be nice if we could connect that up there, but if we can’t, we can’t.
MR. NACE-And then we might really have some neighbors out.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but still, I’d like to get some more roads connecting that Luzerne, Corinth,
Sherman, Potter and Peggy Ann. I don’t have anything else.
MR. NACE-I hear you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was only going to make the same comments, and I was here at Sketch, and
I remember we talked about it, and, you know I understand the position that the owner of this
property is taking. I don’t disagree with him, but the big picture, grand scheme of things, you
know, it would have been nice to do something better.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Nothing to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, back to you? Do you want to wait?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m going to wait, thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JEFF FIELDS
MR. FIELDS-Yes. Good evening. My name is Jeff Fields, and my wife and I own the property
directly east of this development, and I just have some concerns. Number One is drainage.
The area that’s proposed is very low. It’s the lowest spot on Sherman Avenue. Right after my
property, that particular property dies right down, and it’s actually a lowland. All the water
drains off there, actually most of the water from Sherman Avenue drains into my driveway. So
my concern is, if they’re going to raise this property to build homes, what are they going to do
for drainage? The other concern is the buffer that’s going to be, you know, it looks like seven
lots are going to be against my property. I’m just concerned with space. Another concern is
there’s a trail that runs not only behind this property but mine, and a lot of other people’s on
Sherman Avenue on that side of the road. It’s used, snowmobiles, four-wheelers, three-
wheelers, people walk their dogs. They’re going to build this development. That means it’s
going to end on my property. I have a concern with that because that’s going to open that up to
those people in that development to come on to my property and other people’s property. I feel
that that’s a concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the short answer to you, to the issue regarding the trail, I mean, your
property, you don’t want trespassing on your property. You send out that message you don’t
want people trespassing on your property.
MR. FIELDS-I understand that, but this has been there for quite some time. It runs not only
through my property but several others. So I only own a small portion of this trail. If I block off
both ends of that trail, you know, who’s going to police that, keep people from knocking it
down again and going right through it again?
83
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess that would be the responsibility of each individual land owner. I
mean, the Town can’t police trespassing on your private property unless a formal complaint’s
been made through the police department.
MR. FIELDS-I understand that, but the development, there’ll be several people and children in
there. Now I can tell you that they will want to go back there, as do many people from Queen
Victoria’s Grant and other places.
MR. METIVIER-How would they get back there, though?
MR. FIELDS-How do they get back there?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. FIELDS-There’s a power line, just past this property, and that trail goes right past that
power line. So that is a concern of ours also.
MR. RINGER-People use that now, though, don’t they?
MR. FIELDS-They certainly do.
MR. METIVIER-So what you’re stating is that there’s going to be more people using it because
there’s 14 lots?
MR. FIELDS-Most definitely, and it will actually make it easier access to that trail, and again, I
understand you’re saying it’s my property, you know, why not block it off, but again, if I block
off both ends of it, I only own a small portion. There is a whole vast system of trails back there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That goes across a whole bunch of individually owned pieces of property?
MR. FIELDS-Yes, sir, it does, and that trail will go all the way to Queen Victoria’s Grant, and
you can actually see the dirt hill that goes up to that trail, I mean, it’s just worn, like crazy. So
that is kind of a major concern. I mean, I don’t go back there and tell people to come off my
property, I don’t go back there. It’s wooded. That’s the way I like it. I don’t want to give
anybody a hassle or anything. We were new to the area three years ago. I didn’t feel that I
should go put up barricades on the trail and start causing problems for other people, but now
that this has come up, I do feel that there is an issue.
MR. METIVIER-Does it cause problems for you now?
MR. FIELDS-Just noise. Really four-wheelers and the snowmobiles, and really it’s on Saturdays
and Sundays. So that’s our quiet time, basically, and I can say that I’ve walked back there, but,
my family, my kids, we, personally, do not use it. People let their dogs run free back there. I
don’t feel comfortable. I have a fenced in yard. So I don’t feel comfortable, you know, allowing
my children out there. So, I do not use the trail at all.
MR. RINGER-Your lot’s about 1,000 feet deep?
MR. FIELDS-Yes, sir. It goes as far as this property here goes, right back to Queen Victoria’s
Grant.
MR. METIVIER-Your lot’s 1,000 feet deep?
MR. FIELDS-Yes, 979 feet, or something to that effect.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I just did a rough count here.
84
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. FIELDS-Yes. I think it’s 400 and some change wide, plus we do own a little strip, and it’s
shown on that, it came with the property. There’s a secondary strip of property right next to
that. It’s a very small strip. We also own that property, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add?
MR. FIELDS-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DAVE MARGISON
MR. MARGISON-My name is Dave Margison. I own Lot 12 on Hampton Court, and actually a
bunch of us are here. We border the back end, and we’re the concerned neighborhood that has
been before all kinds of boards with our development, we had problems with water, and when
we built our homes, there’s a buffer between us and Queen Victoria’s Grant. It’s quite a big
buffer, and we were all very happy that there’s that wood there and that natural state between
us and the next neighborhood, and I’m sure Queen Victoria’s Grant appreciates it also. As soon
as we saw this plan, we see that there’s no buffer at all, and that, it kind of effects our back
yards and our privacy. So our main concern is how come there is a buffer put in place between
Queen Victoria’s Grant and Queensbury Forest, but any other development that comes in,
there’s no more buffers. You know, we’re losing a lot of trees, and a second issue that I would
have would be the elevation, and the water. Our big concern in our development is water, and
making sure that the drainage is headed out towards Sherman Avenue. We cannot handle any
more water in Queensbury Forest Phase III. The drainage system that was put in takes care of a
different part of our development. Our side of the street on Hampton Court has always been
dry, and we really want to keep it that way. We’ve never had water in our basements on this
side of the street, and I would be afraid of, like Bob said, somebody throwing a bucket of water
in the ground, it disappears, but I just want to make sure it doesn’t end up in my basement. So,
that’s a main concern, is some kind of buffer between our property and the new development,
and the people who buy into that development would probably appreciate some kind of a
buffer between them and us. So we would like to see some forest left in Queensbury Forest, if
that is at all possible. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Yours is that pie shaped lot that shows there?
MR. MARGISON-Yes, Lot 12.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. FIELDS-I just want to.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are, because we record our minutes.
MR. FIELDS-My name is Jeff Fields. I understand the lots that are going to be cleared, they’re
only going to be cleared to build the house. No other trees are going to be taken down. Is that
correct?
MR. MAC EWAN-It may not necessarily be correct, no. We need to get clarification.
MR. FIELDS-Okay, and what kind of buffer are we speaking of, between my property and his
property?
MR. MAC EWAN-Right now what they’re showing on their site plan map, or on their
subdivision map is just a standard setback.
85
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. FIELDS-Of?
MR. MAC EWAN-Off the property line.
MR. FIELDS-Okay. Which is approximately five feet?
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not showing a buffer.
MR. FIELDS-They’re not showing any buffer against my property.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. They’re just showing the setback lines, the dashed lines, if you look at
that map.
MR. FIELDS-Okay. So that means that backyards will be abutting my property all the way
down.
MR. MAC EWAN-They could be. I’m not saying that they would be, but they could be, because
a buffer is not shown on these drawings.
MR. FIELDS-I mean, is it required, a buffer, from residence to residence?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, not a requirement of the Subdivision Regs.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, could I get a clarification on where this gentleman’s land is? I
have a Sandra D. Bustead, is that?
MR. FIELDS-Yes. That’s my wife.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I’m looking at the right piece here.
MR. FIELDS-Certainly.
MR. RINGER-He’s got two lots there, Bob, 30 and 1 that’s on there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-In the past, in many subdivisions, we’ve put in a little condition where
maybe the lots can’t be cleared so far back to the property line. I live in a subdivision where, I
know where you’re coming from, I’ve had my neighbors acre lots, literally cut down after they
bought the house, after somebody else had built it, they left nice buffers and stuff, and people,
then they sold it to other people and they’ve come in and literally clear cut the lot, and even
encroached on my own property, and cut some of my own buffer stuff down.
MR. FIELDS-Right, and that’s my concern. I don’t have a problem, necessarily, with the
development or the house or anything like that. I’m just concerned about what kind of affect
it’s going to have on not only my home but other homes. I would prefer not to have somebody
clear cut right directly to my property line. Honestly. I mean, that would open up my whole
property to seven yards that I would really prefer not to have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. FIELDS-Thank you again.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MICHAEL BROWN
MR. BROWN-My name is Michael Brown. I am the property owner at Lot 14 on Hampton
Court, and my concerns are basically the same as Dave had mentioned previously. The buffer.
We have a fireplace in the back yard with quite a bit of woods on our property still that we
86
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
enjoy going out there and having a fire on the weekend, and the other thing is the water issue. I
recently purchased the property about less than two years ago, and I don’t really know too
much about it, but I guess there was quite a controversy with the high water table there, and
such, and I guess it taken care of at this point, but this type of development, what kind of
problems could it create.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. RINGER-You say you go out in the woods, you go out in the woods on your property, or
you go into the property?
MR. BROWN-The fireplace is on my property. It’s approximately, I don’t know, 10, 15 feet back
in the woods, and then we have woods, I mean, we have, I think, a lot of 150 feet back from the
back of our home, and it’s kind of secluded, you know, surrounded by the trees and stuff. We
haven’t cleared the back lot.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So you’re treed in the back of your lot?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. BROWN-But it’s pine trees. It’s not deciduous trees. So obviously there’s not a very good
privacy created with pine trees versus deciduous trees. So having some extra, 30 feet of a buffer
would be excellent to see back there. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
DAVID WAY
MR. WAY-My name is David Way. I live at 8 Hampton Court. It’s Lot 15 on the map. I’d just
like to reiterate the buffer zone and the potential water problems. When they had the problems
before, they said that they remedied it by putting in a passive drainage system. They also
talked about draining down through what’s currently the back two lots, heading off towards
these people’s properties. So I believe that’s probably lower over there than ours. So it’s the
buffer zone, the water, and also you were talking about connecting Ferris to Sherman Avenue.
A lot of people that I’ve talked to on Ferris would not like to see that happen. I don’t know if
that’s something you need to think about now. Because this isn’t going into it, but people don’t
want that turning in to a major road usage. They bought property there basically because it was
a dead end, stub end, and it was quiet, and everybody walks their dogs, and rides bikes and
stuff in the neighborhood, and opening it up to Sherman Avenue would create a lot more traffic
and would be more dangerous for kids. A lot more noise. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. MARGISON-I’d just like to point out that.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are?
MR. MARIGSON-I’m David Margison, again.
MR. MAC EWAN-I ask that because we record our meetings.
MR. MARGISON-Right, but my next door neighbor, Peter Gallatioto, he owns Lot 13. He’s in
California on vacation with his family, but I’ve been in touch with Peter and we’ve talked about
this quite a bit, and I just want to let everyone that he’s on Board with myself and the rest of our
neighborhood, as well as this gentleman over here, as far as the buffer zone, and trying to save
what trees we have. Thank you.
87
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? The letter?
MR. HILTON-Well, I just want to make reference to it. It’s a letter drafted by Mr. Margison and
signed by the other members of the neighborhood that spoke here this evening, and again, just
goes through the discussion of buffer zone requirements and their desire to see one and
questions about drainage, and I just want to make reference that it’s in the file.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. For the moment, I’ll leave the public hearing left open.
MR. NACE-Okay. Let me go down through the issues. First on everybody’s mind seems to be
a buffer zone. I think that I would have no problem speaking for my client that we could
provide a 25 foot buffer zone across the back here that would be a no cut zone, and down the
sides, because the lots are deeper on the side, we can probably provide somewhere between 30
and 50 feet, in the way of no cut zone. Drainage, we aren’t increasing the amount of stormwater
that falls on the site, and believe me, I’m sensitive to the Queensbury Forest because I’m the one
that finally came in and solved or instituted a solution for that problem, and what happens, the
water there doesn’t go out the way it had originally been proposed at one time to the back, that
Larry Clute sandpit that’s in here. We ended up getting permission to pipe it across all the way
to Halfway Brook Reservoir on the other side of Peggy Ann Road.
MR. RINGER-That’s what the Town did this past year.
MR. NACE-It was about two years ago, on the summer, not this past summer, but the summer
before. It starts as an under drain up, I should remember the names, I can’t remember the name
of the property, way back in the corner off of Ferris.
MR. RINGER-Come down on to Peggy Ann Road.
MR. NACE-Gilligan. That starts back by his house and goes down Ferris, crosses over to
Hampton Court and goes through the back of the Queensbury, or Queen Victoria’s Grant
property to Peggy Ann. One of the other questions I believe Mr. Margison had was the buffer
on, between their houses and Queen Victoria’s Grant. Just to clarify that a little bit, that’s not a
buffer that was provided in their subdivision. That’s the Homeowner’s Association land, in
behind, that’s owned by Queen Victoria’s Grant. It’s not really there as a buffer. It’s the
Homeowner’s Association land. It was set aside when they clustered Queen Victoria’s Grant.
Trails. There are trails. The power line comes through here, and there are trails that cut
through the back of Mr. Dickinson’s property. In essence by constructing houses in here, we’re
going to deter vehicles from coming through that property. So I think if anything we will
decrease the amount of traffic, vehicular traffic on that trail. Yes, there might be some kids from
the back lots or from the houses on this side that wander out into the woods, but I don’t think
that’s any different than what you have in any subdivision that backs up on some vacant land.
The elevation that was raised about the drainage by Mr. Fields, the lowest point in here is down
in the very corner of this lot. We’re not planning to develop that or to clear it, to do any filling
in there. That will remain.
MR. MAC EWAN-With a buffer there of 40 feet, you’re not going to touch it anyways.
MR. NACE-Correct. I think that, unless you have something else on your list.
MR. MAC EWAN-You covered them. I’ll close the public hearing, I guess, at this point.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-I feel comfortable with what he’s proposing. I think that, has anybody got
comments or questions for him?
88
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well my concern is, we’re talking about a 25 foot buffer, no cut zone on the
northern side of the property, adjacent.
MR. MAC EWAN-Between Lots Six and Seven.
MR. STROUGH-Lots Six and Seven, which abuts five homeowners and Homeowner’s
Association property. Now, the 25 foot proposal, which I’ve gone on the map, you know, these
are small lots to begin with, and you further restrict it with a no cut zone or buffer, and then
you’ve got a house placement question restriction. Then you’ve got septic filtration system bed
locations and alternate locations if that fails, and then you’ve got people that want to put up
swing sets and swimming pools and everything else. These lots just, so small, especially with
the no cut restrict zone, could create all kinds of problems, and I’m just thinking out loud here.
I’m all in favor of the no cut zone. As a matter of fact 25 foot seems minimal to me. I’d like to
see 30. Further restricting the lots, I’m wondering if we should have these redesigned and
maybe not so many of them, a little bit larger than they are, considering the no cut zones that
were suggested, at least on the north side, abutting the properties, Queensbury Forest
properties. I’m thinking out loud here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess respond to you thinking out loud, I’m thinking out loud, and my first
thought would be, buyer beware. If they’re going to buy a small lot, they’re going to know
they’re getting a small lot. They’re going to know that lot has restrictions to it as to what to can
do to develop it to its maximum. It’s also going to have in the deed that there’s a 25 foot buffer
you can’t touch.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but if you’ve got a small lot that’s so restricted that you can’t do anything,
people are going to start cutting in to that buffer zone. I mean, they’re going to just start doing
it and say, okay, now, sue me, or something like that.
MR. NACE-Can I jump in a minute? They’re not small lots. They’re over half an acre. They’re
well over half an acre. They’re 27, 28,000 square feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’re 270 feet deep. That’s a lot. 270 feet deep is good.
MR. NACE-I just looked, John, and there is plenty of room to.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, you can do a lot with 270 feet deep.
MR. STROUGH-Well, all right. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anything less than 30. I’d like to
see 30 and then okay, but I’ve still got concerns about the size and the Zoning Board’s going to
hate us, but I’d like to see 30 there. Now, Jeff Fields’ property, where is his house located?
That’s what I was wondering. Are we going to buffer the whole thing? Towards Sherman
Avenue.
MR. RINGER-He borders on Lot 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
MR. NACE-You’re down just across from Smoke Ridge Road, correct?
MR. FIELDS-That’s correct.
MR. NACE-So it would be approximately here?
MR. FIELDS-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get your question answered there, John?
MR. STROUGH-I got my question answered. My concern was what are we proposing to buffer,
the eastern?
89
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Nace is saying that he would be willing to put a buffer or no cut zone
from Lot 8 to Lot 14, anywhere in a depth of 30 to 50 feet. I threw 40 out since that’s in the
middle.
MR. RINGER-I like that.
MR. STROUGH-But you’re suggesting only 25 feet for Lot Six and Seven, and most of the
concern tonight was coming from that direction.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I kind of like the 25, and I think that they’ve got some land there on Lots
12, 13, 14, and 15 that’s got some wooded property, too, that they’ve created their own buffer
there.
MR. MAC EWAN-One of the neighbors did say tonight that he would like to have about 30 feet,
if it can be done. So we’ve got 25 feet.
MR. STROUGH-I can live with 30.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re out on this limb all by yourself, I think.
MR. RINGER-Twenty-five is good for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think 25 is practical, John, considering the size of the lot and so on. I think it’s
a practical setback. We’re talking Six and Seven now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lot Six and Seven. All right. Let’s do a SEQRA. ‘
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Long Form.
MR. STROUGH-This is also the cul de sac, and we’ve made no mention of those limitations, as
we usually do with cul de sacs.
MR. MAC EWAN-What limitations?
MR. STROUGH-The access of emergency vehicles should a road be cut off.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not more than 1,000 feet long.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a long cul de sac, John.
MR. STROUGH-Well, usually we’ve addressed it as a cul de sac. Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else before we start a SEQRA?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just thought that maybe the lot in the, as long as you’re asking, the
lot in the front, Number 14?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That because that is so deep, and it’s adjacent to his house, maybe that
one could have a little bit more of a buffer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Forty feet’s pretty steep.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, I just thought that 14 gets 40 feet, but the back one’s get 40
feet also, as you go farther back, and they have like.
90
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. RINGER-He’s got a lot that’s 400 feet wide, Cathy. You don’t know where (lost words).
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s true. Let’s get on with this. Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SB 8-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MICHAEL DICKINSON, CONTRACT VENDEE, 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 22 day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. STROUGH-Now we didn’t need to do a Full on that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, we did.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did a Long Form EAF.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-He filled out the Long Form.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why did you do that?
MR. HILTON-Unlisted Actions require the Long Form.
91
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I did the Long Form.
MR. VOLLARO-She did the Long one.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Three things I see for conditions of approval, well, actually two.
Twenty-five foot buffer on Lots Six and Seven. Forty foot buffer on Lots Eight through
Fourteen, C.T. Male signoff.
MR. RINGER-Right. That’s what I had, too.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2003 MICHAEL
DICKINSON, CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 8-2003 Applicant: Michael Dickinson, Contract Vendee
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Richard & Sandra Baker
FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-20
Location: North side of Sherman Ave., just east of power lines
and old day care building.
Applicant proposes subdivision of an 11.30 +/- acre lot into 15 lots.
Cross Reference: SUB 4-1998
Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27, 28
Lot size: 11.30 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 6/16/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/18/03 and
7/22 Staff Notes
7/16 C. T. Male Associates engineering comment
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/24 Water Dept. comment
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July
22, 2003; 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 has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration.
WHEREAS, 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
92
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
MS. RADNER-Are you doing Preliminary and Final together, because you should leave the
conditions for the Final. You might want to leave your conditions for the Final.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2003 MICHAEL
DICKINSON, CONTRACT VENDEE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 8-2003 Applicant: Michael Dickinson, Contract Vendee
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Richard & Sandra Baker
FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-20
Location: North side of Sherman Ave., just east of power lines
and old day care building.
Applicant proposes subdivision of an 11.30 +/- acre lot into 15 lots.
Cross Reference: SUB 4-1998
Tax Map No. 301.19-1-27, 28
Lot size: 11.30 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs
Public Hearing: July 22, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 6/16/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 7/18/03 and
7/22 Staff Notes
7/16 C. T. Male Associates engineering comment
7/15 Notice of Public Hearing
6/27 Meeting Notice
6/24 Water Dept. comment
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on July
22, 2003; 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 has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration.
93
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
WHEREAS, if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in
any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. A 25 foot buffer be placed on Lot 6 and Lot 7 to the rear, 40 foot buffer on Lots 8 through
14, in the rear.
2. A C. T. Male Associates sign-off letter to be submitted before the plat is signed.
3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $ 7,500.00 for 15 lots are applicable to this subdivision.
4. 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.
5. 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 22nd day of July, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: Mr. Strough
MR. NACE-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 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.
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, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s a public hearing.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 37-2003, Y. Ozbay, USA GAS, Meeting Date: July 22, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 37-2003
APPLICANT: USA Gas is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes conversion of an existing gas station with
service bays to a self-service gas station with new gas islands and canopies.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 651 Upper Glen St.
94
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. This
property is located in the Lower Route 9 Design Area.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a
SEQRA short EAF.
PARCEL HISTORY: The ZBA is scheduled to review an Area Variance related to this
application at their 7/16/03 meeting.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to convert a building which most recently
was a Sunoco station at the northeast corner of Glenwood Avenue and Route 9 into a self-
service gas station / convenience store. The site plan shows two new gas island canopies to be
built. The applicant proposes to construct two new stormwater basins toward the northern end
of this site.
STAFF COMMENTS: Current tax maps show two separate parcels at this location. Staff
recommends that the separate parcels be merged prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant proposes to remove the service bays on the existing building and convert the
front of the building to a glass storefront.
The proposed canopy lighting appears to exceed the average horizontal luminance level of 10
foot-candles listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The lighting plan also calls for general-purpose
channel lighting to be used. It is unclear whether or not this lighting will be placed under the
proposed building canopy. The channel lighting is not a cut-off type fixture, however if the
lighting is to be contained under the building canopy, the lighting would probably be directed
to the ground as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommends that the southern most curb cut on Route 9 that is shown as a one-way
entrance only be completely consolidated. The close proximity of this intersection to the Route
9 / Glenwood Avenue intersection could result in vehicle conflicts between vehicles entering the
site and traffic using the Route 9 / Glenwood Avenue intersection. Staff has concerns about
vehicle conflicts between vehicles using the one-way entrance and other vehicles entering this
site from the northern most curb cut on Route 9 and the entrance from Glenwood Avenue.
Staff agrees with the NYSDOT memo regarding construction of sidewalks and conversion of
existing asphalt areas to green space along the Route 9 frontage of this site. Additionally, Staff
recommends that street trees that have been required of other commercial sites recently
approved along the Route 9 corridor to be included as part of this site plan.
Staff has been involved in discussions with the applicant and Warren County Soil and Water
Conservation District (WCSWCD) concerning potential stormwater management improvements
at this site. Additional comment from WCSWCD should be available in time for the meeting of
7/22/03.
NYSDOT has stated that they are an involved agency in terms of SEQR for this application. The
Planning Board passed a resolution at the 7/15/2003 meeting seeking lead agency for SEQRA
review purposes. Staff will provide additional comment on the SEQRA process as it relates to
this application at the meeting.
Warren Co. PB recommendation: NCI”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-All right. First of all, as a minor point, our tax maps show this as two separate
parcels, and if that, indeed, is the case, we’d be looking for some kind of merger, just to
eliminate further variances or relief that may be necessary. The applicant proposes to remove
95
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
service bays and convert the front of the building to a glass door front, construct additional
canopies, gas islands. Canopy lighting appears to exceed the average horizontal illuminants
listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Also the lighting plan calls for general purpose channel
lighting. It’s unclear whether or not this lighting will be placed under the building canopy. It’s
not cut off lighting. If it is under the canopy, it may in fact be shielded. The applicant should
address that. Staff recommends that the southern curb cut on Route 9, that the applicant has
represented as a one way entrance only, be consolidated completely. The close proximity to this
intersection to the Route 9/Glenwood intersection, Staff has some concerns over the overall
traffic patterns and vehicles accessing this site, should this remain even as a one-way entrance.
Staff agrees with New York State DOT’s memo regarding construction of sidewalks and
conversion of asphalt to green space, and would also recommend that street trees be required,
as have other, as has been required from other commercial sites recently approved along Route
9. Staff has been involved in discussions with the applicant and Warren County Soil and Water
concerning potential stormwater management. I have a letter that I’ve given you this evening
from Warren County Soil and Water kind of updating you on the progress, and in terms of
SEQRA, last week the Planning Board accepted Lead Agency, the Zoning Board followed, and
granted Lead Agency to the Planning Board, and we haven’t had a signoff from DOT. So it
looks like, we anticipate, they’ve indicated that they would accept the Town Planning Board
Lead Agent, but as of yet, we don’t have that signoff. So you, technically, can’t go through and
complete your SEQRA review this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think we would get to that point anyways tonight.
MR. HILTON-Yes. So really we’re looking at opening the public hearing, collecting
information, and moving towards August, I would assume.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HILTON-That’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. JONES-Good morning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, same difference, I guess, at this point. Along those lines, considering the
lateness of the evening.
MR. JARRETT-I’m going to keep it very brief..
MR. MAC EWAN-Good. Because we are obviously going to table this while you get together
with C.T. Male and iron out your issues. I’d ask any member of the Board, if you’ve got some
real stickler issues that are hanging out there for you that you don’t see appeared to be covered
by C.T. Male through their engineering correspondence, considering the lateness of the hour,
let’s just bypass them and just deal with what seems to be the important things that you’ve got
on your mind.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, when Larry and I did our completeness review, this is on for
August as well. This application is on the August agenda.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then what we’ll do at this point, then, is just let him make a brief
presentation, between now and the August agenda, work out what you’ve got to work out with
C.T. Male, and come back and see us. How does that sound?
MR. VOLLARO-Sounds okay to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Sounds fair enough. Is that fair enough with everybody? Go.
MR. RINGER-Keep it brief.
96
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. JONES-For the record, Richard Jones, Architect for the project. This is Paul Human from
Valley Equipment, and the owner, Yelsin Ozbay. Basically, what we’re proposing to do is
convert the existing gas station to a convenient gas station combination and construct two new
canopies along the Route 9 side of the property. I know Staff had some concerns in reference to
the closing down of the entrance, which is the closest one to the side street area that we’re
looking at. We feel that it’s important that we maintain that as an open, in only to the property.
Our concern is that if someone is trying to get on to the property to gas their car, if they miss the
turn at the light for the intersection, by the time they get to the second entrance onto the
property, they’re beyond the gas station. They’re going to go to the next gas station. In leaving
that open as a one-way in, we feel that it actually does enhance the site traffic, in that someone
can come in, drive to the pumps on the north end, the three pumps on the north side, be able to
gas up and then go back out and head north on Route 9 again without having to go back out
into the loop and try and drive back through the site to get to the intersection where the light is.
In reference to parking on the site itself, the parking regulations call, I believe, for the 13 parking
spaces that we’ve indicated, and this, I guess, would be a question for Staff. With the six, or the
five pump locations that we have, technically, we have ten parking spaces under the canopy.
Has it been the policy of the Board and the Planning Department to incorporate those or include
those as part of the parking space.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s underneath the canopy?
MR. JONES-Technically, you have people that come in to gas up, they’re parking their vehicle.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that’s part of the equation.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we’ve never done that.
MR. JONES-You’ve never done that before?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a stretch. Yes, no, that’d be a stretch.
MR. RINGER-We’ve never been asked either.
MR. JONES-Okay. Well, I figured there was a first time for everything.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re trying to catch us because it’s late.
MR. JONES-I know. Basically, in looking at the site itself, the owner has tried to provide the
maximum number of pumps on-site to be able to create his break even or profit point for the
use of the site. That’s why we are proposing the two canopies with the two pumps on the south
side, the three pumps on the north canopy. Basically, the setbacks that we’re looking at, we
have a pre-existing, nonconforming property. So no matter what we do with the canopies,
we’re always looking at infringements on the setback to the Travel Corridor Overlay of the 75
feet. We feel that we have placed them in the optimum or best location on site. By placing the
two on the south side we’ve managed to provide ingress and egress both from the side street
and the front street, and the three on the north would be collecting the majority of the traffic
that would come in the one-way access point where we’re reducing the width of that entry. In
reference to the site drainage aspects of the property, I know C.T. Male had several questions in
their letter, several of which I don’t believe that, and I haven’t had a chance to talk with Jim yet,
but I don’t believe he had actually gone to the site to do an on-site inspection because the side
street actually slopes onto our property. We have no drainage going off onto the side street.
The drainage apparatus that sits in that open curb cut closest to the intersection is actually
collecting runoff from the property before it hits Route 9. Route 9 is actually below that invert
elevation for that trench. So we don’t see either of those as issues. Basically, the trench in that
area, and that curb cut is collecting drainage which is coming from the building to the west side
or the east side of Route 9. In reference to the culverts and that type of thing, the culverts that
are shown there are all existing culverts, either for Halfway Brook or the New York State DOT
97
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
drainage system along the east curb of that highway. What we’re proposing, in our application
at this time, is a method of basically collecting and silting out sediments from the drainage on
the, what would be the northern half of our property, and providing that ability to let that settle
out in some depressions that we were creating in the grassed area before it hits Halfway Brook.
In our dealings with the Warren County Soils, basically we have set up a meeting for next week
with them, on-site, to discuss some of the aspects of what they would like to have us look at.
Until we meet with them and actually come to some type of resolution with them, I don’t want
to address the C.T. Male comments until we actually come up with a plan with them. At that
point, we’ll address the comments with C.T. Male, and I believe that by the next meeting we
could certainly have a signoff from him, in reference to those issues. In reference to the lighting
levels, I believe that the Zoning Ordinance allows 10 foot candles, under the canopies. Ten foot
candles under those canopies is like the lighting in a hallway, which is similar to what you have
out here. We feel that that is inadequate for those areas under the canopies, and I don’t have
the foot candle readings with me now, but I don’t believe we were looking at something that
was a lot of foot candle levels over those. I know that the convenient mart down on, actually on
Upper Route 9, up near the drive-in theater just did theirs. I’m going to go up and actually do
some foot candle level readings under that canopy, to confirm what theirs actually are, because
I believe theirs are more than 10.
MR. MAC EWAN-We can do one better. You can get that from Staff. Because I would ask Staff
to give us that information to refresh our memories as to what we did for all three of the
Cumberland Farms.
MR. JONES-Yes. I know that they’ve been done here in the last year.
MR. MAC EWAN-Within the last year.
MR. HUMAN-And these are the same fixture.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. HUMAN-This is the same light fixture. It’s a standard in the industry.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but we did some negotiations, in bringing it light levels down. It
wasn’t just carte blanche under each one of the canopies. We’ve been trying to keep light levels
down. So if I could have Staff just pass that information on to us in the form of your Staff notes
for the next meeting, what we did for the three Cumberland Farms sites, that’ll certainly give us
some insight.
MR. HUNSINGER-And what you’re showing is 26.
MR. JONES-Twenty-six?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And while you’re on that topic, though, let’s use as an example the
Cumberland Farms on Route 9 and Kendrick is what not to do. I mean, have you seen how
bright that is? It’s excessively bright.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good point. It is bright.
MR. STROUGH-So whatever we did there, I think we made a mistake. So what we’ve got to do
is less than that, maybe a little bit more than what, you know, 10 foot candles, but less than
what that Cumberland Farms was.
MR. JONES-Yes. What you’re sitting in right now, this is probably about a 40 to 45 foot candle
level that you have right here in this room, and we’d be proposing something that would be a
little over half of that foot candle level. The lighting that we’re proposing under the canopies
98
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
along the building is a strict fluorescent, but it is underneath the canopy and would be shielded.
So we wouldn’t have that radiating out. Basically, it’s to provide lighting at the walkways and
the entrances into the building. I think that basically touched on the comments from Staff and
general comments from C.T. Male, and I’d be happy to answer any questions that anyone may
have. I know it’s late.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from any Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-Just a request that you do the uniformity ratio. When you come up with your
lighting plan, do the four to one uniformity ratio, so we have that.
MR. JONES-Yes, we can do that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only thing I would.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you’ve done a nice job. I mean, the firehouse looks nice, Dick, and that
project that you’ve got by Stewarts on Aviation Road, you did a nice job with that
architecturally speaking.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-I just put 800 miles on my car. I just got back from Vermont, New Hampshire
and Maine. We’ve got the ugliest canopies of anybody anywhere. I don’t, you know, could we
design, is it possible to design a nicer looking canopy? I mean, they certainly do, you know,
they’re roofed and shingled, and I don’t expect that. I don’t think it would fit in with this, but
some of them are rod iron. I mean, they’re just more interesting than the plain old canopy.
That’s just a thought, but another thing is, you know, per Town Code, is those parking spaces
on the eastern side. Each parking, this is 179-4-040, Paragraph B, each parking space shall be
reached by an access driveway of at least 24 feet clear in width. So, you’ve got to have 24 feet
clear in width behind any parking spot. Now, as far as your question before, shall we count
parking underneath the canopies. Well, you know, it is a parking spot, and people do leave
their cars there and go inside. I think, you know, the less, you know, I don’t want to see
excessive parking spots that we don’t need, and it looks like a few of those spots don’t mean
Town Code because they don’t have the 24 foot of clearance.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we leave it at this. Why don’t we ask Staff to research that one,
too, and come back with an opinion for us in their Staff notes, whether.
MR. STROUGH-If we could reduce a few of those spots and increase the green area, because
we’re fitting six pumps in here, right, six stations.
MR. JONES-Yes, five pumps with ten parking spaces.
MR. STROUGH-It seems like quite a bit, I mean, for this size of a lot.
MR. RINGER-You’re talking a discount gas operation, though, John, is really going to generate
a lot of traffic in there.
MR. JONES-Just so you understand, too, roughly 70 to 80% of their traffic is for gas only.
They’re not typical to the Stewarts where they come in and do a lot of other things in the
convenient store. The majority of their business is gasoline sales. So they’re looking at those
pumps as being occupied most of the time.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the station where you’ve got three pumps.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Is that going to be able to accommodate three cars?
99
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. JONES-That will accommodate three on each side, yes.
MR. STROUGH-It will?
MR. JONES-So you’ll actually have six vehicles there.
MR. RINGER-A lot of times what happens is somebody will get gas and then they’ll park in the
parking spots so as not to tie up the line, and you need your parking spots for that.
MR. JONES-Yes. These pumps are pay at the pump. So they’re the type of thing where you can
pay and you really don’t have to go into the building.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we should count those parking spaces, so we can get less of the
others.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask Staff if they would review that to lessen those, yes. Anything else,
John?
MR. STROUGH-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members? Okay. What I’ll do is open up the
public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-A silly question here, but if he’s on the agenda already for next month, we’ve
missed our 15 deadline to get submissions on for next month. How is this going to work?
th
MR. HILTON-Yes. I wasn’t at the meeting with Bob last Friday, but even before tonight,
actually last week when you passed the resolution seeking Lead Agency, I think we had an idea
that it was coming back in August and I think I actually said that at the meeting. So I think that
it may have been done because of that. I don’t think it was a guarantee or anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but you’re not answering my question. If we’ve already missed the 15
th
for deadline, I mean, when do you plan on getting this resolved with C.T. Male, and when do
you plan on doing all this other stuff you wanted to submit?
MR. JONES-Our meeting is next Wednesday with Warren County, and I would say by the end
of next week we’ll have resolved any comments that we had with C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-What meeting are they on, first or second?
MR. HILTON-It would have to be the second.
MR. JONES-Second meeting, because we need zoning for.
MR. VOLLARO-When we did out, we didn’t put it on one or the other. We just said that we
thank God there was just six and six.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Well, except there has to be a SEQRA determination from the Planning Board
before the Zoning Board can act.
MS. RADNER-Right.
100
(Queensbury Planning Board 7/22/03)
MR. HILTON-So they’d meet twice. So they’d have to be on two Planning Board meetings next
month.
MR. MAC EWAN-Dick, get all your submissions, to be on the August agenda, get everything in
to Staff by close of business August 8.
th
MR. JONES-August 8?
th
MR. MAC EWAN-No later than.
MR. JONES-Okay. That’s good.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that giving you enough time to get it to C.T. Male? Hopefully you’re
going to have some discussions with C.T. Male between now and then and resolve a lot.
MS. RADNER-We’re trying to wrestle with how we get the SEQRA determination made before
they get to the Zoning Board.
MR. HILTON-Because if the Planning Board is Lead Agent, assuming that everybody’s in a
row, and the Planning Board could, on the first meeting of August, conduct a SEQRA review.
The Zoning Board would still have to grant the variances, in which case they’d be on the
Zoning Board the next night, and then in front of you a week later. So you could potentially see
them twice in one month. If you follow.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, I don’t.
MS. RADNER-You have to do your SEQRA and.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to do our SEQRA when we do the site plan.
MS. RADNER-But then they can’t give the variances until after you do the SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-So how do we do the SEQRA without doing the site plan review?
MS. RADNER-Unless we don’t do a coordinated review. The ZBA (lost words) SEQRA
themselves.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to let you guys work out that detail. Okay. All right. Okay.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have three meetings next month.
MR. RINGER-Yes. The 11, 19, and 26, right now.
ththth
MR. MAC EWAN-Wal-Mart won’t be on until September.
MR. RINGER-Yes. We’ve got the 11 with the Town Board, the 19 is a regular meeting and the
thth
26 is a regular meeting. Site visits on the 16.
thth
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll e-mail everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
101