2003-06-03 SP
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ANTHONY METIVIER
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL
STAGE HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: A. BROWN AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF A 2.37 ACRE LOT INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.08 ACRES AND 1.29 ACRES
CROSS REFERENCE: SB 12-90, SB 10-91 APA TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-69 LOT SIZE: 2.37
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on the 15 of April was tabled.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes?
MR. HILTON-As a follow up to the April 15 tabling, the applicant submitted a revisions
th
subdivision plat indicating two test pits had been dug on April 16. Responding to some
th
concerns from some adjacent property owners stating that the test pits may not have been dug,
Staff went out on May 16 and walked the site and must admit we had some difficulty in
th
finding the test pits, and the applicant should probably address the method used to dig these
pits, and as stated in Section 136-9 of the Queensbury Town Code, leaching facilities are not
allowed within 200 feet of water bodies if soil percolation rates are 0 to 3 minutes per inch, and
should the Planning Board approve this, Staff has included a stipulation that the leaching
systems be at least 200 feet from the seasonal stream to the south, and that the buildings meet
the 75 foot shoreline. These are conditions that were in the previous resolution on April 15.
th
The newly submitted plat should be revised to reflect this. Additionally, there are some C. T.
Male comments that have come, in response to the tabling, and just one note. Our prepared
resolution indicates Item Two, rec fees in the amount of $1,000. That should be revised to read
$500 for the one lot. There’s a credit for the one lot that already exists.
MR. MAC EWAN-$500 one lot?
MR. HILTON-Yes, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Matt Steves, on behalf of Hayes
and Hayes. We believe that we have the information that the Board requested last month. I just
want to mention that when we were here last month the neighbors across the street made an
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
impassioned plea, and, you know, we feel bad about that. They mentioned that they lived
across from a vacant field for dozens of years, and that they’re unhappy to see it developed into
two houses. We want to assure the Board that what’s proposed is a conforming two lot
subdivision, and still good sized lots, and it’s just, you know, an unfortunate situation with
developers that you have neighbors who like looking at it vacant, but that’s just the way it is.
With that, I’ll let Matt address the technical issues.
MR. STEVES-Okay. As far as the test pits, Charlie Maine, soil scientist, dug two test holes on
the 16 of April and wrote this report on April 18. On April 16 I dug and examined two soil
ththth
test pits. Essentially it was just a two lot residential subdivision. We weren’t looking for 20 or
30 test holes. Mr. Maine used a four inch hand auger that can bore down to about 60 inches,
and he does his core samples that way instead of using a tract hoe or a backhoe. If you had to
dig numerous, numerous holes it’s a lot easier to bring in the heavy equipment, but when it’s
only two and predominantly sandy soils it’s very easy to do with a hand auger, but he says he
dug two holes and examined two soil test pits on the above property. Listed below are my
observations. Test Pit One was 46 inches of fine sands with mottling at 32 inches. Test Pit Two
was 50 inches of fine sands with no mottling occurred. Soils observed on this property are
deep, fine sandy soils. Depth to seasonal high groundwater table is noted. As far as the perc
rates, we did two perc tests, one at seven minutes and one at eight minutes and twenty seconds,
but as far as the Staff comments and C.T. Male comments remaining, leaving the Lot 2B septic at
200 feet, we have no problem with that. That’s why we have that jog in the line to allow that
septic system to be beyond the 200 foot mark. I did talk to the engineer today from C.T. Male
about his comments. At 4:05 I talked to James Houston of C.T. Male, went through his
comments as far as showing the shallow absorption trench, which I have. I’ve revised the septic
system, even though we have soils over three minutes to still remain 200 feet away from that
seasonal stream, and we will denote that perc test on the final mylar also.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you.
MR. METIVIER-I really have no questions. My question was about the test pits. You’ve
answered it. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think I’m okay right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-The test pit on Lot 2B, you’re moving that to the other side of the stream line?
MR. STEVES-I’m moving the septic between the two test pits, correct, north of the 200 foot
seasonal setback from the stream.
MR. VOLLARO-Right now to the 150. To get to 200 feet, you’ve got to be just to the other side
of that 200 foot line. Okay. Since we’ve been notified, I guess by Staff in a Staff letter (lost
words) and it’s called Zoning Ordinance, and it’s Standards and Development Considerations.
“The Planning Board shall not approve unless it first determines that such site plan review
meets all applicable standards”, and, B, it says that the use will be in conformance with Chapter
136 of the Sewage and Sewage Disposal Chapter. That’s the first time I’ve seen that in print,
and I’m glad we’re now using 136 on this Board, where we haven’t been doing it in the past,
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
and as such, I just want to read something from 136 concerning the determination of high
ground water in their Appendix F, and I’ll just read it, and that doesn’t mean that I’m going to,
in any way, I just want this to be something that the Board understands, it says, “Sub surface
conditions shall be determined by digging a hole five feet deeper than the anticipated depth of
the proposed leaching facility”, and then B, “The determination of seasonal high groundwater
levels shall be made during the month of March, April, May or June, within six weeks of the
time the frost leaves the ground. Such determination may be made by monitoring the water
level in the open soil test pit as described above for a period of not less than 24 hours and
recording the highest number that’s observed. If such determination is made at other such
times, the seasonal high groundwater shall be evaluated and certified by a qualified person
approved by the local board of health”. Now, no place in that paragraph do I read that mottling
is an acceptable means of determining high groundwater. Now maybe whoever wrote that
spec doesn’t understand mottling. Didn’t know what mottling was, didn’t put it in the
specification, but those are the words that are in 136, and over the past years, or almost five that
I’ve been on this Board, we’ve been using mottling as a technique.
MR. STEVES-Mottling is in the DOH standards.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this is, 136 ought to mirror the DOH standards.
MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with you.
MR. VOLLARO-And it doesn’t, in this particular case, and I just want to make sure that
everybody under understands. First of all, I don’t know if all Board members have a copy of
the 136 Code, and since it’s been highlighted in the memo from Mr. Hilton, I think that
everybody on this Board should have a copy of 136, and I might just ask the Chairman to poll
the Board and ask the Board how many people have a copy of such.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll just make sure, we’ll make arrangements to have everyone get a copy,
if they don’t have one.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s it, for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m just having a problem with where the infiltration will be located.
MR. LAPPER-Bob’s got the map.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just north of that line.
MR. STROUGH-Well, generally speaking, don’t the beds of the infiltration fields have to follow
the contour of the land?
MR. STEVES-No, not necessarily. As long as where they’re being set is not over a grade of 15%.
MR. STROUGH-And it’s only after 15% that they do have to follow the contour?
MR. STEVES-You try to follow the contour whenever possible, but you do not have to under
15%. If it’s over 15%, yes, then you have to run parallel with the contours, so that your laterals
aren’t on a grade of over 15%.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. The other question I have, what’s the history of this
subdivision? I see lots one, lot two we’re subdividing further, lot three, lot four. Do you know
anything about that, Matt?
MR. STEVES-There was a previous subdivision that was approved by, it was a map of a
subdivision for an Aileen Mr. Brown dated August 23, 1991, and filed in the Clerk’s Office, I
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
believe, in September of 1991, by Coulter and McCormack, and this is a re-subdivision of one of
those lots.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The only other thing, I was trying to locate a swimming pool on Lot 2A.
I’d find it pretty difficult. So I guess they don’t get one.
MR. STEVES-Not all lots are suitable for swimming pools. Some are. Some aren’t, some might
be needing some landscape work to accommodate one.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, that’s not a big deal, but I just see all the time on the Zoning Board
people having trouble squeezing swimming pools in. Okay. It wasn’t a big deal, but it was a
thought, and one last thing, Matt. About the C.T. Male comment. Is there going to be any
problem with putting a shallow wastewater disposal system?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. LAPPER-It’s on the plan. I mean, it’s not official, but it’s on the plan that you have in front
of you. Matt made that change after he got the comment from C.T. Male.
MR. STEVES-The only additional besides the ones that C.T. Male had offered that we agreed to,
and I guess I talked to Mr. Houston that he had no problem with what we had proposed. As I
also increased that setback to 200, even though the perc rate was above three minutes, we have
ample room to do it, why not do it.
MR. LAPPER-The perc rate was seven minutes.
MR. STEVES-And we still have no problem stipulating we will maintain that 200 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-It was a seven minute perc rate, is that right?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members, Staff?
MR. HILTON-Just when you get to the public hearing, we have a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Would you give up the table for a couple of minutes. I’ll open up the
public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? Your letter, George.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HILTON-Okay. A letter dated May 14, 2003. It reads, “Mr. MacEwan: In a conversation
with George Hilton, which took place today, May 14, at approximately 4:40 p.m., I was told that
the Hayes Brothers’ engineering firm had claimed (apparently in writing) that two test pits had
been dug in a lot they are subdividing here in the Harrisena (bounded by Canale, Harris,
Jablonski and the east side of Ridge Road) as of April 16, 2003 by Charles Maine. My
observation about this claim is as follows: 1. I have walked that lot twice in checkerboard
pattern, and had walked it just before my phone conversation with George Hilton and could see
no indication of a pit or trench of any size or location, and no indication of disturbed earth at all
on any portion of the lot. There are supposed to have been two pits dug. 2. Since I am retired
and am at home at some time during every day of the week and up and around from 6:30 am
until late at night, and live across the street from the lot, I would have (although not by choice)
been able to observe the commotion that goes on with the digging of two test pits. There has
been none. My next door neighbor feels the same way. 3. This lot is as close to a wetlands as
you can get without actually being so designated. Many years ago, when this whole area was
dedicated to the growing of corn for the dairies in Washington County, that are was never used
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
because of the extremely high water table. Upwards of 25% of that lot, on this east line, or along
the line in a north-south line is little better than a swamp. Septic drainage will be nil, in my
experience with these matters. Hoping these observations will help in your determination of
the request for subdivision of this lot. In my opinion, at least one of them would be suitable for
construction only with the addition of at least 5000 yards, (or maybe more) of fill. The second
would require even more. Very truly, William Lee Richards Harrisena” and that’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments?
MS. RADNER-There was reference to Section 136, and in particular to Appendix F, which is the
high groundwater determination, and I just want to point out that the references to Appendix F
are for suggested percolation testing techniques, and there’s also references in here to
Department of Health standards. So I think it’s a valid concern that a different method was
used, but I think if you’re satisfied that a proper method was used, it’s not a violation of Town
Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
HAYES & HAYES, 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.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Discuss a motion here?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have three conditions drafted here right now.
MR. STROUGH-Do you want to review them?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Number One was make sure we have a signoff by C.T. Male. Is
there a special time element on that?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. Subdivision plat wouldn’t get filed or signed until C.T. Male signs off on
it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That the on-site septic systems be at least 200 feet from the
seasonal stream to the south and that the buildings meet the 75 foot shoreline setback from the
stream, and, three, that the proposed leach field on Lot 2B should be shown on the new plat. Is
there anything else?
MR. RINGER-Condition Two should be changed to recreation fee in the amount of $500 for one
lot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Could we make reference to the new submitted plans, the plans that were
submitted tonight that shows the infiltration field and describes the shallow wastewater
disposal systems?
MR. STEVES-I want to send that to C.T. Male and get the signoff, and then that would be the
one you could sign, but it’s up to you, but that would be the one.
MR. STROUGH-But that one you submitted tonight would be the one. Right?
MR. MAC EWAN-You might just want to reference C.T. Male’s letter of May 30.
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-As a way to tie it all in together.
MR. VOLLARO-One question, Mr. Chairman. We’re looking at the new submission that was
given here tonight. It’s dated March 13, 2003. Should that be?
MR. STEVES-It’ll be revised. I printed it out about 15 minutes before I left the office, because I
had just got off the phone with Mr. Houston to confirm that. So I didn’t get the chance to put
the revision date on it, but it would be revised as of today’s date.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. Then this is the drawing we want to mention in the motion, and
it’s going to be.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Matt, put today’s date on it and initial it for me. Is everybody satisfied? Run
with it.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2003 HAYES &
HAYES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert
Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 10-2003 Applicant: Hayes & Hayes
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: A. Brown
FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A
Location: Ridge Road
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.37 acre lot into two lots of 1.08 acres and 1.29 acres.
Cross Reference: SB 12-90, SB 10-91
APA
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-69
Lot size: 2.37 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs
Public Hearing: April 15, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 3/17/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/30/03 and
6/3 Staff Notes
5/7 Meeting Notice
4/15 New Information
4/15 Planning Board resolution: Tabled
4/15 Staff Notes
4/8 Notice of Public Hearing
4/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April
15, 2003 and June 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby granted and is subject to
the following conditions:
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
1. There will be a sign-off by C. T. Male Associates.
2. The on site septic systems be at least 200 feet from the seasonal stream to the south, and
that the buildings meet the 75 foot shoreline setback from the stream.
3. The proposed leach field on Lot 2B be shown on the new plat dated 6/3/2003.
4. Condition #2 that was originally prepared by Staff concerning the recreation fees be
changed from $1000.00 to $500.00 because credit needs to be given for one lot that’s
already existing.
5. The reference to C. T. Male’s letter of May 30, 2003 be complied with.
6. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater Management and Lighting Plan.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 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-You’re all set, guys.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HILTON-Are you going to do Final? Did you do Preliminary and Final at once?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, we did Preliminary. Do Final now, do it in two steps.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I forgot about that.
MR. HUNSINGER-This one should have been the Final.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That should have been the Final. I forgot about that. Well, can we just
rescind it and say that what was previously said be incorporated into the Final Stage?
MS. RADNER-There’s a lot of different ways you can do it. You can just either make a new
motion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we just make a motion for Final, inclusive that all the conditions
of Preliminary be met for Final. Do it that way.
MS. RADNER-Right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2003 HAYES & HAYES,
Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following:
Subdivision No. 10-2003 Applicant: Hayes & Hayes
PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: A. Brown
FINAL STAGE Agent: Van Dusen & Steves
SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: SR-1A
Location: Ridge Road
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.37 acre lot into two lots of 1.08 acres and 1.29 acres.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
Cross Reference: SB 12-90, SB 10-91
APA
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-69
Lot size: 2.37 +/- acres / Section: Subdivision Regs
Public Hearing: April 15, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 3/17/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/30/03 and
6/3 Staff Notes
5/7 Meeting Notice
4/15 New Information
4/15 Planning Board resolution: Tabled
4/15 Staff Notes
4/8 Notice of Public Hearing
4/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D
of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April
15, 2003 and June 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the
Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby granted as per the resolution
prepared by Staff with all the conditions that were stated in the approval for the Preliminary
Stage:
1. There will be a sign-off by C. T. Male Associates.
2. The on site septic systems be at least 200 feet from the seasonal stream to the south, and
that the buildings meet the 75 foot shoreline setback from the stream.
3. The proposed leach field on Lot 2B be shown on the new plat dated 6/3/2003.
4. Condition #2 that was originally prepared by Staff concerning the recreation fees be
changed from $1000.00 to $500.00 because credit needs to be given for one lot that’s
already existing
5. The reference to C. T. Male’s letter of May 30, 2003 be complied with.
6. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater Management and Lighting Plan.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
7. 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.
8. 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 3rd day of June, 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-Now you’re all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED EAST SLOPE MANAGEMENT, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: WEST MT. LIQUIDATING PARTNERSHIP AGENT: MICHAEL
BRANDT ZONE: RC-3A LOCATION: WEST MT. SKI CENTER APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO CONSTRUCT A TUBING AREA AT THE WEST MOUNTAIN SKI CENTER.
RECREATION CENTER USES IN THE RC-3A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 314.0-1-3 LOT SIZE: 7 AC. (PROJECT
SIZE) SECTION: 179-4-020
MICHAEL BRANDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-2003, East Slope Management, LLC, Meeting Date: June 3,
2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 23-2003
APPLICANT: East Slope Management LLC. is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a tubing area at the
West Mountain Ski Center.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on West Mountain Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned RC-3A, Recreation Commercial Three Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a
Short Environmental Assessment Form with the application.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel records found no previous Planning Board or ZBA
applications relating to the current Ski Center operation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a tubing area at the West
Mountain Ski Center. The plan calls for site clearing and re-grading, construction of new lifts,
constructing new snow making facilities and the installation of new lighting in this area of the
ski center.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
STAFF COMMENTS: A grading plan and stormwater management are not currently part of
the application materials submitted to Staff. The applicant should address the impacts that site
clearing, grading and increased water usage/additional snowmelt may have on stormwater
drainage. As required by the Zoning Ordinance, post-development runoff is required to be
equal to or less than pre-development runoff conditions. Stormwater management to be used
during construction should also be shown on the site plan.
The lighting plan submitted by the applicant appears to contain light levels that are not
typically expected with the use of fifteen (15) proposed 1000-watt fixtures. The mounting
height of the fixtures is shown as 30 ft. on the site plan and 35 feet on the lighting plan. The
applicant should clarify which height is proposed. The applicant has submitted information
stating that the light levels will be a little less intense than what is seen on exiting ski trails. Will
there be an increase in light spill onto adjacent properties with the number and wattage of
proposed fixtures?
The applicant should clarify if the existing parking area just to the east will be paved or
graveled. Any proposed hard surfacing should be addressed as part of a stormwater
management plan and report.”
MR. MAC EWAN-I have two sets of Staff notes. One refers to a Site Plan 26-2003. The other
one refers to a 23-2003. Our agenda says it is 23-2003.
MR. HILTON-Well, it is 23. That’s probably just a typo.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Staff notes that I got yesterday.
MR. HILTON-They’re probably the same exact notes. It’s just a typo being that it’s 23.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant proposes a tubing park at West Mountain Ski
Center. Grading plan and stormwater management, as of the writing of these comments, had
not been submitted to Staff. The applicant should be address the impacts that site clearing,
grading and increased water usage would have on storm drainage. As required by the Zoning
Ordinance, post development runoff is required to be equal to or less than pre-development
conditions. Stormwater management during construction should also be indicated by the
applicant. The lighting plan that has been submitted indicates light levels that you normally
wouldn’t expect with 15 poles at 1,000 watts, but the applicant should speak to that, and ideally
we’d be looking for some kind of, I don’t know, just quantifying what the increase will be and
how it’ll impact light spill and properties off site. Question of Staff to the applicant is is the
existing parking area going to be paved or graveled, and if so, that should be taken into
consideration as part of the stormwater plan, and any C.T. Male comments and Water
Department comments should be addressed during this review. That’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. BRANDT-Hi. Thank you. I’m a little nervous. I don’t quite know, I’ve never been through
the process. I apologize for several things. One is that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Before you go too far, for the record you are?
MR. BRANDT-I’m Michael R. Brandt, and I’m the owner of East Slope Management, LLC.
There’s a new State law on clearing over an acre of land with stormwater management, and I
was very focused on it. It’s a complex law and I had to read it and learn it, and while we do
erosion control all the time, you’ve got to put it in the terms that they use, and so I had to learn
those. I went to Warren County Soil Conservation District people for help in the calculations,
and unfortunately the calculations weren’t finished until last Friday in the later afternoon. So I
couldn’t finish the map and plan until the weekend, and I did finish it over the weekend and
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
submitted it in detail, and I’m sure you haven’t had a chance to read it, or maybe you have, and
the other thing, in my haste to look at that law and understand it, I totally forgot one thing,
which the Planning Staff here in Queensbury picked up, and for that I thank them, and that was
the calculation of the snow making water, and I had to come to terms with that, and I did it
today. I just became aware of it yesterday, and it’s a complex question, because while your law
says that you don’t want accelerated runoff, we make snow, and I calculated how much, and I
have all that for you, but that snow melts in a short period of time, and so it’s more complex
than, you know, the normal 50 year storm. So I tried to make a fair analysis of it, and I’ll give it
to you. I just finished it today. I’ll go through the assumptions with you quickly, but rather
than do that, I’d rather start out by asking questions. I’d just as well first answer any questions
you have, and then get into this thing, maybe the last, you know, stormwater and melt at the
last thing. There are a lot of questions I know that have come up. One of the questions brought
to me was the lighting patterns. I went to General Electric representatives and ended up with a
company in Troy who then went to GE, and they did a computer analysis of it based on the
contour map and you have that map that I submitted, and if you look at it, the question comes
up, well, if you look at the typical lighting fixtures, sometimes it shows brighter and darker
spots than you would normally expect, but I suspect that’s a matter of the terrain. The terrain’s
not flat. It’s undulating, and I gave them a map of the terrain as best we had it from aerial
photographs. So I think that’s probably the explanation of why the foot candles are, you know,
I guess you’d call it variegated. I don’t know foot candle readings and we’ve done this same
thing, same problem we have on the ski trail, and again, it’s undulating, and so where there’s a
high rise in front of a light fixture, it’s very bright, and where there’s a down slope that’s much
dimmer, and so it’s a specialized lighting problem, and all I can tell you is that over the 41 years
we’ve been doing it, we’ve come to certain values and certain ways of doing it, and even GE’s
specialists that come out to advise us walk away and say, well, good luck, and in the end, we
are using 1500 watt fixtures, 30 to 35 feet, and I’m supposed to tell you exactly, but, you know,
what, when a guy’s hanging a fixture, I mean, we know that he reaches up with a machine
about 30 and somewhere in there he puts it up, and if it ends up at 32 or 35, I don’t think any of
us know, but what we’ve found in the tubing park is that 1500 watt fixtures over light. So we
went to 1,000 watt fixtures, and that’s really the basis of what we’re doing, and I can’t tell you
any more than that. I don’t have any complaints that I know of from neighbors about that. I
went door to door and asked them, and I was quite surprised. Many neighbors said that they
were delighted with the lighting and hoped that we would maintain it. They felt that it was a
nice ambience for the neighborhood. In C.T. Male’s comments on lighting, he asked the
question about West Mountain Road. West Mountain Road is 800 feet of forest between what
we’re lighting and the road. I don’t think he’s seen the property. Another question that came
up was the parking lot, and the parking lot was built in 1971, and when we put the triple chair
up, in those days, we had a lot of traffic, and we used to get a bus tour company out of New
York City that would bring us 45, 50 busses a weekend, and we would put the busses over in
that parking lot and then we still had a couple of hundred cars over there. Now, skiing, bus
tours are basically gone. It’s a very small business today, as compared to those days, and the
number of skiers coming to ski areas in the United States has diminished, and that’s one of our
problems. That parking lot doesn’t get utilized very much anymore. A question came up, are
we going to gravel it. It’s been graveled four, five times already since it was built, and we may
gravel it again. I don’t know. It’s a matter of whether we can afford it. Every time we can we
put another layer of gravel on it, but truthfully, it’s a clay based soil there, and so, in the
summertime, it’s grass this tall unless we mow it. So we mow it, and when you say treating
water from a parking lot, I can understand that on a paved parking lot, but I don’t understand it
on this one because if oil drips off of a car, it’s going to go into the soils and it’s going to cling.
All the water from the parking area today goes in through our stormwater basin. It crosses a
field which is a grassed field, with some trees, and then eventually, I’d say after 300 feet of
travel, it goes into the stormwater basin. So, I don’t understand what you can do to treat it, and
I think it pre-exists, and I don’t understand why it’s an issue. He brings up the issue of the
toilets, are they adequate. Well, in 1971 , when we built them, we said, you know, we’re going
to put another chairlift to the north of there, so when we build the toilets, lets build them big
enough for all of it. Which we did, and they’re so underutilized it’s incredible. So we’re hoping
they get used a little bit with the new tubing park. So I think that’s the real answer to his
question, and the questions of stormwater runoff actually are much simpler than the question of
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
snow making runoff, and the reason is that the difference between runoff on a forest and runoff
on grass, and that’s what we’re talking about, we’re going to take the forest out, plant it to
grass, or legumes and grass, actually. The difference is very significant on a very small rain.
You get a quarter inch of rain, it all hangs up in the trees and evaporates off. Some drips down.
You have very little runoff. You start getting four inches of rain or five inches of rain, like a 50
year storm, that’s almost insignificant. Then it’s a matter of percolation rate and rate of runoff,
which is not very different, slightly different, and the calculations show that, but you’re talking
about that once every 50 years, and you’ve got a lot of time to handle it, except, okay, in a 24
hour storm, the calculations I’ve submitted, it’s a small amount of water, actually, and it doesn’t
take an awful lot of diversion to take care of it. I don’t remember the figures, and I don’t have it
right in front of me, immediately, but when you come to the snow making runoff, it’s, the sheet
I just gave you, it’s much more complicated, and my analysis, to be honest about it, first I bring
out that we add snow to the natural snow. We make our snow early, and then we expect more
snow to fall, and we average 70 to 90 inches of snowfall a year at West Mountain. That’s about,
sometimes it’s horrible, worse than that, but not very often. It’s usually right in there. That
snow contains about seven to nine inches of water. About 10 inches of natural snow is about an
inch of rainfall. We’re putting about six inches of water on top of that, through our
snowmaking system, in today’s snowmaking, which is changing, we went to new technology
this last year. It’s drier snow, and it’s fluffier. It’s about five inches of snow to an inch of water.
So we’re adding about 30 inches of snow on the whole thing, and all of that snow melts from
about the third week of March ‘til about the third week of May. So there’s about eight week
period in which it’s all melting, and during that eight week period, you still get rains and snows
and in fact it’s a rather wet period. So, and my assumption is that there’s 36 inches of rainfall
per year here. So, you know, it’s running about three inches a month. Those months may be a
little more than that, but I said if six inches fall during that period of melt, then you’ve got the
total of the natural snow that fell, the snow that we added and the rainfall that comes, and I did
that in the fourth paragraph, the calculation, and then I said, during that eight weeks, we have
to capture the full amount of water that we’re putting there and put it into a stormwater basin,
and I calculated it out, and it calls for a modification in my stormwater plan. Instead of having
a 50 foot swale, picking up from the parking lot, I need a swale about 250 foot, and that’s fine. It
works fine. Then the question became, will that overwhelm the stormwater basin, and we went
out today and did perc tests in the soils there, and it turns out to be an inch of drop in a little
over two minutes, and so what I did is calculate, when you calculate it out, the amount of water
we’re bringing in, you’re not going to raise the level but a few inches over an eight week period.
I mean, even if it’s coming in fast, the percolation rate’s incredible. It’s a matter that it’s going to
start to raise the groundwater table and as that goes out, you know, we can raise it four and a
half feet, without any modification to the pond as it is, and it’s easily modified to raise it up six
or seven feet. So, that’s my analysis, as best I know how to do it, and I’d be very glad to share
all of that with C.T. Male and do whatever it takes to satisfy any input they have that’s
meaningful.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the only questions that I had when I initially looked at the package
were on the grading and lighting plan. Yes. Those were the only questions I had, and I think
the applicant already addressed them. So I don’t have anything new.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-The questions I had were mainly the same thing, and, you know, you got too
technical for me, Mike. I didn’t know half of what you were talking about there, but C.T. Male
would have to get, you know, approval or sign off on all of that stuff that that we’re talking
about.
MR. BRANDT-I fully understand that, and that’s fine.
MR. RINGER-The hours of operation of the tubing is going to be the same as the skiing? I
mean?
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. BRANDT-No, the hours are very different. Tubing really is much less, a much smaller time
period.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. BRANDT-We only run tubing parks Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday, Saturday
night, you know, Saturday, that’s ‘til 10 o’clock, and Sunday, except on holiday weeks, and
there’s two holiday weeks where the kids are all out of school in New York State. Those two
weeks we run every day and every night of those weeks, but, you know, the ski area’s open
seven days a week and six nights a week, but the tubing park’s three nights and two days.
MR. RINGER-But, you know, I didn’t know that about tubing. I didn’t know if tubing was
something that went on after skiing or not, and obviously it doesn’t, and you answered my
question.
MR. BRANDT-It’s really dependent on the school children, and their schedule. So, Thursday,
we do some business. Friday we do well, and so Thursday we try and use it to build groups
that are coming in, and Saturday also for groups. Saturday night we see quite a few groups that
are up here for the weekend, bus tours that will bring their people who may have been skiing,
Killington or Gore or wherever, and they come over with their people for night tubing, and
that’s pretty, that works well for us, and it works well for them.
MR. RINGER-I read a letter today, when I was going over this, from Gabe Armando, and
apparently you and he had some discussion about using the road there, and I really didn’t
understand, no traffic is going to come into that parking lot from the one road, north, or Stone
Bridge Road?
MR. BRANDT-Nothing from Stone Bridge. The only traffic will be from Northwest Road, and
actually that’s less traffic than has been there historically with the ski area alone. It’s slightly
more than what we’ve seen in the last few years, but, years gone by, we saw a great deal more
traffic.
MR. RINGER-The parking lot itself, you’re not expanding that. That’s already existing.
MR. BRANDT-Actually we’re diminishing it. We’re taking the far end of that parking lot and
turning it into a tubing park. We don’t need that much, and, you know, when I designed the
thing, I laid it out according to the maps we had. The maps we have were from aerial
photographs taken of the site some years ago. Well, aerial photographs through the forest are
notoriously inaccurate, and they’re, the pick up the major things, but they miss a lot of minor
things. So we’ve gone in there and we’ve started to cut the brush because frankly you couldn’t
see 50 feet in there there was so much underbrush, and we got burning permits and we were
able to cut brush, and we’re just starting to be able to really see what we’re looking at, and get a
real hands on feel, and it may be that we alter it slightly from what I’m showing you. We might
be able to turn the, we show a little turn in the long trail. So we may be able to just alter it a
little bit, pick up a little more parking lot, and it’ll straighten out the trails. We’d rather not
have a curve in the trail, the shoots. We’d rather have them straight than a curve. So, if we can
do that, we’re going to straighten it out a little bit, but again, you know, you can talk about
what you’d like to do. Until you put a bull dozer in the ground and see what the soils are and
see when you hit bedrock and all that stuff, you really don’t know what you’re going to do, and
there can be a lot of different configurations that work. So it’s like a ski trail, you just start
building it and you design it as you go, and, you know, you’re using your equipment operators,
and you’re watching them. I used to do an awful lot of, from the seat of the bull dozer, but I
won’t be able to do quite as much of that anymore. So, you know, you design it day by day,
and as you find the soil types, and the main thing is that you come out with a design that
works.
MR. RINGER-Thank you. I didn’t have anything else.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Mike, I’d have the concerns that you did when I read over the
report. Because I’m over there, and I didn’t think that some of those issues that C.T. Male
brought up were really major issues. I’m glad you didn’t cut into AOA. I got a little scared
when I went up there the first time, and as far as your, you know, as far as the utilization of that
parking lot, I know where you’re coming from. I think that this is going to be able to spread the
clientele out a little bit, and make it so the whole ski area isn’t so top heavy, you know,
everything being over in the main section.
MR. BRANDT-Yes. Operationally, it should be a real good benefit for the ski area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I would think so, too. I have question here. You have these three
lifts that go up maybe three quarters of the way, and then you just have one lift that goes to the
top?
MR. BRANDT-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that really steep there? It looks like the contours.
MR. BRANDT-Yes. The upper trails we don’t think are going to be used nearly as much as the
lower trails, and so that’s our guess is that, you know, I hope it’s a problem where we have to
come for an expansion some time.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And also as far as the lighting goes, I think you’re set that much off the
road that I don’t think you have to worry about that.
MR. BRANDT-It’s certainly going to add a general glow to the sky, but there’s an enormous
glow there already from the ski trails.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, from what’s there, right. Now, I have just one question. Where the
red box is delineated on your overhead, on the computer, that isn’t the same as what’s depicted
on this map. My question is, is that just showing the lands that you own? Because I know that
the park isn’t going to go over that far.
MR. HILTON-The red box is just a general area where the site development is planned.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Because like it encompasses.
MR. BRANDT-This is the parking lot, and the trails would come down like this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Because it really goes a little bit too far north, that red area. Yes. I
just wanted to put that on the record. Okay. That’s it. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When I reviewed this, I recognized that this was a little different review
than what we would normally do for a subdivision or for a site plan or whatever. So you had to
think a little outside the box when you looked at this. Okay. So I’m just going to go down
through my notes and you can discuss what I have in the notes. The first thing I have is
reference to Mr. VanDusen’s letter of May 6 concerning the water, and I guess you’ve looked
th
at that, and he says that this project is not located within any existing water district, and then he
gives you some bullets. You’ve looked at that.
MR. BRANDT-Yes, and we don’t care which way it goes, as far as working with the Town
Water Department. We’d just like to tap into that water, and what this really is going to do is
going to help us make snow a lot faster on the triple chair area.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. BRANDT-In the past, we’ve lacked pumping capacity there, and while we’re building this
tubing park, we thought, let’s put a pump house over there and put more pumping capacity so
we can make snow faster.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the one thing that jumped out at me from his letter of May 6 was in the
th
last bullet, where he says this project can be supplied water by either a district extension or as a
contract user. So you have an option there, either way.
MR. BRANDT-I’d love to make a district extension, but that’s up to the Town and the Water
Department. We’ll go either way with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think you’re going to be involved with preparing some paper for a
district extension, I believe, as well.
MR. BRANDT-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-It pretty much follows the same thing as when somebody does a sewer
extension. It’s the same kind of, and I believe Staff will support that position. When you do a
water extension, you do much the same as you do a sewer extension. There’s a map, a plan, a
report, that kind of stuff that has to go along with it.
MR. HILTON-My familiarity with that is really low, but I believe so. I mean, they’d have to see
something on paper.
MR. BRANDT-I think it’s different if you do a public extension or if you do an extension where
the owner is paying for everything and building everything, and there again, Ralph VanDusen
knows the law in and out, and we can work with him and the administration to do whatever is
necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t have any problem with Ralph’s letter, then?
MR. BRANDT-No.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like you’re pretty much in accord with that.
MR. BRANDT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The next thing I looked at is parking. I went up there today and the gate was
down, but I crawled underneath. I can still do that, and walked around a little bit. I think I do
see a need for some additional lighting in that parking area.
MR. BRANDT-You have to understand that when we’re going, the ski area is going, there’s
tremendous lighting coming in there.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what you don’t see in the daytime.
MR. BRANDT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is what you’re saying. Because I looked at the expanse of that parking lot, and
I said, gee, you know, maybe you should have some lighting here, but if the spill light from the
ski slopes is enough, then I’m happy with that, because I see this as an entirely different lighting
program. As a matter of fact, I put down some notes on your note where you have the lighting
of the tubing park, that little thing that you wrote, and I said, due to the unique lighting
requirements, as relates to safety on the trails, and I’m sure that that’s a consideration.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. BRANDT-You bet.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m inclined to go along with the 100 watt versus the 150 watts on the existing
ski trails, with the same 200 foot separation.
MR. BRANDT-One thousand watt versus 1500 watt.
MR. VOLLARO-One thousand versus fifteen. Yes. So, you know, I think that there’s a definite
effort to give a little less intensity to the lighting on the tubing slopes, and I think that, as far as
I’m concerned, that makes sense to me, in looking at. Now, on the stormwater, you’ve filed a
Notice of Intent with DEC per the SPDES requirement.
MR. BRANDT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And in Drawing No. One, you’ve got two Drawing No. One’s , but one is a
stormwater drawing and the other is something else. So there’s two Number One’s.
MR. BRANDT-Sorry. I went to my map maker and said make me a map, and after that I wrote
on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. I’ve got you. I saw that.
MR. BRANDT-Probably not the most professional.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. No, the one says that definitely talks in the stormwater area about
stormwater management plan. You make a note on it. So I recognized that that’s what it was.
The estimates of stormwater runoff, has C.T. Male seen all the documents?
MR. BRANDT-No.
MR. VOLLARO-They still have a review to do with you on this thing.
MR. BRANDT-I’ve talked to Mr. Houston, I guess it was on Friday, just after lunch, and I told
him what I was doing, and I told him I couldn’t finish it until I got my figures, you know, from
the people in Warrensburg. I got them late Friday. I called Warrensburg and said, you know,
I’m really in a bind, and they said, we’ll fax them to you. So I got them by fax, and then I did all
my work over the weekend to finish it up, and I brought it in Monday, and that’s what I found
out I’d really overlooked the snowmaking water.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s still a meeting of the minds between you and C.T. Male and
Staff as to the stormwater?
MR. BRANDT-Yes, we’ll get together.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now on the lighting, one minor point is that when we’ve got to define, I
recognize when somebody puts a light up, they don’t have a laser up there that says it’s 30 feet
above the ground. I understand that, but the drawings and so on, there’s a conflict between 30
and 35 feet, pick it. Make it the same. That’s all I’m saying.
MR. BRANDT-Let’s call it 32 and a half.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, I reviewed your lighting plan, the one you put on at 5/5/03, the lighting
plan, and, you know, plus the narrative that you supplied on lighting, and I feel that, given the
application, this plan for lighting is acceptable to me. Now, what’s the status of Mr. Erikson’s
visit? Erikson is apparently a member of C.T. Male and when you talked to.
MR. BRANDT-Yes. I suggested they come and look at the site, because I think, you know,
looking at a map doesn’t tell you what’s really going on.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, particularly this kind of a site. It’s undulating. It’s got a lot of forest in it.
MR. BRANDT-And he said that one of their staff, Mr. Erikson, lived in South Glens Falls, and
he said he might be able to come, and I suggested that would be wonderful and we’d work with
him, and whatever works with them we’ll be glad to work with them.
MR. VOLLARO-Has he contacted you at all yet?
MR. BRANDT-No, he hasn’t, but that’s, I just sent him my reply as of Monday. So he probably
got it today.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and just echoing what Larry said, this letter from Gabe Armando dated
May 30 re: the access of tubing area via a feeder road. Do you plan to do that? I think the
th
letter mentioned Pitcher Road as well.
MR. BRANDT-Gabe’s concern is that if we develop, let me show you a map. We’re working up
here, and Gabe’s concern is that if we start developing this property, he’d like to see us put an
access in this way. So would I. I think that’s the right way to do it. Previously, someone had
come to you and asked, they were trying to buy a piece of land to put something here, and
when they came to me with that, I said, why don’t you put it back here, but apparently they
didn’t want to build a driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is Northwest Road?
MR. BRANDT-Northwest Road is here.
MR. VOLLARO-Is right there. Okay. I’ve got you.
MR. BRANDT-So the gate you went through is right here.
MR. VOLLARO-Right there.
MR. BRANDT-Okay, and if we’re going to do something in here, then properly we ought to
build a road in here and access it, and then there’s really some questions of sight distances here,
but that will have to be addressed. I don’t see it as a big traffic generator anyhow. No matter
what we do in here.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that little extension Pitcher Road down there?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s Tina, Tina Lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Tina Lane.
MR. BRANDT-It wouldn’t be hard. There’s a stream here, and that’s when C.T. Male talks
about.
MR. STROUGH-Mike, that’s Pitcher Road, right where you’ve got your finger?
MR. BRANDT-This is Pitcher Road.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s Pitcher Road, yes.
MR. BRANDT-It would be right across from Pitcher.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Because that’s where they talked about the access being opposite
Pitcher Road.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. BRANDT-Yes. That would make a lot of sense, and I’ve suggested it for a long time, but,
you know, until we start to do something with this, there’s no reason to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, I think I’m finished. I see this is, except for the C.T. Male
discussion back and forth, I see this as being a different type of application than this Board is
normally looking at, in terms of site plan and subdivision, where things get a little bit more in
focus. This is a little more difficult to do, in terms of forestry and clear land. So I’m happy with
it.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, as you know, I’m familiar with your project over there because I
help organize the school programs. So I’m up there all the time, and you’re right. Your main
parking lot gets busy. This should take off some of the pressure. I think that’s good. Because
sometimes it’s tough in that main parking lot, especially if you have a good winter like you did
this winter. Hopefully you have more, but, yes, I think moving the tubing park over here is a
good idea, and making use of this parking lot, and hardly anybody uses it.
MR. BRANDT-That’s right.
MR. STROUGH-I mean, it would be good to see people use it. What are you going to do with
the old tubing park?
MR. BRANDT-We’ll use a small part of it for an additional beginners area. We have so many
school programs and so little area to teach in, the beginners, and that used to be a beginner’s
area. So we’re going to return some of that back to skiing. We can’t use it all, but we could use
a piece of it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. For like another rope tow?
MR. BRANDT-Yes, well, it probably we’ll leave one of the lifts that we’ve been using for tubing
as a ski lift, convert it, very simple to use it as a ski lift. So it would be a little better than a rope
tow, for a change.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, that site over to the north of you, the beginner slope, that gets really
really busy, with the lessons and everything else.
MR. BRANDT-Yes, too busy at times.
MR. STROUGH-So, you’re right. It would be good to have another beginner’s slope area. I
agree with you there, and as far as the lighting goes, I don’t know. It seems to be pretty much
standard with what I see elsewhere. Maybe a touch more intense, and you’re right, the parking
lot down below, although dim, is still workable, and I don’t think I’d want to see more lighting,
if you don’t have to.
MR. BRANDT-I agree.
MR. STROUGH-Especially in this residential-ish kind of area. Now, who owns the barns and
things where the existing stormwater basin, I’m assuming the same entity owns this whole
thing?
MR. BRANDT-Well, it’s a different company, but I own it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Because well, some of your stormwater is going to be running into that,
what is labeled as the existing storm basin, and I’m trying to get a handle on your stormwater
plan, but with the bits and pieces, your upper slope, on the north side, you’re going direct to the
north.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. BRANDT-Let me show you, real simply.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, good.
MR. BRANDT-When I calculated it out, if you take, you know, you can take all of this area, and
if you pick up the water an it’s running in this direction, if you put a swale from here around
here, and there’s already a swale in here. Just continue it around over to here, and pick up all of
this water, it amounts to more water in that eight week period than all the snow making, all the
added water we put on the entire park.
MR. STROUGH-Now you have another stormwater basin just to the north of the, about the
middle of the trail.
MR. BRANDT-No, that’s a sediment basin.
MR. STROUGH-Sediment basin.
MR. BRANDT-Because the steep part comes down to here and that’s where erosion’s going to
take place. I’ve never seen erosion in this section, because it’s a clay soil and it’s very gentle in
slope, but if there’s going to be any erosion, it’s going to be up here, and then it’ll come off in
this direction, and before it goes in to my neighbor, I want to catch it, and, you know, we
always hay. We put a lot of hay down after we grade and finish our grading. We seed it and
then hay it, and that really holds the soils in place until you can get a crop of grass growing, but
there’s always some fines, and I’d rather have them where we can just scoop them out with a
backhoe and get them out of the system than to have them run to somebody else’s.
MR. STROUGH-What you just said triggered a concern. You don’t have that flowing on to
your neighbor’s property, do you?
MR. BRANDT-This already flows on to the neighbor’s and then comes back on to our land. I
met with the Hulls. That’s their property, and they’re aware of it. Actually this is a pretty wet
area, but we, you know, the answer, when you’ve got water flowing off your property, is to
make sure it doesn’t have sediment, and we’re not increasing the flow. I think we’ve addressed
it, and I’m very willing to re-examine it, and if C.T. Male sees something that, an error we’re
making, well, we’ll address that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, they’re going to make you go through the hoops at DEC and C.T.
Male.
MR. BRANDT-That’s all right. It’s straight and a half.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well that seems to be all the questions that I have. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if I could have any questions. I listened to your presentation. I
read all the notes, especially the letter you wrote, and from all the years that I’ve been to West
Mountain, and know you and the fact that you introduced me to the entire snowmaking system
back when I was maybe 12 years old, and I remember every point of that in my head, I don’t
doubt for a second that everything you say is correct. I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never been
tubing, but I’ll have to change that.
MR. BRANDT-I’ve only done it a few times.
MR. METIVIER-I’ve never been, but, no, I don’t doubt for a second, and as far as the lighting, I
don’t foresee that being an issue either. I mean, everybody that lives in Northwest Village
moved there after the lights came in, and it does create quite a different atmosphere up there,
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
when you, you know, at nighttime, but it’s nice. It’s definitely a nice atmosphere, and I just, I
wish you the very best with that. I truly do.
MR. BRANDT-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any comments from Staff? Questions?
MR. HILTON-No, I guess the only thing would be adequate C.T. Male signoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Can I ask you guys to give up the table for a
minute. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LISA COUTU
MRS. COUTU-Hello. My name is Lisa Coutu and I live across the street from the triple chair,
and I wouldn’t characterize my comments as objections exactly, but just concerns about the
additional traffic and also the garbage. The only time there’s ever garbage on that road is
during the ski season when the triple chair’s open. So, those would be my two concerns, and
this is my husband, Tim, and he might want to have a word to say also.
TIM BARDIN
MR. BARDIN-The only question with the traffic would be, at what point does it get determined
if they’re going to make a separate access road off Pitcher, because of the traffic flow on
Northwest? Because the main thing is when the busses are going over there, maybe there’s 10
at the most, but there were, a couple of years ago, times when they were parking right on
Northwest. I don’t know if there was enough plowing, enough space in the parking lot, but
busses were on Northwest Road, in front of our house. We live right across from the parking
lot. So, those are the only concerns, is I’m a skier and snowboarder. I’ve tubed. So I like the
fact that it’s going to expand, but just too much traffic. It would be overkill.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. BARDIN-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Conditions for
tabling?
MR. VOLLARO-I think the only one condition I can see for tabling, really, is the C.T. Male
signoff.
MR. RINGER-Which is considerable. There’s a lot of stormwater, that we’re not expert on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it something you would feel comfortable approving with a condition that
it’s signed off on? Or is it something that you folks want to see back?
MR. VOLLARO-I would feel comfortable if it was conditioned on a sign off, myself.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would, too, but I would like to have her question answered.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I would feel fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-My only concern would be how much it might change.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. VOLLARO-You mean the C.T. Male review would change the design?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, you know, if the swales, or the, you know, change, the
topography started to change significantly.
MR. VOLLARO-I think most of the change on stormwater would take place to the south of the
tubing. In other words, to capture the water coming off that, the tubing slope. Most of the
change would be to the base of that, rather than to skew the tubing slots. That’s just how I
would see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I would have a tendency to agree with that.
MR. BRANDT-I think that’s correct. I think that, my understanding would be that if our
calculations were, you know, not showing enough water coming over, we might want to
enlarge the basin a little bit actually towards the east and take what we dig out of it and build
the bank higher on that side. That’s the lowest side, and it would be very easy to do that, and I
would have no problem with doing that. It would certainly make for a larger basin, and we
could even put an overflow pipe in it to ensure that it never erodes out, but those are kind of
mechanical things and they’re simple to do.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s where you mention the additional 250 in the last, in the snowmaking
water document you just gave us. That’s the 250 foot addition you’re talking about there.
MR. BRANDT-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Mike, if this does generate a lot of traffic and does take off well, when do you
think, because two neighbors have addressed concerns now, when do you think you might put
in that other access road off West Mountain Road?
MR. BRANDT-First of all, that doesn’t work very well unless you create parking here for this, it
would really be for whatever we do down in here. I’ve gone around and spoken to all my
neighbors I could, and I’m afraid, you guys weren’t home when I made the circuit. I tried a
couple of times, and they’ve got a very valid point. I’m not proud of the crap skiers drop. I’ve
picked up so much of it that I’m sick of it, but it’s the only part of skiing I’m sick of, but I think
that once we’re here, with more people and more focus, it’s much easier to say, okay, it’s
quitting time. Clean up on the way out, and everybody can do a little clean up and their
complaint is very legitimate, and, you know, it’s like, underneath the ski lift looking at the beer
cans, I mean, I can’t believe it, but we clean them up as best we can.
MR. STROUGH-Well, money, too. I’ve got a friend.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about their concern about the busses parking on Northwest Passage
Road?
MR. BRANDT-The buses, probably we didn’t clean as much snow out of the parking lot, and
we didn’t anticipate the buses, and somebody plowing didn’t get the word and didn’t plow it
all out. Usually right now the only time we’re seeing buses over here is when we’re conducting
a race. This is an extremely good racing trail. It’s one of the best racing trails in New York
State, and so we have a lot of demand for slalom races there. That’s when you’ll see some
buses, but usually racing time is not the same as tubing time. So I don’t even see that as a
conflict. I mean, the races are daytime, tubing’s night, and we don’t normally have our big
races on holiday weeks. That’s not when they’re done. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-So do you think if that parking lot is used more, that it would be more likely
that it would be more likely that it would be cleared off and it would be less likely there to be
buses on the street?
MR. BRANDT-Yes. We can improve the parking pattern there a lot. We’re just ignoring it.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
There’s a fill in for a few cars that went up there, but very few went. Now we’ll take it to heart,
clean it out, and set up a system and mark it and if necessary park cars.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-How much additional traffic do you expect is going to go up there, with the
tubing?
MR. BRANDT-Right now, when our tubing park is plum full, it’s, what, it’s 450 people. So it’s
125 cars, something like that. If it increases 50%, you know, you’re under 200 cars. So, you
know, if it increase 50%, I would be the happiest man in the world, or one of the happiest.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? I think I’m going to
close the public hearing because the Board seems to be comfortable with moving forward on
this.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-So we need to do a SEQRA please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. It’s the Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 23-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
EAST SLOPE MANAGEMENT, LLC, 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.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
Duly adopted this 3 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a motion prepared?
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the only condition that Tony and I can see is final signoff by C.T.
Male.
MR. STROUGH-And I think that is not referencing the lighting. I think that’s in reference to the
stormwater issues. Right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Although one of my concerns would be, when you look at the C.T. Male
letter, and they talk about things like, you know, treating parking lot runoff, when I think we
would all agree, as Mr. Brandt had pointed out, that, you know, it’s not something that we
would really need to see.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there what we’d be looking for is a consensus between C.T. Male and
the applicant in terms of the stormwater mitigation and whatever they do there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be pretty difficult I think that, Mr. Strough and I were just talking
about that for a minute, that when DEC gets in the middle of this, it’ll be an interesting exercise
for Mr. Brandt, I believe.
MR. STROUGH-In other words, this is the easy part.
MR. VOLLARO-But it’s strictly a C.T. Male signoff with this stormwater. That’s how I see it,
the stormwater portion of this.
MR. STROUGH-Right. I agree with Bob on that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other concerns from Board members?
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s all yours.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2003 EAST SLOPE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
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:
Site Plan No. 23-2003 Applicant: East Slope Management, LLC
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: West Mt. Liquidating Partnership
Agent: Michael Brandt
Zone: RC-3A
Location: West Mt. Ski Center
Applicant proposes to construct a tubing area at the West Mountain Ski Center. Recreation
Center uses in the RC-3A zone requires Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning
Board.
Cross Reference: None Found
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03
Tax Map No. 314.0-1-3
Lot size: 7 ac. (project size)/ Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: June 3, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/28/03, and
6/3 Staff Notes
5/27 Notice of Public Hearing
5/14 Warren Co. Planning
5/7 Meeting Notice
5/6 Water Dept. comments
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 June 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park 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. Final sign-off by C. T. Male be made on the stormwater management plan.
2. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/3/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,. Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mike, good luck.
MR. BRANDT-I would like to make a comment, and that is, as Mr. Vollaro pointed out, this
isn’t a standard type of thing that any of us handle, and I found it to be very helpful to work
with the Staff here in Queensbury in Planning and I want to thank them for their help and their
insights and kind of steering me where, honest to God, I would have been in trouble without
them. So I really appreciate the help, and I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Good luck.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL LORENZ AGENT: JAMES
MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: 78 QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2 ADDITIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING
AND EXPANSION OF PARKING AND PAVEMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 91-2002,
AV 80-90, SP 92-90, VAR. 1069, VAR. 1077, UV 83-90, SUP 103, SP 24-85, VAR. 1022
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-61 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-020
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 26-2003, Paul Lorenz, Meeting Date: June 3, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 26-2003
APPLICANT: Paul Lorenz is the applicant for this request
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct 2 building additions as
well as additional paving, parking, lighting and landscaping at the existing Meineke Muffler
shop on Lafayette Street.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Lafayette Street, just south of
Quaker Rd.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a
Short Environmental Assessment Form with the application.
PARCEL HISTORY: The most recent approval at this location was an Area Variance (AV 91-
2002, resolved on November 27, 2002) granting setback relief for the additions proposed as part
of this Site Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes the construction of 2 building additions
(totaling 1,990 sq. ft.) at the existing Meineke Muffler on Lafayette Street. The site plan also
indicates additional parking, landscaping and stormwater management facilities to be
constructed. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report, which has
been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment.
STAFF COMMENTS: As part of the site plan, the applicant proposes to close a driveway on
Lafayette Street, while proposing to open a new driveway closer to Quaker Rd. on Lafayette
Street. The Zoning Ordinance contains standards for commercial driveways in §179-19-010. As
listed in §179-19-010 B (2), driveways should be limited to one per property. Staff has concerns
about opening a new driveway on Lafayette Street considering the recently approved Saturn car
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
dealership directly opposite this site on Lafayette St. Should the Planning Board approve the
new driveway, the driveway should be aligned with the proposed Saturn driveway opposite
this site.
The lighting plan submitted with the application shows light levels as contours, which appear
to have minimal spill onto adjacent properties. Are any wall mounted lights proposed as part
of this plan?
Consideration should be given to including shade trees along both street frontages as listed in
§179-8-040 B.
The building elevations submitted with the site plan show that the building additions will
match the existing building at this location.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes the construction of two building additions to Meineke
Muffler, along with new parking area, site landscaping. As part of the plan, the applicant
proposes to close a driveway on Lafayette and open a new one farther north, closer to Quaker
Road. As mentioned in the notes, the Zoning Ordinance contains standards for driveways,
which states a driveway should be limited to one per property. However, if the Planning Board
feels that a new curb cut on Lafayette is acceptable, I guess it should be coordinated with the
new Saturn across the street, attempting to line up those driveways for better access
management. Just a question. Are any wall mounted lights proposed as part of the plan?
Consideration should also be given to including shade trees along both street frontages, as
required in the Zoning Ordinance, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed
during this review. That’s all we have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I’m here with the
owner, Paul Lorenz, of Meineke Muffler. Paul’s proposing, his existing building, there’s four
repair bays, a small office area, and the rest of the building is storage. He’s proposing two
additions, one to the north, which would be two additional bays, and then the area to the rear
would be additional storage. The second addition is to the south, which would be expansion of
a waiting area, office, and again, some more storage. We went before the Zoning Board and we
were granted two variances for setbacks for the additions, and the proposal for the site plan is
to expand some parking to the northwest portion of the property, or the southwest, and then to
the north of the existing parking lot to expand the parking to 17 spaces. When we went before
the Zoning Board and met with Staff, currently there are two driveways. One comes in off of
Bank Street, and one is right next to Bank Street on the corner. At the recommendation of Craig
Brown, in review meetings, we agreed that we’d close that driveway closest to Bank Street, and
relocate it further north. So right now there are two existing driveways. It’s a small difficult
shaped property. The client wants to obviously maintain, the Lafayette Street driveway is the
main driveway, his address is Quaker Road. The majority of traffic comes in, or customers
come in off Quaker Road and enter off of Lafayette. Right now, there are some small lights on
the building, small incandescent lights. The proposal is to add three lights in the parking lot, 16
foot cut off lights, and I just had a discussion that there probably will be some additional wall
pack, cut off wall packs that would be mounted near the doors, and they don’t show on this
plan. I wasn’t aware of that, but, to answer George’s question, there would be a few wall packs.
The business isn’t open at night. Typically it’s, you know, twilight type hours that the lighting
would be used, and then it would be turned off. All the new paving meets the setback
requirements and landscape requirements. There’ll be additional planting planted. There’s
some split rail fence there now which will, some of it’s damaged. It’ll be replaced and
maintained, and we meet the green space requirements, and pretty much that’s it.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Larry, we’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-There was some talk went on before, when we had the Saturn, that this new
driveway was going to line up with the Saturn driveway. Are they doing that?
MR. MILLER-I’m not familiar with that. The first I heard about that, I wasn’t involved in the
Saturn project. We got the variances like four, five months ago. We met with Staff. Nobody
talked to us about it. We met with Staff for site plan meeting and nobody talked about it. So
the first I heard about the Saturn driveway being any different than the driveways that are there
now was Friday.
MR. RINGER-Do you know if you’re going to line up with that?
MR. MILLER-I don’t know where they are. I have no way of knowing.
MR. RINGER-George, do you know? There was discussion about that. Do you know if this
lines up or how it lines up?
MR. HILTON-Well, I mean, we haven’t pulled the plan. Again, it would be best to have it line
up. We could go back and pull the plan and condition it that every effort be made. I don’t
know.
MR. RINGER-I just remember some discussion about it at one time.
MR. HILTON-And that’s the basis of our comment in the notes, but as far as coordinating that,
there are a number of ways to do it. I don’t know.
MR. MILLER-Was Saturn, did they review our plan? Because this plan was submitted five
months ago, the zoning variance when we were told to move the driveway. I mean, our
property is very tiny. We obviously don’t have a lot of room to maneuver the driveway
around.
MR. HILTON-At the time of the zoning variance I don’t think there was an, and correct me if
I’m wrong. I haven’t seen the variance plan, but I don’t believe there was, in the variance, a
proposed driveway re-location.
MR. MILLER-Yes, there was. That was a requirement by Craig Brown when we submitted.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. MILLER-He was the one that made us move it.
MR. HILTON-I stand corrected.
MR. MILLER-Quite honestly, the owner didn’t want to move it unless he had to. We would
cooperate, if it’s a matter of moving it a couple of feet, but I mean, my concern as you can see,
it’s a very tight site. To move it 20 feet one way or the other is going to be difficult, and it’s
going to affect our parking. It’s going to affect the circulation through that small lot.
MR. RINGER-I remember there was an issue with Saturn, and it seems like, I don’t have the
minutes with me, but it seems like Jon Lapper said well there was some arrangements that they
were going to, but obviously that didn’t take place, or I’m thinking something that didn’t really
happen.
MR. MILLER-I would have been happy to talk to anybody, but like I say, I wasn’t involved in
the Saturn project, and the first I heard about it was on Friday.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. RINGER-And it seems like Staff comments also were to that effect, that the driveway
should line up, or Saturn should line their driveway up with Meineke.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing I can see, Larry, is this drawing, to go along with what
you’re saying, the drawing ought to depict where the Saturn driveway is so that we would
know, and so that the applicant knows. If we force him to change that driveway now, it’s not.
MR. RINGER-No, I’m not asking them, forcing them. I’m asking a question that came up
before, with another site plan, and this driveway was talked about, and if anything had been
done or anybody had followed through on that.
MR. HILTON-Well, I think our previous comments on Saturn were attempting to line up the
driveway with Bank Street.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s what I was going to say.
MR. MILLER-With Bank Street.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MILLER-There’s one down there, near there now. Right now there’s two driveways. One
is down near Bank Street. The other one is up here near our sign. So actually where we showed
it, relative to the existing driveways, is perfectly in between them.
MR. HILTON-Except that northern driveway. The Saturn plan proposed relocating it farther to
the south, and as a result of that, again our comment was just to try to coordinate somehow.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, I didn’t remember it with Bank Street. It seemed I remembered it
more with Meineke, but it was a question that I had. The comments from C.T. Male, has the
applicant had an opportunity to?
MR. MILLER-Yes. We were able to submit some information. We got it to them today and we
got signoff letters today at 4:30.
MR. HILTON-Yes, we have those in the file.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got signoff on all the items of C.T. Male?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. HILTON-Yes. I can read the letter to you. It says, “In reference to the Paul Lorenz project,
we have received a re-submittal from the applicant’s engineer consisting of a transmittal letter
dated June 2, and excerpts from the revised plans and a revised stormwater report. The
nd
information was received by fax on June 3. The revisions shown in the re-submittal address
rd
the comments made in our previous letters. If you have any questions related to this matter,
feel free to call our office.”
MR. RINGER-Very good. The other thing, Staff’s comments on the six inch caliper tree, did
you, have you seen Staff’s comments and have you thought anything about that?
MR. MILLER-I’m not familiar with that comment. I guess I missed that one. I saw one, there
was one from C.T. Male about the tree by the drainage. Is that the comment?
MR. HILTON-In our Staff comments, we suggested for the Board’s consideration to look at the
landscaping standards for the, contained in the Code, and, you know, consider adding some
shade trees along the street frontage.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. RINGER-I didn’t know if you saw that.
MR. MILLER-I saw that comment. I guess I misunderstood. Right now, there’s a crabapple in
here that we’re trying to save, but there’s really not a lot of remove in here, because we can’t
plant in the right of way. We’ve only got like two feet from the property line to the pavement.
That’s why we show some shrub planting there and something that would climb up onto the
fence to sort of screen the parking, but that’s why we didn’t.
MR. RINGER-I’m not asking you to plant them. I’m only asking if you saw it. John may ask
you to plant some trees, but I only wanted to know if you saw it or not, and you got the signoff
from C.T. Male. I don’t have anything else, Craig.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I start off with the letter from Mike Shaw, where he says the
sanitary sewer lateral is not shown on the plan. The 588 square foot addition is placed over the
building’s lateral. He must know that from drawings that he has.
MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, it comes out this end of the building, and goes out to Bank Street, and
what would happen is, when this addition is done and, you know, the foundation is excavated,
it’ll expose that lateral. So I think we can make it a condition, or I’ll add a note to the plan, that
that lateral will have to be, you know, possibly replaced outside the foundation wall and that
the Town should make an inspection, as Mike said in his memo.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That could be a condition. If this were to be approved, that could be a
condition of approval.
MR. STROUGH-Well, laterals can go through foundations.
MR. MILLER-Yes, they can.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they can.
MR. MILLER-But I think we have to expose it and see what it is. More than likely, the way the
construction goes, when the contractor digs the foundation, he’s going to break it anyway.
MR. STROUGH-Well that’s maybe what he’s concerned about.
MR. MILLER-Yes. It’ll have to be exposed when they do the foundation.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess the next question is, I guess if C.T. Male signed off on this, they
signed off on it, but I’ve got a question, as far as the drainage on that front lot is concerned and
the watersheds of both the additional two bays and the addition 588 square feet. I see the stone
detention trench, but I also notice that the drainage is generally to the southeast. So when I see
that, I’m wondering to myself, if the drainage is generally to the southeast of the front part of
that site, how does most of the watershed from the additional two bays get to that stone
detention trench? It seems like the water is trying to run down to the existing catch basin,
which is in the extreme southeasterly portion of the site, the one that goes directly to Hovey
Pond.
MR. MILLER-That’s right. You’re right. There’s a catch basin right at the corner that goes
down, and is routed down towards Hovey Pond. What we’ve done is the pavement area, the
new pavement, that existing pavement will continue to sheet like that. I mean, that’s the way it
sheets. It goes down into that catch basin, and portion of the front of the roof goes that way.
What we’ve been able to do is where the new work is being constructed, the new pavement
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
area here, that’ll be graded so it’ll pitch into the stone swale in this area, where we get some
infiltration and detention, and then the rear portion of the building, some of the existing as well
as some of the new, and the new pavement area, this will come back. So the detention is
occurring in the stone trench to mitigate any additional runoff. The existing lot will function as
it does now. Because what we have to do is detain any increase in the proposed project.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked for the notes. I thought maybe the notes on the drawing would talk
about changing the grade on that portion of the lot. I didn’t see that any place. I still don’t.
MR. MILLER-No, we’re not. If you look at the shaded area, the shaded areas are where grades
change. So actually right at the corner where.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m talking about changing the grade that’s adjacent to the stone
detention trench. We’ve got, whatever water sheds over those additional two bays should be
driven toward that stone detention.
MR. MILLER-It does. It does, and one of the comments C.T. Male had also was that they
wanted to see us have a berm.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that.
MR. MILLER-On the side of that basin, so it wouldn’t sheet right over the stone and into the
street. So we did. We added a berm along here and we added some berming along here, to
contain that into the stone.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed, I don’t want to get into the next application, but I did notice in the
Warren Tire application a great deal of effort was made to take a look at the amount of, and the
quality of runoff going into Hovey Pond, and here I see we’ve got probably a dead shot into
Hovey Pond from this catch basin here, at this southeast portion of this lot with no entrapment
at all for whatever is running off, but that’s a pre-existing condition.
MR. MILLER-That’s pre-existing. That collects all the runoff from the whole intersection there.
That’s pre-existing.
MR. VOLLARO-But it doesn’t do Hovey Pond any good, the way I see it right now. I’ve got a
concern about here, right up the street on Lafayette, for the next application coming up, there’s
a significant effort to do that, and on this site there is zero effort to do that, and I don’t know
what the sum total of control is there.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think, you know, the regulations say any, refers to new work, not pre-
existing. The problem, one of the problems we’ve got with this site is there’s little to no room to
do much there.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a tight site.
MR. MILLER-I mean, we’ve been able to pick up maybe two thirds of the roof and pavement
area and take it into the stone detention area, and the only area that we really can’t address is
right there at the corner.
MR. VOLLARO-Supposing, now if C.T. Male signed off again, you know, I’m probably flailing
in the wind here, but if we could get a catch basin somewhere in the middle of that existing
asphalt parking to help deter some of that, you know, get it into a detention basin where at least
it gets into the ground rather than getting in to the existing catch basin, it goes directly to Hovey
Pond, that might help. Mr. Strough’s probably going to get in and bang on this one as well, I
would assume, but that’s just my feeling on it, that I think some impedance ought to be added
to the water flow that gets into that catch basin, and it probably ought to be some sort of a
drywell or whatever, right in the middle of that parking lot. That’s just my idea.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MILLER-Bob, we did some soils investigation out there and we have a high groundwater
condition with groundwater down like two feet below the surface. So we can’t use any kind of
drywells.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MILLER-That’s why we went to that stone infiltration trench where we could collect and
detain the water above the groundwater. If you looked at where the new parking is going in
the southwest, you’ll see a big mound there. That’s the old septic system, and the reason for
that mound system was because of the high groundwater. So there’s really, you know, I think
what we’ve done is everything we can on this pretty restricted site.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I think that’s really, let me just take a look at. I guess from my
own point of view right now, I don’t think that I would, a change in the driveway, at this point,
would alter all the planning that was done in that parking lot, it seems to me. Now I don’t
know where that Saturn drive is going to be, but changing this. I would just as soon slave the
Saturn operation to something as opposed to this one, because if you change this driveway to
line up with Saturn, it pretty much negates all the engineering that was done into this shaded
area. That’s, you know, so I think we’ve got to look at that. I mean, I don’t know, how does the
rest of the Board feel about that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m kind of doing an informal poll down here.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m out to lunch here?
MR. MAC EWAN-That limb’s getting pretty weighty out there.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. I’ve been there before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is Saturn coming back in this month for a modification, I’ve been hearing
through the grapevine?
MR. HILTON-I guess I’m not hearing it from the same grapevine, not that I know of.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Didn’t they need to go back to the ZBA for something?
MR. HILTON-They were just in last month for Sign Variances.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that all they went for, Signs?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we don’t anticipate we’ll see them any too soon. Okay. Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-When you said out on a limb, is that the fact the Board wants to see the drives
lined up, is that what you’re saying?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. We were talking, actually, about modifying the site with the catch basin.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, based on high water level, my suggestion is (lost words). I withdraw it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. As far as lining up the drives, I don’t that’s practical either,
considering the constraints on this site.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I agree.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I really don’t think that the drives, in this particular instance, across the
way from the Saturn to this site really that big of an impact.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I tend to agree with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ll concur with that opinion as well, on that driveway issue, and you’re
right. We did hear all kinds of discussions about that, but Saturn has two driveways, and the
one is located south of Bank Street, will be for trucking and for delivery of their vehicles. That’ll
be in the back of their lot, and it won’t be a customer access. Their customer access is going to
be pretty darn close, going from memory, to where your access is, and I wish we had a Saturn,
just to verify that, but it’s not a major issue to me, but let’s get back to the stormwater. Now,
I’m in the northeast corner of the northern parking lot right now. Do you have the plan in front
of you? Okay. The elevation, spot elevation, is 95.4.
MR. MILLER-Yes, in the corner.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the contour line says 95, after the grading, the darker contour line. Is
that 95? Because it’s kind of blurred.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is 95.
MR. MILLER-The new contour?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MILLER-That’s 98.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s 98?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And that’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at the contour line with the number, John, just past the edge
of the curbing, the drive?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s the one where 99 is above it.
MR. MILLER-I think that’s supposed to be 96.4, in that corner.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, see it’s all blurry. It’s not coming out clear. I’d feel better if somebody else
verified this.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the contour line above it is 99. So it’ll get down three feet.
MR. STROUGH-All right, 99, and then the next one is.
MR. MILLER-Ninety-eight, and actually there should be a 97 right in that corner. That’s 96.4 in
the corner.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then that solves that problem.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I was reading 95, and then we have 95 and the .4, and you know what I’m.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MILLER-What we tried to do is make that corner low so everything drains off into that
corner and into the stone. That’s what we were trying to do there.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine, then. Just a matter of clarifying that. Now, I don’t have it on mine
because I don’t have the updated plans, but there is going to be a berm here?
MR. MILLER-Yes. What we did was we added spot elevations just outside of that gravel, so
that the plant bed or the lawn area on the other side of the stone will be a couple of inches
higher than the stone, so the water won’t be able to sheet across.
MR. STROUGH-Now is that going to be a problem with snow plowing?
MR. MILLER-No, it’s only going to be a few inches, just enough to catch the water.
MR. STROUGH-But with that berm and with the drainage ditch that we have there, I guess that
existing crabapple’s pretty much gone.
MR. MILLER-Well, we’re trying to save it. We’re trying to do the best we can, and that was one
of C.T. Male’s comments, and one of the things with that stone trench, when we get out there
and start excavating and see where the roots are, we’re hoping we can work around it.
MR. STROUGH-If not, can we get another one replanted, if that one’s not salvageable, in that
general area?
MR. MILLER-Paul loves plants.
MR. STROUGH-That’s a yes.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And the existing tree, what kind of tree is that?
PAUL LORENZ
MR. LORENZ-It’s a wild crabapple.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s a crabapple, too.
MR. LORENZ-Yes. I took it off my property before I built my house, I transplanted it over
there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, beautiful. I love the crabapple.
MR. LORENZ-It’s a good hearty tree. They really can take the weather really well.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Is there any problem with adding one more crabapple up here in the
corner?
MR. LORENZ-That’s where the sign is.
MR. STROUGH-That’s where your sign is? Okay. Then that would be a problem. How about
in back of the sign? I always try and get one more.
MR. LORENZ-No. I’d have to look at everything before I can, you know, if it doesn’t look good
to me, then I won’t do it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I like the gazebo out there.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. LORENZ-Because I like the flowers and the plants. Obviously you people know. You’ve
been by the place numerous times. I take very good care of the corner. I put a lot of time and
effort into it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. LORENZ-But it’s only going to look nicer now, after the project.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I see that. I wish I could see some flower beds there, but I see mostly
shrubs and stuff.
MR. LORENZ-Yes, well, we’re getting into the perennial thing now. That’s a new thing that I’m
doing.
MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to add perennials, maybe, or yes? Well, that’s nice. That’s
good. Well, I won’t condition it. I’ll just trust your word.
MR. LORENZ-I’m going to do a lot more that what you see on the plan, believe me.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. You don’t like the idea of the crabapple tree out there, though?
MR. LORENZ-Not right now because I’m not really sure what’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-That limb is getting awfully weighty for you, John. You’re out there by
yourself.
MR. LORENZ-Well, we have the crabapple right there by the gazebo already, a big one, two.
There’s one in the front and there’s one also pretty close to the gazebo area.
MR. STROUGH-But if we ruin that one crabapple, we’re going to replace?
MR. LORENZ-We’ll replace that. We’re going to try not to ruin that one, though.
MR. STROUGH-The gazebo where it’s located now is actually, what, partially on?
MR. LORENZ-Yes, it’s slightly on. The line’s, every time they survey the property the line’s in a
different spot. So, that’s, when I first put the gazebo there it was on our property, supposedly,
from what I was told, and now it’s not. So, whatever, we’ll move it
MR. MAC EWAN-I was going to ask who’s doing the surveying.
MR. LORENZ-Right, exactly.
MR. STROUGH-Now, C.T. Male did mention that they had concern about winter, snow and ice,
hindering the capacity of those detention trenches during the winter. How did you respond to
that?
MR. MILLER-What we did is we modified the, the biggest concern, you know, the corner we
were talking about, everything drains in that corner. So all they would have to do is excavate a
path through the snow for the water to drain down into the catch basin in the street, but in the
back, we regarded that. So that all the water sheets to the back corner. So if we have some
ponding problem, it would be in the back end of the parking lot, and they could do the same
thing, and they could excavate a channel way through the snow to let the water get out of there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MILLER-I guess C.T. Male’s concern was that, you know, we’d end up getting ponding in
the parking lot that would freeze and be a safety problem.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay. So you’ve addressed that.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can I just interject something here?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Along the lines of that trench, what’s the life expectancy of one of those
trenches?
MR. MILLER-Well, it depends on how much debris collects in it, you know. If you have a
situation where you get a lot of heavy sanding that fills in, over time, you know, similar to a
drywell, it’ll tend to plug up. What we ended up adding to that, as part of working with C.T.
Male, is we ended up adding some pipe in there, to give it a little bit more positive flow out.
One of the concerns C.T. Male had was the water, the infiltration into the soil was limited. So
there’s a possibility you’d get a storm, and then you’d get another storm, and the trench still is
holding water. So it wouldn’t be effective. So we added some pipe into it, almost like a
subsurface drain that would allow the water to gradually drain out, so that we wouldn’t have to
rely entirely on infiltration.
MR. MAC EWAN-I was thinking about the filter fabric on the base of the trench. I mean,
wouldn’t over the years it have a tendency to fill and not allow it to perc the way it’s supposed
to?
MR. MILLER-It could.
MR. LORENZ-Where is the trench? Which one are we talking about?
MR. MILLER-Along the edges of the parking lot.
MR. LORENZ-Yes, but we don’t really use sand or anything like that. If we do, we sweep it up.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. my next question was, let’s stay with the stormwater for a minute, catch
basin labeled at Catch Basin C. It’s out towards Lafayette Street?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-What’s that doing? What’s it catching?
MR. MILLER-There’s a swale that comes down along Lafayette Street in here, and it takes the
water off of the parking lot. So by putting the driveway here, we didn’t have enough, if we put
a culvert under the driveway, the swale would be too deep. So the water wouldn’t reach the
lower catch basin. So what we did is we ran a pipe to a catch basin so that would collect any
runoff from Lafayette Street, and pretty much the road drainage in that area, so it doesn’t pond
there and collect there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, next question. Do you have an oil/water separator?
MR. MILLER-No. There’s no floor drains.
MR. STROUGH-He doesn’t have floor drains?
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what do you do when you clean your bays?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. LORENZ-We don’t. We wipe everything up with rags. I have a rag company that comes
in, picks up the rags and cleans them. So if they get oil on the floor, they wipe it up right away.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Don’t the new stormwater reg’s call for, anytime you have an
automotive or automotive service center, don’t they call for an oil/water separator in the
stormwater reg’s?
MR. MILLER-Only if you have floor drains.
MR. STROUGH-Only with floor drains?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think if the groundwater is up two feet, the drains are pretty ineffective
in the bays anyway, it seems to me. I didn’t realize the groundwater was that high there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, let’s move on to the other issues. Now what’s going to be the
color scheme of the building, are you going to change that at all?
MR. LORENZ-No, it’s going to be pretty much what you see right there.
MR. STROUGH-Pretty much.
MR. LORENZ-Yes. Believe it or not I like the Adirondack looking colors, but it happens to be
Meineke’s colors as well.
MR. STROUGH-The yellow and brown?
MR. LORENZ-Well, it’s more like a cream color building and the doors are brown.
MR. STROUGH-So the building addition will look?
MR. LORENZ-It’s going to look exactly like that. That’s why we’re also, what we’re going to
do, on the roof I want to put a couple of dog houses up there. We don’t know how many yet.
I’ve got three up there. We have to plan to put three up there, but there might be more or less.
I’m not really sure, but it’s going to be at least probably three, you know, to give it more of a
nicer look.
MR. STROUGH-You’re going to put dormers?
MR. LORENZ-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Good idea.
MR. LORENZ-It’ll give it some more character. Exactly.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I agree. Beautiful.
MR. VOLLARO-That means a modification. The dormers are up there?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re on the plan.
MR. LORENZ-Just not in the right position, because we couldn’t quite figure out how, you
know, how we were going to do it just yet.
MR. STROUGH-Now, how about on the lighting. Did C.T. Male address the lighting with the
foot candles, uniformity ratio, cut sheets?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MILLER-Yes. Their concern was we didn’t have that much lighting, and my response was
it’s not a business that’s open late into the night. So all we’re looking to do is just, now he has
no lights, except for a few lights on the, incandescent lights on the building. So what we just
want to do is get a little bit more light for the twilight times.
MR. STROUGH-Do you have like security lighting at night?
MR. LORENZ-Yes. It’s just like regular flood lights, spotlights, I guess, 100 watt bulbs or
whatever, and they kick on at 12 o’clock, and they go off at six in the morning.
MR. STROUGH-Good enough.
MR. LORENZ-And then we have the lights out in the front, they’re more decorative than
anything. I want to (lost word) the lighting because what happens is come fall, we don’t stay
open late very much at all, maybe six o’clock is a late night for us, especially during the winter
months. If we’re going to be open later, it’s going to be in summer when we’re busier, but at
five, four thirty it’s already getting dark and a lot of women come to pick their cars up, and I
want them to feel safe when they’re picking their car up, not that it’s like really dark outside. So
I felt that, especially with the back parking lot, we put some lights and everything around the
building and light it up a little bit, it’ll feel much safer.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s not a problem, and, you’re right. I don’t think it’s excessive by
the way it appears. Okay. The fence. You’re going to replace the split rail fence.
MR. LORENZ-It’s all coming down with new fence. We’re going to put all new fence up.
MR. STROUGH-But you didn’t say what kind of fence.
MR. LORENZ-The same thing, split rail.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it’s going to be split rail.
MR. LORENZ-Right, because it’s a nice look to it.
MR. STROUGH-It does give a nice look to it, but it wouldn’t look good if you were going to put
up some kind of a solid fence.
MR. LORENZ-No.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. LORENZ-That’s a tough little spot right there, because it kind of cuts right off and there’s a
steep areas, you know, for planting. So I did that to offset the stuff.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That got my list pretty well here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing to add, at this point. The place does look nice, by the way. I
think you’ve always kept it up. I’ve always commented, mostly to myself, that you do a nice
job there. Except around Christmas time. I think one year they lit up a van, but we’ll talk
about that another day.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything. I like the new drawing a lot, with the dormers and
everything. It’ll look great.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments?
MR. HILTON-No, nothing new.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a second. We’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 26-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
PAUL LORENZ, 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 3 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a motion there, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Coming up.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2003 PAUL LORENZ, 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. 26-2003 Applicant / Property Owner: Paul Lorenz
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates
Zone: HC-Mod
Location: 78 Quaker Road
Applicant proposes construction of 2 additions to existing building and expansion of parking
and pavement.
Cross Reference: AV 91-2002, AV 80-90, SP 92-90, Var. 1069, Var.
1077, UV 83-90, SUP 103, SP 24-85, Var. 1022
Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-61
Lot size: 0.50 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: June 3, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/30/03, and
6/3 Staff Notes
5/27 Notice of Public Hearing
5/30 C. T. Male engineering comments
5/14 Warren Co. Planning
5/7 Meeting Notice
5/6 Water Dept. comments
5/6 Wastewater Dept. comments
11/27 ZBA resolution
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
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. That the proposal be in compliance with Mr. Shaw’s letter of May 6, 2003.
2. The drawing, SP-1 dated April 15, 2003 as revised on May 30, 2003 will show the change
in the exfiltration of the stone trench, put some piping in that trench that shows that
you’ll get some horizontal exfiltration out of that stone trench.
3. The existing Crabapple on the northeastern part of the parking area should that not be
saved, will be re-planted in a nearby location.
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/3/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. Good luck.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
MR. LORENZ-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WARREN TIRE PROPERTY OWNER:
SUNNYSIDE PROPERTIES AND T & R LLC AGENT: JAMES MILLER, MILLER
ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: LAFAYETTE STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 6 ADDITIONAL BAYS AND WAREHOUSE, NEW
PAVEMENT PARKING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-02A, BP
02-483, SB 4-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-58.21, 58.22 LOT
SIZE: 1.25 ACRES, 1.0 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JIM MILLER & JOHN PAINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-2003, Warren Tire, Meeting Date: June 3, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 27-2003
APPLICANT: Warren Tire is the applicant for this request
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct additional vehicle bays
and warehouse space.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of Lafayette Street.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a
Short Environmental Assessment Form with the application.
PARCEL HISTORY: The original Site Plan approval for Warren Tire at this location was SP 46-
2001, which was approved by the Planning Board on November 6, 2001.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes the construction of a 6 360 sq. ft. building to
be used as part of the existing Warren Tire on Lafayette Street. The site plan also indicates
additional parking, landscaping and stormwater management facilities to be constructed. The
applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan and report, which has been forwarded
to CT Male for their review and comment.
STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan includes building elevations, which indicate the proposed
building materials will match the existing building just to the south.
The applicant has indicated that the two lots that are a part of this site plan will be merged.
Staff recommends that proof that lots have been merged be provided prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The site plan contains a note indicating a potential future access connection to the property to
the north. Staff recommends that this access area be relocated slightly to the west to line up with
the proposed drive aisle to be built behind the new Warren Tire building.
The lighting plan provided shows lighting contours, which seem to indicate no light spill onto
adjacent properties. Cut sheets for the building mounted lights to be used should be provided
indicating that the wall-mounted fixtures are down-facing and meet Town Code.
Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. ”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-As mentioned by the Planning Board Chair, the applicant does propose to
construct a building addition, and the applicant has indicated that the two lots currently shown
will be merged. Staff recommends that proof of this merger be provided prior to the issuance of
a building permit. The plans also indicate an access area, a future access area, potential to the
property to the north, and just basic comment that that should possibly be relocated, just to the
west a little bit, to line up with the proposed drive aisle. The lighting plan shows lighting
contours. Our only comment on lighting would be that cut sheets for the building mounted
lighting be provided, and any C.T. Male comments should be addressed during this review. It
should be noted that today we received a signoff from C.T. Male concerning this project. That’s
all we have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. John Paine from Warren Tire, and Jim Miller, Landscape
Architect.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER-Remember about a year ago we were in. Rich Schermerhorn had subdivided the
old Moore’s property. A carpet store was in the front, and Warren Tire built a building on
about a one and a quarter acre property. It was an eight bay facility with an office and some
warehousing, and it’s working out well enough that they’ve gone back to Rich. They’re
purchasing the additional one acre lot, the third lot, for construction of a new building which is
going to be six additional bays in the front, and the whole back portion is going to be
warehousing. All of the function for office and customers will go through the main office, and
then the cars will be brought over for servicing. Bays will be accessed from both sides. There
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
will be a walkway and there’ll be a doorway in the front, as well as in the side, and if you can
see from the drawings that there’ll be some storefront type of an entry on the front to match
that, even though that’s the main office. The proposal is to utilize the existing driveway, just
widening it slightly so we could have two exiting lanes, give us a little bit more room there, and
there’d be no, just that one driveway would suffice for the whole facility. If you remember, we
showed a connection to the adjacent property before, and we’ve showed a potential connection
in this area that George referred to. I think his concern was that it should be a little further
back. We’re not putting that connection in, and if it was ever developed next door, it could go
anywhere along there. So we don’t have a problem with that. The site lighting continues right,
if you’ve looked, the building’s going to be almost identical, material and design wise, to the
existing building, they’ve got an extended roof and they actually have soffit lights right up in
the mansard around the building, with the exception of one on the side, and we would do, they
would have the same thing here. So the exterior light is a soffit light that’s there. I thought we
had submitted a cut sheet. I’ve got another one there to drop off, but those pretty typically are
located over the tops, centered on the doorways and across the front to wash the area around
the buildings and near the back doors. The only one additional pole light, there were 16 foot
high cut off lights installed with the first building. One additional light will be installed, just to
light sort of the customer area. Again, this is a business that’s not open late at night, but for
those twilight hours. The landscaping that was part of the other plan, we would continue
across the front, to provide some buffering. In this area we’re set back quite a bit more. So
we’ve got some additional street trees and flowering trees in these areas, and extended some
landscaping down the side to provide some buffering along the back. The storm drainage
system, we’ve tied the two systems together so that the detention basin to the rear that takes the
drainage from the rear parking lot and basically extend it across the back, and just increased,
and a new detention basin will be provided in this front lawn area that’ll take runoff from these
areas that will drain into the lawn area and then will tie into the municipal system. We meet all
setbacks, 40% green space. That’s pretty much it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to take a minute here, and I’ll be right with you, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. MILLER-We also had signoff from C.T. Male today on this one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we heard.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What are we going to do about getting C.T. Male’s letters to us sooner than
the night of a meeting?
MR. HILTON-When they get them to us sooner than 4:30 at the day of the meeting.
MR. MILLER-We got comments on Friday and yesterday. So what happens, it really puts us in
a bind to go through, we’ve got to re-do calculations a lot of times and today it was afternoon
we were faxing stuff down to C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you, Jim. It puts everybody in a bind. That’s one of the reasons
why we went.
MR. MILLER-We submitted this on April 15.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s one of the reasons why we changed our agenda format. It’s one of the
reasons why we changed deadline submission dates, to alleviate all this, and it worked for a
while, and it’s not working anymore. So we need to address it. Robert?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In terms of moving that future access to potential future driveway
connection, your position is that can be moved at any time. So you don’t care if it’s moved
slightly to the south or?
MR. MILLER-No. My understanding is basically by showing it on the plan we’re agreeing to
make that connection, and if something’s developed next door and it make sense to shift it one
way or the other, we don’t have a problem with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess Mike Shaw’s letter was addressed on the oil/water separators, I
would guess. Have you talked to him about that?
MR. MILLER-Yes. We also, C.T. Male had some comments on the oil/water separator, and it’s
been revised, and it’s been enlarged and improved.
MR. VOLLARO-So the results of discussion with C.T. Male, did that reflect changes to the plan?
Is that what we’re saying?
MR. MILLER-The only changes to the plan had to do with the stormwater detention basin in the
front portion of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Your plans are dated April 15, 2003. Is that an up to date?
MR. MILLER-No. They’re, again, these were revised based on C.T. Male, and it also says May
30.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the dates are now revised to 30 May?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And that revision is based on discussions with C.T. Male?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The rear parking lot, is any, you’re talking to do anything at all with
some lighting back there, or is that? Because right now it looks like the only lighting that that’s
getting on the lighting plan is there’s two wall packs back there, on the proposed building.
MR. MILLER-That’s correct. That’s all that will be there.
MR. VOLLARO-And I can see that, you know, the photometric diagrams that you show here
are showing about .5 foot candles at the outer perimeter of that. It’s not very much. If any cars
are parked back there for pick up of any kind, it’s pretty dark, especially in the winter time.
MR. MILLER-Well, that’s how it’s functioning now. I mean, you’re not open that late, are you?
MR. PAINE-No, we’re open until five thirty p.m., Monday through Friday, and then Saturday
until five. We’re closed on Sunday.
MR. MILLER-So if there’s pick ups at five thirty, where do they pick up, in the front?
MR. PAINE-Cars typically would be brought around front for pick up for that day. Cars that
would be left overnight would be parked out back.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s just for the next day’s work?
MR. PAINE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MILLER-That soffit lighting that we have on the existing building, we use quite a bit of
light at night, and it’s pretty bright.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s four of them on that building, I know of, and two on the proposed
building. If the parking lots have been functioning adequately that way for the existing
building, then I suppose that they’ll function properly for the new building the same way, so
long as there’s no pick ups back there, and that all the pick ups for today’s work is out front. I
guess that there’s no need to light that place up that much. Okay. I notice that C.T. Male did an
exceptionally in-depth review on this one.
MR. MILLER-They do on all of them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, on this one particularly. I mean, he really seemed to dig into this, and the
fact that you’ve got, because I read this pretty carefully, and he covered, he seemed to cover
every base on this one. I mean, it was a good two page review. When you got to the uniformity
ratio of the Town Code, that four to one ratio, how’d that work out?
MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t know. We didn’t calculate it because, you know, a site like this
we’re looking at minimum light levels. We’re just trying to light the area in the front for pick
ups and they close at 5:30. So lighting wasn’t a big issue. So we’re just looking to provide
minimum light. We didn’t do any calculations on that.
MR. VOLLARO-So he bought that, essentially?
MR. MILLER-Yes. He didn’t have any concern with that. His concern was that there was,
would be night operation, and we obviously don’t have enough light to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-So, if we were to condition this based on hours of operation being from some
time in the morning until some time at night, you would accept the condition that the hours of
operation would cease at 5:30?
MR. MILLER-I don’t know if we want to do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why do you want to go that route?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we want.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. PAINE-If the hours of operation were to extend beyond that time, then additional lighting
would be warranted and would be installed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just saying, the need for additional lighting is non-existent because
of hours of operation. They close at five o’clock.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So they don’t need to light up these parking lots or do any additional lighting
at all, and on that basis, that’s sort of dependent on their hours of operation. Isn’t it?
MR. RINGER-Yes, but you’ve got to also rely on the applicant that if he did continue on, he’s
going to protect his customers and his employees by lighting it.
MR. MILLER-Well, there’s enough light in the front, when all those lights are on, the lighting in
the front is adequate, between the soffit lights and the street lighting. If there was business
going on, it’s going to happen in the front. It’s not going to happen out around the back of the
building where it’s darker.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. PAINE-I will comment that with the new building codes that there’s a concern about the
efficiency of lighting and having too much. We actually decreased the amount of fixtures that
we had because they didn’t comply with, the existing building as it sits today would not
comply with the new building codes, so we had to cut the amount of lighting down to comply
with the Codes as they’re written now.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the proposed building.
MR. PAINE-Right. We like lighting just as much as you do.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was just looking at lighting in terms of a safety factor. That’s my only
condition. That’s okay. If you don’t operate that late, that’s fine.
MR. MILLER-Well, the lighting’s going to be almost exact what they’ve got there now, and it’s
operating fine.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess that’s it, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any other comments. If they got a
C.T. Male signoff on this letter, I’m pretty happy with it. I just want to make sure that we note
that the new drawing would be dated 30 May 2003, would incorporate those changes.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Now, on the stormwater, and I appreciate that the more on site infiltration’s
being used here, I appreciate that, then on our first project, and if you remember on the first
project, I was upset with the almost total use of the municipal system, and making very little
effort to utilize infiltration trenches, and well as a result of that, I don’t know if you’ve heard,
but Dave Wick and George and I have been, we’ve realized that it’s not unique to Warren Tire,
and it’s not their problem, but it’s a whole area problem, and so now we have Warren County
Soil and Water Conservation Department working on a comprehensive plan to try and take care
of this general stormwater situation, which is not healthy because it directly flows right into
Halfway Brook, untreated. So we’re going to map out all these storm drains and I don’t know if
Dave Wick had been in touch with Tom, but I told him that you might have some knowledge in
that area, and I guess the priority area is going to be over near Firestone right now, but the
second area we’re going to look at possibly doing something with is the general municipal
system here, because the Dunkin Donuts ties in with this system and everything else. So, but
that being said, I do appreciate the effort being made to do more on site stormwater drainage on
this site, and I thank you for that, but I still have a problem with how that Catch Basin Four is
working, and so, because it is a catch basin. So I didn’t know who might be able to run through
that real quick for me.
MR. MILLER-I can. The catch basins are gone. What happened, that was one of the comments
with C.T. Male is that we had a couple of catch basins in this area that tied in to a catch basin.
We had a restricter on the catch basin going out which would cause the water to pond in the
detention basin, but allowed it to drain out, so what we’ve done is we’ve eliminated those and
the water now goes by a stone swale into the detention basin, and we just have an outlet
structure at the end. So the water can go into the pond. We can do the water quality
management by not running directly where the stone infiltration trench is lower than the invert.
So we’re detaining more on site by eliminating the catch basins. That was one of C.T. Male’s
comments.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and that’s good.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-How about for the drainage coming from the northern side?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MILLER-Well, the same thing. What we have is a long flat infiltration trench. So as the
drainage comes into this area, it basically sits in that basin and then overflows to that catch
basin. This area here?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. MILLER-I’m sorry. We have a wing swale along there. So the drainage from a point about
here, it drains down, and then into that basin in the front, and then there’s a high point from
here. This goes around to the back.
MR. STROUGH-Does that also go through a stone trench?
MR. MILLER-Yes. It all does now.
MR. STROUGH-Before it gets to the municipal system.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-That’s good. That was my only concern about the whole project, and I think
that this is less than perfect, but far better than the previous proposal, and so I’m happier with
this, and I’m happy that Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District is working on
another plan to take care of this whole system, and so that’s all the questions I have. That’s it.
Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I’m going to steal Chris’ thunder for a second. Why the two buildings?
MR. PAINE-The plan here is our store on Aviation Road is a leased operation. The end of the
lease term is 12/31/03. We’re going to close that location, because we’re unable to buy it and
negotiate an agreeable rent. So we’re going to close that operation and bring that crew over to
Phase II of Lafayette Street.
MR. METIVIER-But why are you having two buildings on Lafayette Street?
MR. PAINE-Well, to tie them in, we looked at making it one consistent building, and we had set
back considerations that wouldn’t meet the Code. So we decided to just make it another
freestanding building.
MR. MILLER-One of the things, Tony, is that by having a separate building, it gave us better
access and circulation, but one of the concerns was about half of this was going to be
warehousing, with a loading door, that by doing it as a separate building, we can get all of that
function to the back, where if we expanded off of the existing bays, that warehousing would
end up, you know, being more visible. So it just worked out better to do it as two separate
buildings rather than a big addition.
MR. METIVIER-So then you’d keep the main building as your reception area, and then the back
building will just be service?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. PAINE-Correct.
MR. METIVIER-That’s fine. Besides that, I have no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, as Tony said, he stole my thunder because that was my question, you
know, why two buildings, why not just put an addition, you know, and go with it, but, no, the
building that’s there now, I think the site looks great, and I’m sure that the new, it’s really not
an addition, the new site will be just as good, and service just as well. Really about the only
other question I had is in terms of the public coming in to the building. Aren’t you afraid that
they’ll be confused as to where they would go? Will there be signs to direct customers to the
existing building?
MR. PAINE-We may have to address that with arrows on the pavement to direct them over to
the existing building, because Phase II will be strictly service and warehousing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, it might be obvious once you get there. It’s hard to visualize.
MR. MILLER-I think a lot of it, you know, with the building they’ve got now, with the
windows, it’s fairly obvious. You see the counter and things. You won’t have that on the other
one. So you might get some people wandering through the wrong door, but.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything further to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I really don’t have anything that hasn’t already been said. Just a question. I
assume the Zoning Administrator made a determination that the warehouse was the smaller
part of the operation and therefore allowable in a Highway Commercial zone.
MR. HILTON-I can only guess.
MR. RINGER-I mean, I don’t have a problem with it, but I know there was one site plan we had
a few years ago where a warehouse was involved, and there was quite a controversy over it.
MR. HILTON-Yes, and I’m not the Zoning Administrator, but to me it’s in support of a retail
operation.
MR. RINGER-We can assume that he has made the determination.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a storage area.
MR. RINGER-Okay. When I saw the word “warehouse”.
MR. MILLER-Yes. I’ll change that to storage.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. I’m sorry I brought it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to ask questions, Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment
on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 27-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
WARREN TIRE, 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 3 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough, you have a motion?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Do you want me to read the draft?
MR. MAC EWAN-There can’t be a whole heck of a lot of conditions to it, is there?
MR. STROUGH-No. Just three basic ones. Do you want me to just go ahead?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you just do them.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2003 WARREN TIRE, Introduced by John
Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 27-2003 Applicant: Warren Tire
SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Sunnyside Properties & T & R, LLC.
Agent: James Miller, Miller Associates
Zone: HC-Mod.
Location: Lafayette Street
Applicant proposes construction of 6 additional bays and warehouse, new pavement parking
and site development.
Cross Reference: SP 20-02A, BP 02-483, SB 4-02
Warren Co. Planning: 5/14/03
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.21, 58.22
Lot size: 1.25 acres, 1.0 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: June 3, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/30/03, and
6/3 Staff Notes
5/27 Notice of Public Hearing
5/30 C. T. Male engineering comments
5/14 Warren Co. Planning
5/7 Meeting Notice
5/6 Water Dept. comments
5/6 Wastewater Dept. comments
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 June 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park 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:
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
1. The applicant will submit site plans updated to May 30, 2003 showing that C. T. Male
and Town Wastewater Department concerns have been met.
2. Proof that the lots, as part of this site plan, will be merged.
3. The access area will be relocated slightly to the west to line up with the proposed drive
aisle to be built behind the new Warren Tire building.
4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning
Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows:
Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/3/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-That drive aisle, didn’t they say that that may have to be moved, depending
upon if somebody moved in next door?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, my understanding is that there is a proposed drive aisle.
MR. VOLLARO-There is. There is one on the drawing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, all it says it’s going to line it up wherever it is, and the applicant said they
would do it. That wouldn’t be a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine. That’s it. I’ll second Mr. Strough’s motion.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
MR. PAINE-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE
MICHAELS GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: FRANCIS PENO AGENT: VAN DUSEN &
STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE CORINTH RD., JUST EAST OF WEST
MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 24.71 +/- ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-2003, Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: June 3, 2003
“APPLICATION: Subdivision 05-2003 (Preliminary Stage)
APPLICANT: The Michaels Group
REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 24.71-acre property into 18 single-
family lots.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
LOCATION: South/East side of Corinth Rd. just to the north and east of the Corinth Rd. / West
Mtn. Rd. intersection.
EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre.
SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full
Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application.
PARCEL HISTORY: A search of Town records found no prior Planning Board or ZBA actions
at this location.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 24.71-acre property into 18
single-family lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 3.68 acres. The proposed lot sizes conform to
the area requirements of the SR-1A zone. The lots are all shown as fronting on a new cul-de-sac
off of Corinth Rd. tentatively named Quincy Lane. Site topography slopes to the east with two
areas of somewhat steeper slopes crossing the site near the center and eastern end of the
property. 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 and report which
proposes a series of dry wells along the new cul-de-sac in order to capture stormwater. The
stormwater management plan has been referred to CT Male for their review and comment.
STAFF COMMENTS: The 22 proposed lots are shown fronting on a cul-de-sac tentatively
named Quincy Lane. The cul-de-sac as measured from the applicant’s subdivision plat exceeds
the 1000 ft. limit for dead-end streets listed in § 183-23 I (4). The cul-de-sac also proposes a
boulevard entrance off of Corinth Rd. Any landscaping or plantings planned for this boulevard
island should be provided as a separate landscape plan.
Consideration should be given to providing an additional dead-end (stub) street that would
provide a future connection to the residential property directly to the south. Development of
the property to the south under the current zoning (SR-1A) would most likely be constructed
along another cul-de-sac unless otherwise connected to this property. In order to avoid a series
of dead end streets along this section of Corinth Rd., a stub street that would connect to the
property to the south would improve emergency services access between these two properties
at full build out.
Staff recommends that clearing limits that will provide adequate screening between this
subdivision and the properties to the east be shown on Lots 9 and 10 of the proposed
subdivision. Any limits of clearing on Lots 9 and 10 should also be deed restricted in order to
preserve these areas as effective buffers in the future.
Any comments from the Town Highway Superintendent as well as CT Male should be
addressed during the review of this application.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments.
MR. HILTON-The Staff comments, my first sentence there it says 22 proposed lots. It should be
18. The listing’s correct. It’s just a typo. The 18 proposed lots are shown fronting on a cul de
sac which exceeds the 1,000 foot limit for dead end streets listed in the Subdivision Regulations.
A boulevard entrance off of Corinth Road is proposed, and any landscaping or plantings
proposed should be included as part of a separate landscape plan. Consideration should be
given to providing an additional dead end stub to the property, vacant property, largely vacant
property I guess should say, property to the south, in order to provide interconnection once
future development occurs on the property to the south. This would kind of break up the
pattern of just dead end cul de sacs all up and down this south or east side of Corinth Road.
Staff recommends that clearing limits be provided, in order to provide adequate screening
between this subdivision and properties to the east. Those clearing limits would be located on
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
lots nine and ten and should be added as deed restrictions in order to preserve these areas. Any
comments from the Highway Superintendent, C.T. Male or any other Department, Town
Department, should be addressed during the review of this application. That’s all we have at
this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace representing the Michaels Group. This is the one
that we didn’t get signoff from C.T. Male yet because it was the last one on the list, and after
receiving things Monday and trying to respond to everything, I did get a response out to C.T.
Male, but that was late today. That was 4:30 this afternoon. I can go through their letter and tell
you how we’re responding to each of the items, if you like. I’ll try to do it real quick. Their first
issue was on the utility plan. They wanted to know whether the road crossing of Corinth was
going to be open cut. It will not. I talked to Warren County DPW, and it will have to be a bore
under the road. I’ve noted that on the plans. Second item, the access to Lot Four Jim Houston
was afraid might be a little difficult. That lot, Number Four, is located right here. There are two
ridges that go through, or terraces, I guess if you were, that go through the site, one across here,
and one way at the back of the property. This terrace drops about 14 feet. For that purpose, I
have located the house on this well back, up on the top of the terrace. I looked at it, and from
the road grade out in front here, up to a basement level garage on the house, I can easily get a
driveway in that’s about five percent, which is certainly acceptable for driveways. Several
places in Town you have driveways that are up at eight and ten percent. So five percent is
certainly acceptable to get a driveway in there, but rather than detail it on the plans, it’ll depend
on the type of house that somebody plans and builds. That’s really an issue for the Building
Department of that particular house. Number Three, he was concerned about the low spot, and
it’s really not a low spot, as it is kind of a flat area in here that’s a little lower. This land drops
down across this ridge, or across this plateau, and down in here it actually goes down two feet,
before it comes back up and flattens off, gradually goes over to this drop off. He was concerned
about the drainage during the winter in here, when the ground is frozen. We’ve purposely kept
the road in this location, down a couple of feet below the adjoining land, so that all these lots
will drain down to the road, and in the road we have drywells that’ll be well down below frost.
So that they will work throughout the winter. He had an issue, on Number Four, which is
really one that we need to work with the Highway Department on. He’s suggesting the use of
catch basins in front of the drywells to collect the sediment so they’re more easily cleaned out
than the drywells. He and I discussed that yesterday, and he’s trying to set up a meeting with
Rick Missita. In essence, we’ll agree to do whatever is agreed upon by the Highway
Superintendent, whether he wants a catch basin ahead or not, or just the single drywells the
way we’ve been using them now, but we’ll work that out, before Final, we’ll work that out with
the Highway Superintendent. On Number Five, he felt that the lots around the cul de sac were
clustered and tight, because of this drop off in the land. In fact, they really aren’t. If you look
here, the houses on these lots I’ve located almost 70 feet behind the property line. I think this
one’s a little more than 70 feet. So there is plenty of room on these lots for development. The
lots are much bigger than the others. They’re, I think, two and a half acres or so, but it’s really
not clustered the way he seems to envision it. He had a suggested change on one of the notes,
his Item Number Six, for the erosion and sediment control notes. We have made that change.
On the stormwater management, there’s a new design guideline that New York State has out
that talks about infiltration devices and suggests that only the floor area of the infiltration
device should be used, not the sidewall areas. I really don’t think the way the design manual’s
written, that it applies to this type of drywell that we’ve been using here in Queensbury. What
we do is excavate the drywell pit, as a cone, and use that whole cone surface, line that cone
surface with filter fabric and fill that whole cone around the drywell with gravel, so that you’ve
got an inclined surface all the way around the edge of this cone, and that’s really the best
infiltrative surface. We deduct the actual bottom of the drywell, because we figure out that over
time, maybe 10, 20 years, that sediment is going to fill in that bottom of the drywell, and the
sides really are what remain effective. So I’ve talked to Jim about that and he does agree with
me. He was just pointing out that the design guidelines differ.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. STROUGH-Tom, didn’t you, in the stormwater report, say that you didn’t consider the
bottom because you used that as a safety factor?
MR. NACE-Well, it adds an additional safety factor, because even with sands off the road,
you’re never going to totally plug up that bottom infiltration area. You’re going to plug up
some of the stone, but you’ll still get water going through it, but we do, in our calculations, we
do ignore it. We discount it. So, yes. He questioned the Karner blue butterfly. As you may
recall from the concept review meeting, we do have a signoff from Kathy O’Brien on the Karner
blue, as not being germane to this property.
MR. STROUGH-Did we get a copy of that?
MR. NACE-I believe you’ve had a copy of it, but I’ve got responses here to C.T. Male. I’ve got
extra copies if you want. It does have that letter attached to it. He said the cul de sac length far
exceeds the Code requirement. I think that’s an issue that we discussed at length during the
concept review, the cul de sac and the boulevard entry, etc., and I think that what we have
shown conforms with our discussions and are the results of the concept meeting. He asked for
driveway stopping sight distances. We will show those on the final plans. I’ll have survey
actually measured them. I’ve paced them off. I think they’re adequate, but we’ll verify that,
and I have shown the driveway radii. I think that pretty well does it. Again, I’ve said I’ve got
copies of my response. I know it’s last minute, and I don’t expect a complete review of it
tonight obviously, but there are copies if you would like to.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, John, I’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, Tom, let’s start with addressing what the Staff concerns are.
MR. NACE-Okay. Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay?
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-Staff comments. Do you want to speak to the cul de sac and the length of the
cul de sac?
MR. NACE-I think that’s something we’ve been through upside and down.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me interject, here. I don’t think it needs a lot of response to it, because
that was part of what we discussed when we had the Sketch Plan, and that was a given that we
would, considering that was longer than what was allowed by Code, given the fact that we
asked for the boulevard entrance to alleviate any potential for, you know, emergency services,
that’s why we went that route. So I don’t even really think that we really need to comment on it
anymore.
MR. STROUGH-That’s fine. It’s not a strong concern of mine, either. How about the
landscaping plan for the boulevard comment.
MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. Staff’s comments were on Lots Nine and Ten, that they wanted some
clearing limits, and we could certain provide those. Those are deep lots, but we could certainly
provide some clearing limits down here toward the base of the plateau or of the terrace. Did
Staff have anything particular in mind there?
MR. HILTON-No, and that’s why I left it open ended. I mean, whatever, based on public
comment, whatever seems acceptable to the Board to provide a visual buffer. Just a comment
that some type of buffer should be considered.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. NACE-I mean, those lots are pretty deep. Even if we came up to the base here, and drew a
line across and said no clearing, that would give a buffer of 170, 180 feet across there, and I
don’t think that would be a problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-We had talked about that at Sketch as well.
MR. NACE-I missed that, then, I apologize, but, yes, we can certainly add a buffer. I don’t
know what, 150 feet, 180, whatever.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the depth you’re talking, 125, 175?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-180.
MR. NACE-Yes, 180 to that property line. Say if we went 150, it would still give somebody the
opportunity to come down here and put a garden in, down at the base here if they wanted to.
150 certainly should provide an adequate buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a reason why we’re going so deep?
MR. NACE-With the buffer?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, my notes, and I don’t want to get into, I’ll get into my own review, but I
talked about the 20 to 25 foot no cut zone in the back.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t know as I’d want to restrict, the people are going to be paying
considerable dollars for that lot, and all of a sudden they’ve got restricted use and a no cut zone
that’s 100 foot deep. It doesn’t sound right to me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree.
MR. NACE-You’re right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m sure we can come up with a number.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. How about a landscape plan for the median, in the boulevard entrance?
MR. NACE-Hadn’t thought about a landscape plan because of the fact we’re not over 20 lots,
but between now and Final we can certainly come up with a landscape plan for the median, and
I would, you know, the median is, I believe, the median’s about 150 feet long. I would
anticipate probably three or four street trees in there, and then some perennial beds.
MR. MAC EWAN-They do something, if you could get them to do something very similar to
Hudson Pointe Boulevard.
MR. NACE-It would be exactly.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. NACE-It’s shorter. So we may end up with a few more, you know, a closer spacing on the
street trees to make it look right, but, yes, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, I just want to interject something here. I think we’ve had some
discussions, or at least Mr. Missita has had some comments, on our boulevard requirements,
particularly where we have planters in the center section, and he’s opposed that in the past, and
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
I just have a note here that I think we ought to discuss that. Comments from Highway in the
past have made comments about boulevard entrances. Is that right?
MR. HILTON-Well, they’ve certainly made the comment that they don’t, you know, to me,
anyway, that they don’t really, in general, like these things. I guess my comment would be that
if this goes to Final, the Highway Department’s got to signoff on it anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-They talk about plowing.
MR. MAC EWAN-This whole purpose for doing these boulevards, for most cases that we’ve
dealt with them in the past, is for emergency access, dealing with a cul de sac. I’m sure if that
information is given to the Highway Department, they’ll understand our reasoning why we do
things the way we do.
MR. HILTON-And I’m sure we’ll be communicating to them and the applicant will present it to
the Highway Department for signature.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. STROUGH-And they are aesthetically pleasing as well.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Very, very aesthetically pleasing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s right. They are. I’m just bringing up the point that Missita has
raised objections to boulevard entrances in the past, just recently.
MR. STROUGH-How about, who would maintain that landscaping? I mean, would it be like a
homeowners association or?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who maintains the Hudson Pointe?
MR. NACE-Well, that’s a Homeowners Association. There’s already a Homeowners
Association set up there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that was part of the offering there.
MR. NACE-We’ll work that out before we come back. I think that now that the Homeowners
Association set up has become a fairly simple affair, they might be able to do that here, just for
the landscaping only, but I better verify that with John Michaels before I open my mouth much
further.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and how about the Staff comment, Tom, consideration should be given
to providing additional dead end stub street that would provide a future connection to the
residential property directly to the south?
MR. NACE-Yes. I looked at that, and a couple of things occur. First of all, there’s really no
good location to do that. This plateau or terrace in here runs diagonally through here and starts
to cut this adjacent lot off, and I don’t know how much of this lot would be developed. The
other thing that occurs, if you look at your tax map here, that lot is considerably narrower. This
is that adjacent property. This property is part of the original NiMo land with Hudson Pointe.
So it’s really just this lot that you would be accessing, and it’s considerably narrower. Right
here we’re at about the optimum width to be able to put a road in, a single road, and have lots
on both sides. If you were to bring a road out through here, first of all, you’ve got that ridge
that runs about through here, cutting off a good bit of the back portion. You’ve got two
separate lots up front that restrict the front, and you really don’t, even up here, you don’t quite
have enough width to get a road in and lots on either side. So I doubt very much, from a
development standpoint, that this parcel would be developed in such a way that a road would
come back through here and connect. It’s very, not cost effective to have a road that you can
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
only have lots on one side of. So if we have a better idea of exactly where and the fact that it
might really be used, we’d work to try to fit one in, but with what we’ve got
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’d almost have to destroy that lot to do it, though, Tom.
MR. NACE-We would. We’d have a very difficult time fitting 50 feet in here because these are
all, as you can see, just about exactly one acre. So it would be really difficult to fit in, and if we
did, I doubt very much that it would ever be utilized.
MR. HILTON-Yes. The only comment I would, a couple of comments, I guess. It seems to me
that you could shift some of the widths around. Those two lots on the east end of the cul de sac
more than exceed the width requirements for the SR-1A zone, Lots 9 and 10, I believe.
MR. NACE-Okay, but again, the developable area in those lots is one of the considerations.
MR. HILTON-Yes, that may be a constraint. With the property to the south, clustering is an
option. There could be potential, you know, lot sizes could go below the normal SR-1A
requirements as part of a cluster. So the development potential of that lot still exists, and could
be greater than has been explained. Again, our comment is to, in terms of access management,
providing connections for emergency services to consider connecting, or providing a future
connection to that vacant property to the south.
MR. NACE-That’s something that’s, I agree with you, okay, and planning for future
development is certainly good, but it doesn’t always work out. In fact, right here, and this is
one I designed, too, we have a connection point that ended up, even though we had a big piece
behind it that was, you know, had a lot of usable land in it, it didn’t end up to be practical to use
that. So, I can see both sides of the road. Here I think it’s a difficult and somewhat
questionable, as to whether it would ever be utilized.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’m just kind of thinking out loud here. I’m surprised, as you pointed out,
Tom, that, what would it be the southern lot, that lot, I don’t know what orientation that.
MR. NACE-This? Ten.
MR. STROUGH-To the south of that?
MR. NACE-Okay. The big parcel here?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. That seems to have some inherent limitations to the development of the
lot, but both lots together seem to open up all kinds of opportunities. I’m sure the Michaels
Group looked into buying that, or no?
MR. NACE-Yes. There’s a farm there now. I’m not sure who the owner is, but I’m sure that
Dave, you know, looked at adjacent properties as well.
MR. STROUGH-I’m just kind of thinking out loud there. Okay. Well, that’s it for me. Thank
you.
MR. METIVIER-I’d just be interested to hear what the, obviously there’s going to be some
public comment on this. So I’ll wait until we hear that before I’ll make any comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had questions on the length of the road. I wasn’t here for the
information site plan review, but I just, in my own mind I don’t know how we could possibly
consider and approve a subdivision plan that has a dead end street that’s longer than 1,000 feet.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. NACE-You mean how legally or, I mean, that’s one of your subdivision conditions, that’s a
waivable condition by the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay, and we’ve, I think, over the years, we’ve beat this horse pretty badly, but
that’s one of those things that you look at, and I think the safety has been what you’ve been
debating most of the time, but yet there are a lot of roads throughout the Town and the County
that are miles long dead end roads where there really haven’t, I mean, if there were going to be
fire safety rescue, you know, problems, you would certainly have seen some, you know, at
some length, because there are a lot of dead end roads throughout our area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was that answered satisfactorily to you?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll give it some more thought.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, my comment to you earlier, when we did this at Sketch Plan, that
was one of the considerations we had, because of the length of the cul de sac is how to alleviate
any potential impacts for emergency services, and that’s why we went with the boulevard, to
try to quell that. Larry?
MR. RINGER-I wasn’t here for Sketch, either, and so that surprised me. I didn’t understand
that. We can do that? We can waive that in, that’s a waivable?
MR. HILTON-Yes, it’s part of the Subdivision Regulations, which the Planning Board is
empowered to waive and apply as they see fit.
MR. RINGER-I don’t see where the boulevard helps one way or the other on that, but I wasn’t
here for Sketch, and I don’t necessarily like the idea, but I don’t have any other questions on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think I’d like to hear some of the public comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. On that slope on Lots 9 and 10, I did, the calculation that I did, I came up
with about 33%. You’ve got a note on that drawing that it’s 25% or more. Is there any grading
that can be done? That’s a pretty steep slope. Is there any grading that can be done there, or is
that just out of the question?
MR. NACE-About 25% is the grading for what purposes?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, to smooth it out somewhat, because it’s pretty steep.
MR. NACE-Well, one of the things, one of the reasons we’ve configured it the way we have is so
that there’s room above that terrace or above that slope.
MR. VOLLARO-To put the house.
MR. NACE-To do most of your development.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. NACE-A 25% slope is a four on one. It’s not unusual for your lawn to have terraces that
are three on one or even two on one for ten or fifteen feet of drop, and it’s, you know, 25% is not
that great of a slope.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m dealing with that now, at my own place, that kind of a problem. Anyway.
That’s beside the point. Talking about the no cut zone in the rear of that. Now, with that kind
of a drop off there, I don’t even know how usable for anything else that, now that I look at it, a
25 foot cut zone back there doesn’t mean anything really because most of that Lot 9 and 10 to
the east of that slope is pretty much unusable, it seems to me, unless somebody wants to go
down and plant in there or do whatever, make a garden in there or whatever, I guess.
MR. NACE-There is a Jeep trail or an old road that goes down through that, that actually cuts
down through that terrace, and it’s not bad. It would be usable, if you improved it, it would be
usable for a driveway, if you really wanted to build back there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you wanted to build back there, I think you’d have to grade out that
slope. I mean, I don’t think that would work. Anyway, I took a look at your road profile, Tom,
and I looked at your stormwater plan, and I see where drywells five, six, seven and eight can
handle the load there. Because it’s quite a dip in the road. You’ve got them in the right place.
My concern is really the maintenance of those, whether or not they’d be properly maintained.
We’ve got, and the subdivision I think that you designed is one that I live in, and it’s over at The
Glen.
MR. NACE-Okay, that was one of the early ones, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That was one of the early ones. Now there are street drains in there, and it’s a
cul de sac road, similar to what this is. Last week, the Water Department came in to flush the
hydrants, and none of those drywells would take it. The water, we had a lake, and as a result,
we had a washed out driveway in the subdivision.
MR. NACE-That one, during construction we ran into a seam that was carrying water that
hadn’t been picked up in any of the test pits over to the north of your house.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-There’s a seam of material down through there that perches the water and then
there’s a course seam above it that the water runs in, that we didn’t discover until they opened
up the road, and at that time, we made some revisions to try to accommodate it, but it was a
totally unanticipated and relatively difficult condition.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just concerned that Highway’s got to pay particular attention to these
drywells, particularly the one that’s in the bottom of that dip.
MR. NACE-In the sag, yes. That’s why, in those sags, we’ve put an extra set of drywells and all
the infiltration trench in between them, the same thing we did at Hudson Pointe. Hudson
Pointe we had those same soils because we’re right behind Hudson Pointe here, and we had the
same conditions where there were some sags in the road that we couldn’t drain off to anywhere
else, that they had to drain to themselves, and as far as I know, they’ve been working fine.
MR. VOLLARO-So long as they’re maintained, they’ll probably work. I have a problem, I
guess, with, and I know that Highway has got a load to make sure that all of these things are
properly handled, but sometimes they’re not. In that particular instance, if they’re not, people
will be driving in a lake. On the boulevard entrance, I guess one of the problems Highway’s
had with that is snow plow removal. They don’t know where to, a lot of times the plow puts
the, they dump right in the middle of that little island in a boulevard entrance. I think that’s
what Missita’s concern was. I think the Chairman put it adequately, though, we’ll have to tell
them why we do that for the purposes of safety and ingress and egress. So I think that’s
something that has to be discussed with Highway as to what their objections are to these
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
boulevard entrances, and maybe that ought to be something that we talk to them about or Staff
talks to them about.
MR. MAC EWAN-I can respond to them in the form of a memo, if it’s that big of an issue to
them.
MR. VOLLARO-And the stub road through Lot 11, which is probably the only lot that you
could put a stub road in, looking at the property below it, and the configuration of that, if that
were to be developed, it doesn’t seem to me that a stub road would serve a good purpose there.
So I would vote in favor of not putting a stub road in and not destroying Lot 11, because that’s
about the only lot that you could put the stub into. It seems to me, and with that, Mr.
Chairman, I’m finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff comments? Anything to add, Tom?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN KESSLER
MR. KESSLER-Good evening, Planning Board, I’m John Kessler, and I’m on the Board of
Directors of the Hudson Pointe Association, and several homeowners have accompanied me
down tonight, and our concerns are with Lot 9 and 10 and the buffer area. The last time I was
here I heard that that was all virgin forest back there, which it is. I have some pictures that I’d
like you to just take a look at, and then show you on the map the open space. What I’d like to
show you is the open space. This is all open space, Hudson Pointe, and this is all open space,
inspirational point. Now you’re building this whole new development, and we were talking,
last time I was here, 25 feet, 35 feet, but this is all virgin woods, and I believe that Queensbury
should have more open space, but besides that, from a selfish point of view, it adds such beauty
to the area that I would not like to see these tiny buffers. Now, the next thing, let’s say that we
went with 25 feet, that’s fine, because we all said that they probably would not develop down
there, and somebody would buy it, but somebody could possibly take that lot, put four tennis
courts, and a big swimming pool, plus cut down the whole beautiful woods. Who’s to stop
them, they own it. Now that’s a new concern that I had thought about in the last month, but
besides that, though, we would like to see the virgin woods remain, quite a bit of it, whatever
we would all agree on, and that’s our main concerns, otherwise. I thank you for allowing me to
speak.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
RAY ROSE
MR. ROSE-My name is Ray Rose. I’m a new resident up to Queensbury. I just moved there last
year, and I’ll just vouch for what John said. That whole area up there, per what Mr. (lost words)
said. It’s more than just 15 or 20 feet when you’re buying three and a half acres of land. An
acre is, what, 400 and some odd feet by 400 and some odd feet. If they’re buying three and
some odd acres, I don’t think 150 feet of virgin forest is much for these people to give up from
the no cut zone.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we may be able to reconfigure that lot. I’ll have to talk to Mr. Nace about
that after, but go ahead.
MR. ROSE-Based on what you were saying before, if it was a smaller lot, then, yes, I would
agree on a smaller no cut zone, but when you’re owning three and a half acres, if I owned three
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
and a half acres, I’d like to see some trees on the property, especially the back part of the
property. So if you want to build a swimming pool or a golf course or whatever you want to do
on the rest of the front of the property, that’s fine. We can’t restrict that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think the applicant’s offered 150 foot of no cut zone back there.
MR. ROSE-Yes, but then the point was brought that the original measurement was 15 feet.
MR. STROUGH-But you would be comfortable with?
MR. ROSE-I would be comfortable, and I think the rest of the residents would be comfortable,
with 150 to 180 feet, on a three and a half acre lot. Again, if it was 50 by 100 lot, naturally you
would press that in but on three and a half acres, I don’t think whoever buys that, for the
money they’re going to spend, and would not want to see some trees in the back part of that
acreage, especially when it’s virgin forest.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll take that up with the applicant and we’ll try to work out something
with him on that.
MR. ROSE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. Anyone else?
HARRY TEGLER
MR. TEGLER-My name’s Harry Tegler, and I live over in Hudson Pointe and my property is
adjacent to some of the forever wild land there, and I went through this. I lived in Clifton Park
for years, and everybody wants to be the last one in, and I understand what goes on. On those,
the lots of concern I believe they’re 9 and 10, you can put in a no cut zone for 100 foot or 150
foot, or whatever, and who’s going to enforce it? Nobody’s going to enforce it. Let’s not kid
ourselves. It’s not going to happen. All right. What I would propose is, if in fact this goes
through, that a certain footage of that back property, whether it’s 50 foot, 100 foot, or whatever
the Board decides on, be donated to Queensbury, and then in that way there the control is out of
the homeowners and it’ll be a forever wild area in Queensbury. That’s really all I have to
suggest on. Any comments from the Board on it?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s something to ponder. I mean, typically, as a quick response, when a
developer proposes to give land to the Town in one form or another of recreation, it has to be a
viable piece of property that the Town would have a benefit to having as far as, either for
passive recreation, not just necessarily for the preservation of open space, not to cut down any
trees or wood lots. So in this case, because it would be a recommendation, correct me if I’m
wrong, to the Rec Commission, to gain the property for open space, I would think that it would
be a hard sell to get that Board.
MR. TEGLER-Well, I don’t know how hard a sell it would be, because there’s open space
behind Kettle’s Way now and Inspiration Point. That’s all I’m saying is taking a back portion of
those two lots and adjoin it to the rest of the open space area there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, another route might be to tie it in somehow, if they make a homeowners
association, for example, to take care of it.
MR. TEGLER-Absolutely, great, fine. That’s the way ours is there. We pay taxes on it and all of
the open spaces in the Hudson Pointe area, the community area. That’s taxed. We actually pay
taxes on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-I believe that’s the same with Inspiration Park as well. That’s a homeowners
association.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but this hasn’t been proposed as a homeowners association.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right. The point I’m trying to make is that in both those cases, with the
parcels of land that he’s referring to are not owned by the Town of Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-True.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re owned by a Homeowners Association.
MR. TEGLER-It wouldn’t be preposterous to propose that the Hudson Pointe Association
would purchase 100 foot of that land or something, and then that would be on the tax rolls
again. There’s possibilities all around. I just, if you’re going to put a covenant on it that says
you can’t cut it for 100 feet or 50 feet, it’s a joke, because nobody’s going to enforce it, and we all
know that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, can I make a comment on that? When somebody builds a house on
a wooded piece of land, a developer comes in and he clears the land, you know, so many trees
for that house to go, and believe me, I’ve built enough houses in this Town that, they don’t like
to clear more trees than they need because it’s very expensive. So my point, the point that I’m
making is is that first of all, you know, you say are they going to come in, you know, is it going
to be enforced. Well, the thing is, for a person to buy that lot and then to cut right to the
boundary is going to be, and have all that wood cleared out of there, that’s going to be very
expensive.
MR. TEGLER-Again, I understand what you’re saying, but it’s his, it would be the person’s lot.
He can do as he damn pleases, if he wants to spend the money.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not if there’s, I think if there’s a restriction on it, we’ve put these buffer
restrictions on many, many subdivision lots in my tenure on this Board and for all I know right
now, I don’t think they’ve been encroached, as far as the covenants being broken if that
restriction’s been on there, but I understand where you’re coming from. My question is, the
people that live in, that would purchase homes in here, where would they get access to this
open space land without through somebody else’s yard?
MR. TEGLER-They can’t. They can’t. That area at Hudson Pointe, that’s community property
restricted to us, that’s one of the reasons I have one of those lots on there. There’s nobody that
can get behind me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But in other words, when you go, when you want to, does anybody ever
go on that open space land?
MR. TEGLER-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But when you go on it, who’s piece of property do you cut through to get
to it?
MR. TEGLER-Everybody cuts through it, basically their own they walk on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what about people on the other side of the street, they just don’t go
over there?
MR. TEGLER-They don’t use it that much, actually, but anybody that lives on that section,
either on Inspiration Point or Hudson Pointe side, all of the people in that area use, there’s a
trail actually in there that people use.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But if I went jogging down Hudson Pointe boulevard.
MR. TEGLER-Unless you knew somebody, you probably couldn’t get in there.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. In other words, I’ve gone jogging down Hudson Pointe, and
I say I’d like to cut back through. I say, darn it, I’ve got to go through somebody’s yard.
MR. TEGLER-That’s right.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So I would never do that yet there’s property behind there that’s
supposed to be usable for the rest of us.
MR. TEGLER-No. That property is community property there, and we’re paying taxes on that
property.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So it’s just Hudson Pointe people that should have access to that
property.
MR. TEGLER-Yes, yes, it’s restricted to Hudson Pointe.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right, but then what about the Inspiration Point property that
all borders around those lots? Is that common ground just for their Association?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct.
MR. TEGLER-Yes, but we’re always constantly back and forth.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s what confused me. So everybody’s friendly about it. You can
walk your dogs in there.
MR. TEGLER-Everybody uses it within those areas, absolutely. Kids are out there playing and
everything, walking dogs and everything else. My point is if we can get it restricted to forever
wild area or if we could incorporate it into Hudson Pointe by purchasing some of that property
and then we could be assured that it’s going to stay there, forever wild.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I have a suggestion. You could go back to Mr. Michaels and say,
why don’t we just show on that map that the lot has a boundary in the back and then Mr.
Michaels just keeps that other land.
MR. TEGLER-You know what will happen. He won’t pay the taxes, the taxes will lapse on it,
that way. He could always donate it to the Hudson Pointe Association, too.
MR. HILTON-And that’s not something this Board can waive. You’re looking at variances for
that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I wouldn’t call it a lot. I would just call it.
MS. RADNER-Well, but it would be, by definition. It would be a parcel of property.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got some options we can explore here. We’ll discuss it with the
applicant and see what we can do.
MR. TEGLER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll come up with something. Thank you. Anyone else?
MARGARET MARTIN
MRS. MARTIN-Hi. My name’s Margaret Martin. I’m actually a resident of Bedford Close, and
we’re indirectly affected by this. I just wanted to understand the orientation of the entrance to
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
the neighborhood. It seems to take a slight right turn as it approaches Corinth Road, but I’m
not exactly sure where that falls.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you can see the area on the screen that’s highlighted in red, right by where
his cursor is is where that proposed entrance to the development would be.
MRS. MARTIN-Okay, because right now there are two vacant lots across the street from that.
My concern is that, whether homes are built there or not, I wondered about the headlights
coming out of the street coming into our home, and then I also wondered, just from a safety
standpoint, that seems to be a blind corner. If cars are traveling from the southwest on Corinth
Road and traveling east, being that we live so close to that intersection, we hear cars traveling at
a high rate of speed, day and night, and I’m wondering if that is going to be a blind corner, and
when they come around that corner, they’re going to come up to the cars coming out of the new
development. If that makes sense, and lastly I wanted to know what the buffer would be
between Corinth Road and the first lot. That’s it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those questions answered for you. Anyone else? I’ll leave
the public hearing open.
MR. HILTON-It’s a letter dated June 2. It says, “To Whom It May Concern: I have received
nd
notice of the public hearing for June 3 regarding the subdivision. I will be out of the area for
this date and send my comments by FAX. Will this subdivision be designed to be inclusive of
our community or isolated from our community? A single dead-end entrance isolates a
development and serves autos only and does not encourage foot traffic or bicycles. Will this
development connect to any existing roads besides Corinth Road? (The Michaels development
at Hudson Pointe was provided right-of-way to Foothills Road and to Goldfinch Road, but
neither was connected.) Are any special traffic adjustments for Corinth Road to be installed?
The Hudson Point development needs a turning lane for west-bound traffic turning into this
area. Is a turning lane to be added for this proposed development? Has Greater Glens Falls
Transit been approached to modify the bus routes serving this area? The current service comes
west on Corinth and turns onto VanDusen. Given the dramatic increase in homes, why doesn’t
the route continue on Corinth Road to West Mountain, turning down Pitcher Road to Van
Dusen. Sincerely, Steve Bederian 708 Corinth Rd., Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s all we
have.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Could you address the last
comments, questions.
MR. NACE-Sure. Let’s see. Buffer to Corinth Road is just a normal building set back, front
building setback. There is no particular buffer. The headlight issue would be no different than
any other road intersection. As you can see on the map, there are already lots that are on
Corinth Road opposite the driveways or the Inspiration Park roads. Those are, existing lots in
Bedford Close are undeveloped. So anybody that came in after this was constructed would
have at least the opportunity to leave a buffer of trees in back of their house to provide that
headlight buffer.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think that, see the way the lot is outlined, with the dotted, like those two
lots, and now see that other, all right, is that the lot, or is the other part, the 10 feet that you have
for the right of way to the road, that the Town owns?
MR. NACE-This is the actual lot. That’s the actual road right of way on the edge of the lot. This
is the building setback.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the building set back.
MR. NACE-Right.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then the people could, in essence, keep the trees there so they wouldn’t
get, they’d have a little blockage.
MR. NACE-Well, on the opposite side of the road, these lots back up to Corinth Road. They
aren’t accessed off Corinth Road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. NACE-So any house on here would be facing, I’ve forgotten what the name of the road
there is in Bedford Close.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Founders Way.
MR. NACE-But those lots are fairly deep. Somebody would have the opportunity to keep a
buffer of trees behind their house to protect them from the headlights.
MR. VOLLARO-While you’re up there, do you want to address the sight distance problem.
MR. NACE-Sight distance. As I said before, I paced it off. I believe it’s adequate. We will have
the surveyors actually measure it and then have those distances on the drawing. Okay, and I’ll
run those by C.T. Male to get their signoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-The concept of doing something with those back two lots.
MR. NACE-Okay. I spoke, before I really thought, when I said, well, let’s make it 180 feet. That
is a lot of land to give up, when there could be some usable area down here if somebody really
wanted to get down this slope and put a house back in here. As far as a no cut zone, I would
certainly think that 50 feet would be reasonable to the owner of these lots, and still provide a
relatively decent buffer to the lots in Hudson Pointe. So, I guess I would propose that we do a
50 foot no cut zone that we could provide back here. As far as putting that in a Homeowners
Association, even if we had a Homeowners Association to take care of the boulevard median, if
we put this in the Homeowners Association, then we really ought to make that usable to other
homeowners in the association, and it would be kind of impractical to do that because there’s,
you’d have to come back through one of these two lots to get to it. It’s just not accessible, and
it’s not big enough to be really usable.
MR. MAC EWAN-How did you do that in Hudson Pointe?
MR. NACE-In Hudson Pointe we had a great deal of Homeowners Association land.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’re talking that triangular piece, that long knife blade type piece up
there, behind seven or eight lots.
MR. NACE-Here. Yes, but that was just, I mean, if you look at the whole of Hudson Pointe,
okay, there was a lot of Homeowners land. Some of it was intended for nothing more than a
buffer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-And that’s what we’re doing here, I suppose. Maybe you’ve got a point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why can’t you do it?
MR. NACE-Yes, it could be just as a buffer that nobody really.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s something to explore. I mean, our provisions in our Ordinances
say not to create, you know, isolated lots, but given the fact of what the purpose of this lot
would be for.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. RINGER-It’s such a small amount, though, I’m thinking, you know, that just a buffer. I
was thinking 50 feet like you, Tom, and maybe now after hearing public comment, I’m thinking
more maybe 75 feet, but buffers seem to work wherever we’ve put them, and we’re not talking
a great deal of land. So I would say a 75 foot buffer, instead of getting all tied up with a
Homeowners Association and all that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m not necessarily suggesting a Homeowners Association either. I’m
looking at several different possibilities here we could explore.
MR. RINGER-Well, let’s look at the simplest one has a 75 foot no cut zone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, that may be the simplest answer, but it may not be the best
answer, either.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but it seems to work in most cases that we use, and we’re not talking a great
deal of land.
MR. VOLLARO-One of the things that was brought up, I think, by the residents that are here
from Hudson Pointe is that they would be willing at least to explore in their own Homeowners
Association whether or not they want to actually purchase this, and then maybe John Michaels
would like to, that might be something that.
MR. NACE-I’ll certainly ask that question.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it seems to me that that would be their greatest insurance. If they’re
looking to, you know, somebody once said, if you like it that much, buy it, well, they’ve put
their foot forward here, in an exploratory manner to talk to that.
MR. RINGER-That would be an easy solution, too. We’re here tonight, but we can’t speak, but
we can offer it out . Tom knows what the comments were, and he’s not going to get approval
tonight. So he could come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to look at the legal aspect of doing that, too, and I’d ask Counsel to
look into that for us.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me. He cannot represent Hudson Pointe, just one homeowner.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not. We’re not.
MR. RINGER-We’re not.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just saying that it was put forth as a possible solution. That’s all I’m
saying. I know that it, you can’t encumber the Homeowners Association to buy anything,
without the Board approving it. I used to be in a Homeowners Association, and I left for that
reason.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I suggest we table this, let Tom go back and talk with John.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to table it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but I mean, and go back and talk with Michaels and they come back
with a solution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro is drafting up a motion as we speak.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
MR. NACE-If all of the other preliminary questions have been addressed, is there anything that
would prevent us from getting back on in June if we can come up with a solution?
MR. MAC EWAN-Considering this is June 3 already, our agendas are already set, deadline
rd
submission’s already passed, I’d say July looks more optimal than June.
MR. NACE-For Preliminary, that puts us, if we’re in July for Preliminary, we can’t submit Final
until August, September.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Why can’t we do them both together?
MR. NACE-Could you do both together in July?
MR. HILTON-Yes. There’s no reason. I mean, the July deadline is June 15. If you can get a
th
Final subdivision application in, even though there’s no approval for it, you can.
MR. NACE-That would work. You bet.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just get worried, Tom, that we stack up our agendas so deep with carrying
things over, it’s like the problem we’re having right now with C.T. Male getting comments back
to us, which is not supposed to be happening on the night of a meeting. We’re supposed to be
getting their responses.
MR. NACE-July works fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good.
MR. MAC EWAN-What have you got there, Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Great things are happening. I want to get a signoff by C.T. Male. All right. I
think I can run through this. And I want that discussed with Highway as well. Okay. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are you all set?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve just got to get my stuff off the table.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Should we save this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Any time you’re ready, Robert.
MR. VOLLARO-Do we have to do a Full Environmental Assessment on this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Not if we’re tabling it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but that’s what is called for, a Full one on this.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2003, THE MICHAELS
GROUP, Introduced by Mr. Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Strough :
And the tabling motion will include the following:
1. We would like to get a final signoff by C. T. Male on their letter of May 30, 2003.
2. The an applicant proposal for a buffer or a no cut zone on Lots 9 and 10 that might
satisfy the local residents and Planning Board concerns, and that has to be done in
conjunction with a meeting with the Michaels Group.
3. A landscaping and maintenance plan for the proposed boulevard entrance.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/3/03)
4. Discuss with the Town’s Highway Department the catch basin concerns that are
identified in Item No. 4 of C. T. Male’s letter of May 30, 2003.
5. Confirm sight distances from the entrance in both directions.
Duly adopted this 3rd day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger ,Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. RINGER-Site visits on the 14.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-See everybody next week. Anybody who can’t be on site visits or at a
meeting e-mail me as soon as possible. So we can make arrangements for an alternate to be in.
So, if someone’s not going to be here, I’m going to need the packet for whatever meeting date
you’re not going to be at returned back to Staff. Okay.
MS. RADNER-Craig, did you want your answer on the (lost words)?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, if you want to.
MS. RADNER-Okay. The question whether, if a Planning Board member has missed one
meeting, if they can still participate in the vote if they felt that they could read the materials and
they felt qualified to vote on that, and the answer is definitely yes. There is no requirement that
a member be at any meeting to vote on an application, provided that they familiarize
themselves with the application and the materials.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. Put the word out to Mr. Round and Mr. Brown tomorrow,
I’m going to pen a little draft letter to C.T. Male and I’ll shoot it over to you guys. I’ll have it by
the end of the week, concerning their response to Staff comments, and we talked to Jim Houston
about this as well. It goes back to one of the reasons why we changed submission deadlines,
why we did agenda control, to avoid any of these problems that we seem to have the night of a
meeting. Adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
68