2003-06-17
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
LARRY RINGER
CHRIS HUNSINGER
ANTHONY METIVIER
JOHN STROUGH
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
April 15, 2003: NONE
April 22, 2003: NONE
April 24, 2003: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 15, APRIL 22, AND APRIL 24, 2003,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard
EXPEDITED REVIEW:
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED CHARLES FREIHOFER AGENT: JOE
ROULIER ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 3280 RT. 9L “ROCK BOTTOM” APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED BOATHOUSE. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-
3A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-89, AV 60-94, SP 84-90, SP 2-95, BP 91-025, 95-014, 98-
156, 03-124, 03-125 APA, CEA LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING; 6/11/03 TAX MAP NO.
239.18-1-29 LOT SIZE: 1.62 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-2003, Charles Freihofer, Meeting Date: June 17, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 31-2003
APPLICANT: Charles Freihofer is the applicant for this request.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a covered boathouse.
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 3280 Route 9L.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-3A, Waterfront Residential 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: The most recent Planning or Zoning Board action for this property was AV
60-94, granting side setback relief for a house on this property.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a covered boathouse. The
boathouse meets applicable setbacks and height requirements for boathouses.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
Staff suggests that a copy of the required LGPC Permit be submitted at the time of building
permit for the proposed boathouse.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Staff would just like to make the Board aware of the following waivers that have
been requested, stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan, landscaping plan,
and the only suggestion we have is that a copy of the required Lake George Park Commission
permit be submitted at the time of a building permit. That’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right down the Board. Any comments, Mr. Strough?
MR. STROUGH-No comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro?
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to know if Staff is satisfied with the derivation of the 14 foot height
above mean high water level? I didn’t see any of the calculations that involved that. So, I’m
assuming Staff has got something in their file on that.
MR. HILTON-I think we’re comfortable with the way the drawing is presented, showing it at
14.
MR. VOLLARO-Just looking at the drawing, okay, it looks like, when we were on site visits, it
looked like the dock you were doing is the southern dock.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Because the way it appears on the drawing, it’s the northern dock.
MR. ROULIER-That’s also correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and it’s not 90 degrees. You’re pivoting it at 180 degrees. That’s also
correct.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. ROULIER-What happened is about 12 weeks ago, the entire assembly, which consisted of a
“U” Shaped dock to the south and a “U” Shaped dock to the north were eliminated from the
face of the earth by the ice. So what I’m asking you for right now is something that, 12 weeks
ago, was totally in place. The dock to the south, “U” Shaped dock on the southern edge of the
property, and has a sundeck that goes to the top of that (lost words) the dock that I’m in front of
this Board for is the north dock, and what we’re proposing to do is take that dock, which went
from an east/west direction, and change it into a north/south direction, and then take the
existing roof that was on that and then put it around into that configuration. So this is kind of a
redundant situation, because probably 10 years ago I was in front of the Board and I made the
request for a dock in the configuration of the east/west. Now we feel as though, with the ice
patterns the way, it eliminated that dock, that altering it and changing it in the north/south
fashion will actually give it more protection.
MR. VOLLARO-The dock you’re working on now is going to be the final dock, the dock to the
south?
MR. ROULIER-No. That’s the dock that originally had a sundeck over it. The dock that I’m
proposing, the north dock, before I could start any construction on that, I need the approval of
this Board for the modification or alteration of that, and subsequent to this approval, the Lake
George Park Commission will issue me a permit to (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-So it would be the north dock we are looking at.
MR. ROULIER-Right. If you go to the diagram indicating the survey of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got that in front of me.
MR. ROULIER-If you look at the dock to the right, or the north dock.
MR. VOLLARO-The one that’s 37 foot.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. That dock originally went, right now it’s running from north to
south. That dock, 12 weeks ago, was actually going from east to west.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it has moved 90 degrees, essentially it pivoted over this way, toward
the shore.
MR. ROULIER-Well, it was just eliminated. It was totally removed by the ice.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. ROULIER-So what we’re proposing to do, instead of having it in the original configuration,
which was the east to west, we feel as though by turning that dock into a north to south,
southerly direction, and then refabricating the boathouse over the top of it, will actually offer us
more protection against the ice.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This new dock is going to be the 696 square foot dock?
MR. ROULIER-Yes. Actually, probably at this junction we’ll be constructing slightly smaller
than that, but when I worked up the diagram, that’s the scale that it worked out to be.
MR. STROUGH-So he has two docks?
MR. ROULIER-He has two “U” Shaped docks, but the property, this particular piece of
property, he has 240 foot of shoreline. In conjunction to that, he is a partner, he and another
fellow, on the additional 100 or 120 feet to the right of that. According to the Lake George Park
Commission and the Town of Queensbury, it is a permitted. You can have two independent
docks on that linear footage.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. STROUGH-So he’s had, it’s a pre-existing condition?
MR. ROULIER-Correct. All of these docks, through the years that I’ve been working for Mr.
Freihofer, we have obtained permits for both the dock structures and the sundeck and then
subsequently the dock structure to the north, and that boathouse that was on there, and all of
this, this entire structure, I don’t know how many Board members actually went to the site or
not, but this entire structure, both structures were completely eliminated.
MR. STROUGH-Now, is he going to have only the northernmost dock covered?
MR. ROULIER-The southern dock, the one that we’re working on right now, we’re replacing
the sundeck, and all I need is, the Town of Queensbury does, we’re replacing it identically, (lost
words) building permit for that structure. The dock to the north, because we are changing the
direction of it, the Planning Department felt as though it was necessary for me to come in front
of this Board for that particular approval of that dock.
MR. STROUGH-So that was covered previously as well?
MR. ROULIER-Yes, it was.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’ll be two docks, just like it’s shown here. The dock to the south will
remain. The new dock will be to the north of the old dock.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-There’ll be two docks there. So one is a pre-existing dock that you’re working
on now.
MR. ROULIER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to put a cover on it, and the next, the one to the north is the new
construction.
MR. STROUGH-No, it’s pre-existing.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s also pre-existing?
MR. STROUGH-With the exception of turning it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What it was, it was totally eliminated by ice this spring, and all they’re doing
is realigning the configuration of the dock, making it go north/south, instead of east/west.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I just wanted to clear up the drawing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-My question was, maybe you’ve already answered it, when I was going
through everything was, I didn’t understand the waiver request. Did we talk about?
MR. MAC EWAN-We went over it in the beginning.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’m sorry. Then don’t worry about it. Don’t do it again. I can get
it. They can fill me in later.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No. I didn’t have anything, but we didn’t understand what you were doing. So
it made it much clearer, after we were all up there. We saw all those cribs in there, the piles of
snow and stuff and in there, and now we understand what had happened. We didn’t realize.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. When you were up, you were probably up there this past week, okay, and
the entire structure to the south is where we’re working, although there are cribs still left.
MR. RINGER-To the north.
MR. ROULIER-To the north, and at least in the proposed configuration, what we’re going to do
is utilize some of that cribbing that was there. So we really don’t have to get in and disturb too
much of it.
MR. RINGER-That was one of my questions was what you were going to do with it. Now I
know you’re going to put another dock there, or a dock that was previously there.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. The dock that was there.
MR. RINGER-And I don’t have any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Joe?
MR. ROULIER-No. To be perfectly honest with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. Thank you very much.
MR. RINGER-Now that I understand it it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, isn’t this a Type II?
MR. STROUGH-It’s Unlisted.
MR. HILTON-Actually, we went through the review. I don’t have the SEQRA Regulations in
front of me, but we have it listed as Unlisted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO., Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CHARLES FREIHOFER, 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 17 day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2003 CHARLES FREIHOFER, Introduced by
Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this board for the following:
Site Plan No. 31-2003 Applicant / Property Owner: Charles Freihofer
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Joe Roulier
Zone: WR-3A
Location: 3280 Rt. 9L “Rock Bottom”
Applicant proposes to construct a covered boathouse. Boathouses in the WR-3A zone require
Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
Cross Reference: AV 8-89, AV 60-94, SP 84-90, SP 2-95, BP 91-025,
95-014, 98-156, 03-124, 03-125
APA, CEA, LGPC
Warren Co. Planning; 6/11/03
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-29
Lot size: 1.62 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: June 17, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received 5/15/03, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/13/03, and
6/17 Staff Notes
6/11 Warren Co. PB recommendation
6/10 Notice of Public Hearing
6/3 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in
the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such
and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited
review and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted [6/17/03] and the public in attendance and the
Board members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and,
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be in compliance with the required SEQRA
regulations, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the application is approved in accordance with the
resolution as prepared by Staff, and
WHEREAS, the following conditions of approval have been discussed and agreed upon;
1. The waiver request on the application be granted.
2. A copy of the required LGPC permit be submitted at the time the building
permit is issued.
Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to abstain because that waiver, I missed the explanation there.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Joe.
MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck.
MR. ROULIER-Thank you.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 TYPE I NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP PROPERTY OWNER:
CEDAR HOLDING ASSOCIATES AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON, PE ZONE: HC-INT
LOCATION: 713 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,244 SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING AND SITE.
RESTAURANT IN AN HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 98-2002 (12/18/02) WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-
030
JON LAPPER, JERRY BURKE, GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there have been two public hearings on February 25 and April 15
thth
that have been tabled. There is, obviously, open tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Just to quickly summarize what’s happened since this application was
tabled on April 15, the applicant has submitted revised information. Also, the ZBA granted an
th
Area Variance to allow permeability to exceed the HC Intensive zone requirements. C.T. Male
has provided a signoff that’s included in your packet. As far as Staff comments, in regards to
the lighting, the light pole as shown on the detail sheet may slightly exceed 20 feet. The height
measurement appears to be from grade to the bottom side of the light fixture. So that’s
something you may want to discuss with the applicant. Details on the 13 decorative light
fixtures to be used should be provided, and today we did get a fax from the applicant showing
what those fixtures look like, and as suggested in previous staff notes, proposed future
vehicular connection to the property to the south should be added for interconnection of
parking areas in between this property and, as I said, the property to the south. We have
additional public comment that we can read into the record at the time of the public hearing, or
when you are accepting new comment, but that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jerry Burke, one of the applicants,
Garry Robinson, the project engineer. Just to reiterate where we are on this, this is an
admittedly small site that the applicant inherited when they took over the franchise and they
are looking to do a substantial clean up. The building is really filthy and old and doesn’t work,
and as we’ve discussed with the Board a couple of times, providing the drive through is going
to seriously reduce the parking need because most people will just pop in and out to get a cup
of coffee and a donut, just like it works at the other site in Queensbury, on Main Street, which is
much more efficient than the Glen Street site. We’ve agreed to all of the changes that the Board
requested at the last meeting, including changing the façade dramatically. The drawing is
admittedly not the most detailed drawing, but it very well shows the colors compared to what
was proposed. The awning isn’t going to be striped anymore. The color of the building is a
neutral tone. They eliminated some of the metal trim at the bottom, and are providing split
block now. So it’s just a much more expensive, nicer building. I think that the Staff notes
mentioned that the lighting, that they couldn’t tell if the lighting was 20 feet. What we
submitted was intended to be 20 feet, and it would be limited to 20 feet, and we have now
submitted the details of the building mounted lights. As George mentioned, we went to the
ZBA because we had that issue of permeability that wasn’t before the ZBA the first time. We’re
making the site less nonconforming by doubling the green space, but it still doesn’t meet the
requirements of the zone. So we got that variance, set back from the stream, and in general we
think that we’re making this site as good as we can with what we have to work with with the
small site. Right now it’s an eyesore, and it’s going to be much nicer when we’re done. As far
as we know, the only party who has any issue with this at all is the neighbor to the rear and to
the side, which is the one property that, you know, although he has access on Glen Street
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
chooses to use the easement through this site, and we won’t be interfering with that at all. Just,
they have a deeded right to get through, and that’s not really a Planning Board right. It’s a
private real estate right, and that will be maintained, and they will, they and their customers
will be able to pass through the site just as they do now. It’ll just be a much nicer site in front.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, we’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me just go through my notes and what I’ve done, so that people on
the Board know and the applicant knows. What I’ve done is taken the old building, which has
got all the X’s on it, and put it over where the new drawing is to get some idea of exactly what’s
happening on the site as far as the new building is concerned. I’ll start off with my notes. This
application has really been in review process since November 2002, I believe. That’s, so we’ve
been eight months into this project. It seems to me, from what I can read and see from all the
reports in the C.T. Male stuff and so on, that this is really about access, access, really, to the
neighbor in back of the existing Dunkin Donuts. I think there’s probably some legal
implications. I took a look at the 25 foot right of way that is a deeded right of way, and then
when the drive through line gets put in, really, that right of way now gets shortened down to 14
feet, if that’s the way I saw it from the drawing.
MR. LAPPER-No. That’s only a painted stripe.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, but people who are using the access for this drive through will
use that painted stripe to put their cars and come around and get a look at this sign here, which
is the sign that talks about the proposed menu board, and that’s where cars will queue up, and
that’s what one of the drawings that I have shows, that the cars will queue in that area.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if there are cars, that’s certainly true, Bob, that that’s where they would be
queue, but that’s how it works now. You drive around the building to get out, but I mean, the
people in the back don’t have the right to that, they have the right to use that to pass through it,
and if they have to wait a second for a car, I mean, there’s nothing in the easement that says
that, it’s also shared with the property owner. That easement doesn’t limit it so that it can’t be
used by the property owner as well, and that painted stripe, sometimes there may be cars
stacked up. We did a study that showed that the number of cars is not going to be that great,
even at their bigger stores. So, I don’t see that as a Planning Board issue. They have the right to
get there. They also, I have to point out, they own frontage on Glen Street, on this site. They’ve
got three buildings on their property and they can get through to that property other ways
other than to use this Dunkin Donuts site. I mean, I would suggest that the site next door is
overdeveloped and they could redevelop that and do something nicer with their Glen Street
frontage.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the issue is they have a right of way through the Dunkin Donuts parcel.
So let’s just leave it at that.
MR. LAPPER-And we have to respect that they have a right of way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just leave it at that. We’ll just leave it at that. That’s the issue.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the contributing factors that I see here is that we have a building
that’s 58% increased in size. That’s 1420 square feet approximately, today, going into a 2244
square foot improvement, and that’s a 58% increase in the size of the building. I have taken a
look, took a look at what some of the DOT comments were, in their letter of February 12, 2003,
and they make the same sort of comments. It says, you know, shared access would present
some access management opportunities that would not otherwise be possible, but I think that
shared access has to be discussed between the owners of the Dunkin Donuts and the people in
the back at the U Rent-All with Mr. Doty himself. Now, a couple of things in our motion, I
think there were two section, two items in our motion that talked of that, the tabling motion,
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
and that tabling motion was on April 15, that required communication with Mr. Doty. I see his
th
letter of May 12, which says he hasn’t had an opportunity to talk with anybody from the
th
Dunkin Donuts side, and that they haven’t contacted them, and that’s a very recent letter that
he.
MR. LAPPER-They have spoken, now.
MR. VOLLARO-Have they? Okay. This is before, this is after the 15 letter?
th
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I didn’t mention one thing. You mentioned access, and on the side by the
Auto Zone, that was also in the Staff notes, and I forgot to comment on that. We will place, in
the center there, an easement for the future, in the event that Auto Zone agrees that they would
make the connection, Dunkin Donuts would put it on there as a future location, but I spoke to
that property owner, Frank Parillo, and he is precluded, under his lease to Auto Zone, from
granting that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll tell you, I spent approximately 45 minutes this morning up at the site,
and just stayed there and watched the motion of the traffic around the site. While I was there, I
witnessed fairly heavy equipment, a big John Deere tractor being towed behind a pick up truck
coming right through this access and getting around in here. Now, if there were cars in there,
he couldn’t have made it, because he was probably, I don’t know, maybe nine feet wide, eight to
nine feet wide in trailing that machine, the tractor, and then right after that another load came
in, another big piece of heavy equipment, right down this right of way line here. So I just don’t
know how this.
MR. LAPPER-I guess if you take that to the end, you would then say that this site could never
be redeveloped, and this site is a mess right now, and if you say that because the guy in the
back chooses to use this access, rather than use his own access, that this Dunkin Donuts can’t be
reinvested in and fixed up, then it’s just going to stay the eyesore that it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a couple of opportunities here. There’s a couple of solutions. One
solution is to move this building closer to the road. I know this is not within the corporate
understanding of how they want to run their stores. However, it’s a possible solution, and I
think that came up at the ZBA meeting that the ZBA would grant the variance to put this
building closer to Glen Street, and then you’d have some up front parking and some rear
parking.
MR. LAPPER-You mean that came up months ago at the first ZBA meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-It didn’t come up last month.
MR. VOLLARO-No, but it’s in the minutes. It’s in the ZBA minutes, I believe, that states that
they would entertain a variance to put it up a little closer.
MR. LAPPER-The Board was very concerned about whether sufficient parking, and anything
you do like that is going to reduce the parking, because you’ve got the drive through. The main
benefit of spending the money on this project is to have the drive through so that people can get
in and out quickly, and if you move the building up forward, you’re going to lose parking
spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but you’ll gain them in the rear, some, depending upon how far forward
you go. There are solutions here to be worked out. This is, you know, a site that’s occupied by
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
essentially a number of people. You’ve got the Dunkin Donuts. You’ve got the people to their
north on those buildings and you’ve got the Auto Zone sitting to the south. There’s a lot of real
estate there that if it was, you know, somebody sat down and thought a little bit about it, I think
that they could work well together.
MR. LAPPER-I really don’t think that’s fair, only because, to burden this site with anything else,
Auto Zone functions on its own, and the buildings to the north don’t have any rights. It’s just
the building in the back, just the U Rent-All, which is not a huge traffic generator. I mean, it is
what it is. Right now, you know, in terms of, would you want to put this many buildings on
that much land, no, but this is a pre-existing, nonconforming, and, you know, our position is
that we’re looking to invest a lot of money and fix this up, because what’s there now is not a
good, it doesn’t look good for the Town, and it doesn’t operate well, and we’ve been through a
lot of meetings to try and, the applicant has agreed to everything that the Board has said, but
their fundamental issue is that, you know, it’s just a fact that the people in the back have the
right to use the easement, even though it’s not their only access.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s right, however. Getting off that point for a minute, that is probably
the main point facing this Board now, with respect to this application, but there’s a couple of
other things I just wanted to ask, in going back over all data, the lighting plan, by the way, looks
good. I have no problem with the lighting plan the way it was proposed. I didn’t see any math
showing the uniformity ratio on Sheet Number Five. Does the engineer want to comment to
that, that’s the four to one ratio requirement?
MR. ROBINSON-I’m not sure that it got put there, it was supposed to be put there.
MR. VOLLARO-I looked for it. Maybe it’s there. I looked for it.
MR. ROBINSON-It may have gotten neglected, but we’ll add it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s got to be computed out. You’ve got to know your average light level
in order to get your four to one ratio, divide the average by four.
MR. ROBINSON-Yes. I’m sure that’s been done.
MR. VOLLARO-Back upstream a ways, one of the Staff notes talked about comments from the
Wastewater concerning the input to a municipal sewer. Did we ever receive Mike Shaw’s
comment concerning access to the municipal sewer project?
MR. HILTON-Actually, can you just give me a minute, I’ll look into that while.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. I kept everything we had, and I don’t see it there.
MR. ROBINSON-I’m pretty sure that there is a letter from Mike Shaw.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you go on, Bob, and ask your questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’ve got something there? I just wanted to clear that up, and that’s
going to be, I think, my last question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I’ll be quite honest with you. I’m still very concerned about the lack
of space in the back, and the thing that really annoys me, especially, and it’s not just you, it’s
what’s been going on for a long time now. I think many applicants get a design. They get a
mindset about the way they want it to look or want it to set on the site. When I say “it”, I mean
whatever the application is, and where’s the creativity? There’s got to be other ways . There’s
got to be an architect or a site designer that can come up with another way to put something on
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
a site to make it work, and I just can’t believe that this is the only way that this will work. I
really have a tough time believing that.
MR. LAPPER-With all respect, Cathy, it is, because in order to create a drive through, I mean,
this site is so small, that to come in on the right, come around the building and come out, it just
doesn’t give you any alternatives here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I’m saying by moving it forward, you know, isn’t there a way that
you can configure the parking lot, the parking spaces that would now (lost word) in the back to
make?
MR. LAPPER-The people would be walking through the drive lane to get to the front door.
They can’t enter into the kitchen. I mean, we’ve looked at this and we think this is going to
work much better and look much better than what’s there now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, what about the fact that Bob’s there for 45 minutes. He sees
some definite problems. He’s right there witnessing them this morning? What about the letter
that I’ve read where it took the owner of U Rent-All 15 minutes to get into his own business?
MR. LAPPER-You have to understand that you’ve got owners next door that are trying to get
these people to buy their site. What’s going on here is that you’ve got one owner in the back
that, when they bought the site they knew that they had an easement, and they’re trying to get
something out of this process. I mean, they’re here with their attorney. I’m sure we’ll hear from
them, but we’re saying it’s going to work better than it does now because the building’s going
to be moved farther from where the U Rent-All is now, and instead of having everybody come
on the site and park, they’re going to be able to zip through the drive through and just get out,
and if you go look at the site at Exit 18, at Main Street, it functions pretty efficiently with the
drive through.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what study did you, that shows that the traffic impact isn’t that
great?
MR. LAPPER-We submitted counts from a number of their other sites that showed how many
cars would be stacking and how long it takes to serve people. That was in April. We submitted
that for the April meeting. I don’t know if you were here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I was away on vacation. Well, I’m going to tell you that, you know, I
can live with the design of the building. It’s not exactly what I would have proposed, but I can,
and I understand that you’re cleaning up the site. I understand that the building and
everything else is going to be a lot more attractive than what is there. The landscaping plan is
decent. It’s good, but what do we do, just come in and then the people in the back?
MR. LAPPER-The people in the back, I mean, if they have to wait a minute to get back there,
that’s just how it is now.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what about their customers that have to wait a minute or five or ten?
MR. LAPPER-U Rent-All is not like a donut business. It’s a destination business. So if you’re
coming to rent a tractor, you know, that’s where you’re going, and if you have to wait a second
for somebody to pull out in front of you, I mean, I don’t think that that’s the worst thing, and
that’s how it is now, and we’re not making it any worse, but I also forgot to mention, in terms of
improving the site, because it’s been so long that we’ve been here, that one of the major
improvements is to get the stormwater underground. Right now it sheet flows into Glen Street.
So we’re tying in to the DOT system underground with the stormwater, and that really is the
biggest improvement here, that some of it will get treated, but regardless of what gets treated,
it’s going to get underground, and it’s not going to sheet flow where it causes a problem in the
traffic corridor, you know, with people traveling 55 miles an hour.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I read that. That was good. That was good. Well, Jon, I don’t
know. I guess you’re just going to have to do a little more persuading, and I have to hear what
the applicant has to say, too, and like I said, just don’t want a big company that’s got their roots
out of town.
MR. LAPPER-These guys are from Malta, that have 14 Dunkin Donuts’.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But Dunkin Donuts is not a Queensbury based.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s the franchise.
MR. BURKE-Excuse me. My name is Jerry Burke, and I’m the franchisee, okay. I’m not a big
company, okay, and I have spent a tremendous amount of money to meet all the requirements
that the Board has asked me to do. I’ve done everything that the Board has asked me to do.
Okay. Short of buying my neighbor’s property. I don’t know what else I can possibly do. I’ve
done everything. I’ve changed the building. I’ve changed the, you have brick. You have tan.
You have everything you want. I’m re-doing the entire site. We’re fixing the stream on the
side. We’re taking all the water off the property. We’re taking an eyesore. I’m spending well
over half a million dollars just on the building. There’s really not much else I can do. If the
Board doesn’t approve me, I’m probably just going to leave it. Because it’s not worth anything
else to me at this point in time. I’ve done everything. There’s nothing I can do, and it, through
my neighbor’s own admission, cars park along the side. Whether I’m in the drive through on
the left side or on the right side, it’s still the same amount of time to get through, and that’s
what my neighbor said, people park on the right side. I’m controlling the traffic. My building
in Saratoga Springs is the same size, okay. I did the same thing, and it works better. Because of
the drive through. We’re more efficient, and that’s right. People with trailers, okay, cannot
come through my drive through, but they can still get into Mr. Doty’s property, and I said to
him, I want to be a good neighbor. I want to work with you, but you can’t tell me what I can do
on my site. Just as I can’t tell you what you can do on your site, and I’ve done everything
possible. So I’m not a large corporation. I’m just like anybody on this Board. I go to the bank. I
borrow my money, you know, and I build stores, and I run stores, and I have done everything.
I don’t know what else you can ask me to do. I mean, the Board doesn’t like the color, I change
the color. The Board doesn’t like, I’ll change the color again if you want it a different color. I
mean, I can’t control that, and I can’t control how Mr. Doty feels. I said to him, I’ll work with
you. What do you want me to do? And his response to me today was, well, engineers can be
wrong, and my response to him was, engineers have insurance, and he said two of his sons
were engineers. I mean, the plans have been laid out. The calculations have been done, and if
people are parked on the right side and the trailers can get in, if they’re on the left side of the
drive through they can still get in, because if a car is on one side, a car’s on the other, this makes
it more efficient. We work quicker. We control the traffic. Trust me, I wouldn’t stand here,
okay, and invest that kind of money in this site if it wasn’t going to work, because if it doesn’t
work, I go bankrupt.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jerry, was, all right, the whole issue of getting in and out of the property
behind you, the Rent-All place, hasn’t that always been an issue, even with the site the way it is
now?
MR. BURKE-It works. It won’t be any worse than it is today. It won’t be a bit worse than it is
today, is what I’m saying.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then, all right, that was a very strong, that right there, that comment
says a lot.
MR. BURKE-I mean, I’m not in a position to buy my neighbor. At one point in time, that was a
suggestion, and I told him, I want to work with you. I want to work with him. I told him that
today, but I can’t be responsible for his tenants or his tenant’s snow plowing. I’m willing to
remove my snow. I’m in business. I remove snow when it snows because I only have limited
space. That’s part of doing my business. You pay for that in your cup of coffee when you come
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
in at the other time of the year. Because if I only have 12 spots, I can’t go down to seven, and if
the Board wants me to remove the snow, I’m willing to say, I will remove the snow. It’s not an
issue for me.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry?
MR. RINGER-My feeling on this all along was that the building was too much for the lot, and I
read all the new material, and I came in to tonight’s meeting really feeling the same way, that
we had too much building for such a small lot, and I was really prepared not to change that
position. However, believe it or not, in the few comments we’ve had so far, I’m leaning a little
bit the other way now, and listening more, and not as close minded, but my intent originally,
before I came in tonight, was I was definitely going to vote no. Now I’m thinking a little bit
differently, and I don’t have any comments, other than that, but I think I stated my position
from early on.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think I have any comments. I think we all share the same concerns,
tough site to work with, and I appreciate the efforts that you’ve made. I really do, and I’m glad
that you mentioned them because I share them. I feel like you have done everything we’ve
asked you to do. The question is, is it enough, and I think several of us, including myself, are
still kind of on the fence, and not really sure how, when push comes to shove, how it’s going to
fall down. There’s a number of improvements that are being made to this site. I can appreciate
that, and I think controlling the traffic is going to help a lot. There’s some pluses and minuses
going both ways. So, I want to wait and hear the rest of the testimony before asking any
additional questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Should this project get approved, what plans do you have to, I guess, mitigate
any problems that are going to arise during construction, as far as the tenants in the back?
MR. LAPPER-Construction related problems, you mean?
MR. METIVIER-Right. I mean, traffic flow, you know, you’re going to demolish the building.
Have you thought, you know, that through, what will happen?
MR. BURKE-I’ll work with my neighbor. I’ll work with the construction company. I’ll bring
my neighbor on site. We will set up a roadway, basically, that’ll give him a clear site into the
back, okay, where we will not interrupt that. So he has until our building is done, until the day
we pave, or if we have to put a manhole cover in or anything like that. So he will have an
uninterrupted access to the back of the building while we are under construction, and he can,
you know, the Board can come in and take a look at it. He can work with us. I mean, I want to
be a good neighbor. I have no reason not to be. None whatsoever. So I’m willing to set up an
easement where he can come right in and it’s a clear shot right into the back for his people, and
all of his customers.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s easy enough done with a condition of approval.
MR. METIVIER-What do you have in place, I know what you have in place now, but in the
future, to keep people from parking alongside your building?
MR. BURKE-It will be physically impossible to park alongside the building. We will have no
parking signs there. If somebody parks there, we’ll tell them to move it, just like we do in other
stores, and once the customer base is established, and they know what we’re doing, okay, you
know you can’t park there.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. LAPPER-But you’re going to have less demand for parking.
MR. BURKE-Absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. LAPPER-Because of the drive through.
MR. METIVIER-Right. Well, I know at times it gets really busy in there.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if you look at Main Street, there’s a lot there where people park in there.
MR. METIVIER-Yes. I guess I couldn’t see Bob’s rendition, but how much further back? The
building isn’t coming any further back?
MR. LAPPER-It’s coming forward.
MR. METIVIER-It’s just coming forward. I guess not so much the question of the building, but
the building and the.
MR. ROBINSON-Ours is probably a little nicer computer generated thing, but the orange is the
new building, and the blue is the old building. The dotted lines around the outside are the
walkways that are curbed right now, for the existing building, and with us, the orange dotted is
what we would have that’s curbed. So the access is, if you look here, probably there’s five feet
that the existing building is back farther than our building, than the access that would be
available once we build, and when you come around the south side to get out, you can see
where that building hung over from where we are. It’s probably about, I’m guessing it’s about
13 feet that we’ll have additional space on the south side, and we lose about six, seven feet on
the north side. Our building’s going just a little farther up. The edge of the curbing is, you can
see the dotted line that’s the easement running right down through here. That would be the
easement and the edge of our curbing is just off that easement line.
MS. RADNER-Easement or right of way?
MR. ROBINSON-It’s an easement.
MR. BURKE-Can I show the Board something?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MR. BURKE-If people would take note of this freezer right here that’s existing, okay, right now,
you have to drive around this, at the present time. If you’ll note, okay, that’s the exact spot,
okay, where the drive lane is. The car is on top of this freezer right here. So, what he’s saying is
it’s tougher to get around. I’m going to create a problem, but if you’ll look right here, okay, my
car is on top of that freezer. That freezer is gone. So where am I creating a problem? I don’t see
it, because it’s tougher to get around now, and that’s what I tried to show everybody. This
makes it easier. This controls the traffic. Because if this car were here right now, he’d be in the
middle of the freezer, and here’s some ugly dumpster that sits outside, with nowhere to shield
it. I mean, the building itself is falling down, and if you follow this travel pattern, everybody
comes up and takes a look at it, you can see that I’m closer in, that the cars are right here now,
not out here. This is a further travel path than what I’m proposing. It’s easier. I’m not an
engineer, but I’m not driving into the building now, and it’s curbed. There’s green space. It’s
beautiful.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-Well, the question I was trying to get at wasn’t the building so much. It was
the drive lane and the building. So between everything that I’ve seen, I understand now what,
where everything lies. My concern was if you add the size of the building, and a drive through,
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
and another lane, how much room you have, and it makes much more sense to me now, but I
understood the building from the beginning. It was just everything on top. I do understand, I
know what the back of the building looks like now, you know, so who cares what it looks like.
It’s just the fact that I wanted to know, with the cars coming through there, what is going to
happen, and it makes perfect sense to me, and that’s where I was trying to go with that. So,
thank you. All done.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I, too, appreciate your need for a newer building, and can see the need
for a newer building, and I appreciate your efforts at upgrading the architecture, and the
landscaping, but I think I have to concur with some of the concerns shared here about traffic
access. We have to look at maximum impact, the worst case scenario, and we have to look at
what kind of adverse impacts your proposal would have on adjacent land owners, and as we
were there on our site visit Saturday, looking west, I tried to picture myself trying to negotiate a
large vehicle, not even a truck. I think a truck would be very difficult, but an RV or a truck or a
car with a trailer. Now you move that building north another six feet or so, it’s only going to
aggravate an already difficult problem. If you’re going to add a queue of cars there, it’s going
to be absolutely almost impossible for any large vehicle to enter the properties in the rear. You
have 11 feet, if the cars stay in the queue line, which sometimes they don’t. You only have 11
feet between where you draw the queue line and your light fixture. For a turning vehicle of any
size, that’s going to be very difficult to get to the rear property.
MR. LAPPER-I don’t understand that, John, because a regular travel lane is 11 feet wide, like a
highway truck lane.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. If you’re going straight that’s fine. If you’re entering a curb in your large
vehicle, see, you only have a turning radius there of, if I remember, 14 feet.
MR. LAPPER-You mean if somebody is in the turning lane?
MR. STROUGH-If there’s cars in the turning lane, if there’s cars queuing.
MR. LAPPER-I see that, but even so, if someone wanted to get to U Rent-All and they had to
wait the time that it would take for that car to turn the corner, I mean, it’s not that big a deal.
They’re stuck with the fact that they don’t have frontage.
MR. STROUGH-That’s the way you’re going to look at it.
MR. LAPPER-Because they have a site that doesn’t have frontage on Glen Street, and it doesn’t
give them the right to prevent Dunkin Donuts from fixing up their site, just because they have a
site in the back. I mean that’s the marginal site.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now wait a minute. You said this site is so small. Mr. Burke said, I
have a site of limited space. I think we’re all in agreement there. What you’re trying to do with
it, increasing the size of the building 53% or 58%, whatever the calculation is, moving it to the
north six feet, is presenting some traffic circulation problems that even C.T. Male had concerns
with.
MR. LAPPER-Well, they did signoff on it.
MR. STROUGH-But as I was speaking, you have a turning radius of 15, I think it was.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. C.T. Male signed off on this thing that all their concerns have
been addressed.
MR. VOLLARO-They only addressed the stormwater concerns, Mr. Chairman. Their letter of
April 9 has three areas in it that concern traffic, and I haven’t seen those areas addressed by
th
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
C.T. Male. C.T. Male concentrated, in my opinion anyway, mostly on the stormwater issues of
this site and not on the traffic issues. I haven’t seen any signoff from C.T. Male on traffic at all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got something?
MR. HILTON-The only thing I have is the May 16 letter. Again, and I’ll read it out loud. “We
th
are in receipt of a response letter from Garry Robinson dated May 14, and a partial set of plans
th
showing revisions to the items noted in our May 12 letter. The information provided does
th
adequately address our drainage and grading related comments. We have no further
comments pertaining to this project.”
MR. VOLLARO-They specifically state that they’re looking at grading and drainage, but they’re
April 9 letter had concerns in it concerning traffic which I don’t think has ever been addressed,
th
frankly. I couldn’t find it.
MR. ROBINSON-I think it has, and I talked to him before he wrote that letter, because we were
talking to him quite a bit because we were trying to get that letter in time so that we could come
to one of the previous meetings, and he told me that he had looked at the information that we
gave him on the traffic, the plan for the stacking, he had looked at that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the important part of that letter from C.T. Male is the last paragraph.
They have no further comments related to this review. That implies to me that they’re satisfied
that everything’s been addressed.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s one tact, Mr. Chairman. You could take that tact. I wanted to see it
more specifically looked than that by C.T. Male, but, you know, regardless of what they had to
say, there’s a signoff. That signoff still doesn’t, in any way, relieve the congestion problem
that’s before the Board right now, I don’t believe.
MR. BURKE-Excuse me, may I say one thing? If you look here, okay, and if you were on that
site, you see cars that park all the way up here. Am I correct? Cars park all along this side now.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t see any cars there. It was free and clear. I’m saying free and clear, in
the current condition, it looks like it would present problems.
MR. BURKE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I’m saying that your proposal would only aggravate those problems, not only
with the building but with the queuing line.
MR. BURKE-I don’t see how it would, because if you go back, my building is to here, at the
furthest point. I’m up a few feet. I’m controlling the flow of traffic.
MR. STROUGH-I’m more concerned about what’s going on on the north side of the building.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, what are you basing that on?
MR. STROUGH-My observations.
MR. BURKE-Yes, but can I say one thing?
MR. STROUGH-And the proposal. Like I said, the light fixture from the queuing line is only 11
feet. With a turning vehicle, and I never finished my thought, a turning vehicle, and we’re
talking about a radius that’s proposed of 15, a larger vehicle, and we know this from experience,
usually requires a minimum of 30. This is 15. This is half of what a larger vehicle needs.
We’ve even required 35. Now we have to look at worst case scenario, larger vehicles, that need
those kind of turning radii, and I just don’t think that this project, if we had an independent, if
we had an independent analysis of this, I think we would come up with problems. I mean,
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
we’ve got, to show that we have problems with the site, that it is too small for what’s being
proposed. I mean, we’re proposing to remove the snow. We’ve got a dumpster. We can’t seem
to find a decent location for the dumpster because the site’s too small, and we’ve got a bigger
building there than what is presently there, and, you know.
MR. LAPPER-I’ve got to take issue with you, respectfully, because I’d rather fight about this
tonight than fight about this in the future. We all know that, and in terms of the expansion, if
you talk about percentages, it probably is 53%. I didn’t work out the exact number, but we’ve
got a 1400 square foot building, and for them to justify the expenditure to continue to use this
site so that it meets their current needs, which means to have the drive thru, going to, what is it,
2200 square feet, approximately, 2244, I mean that is a modest building. They’re trying to work
with the Town as possible, and make all these changes, but, I mean, they’re not trying to jam it.
That’s as much as they could fit on the site without asking for too much, but remember we did
get the green space variance from the Zoning Board. So they’re completely within their legal
rights, in terms of what they’re doing here. We had to go that extra step to go back to the
Zoning Board, but in terms of the neighbors, which is the really issue, no one’s stacking on the
right of way, and in terms, and that’s not what we’re talking about. So we’re not talking about a
public issue. We’re talking about maybe the inconvenience of the people that are coming to U
Rent-All, which I would argue is not a big traffic generator, not a lot of people, but if they have
to wait a few seconds for somebody to turn the corner, I just, I don’t see that as a big deal. If
you were proposing this as a plaza where you had both of these uses that didn’t exist now, that
would be one thing, and you maybe would be more sensitive to that, but since they bought or
leased their site with the Dunkin Donuts there, they know that they have a Dunkin Donuts in
front of them, and that they don’t have access to their U Rent-All, but the neighbor, Mr. Doty
who’s here tonight and of course we’ll hear from him and his attorney, they have access on their
site where they have the blue building and the building in the back that are on that site that we
all know as the old Gordon’s Paint and Paper. I mean, so their site could be redesigned if they
had the need, if they drew more traffic and had the need to do something differently. This is an
extra right that they had, in addition to their access that’s there, and I just don’t see what the big
deal is if they have to wait a little bit to get in the back to U Rent-All.
MR. STROUGH-This’ll be the third time I’ve asked. Did you contact Auto Zone?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And?
MR. LAPPER-Frank Parillo is the owner. He’s a client of mine. I spoke with him this week, and
Frank said that he has a long term lease with Auto Zone that doesn’t give him the right to grant
any easement, that the property is Auto Zone’s under the lease, and he doesn’t have the right to
make any changes to it, but he also said that Auto Zone wouldn’t be interested in any more
traffic on their property from an adjacent neighbor.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we’ve had problems with parking the truck. Where’s the truck going
to park?
MR. LAPPER-I think we settled that in April.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you showed me an idealistic situation, that if the truck pulls all the way
over to the property line, which I doubt they will, you might have a situation where cars can get
through.
MR. LAPPER-But they come off peak also, I mean, because they can control that. John, I’m not
trying to say that this is the highest and best thing you could do with this property. The best
thing you could do would be to knock all these buildings down and do something different, but
that doesn’t, that’s not a possibility because you’ve got separate ownership and you’ve got a
situation that’s here, and, you know, we’re not trying to fight with you. It’s just, we’re trying to
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
make the site work, and we’ve tried to address all the issues that have been brought up one at a
time.
MR. STROUGH-But I have said, from Day One, that I think the building’s too large for this site.
I think that it creates problems, and I think that it creates potential adverse impacts on the
adjacent landowners.
MR. LAPPER-I think any impact is there now, and we’re not making it worse, as Jerry said. I
mean, a vehicle only needs 11 feet to get by.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. How are you basing your assumption that it’s going to create
adverse impacts on neighboring properties? Based on what?
MR. STROUGH-Based on the fact that I think, talking about the U Haul. Now, with the U Haul,
you have people going with trailers into the U Haul, people that are not experienced drivers
with trailers, and they’re going to pick up diamond saws for cutting tile. They might be picking
up Bobcats. They might be picking up, I mean, you’ve got quite a flow of people picking up all
kinds of heavy equipment and they need trailers, and I’d just say that not only do I see that
there’s potential for difficulty in them navigating. There’s also, and Jon has admitted it, that
there might be a time where a customer going to U Haul is going to have to sit and wait for the
queuing to get to such an extent where they can make the turn, and that still doesn’t address
large trucks, RV’s, and trucks with trailers, etc., etc., etc., which, like I said, the turning radius of
15 doesn’t accommodate larger vehicles.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could I make a comment here, John? I guess this is generally, and I’m going
to choose my words carefully, so as not to get the wrong idea. You have two parcels with one
that has a deeded access to it. Part of the language, without having it in front of me, I’m sure
that deeded access just says that it’s supposed to have access to that site. Should that, take this
total project right out of the picture here and let’s just talk about two generic parcels side by
side. One wants to develop, one has deeded access to his parcel. Should that prohibit a
property owner from wanting to develop a property to better suit their needs, at the expense of
an adjoining property owner who by a deeded access, which is nothing more than that, that
says he has access to his property. You can’t obstruct his access to the property. I don’t see how
the design of this new site is going to change the adjacent property owner’s ability to access his
site. It’s not going to change. If anything, from what I’m seeing, it’s going to improve it.
MR. STROUGH-You’ve extended the building six to seven feet.
MR. MAC EWAN-But what this property owner’s doing on his property is not germane to the
back property owner by way of access.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I disagree with you. I think a person has a right to develop their
property. I’m not questioning that.
MR. MAC EWAN-But wait a minute. I think what we’re trying to do is take the review process
of this Board into a property rights issue that’s not part of what this Board should be looking at.
MR. STROUGH-No. I disagree. Part of this Board’s purview is to see how an application might
affect adjacent land owners. We’ve always looked at it that way, and this is nothing new.
MR. MAC EWAN-But your position is that you think that this is going to create a worse
problem than what’s existing now, and I haven’t seen anything in anything that’s been supplied
to us that tells me that it’s going to.
MR. STROUGH-I disagree with you.
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that. All I’m asking you to do is show me where I’m missing
the point here.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, I will re-explain what I’ve said. If you’ve got a turning radius of 15.
Larger vehicles require 30. What’s the problem there? I’ve also said that you have a restricted
flow. If the cars are in their queuing lines, which is entirely possible, if you look at other
queuing lines, cars aren’t always in their queuing line. They kind of pull up wherever they are.
You’ve only got 11 feet, under ideal conditions, between the queuing line and that light fixture
on the north side of that property, located on the north side of the property. Under ideal
conditions. You’re not supposed to look at it that way. You’re supposed to look at worst case
scenarios, and if you start looking at worst case scenarios, you start to see potential negative
impacts on adjacent land owners here, and I think that there are alternatives that the applicant
has not exhausted, that could be looked at, and it could make a win/win situation for
everybody, but it hasn’t come to that point. I was hoping tonight that there would be some
kind of solution worked out between the adjacent landowners and this application that would
make everybody happy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stop right there. What is the solution that you would have wanted worked
out? They have access. That’s all they’re required to do is give this guy deeded access.
MR. STROUGH-Bob mentioned that moving the building forward might help.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see it. I see what’s being proposed.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you weren’t at the site visit on Saturday.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, I’ve been to that site several times.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you’ve got to sit there and you’ve got to look west. Sit in that, in the
northern entrance, looking west, towards U Haul, and picture yourself in a bigger vehicle.
Picture the building, six to seven feet further than it is. Picture yourself in a large, cumbersome
vehicle, and you’re going to try and negotiate, your intention is to get back to U Haul. If you’ve
got a queued line there, forget it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it shows that pretty clearly, I think, on their drawing, where it says drive
through access. If these cars are queued up like they are, really this driver in the large vehicle
has got to wait for this automobile to move forward of that ordering line right there before he
can get around. There’s just no way for him to get around that without crossing over into this,
as a matter of fact, what they show.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s my point exactly. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear here, or
maybe I’m just missing the whole picture, but how is that this property owner’s responsibility?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t think that this property, this application should adversely affect
adjacent land owners. I mean, I can repeat myself all night long, but that is a position that the
Board should be taking.
MR. RINGER-Originally, John, I felt like that, but the more I listened to the applicant, I see it
better, for the Rent All people than it is now, but maybe I’m missing the point.
MR. LAPPER-Drive through is really going to help get people off that site, too.
MR. RINGER-I kind of felt that.
MR. HUNSINGER-If my math is correct, the new building is one foot nine inches wider than
the old building? And so basically what you’re doing is you’re moving, I mean, to me two feet
is pretty insignificant.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-Basically move the whole building about almost seven feet to the north.
MR. VOLLARO-It is exactly seven feet to the north.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, six foot eleven, according to the two drawings. Is there any reason
why?
MR. LAPPER-The reason for that is because on the other side, on the south side, it makes it
easier for cars to come around and exit, because right now it’s pretty tight. It allows a bypass
lane on both sides. Which right now it doesn’t exist.
MR. RINGER-And there’s room for the trucks, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You’d kind of split the difference.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-From one side to the other.
MR. LAPPER-On purpose, to make it function in and out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-But, Mr. Chairman, not being able to locate a dumpster in a suitable location
should tell you something about what we’re trying to do on this site.
MR. LAPPER-We did put the dumpster in a suitable location.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we asked you to move it back, and even the new plan doesn’t show it
moved back.
MR. LAPPER-We did. No, we agreed to move it back, two feet to the fence.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I thought when we said move it back, move it to the west back.
MR. LAPPER-We moved it to the railing that’s along the stream.
MR. STROUGH-Where the dumpster is located.
MR. BURKE-Would you like to pick a spot for the dumpster? And I’m not being facetious. I
mean, I don’t know what else to say, because I’ve said everything.
MR. STROUGH-And what I’ve said from Day One, I think the first statement I said, I think this
building is too big for this piece of property, and we’re having trouble locating a satisfactory
place for the dumpster. Where you’ve got the dumpster right now also has potential problems
with people backing out, your employees backing out. With vehicles trying to, with large
trucks trying to. You know what, I’m just going to hold off there, and I’ve made my case.
MR. BURKE-John, I have tried to show you where, today, where driving into the building, if
you would look at that up there with me you’d see the car where we’re queuing, where we’re
showing a queue. There’s a freezer there. We’re making it more conducive to get in and out.
They still have access into the back. We’re not affecting them in any way. It’s no worse than it
is today. We’re controlling traffic. We’re adding a drive through. We’re taking care of so many
drainage issues in that area. We’re tying in to the street. We’re putting in that huge sewer line,
manhole cover. Whatever anybody wanted, I said yes to.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you bring up, the stormwater’s not a good one to bring up with me
because it’s not on site. It’s actually flowing into a storm drain that’s flowing directly into
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
Halfway Brook. No, that’s not making me happy, either, but it’s the traffic circulation issue
that’s the big problem for me. Let’s see how this pans out. I’m sure the Planning Board
members have other thoughts. I’ll listen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got anything else to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public
hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HILTON-Really quickly, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note that there’s a letter in the file,
February 3, 2003, from Mike Shaw, and he has three comments. Number One, the existing
building on the demolition plan, the existing building lateral must be capped or plugged prior
to demolition. On Utility and Landscaping Plan, he says the plan shows only one building
sewer line discharging into the grease trap. The building should have two sewer lines, one for
kitchen waste with discharges into the grease trap, and another that should carry bathroom
waste which would bypass the grease trap and connect into the lateral leading into the Town’s
sanitary main. The third and last comment deals with Page Six site details. He says grease trap
details should show water tight pipe connectors, and add a note that states all sanitary sewer
connection must comply with the Town’s sanitary codes and be inspected prior to backfill, and
that’s what we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What was the date of that letter, George?
MR. HILTON-February 3.
rd
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
JOHN POHL
MR. POHL-Good evening. My name is John Pohl. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Doty. Mr. Doty is
here with me tonight. Just a couple of comments. I’d like to clear up a couple of
misconceptions that I heard. To the best of my knowledge, and, John, you correct me if I’m
wrong, we haven’t had any substantive conversations, after the date of the last meeting, with
the applicant, other than a call this morning, which never materialized into anything.
JOHN DOTY
MR. DOTY-Well, we were going to meet here tonight at quarter of seven, but you didn’t get
here until after the meeting started.
MR. POHL-And another thing I’d like to take exception to. This is not something that Mr. Doty
is trying to make money. I take exception to that statement that was made. Mr. Doty has had
probably a 27 year relationship with Dunkin Donuts and their predecessors. So the idea that
we’re trying to hold this project up to extract money is ludicrous. Thirdly, it’s no answer to say
that we could access our property from other lands that we own, because the property that is
now U Rent-All is under lease to another individual who has an option to buy the property.
Should that occur, the fact that we have other access from the other side of the adjoining
building is irrelevant. We would be deeding the existing U Rent-All property, together with
that 25 foot right of way, to the new owner. So Jon’s argument that we had other access is
really, it’s irrelevant. It’s irrelevant to this project. As I mentioned, Mr. Doty’s owned this
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
property for over 25 years. His predecessor in title was the one who sold this property to
Dunkin Donuts, and when they did that, they reserved a 25 foot right of way to preserve the
free and uninterrupted access to his property for the operation of his business. Now comes
Dunkin Donuts seeking to impair that access with a drive through lane that will result in
potential lines of vehicles. I’ve heard a lot of comment about it and discussed it with my client.
I really think it’s impossible to predict the number of vehicles at any one time, vehicles which
could stretch as far as Route 9 and possibly into the street waiting for service. Right across the
street at Wendy’s you can see at any day long lines of vehicles wrapped around the building.
As a matter of fact, that use at Wendy’s might be less intensive than the use that I anticipate the
drive through will receive on the Dunkin Donuts property. While I’m aware, Mr. Chairman,
you mentioned that you don’t become involved in property rights between adjoining owners, I
would suggest to you that those issues should not be ignored, and I don’t believe they have
been, and I don’t mean to give you a primer on the law of easements and rights of way, but the
law is clear, and I understand it, that you cannot impair, obstruct, or lessen a right of way to the
detriment of one who is benefited by the easement. That would be us. My client, and I haven’t
seen anybody discuss this. My client has no deeded right of way around the building, and I
think on some of the maps I saw it shows arrows going in. We have no, although people may
inadvertently go around the Dunkin Donuts building to get back out to Route 9, we have no
deeded right to access that property. That could be shut off at the whim of the current owner.
So, our, and this is what I want to stress to you. Our only access, we may sell this building. It
could be a different use in the future. Our only access is, as a matter of law, this 25 foot right of
way. So it really, just picture this, cars standing, and I haven’t heard anybody address this.
Cars standing in the drive through waiting to go through, and what about clients, people
coming and going to the right of the drive through lane. That’s my client’s right, and that’s
what I haven’t seen the, it’s no answer to say, well, they could go around the building or, well,
they could access another avenue out onto Route 9. As a matter of law, that just isn’t true. Our
access is right there. So we could have two lines of moving traffic, next to the drive through
lane, the way I see it, and the idea that my client should have to wait, that people coming,
customers coming to his business should have to wait because the free and uninterrupted access
in that right of way is taken up by cars is a bit of a reach, and I don’t think it’s permitted by the
law. In addition, I want to point out, is that the plans as I understand it, provide for a
permanent obstruction in the right of way toward the front of the driveway. I think what’s been
labeled on the drawings as curbed green space, you know, just as my client couldn’t obstruct
that right of way with a fence or shrubbery or anything else, I’m aware of nothing in the law
that would permit the owner who only has a right in that easement to construct a permanent
obstruction in the right of way, and it’s the proponent’s duty to demonstrate the proposed plan
will not interfere with our property rights, not the other way around, and this, from everything
that I’ve heard, they’ve failed to do, and we do not intend to acquiesce on a plan that will
substantially diminish my client’s 25 year investment in his property and his business. This is
really a proverbial case of trying to put maybe a size 10 shoe into a, a size 10 foot into a size 7
shoe. It’s just, it’s a potential disaster, I see, on that property, and if it turns out to be worse
than what we’ve heard, what does my client do. Well, that’s too bad, you know, that would be
too bad for Mr. Doty, or if we sell the building in the back and perhaps that use is more
intensive. They’re saying the traffic in and out of the U Rent-All, I mean, that really, what we
use that business for right now is really irrelevant. It’s what it could be. As a fact, we have a
deeded 25 foot right of way that should not be obstructed in any way, and, you know, I feel for
the applicant, but that’s not we didn’t create this problem. We’ve had good relations with
Dunkin Donuts going back how many years, John? Twenty-five years. We’ve never had any
problems before. We’ve never tried to benefit in any way from that relationship.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Doty said he’s had problems several times in the past with this site with
deliveries coming in in the current configuration. That it blocked his access to the U Rent-All
site when Dunkin Donuts has made deliveries.
MR. DOTY-They back the truck up across the back area there. I did say that, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Honestly, to suggest that there’s been a very good, no problems prior to this
site plan that’s been reviewed is not accurate because you have had problems in the past.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. DOTY-Mr. MacEwan, that’s assuming that we had negative relationships with Dunkin
Donuts. I believe I stated that the truck backed up against the building, and caused traffic
problems there. I don’t believe that I, I did not mean to say that we had difficulties with the
people at Dunkin Donuts over that. In fact, we.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you think would be a good resolve to this? What would you like to
see done, from your point of view? What is the fix?
MR. DOTY-I think either, you know, among other things, one, possibly moving the building
forward. Two, making the building narrower, and let me point out something everybody has
mentioned so far is the fact that, you know, right, and Mr. Lapper said, well, people park along
this area here. Very true, but our trucks can come through here and make almost a straight
shot. Moving everything over here, with the lanes, means they’ve got to make an “S” curve
here. Mr. Strough’s mentioning the turning radiuses as something that seriously concerns me,
because we’re talking, we’re not talking about an SUV with a 14 foot trailer. We’re talking a
pick up, in my case, with a 24 or 26 foot trailer. The turning radiuses are pretty sizeable, and
we’re also talking, again, we’re talking about making an “S” turn. We’re not talking about
making a smooth turn around here, either. “S” turn’s going to require actually cutting both
corners. It was also stated, at one of the meetings that, well, Dunkin Donuts delivery truck
would be able to make that swing. I don’t think with 15 foot radius they’re going to make that
swing.
MR. VOLLARO-How are they getting in to the site today?
MR. DOTY-Right now they’re backing in off Glen Street.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re backing in to the right, to the south of that building?
MR. DOTY-To the south side of the building, yes. This side here, next to the Auto Zone.
MR. VOLLARO-So what do they do with the traffic that’s running on Glen Street when an 18
wheeler’s trying to back into that? What happens?
MR. DOTY-I have not observed it. I can imagine, because I, there were a couple of occasions
where we had to back an 18 wheeler out on Glen Street, when he got in here and found he
couldn’t get out over the years.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that the way they’re making deliveries now, by backing in? They’re not
going around?
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll wait and ask that of the applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. DOTY-They used to come back, behind my building, and back in against the building, and
then when they went out, they’d come all the way back, and those of you who have been
behind my building picking up stuff find there’s a big loop back there where there’s plenty of
room to turn a semi-trailer, and they used to turn there, and they drove out this side of the
building, because this corner was too tight for them to make. I agree, this is going to be much
better on the south side, if that’s what we want to call it, the south side of the building. That
definitely is going to be better, but the north side isn’t. The north side, I think, is going to be
considerably worse.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is it fair to say that you’re existing clients, when they exit your property, is it
fair to say that they go around the south side, the majority of them would go around the south
side of the Dunkin Donuts currently?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. DOTY-I would say probably 90%. Some of them don’t. You know people.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because I know the few times that I’ve been there, that’s what I did,
you know, and that’s what I had observed as well.
MR. POHL-That’s the point I was making. That’s the flow of, that’s the current flow, as I
pointed out. That could end tomorrow. We have no deeded right of way. They could put a
sign up there and say, no trespassing, or chain it off or something.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Okay. Thank you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could I just ask one question?
MR. MAC EWAN-Sure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So what, again, Craig already asked you. What would you propose the
applicant do? You said to make the building narrower, and to move it forward.
MR. DOTY-I think either or both would help. Making that cut around that, that “S” curve
there, that “S” turn.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How many feet would that have to be?
MR. DOTY-I think I would have to find a good engineering firm to let me know that. I know 15
feet radius isn’t enough. I know that, I’ve got a commercial drivers license. I’ve been driving
trucks and trailers for years.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I mean, give me an idea, 18 feet, 21?
MR. DOTY-I think that the Board, looking at the, you know, the fact that there will be larger
trucks in there, beyond my control, that you really need to stick to the radiuses required, that
the Board has used for larger trucks. So, whatever that, you know, an engineer would have to
figure that out. I’m not an engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment? I’ll leave the public
hearing open.
MR. HILTON-We have a couple of letters. One of them is from Mr. Doty, which most of his
comments were kind of contained in the letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just note the letters and the date, and the writer.
MR. HILTON-Okay, and the other one is Mark Dickinson, dated June 5, 2003, many of the
comments concerning vehicular access, and, again, as I said, Mr. Doty’s letter, and the date on
that May 12, 2003.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Who’s Mark Dickinson?
MR. VOLLARO-He’s the owner of the U Rent-All.
MR. HILTON-Yes, exactly.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-He’s the tenant.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi, would you like to offer some comments on this, easements and such
like that?
MS. RADNER-I haven’t reviewed the language of the easement to determine the nature and
extent of the rights. I had asked if it was in the file, and we couldn’t locate it. So I’m not
prepared to say the extent of any deeded rights that the back building might have, which could
dictate that answer. There’s two different sets of inquiries here, what rights of way, or legal
rights the back applicant might have that they might be able to assert in a court of law against,
one property owner against another is something that’s better addressed by their own attorney.
Your determination is limited to the typical site plan reviews, and without knowing more about
that right of way, I can’t give you much guidance there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe Jon can address that issue. I was going to ask the same question that
the Chairman asked about mostly with respect to the concrete curb.
MR. LAPPER-Where’s the concrete curb, in the front?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s a very simple answer. Right now the property owner in the back has
a deeded sign which is on there, which comes out about two feet next to the old blue building.
So we’re only taking that curb line and bringing it from the sign right to Glen Street, but a truck,
if you’re driving in and there’s a sign here, you can’t drive in and drive through the sign. So
they’re precluded from using that two feet anyway. They have a concrete mounted sign that
says U Rent-All that you can see from Glen Street. So that doesn’t change anything. They’re
not using that space now. We’re using that to better control traffic, to put that in. I think the
Planning Staff asked for that when we first had meetings.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that what their deed says, for sign only?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that they have a sign, deeded, and it’s on our map as their sign. It’s a deeded
right to that sign.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have copies of those, the deeds for this property?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you supply them to Counsel tomorrow?
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Pohl, could you supply copies of the deeds from what your
understanding is of the U Rent-All facility to our Town Counsel tomorrow, or fax them to them,
please.
MR. LAPPER-I guess I would say, and you’ve said this, Mr. Chairman, that the private real
estate rights are something that the parties can litigate, but I know this Board’s frequently taken
the position that what’s deeded and an easement isn’t something that this Board is going to
decide.
MR. MAC EWAN-However, our Counsel has taken somewhat of a different position, and until
she has an opportunity to review those documents, I don’t think I’m willing to venture this
Board much farther.
MR. LAPPER-One thing I want to mention is that, as a compromise, one thing that we just
thought of, which is a small compromise, but it might make Mr. Strough happier, on the north
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
side of the building, there’s six feet of green space. If we cut that back to four feet, it would
change that. His calculation, as the worst case, was that 11 feet, and we would make that 13
feet. We would have to relocate that green space somewhere on the back of the site, which we
can just figure that out and submit that, but we could shave that down from six feet to four feet,
which would, I mean, we don’t think is necessary because we think that there’s enough room
for trucks and cars to get through as they do now, but we could still give you another two feet,
if that’s the area that the Board feels is the most critical.
MR. VOLLARO-Is any future discussion between you and Mr. Doty seriously sitting down and
talking out the issue about moving the building, doing whatever, is that off the table or is that
still a remote possibility? The parties can sit down and constructively discuss what’s
happening?
MR. LAPPER-They certainly can discuss, but in terms of what’s constructive as any kind of a
change, we tried to site the building in the center so that you have the traffic flow all around it,
and to the extent that they’re using the south side anyway, which, of course, he said they are,
the bypass lane on the south side just makes the whole site work better. So we think this is
better.
MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you this morning when I was there, everybody that exited out of the
U Rent-All exited over Mr. Parillo’s property. Every one. There were three of them, and all
three went that way, right across the parking lot.
MR. LAPPER-Because that’s probably not a time of day when a lot of people buy auto supplies.
So that lot is probably not very heavily utilized, and it’s just the easiest way out.
MR. VOLLARO-I bet you and I could both negotiate that parking lot without a problem, no
matter how full it was, we would find a way out to Route 9, but Mr. Parillo would have a right
to close that off. I don’t know whether he would or not, but there’s certainly a possibility where
he said, look, you make your site work without benefit of my property.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the answer is that people are always going to take the easiest way. Just like
people drive to avoid traffic lights.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve designed this site so that it’s going to work better than it does now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Burke, what’s the impacts to you if I asked you to shorten up the width
of your building by four feet on the north side?
MR. BURKE-I need the space inside my building today, that this is the smallest building I can
put on that site. I would have to go back to Dunkin Donuts. I’d have to re-engineer the entire
building. I would have to pay architects to redesign the entire. I’d have to redesign the entire
thing. I’d have another $20,000 in architectural fees. What I can do, if this Board will work with
me.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve certainly been trying.
MR. BURKE-I mean, and I’ve been trying to work with the Board in every way I possibly can.
Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-How far out does the foyer?
MR. BURKE-ADA, I’ve got to have it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I know, but how far out does it go, the little entrance way, the little
foyer?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s required, ADA requirements.
MR. BURKE-ADA, because of the doors and the wheelchair span.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. What I was thinking is, take that off, and then, I know you need
a little entrance way so you can keep the building clean on the inside. Can’t you make it an
inside entrance way?
MR. BURKE-Let me see a set of plans. I don’t even know. I’ve seen so many buildings today.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, look at a set of plans. He needs the inside.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m sorry. I should not have interrupted.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not a bad inquiry. He’s going to look at the floor plans.
MR. BURKE-Again, it goes back to architecture.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what I’m saying is, instead of having that little entrance way jutting
out, have it jutting in, and then put the seats up around it.
MR. BURKE-I don’t think, this is ADA. We’ve already brought it in, okay, because of the door
and the radius here. The only other thing I could, you just don’t want to mess with ADA. The
only other thing I could probably do, and I don’t know what this would do, if we brought it in a
little bit more. What are we accomplishing by doing that?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then you could move the building that much forward.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s wrong with just sliding the building forward?
MR. BURKE-How about this. I drop this in two more feet, but I’ve got to have a stacking area,
and I’ll cut two feet off the side, and I’ll put green space, and I’ll agree with Mr. Doty, and we’ll
put green space in this corner right here.
MRS. DOTY
MRS. DOTY-Where are you putting the green space?
MR. BURKE-Right here.
MRS. DOTY-That’s right in front of our building. I’m not sure that’s going to solve the
problem. The problem is the trucks having to come here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Folks, folks. I don’t want to turn this into a negotiating game here.
MR. BURKE-I’m trying to meet everybody, okay, trucks can’t be pinned in this corner. There’s
no way a truck is going into this corner. Right? Because the building is there. So if we arc this
and fill this with a low green space, blue junipers, blue star junipers, holly, okay, something that
doesn’t block the view, okay, but it softens the view, which I’m willing to do. I’ll move this in
two feet. I’ll cut this down and we can move this up. As long as I don’t have to come back
here. Because I’ve got a crew waiting to go, and I’m willing to do it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Four feet off that, how long is that side, the length?
MR. MAC EWAN-The north side.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The north side.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. BURKE-Garry, how long is the north side?
MR. MAC EWAN-Fifty-one feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fifty-one times four, and you’re going to cut off four feet?
MR. BURKE-I just said I would.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Two feet. There’s the 100 square feet Bob and I were talking about.
MR. ROBINSON-No, no, what he’s doing, I think what you’re thinking is that this whole side is
being cut off or something?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. ROBINSON-What he’s doing is he’s taking two feet off this front entryway, so that’s like
two by eight or something.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. ROBINSON-Somewhere in that range, and then building moves up two feet. So the whole
building goes forward to make up that two feet. So we’ll be at the same line here, and then on
the side, what he’s doing is right now we have a green space located down the side of the
building. What he’s saying is he’ll shorten that green space two feet.
MR. BURKE-Right, how long is the green space?
MR. ROBINSON-It’s about 51 feet. What we’re saying is the building isn’t changing by 100
square feet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know what you mean.
MR. ROBINSON-Okay. All right. I didn’t think you did.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I do now, but I didn’t before.
MR. ROBINSON-All right.
MR. BURKE-But you’re getting a larger distance here. We can arc it in this corner, here, and we
can run it up the side here if we have to. I mean, I’m willing to do it.
MR. ROBINSON-The reason that we’re talking about the other green space is because we just
got a variance for the amount of green space that we have to have. So if we remove some of the
green space here, we have to put it somewhere else. So that’s why we’re saying that.
MR. BURKE-Garry, I have a question for you. I have a car that parks here. Needless to say,
how about if we put a little more green space in the front? So what I’m willing to do, okay, is
take your suggestion. I’ll move this in a little bit further, but I have to meet my ADA codes,
okay. I’ll take two feet off here, which will give you a larger turning radius. I can put a little
more green space here. I will make sure that I meet the green space requirement on this plan,
and I’ll meet with any one on the Board and say, you know, this is where we’re going to put it,
and I won’t interfere with any access on the Doty’s property, but, you know, if you put a little
green space here that arcs it, you know, you corner it, you soften the look of the building,
because that’s not an attractive building either, I mean, the whole site isn’t attractive today, and
when we’re done it will be attractive. It’ll look a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got today.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, we even had it in the conditions to table, address Mr. Doty’s
comments. I wish you had sat down with Mr. Doty, before you even came here tonight, that’s
what I was hoping would happen. So this would be, you know, an expedited affair as far as I’m
concerned.
MR. BURKE-I don’t think Mr. Doty and I are going to be able to come to terms, to be quite
honest with you, on what he wants and what I want, and you can ask me to sit down with him,
and I talked to him today, okay. He didn’t have any time for me. My brother talked to him two
months ago. His solution was, buy our buildings, on the right hand side. Buy the salon, buy
the other one for $300,000, and he and I had talked about it today, and when he spoke with me
he said, you know, that wouldn’t solve the problem either, and I don’t think he has the right to
tell me, okay, when I meet all the codes, I’m spending all the money. I’m willing to work in
every way, this is what I want. Buy me for a million dollars then. Because I’m the one who’s, at
great expense, who’s doing everything they’ve been asked to, and now you’re asking me to
have someone else dictate to me what I can do, and I don’t think that’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what I’d like you to do. Let’s table this thing tonight, to next week,
okay. What I’d like you to do for us, Mr. Robinson, is to take these suggestions that the Board’s
looking for, by moving the vestibule in two feet, moving the footprint of the building up two
feet. Making those changes on the footprint of the building. What I’d ask you not to do is a
whole new set of drawings. If you could just take one drawing, mark it up, as to what we’re
looking for, so we can see where the new footprint of the building is going to be, showing that
little green space area that you’re going to add in the northwest corner. Get those deeds to
Counsel tomorrow, as well as you, Mr. Pohl, get those deeds to Counsel tomorrow so she has an
opportunity to review them. We’ll meet back here next Tuesday night and we’ll come to some
sort of resolution on the site once and for all.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Do we have a motion to table, please, based on that, from
someone? Anyone?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What you have just said is on record. Can we just say, as per what Craig
MacEwan just said?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, Introduced
by Mrs. LaBombard who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Vollaro:
Until next Tuesday, June 24, 2003 so the applicant can have time to make the changes on the
footprint of the building regarding the following:
1. Moving the vestibule in two feet
.
2. Moving the footprint of the building up two feet.
3. Making the changes on the footprint of the building, not a whole new set of
drawings, just take one drawing and mark it up, as to what we’re looking for, so
that we can see where the new footprint of the building is going to be.
4. Showing that little green space area that you’re going to have in the northwest
corner.
5. Get those deeds to Counsel tomorrow, as well as Mr. Pohl, get those deeds to
Counsel tomorrow, so she has an opportunity to review them.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough. Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ll have those drawings in to us.
MR. LAPPER-Tomorrow, the next day.
MR. MAC EWAN-By close of business Thursday. Because Staff notes are delivered on Friday,
and I want to be sure that the Board has an opportunity to review them over the weekend.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 32-2003 SEQR TYPE II QUEENSBURY QUAKER, LLC AGENT: SAGE
ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 118 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING CANOPY. PERMITTED USES IN THE
HC-INT. ZONE THAT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW
AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 111-89, AV
17-90, SV 81-90, SV 9-91, AV 26-93, SP 68-90 & OTHERS (BP) WARREN CO. PLANNING:
6/11/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-12 LOT SIZE: 4.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
UDO AMMON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 32-2003, Queensbury Quaker, LLC, Meeting Date: June 17, 2003
“APPLICATION: Site Plan 32-2003
APPLICANT: Queensbury Quaker LLC is the applicant for this request.
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new building canopy
at the Quaker Plaza shopping center on Quaker Rd.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Quaker Rd., just west of
Glenwood Ave.
EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive.
SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II Action. No further action is required.
PARCEL HISTORY: A review of Town records found various Planning Board and ZBA
applications relating to the businesses within this shopping center.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a new canopy for the main
building within Quaker Plaza. The applicant proposes to remove the existing blue fabric
canopy and replace it with a gray metal canopy.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan”
-
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please.
MR. HILTON-Okay. The applicant proposes to remove an existing blue fabric canopy and
replace it with a gray metal canopy. The only comments I have, I guess, are the following
waivers have been requested, stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan,
landscaping plan. The applicant has submitted one colored rendering that we have, we can
pass around to the Board if you’d like to see it. We have no comments beyond that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. AMMON-Good evening. Udo Ammon. I’m the architect from Sage Engineering.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. Tell us a little bit about what you want to do.
MR. AMMON-Well, we want to tear off that blue canopy that was built in the 80’s there, and
replace it with a standing seam metal roof, built over metal framing, lined with a metal gutter,
an (lost word) gutter. Basically the metal canopy is going to be exposed on two sides, three
sides of the building, and it’ll be seen from Quaker Road, and that’s really about it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a colored rendering, you said, to pass that around. What other
site improvements are going to be done? Anything anticipated?
MR. AMMON-That’s really about it. Do you want to talk about possibly tying in to the storm
sewers at all, yet, or do we want to wait and see?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, will there be any blue left?
MR. AMMON-Just where the two buildings meet. There is an “L” shape where it passes
through to the back parking area. That’s the only portion. You shouldn’t be able to see it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’ll leave the, there’s red molding around the windows, is there?
MR. AMMON-Well, the window frames themselves are red.
MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, no one on this Board was on the Board at the time the
blue was approved.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this like a mansard roof, the way it’s going to come, because the one
now is rounded.
MR. AMMON-It’ll be a pitched roof, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It will be a pitched roof?
MR. AMMON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like this, Cathy. It looks like that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t quite catch what you were saying. Okay. I see. Good. That’s
going to make all the difference in the world. It really will. I’m just wondering if gray is the
color. Is it a dark gray or a light gray?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. AMMON-It’s going to be like a charcoal gray.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That would work.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have no questions. I think it’s going to be an improvement.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m curious, why wasn’t this put on Expedited Review?
MR. HILTON-It qualifies in the textbook definition, of course.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think we need to re-write the textbook.
MR. RINGER-We talked about it with the completeness review, and we decided, you know, it
just didn’t fit in, and that’s why did it, but Expedited was talked about, but we decided not to
go that way.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I have no questions. I think it’ll be a major improvement.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-A major improvement.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, just one small question. Were you told about the blue controversy? Is
that why we went with gray? Gray’s safe?
MR. AMMON-No.
MR. STROUGH-The gray was just prepared? Okay. Just curious. No, that’s it for me.
Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I have no other, I’ll give you one for your pet peeve, it’s that when drawings
are made like this, that a north arrow be included on the drawing. That’s one of your pets, I
believe.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a requirement of site plan application.
MR. VOLLARO-So just, all of us who live here know the building, but it would be nice to have
a north oriented arrow so we know what we’re looking at. That’s my only comment. I think
this is a great improvement over what’s there.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Me, too, and when is this going to be done?
MR. AMMON-As soon as we get the bids back, and a building permit.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add?
MR. AMMON-Nothing.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-This is a Type II, no action?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Type II, no SEQRA.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2003 QUEENSBURY QUAKER, LLC,
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. 32-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Queensbury Quaker, LLC
SEQR Type II Agent: Sage Engineering
Zone: HC-Int.
Location: 118 Quaker Road
Applicant proposes to construct a new building canopy. Permitted uses in the HC-Int. zone
that require a building permit require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 111-89, AV 17-90, SV 81-90, SV 9-91, AV 26-
93, SP 68-90 & Others (BP)
Warren Co. Planning: 6/11/03
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-12
Lot size: 4.06 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: June 17, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/13/03, and
6/17 Staff Notes
6/11 Warren Co. Planning
6/10 Notice of Public Hearing
6/3 Meeting Notice
6/2 GH from Sage Engineering: Elevations dated 5/29/03
5/16 CB from Sage Engineering: Site Plan copies dated 5/15/03
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 17, 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, 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
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff with the exception that we delete the SEQR paragraph, the Whereas,
1. Waivers requests granted: Stormwater Management Plan, Grading, Lighting and
Landscaping 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 6/17/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. RINGER-In the application there’s no mention as to color. Why don’t we just put in there
that it be gray, just to see.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Dark gray.
MR. RINGER-Just to cover ourselves.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the drawing rendering shows the color. Doesn’t it?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s part of the packet. It’s part of the packet. It’s listed in the resolution
as part of the packet.
MR. METIVIER-Stipulate it will not be blue.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, well, we don’t want it sky blue pink, either.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the packet. We know the color. We’ll leave it at that.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a point of order, a while ago, I had sent to Staff the way I wanted to
see the agendas outlined, set up. Expedited, Old Business, and I see we’re not following that.
Would you just remind those who do the agendas, to do it that way, please.
MR. HILTON-I certainly will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 5-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS PROPERTY OWNER: GARTH ALLEN AGENT:
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP ZONE: PUD LOCATION: CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING UNITS, GRADING AND WETLAND
CREATION WITHIN 100’ OF REGULATED WETLANDS. HALFWAY BROOK/NYSDEC
GF-19. AREA OF WETLAND: 2.0 ACRES. CROS REFERENCE: PUD SP 8-2000 DEC,
ACOE WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-2,3 LOT SIZE: 31.12 AC.,
65.71 AC. SECTION: 179-6.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
TOM NACE, JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, why do we need to do a SEQRA tonight? The SEQRA’s
already been done on this, as part of the PUD.
MR. HILTON-I don’t know. What do you think, Cathi?
MS. RADNER-Was this proposal part of the project when they considered the PUD?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it was.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MS. RADNER-Then you don’t need to do SEQRA.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I thought.
MS. RADNER-You should just include the part.
MR. MAC EWAN-No change to the original SEQRA findings. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-We have nothing to add, beyond our Staff notes of April 22. The only thing is
nd
the June 2 letter from Craig Brown to Craig MacEwan talking about the historical timeline of
nd
this application, and then the clock, I guess, started October 7, 2002. Therefore this is consistent
within acting within a year of the approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-In 30 seconds or less, we did the PUD. The Planning Board was Lead Agency.
You granted site plan approval. There was a small amount of wetland disturbance and then
wetland fill, I’m sorry, wetland re-creation to make up for it. We submitted with the application
the DEC and the Army Corps permits, and I’ll let Tom just give you the detail or show you on
the map where that is, but it’s exactly what was on the site plan that you approved. We just
didn’t ask for a Freshwater Wetlands Permit at that time, unfortunately.
MR. NACE-I don’t even know if I need to put a map up in front of you, but there were some
small areas of wetland. We’ve replaced them with created wetlands. It was a process that the
Corps was involved in. We did what they wanted, and here we are.
MR. MAC EWAN-Long and ongoing. Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Nothing related to this. I’ve got questions for Tom.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just had a couple of questions. Having read through all of the material
here, I’ll just read from what my notes say, referencing the DEC Article 24 permit dated 5/14,
the permit references sketches attached. We have the permit, but I don’t have any sketches
attached. Were there sketches attached to the permit, or were they your sketches, Tom?
MR. NACE-I think they were the approved drawings themselves.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right.
MR. NACE-He used the term “sketches”. I believe he meant the actual drawings, because they
didn’t, when they returned the permit, they return a set of stamped drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t anything attached to them that
they had generated that we didn’t see as part of the package.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now, the ACOE letter references a 5/4 letter on grading, drainage
and wetland disturbance prepared by Roberts Environmental Consulting, dated 10/31, and the
final revision dated 5/6. It looks like Roberts submitted some information here that.
MR. NACE-They submitted the plans that we generated.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-Roberts handled the negotiation process with the Corps.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. That answers my questions, Mr. Chairman. I guess I have another
question, though. This Freshwater Wetlands permit, based on all of the previous approval for
this PUD, it seems that this might have been a candidate for Expedited Review. I don’t know
why it wouldn’t have been.
MR. HILTON-Again, it didn’t meet the definition.
MR. VOLLARO-It didn’t meet the definition.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got to work on that definition.
MR. VOLLARO-This could have gone real quick under an Expedited Review process, I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s Old Business, too, so it should have been at the top of the agenda.
Cathy, have you got anything? A public hearing is not scheduled tonight. I see where it was
April 22, so it wasn’t left open or anything like that. Would someone introduce a motion,
nd
please.
MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 5-2003
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Freshwater Wetlands
Permit – FWW 5-2003 Applicant: Queensbury Partners
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Garth Allen
Agent: Queensbury Partners, LP
Zone: PUD
Location: Cronin Road
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
Applicant proposes construction of housing units, grading and wetland creation within 100’ of
regulated wetlands. Halfway Brook / NYSDEC GF-19. Area of wetland: 2.0 acres.
Cross Reference: PUD SP 8-2000
DEC, ACOE
Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-2, 3
Lot size: 31.12 ac., 65.71 ac. / Section: 179-6
Public Hearing: April 22, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/13/03, and
6/17 PB resolution
6/17 Staff Notes
6/3 Meeting Notice
6/2 Memo to Mr. MacEwan from CB
4/22 Staff Notes
4/17 C. T. Male engineering comments
4/15 Notice of Public Hearing
4/9 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
4/2 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 22, 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 comments and conditions:
1. The Planning Board has determined that there’s no significant change in the site
plan modification and further finds there is no sufficient change to the original
SEQRA findings.
2. Applicant shall apply for and receive the required NYSDEC and ACOE permits.
Copies of these permits to be submitted at the time of Building Permit for this
project. Any conditions of the NYSDEC and/or ACOE permit shall be included
in the Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
3. 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 6/17/03 by the
Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following
conditions:
1.
Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. STROUGH-How did that end up, Tom, with C.T. Male’s suggestion of a four to six foot
deep sump prior to the wetland?
MR. NACE-We had already, C.T. Male had not been given the drawings of the site for the PUD.
I think maybe the actual PUD approval went through before C.T. Male was here. So they didn’t
have the stormwater report or anything. All that I did was supply them with the stormwater
report that we had done, showed that we were treating with some stone-filled check dams and
were doing the types of things we wanted, and they were satisfied.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 WAL-MART STORES SEQRA TYPE I PROPERTY OWNER:
WAL-MART STORES, INC. & NAT. REALTY AGENT: NEAL MADDEN, ESQ. ZONE:
HC-INT. LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
EXPANSION OF EXISTING WAL-MART STORE BY CONSTRUCTING A 95, 217 SQ. FT.
BUILDING ADDITION FOR A TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 216,080. THE
PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AT THIS
MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ, 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32-92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-93, AV
11-93, SB 3-93, SP 31-93, AV 38-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO.
296.17-1-36, 37 LOT SIZE: 11.29 AC., 6.46 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020
MR. VOLLARO-I think we can do this rather quickly with a resolution, Mr. Chairman, to accept
Lead Agency.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just the Lead Agency status, that’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make the resolution to accept that, if you’d like.
MR. MAC EWAN-No public hearing on this?
MR. HILTON-Not to acknowledge Lead Agency.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Motion, Mr. Vollaro.
MOTION TO HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN
CONNECTION WITH SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 FOR
THE WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Larry Ringer:
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 6/17/03)
WHEREAS, in connection with the Wal-Mart project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board,
by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of
the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified
and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
The Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of
SEQRA review in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger,
Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? I move we adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
40