2003-03-25
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE
SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
DISCUSSION:
OPEN SPACE PLAN
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Marilyn.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. Thanks. Thank you. I’ll try to keep this very brief. Yesterday, the Open
Space Planning Committee had their public hearing for the Open Space Plan, and referred it to
the Town Board, during the Town Board’s meeting last evening, and then the Town Board
passed a resolution to have the public hearing draft go to the Planning Board, the County
Planning Board, the APA and the City of Glens Falls Planning Board. Actually, the only official
recommendation that’s required at this point is from the County. Typically, the Planning Board
would have an official referral and recommendation. Because it’s the Open Space Planning
Committee, was appointed by the Board to actual put this plan together, they were the ones
required to have the public hearing. However, the Board, the Town Board in their resolution
would still very much like to have the Planning Board look at the Open Space Plan, provide
comments, and then it was also suggested to have a joint public hearing with the Town Board,
the Planning Board and the Open Space Committee some time in May. At this point, the
referral, as I said, the official referral goes to the County. The document was forwarded to the
Adirondack Park Agency really only as a courtesy, because there aren’t any land use changes in
the Plan, and we expect about a 30 day time period for comments, and then the public hearing.
So any comments, recommendations that the Planning Board might have, if they can refer those
to the Town Board, before the Town Board sets their public hearing, that would be really great.
If you have any questions, you can ask me or Craig, excuse me, Chris Round, our Executive
Director of Community Development. I would like the public to know, too, that the Open
Space Plan is on the Town website, which is wwwQueensbury.net and then you can just go into
Community Development, and Open Space, and I think that’s it for a quick rundown, other
than that the recommendation from the Open Space Planning Committee is to adopt this as an
amendment to the Town Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t have a date set for the joint meeting?
MRS. RYBA-No. One of the Town Board members was on vacation last night, and the rest of
the Board wanted to wait until he came back to set the date, but hopefully, it depends a lot, too,
on the agenda items that the Town Board has, but hopefully either the 5 or the 19 of May.
thth
They have two meetings that month.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-If this is going to be a joint meeting, though, they wouldn’t want us on their
regular agenda. Would they?
MRS. RYBA-I don’t know, and that’s, we’ll wait until the other Town Board member comes
back, and have Staff will have that discussion with them.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. From the Board’s standpoint, our preference would be to have a
separate meeting with them, away from their agenda.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. I can pass that along.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thanks. We’ll review it.
MRS. RYBA-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SALLY KELLY AGENT: DAVID
KELLY ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: ROCKY SHORE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 945 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK
REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2003, BP
02-855, 02-854 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/02 TAX MAP NO.
239.15-1-3/3-1-13 LOT SIZE: 0.89 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
DAVID KELLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing back on February 25 was tabled, well, the
th
application was tabled and the public hearing was left open. There’s one tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please, George.
MR. HILTON-I believe Staff notes have been previously read into the record. If not, I can just
summarize. Now that a variance has been granted for the dock below the boathouse, the
boathouse appears to be conforming, pardon me, appears to conform to the height requirements
and meets, either meets the setbacks or has a variance for setbacks, and the application seems to
comply with all the zoning ordinances and that’s all we have at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. KELLY-Good evening. I’m Dave Kelly, husband of the property owner. This is Matt
Fuller, attorney at Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker & Firth, for guidance. The proposal is quite simple.
It’s a 27 by 35 foot sundeck over an U-Shaped crib dock. Square footage is 945 square feet, and
it conforms to all the required setbacks and height requirements. I’d also like to note that it is
replacing a pre-existing sundeck that was in a nonconforming site, which required moving my,
reconfiguring my crib dock into the present configuration. I’ve got some diagrams in your
handouts, I believe, as well as for the public, showing the renderings and site setbacks and so
forth.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Nothing.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry to break the cycle here, but I’d like to ask a couple of questions. This
application was originally submitted on December 19. So you may have to help me through
th
some of this. There’s a second set of submissions, there was a prior set of submissions and a
second set of submissions, and does the second set of submissions completely replace the prior
set?
MR. KELLY-The only changes made are actually that the posts, the dimensions are exactly the
same, as far as square footage and siting. It’s just I changed from I think it was five posts to six
posts on the side, that better conform to where the posts were made on the dock, and there was
a minor reduction in the height to six inches lower than previous.
MR. VOLLARO-I see where the height was reduced from seven feet to six foot eight. That’s
how your posts went down.
MR. KELLY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I noticed the second set of submissions is scaled out to a quarter.
MR. KELLY-There’s one site drawing that’s scaled to three sixteenths.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the first one, yes. The first drawing is three sixteenths. Everybody else
is at a quarter scale.
MR. KELLY-At a quarter scale, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. So, have a little bit of a problem with the quarter scale, and I’ll just go
over it with you.
MR. KELLY-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-The logic. First of all, the mean high water mark is listed on the second set of
drawings as approximate mean high, and so I took that approximate line, approximation to that
is something I’m concerned, since that figure figures tightly into the 14 feet, but I’ll go over it
with you, just quickly. I used your quarter scale, and it looks like your mean high water mark is
exactly two foot below your dock, and then you’ve got a six foot eight, which is your reduced
from seven foot to six eight. The next dimension up to the top of the sundeck is two feet. To the
top of the rail is three feet six inches. Now, when I aggregate those numbers, I come up with 14,
4.
MR. KELLY-Yes. These are drawings done by myself. They’re not detailed construction
drawings, but I’m trying to just, because I’m not sure what the dimension lumber is for the
actual deck, I’d have to defer to, you know, an actual construction man for that, but I just want
to assure everyone that the overall height will be, you know, no more than the maximum
allowed.
MR. VOLLARO-The problem is that’s not what the drawing tells me. I’ve got to go by what’s in
front of me. I do know this, that if I go back to your old drawings, you do have your high water
mark set in there, and did you use the Lake George scale for that?
MR. KELLY-Yes, I did.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and if you go to the old one, I believe you do, this was your December
19 submission, if you look at that, you did set your high water marks in on that, and they were
th
set in at mean low at 15, 8 and mean high at 13, 7.
MR. KELLY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So those ought to really be transferred to these drawings. See, having an
approximate mean height really affects the 14 max number. Approximate could be just any.
MR. KELLY-I’m not sure where you see the approximate.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If you get on your Drawing Number 11, on your second submission.
MR. KELLY-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And if you get on that, out where your cribbing is, on the docking, you’ll see
approximate mean high water.
MR. KELLY-Well, you know, I’m not a draftsman either. So, I mean, I’m trying to give a
rendering of what the dock would look like, but, you know, being assured of all the proper
setbacks and heights, you know, I don’t know, I mean, these timbers on the decking probably
aren’t perfectly to scale either, but it’s just to show that the height from the mean high water
mark to the top of the railing will not exceed 14 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to address the Board for a minute. How does the rest of
the Board feel about that, Craig? Is everybody satisfied with that? If they are, I’ll just.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, if we’re so inclined to approve this application, we could just so
note it in our condition of approval, you know, word it in such a way that it’s not to exceed the
maximum allowed height above the mean high water mark.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished with my review.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-All right. Is this sundeck going to obstruct or impair any of your neighbor’s
views?
MR. KELLY-No. In fact, it actually, it’s an improvement over the pre-existing, and I have,
behind this, I have drawings of where the sundeck used to be and now I’ve centered the crib
dock and the sundeck in the center of my 100 foot property, and there’s approximately 100 feet
on both sides of the proposed structure to the nearest dock to the north and the south, and I’ve
actually improved the sighting, certainly from the north, and I have not diminished the sight
view from the neighbors to the south, and I do have a letter of support from the neighbor to the
north.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ve got a question that I think I have to kind of run by Staff, and what
drew my attention to it was it’s a rather large sundeck, and in our Town Code it says, and I’m
quoting word for word, the maximum surface area of any dock or wharf shall be 700 square
feet, including any walkway.
MR. KELLY-And that’s the dock, not the sundeck.
MR. STROUGH-That’s not what it says.
MR. HILTON-Well, I think what the applicant’s trying to say is that this application represents
the boathouse, and it’s not for the dock beneath the boathouse, and we’re looking at, the
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
boathouse is conforming to the height and side yard setbacks. You’re right. That’s in the
Ordinance and that’s the limitation on the docks.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think my point is, and not to pick on you, but I think the Ordinance has
to address what is going to be the dock and the multi surfaces we’re getting here. I don’t know.
Another thing that was a concern to me, not necessarily to pick on you, but it’s part of our
Ordinance, the way the Ordinance it was written, and it was your dock that drew my attention
to this, to look it up, was this is an extraordinarily large dock, in my opinion, in that, you could
conceivably house, dock, berth four boats on this dock. You have two boats, you could be
under cover, and then two boats on the lateral sides of the dock. So you could potentially put
four docks there. Now do you rent space?
MR. KELLY-I do not, and I do not intend to rent space.
MR. STROUGH-And not to pick on you, and I’m not intending on using this against you, but
again, the way our Ordinance is written, it allows you to have that. Okay. I don’t know if we’re
trying to encourage this multiple boat situation. So, again, George, I think it’s something we
need to take a look at, but other than that, I think Bob pretty much drew the concern, and it
seems like the applicant is going to stay to the 14 feet, and I think we can condition that.
MR. KELLY-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
MR. KELLY-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-George, everything is listed in the documentation as an Unlisted. Isn’t this a
Type II? As well as the next application?
MR. HILTON-Well, we have it listed as an Unlisted on the notes.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious.
MR. HILTON-For whatever reason, and I don’t have the SEQRA reg’s in front of me, we do
have it listed as Unlisted. We do have a Short Form, though.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but isn’t it a Type II?
MR. HILTON-There is a piece of public comment, if you’d like to have that read into the record.
MR. MAC EWAN-While she’s looking that up, we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone
want to comment on this application? Okay. Would you read that letter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HILTON-It’s just a letter that says, “Dear Board Members: My wife and I would like to ask
you to act in a favorable manner to their proposal to construct a new boathouse/sundeck. They
have gone to great expense to bring the existing dock into conformity with current rules before
they did the project, which we applaud. If there is any discussion about using a land bridge to
the deck, we would approve. It will decrease the congestion of the dock and will not duplicate
the already existing steps. Our property looks directly out onto their property and we think it
will be an asset to the area. Thanks For Your Time, Diane and John Matthews” And that’s all
we have.
MR. KELLY-George, there should be a letter from the White’s as well, the property to the north.
I have a copy of it.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HILTON-Yes. Okay. This is in our file now. I will read it. It’s addressed to Bruce Frank,
Code Compliance Officer. “Dear Mr. Frank: We are neighbors of the Kellys just to the north of
their property. The Kellys have kept us apprised as to what they are doing to enhance and
relocate their dock. We are in total accord and approve of what they are trying to accomplish.
What a wonderful improvement! We had the opportunity to see their dock yesterday at the
lake and we both agreed it looked so much better than the dilapidated structure that was there
before. Please consider this letter as indicative of our endorsement of their project. Sincerely,
David and Mary Carol White” That’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-What were their names, the Whites?
MR. HILTON-Yes, David and Mary Carol White.
MR. MAC EWAN-What did you find out, Cathi?
MS. RADNER-It’s subject to some interpretation. You could try to pigeon hole them into one of
the Type II actions, but it’s not clearly a Type II. So I would stick with what the Staff has
indicated.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 9-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
SALLY KELLY, 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
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
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 25 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone want to introduce the motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2003 SALLY KELLY, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 9-2003 Applicant/Owner: Sally Kelly
Type: Unlisted Agent: David Kelly
Zone: WR-3A
Location: 8 Rocky Shore Road
Applicant proposes construction of a 945 sq. ft. Boathouse / Sundeck.
Cross Reference: BP 02-855, 02-854
LGPC, APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 12/11/02
Tax Map No. 239.15-1-3 / 3.-1-3 (Seas. Res.)
Lot size: 0.89 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: February 25, 2003 (Tabled)
March 25, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/15/02 w/ revised application received 1/15/03;
and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/21/03, and
3/25 Staff Notes
3/5 Meeting Notice
2/19 ZBA resolution
2/18 Notice of Public Hearing sent
1/15 Revised application received
12/19 Staff Notes
12/12 Notice of Public Hearing
12/11 Warren Co. Planning
12/5 Meeting Notice
12/2 LGPC from CB
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 February 25, 2003 and March 25, 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
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff with the
following note:
1. The height of the deck shall be no greater than 14 feet above the mean water line
set in accordance with the Lake George Park Commission instructions.
Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. KELLY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 11-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD & DEBRA SELKOW
AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 160 LAKE PARKWAY
APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BOAT
COVER/SUNDECK IN THE SAME LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION BUT WITH A
REDUCTION IN HEIGHT. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IN
THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-2003, 12/19/02 LETTER FROM Z.A. APA,
CEA, LGP C WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-5/9-1-5 LOT
SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This application was previously tabled by the Planning Board in order to allow
the applicant to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for side yard and height relief. The
ZBA granted a side yard variance for this application. However, the request for height relief
was denied. Therefore, the application that’s before you must be brought into compliance,
similar to the last application, it’s a boathouse which cannot exceed 14 feet. As I understand it,
the applicant has some revised plans. You could condition the application similarly, saying that
the boathouse is not to exceed 14 feet in height. That’s all I have at this time.
MR. DE NARDO-I’m Frank DeNardo, representing Debra and Richard Selkow, replacement for
an existing boathouse. There was a little problem with the height. We ended up lowering the
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
boathouse. It has a little sun arbor, I guess you would call it, up on top. Right now we’re going
to put a hold on that sun arbor, and they’re going to follow up on it later on, but as far as the
boathouse goes, it’s going to be right at the height that I have it listed at right now. The thing
that was in question was this little square thing on top, as it was called at the Zoning Board a
sandbox.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by the sun arbor they’re going to address later on?
MR. DE NARDO-Well, they want to go back later on and see if they can get another variance to
have it put back in place to make it original, so it matches all the pictures from the old brochures
and stuff. They’ve gone through a lot of pains to make this place back to original, it was
originally built in 1902. He’s not changing the structures. We’re actually lowering the
structures, and he feels that this will be not only aesthetically pleasing, but also a health benefit
to himself and his in-laws who are sun prone, but they wanted to enjoy the lake, but that’s
between the Zoning Board and him right now. So, basically, I’m here for the dock, actually the
boathouse, and we’re not going to construct that other section until he follows up on it if he
does. If he doesn’t, he’ll put umbrellas up there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich, I’ll start with you.
MR. SANFORD-I have no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, nothing right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m still taking a look at his new drawings, Mr. Chairman. I’ll just ask
one question on the drawings he has. He has a mean high water mark set, it looks like 16 inches
below. Is that?
MR. DE NARDO-Sixteen from the top of the deck, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-From the top of the deck. How did you arrive at that number?
MR. DE NARDO-With the Lake George Park Commission and the dock is marked on the side
with a pin for future references.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now this new sandbox that you’re planning to put up, you’re going to
be looking for a variance for height limitation for that?
MR. DE NARDO-Actually, it was cut back because of a two foot reduction. I was lowering it
down, and they denied the two foot height reduction. Actually, the two foot variance. It was
going to be 16. It was 17, 6. I lowered it down to 16. They want to keep it at 14, to make it 14,
there’s no way of walking under it comfortably, and using it. So, right now, that’s totally
washed out of the program, until they go back and see if they can revamp this somehow.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Based on that description, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything, I
haven’t had a chance to look at these drawings. I assume they pretty much parrot the old
drawings, is that correct, except for the 16 footer?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s it for me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, what’s the height above, you’ve got the mean high water mark?
MR. DE NARDO-Correct, 16. Sixteen inches from the deck.
MR. STROUGH-To the deck, but I mean the total height of the?
MR. DE NARDO-Twelve, six.
MR. STROUGH-Is 12, 6. Okay. Well, that’s good, and this is a double berth dock as well?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes. Originally built in 1902.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. I was there at the Zoning Board when you went through that. Now, do
you plan on keeping the character of the dock like it was, kind of Victorian looking?
MR. DE NARDO-Exactly the same, yes.
MR. STROUGH-The railing and everything else. Not the pressurized?
MR. DE NARDO-Very much Victorian. That’s the whole project, to make it look exactly like the
house. And if you’ve seen the house, he’s gone through some serious work to make that house
look the way it is, and to keep it the way it was. He’s done a beautiful job, and he wants the
dock to be the same, and that’s what we’re going to do.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. DE NARDO-If we can.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to ask one question on this application if I might
just jump in here for a second. Did the applicant ever receive the Lake George Park
Commission permit, similar to the previous application that we had from the Kellys?
MR. DE NARDO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that part of your package? I didn’t see it in there.
MR. DE NARDO-That should be in there. You should have the original okay on the boathouse
and repairs.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a Lake George Park Commission Notice of Complete Application,
but it says this is not a permit. That’s the document I’m looking at here.
MR. DE NARDO-All right. There should be one in there for the permit, because I received a
permit for that.
MR. VOLLARO-You did? I didn’t get it in my package. I got it in the previous package for the
Kellys, with the application just before you. I don’t have a Lake George Park Commission
permit in my package. Does any other Board member have it?
MR. MAC EWAN-George is looking in that file. Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, were you all done?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’m done. Thank you.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had no questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Mr. DeNardo?
MR. DE NARDO-Not really, unless there’s any other questions I can answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application? Do you have any correspondence, George?
MR. HILTON-No, no correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
RICHARD & DEBRA SELKOW, 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.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
Duly adopted this 25 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m going to abstain because I wasn’t here last month for this application.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
ABSENT: Mr. Ringer
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MR. HILTON-Pardon me, before you do that, I just want to note here that in the file here we
have an application for a permit and notice of a complete application from the Lake George
Park. However, I do not see an issued permit. I just wanted to let you guys know that.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that germane, do you think, Mr. Chairman, to this approval of this
application?
MR. MAC EWAN-I would condition it based upon the fact that he needs to get the approvals
from Lake George Park Commission before proceeding.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, he couldn’t build it without it anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, he could, but he’d get caught. He’d be in trouble.
MR. VOLLARO-All right, Mr. Chairman, I’ll make the motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-2003 RICHARD & DEBRA SELKOW,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 11-2003 Applicant / Owner: Richard & Debra Selkow
Type: Unlisted Agent: Frank DeNardo
Zone: WR-1A
Location: 160 Lake Parkway
Applicant proposes replacement of an existing two-story boat cover/sundeck in the same
location and configuration but with a reduction in height. Boathouse / Sundeck require Site
Plan Review in the WR zone.
Cross Reference: AV10-2003, 12/19/02 letter from Z.A.
APA, CEA, LGPC
Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/03
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-5 / 9-1-5
Lot size: 0.35 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: February 25, 2003
March 25, 2003
WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/15/03; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/21/03, and
3/25 Staff Notes
3/5 Meeting Notice
2/26 ZBA resolution
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
2/19 PB resolution: Tabled
2/19 Staff Notes
2/19 ZBA resolution: Tabled
2/18 Notice of Public Hearing
2/13 Warren Co. Planning
2/5 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 February 25, 2003 and March 25, 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 Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The height of the boathouse shall not exceed 14 feet above the mean high water mark as
applied in accordance with the Lake George Park Commission instructions, and
2. Prior to construction a permit from the Lake George Park Commission shall be obtained,
and that shall be obtained based on their notice of completion from Lake George Park
Commission that was dated December 12, 2002, with a copy of the permit submitted to
the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. DeNardo.
MR. DE NARDO-Thank you.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
SITE PLAN NO. 35-1989 SEQRA TYPE II MODIFICATION STEWART’S AGENT:
BRANDON MYERS ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: 977 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT
PROPOSES EXPANSION OF CURRENT GAS ISLANDS FROM 2 PUMPS AND A 24’ X 32’
CANOPY TO 3 PUMPS AND A 20’ X 60’ CANOPY. EXPANSION OF AN ALLOWED USE
IN THE NC-1A ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2003 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO.
266.3-1-11 LOT SIZE: 1.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-4
MR. HILTON-I can speak to this. This is actually going to be tabled. There’s no public hearing
scheduled, but I was going to, just for the purposes of, in case there was somebody here to
speak, you know, give somebody a moment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is there anyone here from Stewart’s, representing them?
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I thought that the Stewart’s Corporation withdrew this? Did
they withdraw?
MR. HILTON-My understanding is they were tabled. They were going to go back and look at
some different scenarios for the setback relief, but, as of yet, they haven’t received a variance.
So the site plan is not on this evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just table it, and when they submit new information, we’ll move on it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So should we keep what we have?
MR. HILTON-Yes. For now. I mean, like Craig said, when they submit new information, we’ll
forward it to you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thank you, George.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2003 TYPE II MODIFICATION JEFFREY L. AND SALLY A. KELLEY
PROPERTY OWNER: JEFFREY L. KELLEY ZONE: MU LOCATION: 87 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN. PROPOSAL IS
FOR RESTAURANT-FOOD RELATED ICE CREAM STORE AND DECK, NO RETAIL
STORE OR GIFT SHOP AT THIS TIME. ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN REQUIRES REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV
72-2000, SP 63-2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 1/8/03, 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 309.10-
137/129-1-15 LOT SIZE: 1.01 ACRES SECTION 179-4-020, 030
CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY KELLEY,
PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was left open in January when the application
was tabled.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why is there a public hearing left open on a modification? Why was there
even a public hearing on a modification? Is that a typo?
MR. HILTON-My guess is that would be a typo, since this was approved.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s all I needed to know. Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-This modification seeks to modify a plan approved by the Board previously on
February 18. A minor modification, the new wood deck, less building expansion, the modified
th
plan seems to incorporate the previous comments and conditions of approval. I believe we
have some comments from C.T. Male which seem to indicate that all their comments have been
addressed. That’s all we have at this time.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. SCUDDER-Good evening.
MR. KELLEY-I’m Jeff Kelley, the applicant.
MR. SCUDDER-Charlie Scudder, agent and engineer.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. KELLEY-First of all, I apologize for even being here. Because I thought I had this all taken
care of last month, but needless to say I still struggle with the bank and gift shops and so forth,
and in actuality I pretty much knew I had to do this at the last meeting, but at the time I felt,
you know, we were here. We had everything. What my next step was going to be would be
less of an impact. So I felt that if I got the approval for the building that was there, which was
an ice cream store and a gift shop, to come back for modification which really has less of an
impact than what I already had approved probably would be too big a deal, but I had to do it to
satisfy the bank and to make the numbers work for them. So, here I am, and I think we have
everything pretty well addressed, but I’ll answer any questions.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I just think right now that it’s a nice looking building and I guess
my question is, this has been on my mind. This is going to be built where, are you taking those
two houses down that are between the bagel store and Hess’?
MR. KELLEY-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Would you explain that, please?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you.
MR. KELLEY-This, the elevation of the house that you have is an existing house that’s a little
gray house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-There’s Hess and then it looks kind of like an empty lot, then there’s a little gray
house?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right.
MR. KELLEY-This is the gray house, and what looks like the empty lot is all actually one parcel.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-And on the plot plan that you see, the entrance that comes into the property,
which allows access to the parking, is what would look like is an empty lot. Okay. In other
words, it’s really one big piece of property that runs from Hess all the way over to a fence,
which separates the gray house from the little cream colored house. Okay. The cream colored
house and the bagel store are owned by Norm Benack. That’s a different owner. I used to have
the bagel store, but I sold that September, but you weren’t here at the last time I was here.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, I wasn’t.
MR. KELLEY-Right.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
MR. KELLEY-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I went through, and the landscaping plan seems acceptable to me. The
modified site plan is certainly pretty acceptable. I do have some questions on lighting. Now
the four wall packs that are on that building, rather than 45 up, they should be all pointing
down, as opposed to the 45 up. They’re supposed to be completely down lit.
MR. KELLEY-These are the ones on the building.
MR. VOLLARO-These are the ones on the building. They’re called wall packs.
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So they’re specified in your specs at 45 degrees up and they should be really
straight down.
MR. KELLEY-And I missed that myself, but they’re supposed to point down.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s a mistake, Mr. Vollaro. They do shine down. They have a hood on
them.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was just looking at the attached specifications, and it didn’t say that. All
right. The plans show three wall packs, if you look at your plan updated of March 2003, there
on the plan drawing of the house, there’s three wall packs on that. There’s supposed to be four.
MR. SCUDDER-We have revised the plan. That plan that you have was drawn before the Glens
Falls Electric Company prepared the exhibit you have there.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at your schematic, at the northwest view of your schematic.
There’s a foot candle schematic that you’ve provided.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And on there, if you look at the schematic drawing itself, it does show four on
the house.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-When you get to the drawing, it only shows three.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, but I’m saying the drawing you have anti dates the exhibit prepared by
Glens Falls Electric, and we have since changed the drawing to match Glens Falls Electric, but
you don’t have that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that drawing. Okay. There’s a new drawing that goes with this
for tonight? Mr. Chairman, are you going to accept a new drawing for this evening?
MR. MAC EWAN-How much has changed on it, Charlie?
MR. SCUDDER-Very little.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just the wall pack.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. SCUDDER-Four lights on the wall instead of three.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t see that being a big issue. If we’re so inclined to approve this, we just
need to note that. Leave him that drawing if you would, please, Mr. Scudder.
MR. VOLLARO-Just a quick comment. On the roadside elevation, there’s an elevation of the
front of the building. This is the roadside elevation, this right here?
MR. KELLEY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Just delete those two side lights from that. They’re not part of your lighting
package. The two side lights by the door.
MR. KELLEY-There’s also a porch on there. That’s existing.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, this is representative sample, but I’m looking at the lighting,
and we want to just make sure that the plans don’t reflect the light in front of the building, since
your whole lighting plan, your distribution of lights, foot candles on the ground, do not include
calculations for those two lights.
MR. KELLEY-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, taking a looking at the minor light spill, and I agree that it’s minor when
I look at your distribution drawings for light spill, I’m just going to make a recommendation. If
you look at it, you’ve got some light spill going out onto Main Street here, and it’s not much.
The thing that seems to be contributing to that most are these two posts that are here, and
they’re at 175 watts. Quick calculation says if you bring that down to 150 and in the specs you
gave me, there is a 150 capability in the spec. If you brought that down to 150, you’d pull that
light spill right in off the road.
MR. SCUDDER-Change the wattage of the luminaire.
MR. KELLEY-Right. If you just want to look at my plan versus, it’s kind of hard to see what
you’re pointing at here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You see these two here. Get into this one. Now these two plans show,
there are two lights, one here and one here. I don’t see them.
MR. KELLEY-All right. What we did after the last meeting, there was a concern about, we
wanted the Victorian lamps out near the street.
MR. VOLLARO-Here’s one here, and there’s one there.
MR. KELLEY-I had that re-done between the time I was here and when I had to submit this.
You should have in your packet this new lighting plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I see. It’s pulled in some, it seems to be.
MR. KELLEY-Because we got rid of those big, high things and put the Victorian lamps.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s a minor thing, Bob, just changing the wattage, right?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. I’ll take it from 175 to 150 watts on the two posts, and I think that’ll
take care of their lighting plan.
MR. KELLEY-I’ve got that noted, and we’ll do that.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VOLLARO-It won’t be any problem, because the cut sheet that you use for those posts has
a 150. So you won’t have to scramble for a new post, and that’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. I’m
finished.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Hello again. Just some basic questions. The original landscaping is still going
to be part of this plan, and thanks for the Victorian pole lamp. I think it looks nice.
MR. KELLEY-We’ve got three of them.
MR. STROUGH-Three of them. I think they’ll look nice. The concrete wheel stops, isn’t that
going to be a little bit of a pain to snow plow? Or is that going to be all right? That’s not an
issue?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. We were asked to provide some kind of a mechanism for keeping the cars
from slamming into the fence, by your reviewing engineer.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and that was what you offered? It seems to me that would be kind of a
pain in the neck.
MR. KELLEY-I’ve got an easy answer for you.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay.
MR. KELLEY-It’s a six month summer business. I don’t have to worry about it.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Fine. The other question, you had a screened in dumpster. Now how
are you going to get to that? I’m looking at the plan. Maybe I’m just not seeing something. I
mean, does a truck pick it up? I’m on December 2002 revised March 2003. Victoria’s Square,
J.L. Kelley Enterprises, and I’m looking at the dumpster in the back. How is a truck going to get
into there to?
MR. SCUDDER-Come in and back in.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s my question. Is that area where you see a spot elevation 99.94, is
that that paved?
MR. SCUDDER-That’s paved.
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, that wasn’t clear. Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-That little rectangle is pavement.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that answers my questions, and thanks. I hope you’ll open up
pretty soon.
MR. KELLEY-I’m trying.
MR. STROUGH-When do you think you might be opened by?
MR. KELLEY-Well, I’m still dealing with the bank. I’d say May, early May.
MR. STROUGH-Well, good. Good.
MR. KELLEY-Well, I mean, the bulk of the construction is in site, site work. I mean, the house
and the deck and that (lost words) really not that difficult a thing.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, I hope you get open soon, and thank you.
MR. KELLEY-I’ll be ready. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions. I had a couple of questions on lighting which
were already addressed. There was also some spillage over into the Hess site, but we talked
about that at the last site plan review. There’s really no reason to be concerned about that. It’s
really going to come the other way. So, I really didn’t have any questions.
MR. KELLEY-I’ll probably get some from them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-No, except I hope things work out with the bank, because I’d hate to see you
here next month with a plan for an ice cream truck. All right.
MR. KELLEY-I don’t want to be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add?
MR. SCUDDER-We’re all set, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Would someone introduce a motion, please.
MR. STROUGH-I’m ready. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 2-2003 JEFFREY L. &
SALLY A. KELLEY, 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. 2-2003 Applicant: Jeffrey L. and Sally A. Kelley
Type II Property Owner: Jeffrey L. Kelley
MODIFICATION Zone: MU
Location: 87 Main Street
Applicant proposes modification to approved site plan. Proposal is for Restaurant-Food
Related Ice Cream Store and deck, no Retail Store or Gift Shop at this time. Any modification to
an approved Site Plan requires review from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 72-2000, SP 63-2000
Warren Co. Planning: 1/8/03, 3/12/03
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-37 / 129-1-15
Lot size: 1.01 acres / Section: 179-4-020, 030
Public Hearing: January 28, 2003
Tabled, PH left open
WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03 along with revised submitted, and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/21/03, and
3/14 Staff Notes
3/12 C. T. Male engineering comments
3/12 Warren Co. Planning: Approved
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
3/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for modification, 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 Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
We find the following:
The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The exterior building mounted lighting fixtures shall be shielded and have cut off to
direct lighting directly to the ground as per 179-6-010 Paragraph D.
2. The applicant has also submitted a new plan tonight that has been stamped by Charles
H. Scudder.
3. The applicant and his agent will both initial the drawing before they leave here tonight.
4. The two eastern most Victorian lights will be 150 watt.
5. Please eliminate the SEQRA paragraph in the prepared resolution by Staff that starts off
Whereas the requirements of the SEQRA have been considered doesn’t apply to this
resolution [so deleted].
Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. KELLEY-Again, I thank you for your patience.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome. I wish you much success.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DANIEL
& PAMELA VALENTE PROPERTY OWNER: DANIEL & ELIZABETH VALENTE AGENT:
CHARLES SCUDDER, P.E. ZONE: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS FOR A
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX. TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-21 LOT SIZE: 14.05 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DANIEL VALENTE,
PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing was left open since December 19, and then this
th
application was re-advertised for tonight’s meeting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Since the last time we met with this application, the subdivision plat has
been revised to show a 50 foot undisturbed buffer around a recently completed wetlands
delineation that was done by New York State DEC in January 2003. Correspondence from DEC
indicates that the 50 foot no disturbance area is something that they’re comfortable with.
However, they haven’t signed off or provided a permit at this point. The Army Corps of
Engineers has indicated that the applicant’s proposal will most likely be authorized under
Nationwide Permit No. 14. The applicant has submitted a revised grading and stormwater
plan, both of which have been forwarded to C.T. Male for comment and review. Some
questions still remain, as far as this application. The status of existing easements over the
property should be determined. This may have an impact on density, but more importantly it
could impact site design and lot layout. No information has been provided on future
connection to a sanitary sewer system. I think we’ve all discussed that that’s something that
this Board could condition, that before a building permit is issued, that a map plan and report
or some kind of provision of sanitary sewer service would be provided. One thing that’s come
up is the SEQRA status for this application, which is, hasn’t changed. It’s unlisted. New York
State DEC has indicated that they would, in looking at the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, the
New York State DEC Freshwater Water Wetlands Permit, as well as this application, they want
to do a coordinated review, and they don’t have a problem with this Board being the Lead
Agency on that. It appears that there are no other involved agencies, and that that’s something
that this Board could go ahead and do and if a SEQRA were done this evening, we could
forward comments, or make New York State DEC aware that you were Lead Agency, and what
the outcome of your SEQRA review was. Also a note, the Town of Queensbury Freshwater
Wetland Permit for construction or disturbance within 100 feet of a New York State DEC
wetland will be required before Final Plat approval. Also any comments from C.T. Male should
be addressed, and that’s all we have at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jump back to your paragraph regarding easements and stuff. Could you
elaborate on that a little bit?
MR. HILTON-Well, I think the last time we met with this, we made, we brought it to the
applicant’s attention that there were easements. Some easements for whatever purpose the
property, the homeowners association may have had. The status of these easements should be
determined. Are they still there? Have they been turned over to the applicant? Are they in the
process of turning them over? I guess we just need to know that, this Board needs to know that
before you go and approve a subdivision. So you know that what you’re approving and what
impact that could have on site layout, site design.
MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s easements that are applicable to this that you want them indicated
on the plat. Right?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-So if that’s the case and that’s still up in the air that there’s potentially some
easements involved, how would we move forward on this thing doing a SEQRA tonight and
making a preliminary determination on a subdivision that doesn’t have all the information on
the plat for us to make that determination?
MR. HILTON-Well, I think the applicant should, first of all, discuss what the status is of those
easements, but if the Board comes to that conclusion, then I agree, you probably aren’t going to
be able to continue, but like I said, let’s hear what the applicant has to say.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. SCUDDER-Good evening.
MR. VALENTE-Good evening. Dan Valente. I am the owner and developer of the Fairfield
Professional Park.
MR. SCUDDER-Charlie Scudder. I’m the agent and engineer for this project.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Well, first of all, do you want to address Staff’s comments and go
through those?
MR. VALENTE-I’d love to address the easement issue. Since the last time we were here, the
Town of Queensbury has signed back the easements that we had given to them, well, which we
had given, actually, to Baybridge, and Baybridge in turn had given to them. I know the Town
has signed two of the three easements back to us, being that 50 by 50 foot parcel that was set
aside for a pump station, and also the easements that were down the existing dirt road that is
there now, feeling that they had no use for them. They asked to retain the easement along the
Bay Road corridor, whch we said fine with. So the Town still has that. Baybridge, I’ve been
waiting for something in writing, but I do have a verbal from the Baybridge Homeowners
Association’s attorney that they have no problem with signing back the 50 by 50 foot parcel, but
they are willing to move the easement down the dirt road to the existing new road location on
the plat. So that is the status, as of right now. I am waiting for something from them in writing
to have that, but I was given that verbal today. I was hoping that Greg Sherry was here, the
manager of the Association. He was going to verify that for you. I’ve yet to see him. I don’t
know if he’s come in behind me as of yet, but I was talking with the President of the Association
today, and they had no problems with doing that, and also the attorney for the Homeowners
Association.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Valente, the easement that you talked about that the Town still wants to
hold the one along Bay Road?
MR. VALENTE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that in the 75 foot setback?
MR. VALENTE-Yes. I believe so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Valente, that easement sits to the south of the piece that you’re trying to
develop now. Is that correct?
MR. VALENTE-Yes. It would be, the easement you’re talking about that follows the dirt road?
MR. VOLLARO-No, the one along Bay Road that the Town is holding, that’s to the south of
your proposed development?
MR. VALENTE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else?
MR. VALENTE-I think we’ve pretty much addressed everything but other than C.T. Male
comments we had just received the other day.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What about future connections to the sanitary sewage system?
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VALENTE-Well, that’s a good question. We have obviously had more issues with that
sewer district or now it’s a private district, is my understanding. I know that there will have to
be sewers there some way, some how, and I had talked to the Town Board originally that if it
didn’t come up, the way it really should have been brought up, then I might entail and take
over that project myself. So whether I negotiate with Rich across the street, Schermerhorn, to
get into that, or whether I have to bring a line down myself, one way or another, I’m going to
get sewers there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to make the comment that if Mr. Valente wants to
bring down his own line, which he can certainly do, he has to go through the map plan and
report procedure. You realize that? You’re going to have to develop a sewer district to do that.
MR. VALENTE-I understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s got to go through Mr. Shaw to make sure he’s in concurrence with
that.
MR. VALENTE-I understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-Just to get it on the record, Mr. Valente. That’s all.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move to C.T. Male’s letter. I don’t have anything in my
packet, Mr. Scudder. Have you been exchanging information with C.T. Male regarding their
letter of the 17 of March?
th
MR. SCUDDER-Not since the 17 of March.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Have you addressed any of their concerns in this letter? To date?
MR. SCUDDER-No. There’s more there than can be done in a week, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I mean, the issue here is that, you know, I don’t want to suck up a
whole lot of time on this application tonight, if you’ve got a two page letter that you need to
address. I, quite frankly, don’t see us even considering doing a preliminary approval tonight
until all these things are addressed satisfactorily to C.T. Male. I mean, if it were one or two
items and they were, you know, cross the “T”, dot the “I” kind of thing, I think that we could
probably move forward, but they’re pretty serious.
MR. SCUDDER-They’re substantive issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Is there anything that you wanted to touch on? Is there anything
relative to their comments that you wanted to touch on?
MR. SCUDDER-Just one thing, the last item on that letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-The miscellaneous?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I don’t understand why that’s on there, because that’s a matter between us
and the State, DEC. We are on top of that. We understand that, and it looks as though C.T.
Male wants us to submit our papers for the State to them, and I don’t understand that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s the intent. When I read this, Mr. Chairman, I thought this
was just something that Mr. Houston had raised.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think he’s just pointing out. I don’t think he’s suggesting that you
supply it to them because the last line it says “submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to NYSDEC.”
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
I don’t think C.T. Male’s looking for you to submit that information to them. They’re just
pointing out that that’s something that needs to be part of this package.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, we know that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-One comment I would make is that we submitted our papers through the Staff,
the Planning Staff here on January 15, and we didn’t get a response until March 17, and in
thth
light of comments that have been made here at previous meetings, I think that’s relevant.
MR. MAC EWAN-From what standpoint?
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it took two months for it to be turned around.
MR. HILTON-I can offer some insight on this, I guess. Yes, the applicant is correct. The
timeframe he’s speaking of he did have his information in. During that time period, we were
still working on securing or obtaining other information such as the Army Corps stance.
Because of that, I believe I didn’t personally contact C.T. Male, but I believe our office did
contact C.T. Male and said hold off, we didn’t want to incur additional costs, and, you know,
since the application was probably going to be tabled to a later date anyway. Once we finally
made the decision that we had enough information to bring this application up again, we
informed C.T. Male that it was a go, and gave them the okay to go ahead and review it.
MR. SCUDDER-My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that we’re doing our best to move this project
forward.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think everyone is, Mr. Scudder.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else?
MR. SCUDDER-I have nothing else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro, we’ll start with you. Now, I would ask everybody on the Board,
considering there’s a real long laundry list of items that need to be addressed, that maybe we
ought to keep our comments brief, in the interest of time here tonight. I guess I just don’t want
to spend a lot of time on this unless people have got something that’s not been pointed out by
C.T. Male that’s above and beyond, that we want the applicant to address.
MR. VOLLARO-I think I do, sir.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Just for housekeeping, I guess the easements were discussed. The transfer of
easements will be made from the HOA to you.
MR. VALENTE-Just the one parcel, it’s my understanding, the 50 by 50 foot parcel, for the
pump station. That’s my understanding, but the other one’s they’re just, they were willing to
move.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re going to move into the new road bed.
MR. VALENTE-Right. So they don’t effect the lot design.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I just want to ask a question, for what purpose would that easement
serve on the new road bed?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VALENTE-Well, it would give them access to Bay Road if there was a sewer district
created of some sort. So that they could sewer, you know, I am concerned about Baybridge as
much as they are, so, that they get their sewers that they need.
MR. VOLLARO-I thought there was something in the wind there that we were going to stay up
on Walker Lane, but if that’s out, that’s fine. That’s not my concern.
MR. VALENTE-I think they’re just looking to keep all their options open. If Baybridge needs
something down Walker, then I’ll talk to them about that at that time, but I’m not going to just
continually handle the land like I’ve done in the past and have it bite me on the kiester.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I understand. I’ve got a question here that’s, I guess, going to reside with
our Counsel for a minute. Our 138-9(I)1 if you will, and I’ll get it to you, it’s under Proof of
Ownership of the land to be subdivided, now all the drawings that I have in front of me, and all
that have been submitted to date talk about the lands of Daniel A. and Pamela J. Valente.
Previous discussions that we’ve had on this application indicate that the applicant does not
hold the deed to this property. I have had information from Staff that there is a letter of some
kind that says that this is being turned over. If you get to 183-9 (I) it says that this information
has to be to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney, and that’s why I’m addressing this to the
attorney at this point.
MR. HILTON-Just briefly, while I give Cathi these deeds, what we have, the applicant
submitted deeds that indicate the land is held by Legacy Holdings, which was transferred from
Daniel and Elizabeth Valente. It’s my understanding that Legacy Holdings is actually Dan, the
applicant before you. He may want to clarify that and speak to that, but we do have some
deeds that they submitted today, Cathi’s looking at.
MR. VALENTE-My wife and I own Legacy Land Holdings, to clarify.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s you and Pamela?
MR. VALENTE-That’s right. Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just give the attorney a minute to look over those documents.
MS. RADNER-Do you own 100% stock in Legacy, LLC, you and your wife?
MR. VALENTE-Yes, we do.
MS. RADNER-They’ve signed it received as the President. Preliminarily, it looks acceptable,
but I’d have to look it over in a little more detail to be 100% sure of what I’ve got here.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I think we’ll go with that, Mr. Chairman, leave it at that and let the
attorney decide that. My third thing is there’s a portion on the drawings that talk about the
proposing of the completed road, and this road is described as the gravel road, and I think that
that road, it’s about 100 feet of road that’s described as the gravel road, for those that are
reading it, that belongs to the Homeowners Association, and before this road can go all the way
through and be connected to what’s termed Baybridge Drive, that road has to be deeded from
the HOA to the applicant.
MR. VALENTE-And I’m going to correct you on that, because Baybridge does not own that
land. I own that land. That land, that parcel that you’re talking about was never deeded to the
Baybridge Homeowners Association.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re talking about roughly that 100 foot from your proposed property line
of this new subdivision to where the pavement ends?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VALENTE-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Where the pavement ends, in other words, the dedicated road ends,
that’s their line?
MR. VALENTE-Yes. There’s actually a line that comes up and around that part of the road that
is not paved, in which you’re talking about.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the gravel road. That belongs to you.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, it does.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s not a problem with that then. The sanitary sewer, we’ve
addressed that. I think that you’ve got probably two options there. One is to tie into the
present contract user on Bay Road, or B, to form your own sewer district. Okay. Mr. Scudder,
I’m going to go, I’ve looked at these drawings, and I’ve done some analysis in some areas on
stormwater. I’m going to lead you through my math, and it shouldn’t really take that long.
This is, what I did, without the advantage of a light table. You understand what I mean by a
light table?
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, let me just interject. Does anything you have relative to stormwater
differ from what they have in comments nine through thirteen?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at your stormwater detention pond four, I think what we’re
going to have to do is do some, you’re going to have to take the drawings out, either that or I’ll
go through the math, and then if you want to take the drawings out, you can, but I’ll lead you
through it. Page 16 of your stormwater report sets the bottom of your pond at 310, Pond Four.
It is now shown at 311, but your stormwater report, Page 16, sets the maximum depth of the
pond at 310. Now, from Five of Seven of your sewer profile drawings, I get the invert of your
Manhole Number One set at 309.2. I get the invert of Manhole Number Four set at 310.5. Over
that approximately 320 foot span. Now what I did was I took your Drawing Number Six and
superimposed it on the drawings for the sewer. Do you follow what I’ve done?
MR. SCUDDER-I’m doing my best.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me do this for you, then. I can help you out. Because I think this is
kind of germane to what we’re talking about. If you go to your Drawing Four of Seven, which
is your plan for sewer force main.
MR. VALENTE-Mr. Vollaro, the sewer design is purely a, you know, an accurate, a rough
guesstimate, at this point. We obviously don’t know what we’re going to be tying into and
what heights.
MR. VOLLARO-No, this is a question of elevations. Let me get right down to the, without
getting to all of it, now we can check (lost word). I’m looking at your gravity line is six inches
above the depth of the pond. Now, you know, if we want to go through all of this we can, or
we can go through it later, but I’m telling you that the drawings, when I superimpose the ponds
on this drawing, see what happens is usually you can bring up these layers when you’re doing
a software package like this, you can turn on all of the layers, and then I can see when the layers
are all turned on where the ponds are relative to the sewer lines.
MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Vollaro, could I make a suggestion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. SCUDDER-Could you and I arrange to talk about this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely not.
MR. SCUDDER-It can’t be done?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the reason being it would just lead away from the openness of this
Board doing business and avoiding any conflict with the Open Meetings laws.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, okay.
MR. VOLLARO-See, without doing a, what I call a light table exercise, and you understand
what I mean by that, is being able to, without being able to turn all the layers on on these
drawings, I’ve essentially taken the ponds and put them in registration with the drawing for the
plain sewers. And taking a look at those depths and those elevations, and then taking a look at
where you’ve got your gravity sewer line running, and looked at the depth of that, and I got the
depth of the gravity sewer line by taking an average of the two inverts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, maybe the approach on this is to point out to the applicant that they
have a discrepancy in their stormwater report. They need to look at those things. I don’t think
it’s our job as Planning Board to engineer this thing for them. Just point out that they’ve got
some conflicts there they need to look at and resolve.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question regarding the appropriate procedure?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-On technical issues like this, and Bob quite often comes up with them, would it
be appropriate for him to work with Staff to point out his findings, and then have Staff act as a
conduit to communicate to the applicant so that the applicant, when they come back, could
perhaps appropriately address these concerns? Would that be an appropriate way to proceed?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the point is, too, you need to get it on the record, so that, you
know, the public’s informed, the applicant’s informed, and it’s the proper way to do it. I don’t
think we need to get into the depth of detail with it. Just point out, here’s your areas where
you’ve got problems, you need to look at them and revise them.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll agree with that. So just take a look at the position of the gravity line,
with respect to Pond Four. That’s really what you’ve got to look at.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And on the culvert extension, the same thing. I think your, I’ve assumed the
groundwater level there, and I think that Pond Number Four is probably about two foot below
what I consider to be the average groundwater level. You ought to really take a look at that,
too, because I don’t know how Pond Four drains. I haven’t been able to determine that. It
looks like it’ll always be wet if it’s below average groundwater.
MR. SCUDDER-Talking with the Senior Biologist at DEC, Ken Cogate up in Ray Brook, talking
to him on the phone, he suggested it might be nice to penetrate the groundwater table with the
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
pond, in order to encourage the growth of aquatic plants and such. He likes the retention
basins to be vegetated.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is your mission to establish a wetland habitat?
MR. SCUDDER-I think that’s what he’s really saying.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m asking you is that what your intention is?
MR. SCUDDER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Then you need to look at your engineering. All right.
MR. SCUDDER-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-In the light of that, I want to just ask a couple of quick questions. The
buildings that would go up, once this is all resolved if you get to go on to build the thing, do
you plan to put slabs or basements in there? In other words, what’s the construction idea that
you’ve got in your head?
MR. VALENTE-It depends on the customers needs. It could be both. I don’t necessarily think
that there would be full basements in that area.
MR. VOLLARO-Crawl spaces maybe.
MR. VALENTE-Maybe crawl spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’d have to bring in fill, essentially what I’m driving at.
MR. VALENTE-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d have to bring in fill on that property.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, we’ll definitely have to bring in some fill.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On Sheet One of Seven, what do you mean by field? There’s a note
right in the middle of Lot Number Six that says field, and I don’t know what that means? Is
that something left over from a previous drawing, or does that signify something? I don’t
understand. Go to Lot Six on One of Seven, and you’ll see a thing that says field on there. What
is that?
MR. SCUDDER-I think our surveyor just indicated that this is an open field, and that’s where
that came from.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That has nothing to do with that lot or anything of that nature?
MR. SCUDDER-No, it’s just that this whole parcel, as you well know, is a field.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s noted on Lot 10 as well, and 15.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. It’s noted on 13 also, or 15.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to get some feeling from the applicant as to whether or not they
would go along with a boulevard entrance coming in off of Bay Road. How do you feel about
that? This is basically for aesthetics, as opposed to, and I saw Mr. Missita’s letter, where he said
I don’t want any lights in the middle of the road because he doesn’t want to be able to have to
plow that, but.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VALENTE-Right, well, I mean, it’s always a nice thought, you know, we always like to
make the place look much more aesthetically pleasing. I was just matching what was directly
across the street from me. That’s why I didn’t have a boulevard there, at this point. I’d love to
see the County put boulevards right down the center of Bay Road. That’s what really would be
nice.
MR. VOLLARO-No. That’s a good suggestion actually. I think the County would probably,
that would be nice to have. The two letters that I have from C.T. Male, dated November 15
th
and November 17, I’d direct this to Staff. I don’t know that we ever got a signoff on the
th
November 15 letter completely. So I would like to see C.T. Male’s comments, when they do
th
their signoff, address both November 15 and March 17. Is that a fair statement, George?
thth
MR. HILTON-Yes. I think there’s going to be, I think there are probably items in that older
letter that either need a signoff or some comment on, and we’ll, you know, pass it on to them
and direct them to look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s three letters that I have from C.T. Male, and the letter in the
middle just said we’re going to hang on until we get the rest of the data. So the two significant
memos are November 15 and March 17. Now I want to get into the SEQRA form for a
thth
minute, since we have to deal with that. I think there’s some things on the SEQRA form I just
want to, it’s a Long Form. These are questions that are answered on the SEQRA form, and I just
want to get some clarification on them. On Page Three, do you have that with you, Mr.
Scudder?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-On Page Three, which would be 8A of the SEQRA form, Long Form, it says
what is the depth of the water table in feet, and it’s got eight feet in here. Now I’d like to just
ask you how was this determined, because I don’t see any test points on the drawings anywhere
that I’ve looked to indicate that soundings were done or any kind of depth measurement was
done. So how was the eight feet determined?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I don’t believe it is eight feet. I think that’s an error.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s an error on the SEQRA form?
MR. SCUDDER-I think that’s an error. I don’t believe it is eight feet.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it is, either, but I just see it on the form, and I’m wondering, if it’s
a true depth, I wanted to know, in the SEQRA form, I wanted to know how it was determined.
MR. SCUDDER-How we determined it, yes. No, we’re going to have to make some test holes
there, but I don’t think it’s eight feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-That’s an error. I don’t know why that’s there.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask the Counsel, when we go through, and if we do go through a
SEQRA on this, does this form have to be amended? I mean, there’s a question about the depth
to water table, which is significant to this application. Can we go forward with the SEQRA
application? Because I have other areas in here that I want to go over.
MS. RADNER-I’m getting the feeling that’s a moot question. The Chairman doesn’t seem
inclined to go forward with this application tonight. So I think you’ll have corrected
information before you do your SEQRA.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good. Then I can go forward with this and just tell him other areas that
he could look at to help himself out.
MR. MAC EWAN-He’s going to need to amend that SEQRA application.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The next one is also on Page Three, it’s under B on the Project
Description. It’s BG. It says the maximum vehicular trips generated per hour would be 60.
Now that’s 480 trips in an eight hour day for a professional office, and that’s significant, and I’m
just wondering how you got to that number.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, obviously it’s a guess. It’s a guesstimate. We’re talking about 15 lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-But Mr. Scudder, you had to come up with some sort of numbers to supply
that. I mean, you just didn’t pull numbers out of the air, did you?
MR. SCUDDER-No, I didn’t
MR. MAC EWAN-So what did you use to base that information on? Can you supply that to us
for review? Did you use the National Traffic Code or did you use?
MR. SCUDDER-No, I took it right out of my little pea brain. I’m just saying that there are 15
lots there, and I made it an assumption.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, can you back up your assumption please with some sort of data?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, I guess I can.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-Frankly, it didn’t seem that crucial to me at the time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s crucial now.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Here we go to Page Five of the report. I think at the top, under Federal
Agencies, where you have NO. I think the Army Corps of Engineers is a concerned agency in
this application, under Federal Agencies. So I think that has to be changed to YES.
MR. SCUDDER-Where is that, please?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s on Page Five. Page Five of the application. It’s under Approvals Required.
MR. SCUDDER-I’ve got it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s the last one on there, Federal Agencies.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. I’ve got it.
MR. VOLLARO-Army Corps should be involved in that.
MR. SCUDDER-At the time I didn’t think the Army Corps was involved.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. This is just helping you through coming up with an
application to go forward.
MR. SCUDDER-I appreciate that. That’s good. Very good.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VOLLARO-The last thing I have on that, it says, will the proposed action result in the
generation of traffic significantly above the present levels, and you say no. However, 480 trips a
day is, in my mind, relatively significant. So I would look at that.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, how do you arrive at that?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. How did you arrive at the 485? I think what he’s trying to
point out to you, Mr. Scudder, is you need to provide some data that supports your position
that you’re not going to have a significant impact.
MR. SCUDDER-It seems to me, yes, we’ll do it, but it just seemed to me that, given the amount
of traffic that’s on the Bay Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re adding to it. It’s cumulative impacts, and how much are you
going to add to it is the question, and if it’s marginal, it’s marginal, but just supply the data that
backs up your analysis that it’s 485 trips a day.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, that’s 480 trips a day on an eight hour day.
MR. SCUDDER-Okay. That’s five more than what he said, 480.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to be it for me. I don’t have any further comments on this
application right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. For traffic generation, it’s just a suggestion that, I’m looking at
your stormwater report, and we’re looking at, I think the buildings are going to total a potential
of 189,450 square feet, just go to ITE and see what they say for professional offices for square
footage and you’ll probably get your figure. Just a suggestion. Aside from that, just a couple of
thoughts. Now, where the road intersects with Bay Road, your new road that goes through
your professional office development, it does say that there’s a ditch line, but I don’t see any
culvert under the road. Should there be a culvert? Is there a ditch there, a drainage ditch?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes, there is a ditch, and there is to be a culvert there.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-I think it’s indicated on one of the drawings.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking at six of seven. I’m looking at grading, drainage and erosion
control. Should it be on this one, or is it on another one?
MR. SCUDDER-It probably should be. You’re looking at six.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. SCUDDER-You’re talking about along Bay Road?
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Where the new road, would it be Baybridge Drive?
MR. SCUDDER-Would you take another look, please. You see the broken line that starts just
above, just north of the flare on the driveway, and extends, and there’s an indication that the 15
inch ADS, south of the road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see it. Right south of the road. It’s right there. Right here.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I see the 15 inch ADS, Mr. Scudder.
MR. SCUDDER-And do you see that, it’s a pipe indicated there with broken lines, it’s well
south of the.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-Maybe it needs to be called out there.
MR. STROUGH-I see. All right. Well, usually you don’t see them extended that far, but I see.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, we have a reason for that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. So that was one of my questions, and it was answered. Thank
you. All right. Another question, I don’t know if this is so much for the applicant and/or for
Staff, but why are we looking at a 50 foot for impact on the wetlands and not the traditional 100
foot?
MR. HILTON-Okay. Our regulations and DEC regulations for Freshwater Wetlands permits
both indicate 100 foot, within 100 feet you’re required to have a permit. The applicant has
submitted an application to New York State DEC. Along with the New York State DEC
delineation, they came up with the 50 feet. Although we don’t have a signoff from DEC that
that’s acceptable, we have correspondence in the file and I believe have forwarded it to you that
indicates that they’re comfortable with that. That’s what they’re, in theory, and, you know,
they’re working towards that. That seems acceptable to them, but at this time, they haven’t
issued a permit. So what’s proposed would be in keeping with what’s been discussed with
New York State DEC.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Just let me chime in here for a second. I think that the letter said, based on a
preliminary review of the subdivision, the proposed 50 foot undisturbed buffers and
stormwater retention pond should adequately protect the stream and wetland sources on the
site, and then it says this does not signify approval of the DEC application, which is currently
incomplete.
MR. HILTON-Absolutely, and I think what they’re waiting for the New York State DEC
wetlands, Freshwater Wetlands Permit is the Town Board, as lead agency, to deliver some type
of SEQRA review, Town Planning Board, as SEQRA lead agency, to determine what kind of
significance and will pass that on to DEC.
MR. VOLLARO-Just let me understand Mr. Strough’s question. Because I think it’s germane.
Are we saying that this permit would negate the 100 foot requirement, or just that they’re
allowing a 50 foot penetration?
MR. HILTON-The Town’s Freshwater Wetlands Permit?
MR. VOLLARO-No, DEC.
MR. HILTON-DEC’s permit would allow disturbance within 100 feet of the Freshwater
Wetland. Anything within that 100 foot buffer requires a permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So they have to get a DEC permit?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-For Freshwater Wetlands, as well as a permit from the Town of Queensbury?
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STROUGH-And since the State supercedes us, we’ll go along with the State’s.
MR. HILTON-Well, I think what we would, and again, that application is not before us, but I
think what we would do, as we’ve done in the past, is, unless something was, there was a
reasonable alternative, as defined in our Ordinance, we would, or you would, condition a Town
Freshwater Wetland Permit that they receive a State permit, and that any conditions of the State
permit be included in the Town’s approval. That’s what we’ve done with other applications.
MR. SANFORD-Well, let’s clarify this. I mean, if they get this permit from DEC, which is a 50
foot buffer, there’s nothing to prevent us, maybe this should go to Counsel, for still wanting 100
feet. Is that correct?
MS. RADNER-If there’s a rationale basis for your reasoning, yes. You wouldn’t want to be
arbitrary or capricious or totally disregard any concerns DEC raised or any mitigation offered
by the applicant, but if you reviewed it, you’ll find the criteria in your regulations perhaps
identified something not of concern to DEC, but of concern to the Town, you could reach a
different conclusion.
MR. SANFORD-Well, just that in other applications we require the 100 feet, right? I’m just
trying to understand the reasoning why they should only have 50, whereas the other
application that doesn’t need the permit has to be subject to the 100 feet. Why is there a
difference?
MR. HILTON-Well, I know this is difficult. We don’t have a DEC Freshwater Wetlands permit,
and we don’t have any official signoff from DEC that says this 50 foot buffer is acceptable to us.
MR. MAC EWAN-DEC could well come back and say they want 100 foot.
MR. HILTON-They could, but I think the applicant can speak to discussions they’ve had with
DEC that have at least indicated that they’re comfortable with the 50 feet, and in the letter that
you have, although it’s not an official signoff, I think tends to lean towards saying this is going
to protect and, you know, it’s already on file with DEC, this proposal. I think if they had some
serious concerns they would have flagged it by now.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s something we really need to get bogged down in. I mean, is
going to take the lead on this.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-I didn’t expect it to lead to a conversation like this.
MR. MAC EWAN-You just never know.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VALENTE-If I may comment, you know, when DEC was out there, part of the issue is it’s
also a meadow or a field. They look at that differently than a wooded wetlands area. That was
part of what we talked about a little bit. I did not, you know, go to DEC and say, hey, I want a
50 foot setback. He actually said, I’d be comfortable with 50 feet, and, you know, file your
application and we’ll make sure everything should be okay with it. So, that’s what we’ve done.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right, but what added to that confusion was when I looked, I’m
looking at the Lot Number Eleven, Mr. Scudder, and I see the notation, it says propose to use 75
foot property line setback for required wetland setback.
MR. VALENTE-I can actually even address that. When DEC was out there with us, they had
this designated this area, you can see that dotted line as the designated wetlands, and he asked
us what was, you know, the Town setback from the road. I said 75 feet, and he said, if you
maintain that, I’ll be fine with that, as long as the wetlands is within that 75 feet, he said, that’s
okay. So that’s what the DEC.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you can see where I was.
MR. VALENTE-Yes. I understand exactly what you’re saying.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you for explaining that. The only other concern I have is
Lot Number Five. Now you know that we have heard from Mrs. Sullivan, who lives just west
of Lot Five.
MR. VALENTE-She no longer lives there.
MR. STROUGH-Well, she did. She moved.
MR. VALENTE-She moved. She sold her place, for more than what she paid for it, by the way.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I just wanted to make sure. I think her concerns were, you know,
addressed, I mean, it made me want to make sure I got them addressed, in that there is no
runoff coming from Five that would go on to that lot or onto the road that would contribute to
the storm drainage on that lot.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, it would have to go west.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, well, there’s a stream that separates the two parcels more or less, between
her property and, you know.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So there would be no part of Lot Five that drains to the road that?
Because we’ve got pictures that she sent us. I don’t know if you saw them, but it shows, you
know, a lot of stormwater flow coming in her direction, and coming from this direction. Now I
just want to make sure that Lot Five doesn’t contribute to that.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I would suggest we do is that, when we table this thing, one of the
things to consider in tabling is to have C.T. Male take a very close look at Lot Five. Our
Subdivision Regulations say that stormwater management has to stay on your property. It can’t
come off your property, but ask them, in particular, to take a close look at Lot Five, because
there’s been conditions that we’re familiar with with adjacent lots with ponding problems and
see that they’re satisfied that stormwater would remain on site.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right.
MR. STROUGH-And are there any catch basins on Walker Lane, Dan?
MR. VALENTE-Stormwater catch basins?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VALENTE-No, that’s part of the problem.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-That’s part of the problem.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, and originally up the side of Walker Lane, when it was originally
developed, there was stone all along the edges of that that has been, you know, has grown in.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at a catch basin illustrated on the plat, on Walker Lane.
MR. VALENTE-Not up by, not up past.
MR. MAC EWAN-Almost adjacent to the property line between Lots Three and Two on the
opposite side of the road.
MR. VALENTE-That’s not where the issue is, though. The stormwater issue, is that what
you’re addressing?
MR. STROUGH-Well, it starts going downhill right by Lot Five.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, and then it goes back up.
MR. STROUGH-But at the bottom of Lot Five and entering Mrs., well, where she used to live.
MR. VALENTE-Right.
MR. STROUGH-There probably should be a catch basin there and that is actually a Town Board
problem at this point.
MR. VALENTE-It really isn’t. I mean, it’s a maintenance issue, you know, everybody looks at
the developer. They never had a problem there for years. There’s been other development
there also, which, you know, may contribute to it. I’m not saying that it is, but there’s a lot of
water that comes down that hill, and if it’s not taken off the edge of the, that was before the
wing roads and all that other good stuff. So, naturally that’s why she’s probably getting that.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’m just trying to watch after Baybridge’s interests and if we can reduce
the stormwater contributions from especially Lot Five, and I think that people from Baybridge
should probably go to the Town and ask the Town to install some catch basins in that low spot
on Walker Lane. The Town Highway Department can be authorized to do that, but only by the
Town Board. Not you, but I just wanted to point that out. I am trying to address their concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, will you back up. What was that you were just asking?
MR. STROUGH-I was just trying to point out to the Baybridge people, from what I understand,
and it seems to me, there seems to be an obvious need for catch basins on Walker Lane. There’s
the hill that directs stormwater towards some of the properties on the down side of the hill. It’s
not noted on my plan, but it’s Mrs. Sullivan’s property, for the lack of any other description,
that right in front of her property is a low spot for Walker Lane. It looks like it could use a catch
basin. I think it would solve some of her problems, or whoever the new owner of the property
is, and it has nothing to do with you, but I thought that is actually, I inquired about it, and it
turns out the Town Board can, they’re in charge of stormwater. They can have the Highway
Department, they’ll pay for it, but they can have the Highway Department put catch basins in
there, and I would suggest to the Baybridge people that they pursue that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re not suggesting to make it part of any?
MR. STROUGH-No, I’m not suggesting we make it any part of this, it’s just part of the flow of
thought, if you will.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-And did you address the, I didn’t double check, Mr. Scudder, the November
19, 2002 Highway Department’s concern over culverts and lamps? I can go to it, but I just
thought maybe offhand you knew. Highway Department. November 19, request that pipe
th
going under proposed Baybridge Drive Extension be certified that 24 inch is adequate to handle
stormwater in runoff season or heavy rains. He did?
MR. SCUDDER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Just a question. Thanks for the answer. The only other question I have
on here is, the outlet pipe on Pond Three P, I didn’t see C.T. Male address it either, I just
couldn’t find, it might be another one of those things where my eyes just didn’t find.
MR. VOLLARO-Which one is that, John?
MR. STROUGH-Three P is.
MR. VOLLARO-Six of seven.
MR. STROUGH-Here, and I couldn’t find the outlet pipe.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it either.
MR. SCUDDER-I don’t think you will find it. I think it’s in the stormwater analysis but not on
the drawing.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, could you remedy that?
MR. SCUDDER-That has to be fixed, yes, the drawing has to be fixed.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that looks like it does it for me. Thank you. Thank you,
applicant.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have much additional comments to add. I had a question, it really
might be more for Staff than for the applicant, about the Army Corps permit. There was the e-
mail that was dated February 21 saying that it appears as though it would fall under the
st
Nationwide Permit, but he didn’t have time to write a formal letter for another week or two.
Obviously more than two weeks have gone by, you know, is there an update to the Army Corps
letter?
MR. HILTON-Real quickly, I think the e-mail was directed to the applicant, and we haven’t
received anything from the applicant as far as an Army Corps permit, but, Mr. Scudder, go
ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-I went down and met with the Army Corps of Engineers in Troy to discuss this
thing and see if I can get them to send some kind of a message up here that would get us on for
tonight in essence, and he did that to accommodate Kevin Bruce.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-But they have an internal procedure whereby the permit comes from
somewhere else, it may be Washington or somewhere else, the normal permit, and it takes two
or three weeks, or, he said two or three weeks for that to happen. We anticipate that we will get
it.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCUDDER-We see no reason why we won’t get it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there’s no indication since then? I mean, it’s been over a month
since the e-mail was written, and he said in one to two weeks he would have a formal letter.
MR. SCUDDER-Well, you know, time flies.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was worth asking the question anyway. I didn’t have anything else
to add.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-Just a quick question. Regarding procedure, and this equally go to Staff, I
guess, as well as to the applicant. I guess, you know, in a lot of cases you could condition an
approval on certain things being realized, but in this case, the DEC permit, is it typical to have
that lag, or should that perhaps be in hand before we address it? And the reason I say it in this
case is we’re talking about a 50 foot barrier that the whole project seems to just be designed in a
very sensitive way about that. If it doesn’t happen, you know, it’s problematic in a major way.
So wouldn’t it almost be, you know, if we’re going to table this, table this and say, you know,
we would be willing to, you know, look at this again once that permit has been issued? I mean,
what’s appropriate, is the question.
MR. HILTON-Well, this is a very tricky situation. I, you know, understand that. I don’t want to
speak for DEC, but it’s my impression that they’re not going to go, they’re not going to issue
their permit until the Town Planning Board can finish conducting their business and until you
guys deliver a decision.
MR. VOLLARO-Kind of pass the buck on this one.
MR. HILTON-I don’t, I understand your concern. I think there are several options. You could,
I mean, they’re going to need a Town Freshwater Wetlands Permit as well, and as we just
discussed, you could have some different findings than DEC and approve something different.
You could have a different opinion and approve the subdivision in a different way. There are a
number of things you could do, but having said that, I think that if you, if the Planning Board
were to say, we’re going to table this until we hear something from DEC, you’re going to be
spinning in an endless cycle.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m a little confused, George. I mean, maybe, you know, let me go at it
this way and then I know it’s going to be tabled. We normally require 100 feet? Is that correct?
MR. HILTON-The regulations say that any disturbance or construction within 100 feet of a
regulated wetland requires Town Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MR. SANFORD-Okay, and this drawing is 50 foot.
MR. HILTON-Yes, which.
MR. SANFORD-Which is going to be influential to DEC issuing a permit, because you just got
done saying that they’re not interested in issuing the permit unless the applicant comes and
says we signed off on it. So, we’re really making the case for a variance here, under the
assumption that it’s going to be okay with DEC when it’s not. We’re really in one of those
circular references. I would rather not go into a 50 foot, because we have no justification for it
unless DEC says it’s okay.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t know you may have some justification for it beyond what DEC
might have to say. I mean, but, ultimately, in the end, I think their permit is very influential,
you know, carries a lot of weight.
MR. MAC EWAN-Could we ask DEC to supply us with some more information as to why they
felt 50 foot was an ample determination?
MR. HILTON-That’s something I would suggest.
MR. MAC EWAN-I already have it written down.
MR. HILTON-Yes, okay. I, personally, have been in contact with a couple of people at DEC and
they’ve forwarded me the correspondence that you’ve seen, but if you’d like to see something
in writing that is black and white, by all means.
MR. STROUGH-Or how about this to be on the safe side. We always have to take a look at the
maximum impact. Why don’t we take a look at it with 100 foot buffer, and if we approve it,
well, certainly the 50 foot buffer is going to be okay, but we should look at it with the 100 foot
buffer, and we’ll look at it that way, as per Town Code.
MR. MAC EWAN-But if we looked at it with the 100 foot buffer, that changes his lot line
configuration. That means he goes back to Square One and re-does his subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, he’s allowed to develop within the 100 foot buffer. It’s that we’re to
take a look at the impact of that development within the 100 foot buffer. It doesn’t disallow him
from it.
MR. HILTON-I think if the Planning Board is comfortable drafting a letter, signing a letter to
DEC saying what is your stance on this, understanding that DEC’s not issuing a permit, but
what is your position on this, while this is being tabled, we get a response from DEC. That will
probably go a long way in answering the questions, and satisfying, or help you to satisfy what
you’re asking.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable.
MR. SANFORD-Right, and again, I’ll pass on. The only reason I bring this up is I certainly
don’t want to be making really the case for the applicant to then go to DEC and say, look it, the
Planning Board’s comfortable with this, why don’t you signoff on it, and I don’t think it should
happen that way. That’s all. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-What is the basis of this coordinated review thing? In other words, is DEC
kind of saying, let me hear from the Town of Queensbury first and then I’ll make some decision,
or, because we have nothing from them in which to do a coordinated review on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’re lead agent, Bob.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the best answer to that, Bob, is we’ll correspond with them and ask
them to provide us some more detailed information on the basis of their decision that they
made.
MR. VOLLARO-A letter to DEC referencing the 50 foot buffer.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Boy, I’ll tell you, I think I, back on December 19, I wasn’t here,
th
and all I remember is right now the wetlands definitely are the liability, but we talked about,
way back when we did Sketch, maybe another configuration of the layout, and I’m just
wondering if I missed something in that regard when, I don’t remember right now reading, I
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
know I skimmed over the minutes of the meeting, but it was Christmas time and the beginning
of the, the first of the year, and I probably didn’t do my homework as diligently as I should
have, but was there any reference on December 19 of coming in with a different configuration
th
of the lots, in other words to make, I know that the buildings that you’re going to put up, I
know, are going to be lovely. I know the architecture, the design is going to be very nice.
That’s a given, but I think that if they could be set a little bit differently on this property, it
would enhance, again, the aesthetics of Bay Road that we’re trying to talk about, and I know,
again, that the wetlands are a limiting factor here. Was that ever brought up on the 19 of
th
December, to come back with another layout for these lots?
MR. VALENTE-We looked at other configurations, and the feasibility and cost effectiveness,
obviously, that does play a factor in the development of a parcel. The big key being Point A
and Point B. The extension of Baybridge Drive was an issue. We had talked with the Highway
Department and talked about doing some kind of a circle or a loop, I think Mr. Strough had
suggested, we looked at, we looked at that, and that’s where we came in with that internal drive
system, and I don’t know if you really note, it’s not very prominent on the drawing, but there’s
an internal drive system to eliminate the curb cuts on Walker Lane and Baybridge Drive. So, I
mean, you know, the feasibility of, you know, parcels, usually we try to design it obviously to
be cost effective so it works with us. I know it’s not the optimum look, but once the buildings
are there and they’re landscaped, it’ll be a nice area.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Thanks, Dan, and again, if you could consider trying a boulevard
type of entrance, that would be a suggestion, I think, that would be nice.
MR. VALENTE-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And just the very last thing, as far as any other comments, I think that we
have to wait and have you address all the issues that C.T. Male had.
MR. VALENTE-Sure.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’m sure you will.
MR. VALENTE-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can we jump back, for a second, to your lot layout with the internal roads
that service them?
MR. VALENTE-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, I mean, just kind of run me through here. Let’s take an example
for just Lot One and Two. What is your intention for what kind of a building you’re going to
put on there? How much area are you going to have left over for parking? Internalization of
traffic through those parking lots, and on these roads.
MR. VALENTE-Well, obviously, that remains to be seen, depending on the people that are
going to be, the clients that come in. Some people may want more than one lot to fit what they
need there. They may want to buy one and two, one for a building and two for parking or
something of that nature. So, I mean, we’re proposing this drive to eliminate the curb cuts and
service the roads from the interior, you know, of the properties.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, who would be responsible for, you know, like snowplowing and doing
maintenance on this internalized road?
MR. VALENTE-Well, we would have to deal with that with the owners of the properties. It
would be a private road. The Town does not want to maintain it.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-I understand that, but your intention is to develop and sell these parcels so
you don’t own them?
MR. VALENTE-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not a landlord, renter type situation?
MR. VALENTE-No. Unless the right people come around.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, really, would it be like a professional like Homeowners
Association that everyone’s responsible for equal maintenance of the road?
MR. VALENTE-There may be an association that we may need to develop, or, like you said, if
somebody comes along and say, hey, I want a long term lease then maybe that’s an option and I
may just own, maintain ownership of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think that’s something that the Board should be aware of, you know,
before we move on too much farther. I mean, what’s your game plan here? I mean, you know,
you’ve got to have some sort of plan how you’re going to deal with these roads from a
maintenance standpoint, from a liability standpoint, from keeping them up to snowplowing
them in the winter, and if your plan is to, you know, to sell these lots individually and let each
property owner take care of it, well, let’s say that the guy, you know, the guy who owns Lot
Five takes care of his road and does really good maintenance but the guy who owns Lot Three
doesn’t do anything, so the guys in Lots Four and Five suffer.
MR. VALENTE-Well, realistically, I would like to sell the lots and sell the buildings with them.
So, more than likely an association will be set up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Can you provide us some information so that we have something to review?
I mean, even though it’s a preliminary thing, so that we could feel a little bit more comfortable
as to what the maintenance of these roads are going to be?
MR. VALENTE-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m also concerned as to how you’re going to internalize the traffic on these
roads. Considering the lot sizes, once you build them out, are you going to be able to move
traffic through the parking lots easily enough and still have enough of a building to build and
either sell or rent or utilize? It seems like the lots are very small.
MR. VALENTE-They’re actually a sizeable lot. I mean, like I said, if necessary, we’re not
opposed to them buying more than one lot, depending on the buildings that they need.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. VALENTE-So, I mean, that’s really, obviously we have to address that at site plan, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the big thing that’s striking my interest here is just, is looking at these
common driveways and trying to figure how traffic’s going to flow from one parcel to another
parcel, and from the maintenance standpoint.
MR. VALENTE-I, personally, would love to have my curb cuts back on Walker and Baybridge
Drive, but, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say you’ve got two chances of that happening.
MR. VALENTE-I’m trying to appease everybody.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Could you provide some information on that?
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VALENTE-Sure. I’ll get some information on an association for you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody else have questions?
MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, (lost words) you were asking about how they were going to
handle the maintenance, and ownership of those driveways.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, that’s basically what I asked.
MR. STROUGH-I also have the same concern with the stormwater control facilities, and I know
Cathi has told me don’t put language in them, but I can suggest the kind of things that I’m
looking for. I mean, I want to make sure that these stormwater facilities are maintained.
MR. VALENTE-We’d deed over parcels for a retention basins and what have you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now when you do your deed, I’d like to see the language that’s going to
go with the deed.
MR. VALENTE-To protect that area.
MR. STROUGH-And here’s some of the things that I’m going to be looking for. The property
owners will receive a copy of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board approved stormwater
management plan, relative to their parcel. The property owners shall not build, alter or modify
a stormwater control measure facility without first receiving a permit from the Town, and such
building, alteration, and/or modification does not include the ordinary maintenance, clearing,
and/or repair of stormwater control measures. The facility owner is bound to maintain, clean,
repair, replace and continue stormwater control measures depicted in Paragraph A as necessary
to ensure an optimum performance of the measures to design specifications, and that the facility
owner shall be responsible for all expenses related to the maintenance of the stormwater control
measures and will be held liable for their portion of the commonly owned facilities, and the
facility owner shall allow for periodic inspection of the stormwater control measures to
determine the condition and integrity of the measures. Those are the kinds of things I would be
looking for, personally.
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you ask, did you say at the beginning of that that you’re suggesting him
to do that?
MR. STROUGH-I’m suggesting that I’d like to see language along those lines.
MR. MAC EWAN-There you go.
MS. RADNER-He started off by saying I warned him not to give him the language. So,
ownership issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’d say it’s not this Board’s responsibility to write deed language, either.
MR. STROUGH-So, and I’m not writing deed language. I’m merely trying to express to you the
kind of things I am looking for.
MR. VALENTE-I understand completely.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Could I ask you guys to give up the table for a couple of minutes,
we’ll open up the public hearing. Bear in mind, folks, we are going to table this application
tonight. So anyone who wants to address the Board, you’re more than welcome to come up.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GREG SHERRY
MR. SHERRY-Good evening. My name is Greg Sherry, and I am the Property Manager for
Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association, and they’ve asked that I speak to the
Planning Board this evening concerning this application indirectly. The first thing I’d like to
speak to, there was a question about variances that the Homeowners Association holds. The
Association is governed by a Board of Directors. That Board of Directors has not voted on or
approved to relinquish those easements, as of this date. It will probably be on the agenda for
the next Board meeting, but as I said, as it stands right now, the easements that we have, that
were granted to us by the Valentes, have not been relinquished by the Association. The reason
that they have not been relinquished and the reason that I would like to talk to the Board this
evening is we are in the process of trying to hook up to a municipal sewer system wherever it
may exist, and however we may reach it. There have been plans to go down Walker Lane, and
there are easements in place that would allow us to go down, hopefully, the new Baybridge
Road Extension, if that’s the name of it, and what we’d like the Board to consider this evening is
the development that’s occurring in that area, and the fact that Mr. Valente, Mr. Schermerhorn,
and Queensbury/Baybridge all have a need to be hooked up to a municipal sewer system, but
we are all, as it stands right now, going our own way, and we don’t have a clear plan on how to
get there. The Association is under orders by DEC to be hooked up to a municipal system by
April, and we met with them yesterday to inform them that that is not possible. No matter how
things shake out with Mr. Valente, and in light of the, I don’t know how to say it, that Sewer
District Number Seven being dissolved. We’ve been left out in the cold again to try and find a
way to get to Bay Road to participate in a sewer system, a force main that’s being installed as
we speak, and we would like to get into that, but we need some direction, and we don’t know if
the Planning Board can help us, if the Planning Board could suggest to the parties who are
developing on Bay Road that we all pull together and come up with some plan that we can start
to engineer, budget for, and prepare to meet this DEC border. I don’t know if you can help us
or not.
MR. MAC EWAN-The difficult position that this Board’s in, we can’t mandate one developer to
get together with another developer and, you know, put their heads together, put their wallets
together to come up with a plan that will help everybody. I know that this has been a personal
passion of this Board for a number of months now, when Mr. Schermerhorn was trying to
develop his sewer extension for his work on the other side of Bay Road, we encouraged Mr.
Valente at that time, on several occasions, to try to jump on that wagon and get things going,
knowing what the plight was of the Baybridge Homeowners Association. This Board cannot
force a developer or any developer, to do something that’s out of the realm of this Board’s
authority, and that’s being one of them. I mean, we can’t mandate that someone develops a
sewer extension. However, on the other hand, this Board is empowered, if we felt that the
proposed development would have an adverse impact on the community’s health, welfare or
safety, we would take that into account during the review process, and if we felt that an
adequate septic system, or sewer system for that matter, that was proposed was going to be
adequate enough to fulfill the needs of this project, we could use that as a basis of possibly
denying the application, but, you know, it’s in everyone’s best interest here to try and work this
out amongst yourselves. I mean, this Board can’t force Mr. Valente to sit down with you, no
anymore than we can force you to sit down with Mr. Valente or Mr. Schermerhorn or anybody
else who’s had an idea of doing that extension. The only thing we would hope to do is that
smarter minds would prevail and they’d do the right thing for the future of not only their
development but Baybridge and that whole corridor as a whole. You could certainly lobby the
Town Board and ask for their support and their help, but honestly, I think that they’re in the
same position that we would be in. They can’t, that I’m aware of, mandate that someone create
a sewer extension for the needs of other parties, but, you know, commonsense has to prevail
here, and know that that’s the right thing to do for everybody involved.
MR. SHERRY-Yes. They have, they’ve thrown their hands up, too, but this Planning Board did
mandate for Mr. Schermerhorn that before the medical arts building could be occupied, that he
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
will be hooked up to a municipal sewer system, and there’s a strong possibility that there’ll
actually be three force mains, one for Mr. Schermerhorn, one for Mr. Valente, and one for
QBHOA.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of silly isn’t it?
MR. SHERRY-It’s insane.
MR. MAC EWAN-That option’s still available to this Board, too, with Mr. Valente’s project.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it certainly doesn’t seem like good planning to me, Mr. Chairman. I
mean, if we recognize that there are three force main possibilities here, from a planning, strictly
a planning point of view, in the community, it makes zero sense, to me, to have that done.
MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same point, Bob, we don’t have the authority to mandate that. We
can only recommend things, based on the applications that we have in front of us, and if we see
something that we don’t think it going to work and is going to be in the best interest of this
community from a health and safety standpoint, we have every right to deny the application, or
make recommendations that the applicant modify the application to what we need to see
accomplished here.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there a chance that, we, as a Board, can make a recommendation to the Town
Board that they act in a mediating fashion to bring the parties together? Is there any way that
that can happen?
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No way?
MS. RADNER-You don’t have that authority.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s really up to the applicants to take care of that business themselves.
MR. SHERRY-Well, there could be a safety and health issue if the leach fields fail at Queensbury
Baybridge. Could you step in then?
MR. MAC EWAN-No, because his application is not part of your problem, unfortunately. Now,
if he was in here to say make an extension onto Baybridge or, you know, make that
development larger, then I suppose at that point we’d have the ability and the authority to take
the matters in hand at that point, but we can’t take anyone in particular’s application, no more
than if it was on the other side of Walker Lane and someone was proposing something over
there, that the plight and the problems, and while we’re very sympathetic to your problems,
you can’t make an applicant be responsible for an offsite problem, and remedy it.
MR. SHERRY-Okay. Well, I would agree with Mr. Vollaro. It appears that good planning
would be that three force mains don’t end up coming to Bay Road.
MR. MAC EWAN-And I would agree with you wholeheartedly.
MR. SHERRY-Okay. Thank you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing
open. Would you gentlemen come back up.
MR. HILTON-Actually, I have a letter.
MR. MAC EWAN-You have a letter?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. HILTON-A letter dated March 23, from Virginia Meyers. It says, “I am in agreement with
rd
Valente’s plan for their property at Bay Road and Walker Lane (in front of Baybridge
Homeowners Association property). From what I have seen of the layout, this plan will benefit
all parties in that it develops the vacant land into a professional office complex which will bring
additional tax dollars to the County, as well as to the Town of Queensbury. Additionally, this
provides for the continuation of Baybridge Drive to Bay Road. It will also relieve traffic
congestion on Walker Lane and give more clear access for emergency vehicles to the Baybridge
complex. Any building Valentes has done has been of superior quality in comparison to what is
produced by the other builders in the area. Virginia F. Meyers” That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Anything that you
gentlemen wanted to add?
MR. VALENTE-Obviously, the discussion on the sewers, I’ve always been open to working
with Baybridge to accommodate their needs. Baybridge is very important to me, and there will
never be three force mains. There might be two, but not three, because I will always
accommodate their needs in my design. As much as they’ve driven us nuts over the past couple
of years, we’re still there for them. I agree, the planning has been extremely poor, and I hate to
say it but the Town has put us in this position, because they didn’t stand firm. They should
have brought that sewer district up, and that’s my position on that, and they know it, and it’s
not this Board, I know, but if it was done properly, then everybody wouldn’t be in this position
that we’re in today.
MR. MAC EWAN-It may be here nor there, but the only comment I’d say is Mr. Valente, be a
man of your word, help the people out. Get your sewer plan together, and get in here and let’s
see if we can move this project forward.
MR. VALENTE-I will do everything I can for that Baybridge Homeowners Association.
MR. VOLLARO-Just let me make one comment, and then I’m going to remain silent on this
until we pen this thing for the break. Recognize, Mr. Valente, that if you do decide to issue a
map plan and report, that you’ve got to go for the sewer district extension, if you do not hook
up to the present contract owner. I would strongly suggest you sit down with Mr. Shaw before
you move in that direction.
MR. VALENTE-We absolutely would.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. VALENTE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What I’m going to do is take about a five minute recess. I’m going
to ask Bob, John, and Cathy to pen us a motion to table, please. All right. Have you got
something there?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t you quickly just run it down. I mean, not word for word, but just
recap what we’re looking to table this for, in case we’ve maybe missed something a member
wants or whatever.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll do. I’ll go through your written comments first, Mr. Chairman, of
taking a look at C.T. Male’s comments of November 15 and March 17, a proposal for a sewer
thth
district to come from Mr. Valente, attorney shall review the deeds, amend the SEQRA form, and
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
in the motion I’ll make what has to be amended on SEQRA form so the applicant knows that.
The test pits should be put on the drawings, so that we get some idea of a depth to
groundwater, provide a data for traffic analysis to substantiate whatever is in the
environmental form, in the Full Environmental Assessment Form. We’re asking for an Army
Corps permit. That’s the permit that should come as a result of their e-mail that said that they
thought that things would be okay by using permit, National Permit 14. The DEC wetlands
permit, and additional info. for review.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll get together with Staff on forming that letter and they can bring it
Thursday night for me to sign.
MR. VOLLARO-I just had an indication on that, the letter to DEC, and this is just chat now, the
letter to DEC, on the application of a 50 foot buffer versus the traditional 100 foot, I think one of
the members brought up a very good point, that traditionally we look at 100 feet, and we ought
to ask them for their analysis of why they’ve gone to 50.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s pretty much what we’re going to do.
MR. VOLLARO-And, let’s see, now I’d like to have C.T. Male review the depth of Pond Four
with respect to the gravity sewer line passing directly under the pond. Have C.T. Male check
the depth of Pond Four, reference the depth of the average groundwater. Now that may not be
available until test pit work is done.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine.
MR. VOLLARO-We want to delineate the drain pipe on Pond P-3 with all its necessary info.,
with the inverts and overts to that pond, for that pipe. The Full Environmental Assessment
Form, and when I go through the motion, I’ll give you the areas of the form that need to be
looked at, because you’ll have to resubmit that. A letter to DEC, again, from this Town to them,
reference the application of 50 foot versus the traditional 100 foot buffer. If the easements have
not been settled from the HOA through Valente, then they should be put on the plat and
registered on the plat itself. Next is the applicant will submit a deed or association type contract
language for stormwater management facilities and for internal driveways. This language will
again be reviewed by the Town Attorney. C.T. Male will be directed to take a close look at Lot
Number Five to ensure that Lot Number Five stormwater runoff is not directed toward Walker
Lane and properties toward the west. The Planning Board also strongly feels that the applicant
should reconsider the current submitted site plan layout, and the Board desires to see an
alternate plan for the layouts.
MR. MAC EWAN-Change that to be subdivision layout.
MR. VOLLARO-Alternate subdivision layout. Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got one more item you need to tack on there.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, just a second. In doing this tabling, we’re not going to table it to a
specific date because of the amount of homework you have to do on this. However, if it drags
out long enough, that we have to re-advertise this, it’ll be at the expense of the applicant.
MR. VALENTE-Understood.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Jump back to the alternate design, subdivision design. This is
coming, I think, from me, and I think I have support with other Board members up here. In
reviewing the way you’ve got this cookie cutter layout, with all these internal access roads, I, for
one, don’t think that’s a very positive plan, from the standpoint of vehicle movement,
accessibility, I think there’s other plans that you could submit, an alternate design, that would
give you a loop road, still give you the same amount of land to develop, and be a much nicer
subdivision layout, and I would like to see an alternate design. Now, if I’m all by myself up
here, tell me, folks, but I think I’ve got support up here.
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you poll the Board. I believe you do have support for this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you’re okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I support you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? John? Bob?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’d like to see an alternate design. Anything else? Did you have a
question?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had a question. It goes back to the wetlands permit from DEC. To
the best of my knowledge, they haven’t filed a wetlands permit with us, and I guess what kind
of brought this to light is the next applicant where we’re looking at the wetlands permit before
we’re looking at a site plan. Can we approve a subdivision plan without approving a wetlands
permit?
MR. HILTON-You could probably approve the preliminary. I think in our notes, I know in our
notes for this application we said a Freshwater Wetlands permit will be required. They could
submit and you could review it at the time of Final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HILTON-However, you could ask them to file it now, but certainly by the time of Final.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I was just trying to understand, you know, because we’re in this sort
of chicken and egg thing with DEC, if we were to look at the wetlands permit before we looked
at the subdivision, if that might make things easier, but it sounds like the way we’re going
makes the most sense.
MR. HILTON-Well, certainly you can if you want, but by the time of Final, I think they have to
have that review and approval by this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thanks.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Bob, introduce it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2002 DANIEL &
PAMELA VALENTE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Strough:
1. Have C.T. Male review the depth of pond #4 with respect to the gravity sewer line
passing under the pond.
2. Have C.T. Male check the depth of pond #4 with respect to the depth to ground water.
3. Delineate drainpipe on pond 3P with all necessary info.
4. Correct Full Environmental Assessment Form on page 3 A8 and Bg.
5. Staff will send a letter to DEC in reference to the application of a 50 foot buffer vs. the
traditional 100 foot buffer.
6. If the easements have not been settled from the HOA to Valente, they shall be indicated
on any new plat.
7. Applicant will submit a deed or association contract language for stormwater
management facilities. This language will be review by the Town Attorney.
8. C. T Male will be directed to take a close look at lot #5 to assure that lot 5’s stormwater
runoff is not directed toward Walker Lane properties to the west.
9. The Planning Board also strongly feels that the applicant should reconsider the currently
submitted subdivision layout. The Board desires to see alternate subdivision layouts.
10. This application is not tabled to a specific date. Should this application need to be re-
advertised it would be at the applicant’s expense.
Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
MR. VALENTE-May I ask what that timetable may be?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why we didn’t specify it, Dan. We don’t know, because you’ve got an
awful lot. You’ll see as we go through here, you’ve heard a lot of the motion and you don’t
know how long it’s going to take you to do that.
MR. VALENTE-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Dan, if we table it say to the second meeting of next month, what I’m
worried about is having enough time for you to get all your information together, C.T. Male to
review that information, and avoid a whole pile of information being put on the table the night
of a meeting.
MR. VALENTE-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which would cause you to be tabled anyway.
MR. VALENTE-Right. It doesn’t make much sense.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think the question he may have, or if he doesn’t, I have, is when do we
reach a point where we’re going to expect them to pay for the, you know, what is that point of
time that elapsed where it has to be re-advertised?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say the magic number would be 60 days.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VALENTE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-If it gets beyond 60 days.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, next month is only one month. So you figure May.
MR. MAC EWAN-If he gets beyond May. I mean, he may not come in in May. He may come in
in June.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s 62 days from this tabling, and this tabling provides a date from which
we can go forward, 62 days from today.
MR. SANFORD-It gives them something to work with. I think that’s fair. It doesn’t necessarily
have to be put into the motion, the date.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s been kind of established by Staff letter, that 62 days anyway. We
didn’t pay much attention to that, but that goes back to what, an August 2001 or 2002 letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was a recommendation, Bob. It wasn’t an absolute.
MR. VOLLARO-Well.
MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn’t a policy. It was a recommendation.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do your motion I mean, we’ve all got a handle on where this may go
if it gets there. We have a threshold to deal with.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. The motion for tabling consists of the following additions: That C.T.
Male’s comments of November 15 and November 17 will be addressed. There’ll be a
thth
proposal from the applicant for a sewer district. We’ll have the attorney review all the deeds.
We’ll have to the amend the SEQRA form, and I’m going to give you the areas right now for
amendment of the SEQRA form, so that, It’ll be on, starting with Page Three of the SEQRA
form, you’d have to amend A. 8., what is the depth of the water table. You also have to look at,
again on Page Three, B, Project Description, the maximum vehicle trips per hour is 60, how was
this determined has to be specified, or provided. On Page Five, Federal Agencies, the check
mark should be yes, and the Type should be Army Corps of Engineers, and a space left
available, and then take a look at Number 12 of C., on the zoning and planning information,
same page, five, concerning the generation of traffic can significantly, above the present levels.
So those are the areas that have to be re-done on a Full Environmental Assessment Form. We’d
like to get a letter to DEC concerning the application of a 50 foot buffer versus the traditional
100 foot buffer, so that they make that determination that they’re satisfied with 50 feet. If
easements have not been settled or transferred from the HOA to Valente by the time we get to
the next, to the receipt of the next Preliminary application, then they should be indicated on the
plat. The applicant will submit a deed and/or association type contract language for
stormwater management facilities for the internal driveways. This language will again be
reviewed by the Town Attorney. C.T. Male will be directed to take a close look at Lot Number
Five to ensure that Lot Five stormwater runoff is not directed toward Walker Lane and
properties to the west. The Planning Board strongly feels that the applicant should reconsider
the current submitted subdivision plan layout. The Board desires to see an alternate
subdivision layout, and that’s the end of the motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second?
MR. STROUGH-I’ll second.
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Your sketch you had of that layout, subdivision layout, could we give that to
Mr. Valente, as an idea? Take that with you, Dan? That’s an idea we’ve come up with, to help
you, maybe point you in the right direction, where I think we think we’re coming from.
MR. VALENTE-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 1-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED
HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. PROPERTY OWNER: DOMBEK TRUST AGENT:
NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONDUCT/CAUSE A REGULATED ACTIVITY ON OR ADJACENT TO A
FRESHWATER WETLAND PURSUANT TO FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION
LAW 1, 1976. NYS DEC GF-19 – HALFWAY BROOK. AREA OF WETLAND: 1.26 ACRES.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-2003, SP 14-2003, DEC PERMIT TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-2/59-1-
13 LOT SIZE: 4.89 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100
TOM NACE & BILL SIMPSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have to combine them both, to avoid segmentation of SEQRA.
So we’ll go through the Freshwater Permit first, then we’ll do the Site Plan, then we’ll do our
SEQRA.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FWW 1-2003, Hoffman Development Corp.,
March 25, 2003 “Project Description:
Applicant proposes to construct an oil change / car wash facility on a 4.89 acre property. The
applicant’s Site Plan shows portions of the proposed building, parking and driveway areas and
stormwater management facilities to be constructed within the 100-foot regulated buffer area
around the existing on-site NYSDEC wetland (GF-19). No construction is shown within the
NYSDEC wetland.
Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a
Freshwater Wetlands Permit according to Section 179-6-100 E of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance.
Staff comments:
The applicant’s proposal requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit due to
the fact that disturbance and/or construction is proposed within 100 feet of a NYSDEC
freshwater wetland. It appears that no direct disturbance of NYSDEC wetland (GF-19) will
occur. The closest hard surfacing to the wetland is shown at about 46 feet. The closest portion
of the proposed building to the wetland appears to be about 75 feet.
The requirements for granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit are outlined
in § 179-6-100 E (2) of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are:
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
1 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the policy of this chapter to preserve,
protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived therefrom, to prevent the
despoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development of such
wetlands in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetland, consistent with the
general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural development of the town.
2 – The proposed regulated activity is consistent with the land use regulations applicable in the
town pursuant to § 24-0903 of Article 24 of State Environmental Conservation Law
3 – The proposed regulated activity is compatible with the public health and welfare
4 – The proposed regulated activity is reasonable and necessary
5- There is no reasonable alternative for the proposed regulated activity on a site which is not a
freshwater wetland or adjacent area.
6 – The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed regulated activity
will be in accord with the standards set forth in this subsection.
In considering these 6 requirements it appears that construction alternatives outside the
wetland buffer area exist. The feasibility of these alternatives should be addressed by the
Planning Board.
Staff suggests that a condition be added to any approval stating that the applicant will apply for
and receive a NYSDEC wetlands permit and that any conditions of the NYSDEC permit be
included as part of the granting of a Town Freshwater Wetlands permit. Additionally, Staff
recommends that an ACOE non-jurisdictional determination or permit be submitted prior to the
issuance of a building permit for any construction on this site.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted, applicant has submitted a short form EAF as part of the Site Plan / FW
applications.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. As far as the Freshwater Wetlands Permit goes, what the applicant
proposes is construction or disturbance within the 100 foot buffer of a New York State DEC
regulated wetland. No construction is shown within the actual wetland itself. The
requirements for the Town granting a Freshwater Wetlands Permit, as listed in 179-6-100E2 are
listed in your notes. One of the items of note is that, it speaks to a reasonable alternative, and,
you know, the feasibility of any alternative that exists with this site should be addressed and
determined by the Board. Should the Board choose to approve this application, Staff suggests
that condition be added stating that the applicant will apply for and receive a New York State
DEC Wetlands Permit, and that any conditions of the DEC Permit be included as part of the
granting of a Town Wetlands Permit, and Staff recommends that an ACOE or Army Corps of
Engineers non-jurisdictional determination or permit be submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any construction at this site. That’s all we have for the Freshwater Wetlands
Permit at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering. Bill Simpson of
Hoffman Development, and Tom Hoffman, Jr. Okay. As far as the Freshwater Wetlands go,
Staff makes note of the fact that we do need to get a DEC permit. That has been applied for. It’s
running through their timeframe. I expect probably in a week or so to have their initial
comments, or Notice of Complete Application. We are disturbing within the 100 foot buffer, as
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
Staff noted, there’s no disturbance within the wetland itself. We’ve had Ken Cogate on the site
to look and determine where the wetland boundaries were. As you’re aware, this site has been
filled over the years. The initial filling took place somewhere back in the 70’s, early 70’s, and I
don’t know, it probably preceded the wetland regulations that required an Article 24 permit
from DEC. There was, however, additional filling done in the mid-80’s, and there was a
wetland permit obtained from DEC at that time, to allow them to finish off and bring the fill up
to road level, as it stands now. At any rate, we have reviewed the site with Ken Cogate from,
he’s now the wetlands guy at DEC. He has agreed that the boundaries are at the tow of the fill.
He’s fine with our using back within that first 50 feet using that area as stormwater
management area, and they will be doing their detailed review now. So obviously any
corrections or any modifications that they would want made would be included in the Town
package.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Are there any questions relative to the permit?
MR. VOLLARO-I have no questions relative to the permit, myself.
MR. STROUGH-No. Any questions I have, we’ve got to look at the total picture. So.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s move right on to the Site Plan.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.
PROPERTY OWNER: DOMBEK TRUST (RPS) AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, MILLER
ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 16,000 +/- SQ. FT. CAR WASH, OIL CHANGE AND AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SHOP. CAR
WASH/AUTOMOBILE SERVICE FACILIIES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN
REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 19-2003, FWW 1-
2003, DEC PERMIT WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-2/59-1-13
LOT SIZE: 4.82 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
TOM NACE & BILL SIMPSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 14-2003, Hoffman Development Corp., Meeting Date: March 25,
2003 “Project Description:
The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 16,000 sq. ft. oil change/car wash
building with associated lighting, landscaping and stormwater management facilities.
Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance:
1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Car washes and oil change facilities are allowed in the HC-Int zone with Site Plan
review and approval from the Planning Board. This proposal requires a Town of
Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit as well as a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands
Permit.
2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically,
could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the
supporting public services and facilities?
No burden on public services is anticipated as a result of this proposal.
3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion
or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health,
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or
the general welfare of the town?
The proposed use will most likely result in increased traffic in this area. Information
concerning the amount of traffic and the potential impacts has not been provided by
the applicant.
4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the
project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological,
wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park
or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made
necessary by the project?
The proposal will have an impact on on-site wetlands. Whether or not these impacts are
adverse will be addressed as part of the review of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and
this Site Plan.
The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project:
1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings,
lighting and signs.
As proposed the site plan appears to be adequately designed in terms of building
location and vehicular access.
2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including
intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls.
Staff has some concerns about traffic circulation, which will be discussed in the Staff
Comments section of this document.
3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading.
The number of parking spaces provided on the Site Plan meets Zoning Ordinance
requirements for this type of use.
4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway
structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience.
Pedestrian access in the form of walkways adjacent to the building will be provided
5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities.
The applicant has submitted information regarding stormwater management that has
been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment.
6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.
This site will connect to municipal water and wastewater service.
7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings,
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the
applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation
and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants.
The proposed landscaping appears to be consistent with Zoning Ordinance
requirements for landscaping
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire
hydrants.
Adequate lanes are shown to accommodate emergency response vehicles.
9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with
susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.
Indications are that some portions of the northern and western area of this site may be in
the 100-year floodplain. The proposed building development appears to be located just
outside of floodplain areas.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 16,000 square foot car wash/oil
change facility on Quaker Rd. The applicant’s proposal also requires a Town of Queensbury
Freshwater Wetlands Permit as well as a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit for
construction within a regulated area of a wetland.
The applicant proposes to access the property across lands of Niagara Mohawk from a two-
way access drive. Internal vehicle circulation is proposed as a mix of one-way and two-way
traffic, which in areas could lead to potential vehicle conflicts. Creating a one-way on-site
traffic pattern as indicated at the western area of the site would be preferable for on-site
traffic circulation. The Site Plan that has been submitted shows a three-way intersection just
south of the self serve wash and jiffy lube that would have conflicting two-way movements
approaching from different directions. Since it appears that vehicles will be exiting the
buildings at the south, the drive area in this location could be one-way exiting to the east
and then south off of the site (which appears to be a continuation of the one-way pattern
proposed by the applicant at the west of the site. The proposed two-way drive just east of
the self-serve wash could be made a one-way road to the north and then west.
Information concerning off-site traffic impacts (trip generation data or traffic counts) has not
been submitted by the applicant.
The proposed lighting plan shows lighting levels that appear to excessively exceed light
levels contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Light levels for interior parking lot areas,
building exteriors and street intersections are far above levels for commercial uses. The
proposed light levels appear to exceed the light level requirements for the most intensive
uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s lighting plan shows two diagrams of
fixtures, while the fixture schedule lists three different types. The proposed standard
floodlight does not have light down facing at a 90 angle as required by the Zoning
Ordinance. What are the proposed heights of the fixtures? Cut sheets should be provided
for proposed lighting. Is any building lighting proposed? What is the uniformity ratio of
the plan that has been submitted? Overall, the lighting plan does not contain enough
information to provide complete comment. The information that has been provided does
not appear to conform to Zoning Requirements.
I have attached a Staff lighting review for a Cumberland Farms gas station, previously
reviewed by the Planning Board. This memorandum is being provided to the Planning
Board as an outline of the items Staff considers when reviewing lighting plans. The
Planning Board may wish to consider these questions and items as part of a final approval
for the proposed lighting plan.
Additional Questions:
-What is Niagara Mohawk’s position on landscaping and lighting and vehicular access on
their property?
-What type of maintenance of proposed stormwater facilities is proposed?
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted: a Long Form EAF has been submitted.”
MR. HILTON-Okay. Additional comments center around traffic circulation. Staff has some
concerns about circulation, and some confusion that might be caused with the proposed
pattern, and would suggest possibly a one way traffic pattern looping north around the site to
remove or minimize any potential vehicle conflicts. Information concerning off site traffic
impacts, trip generation or traffic counts has not been submitted. The proposed lighting plan
shows light levels which appear to excessively exceed light levels, light limits contained in the
Zoning Ordinance, and as a general comment, the lighting plan seems to be not complete for
comment, Staff comment. We’re looking for some uniformity ratios, some cutoffs. The number
of fixtures shown doesn’t necessarily agree, in our opinion, with what’s represented on the
plan. In general, like I said, it just seems to be a very intense us of light at this location, which
exceeds the more intense uses as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Just other additional
questions, what’s Niagara Mohawk’s position on landscaping and lighting and vehicular access
on their property, and what type of maintenance of proposed stormwater facilities is proposed.
That’s all I have at this time.
MR. NACE-Okay. With Planning Board’s indulgence, before we get into answering specific
questions, the people from Hoffman have prepared a little walk through to kind of show you
what their operation is, and it’ll probably explain a lot of these questions. So, with your
indulgence, Bill will give you a quick tour through their facilities.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you, Tom. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good evening. My
name is Bill Simpson. I’m Project Engineer for Hoffman Development Corporation. Also with
me tonight is Tom Hoffman, Sr., founder of Hoffman Car Wash, Tom Hoffman, Jr., President of
Hoffman Development Corporation, Ron Sloane, Vice President, Hoffman Development
Corporation, Tom Nace, P.E., of Nace Engineering. I would now like to read a short
presentation, then answer your questions. Hoffman Development Corporation is proposing to
build on the vacant lands to Applebee’s east side, on Quaker Road, a Hoffman Car Wash, Jiffy
Lube Automotive Service Center offering the following services: automatic exterior car
washing, self-service car washing, touch free car washing, a jiffy lube oil change and selective
automotive services and self-service customer vacuum areas. The property in question is
bordered on the north by vacant lands, that would be this portion up here, and north of the
property, on the west by Applebee’s Restaurant and Lowe’s Plaza, that would be in this area
over here, and on the east by Della Automotives. That would be this portion over in here. This
is Della’s entrance right here, and on the south by Niagara Mohawk Power transmission lands
and Quaker Road. NiMo easement is right in front of us, and then Quaker Road and NiMo
easement is right here. We’re here tonight seeking Planning Board approval needed for this
project to move forward. My function tonight is to, one, introduce and explain this project to
you, two, address your questions and concerns, and, three, ensure that this project meets both
your and our high standards for a showcase commercial facility, but first, since we are new to
the Town of Queensbury, let me tell you a little about the company I proudly have worked with
with over 25 years. Hoffman Car Wash has been in business in the Capital District since 1965.
We presently operate 30 some car wash and jiffy lube stores located in the Capital District,
Kingston, Hudson, Clifton Park and Wilton. Included in these car washes are four full service
locations. That is a car wash facility where we clean both the inside and outside of the
customer’s car. We also operate eight exterior locations, that being a car wash where the
customer stays inside the car, and we only wash the outside of the car by computerized
conveyor equipment. We also operate 60 self-service bays at nine locations, a self-service wash
where the customer drives into one of our bays and washes their car themselves with our coin-
activated soapy foam brush and high pressure sprays. Additionally, we operate three touch-
free car wash facilities. That’s a location where the customer selects and pays for his wash at an
ATM like auto teller, then enters the wash bay and stops. The car is then washed and dried
with computerized robotic equipment, and lastly, we operate jiffy lube stores, where oil
changes, lubes and select automotive services are offered in an express format. Hoffman
Development Corporation entered into the fast lube oil change market in 1997 with the
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
acquisition of the local jiffy lube franchise of seven stores. We now own and operate 11 jiffy
lube stores. Let me briefly explain this acquisition. Going into this Century, businesses across
America are downsizing, merging, modifying and changing to meet the needs of our service
based society. Gas stations of the past used to sell gas and do lube and oil changes. Now they
sell gas, milk and bread. Lumber companies like Lowe’s now also sell plumbing, electrical,
appliance, nursery and landscape products. These companies change their products and
services to meet the needs of their customers in the 21 Century. Likewise in the car wash
st
industry, changes are taking place to meet the needs of our customers. Fast oil change stores
are being added to car washes across the country. Car washes and fast lubes are a good
marriage, because they both deal with customer service in an express format, and that is
something where we strive to exceed your expectations. We have put lubes at six of our
locations to date, plan for more in the future. Presently, some other quick lubes and gas stations
offer car washes. We need the Hoffman Car Wash/Jiffy Lube combination to stay competitive.
This past summer our Company diversified once more and formed our own landscape division
with staff, headed up by a certified grounds manager and have built a 3,000 square foot
greenhouse to grow our own plants and flowers, in order to ensure that our stores are flowered,
landscaped and maintained to the high standards we strive for. Hoffman Car Wash and Jiffy
Lube employs approximately 500 people company wide. We will be hiring about 40 full and
part time people to staff this location. Many of our employees are first time works and/or local
people from the community. We are a family business, with 13 members from three
generations actively involved in the daily operations of the car washes and jiffy lubes. Tom
Hoffman, Sr. and Jr. are both past Presidents of the New York State Car Wash Association, and
Tom, Sr. is past President of the 4,000 member International Car Wash Association. We are one
of the largest privately owned chains of car washes and lubes nationwide, and what we do and
how we do it have made us a recognized leader and trendsetter in our field. We are always
upgrading our equipment and facilities and constantly attend and host meetings in enhance our
car washing and lube knowledge. We also actively support, help and involve ourselves with
local, state, and national non-profit and charitable organizations. So as you see, you may think
of us as a small local company, but in reality, we are a quiet, national leader, who’s company
focus is based on customer service and excellence in our appearance, our people, and the
products and services we produce, all within a drug free work environment. Now let me
introduce you to our proposed project. Hoffman Development Corporation is proposing to
build on said property the following. First, a 200 foot by 30 foot automatic exterior car wash.
This will be a state of the art, high tech computer controlled wash with full tunnel skylight and
heated drying air. That will be this long portion of the building right here. Next a three bay,
touch free laser wash. This additionally will have the newest touch free laser equipment
available. That would be this next portion of the building right here. Next, a three by two bay
jiffy lube. We oversize our lubes to ensure minimal customer waiting, and provide the best lube
equipment available for our technicians. That would be in this portion right here, and you can’t
really see it, but also at our jiffy lubes we always put a gazebo, usually out front, for our
customers to go outside. If they’re smoking customers, they have a place they can go outside
and sit and have a cigarette, or if a customer just wants to go outside to be out in the fresh air,
but there’ll be a gazebo in the front of this location, as it is with our other locations. Next, a
three by two bay self-service wash. Once again, we only use the best equipment, only the best
equipment is used from the foam brush to the high and low pressure spray options, all in a
wash bay with heated floors. That would be the last portion right here, and lastly, two self-
service customer vacuum areas. Our vacuums are the newest and feature built-in carpet
shampooers and canopy covers. The first vacuum area will be out in the front, right here, in the
front of the property, and the second vacuum area is on both sides of the entrance lane into the
exterior wash. Additionally, there’s a vending kiosk right here in this little island for the self-
service customer, for bill changer, towels, etc. for the people that are in the vacuum area out
front. Other site features will include directional signage, lot striping, enclosed dumpsters,
employee parking and standard traffic signs. The present plans call for the building to be
constructed of earth tone colored rustic brick, which we ship in from Oklahoma. The trussed
and mansard roof will be covered with forest green colored shingles. Our building design
features a staggered front, a clock tower, gable end outcroppings, skylights, different roof
heights and dormers to enhance the building’s aesthetics an give a more pleasing outward
appearance. As you can see in the site plan here, the building, instead of just being one like a
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
strip mall across the front, we stagger it back to give the building a little depth, and it has
different roof heights. We put dormers on the building. The two gable end outcroppings to
accent the jiffy lube, the clock tower at the end of the wash building, this doesn’t show it, but
the roof on the automatic tunnel is a full skylight, similar to our Wilton location. Next let’s look
at traffic flow on the site. Hoffman Car Wash has been in the business of designing, building,
operating and maintaining car washes for over 30 years. This site layout is a by-product of
everything we have learned in past years, and exhibits what we feel is our best site plan to date,
and the format we will follow in the future. By that I mean, we have a circular traffic flow
around the site. Everything comes in from the single entrance, which has a dual exit, so cars
can go left or right. When customers come in, they have the option, which some people like to
do, come in and use the vacuums first, and then possibly even exit or come in and use the
vacuums first and then come around to the self-service wash or the laser wash or come around
to the exterior wash, or they may opt to use one of these facilities first, and then come out and
use the vacuums and then leave. Our lube customers, after they are lubed, they get the free car
wash, and they can then circle back around get the free laser wash or the free exterior car wash
at their convenience. Like I said, additionally on the lot, we have employee parking on this side
of the exterior tunnel and employee parking right here. The exit lane shown right through here
is primarily for our employees to be able to exit the property, and any service vehicles that come
in to service the wash or deliver products have a means of exiting the property. At our car
wash jiffy lube project in Delmar, New York, a traffic study was performed for the proposed
site by Greenman-Peterson Consulting Engineers. This study was also reviewed by the
Regional Traffic Engineer for New York State Department of Transportation. The study and
review were both favorable for that project. Let me read a condensed summary of that report,
and I quote, this report conveys the findings of a traffic study performed for a proposed car
wash/jiffy lube in the Town of Bethlehem, New York. The site is very suitable for a low
generating use such as the one proposed here. A car wash is seldom a destination in and of
itself. A trip to the car wash is usually combined with another trip one is making. It is safe to
say that many trips in and out of the car wash are based on spur of the moment decisions made
as one is driving by such a facility. The majority of vehicles that pull into a car wash would
have already been in the traffic stream of the adjacent roadway. It was found that the proposed
development would not impact the existing roadway network at all. It is also noted that the
exit driveway is to be constructed with two lanes, one for left turns only and one for right turns
only. This will greatly expedite movement out of the site, end quote. Additionally, at our last
car wash jiffy lube facility in Wilton, and at this Queensbury location, traffic engineering
reviews for both locations have stated that car washes and lubes are not considered trip
generators, but rather are a combined stop to some other primary destination nearby or a result
of a spur of the moment decision as one is driving by such a facility. They additionally stated
that our site have good internal traffic flow and history. Next I’d like to address environmental
concerns. The modern professional car washes we operate are state of the art. We use high
pressure and low volume and recycle to conserve water. Robotic and computerized equipment
are used to turn water and equipment on and off only for the length of each car. All discharges
from our facility go into a sanitary storm system. We use about 20 to 30 gallons of water to
wash a car, whereas home car washing and donation parking lot car washing have shown from
50 to 100 gallons of water per car, and then that soapy discharge goes into the groundwater or
storm drains which empties into your streams or lakes. The modern professional jiffy lube
facilities we run are also environmentally friendly. The majority of our oils and fluids are
delivered in bulk, which reduces the discharge of bottles and cans into your landfill. All used
motor oils are safely collected and then properly stored for recycling. The waste oils are then
used as fuel for heat by us and others, and lastly, the last item I would briefly like to talk about
is landscaping. We want this location to be a showcase facility that will turn heads on Quaker
Road, and with the help of landscape architect Jim Miller of Miller Associates, we feel the end
results will be quite stunning. Our commitment to landscaping is underscored by the fact that
we grow and maintain flowers in our own greenhouse, by our dedicated staff and supervised
by a certified groundskeeper. A little side note, last year we won a national beautification
award from Jiffy Lube for site beautification at our stores. In conclusion, we look forward to
becoming part of the Town of Queensbury community. Our proposed facility will transform
this vacant lot into a showcase facility we feel that both you and I will be proud of. This
location will have a harmonious relationship with other area uses, and our earthly colors will be
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
aesthetically compatible with adjacent properties. I now thank you for the opportunity of
presenting this project to you and welcome your questions and concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Tom?
MR. NACE-No, only on the stormwater I wanted to briefly describe what we’re doing on the
stormwater. Early on in the project Staff suggested that we get together with Warren County
Soil and Water Conservation, which we did. We discussed it with them. I had a concept design
worked up that I took up and reviewed with them. They made some suggestions. I had
originally anticipated a diffused outfall into the area adjacent to Halfway creek. They suggested
we look at possibly using infiltration and storing as much as we could on site and letting it
slowly percolate through the existing soil. We did that and it worked out very well. So, with
the stormwater, we’ve got two basins, one on the east side and one on the east side. The one on
the east side receives most of the flow, and it has a bigger storage capacity in the rear of the site
in the north portion of the site. Both of those basins will have stone infiltration trenches in the
bottom of them, simply to keep the bottom of the basin maintainable, and also drywells in the
very bottom that will function during periods when the surface of the ground is frozen. We did
receive, I don’t know if Staff provided it to you, but we did receive a final review letter from
Soil and Water Conservation stating that they were very satisfied with the design.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I went down to Wilton, and I assume this is going to be, is this going to
be a lot like Wilton’s?
MR. SIMPSON-It’s similar in color and design.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SIMPSON-But it doesn’t have the interior cleaning portion, where the clean the inside of
the car, the detail area.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So similar in color means the same, almost, basically?
MR. SIMPSON-It’s the hickory colored rustique bricks we get from Oklahoma, which you can
sort of see in this slide presentation.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it looked a little grayish, but I did like the Wilton earth tone better, but
that’s what we’re going to get.
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And, yes, so I went down to Wilton to do my homework, and my wife came
with me, and, you know, I took some pictures of your operation down there, and my wife
wanted to go to the super Wal-mart. So, I said, well, you know, while I was taking pictures, a
guy, one of your employees came up to me and said, you know, you want a car wash or
anything, and I said, no, thanks, I’m just here to take some pictures and got off the site. So he
said, well, your inspection’s due, and I said, well, sure enough, it is. So I dropped my wife off at
the super Wal-Mart and I said, you know, I’m going to go get this car inspected, and the guy
said it would only take five minutes. So, I went to your place, got my car inspected, went back
to the Wal-Mart, and my wife said, you’re back already, I thought you were going to get your
car inspected? And I said, I did. I got a car wash, too, and so, I was really impressed with the
operation. I mean, it was a first class operation. Everybody had everything down to a science.
I see the people coming in there for a lube change, and I look forward to you coming in to the
Town of Queensbury. Okay. Well, with that said, let’s get down to business.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was it?
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-That was the introduction.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the good news.
MR. HUNSINGER-You couldn’t possibly think he was done.
MR. STROUGH-Well, obviously, there’s two concerns I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe I should put a cap on, 200 words or less.
MR. STROUGH-Never happen, but I will try and keep it as brief as I possibly can. I haven’t had
a chance to read any of C.T. Male’s comments or review them. I’ll say that, but two concerns.
One is kind of in an ecologically sensitive area. So I’m going to have some questions in
reference to that, and, two, it’s in an area where we’ve tried to control traffic flow, and so I’ve
got some questions there, but before I get to the big things, I’d like to see what you had to say in
reference to Warren County Planning Board’s comment, and that was, they were concerned
about the visual impact of the dry cleaning and rug shampooing questions out adjacent to
Quaker Road, and they suggested, I think, in the Warren County Planning Board review of the
project that those be placed elsewhere. Maybe in back they suggested.
MR. NACE-It was in their comments?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. NACE-We were at the Planning Board meeting. There was no such thing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t make it up.
MR. MAC EWAN-What letter are you reading from, John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, let me dig it out, or let Bob dig it out and I can go on to some other things
here.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking while he’s talking. I don’t remember it either.
MR. MAC EWAN-What was your comment, John, again?
MR. STROUGH-Well, let me get, okay, let’s go right to it. Let’s not go any further.
MR. HUNSINGER-I found it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it talks about the vacuums though, John. It says, Staff would suggest
an alternate location for the vacuums. Currently they are locate, and I assume it means located,
at the front of the property line where it may gather garbage making it look unattractive.
MR. STROUGH-Isn’t that what I said?
MR. HUNSINGER-You said rug shampooing.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s the same thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-It’s the vacuum stations.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. NACE-I don’t remember that in their motion, but then I couldn’t hear part of what you
were saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in the Staff notes from the County Planning Board.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, okay. I don’t know if we’re going to be done with this tonight.
I have my doubts. So if you’ll address that by next time, maybe.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, we can address it right now. The purpose of having the vacuums out
front, additionally, we do have vacuums in the rear, but we get many customers who want to
come in and use the vacuuming first, and it’s in an area where the customers feel the safest
when they’re using this type facility, because it has visual clearance to Quaker Road right in
front, and this is the format that we use at literally all of our locations, Colony Village, Kingston,
putting the vacuums out front where they can be seen and where the customer, when they’re
working on their car, they can be seen, because customer safety is one of our prime ingredients
in laying out a site.
MR. NACE-Listening to the way it that was written, it sounds to me like they were concerned
about people emptying their trash cans out of their car and having garbage out of their cars
littering the site, and I think if.
MR. VOLLARO-This was Staff notes.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Just like we get Staff notes, the same thing. Those words were in Staff notes.
Their recommendation, however, was to approve with the condition, that the Board
recommends approval of the application with the condition that the applicant concur with
Warren County Soil and Water about stormwater erosion control into Halfway Brook. That was
the only condition that they placed on the approval.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-But they did have that concern.
MR. NACE-But still, to answer your concern, John, I think, you know, regardless of what
Warren County said, two things. One, you obviously observed the Wilton store and saw how
meticulous staff was about keeping things clean and neat.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. The place was like a NASCAR shop down there.
MR. NACE-Now, the second thing is that in this particular location we’re not right up on the
front of the road. We’ve got a 100 foot NiMo right of way that will be graded, seeded,
landscaped and kept nice, separating the edge of the travel corridor from the front of this site.
So, you know, that’s a built in 100 foot buffer more or less.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. SIMPSON-Additionally, if I may comment, the new vacuum stations we’re going to be
using are all stainless steel, very attractive, plus we’re planting three trees in the front, and this
is going to be a great flower area out in the front for us with shrubs. So it’s not just grass going
right to the vacuums. It’s going to be well landscaped and quite appealing.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, while we’re on the topic, then, I do remember somewhere in Staff
notes or somewhere, they asked if it’s okay with NiMo for you to do that landscaping there.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, maybe Staff included, at least before they sent it back to us, included a
letter from Bill Dowd, that we had supplied to Staff, for the zoning variance, stating that, and is
that in your package?
MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, and I read it, and it said, you know, it looks okay to use this, but he
didn’t go into specifics about landscaping.
MR. SIMPSON-I just talked to Bill this morning, and they haven’t made the decision yet
whether it’s going to be a lease or a licensing agreement for us to maintain and flower this area
in front. That won’t be determined until the easement right of way comes back, which we
expect in about two weeks.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. SIMPSON-But it’ll either be a lease to use this property, landscape it and maintain it, or a
licensing agreement. With the changeover from NiMo to now National Grid, things are sort of
in a gray area, I guess, and they’re still working out the fine details of how they’re going to
proceed forward.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So we have yet to see that approval for.
MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t seem like it’s a big issue.
MR. STROUGH-No. No, it’s not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Quite honestly, if they don’t get the agreement from NiMo, they don’t build
their facility.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. NACE-Exactly.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, no. They can get their agreement to use an easement to access their
site from NiMo, but NiMo may not give permission for them to use their property for
landscaping. So that specifically was I was asking about the landscaping.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that would be a real stretch. That, you know, if NiMo is willing to
give them an easement to cross over into their property, one goes hand in hand with the other.
MR. STROUGH-Like I said, it was a Staff note concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-I think it was a Staff note concern, yes. Okay. Let’s get to the stormwater,
then. Now I realize I read that Dave Wick or one of the others from Warren County Soil and
Water did review this and gave it their stamp of approval. However, I still have lingering
questions. For example, let’s go to the exiting of the exterior car wash, and I see that there’s a
catch basin of sorts.
MR. NACE-Okay, of the exterior wash, okay.
MR. STROUGH-Let’s go to the trench drain.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-And the trench drain goes to our, let me get oriented here, southwest corner.
MR. NACE-Correct.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and then it goes down to a culvert end with some riprap.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Now, what’s to keep that stormwater runoff from flowing downhill onto the
lower area? It seems like.
MR. NACE-From downhill where, at the catch basin? From the catch basin, you mean?
MR. STROUGH-No. Show me where you have the catch basin now?
MR. NACE-The catch basin is right here.
MR. STROUGH-All right, where the riprap is.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, see, I don’t have my glasses on to see your finger.
MR. NACE-Okay. From the riprap, this is.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-This is a long, very gradual swale that comes all the way down to the lowest part.
MR. STROUGH-That’s it. That’s where I want to go with this. Okay. Now that we’re there,
we’re on the same page.
MR. NACE-Right.
MR. STROUGH-I would, okay, let me just cut to the chase. I would like to see that kind of a
drainage ditch rather than a flat area, over to your.
MR. NACE-It is a drainage ditch.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking at the figures. I go from 311 to 311 is straight across. I don’t
see any.
MR. NACE-Well, no, there’s the high point of 312 and a half on the outside. There’s a berm on
the outside. There’s a berm on the outside running all the way down here, around the outside
of this.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Over here it’s noted. All right. So that is bermed.
MR. NACE-That’s all bermed. You’ll see high point elevations all along there, and that’s a 312
contour forming the berm.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right, Tom. That’s good.
MR. NACE-Okay. So this is all, I mean, this is a basin, this whole thing is a storage basin. It’s
just that it gradually works its way down to the low point, and at the low point we’ve got the
drywell, which is not figured in to the calculations. That’s just for extra, belt and suspenders,
okay, plus to take care of frozen periods.
MR. STROUGH-Yes. Okay. Let’s get to snow removal.
MR. NACE-Okay.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-And it looks like a rather narrow area. So where is the snow going to be piled?
MR. NACE-On a site like this?
MR. STROUGH-In the same area that we’re talking.
MR. NACE-On a site like this, the snow is going to be removed from the site. There’s not a
whole lot else you can do.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that addresses that. Okay. Now, traffic flow. We’ve got a little
history here. With Lowe’s, where there’s the mega store, other projects that we’ve had located
on this arterial, State 254, Quaker Road, we’ve asked people to do right in, right outs. I mean,
it’s been asked, I should say, and I think that in the past New York State, Joanna Brunso and
then Scott Sopczyk and I don’t know who it is now, have reinforced the right in and right outs
to access points going to Quaker Road, and it’s worked, because other sites have had alternate
access points. This is an island. We don’t have that point, unless you’re willing to build a
bridge over to Lowe’s agrees to that, and etc., is the applicant willing to go with the right in,
right out? I mean, you know, we’ll go down the Board here and see how they feel about it, and
I think New York State should address this, and, George, do you know who it is now? Is Scott
Sopczyk back on that job?
MR. HILTON-At Adirondack Glens Falls Transportation?
MR. STROUGH-Reviewing projects for this area?
MR. HILTON-My understanding is that he is not.
MR. STROUGH-Well, whoever is, have they looked at this project?
MR. HILTON-No, they have not.
MR. STROUGH-Should they?
MR. NACE-The County Road. The County has looked at it.
MR. HILTON-It’s a County Road. The County maintains it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, isn’t it a State road and the County plows it?
MR. NACE-It’s a County road.
MR. HILTON-It’s New York State 254, but I do believe that it’s County maintained.
MR. STROUGH-I know in previous projects we’ve had the State take a look at traffic situations.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the issue you’ve got?
MR. NACE-Well, can I address what you’re? I think I understand what you’re getting at, okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we want to avoid cross traffic.
MR. NACE-But like you said, it works if there’s a second access point somewhere where people,
I mean people coming out of here have to have an ability to go toward Hudson Falls. You don’t
want them turning right and then finding a driveway somewhere to back up in or turn around
in somebody else’s parking lot, because that’s their only other alternative. So it really, it does
require the ability to exit in either direction. We originally had looked at the idea of maybe two
entrances, and, you know, it’s better to have just one. Okay, and the separation works out, the
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
one entrance, the location of it is pretty much dictated by separation from the adjacent
driveways and by NiMo, because of the power line locations, but it really, if you tried to limit
this to right in and right out only, commercially the site would not be worth very much.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we have made others do that, but we’ll go down the Board and see if
you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Four of us down here are comfortable with the way we’re doing it now.
MR. STROUGH-Four?
MR. MAC EWAN-Four.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that does that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know what probably what sometimes ends up happening is
somebody that might be a little, have second thoughts or I shouldn’t say people that drive have
second thoughts, but, yes, I guess they do, but maybe if somebody goes to pull out of there and
they say, I’ve got to go right. The traffic’s too much. There’s no way I’m going to be able to
(lost words).
MR. STROUGH-No, but just to stay consistent. We should stay consistent. If we’ve asked other
applicant’s to do this. The minute we become inconsistent is the minute you start running into
problems down the road, and we should be taking a look at 254, comprehensively, cumulative
impacts, with not one little project at a time, and considering other projects that are going to
come before us on Quaker Road, and if we’re consistent, it’s a lot easier. If we start allowing
exceptions, it gets a lot tougher. So just keep that in mind, especially if you’re going to ask for,
if you’re not going to ask for any State or County review, and we have asked for State and
County reviews before, of the highway situation, and to look at it and its cumulative effect on
Quaker Road in a 10 year period. You can’t look at it today. You’ve got to look at it in the long
run. All right. That being said.
MR. NACE-Just, if I could comment. The County has looked at it. George VanDusen has given
me comments that I am presently reacting to. Okay. They aren’t necessarily with the
geometrics of it, but just the construction details for tying in to the pavement.
MR. STROUGH-Well, okay. I’ve said my piece, Tom.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. SIMPSON-Can I just add one comment on that, too? This location offers the greatest site
distance and driveway separation from any of our sites. From our entrance/exit to Lowe’s is
almost 500 feet, and from our entrance/exit to the Della Group is, what is it, four something,
MR. NACE-375.
MR. SIMPSON-375 to the first driveway and another 150 to the second driveway, which gives
excellent sight distance and plenty of time for people to merge in and out of traffic. Plus the
turn lane in the center. Additionally, traffic count on Quaker Road is in the 19,000 range. This
is similar to a facility in Colony Village that has a lube full service location lasers. Central
Avenue has a 25,000 traffic count, and that facility works just excellent with no problems at all.
MR. STROUGH-Well my concern was with that center right of way, where I’ve seen numerous
accidents there, and we get, and I’m worried about this traffic, the potential for traffic conflicts
using that center lane. The more you allow a full access intersection along Quaker Road, and as
Quaker Road becomes busier, the more you’re going to get conflicts on that center lane, but
that, I guess I’m alone. Okay. So I’ll just move on. I would like some kind of independent
analysis of this, but, now the wetland. You could reduce your impact on the wetland by
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
reducing some of the services you’re offering. For example, do you absolutely have to have the
laser wash area? I mean, what’s the advantage of the laser wash over the run through exterior
wash?
MR. SIMPSON-Our customers use different services different time of the year, and some
customers prefer one type of wash over another type of wash, and we like to offer to our
customers the three basic types of wash that are available in this market. If we don’t offer it to
them, somebody else will.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, maybe somebody on a larger lot. We do have restrictions on here. You
are impacting the wetlands, and I’m saying that you could reduce your impacts, that there are
reasonable alternatives available, and I’m kind of speaking out loud to my other Planning Board
members that, you know, you would still have a healthy business with a self-serve wash, a jiffy
lube, and an exterior wash. You’d still have a healthy business. You’d reduce the size of the
building, and you could reduce your impact on the wetland. There are reasonable alternatives
available.
MR. NACE-I don’t, from a practical standpoint, John, I mean, that might move the impact on
the side of the wetlands in another 15, 20 feet on each side, or not the wetlands, on the wetland
adjacent area or buffers, but from a practical standpoint, when you look at how we’re dealing
with stormwater, and how we’re re-vegetating and strengthening the existing planting on along
the edge of those banks, I’m not sure moving in 20 feet in that buffer is going to have any real
practical measurable effect on the wetland. It would be hard for me to try to prove that.
MR. STROUGH-Well, one of the things we have to take a look at as a Planning Board is are
there any reasonable alternatives. Okay. The buildings look very nice, architecturally speaking.
In the past, I’ve never gotten very far with this, but I usually like to not have my garage door
bays facing out to the road, addressing the public that way, but I never got anywhere with that,
and I don’t think I’m going to get anywhere with that today. Okay, and I’ve got in my notes
here, it’s not a shoe store. It’s not a furniture outlet. It’s not an ice cream place. It is an
automotive place, and with all the (lost words) that comes with an automotive place, and so that
is going to have possibly negative effects on the adjacent wetland.
MR. NACE-I’m sorry, with all the what, John, that comes with?
MR. STROUGH-You could have negative impacts, being what it is.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-It’s going to have more of an impact on the adjacent area than say a shoe store
or furniture store, because it is an automotive place. I mean, it’s cleaning cars. It’s washing cars
off. It changes oil. I mean, it has the potential for pollutants, and I know that, Tom, that you’ve
done as good a job as you can addressing it, and maybe it’s a, you know, darn good job, and I
respect your work. Don’t get me wrong. You know that, but let’s go to the northeast corner,
and we’ve got a drywell located there, and the rim is 308.5 feet. Now, how do we know that the
capacity of that drywell if, you know, I guess C.T. Male said there was a soil type question?
MR. NACE-I’m sorry. Say that again?
MR. STROUGH-In C.T. Male’s concerns, there was concern over the siltiness of the soils, and
their ability or capacity to absorb some of the stormwater overflow.
MR. NACE-Okay. The soils on the site are, as you’ve seen I’m sure over the years, mixed fills.
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. NACE-Because of that, I used a factor of a 30 minute perc rate, which is extremely slow.
That’s, being out in Washington County in the clay.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. NACE-For analyzing the infiltrative capacity of the bottom of the basin. So that’s a very
conservative approach, because I’m sure you could dig four different test pits on there and find
four different mixes of fill material, different types. So I felt that it was a very conservative
approach, and C.T. Male agreed. Now, in the analysis, I’ve just used the bottom of the grass
basin as an infiltrative surface. The rock filled trenches that I’ve added as a suggestion that
Male had to keep the bottom of the basin maintainable. They will add to the percolation
capacity of the system, and the drywells, as I explained to you earlier, are primarily so that it
can accept some water when the ground is frozen.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and what is the purpose of the three spillways, then?
MR. NACE-There’s just two.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. That top one’s not a spillway. I’m sorry. Yes.
MR. NACE-Well, yes. These are just areas where the grading is a little steep and we wanted a
better fabric to reinforce the slope, but these are just an emergency, you know, if Noah has to
come and take us all away with the Arc, we want some place for the water to go.
MR. STROUGH-All right. So that would be only like a 50 year or?
MR. NACE-At 50 year, I’m well below these spillways.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. NACE-I think I’m a foot below the spillways at 50 years.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you, Tom. All right. Those are some of my concerns, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not all of them?
MR. STROUGH-I might have some more. I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I really enjoyed the presentation. It really answered a lot of questions. I
don’t want to beat a dead horse. I travel Quaker Road every day, almost every day I see (lost
words).
MR. STROUGH-Well, I know, and we’ve talked about this before, but stop signs don’t stop all
people. Red lights don’t stop all people. You don’t stop everybody, but you do reduce the
numbers.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just don’t, you know, this site being what it is, I think (lost words), and I
think, thinking about the last applicant (lost words) PROBLEM WITH MICROPHONES
MR. SIMPSON-I have a little statement about lighting. Low level of sodium lighting is fine for
some applications where a color rendering is less critical, but for us, very good lighting is
needed for outside employee and customer areas, and our outside point of sale and vacuum
areas. Additionally, a well lit site translates to customer safety, customer safety, customer
safety. When you drive onto our site, you are, in essence, going through the entrance doors at
the Mall. Our paved areas are like the Mall courtyard. It is here where you choose which
service to drive to. It is here where we greet you, and it is here where you inspect and fuss over
your car. Our buildings represent only a portion of the total wash and lube experience. Soft
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
sodium lighting does not truly represent the true color of cars. Metal Halide gives the closest
representation to true light and the true color of a car, and the proposed lighting is needed to be
able to adequately work in and on a car, and also visually inspect the car to one’s satisfaction.
In the areas out front where the people are vacuuming their cars, we need sufficient light like
you’d have here in this room. If you’re vacuuming your car, we need enough light to penetrate
the car so that the customer can see what he’s doing. Additionally, when the customers are
entering our facilities here and here, these are our point of sale areas and entrance to the wash
in this area here, where they’re greeted by our attendants, as this member of the Board was,
entrance into the laser, or the lube, we greet our customers in these areas, our point of sale
areas. When the people exit the washes and the lubes, generally they stop and look the cars
over. We need adequate light out there so that they can visually see their car and make sure
they’re happy with the service and products they’re receiving.
MR. NACE-The one other thing to remember is that because of the intense need for light, in
specific areas. The lights are low level, okay. They’re only, they’re 15 foot poles, or (lost
words). So it’s not spreading out. If you look at the overall lighting plan, it’s not too far off the
edge of the pavement (Lost words). (LOST WORDS) PROBLEM WITH MICROPHONES
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Are we back in business here? All right. I guess the question was
relative to the lighting not meeting the Zoning Ordinance, how much are we over what’s got to
be done.
MR. HILTON-Well, that’s just it. I think we need more information. We’re looking for
uniformity ratios. We’re looking for some cut sheets. We’re looking for some clarification on
the number fixtures. Are we going to use the three versus two? I could say this, that it looks, I
mean, I’ve reviewed this plan with the Senior Planner, and we’re looking at a site that is above
even our most excessive standards for loading areas and automobile lots. I think we need more
information before we can accurately answer that, but, again, as it appears, it looks like it’s
going to be very intense lighting. That’s not going to be directed downwards, as is required.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Well, it is directed downward or there are floods that are directed in to the site,
nothing is directed out.
MR. VOLLARO-I tried to do a uniformity ratio on this one myself, I spent a little time on it, and
determined that the only way you could do a good uniformity is by sections. You can’t do a
uniformity ratio over this. You’ve got an average light level here of about 16 foot candles.
That’s taking spots from different parts of the site, and in order to get into the four to one ratio,
you might be able to sneak in by doing it in sections, as opposed to trying to do it on the whole
site.
MR. NACE-Actually, this uniformity ratio, I’m not sure anybody has really understood what it
means.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what it means.
MR. NACE-It’s the average over the minimum. Well, the minimum on this site is zero.
MR. VOLLARO-The minimum shouldn’t be any more than four times the average.
MR. NACE-But the average on any good, well lit site, or not the average, the minimum on any
well lit site should be zero at the perimeter. So that makes your uniformity ratio infinity. So
where do you establish that edge of what you want to use for a minimum in your uniformity
ratio?
MR. VOLLARO-I have a letter, I think, in to Chris Round on uniformity ratios, because of that.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. NACE-I mean, it’s a regulation that somebody wrote and nobody understands.
MR. MAC EWAN-But the reality is, we have a Zoning Ordinance that deals with lighting, and
lighting standards and supply us with the information so that Staff and C.T. Male can render
judgment on it.
MR. NACE-Okay. I’ve got cut sheets, and I apologize. Those should have been over to Staff
earlier. The uniformity ratio, as it stands, is somewhere around five, okay. Again, it depends
on where you set those outer limits, and that outer limit is set with a minimum of two. So it’s
back, you know, at the pavement edge. The average light level on the site for the parking area
for the paved area and building area is 11.5. Okay. So the average is not that far up there. It’s
just that we need some areas that are intensely lit for this particular purpose.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do those areas tend to be focused around the vacuum cleaners?
MR. NACE-Well, let’s see.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it actually appeared to be at the drive-in lane, from the laser wash to
the, well, I think that was the highest number.
MR. STROUGH-Right in here.
MR. NACE-Yes. Your highest numbers, again, are where there are coin changers or ATM
machines that people have to see, really, you know, kind of like the banks, you know, the issue
you ran into with the self-service tellers at the bank, where people have to be doing that
exchange is fairly highly lit. Those peaks in there are generally in the 40 to 50 range, you know,
directly under the lights. Out at the vacuums, it looks like the average is somewhere around 27,
25, 23, somewhere in that range. So, yes, there are some very high peaks of, you know, in the
50’s, but those are at the areas where you’ve got to have that light to see what you’re doing.
MR. VOLLARO-But that effects the average light level of the site.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-What I did was I took five shots. 10.2, 33.2, 56, .3, and .5, and I did those in a
circular motion around the site. I can show you my plots.
MR. NACE-Yes. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And I came up with an average light level there, that’s probably not very good,
because I didn’t do enough integration on that, but that’s how I got the 16 foot candles.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, the average for, if you took the edge of the pavement as a box, the
average within that box was.
MR. VOLLARO-Eleven.
MR. NACE-Eleven.
MR. VOLLARO-Eleven something. I can see the difference in that analysis.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I think the approach to take the lowest number at the edge of the
pavement is probably the, you know, an appropriate way to go. George, do you remember
what the foot candles were underneath the gas pump canopies?
MR. HILTON-Offhand I do not.
67
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VOLLARO-I think on Getty, remember Getty, it was Getty on the intersection of 149 and
Ridge Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Wasn’t it in the 30’s?
MR. VOLLARO-It was 35.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s a different zone up there. That’s a whole different lighting.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll tell you, the one that you approved, we approved, for Route 9, the
new Cumberland Farms, up by the Mount Royal, is very bright. Remember we gave up on
giving, their arguments that we need it this bright, it is extremely bright.
MR. HUNSINGER-What about the one on Quaker, the Cumberland Farms on Quaker?
MR. STROUGH-I’m not familiar with that because I drive by this one all the time. So I’m
familiar with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-But that was one we approved.
MR. STROUGH-And I think this was close to 40.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We could banter this around all night long, but we’ll let them
supply us with the information.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Are they going to be on all night, the lights anyway, or what?
MR. SIMPSON-We’re a 24 hour operation.
MR. STROUGH-Wow. Well, see that’s one thing we worry about is light pollution.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And we hear about it all the time.
MR. SANFORD-That’s a commercial road, though. I mean, a real commercial road.
MR. MAC EWAN-There are standards, standards in every corridor we have and every zone for
lighting, whether it’s, you know, a neighborhood commercial zone, whether it’s a residential
zone, whether it’s a highway commercial zone. I mean, there’s standards that the Town set
forth when they re-did the Ordinance a couple of years ago. So if they can supply us with the
information that we think we’re going to be looking for, so that they can, the Town can review
it, we’ll take it from there.
MR. SIMPSON-Keep in mind, safety is one of our biggest concerns.
MR. MAC EWAN-We understand that everyone.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, we understand that from the gas stations that we
reviewed. I mean, they have gas pumps now are ATM machines, basically.
MR. MAC EWAN-We did the same thing with the ATM machine at Stewarts. Right down here.
Stewarts right down here.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right on Cronin.
MR. SIMPSON-Additionally, we’re sort of unique, too, in the aspect that our paved area is more
or less like a lobby area. When you go inside of a building for some service, the lobby area for
us is the outside paved area of the parking lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-It would be the same with an ATM machine. It would be the same with a
gas pump. I mean, but, you know, we do have design standards.
MR. SIMPSON-I understand that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, I hate to have to be the one to bring it up, but for me personally that
was really the only issue that was left hanging was the lighting scheme. I think the comment
from the County Planning Board about the garbage bins, you know, I wish your car wash was
open last weekend because I went to one of your competitors and got there as they closed the
drive-thru. So I had to do the self-service, but every single garbage can was overflowing with
trash, and so I can see where that comment came from, about not wanting, and the trash bins
were all right next to the vacuum cleaners, and they were just all overflowing, every single one
of them.
MR. SIMPSON-At this location, as you may have noted, we additionally have two dumpster
areas, and that’s just to make it easier for our people to empty the trash bins when they get full.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. SIMPSON-It’s more convenient for them. It works better for the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-And if you keep a cleaner operation than your competitors, then people will
go to your place instead of the competitors.
MR. SIMPSON-Exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s just how it works. I didn’t have anything else to add.
MR. SANFORD-I’ll get to the bottom line first and then I’ll back fill with a couple of questions.
I think, based on your presentation and what I’ve heard and seen, it certainly looks like you’ve
got a great company with quality services, but perhaps with too small of a lot, in an
environmentally sensitive area for what you’re trying to do, and that’s why I want to explore a
little bit some of those issues, with going right now to the exterior car wash, I looked, I really
enjoyed reading your traffic analysis, using the data that you had, I thought it was logical and
what have you. You state you could have as many as 198 cars serviced, and I’m wondering if
that lot could ever, in an hour, tolerate that kind of traffic, even though your facility and
machinery may very well be able to process that kind of volume, and so, just to get to some
specifics, if you take one of your competitors down the road, in a warm winter day, will have
cars queuing like crazy, and I’m wondering, on this small lot, where these cars would queue
and how many cars could you have in such a line, before you really ran into some congestion?
MR. SIMPSON-Well, that’s why the facility is laid out on the lot like it is, because the exterior
wash itself would generate the most business and that has the largest stacking area in the rear.
MR. SANFORD-How many is that?
MR. SIMPSON-I don’t know offhand.
TOM HOFFMAN
MR. HOFFMAN-Certainly the greatest of any facility we’ve ever built.
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. SANFORD-Is that right?
MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, it is.
MR. SANFORD-And you might get them through quicker, but, I mean, I’ve seen them
bottleneck big time at the one down on.
MR. HOFFMAN-That’s typically because they don’t know how to process cars as quickly as
they need to for the type of weather that they’re encountering.
MR. SIMPSON-Right. We can stack approximately 40 cars outside the building, but one of the
reasons for the building this size, we can run the conveyor at a greater speed than someone who
has a smaller facility.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. SIMPSON-Therefore you’re queuing more cars and cars are coming faster. When we have
a line of cars, in essence, we feel we’re not doing our customers the service they need.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, if you have that kind of a queue line, is that going to prevent
other people who might want to go to your other services from getting through that vegetation
that you have there in green? In other words, let’s say you have a back log in the exterior car
wash and I want to come in and utilize either the laser or the lube, am I going to have trouble
getting through?
MR. SIMPSON-Well, that’s why we’ve built such a large queuing area for the exterior and here,
so that it won’t inhibit people from getting in to these services.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I see how they would get in then.
MR. SIMPSON-People coming in to these services make the turn in here, and then feed in.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. All right. I don’t have a problem with crossing the lanes and Quaker
Road especially. I agree with Mr. Strough. It’s desirable not to have that, but I don’t feel it’s
absolutely essential. So I’ll just weigh in on that one. One question, though, I would like to
follow up, that Mr. Strough brought up, and that was the possibility of maybe recognizing the
fact that there’s some distance issues to the barrier, the wetland barrier, that perhaps
elimination of some of your services, or one of your services might make sense, and you
answered in a very clear manner that you didn’t really want to go there, and I can appreciate
that, but I was wondering, the laser wash is a relatively new, new, newer service that you’re
offering, versus the other types. Is that correct?
MR. HOFFMAN-Actually, it’s a wash service that’s been around since the 80’s.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. HOFFMAN-We’ve had the facilities for about three and a half, four years now.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, what I was wondering is, as a consumer, I kind of see it as a slight
redundancy. In other words, if I’m going to go into a car wash facility, and the reason I would
stand out there and use one of those wands is because I don’t want the brushes potentially
scratching my car. If I could go in, stay in my car and have some robotics do it for me, all the
better, if the cost is reasonable, and so what I’m wondering is, in facilities where you have both
of those, is there, is it somewhat of a redundancy and you see a drop off in the desire for one or
the other services? In other words, you have less demand for people waving wands because
they have the laser, in which case, then maybe it’s not as much of a profit center as you might
think? Now, what has been your experience along those lines?
70
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HOFFMAN-Well, again, we go to at least a half a dozen industry meetings a year, you
know, International Car Wash Association, New York State Car Wash Association. We’ve
researched this stuff to death, and it has been researched to death by the industry, and we have
found that each customer going through our conveyorized car wash, the in bay automatic, you
know, the laser wash and the self serve, are entirely different customers. There are people in
Mercedes, BMW’s, with the really nice cars that are the do it for me part of our society. They
need and desire the laser wash, because they’re not willing to get out of the car and wash it
themselves. The people in the self-serve, you know, like to wash it themselves. They can, you
know, bend the trigger gun and get the ice out from the rocker panels. The other thing we’re
doing is we’re preventing or offering a service to people in this community that would prevent
them or give them an incentive not to wash their car at home. Where all that soap and water
and stuff that falls off their car runs down their driveway into the storm drains and drains right
in to the Halfway Brook. Our entire process, our entire facility is a recycling center, truly.
Every drop of our wash water is captured in the sanitary sewer system where it goes to a sewer
treatment plant and is treated properly. The jiffy lube facility captures every single drop of
fluid out of your vehicle and recycles it, compared to people changing their oil at home,
typically would, you know, run in the back yard and dump it, you know, into the ground. So
the entire facility is a very environmentally friendly facility that will enhance the pollution of, or
the reduction of pollution in your community.
MR. SANFORD-Perhaps, and I hear what you’re saying, although I just, the big issue I have,
and I’m inclined to favor this project, simply because it looks like you do something as routine
as car wash and oil changes in a remarkable manner. I mean, I was very impressed. I am
concerned about the 46 feet from the border to Halfway Brook. Halfway Brook, in our area and
our community, in my opinion, has been beat up pretty heavily in the last decade or so, and it’s
project after project that seems to get very close to it and here we have another one, and I’m
very concerned about that, and so I guess I just have to come to terms with it or reconcile it in
some way. I am concerned hearing, again, it’s de ja vu all over again, regarding the DEC permit
and we’re, I guess, sort of anticipating that that’s going to be approved and received, and I’m
wondering, in all due fairness to the prior applicant, if we ought to send a similar letter to DEC
asking for their rationalization or justification for a variance from the 100 feet, and why do they
feel that it’s appropriate or not, that type of thing. So, you know, I’ll let the Chairman and
others perhaps ponder that, but that’s the one comfort level that I need to get over. As far as
everything else, the lighting, the traffic, I imagine that’s resolvable. I’m comfortable with it. It’s
just the wetland issue that I’m having a problem.
MR. HOFFMAN-Right. Now, regarding the DEC, we were also sensitive to that issue. We
knew it was going to come up, so we brought them on site to survey the area, and we are not
developing in the wetland at all. We are within the 100 foot setback to the wetland, and that
doesn’t require a variance. It just requires a permit, and there’s a big difference. So, you know,
DEC’s, you know, the State authority on the impact to the environment, and we have their
verbal approval and are expecting, in a couple of weeks for them to issue a permit to develop
the area within the 100 foot setback.
MR. SIMPSON-Additionally, that 46 foot figure, I’m not sure where that came from, because we
designed this with the hard surfacing to be at 50 feet from the boundary of wetlands, and the
building setbacks are only 25 feet within the 100 foot setback limits as required by the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. SANFORD-Buildings, according to Staff notes, they say buildings are about 75 feet, but
they say the closest hard surface 46 feet.
MR. HILTON-Appears to be. Yes. I mean, I put a scale to paper and came up with a rough,
you know, if you can give me other information, then.
MR. NACE-It scales, sure, it’s scaled off the computer at 50 feet. So I’m not sure whether maybe
a print was distorted in making prints, paper stretched or what, but it was scaled in at 50 feet.
71
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
Plus, you know, that’s from the toe of the fill which DEC has defined as the edge of the wetland,
and then it’s an additional distance from there to Halfway Brook at any point.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I know, well, but that’s all I had is, again, I think I’m very impressed with
your presentation, and I still have a little bit of concern about the environmental issues, but.
MR. NACE-One thing to consider there, also, the existing site is just rough fill without any well
established ground cover. So now, any rain runoff from that fill, you know, is able to run off
into the wetland and into the creek without any mitigation. Okay. We’re going to be re-
establishing good ground cover on the banks, you know, putting in grass in all places, you
know, that in itself will actually improve some of the existing condition.
MR. HOFFMAN-And nobody will the site like we will.
MR. SANFORD-No, that much I’m convinced of. You’ve got to convince John Strough of that
more than you do me. Okay.
MR. STROUGH-Well, and also, you know, Staff notes point out that part of this might be in the
100 year floodplain.
MR. NACE-I’m working with Jim Houston on the floodplain issue. I did some calculations,
gave those to him. He wants a full, what’s called a Heck Analysis, a river system analysis, of
the little bit of fill that we are encroaching into the floodplain as it’s shown. I’m confident, and
both he and I are confident, that a full analysis will not show any impact, but he wants me to go
through it anyway. So I will.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I appreciate that, Tom, but another thing I think we as a Planning Board
have to consider, and I’m not here to pick on this project, but it’s a thought that I’ve got to share
right now, are the cumulative impacts that each time we steal a little bit of the floodplain,
whether it’s the Schermerhorn project or the Valente project or what have you here and there,
that I think you’ve got to consider the cumulative effects this, over time, could have an impact.
So, not necessarily this project, and Tom’s going to do an analysis of it, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we need to see more information.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That’s what my concerns were are just going through C.T. Male’s
letter.
MR. NACE-Did you get their final letter of today?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Well we just got it.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well how come I don’t have it? I’ve been looking all over for it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, we got a packet of 13 pages.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s late, but when they come around with these packets, it seems like
everybody gets one and I never get one. Or I lose it somewhere.
MR. MAC EWAN-From now on, Mrs. LaBombard is to get the first packet.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And all this time I’ve been looking all over the place to read this, and I’m
like, okay, all right. So I’m not going to read it now. I’m whipped. I’m getting tired of these
late meetings, too. After nine years, it’s not letting up. It’s getting more intense.
72
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-The bright side is we’ll have three meetings next month. So they won’t go
beyond 10.
MR. SANFORD-John and Bob are just getting started.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. I understand that. I may be walking out. Okay. So you’re going to
address all these issues here. You have addressed them.
MR. NACE-Yes. The only one that’s going to be able to understand the computer run I generate
is going to be Jim Edwards, okay. It’s, I won’t say a meaningless, but it’s something that’s
necessary to protect the Town’s interests.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and another thing I was wondering about, (lost words), and I was
just wondering if that 100 foot buffer in the front of the NiMo lands, if that wouldn’t serve to
maybe people that are traveling on Quaker Road, if it wouldn’t, you know, maybe prevent the
people on the road from getting such an impact of the light. I think it’s going to help a little bit.
MR. NACE-Well, I think, yes, both the buffer and, because the lights are so low, compared to
Lowe’s where you’ve got 30 foot poles, the spread and the glare, especially the glare, I mean,
what impacts people on the adjacent properties is the glare from lights, and you don’t get that
glare until the light fixture is up high enough to get the refracted light out the side of the fixture.
MR. MAC EWAN-Provide us with the data that will support that theory.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, that’s great, and another thing is, you know, not just the pollution
and the waste that comes from the business that’s generated by the business (lost word) facility,
when you have all that oil and grease, with the cars just going around the blacktop to get into
the different bays that they want to be serviced, remember when we were talking about, I don’t
know, when we were doing the impacts of the new parking lots at the Great Escape, and did I
miss something? Do we have something that is like those oil catchers that if there was any kind
of a flood or there was an awful lot of surface water runoff, that if there was any oil that leaked
from cars that went around the facility, that that would be contained before it? Instead of.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think she’s talking about oil separators.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, oil separators.
MR. NACE-Yes, there is an oil separator for all the waste out of the facility.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m talking about, you know, but I don’t mean from the buildings
themselves.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m talking about just, if somebody’s vacuuming their car, and their car
leaks oil, or as you’re going and waiting in line to get through the car wash, your car is leaking
oil.
MR. NACE-Well, the stormwater here is going in, you know, going into the infiltration facility.
So it’ll be tied up, and oils there will be tied up in the soil matrix. It’s not like you’ve got an
outflow that’s going directly to a stream, and the oil sheen that gets carried off.
MR. VOLLARO-But I think what Cathy is talking about.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-What I’m talking about is stuff outside the buildings.
MR. NACE-Yes, I am talking, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.
73
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MRS. LA BOMBARD-You understand. That’s okay.
MR. VOLLARO-She’s talking about a passive stormwater filtration system. That’s what she’s
really talking about.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. NACE-And that’s what we’ve got with the soil, with the infiltration.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and I think that, I know you’re sensitive to the site, and when you
had mentioned before, I know, that right now nothing is, nobody is taking care of that piece of
property.
MR. NACE-No, a lot of it’s bare ground.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the same thing happened when Home Depot went in, the plan they
have there is ten times better than what was there before, as it’s being built right now. So I
think that this is going to work. Done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, guys?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Robert hasn’t gone.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s after eleven, do you want me to can this, or what?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, the roof color, he said it was Hunter Green. So I’m just assuming you
used a Kelly Green on that roof, just to make it stand out better in the drawing.
MR. SIMPSON-It’s Forest Green. It’s the same green as you’ve seen at our Wilton.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-The photograph is Kelly Green.
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. The computer we could only get a certain color on this computer when he
made that rendering for us.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess what I’m going to get into is something that Catherine was talking
about, and it really is the use of the passive stormwater infiltration system. There are system’s
which use the vortex system of getting into corealis effect and trying to hold the oil to the center
and separating them out. The same kind of thing she’s talking about, the runoff from the roads,
I think you’ve got everything else well contained in oil separators internally, that’s all well
taken care it looks like, but I think what she’s talking about is road runoff. That’s the same
thing I was a little bit concerned about, and using these passive separators seems to, there are
companies that make them, and they work pretty well, and I don’t know whether that was ever
introduced into the design scheme or not.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I saw an oil something separator in there.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s for the jiffy lube.
MR. STROUGH-You’ve got, they only work well for salads and floatables, unless you have
these little pads that you can add to them that does absorb, they’re called absorbients, that does
absorb the oil, and they have to be changed every so often, but they will absorb up to 80% of
your oil related products.
MR. HOFFMAN-Is this something you guys are requiring of all parking lots?
74
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, we did for the Home Depot.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Things that are in environmentally sensitive areas, like the Great Escape
with the Fen.
MR. VOLLARO-When it gets close to a thing like the Halfway Brook, this whole line here, this
front line, tends to perk up their ears in terms of environmental protection.
MR. STROUGH-Well, what Cathy referred to before at the Great Escape, there’s two ways that
they helped solve some of the pollution runoff there. They had pervious pavement they’re
using, and then in the lower part, where trucks are going to be parked, because the pervious
pavement doesn’t work well for vehicles of that weight, they actually have a filter system. It’s
not a CDS Vortex system, it’s an actual filter system, and it’s a series of filters that they have to
change every so often. It’s an expensive process, but they were willing to go along with that,
because that was a major tributary to the Glen Lake Fen and ultimately to Glen Lake, but, yes,
with Home Depot, we’ve, used these devices, other than the passive.
MR. NACE-Yes, but those other areas are using a direct discharge of stormwater after a
detention facility of some sort. We’re using, you know, infiltration, which, for the small
amounts of oils you’re talking about, will get tied up on the soil matrix.
MR. STROUGH-And on you’re behalf, Tom, you’re accurate in that the Great Escape didn’t
want to use up parking space for retention basins. So for them, it was worth it to go to the
expense, and for Home Depot, we’re trying to adjust to an existing situation, and make it as
good as we can, and it wasn’t a case that we could go from scratch on the drawing board,
because this area was in back of the Travelers Insurance building and that area wasn’t going to
be altered much. So in both those cases you’re accurate.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So then you’ve got it covered.
MR. NACE-With the soil, with the infiltration, yes, we do.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the only thing that C.T. Male came up with is that the current numbers
should be revised to reflect a more moderately draining soil, but that’s something you’ve got to
work out.
MR. NACE-And I’ve done that. I don’t agree with him, and I’ve told him so, but, those
numbers were developed by SCS with empirical studies where they actually measured those
conditions, and with good grass cover, they had topsoil, but I did, since I had extra capacity in
these basins, just to satisfy C.T. Male on that issue, I did run it at a higher curve number.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You used something other than 39, then?
MR. NACE-49, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just have another question on internalization on this site, and there’s
just one area that I looked at when I looked at all the possible permeations of traffic. I really
came up with an area that could be an area of conflict, and it’s on SP-1. Okay. Go to the
northern portion of the site, coming off Quaker Road, you’re getting (lost words), then you hit
this area where people can come down into these parking spaces and get into, you notice where
the north/south traffic is two ways, I guess that’s what I’m looking at there.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, back down by your vacuum cleaners, right in that area, that corridor
right there, come straight down in front of the vacuums. Right there.
75
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now cars coming, you’ve got cars coming in, cars going up, and cars
coming around all trying to make some sort of a judgment at this circle right here.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And that looked, to me, like a real potential conflict for traffic. So what I did is
I nixed this one way traffic and just eliminated that all together.
MR. NACE-You nixed the two way traffic, you mean?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right in here.
MR. SIMPSON-Like I said in the original presentation, a majority of our, not a majority, some of
our customers prefer to come in and use the vacuum facilities first, and then come around and
use the wash, or some want to use just the vacuums by themselves as a standalone service. The
exiting traffic coming down here, in essence, is only for employees. So this is pretty much a one
way traffic flow into this site, and then exiting the facilities, this is pretty much where 90% of
the exiting traffic is going to be. There’s going to be very little exiting traffic here, only at the
end of the work shifts when these parking spaces are vacated.
MR. VOLLARO-It seems like this line of traffic is making a right hand turn to exit. That’s what
I see here.
MR. SIMPSON-That’s correct. They come out of the exterior wash, the laser wash or the lube,
and they’ll exit down this lane, but like I said, there’s going to be really minimal traffic coming
down the side ramp here. That’s only for employees to exit the facility.
MR. NACE-I think, Bob, that we really can’t, we can’t get away from the two way traffic in front
there, because of access to the vacuums. I’m saying, we really can’t get rid of this two way.
This really does need to be two way, so that customers can come in and either do the
vacuuming first or second, or vacuum only, okay. We don’t want to force them just to use these
vacuums back here, because then they have trouble getting around to one of these other
services.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, at any given time, on your busiest of busiest days, how many cars
would you expect to be circulating in that lot during a half hour period? I know there are a lot
of extremes. I guess I’m getting the impression from some of my fellow Board members like
we’re going to have 150 cars circulating in this lot, 24/7, and I don’t see that happening here.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they already made the comment that this had the most queuing of any
project they’ve designed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but what I’m seeing, what I’m thinking here, is, you know, this is going
to be peaks here, you know. There’s going to be, you know, Saturday morning is going to be
the busy time, maybe Sunday afternoon, nine o’clock at night it’s not going to be busy.
MR. SANFORD-128 in an hour, if everything is peaked at the same time, which is not going to
happen.
MR. SIMPSON-Like we told you in the material that we handed in, each facility has different
times of the year when they do peak. The exterior wash is busier in the winter. The lubes are
busier in the summer, and the lasers are usually busier when the temperature gets extremely
cold and people don’t want to use the self-service wash. Time of the day influences when
they’re busy. Our business at our washes and our lubes are a bell shaped curve. They start low
in the morning, they peak midday, and then they die off late afternoon. Traffic on Quaker
Road, as is most roads in front of our facilities, are peak AM/PM drive times. So, we work very
well with the traffic that’s in the roadway in front of us.
76
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Did that kind of answer some of your questions, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I guess so. I still see that intersection as a point of conflict, but we’ll certainly
see how that works out.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I guess every intersection is a point of conflict. The question is, how
much of a conflict is it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I see cars coming from three directions. That usually is not too good.
MR. HOFFMAN-Right. Well, the other thing, too, is we’ve built 20 car washes since 1965, and
that facility in Saratoga is a pretty tight facility, where we’ve utilized, you know, a high
percentage of the property for our facility, and on the busiest days, traffic flow works great on
that facility. This facility is enormous, as far as accommodating the customers having a large
amount of stacking. It’s the best traffic flow we’ve ever designed, because, you know, the site
just lends itself so well. So, you know, this thing’s going to be a piece of cake compared to
Saratoga, Wilton.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what about the maintenance of any of these stormwater systems? How is
that going to take place, to preserve the design intent?
MR. NACE-With the way they maintain the site, there shouldn’t be much of any maintenance
required on the stormwater basins, the way they maintain the grass cover and keep it up. Their
infiltration devices. The biggest detriment to them is a lot of sediment from erosion, and there
should be none, but it would be incumbent upon them to maintain them, yes.
MR. STROUGH-We have had other applicants that don’t maintain their stormwater facilities
that well. So would it be reasonable to ask for a maintenance program?
MR. NACE-I can’t think of what that would be, to tell you the truth.
MR. STROUGH-Well, for example, don’t let the overgrowth go on these retention basins. Let
the grass swales get mowed every briefly, so often.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I could find no pedestrian walks shown on the plan, and of course I have
a comment, why should there be, but I think in Staff notes it talked about pedestrian walks and
I couldn’t find any on the plans. So are there any?
MR. SIMPSON-Really, no, because there’s not a need for any walkways. Any walkways are the
concrete walkways that are in front of the building, but the customers are pretty much in their
car, into the building.
MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t see any need for them myself. I guess the National Grid Company
speaks for NiMo these days?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. NiMo was bought out by National Grid, or something of that nature.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess if I had to choose right now on the lighting, I would go along with
doing the lighting as a function of almost zero lights at the perimeter. Because I don’t see any
other way to do this and to accomplish what you’re trying to accomplish. I can see that, I tried
to do the uniformity ratio and I couldn’t come up with, it was impossible to do, with the kind of
lights we have here. So I don’t know where we’re going with that, as far as our standards are
concerned.
77
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. STROUGH-Well, why do they have to be on 24 hours?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they have a 24 hour facility.
MR. STROUGH-Is this manned? Is there security to watch this?
MR. SIMPSON-Not 24 hours a day, no, but all of our self-service and laser facilities are open 24
hours, and this, in fact, is one of our few facilities that doesn’t have a residential property
bordering it.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s good. That’s a good feature.
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-URS, they’re a traffic consultant, is that who they are?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t see anything else on my notes, really, that I want to, you know, I
think it’s going to be an addition to the community, for sure. It’s pretty well thought out. It’s
out of the boundaries of some of our standards, and that’s something I’m concerned with.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What’s our sticking points?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, stormwater, for one, but I think that, you know, if the filtration system
works well, and I think that the way Tom has it laid out it does work well, the other one might
be the excessive lighting on the site. I mean, that’s the only one that I can see that we may have
trouble with.
MR. STROUGH-Well, in wetlands review, we’re asked to look at reasonable alternatives if there
are some and could be some, and they would have less impact on the wetland we’re supposed
to look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-And we did. You suggested early on in this discussion that one got rather
flimsy for you. I think you’re out there by yourself on that one, again.
MR. STROUGH-Well, no, Richard agreed with me, and I don’t know who else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two.
MR. STROUGH-Only two?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m hearing. I haven’t heard anybody else.
MR. STROUGH-Well, just because they didn’t say anything doesn’t mean they disagree.
MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone’s had an opportunity, John. Would you like me to poll the Board?
MR. STROUGH-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we asked the applicant and he gave us a pretty concrete
answer.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you went with the issue of maybe eliminating the laser cleaning
portion of it. From their business standpoint, that’s a vital aspect of their business, and I didn’t
78
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
see or hear a whole bunch of other Planning Board members chime in saying that they wanted
to see the site reduced.
MR. STROUGH-Well, as an alternative, we consider the wetland review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Say that again, now?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m assuming they’re coming back.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that’s what I’m trying to find out, where we’re going with this.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I have 13 pages of C.T. Male that I haven’t had a chance to go over, we
just got tonight, and I think the lighting issues, the cut sheets and all this have never been
supplied to us. We haven’t had an opportunity to review that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the Town and C.T. Male should review those as well.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and the floodplain work out Tom’s going to do, and C.T. Male’s going to
review that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Right.
MR. STROUGH-And the lighting levels, plus I’ve got one other question, while you’re letting
me talk. Now, the depth to water table is six foot. How did we determine that, Tom?
MR. NACE-That depends on where on the site you are. The existing, the back portion of the
existing site is about six feet. Okay, and that’s simply down to the level of the wetland, but on
the lowest part of the back part of the site that we’re using, the existing depth to groundwater,
the existing fill material is six feet.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, the reason why I ask is you know your oil change stations have
the pits. Is that going to be a problem?
MR. NACE-They’re up on the higher portion of the site, and we’re filling. We’ve accounted for
that, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Even the worst case scenario water table level?
MR. NACE-Yes, above water table.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else, John?
MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it. Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Lighting, stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-Floodplain, that’s the three I see.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What I’ll do is I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want
to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CLARK WILKINSON
79
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson of the LA
Group, representing an adjoining property owner, Jacob Post, Inc. I’m here on behalf of Jacob
Post, Inc. to listen to the public hearing, review some of the plans, and offer some, any kind of
professional expertise I can. I’m familiar with Tom’s work, and work in some of the plans I’ve
briefed it. There’s very few technical issues that aren’t covered by C.T. Male and Town Staff,
and it’s my opinion, and based on discussions with the owner, he’s not opposed to the project.
He wants to work with the Town and the applicant to make sure that the project is a better
project for the Town. With that said.
MR. MAC EWAN-Who is Jacob Post, Inc.?
MR. WILKINSON-They’re the adjoining owner to the east between Della and this property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-Mr. Henry Smith, who is President of Jacob Post, Inc. crafted a letter and
faxed it to the Planning Board as of this afternoon, and I want to ensure that his concerns as
stated in that letter were read into the meeting minutes, and that was the only other purpose for
my visit tonight. I wanted to comment to the Board that, in my opinion, you’ve done a
favorable job on reviewing, not only this project, but the previous project. Your consistency has
been there, and I believe that, as well as most of the Board members, that once a few technical
issues outstanding are worked out that this project will be a benefit to the Town.
MR. STROUGH-Is Mr. Post going to be going along with the right in/right out?
MR. WILKINSON-I’ve seen no plans and have had no discussions.
MR. STROUGH-Just joking.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a letter you want to read in?
MR. HILTON-Sure. It says, “Dear Chairman MacEwan: Jacob Post, Inc. is the owner of the
property immediately to the east of the proposed project. I am President of Jacob Post, Inc. and
very concerned about the potential impacts of the development on our property. It seems that
at the time the Dombek property was filled, required approvals and permits may not have been
obtained. It has been brought to my attention that the fill material may have been
contaminated. As the result of the filling, our property became more wet. We at Jacob Post, Inc.
are very concerned that the impact of this development may cause our property to become
more wet and therefore, may affect our ability to develop the property. We also are concerned
about the stream corridor which runs through the applicant’s property, might require
stabilization, redirection and bank improvement in order to remedy the current conditions on
both properties. I hereby request that the Planning Board not grant any approvals for the
proposed project without the assurance that Jacob Post, Inc. property will be improved,
corrected and not in any way be harmed by the development. Very Truly Yours, Henry H.
Smith, President Jacob Post, Inc.” That’s all we have.
MR. MAC EWAN-The name was Henry Smith?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open.
TOM HOFFMAN, SR.
80
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. HOFFMAN-I’m sort of the senior member of the family, Tom Hoffman, Sr. Something I’m
kind of in charge of landscaping and flowers and that sort of stuff. This place will be a
showcase for the community. I guarantee you’re going to be proud of it. Something that I don’t
think, my son talked about it somewhat. When I was President of the International Car Wash
Association, one of the major issues to a lot of Planning Boards was, well, we don’t want a car
wash in our community because they pollute. They thought they polluted because the wash
water, they thought would go into the system. It doesn’t. It goes into a treatment plant where
wastewater is supposed to go. This project, the big picture, we’re talking about the wetlands
around us here in a four acre parcel, we are going to protect the wetlands and the Lake George
and all the rivers and streams in the whole community, because the wastewater from home car
washing, when you wash your car at home, it goes into the storm drain that’s meant for rain
water. It runs out of your driveway. It pollutes. It’s a fact, and our car wash, all our facilities
go into a treatment plant, and it’s a major issue, and one of the other little issue is the lighting
issue is something, but it’s a safety issue with us. We really believe that it’s conducive for, you
know, whether it’s a young person or a lady or a gentleman that wants to wash in the evening,
good lighting is a safety issue in our facility, just like an ATM machine. It’s the same thing, but
I assure you, this project will be good for the environment. It’ll be great for the community, and
you’ll be proud of having us there. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Has
somebody got a laundry list here going?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve just got the three things.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know, but I want someone to read them off so we can do something.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought we just had the three things.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got, well, let’s share thoughts here. Well, the floodplain is the C.T.
Male note. So we don’t have to include that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, C.T. Male, but he’s got to respond to C.T. Male’s concern. I don’t know
how you want to label it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, he may have already done it in the package, but, no, Tom said he’s going
to be working on that. Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-There’s just the one.
MR. NACE-Everything is taken care of with C.T. Male except the floodplain.
MR. STROUGH-They are going to give us a little bit of the stormwater maintenance program,
you know, upkeep and.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, well, you’re kind of like looking for something like an overall
maintenance.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, even if Tom adds a little note on the site plan, I think, you
know.
MR. NACE-As far as maintenance of the basins, yes.
MR. STROUGH-And I think they’re going to make a notation on the plan that the snow
removal will be trucked away. Lighting. We want the cut sheets. Descriptions, and we want
C.T. Male to analyze that, after we get those, and, I don’t know, it says here in the stormwater
review, or the wetland review, excuse me, that we’re supposed to look at alternatives,
reasonable alternatives. So do you want them to at least propose an alternative, or no?
81
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the terminology is we look at alternatives. We looked at alternatives,
from the standpoint that you suggested it, didn’t have a lot of support there with it. The
applicant addressed your idea of an alternative, and, for them, from a business standpoint,
that’s not practical. You didn’t have the support from the Board members, which is more
important.
MR. STROUGH-All right, and I understand that, but I’m just throwing things out there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and I’m throwing it back.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you want an independent traffic analysis, both of the internal flow
and of the impacts it may have on Quaker Road?
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it’s necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-They already did that. That’s what I asked about URS. That was a traffic
consultant.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I said an independent analysis, not the applicant’s analysis.
MR. VOLLARO-Is URS your?
MR. SIMPSON-No.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s an independent engineering firm.
MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus of the Board is it’s not a large enough traffic generator to
warrant an independent analysis.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. I guess we’re just down to a few notations on the plot plan, and the C.T.
Male concerns and the floodplain concern and the lighting concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting. Right. George?
MR. HILTON-I just want to be clear. If the Board asks the applicant to come back with cut
sheets and fixtures and the uniformity ratio, if the light levels don’t change, I mean, we still feel
that it’s excessive and we’re probably going to comment to that. So, I don’t want anybody
thinking that, you know, if they come back with cut sheets everything’s okay. We’re still going
to look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think the Board’s kind of echoing your position on that. We want to
see them lowered somewhat. Now the big question is, submission deadline was a few days
ago. However, we’re going to have a third meeting next month, which is going to be the 24,
th
tentatively. I’m comfortable with that. I think we’ll be able to get the room that night. How
much time do you need to put everything together?
MR. NACE-I don’t have a calendar.
MR. MAC EWAN-I just want enough time, and if we can get you on for next month, what I
want to be absolutely sure of is that we’re going to have ample time for C.T. Male, for Staff to
review this stuff. So that we don’t end up with a pile of stuff on our table the night of a
meeting. Because you’ll surely be tabled.
MR. NACE-Your meeting is the 24, you say? If we had it submitted by the 10, that gives
thth
them two weeks. That gives me.
MR. MAC EWAN-The fourth is next Friday. You’ve got the rest of this week and next Friday.
Why couldn’t you have it by close of business Friday the fourth?
82
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
MR. NACE-The only thing that, because, I can have everything except this computer analysis of
the stream system, and, like I say, that’s something that nobody’s going to understand except
Jim Houston and myself. I can have everything else, the lighting and everything else, to you by
the fourth, but please give me another week on that river analysis.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable.
MR. HILTON-I think if we had two weeks. I mean, that’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-What I want to be sure is we give Jim Houston enough time to review this
stuff, you guys enough time, and what I really want to avoid is a pile of paperwork the night of
a meeting on this table.
MR. HILTON-Well, speaking for Planning Staff at the Town of Queensbury, that gives us
enough time. I don’t know C.T. Male’s schedule, but I would hope that two weeks would be
enough.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we can start funneling this stuff to C.T. Male.
MR. NACE-Yes, I’ll get you the, the lighting is going to be the most intensive for Staff. So we’ll
try to get that to you in a week or so.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just make a note in your motion there, John, that submissions to
Town office by close of business on April 4, with your, what is it you call?
th
MR. NACE-The river analysis.
MR. MAC EWAN-The river analysis.
MR. NACE-Or floodway analysis.
MR. MAC EWAN-Floodplain analysis to follow as soon as possible thereafter, so we can get
them on the 24.
th
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right.
MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 1-2003, HOFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Robert Vollaro:
Until our April 24 meeting. The submissions to the Town office for the following should be in
th
by April 4:
th
1. A plot plan with the notations for stormwater maintenance program.
2. A notation on the snow removal that’ll be trucked away and other C. T. Male concerns
other than the flood plain issue.
3. The lighting issue will be addressed. It’s the general feeling among the Planning Board
that the lighting is a little too intense, that they should work at making greater effort at
meeting Town Code. Cut sheets for the light fixtures should also be submitted, and
reviewed by C. T. Male.
Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
83
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2003, HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Until our April 24 meeting. The submissions to the Town office for the following should be in
th
by April 4:
th
1. A plot plan with the notations for stormwater maintenance program.
2. A notation on the snow removal that’ll be trucked away and other C. T. Male concerns
other than the flood plain issue.
3. The lighting issue will be addressed. It’s the general feeling among the Planning Board
that the lighting is a little too intense, that they should work at making greater effort at
meeting Town Code. Cut sheets for the light fixtures should also be submitted, and
reviewed by C. T. Male.
Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We’ll see you on the 24.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Pittenger’s letter, no action tonight.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Make sure you send this over to the Highway Department and get their
comments on it. Put it on the agenda for whenever you can fill it in for next month, if it can be
on for next month, we’d like to see Mr. Pittenger here.
MR. HILTON-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-What else?
MR. HILTON-That’s all I have. I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. HILTON-Yes.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
84
(Queensbury Planning Board 3/25/03)
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
85