2004-09-21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
ANTHONY METIVIER
THOMAS SEGULJIC
RICHARD SANFORD
LARRY RINGER
ALBERT ANDERSON, ALTERNATE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JAMES HOUSTON
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of housekeeping items for everyone’s benefit here tonight. Three
applications that were to be heard tonight have been removed from the agenda. They are
Subdivision 14-2004 Jane Potter; Subdivision 15-2004 for Rino Longhitano; and Subdivision
16-2004 for Michael Crayford. Those applications are not going to be heard tonight because the
legal requirements for posting for tonight’s public hearing weren’t done correctly and they’ll be
re-heard in November, our first meeting in November, which I’m not sure what the date is, and
the only other thing I think we’re going to do tonight, and I’m sensing from the crowd that’s
gathered here tonight, they’re here in interest in the Town Board’s seeking recommendation
from this Board on Professional Office zone. I think what I’m going to do is move that to first
on the agenda tonight. Then we’ll go right back into our regular agenda. So, with that being
said, Marilyn, let’s tackle that issue first.
OTHER:
THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IS SEEKING COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO
THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONE. THE CHANGES PROPOSED WOULD
AMEND LANGUAGE IN THE TOWN CODE CONCERNING THE PURPOSE AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONE; AMEND TOWN CODE
USE TABLES 1 AND 2 TO REQUIRE SETBACKS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE
PO ZONE BE SITED A MINIMUM OF 500 FEET FROM BAY ROAD, SHERMAN AVENUE,
WESTERN AVENUE, OR WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, AND REQUIRE NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE PO ZONE BE SITED WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE
SAME ROADS; AMEND TOWN CODE USE TABLE 2 TO ALLOW PERSONAL SERVICE
BUSINESSES AS ACCESSORY USES TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, WITH THOSE USES
TO BE HOUSED WITHIN A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING; AND AMEND TOWN
CODE DIMENSIONAL TABLE 4 TO CLARIFY THE DENSITY FOR MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS AND CLARIFY THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR
OFFICE USES.
MRS. RYBA-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Give us a little bit of background, if you would.
MRS. RYBA-Sure. The Professional Office zone was referred to the Planning Board by the
Town Board for a recommendation. The Town Board proposed an amendment to the Zoning
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
Ordinance to clarify a few things in the Professional Office zone. The first is to have a
dimensional change requiring setbacks for residential uses, that those be a minimum of 500 feet
from Bay Road. The second is a clarification of the lot size requirements, which are in Table
One and Four, I believe, a clarification of the Purpose statement, and the determination of the
Floor Area Ratio, and it also notes that personal service businesses are to be accessory uses
allowed within a Professional Office building. This proposal is an outgrowth of several
discussions that have taken place with the Town Board since January of this past year, and if
you like, I can read the language that was put together, so that you know exactly what the
proposal is. To amend the language in Town Code Section 179-3-04, entitled Purpose and
Establishment of Zoning Districts, concerning the Purpose and Establishment of Professional
Office zone, and this was the referral that was given to the Planning Board. Under the Purpose
and Establishment of Zoning Districts, Other Districts. Number One, Mixed Use will remain
the same. Number Two, Professional Office. The PO District encompasses areas where
Professional Offices are encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential
areas where compatibility with residential uses is important. This is the additional language as
follows: The Town desires to see development of high quality offices where structures and
facilities are constructed with particular attention to detail, including but not limited to
architecture, lighting, landscaping, signs, streetscape, public amenities, and pedestrian
connections. The PO district can function as a transition zone protecting residential zones from
more intensive commercial zones while providing convenient professional services to
residential neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to
demonstrate compatibility with adjoining uses, and to minimize any negative impacts on
adjoining land uses. It is the intent of the PO district to locate residential uses setback a
minimum of 500 feet from roadways as outlined in the dimensional tables, and behind
Professional Offices. Section Two says Queensbury Town Code, Chapter 179 Zoning Table
One, entitled Summary of Allowed Uses in Residential Districts is hereby amended as attached
and made part of the Local Law to require setbacks for residential uses within the PO zone to be
sited a minimum of 500 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, or West
Mountain Road, and non-residential uses shall be sited within 1,000 feet from Bay Road,
Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, or West Mountain Road. The third Section is Chapter 179,
Zoning Table Two, entitled Summary of Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts. That requires
setbacks for residential uses within the PO zone to be sited a minimum, also, of 500 feet from
Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue, or West Mountain Road. Personal Service
Businesses are allowed as accessory and subordinate to a Professional Office and any personal
service facilities shall be located, housed within the Professional Office building. Section Four,
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 Zoning, Table Four, entitled Summary of
Dimensional/Bulk requirements is hereby amended as attached and made part of the Local
Law, to clarify the allowed density for multi-family dwelling units and clarify the floor area
ratio requirements for office uses. And I can explain what those are, and I’ll read off of Table
Four here the change, or the proposed change, I should say. The clarification for lot size is that
20,000 square feet to establish the use, or the first dwelling unit, plus 5,000 square feet for each
additional dwelling unit. The Floor Area Ratio, which was previously blank, has been amended
to say 0.3 for office institutional uses, and then deleted were notes saying one principal building
per 20,000 square feet. To continue, that’s it for the actual change to the Ordinance. There’s one
other Section in the proposed Local Law, which was forwarded by the Town Board, and that
says, any pending application which was deemed complete prior to the date of public hearing,
but not yet approved, shall be reviewed, and here it was left undecided, either under the criteria
in effect when the application was deemed complete OR under the new criteria authorized by
this Local Law. I don’t know if anyone else has any other questions on the Planning Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-So basically the crux of this amendment, though, is to change it from 1,000
feet to 500 feet?
MRS. RYBA-I think it was to clarify that multi-family or residential dwellings had to be at least
500 feet from the road. Right now the only thing that the Ordinance states is that Professional
Offices need to be within 1,000 feet. There’s nothing that states specifically where multi-family
or residential buildings are placed.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-But if you go to the table in the Zoning Ordinance, which is on Page 18079,
maybe you can offer some clarification. I made a mistake, but the way I interpret that, and the
key word that they use in here, and it’s specifically talking about the Bay Road corridor?
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-It says Professional Offices, office buildings shall be located within 1,000 feet
of an arterial roadway as identified. Well, that’s not necessarily just the Bay Road corridor, but
it’s all main corridors, arterial roads in the Town. Yes, no?
MRS. RYBA-That’s what it says.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not saying that a use other than an office, or a Professional Office could
go in that first 1,000 feet, the way I interpret it.
MRS. RYBA-And this is up for discussion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Discussion amongst Board members?
MR. SANFORD-I’ll start, if you want.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with what you just said, Craig. I think the way it stands now is the
intent is for the first 1,000 feet to be PO in a PO zone, and I think, when we talk in terms of some
of the different zones, they may be different, because right now the attention has been on Bay
Road, but there’s other PO zones that are in the Town of Queensbury, but when you look at the
Bay Road corridor, I think it’s important for us to look at it collectively among the other source
documents, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and in addition to 179, and I think it’s pretty
clear that the intent there was to have Professional Office along that corridor. So just to cut to
the chase, this particular Board member is of the opinion that it would probably be in the best
interest of the Town for the Town Board to do absolutely nothing, forget their exercise with
their two resolutions, and just keep things the way they are, and then should the committee that
is meeting on Thursday wish to revisit this, that would perhaps be the more appropriate place
to do it, but I don’t necessarily feel a compelling need to change it at all. I like it the way it is,
and however, if it was to be changed, I’ll weigh in right now, I think Section Seven of the
amendment, which talks in terms of grandfathering, is quite honestly kind of silly and has no
place in the resolution to begin with, but I think the Town Board would be wise to just drop the
whole issue, stay with what we have. I think we have enough tools here to deal with
applications that come in front of us, until the new committee, if and when they decide to
address it. That’s my opinion.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. SEGULJIC-So, Marilyn, if I could just clarify, then. The setback right now, with office
building, I think, is 50 feet, right? So that would mean that within the first, from 50 feet to 450
feet, you’d have to have office buildings. Behind that you could finally have residential,
multiple housing there?
MRS. RYBA-Within the first 500 feet, what the proposal is saying, you would have to put a
Professional Office.
MR. SEGULJIC-In the first 500 feet?
MRS. RYBA-Within the first 500.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but right now you only have to have a 50 foot setback for your offices,
correct?
MRS. RYBA-Well, right now there’s, and what their dimensional requirements say is for the
front setback it’s 50 feet, that’s correct. However, there is a Travel Corridor Overlay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Seventy-five.
MRS. RYBA-Which is 75 feet for areas that are located on arterial roads.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MRS. RYBA-And so Bay Road would be one, and I believe West Mountain Road would be the
other.
MR. SEGULJIC-And now this would not affect the frontage on the non-arterial roads?
MRS. RYBA-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. RYBA-Well, the Travel Corridor Overlay would not, but this 500 foot setback would cover
all the roads that were mentioned, and that is Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, West Mountain
Road, and South Western or Western Avenue, and I think I covered them all. I’m not sure.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tom?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it for now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
MR. RINGER-I think it was the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use to make the Bay Road an
office first type complex. However, the way the Code is certainly written now, that may not be
the case. So I think that the Ordinance that they’re proposing is a good Ordinance and we
should consider it, and recommending it. However, the grandfathering, I don’t think, is up to
us. I think that’s more of a Town Board issue rather than a Planning Board issue, but I think the
way the Town has presented the request for re-zoning is a good choice, and it takes the wiggle
room out of the, it makes it more concise as to what the Bay Road corridor should be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, have you got anything to add?
MR. METIVIER-Well, I just, I think, at 500 feet, you’re limiting yourself, and I’m just trying to
get over that. I just don’t know if it’s enough, especially if you have a 75 foot setback. You’re
looking at 425 feet, and I just wonder if that’s enough, especially on Bay Road. I just can’t seem
to get over that, for some reason. I don’t know why we don’t keep it at 1,000 feet. I mean, I
read through the proposed resolution. I just don’t know if it’s enough, but that’s more of a
personal thing, I guess.
MR. MAC EWAN-Al?
MR. ANDERSON-Yes. I have a comment. I think the information I got indicated there were
244 properties in the Professional Office zone. Some of them may not be so deep, and others are
very deep. What happens to a piece of property that’s less than 500 feet? Does it hurt a
property owner? In other words, that it prevents any attempt at residential construction on
those particular properties.
MRS. RYBA-That would be correct.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. ANDERSON-But does that sound fair?
MRS. RYBA-That’s not my question, or that’s a question that has to be debated, I think, by the
Planning Board. I will say that other uses are allowed, and variances, since it’s a dimensional
change, variances would be listened to, or an applicant could apply for a variance.
MR. ANDERSON-A variance might give some relief if they found a need to have a residence,
let’s say, behind an office building, on say a lot that was 450 feet deep.
MR. SANFORD-I just don’t think it would be called for. I mean, it would be PO only in that
case, now. In other words, if you had a lot that’s 500 feet only, then that would preclude.
MR. ANDERSON-That’s what the proposed change is.
MR. SANFORD-That would preclude any residential on that lot. I suppose they could, I don’t
know if they could go to the Zoning Board or not on that, but I think the intent would be that
that’s, now, at that particular point in time, since there isn’t a surplus of space, it would be just
PO, but, you know, just again, just to comment on Mr. Ringer’s comment, first of all, I’m
opposed to reducing it from 1,000 to 500. I think Tony’s right. I like that bigger area, A, and, B,
I think Section Seven is very much an issue for recommendation from this Board, and it isn’t
just a Town Board issue. After all, we are the Planning Board. I take it as a responsibility for us
to look out for the best interests of planning issues within the Town, and I think the
development of any pending application is our business, and should not necessarily default just
to the Town Board. So I’ll go on record with that.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think it’s a question of defaulting. I think it’s a question of what’s been
done in the past, and, you know, this is an issue, we recently had an issue come up on Special
Use Permits where we were begging the Town Board to grandfather a case, rather than
forgetting about grandfathering. So, you know, it just doesn’t seem to be an issue that we
should be concerned with. We have to follow the Code, and if the Town changes the Code, then
we follow whatever the Town Code is.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but they’re asking us for our recommendation, Larry, and I just want to go
on record as saying.
MR. RINGER-Well, I think they’re asking for our recommendation on the zone change. I don’t
think they’re asking for a recommendation.
MR. SANFORD-So now you’re picking and choosing what they’re asking the recommendation
for.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, and I think in this case, I think it would be wise for our Board to stay out
of that arena, because that’s not something that would normally come under the review of this
Board, whether something is or isn’t grandfathered, an application or what have you, but in
specifics we’re talking about the generalities and changes to the zone of any particular
application. So from that standpoint, I would X that right out. Because I don’t think that’s part
of what we’re here to do tonight.
MR. SANFORD-I would agree with you, except, among the Town Board, I don’t see major
disagreement, except for that area, and so then I guess it begs the question, why the referral if
they agree?
MR. RINGER-Because it’s automatic referred. Any zone change is referred to us, Rich.
MR. MAC EWAN-They’re looking for our recommendation on changing it from 1,000 feet,
basically, to the 500 feet, with the additions of some of the language relative to architecture,
design and so on.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, anyway, just to reemphasize, I like it at 1,000 feet, and I like it the
way it stands.
MR. MAC EWAN-This whole issue with the PO zone throughout the Town, and not
necessarily, Bay Road seems to be the hot topic these days, it’s not just one document that we
need to be looking at. It’s a combination of a couple of documents, and we look at the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it calls for, you know, the Bay Road corridor being, so to speak,
the Town center, and there was a vision that they had when they put that Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, as having a Professional Office, residential in style, no more than two stories high,
with the setbacks that were defined in the Zoning Ordinance. You take that, you take the Bay
Road design standards that we have, that were adopted here a year or two ago. That also refers
to what is envisioned for the corridor, and the 1,000 foot back off the road is what is what
they’re looking for, and within that 1,000 feet, shall be located offices. It doesn’t say anything
else. So anything else that’s going to be located in that corridor is going to be beyond that 1,000
feet, and as far as multi-family residential housing, it makes reference to it in the Neighborhood
Four Section, which is the Bay Road corridor section, but there’s issues that go along with that,
that they identify in that, and some of the issues that they refer to is the lack of sewer, and sewer
capacity, and bad soil conditions, I mean, and some of their recommendations. One of these
things is the issue says the sewer line has not been materialized and soil conditions in the
corridor are not suitable to multi-family septic systems. Their recommendations are, until this
issue is resolved, no high density residential uses should be allowed in the Bay Road corridor. I
mean, you know, these are the documents that we’re bound by law to work with, and these
help us make our decision as Planning Board members, and I just think it’s, to me, it just seems
like it’s a pretty cut and dried issue. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. I think what we have now
works pretty good.
MR. SANFORD-And I agree, Craig, and I think it’s substantiated, your point’s substantiated by
just a ride down that road, and you take a look, what has happened over the last five, six years,
and it’s all been PO, and it’s all been according to that vision, and this is the first time that I’ve
seen a suggestion that a PO doesn’t have to be out front and that it can be apartments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, one could successfully argue that we recently approved the
Schermerhorn Medical Arts complex down just past the College, and we approved here a
month or so ago, the senior apartment complex that’s going in there, that sets within the
requirements of setback. It has sewer going to it, and so it met the criteria what the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan was looking for.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? I’ll open up the floor for comments from the public, if
anyone would like to comment on this recommendation we’re going to make to the Town
Board. Please bear in mind we’re not talking about any specific applications that are pending or
currently under review by this Board, and I’d ask you to keep your comments to four minutes
or less. Any takers?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Craig, if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to go into my background on planning
and why I’m interested in this. I first got interested in planning in the Town of Queensbury
when I was on the League of Women Voters, and I started attending planning seminars,
including one at New Paltz College at that time. When the re-zoning was done in the early 80’s,
the League of Women Voters scribed all those workshops, I was one of them. I then got on the
Town Board and was on the Town Board when we passed that. I’ve been involved in planning
of the Town until I was off the Town Board at the end of 1997. I also was Chairman of the
Planning Committee when the Town Board had committees. I worked with the Town Attorney
trying to understand our Ordinances, some of which because they’re scattered are not that easy
to understand, and I really got in to this Professional Office because, frankly, of the plan that
came in front of the Planning Department, Community Development Department nowadays,
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
that was all multi-family, that was all multi-family, and wondering why that application was
accepted, because I didn’t think that it complied with what was in our Ordinance, and I’m just
going to briefly go through the notes that I gave you why I think there’s a misread of the
Ordinance when that was accepted. If you look on Page 18077, Table One, Multi-Family is
allowed with Site Plan Review. On the other hand, we had a Town Attorney that said to me,
don’t stop at the first place you look. You’ve got to look at everything that is in your
Ordinances. So then I went over to Page 18079, Table Two, Professional Offices, which Site Plan
Review, Note Three. Note Three says Professional Office buildings shall be located within 1,000
feet of the arterial roadway, as identified in Section 179-19-020B, and then my notation is there,
note the use of the word “shall”, and also that the regional arterial roads, Bay Road is one, and
the local arterial road is Round Pond/Blind Rock Road, as you find in a different part of the
Ordinance, when you look for those. Page 17907, Article Two, Section 179-2-010, Definitions
says words not defined by this chapter shall have a common meaning as defined by the most
recent version of Webster’s Abridged Dictionary. If you look in Webster’s Dictionary, shall
means command, it’s declarative or requirement. Fact Three, on Page 17906, compliance
required, if there is a difference in two different sections amongst restrictive provisions prevail,
and I copied that from the Zoning Code. I won’t bother to read it. Then you look at the intent
of the Zoning Ordinance, and you see the Bay Road corridor which talks about the Professional
Offices being along the corridor of that road, and that also goes on to talk about the
characteristics, the design objectives, streetscape elements and architectural elements, signages.
So there’s not much question, I don’t think, of what the intent of the writers of that Zoning Code
had in mind. If you go on to Page 17943, it defines the Professional Office zone, and then if you
look at the history, go back to the Zoning Chapter 179, adopted 7/15/92, amendments noted
where applicable, at that time we had that zone was Multi-Family Residential zones, and it says,
Multi-Family dwellings, etc. are allowed, then it says Professional Offices, note, in the MR-5
zone along Bay Road, office buildings shall be located, again shall, shall be located within 1,000
feet of Bay Road, and then it lists the other uses. So my conclusion is that the Zoning Code
now in place requires that the first 1,000 feet from the arterial roads in the Professional Office
zone must be allocated to Professional Offices.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
KATHY SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-Hi. My name is Kathy Sonnabend. I live at 55 Cedar Court, and I know
you don’t want to talk about a specific project, but you can imagine most of the people who are
here tonight are here because of it. I know you didn’t want to talk about a specific project. I just
want you to know that most of the people here tonight are here because of that project. We’re
in the process of passing around a petition. We were prepared for coming next Tuesday night.
So these people showed up with less than two hours notice that this was going to be talked
about tonight. There are a lot of other people that would have been here if they had known.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that application wasn’t going to be heard tonight. It wasn’t even on the
agenda for tonight. It’s tentatively on the agenda for next week, and there is doubtful that it
will be on next week’s agenda.
MRS. SONNABEND-The reason I mentioned that is this petition that we’re passing around has
three points. The first one is that we want the integrity of the Professional Office zoning of Bay
Road to be maintained. Secondly, we don’t want that project going through, but that’s for
another discussion. Thirdly, we want the Town Planning Board, the Town Board, all relevant
parties to focus on a Smart Growth development for Queensbury. As citizens, the reason we’re
so hot about this is that we’ve seen tremendous growth, not all of it favorable in our opinions.
The stress on the infrastructure is quite significant. The roads around here are getting quite
dangerous, especially for the number of senior citizens living here that are trying to get in and
out of their developments. I took a look at the draft plan for the buildout study, and it’s
alarming the amount of development they say can still happen in Queensbury. They’re
projecting, and it’s a long term projection, but they’re projecting we could have another 19,000
people living in this community. We’ve got about 25,000 now, and a lot of that development is
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
north of Bay Road, and we haven’t planned for infrastructure. So right now we’ve got a
situation where our roads are already clogged. The sewer system is a big problem. A lot of
people don’t realize the problems we’ve had with septic systems around here because there’s
too much bedrock. I’m sure you guys know about it, but the general public doesn’t, and to have
more high density development on that property is irresponsible. Professional Office buildings
will put less strain on the infrastructure, but provide us with a better job base and a better tax
base, and that’s what we’re all interested in. Our taxes have been going up significantly, and
they’re going to continue going up unless we do a better job of planning around here. So
changing this from 1,000 feet, which is clearly what the zone says now, is the wrong way to go,
and people are really hot about it, and they’re not going to forget either. So we’re looking for all
of you to represent us as a community and do the right thing for us, not for any special
interests. Now I don’t know whether everybody is going to want to get up here and talk. It’s a
little intimidating.
MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t feel that way.
MRS. SONNABEND-But if they’d prefer not to speak, but they want to make sure you know
that they support what I’ve said, maybe they would like to stand up now.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s fine.
MRS. SONNABEND-And hopefully they’ll come up and speak themselves.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MIKE LYONS
MR. LYONS-Good evening. My name is Mike Lyons. I live at 763 Bay Road. I’m speaking on
behalf of my wife also, but we concur with what Kathy said. We oppose reducing that to 500
feet. So we saw the vision that we had in the future. My wife and I both like it. It would be a
great place to run down, pretty close to all the medical services. You guys are doing right. So
let’s keep it going in the right direction. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
FRANK O’KEEFE
MR. O’KEEFE-My name is Frank O’Keefe. I live at 67 Surrey Field Drive, just north of the
proposed project that we’re talking about.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not talking about any proposed project, Mr. O’Keefe.
MR. O’KEEFE-Well, of a project. I want to applaud the Planning Board for the past planning
that they have done on Bay Road. It looks beautiful. I don’t think any of us like all the traffic
that is coming, but that’s part of business, and so far the development has gone well. I have no
complaints about it. What we are concerned about is that I think you mentioned that there is a
report on the concerns about sewer and soil. Is that report available to us?
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s language that’s in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is available, and
it’s available, is the Comp Plan on-line? Is it on the website? I’m not sure if it is or not.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes? I’m being told yes. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is available on
the Town’s website, if you look at it.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MRS. RYBA-And it is available, and there is a copy here. So it’s extensive, but there are
applicable sections. Anyone’s welcome to take a look at. We have copies available in the
Planning Offices in the Town municipal offices next door.
MR. O’KEEFE-Okay. I thank you, and I know you have a lot of meetings ahead of you, and I
really applaud you for all the work you’ve done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
MR. O’KEEFE-It’s a nonpaying job, by the way. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? No takers? Okay. We’ll close the public
comment. I think we’re all on the same page here that we want to send a message that if it’s not
broke, don’t fix it. So we wouldn’t support making the changes.
MR. SANFORD-That’s my position.
MR. MAC EWAN-How do we want to draft it?
MR. ANDERSON-That’s my position as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Are they looking for us, give me some guidance here.
MR. SCHACHNER-If it’s the consensus of the Board, or at least a majority of the Board, that
your recommendation is that the Town Board not make any amendment, that’s an easy
resolution. That’s a one-liner. Just somebody would make a motion. All right. I’ll introduce a
motion.
MOTION FOR THE TOWN BOARD, AT THE REQUEST OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION
TO REVISE THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE, OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS
THAT WE DON’T FEEL IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AT THIS TIME. WE FEEL THAT
THE WAY THE ZONE IS WRITTEN ADEQUATELY SERVES THE NEEDS OF THE
PLANNING ISSUES FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONES IN THE TOWN, Introduced by
Craig MacEwan who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Duly adopted this 21st day of September 2004 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MAC EWAN-Done. Before this crowd leaves here, Marilyn, did we get a letter from the
attorneys representing BRB, requesting a tabling for next Tuesday night?
MRS. RYBA-No, we didn’t.
MR. MAC EWAN- Then I will go out on a limb here and say we will not hear this application
next Tuesday night. Advise the applicant that we will not hear it. We will table it, and the
reason why we’re going to table the application is because the Town Board still has a public
hearing open on the matter. They aren’t going to act on this recommendation until they next
convene on the matter. I think it’s October the 4. So procedurally it just wouldn’t be wise for
th
us to start entertaining an application until the Town Board makes a decision. So, once they
make a decision, we’ll put that application back on the agenda, and we’ll notify everyone.
Okay. Thank you.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MRS. RYBA-And I’d like to note that we do have notification in a number of forms. Notices are
put in the paper. Our website is www.queensbury.net. All agendas and minutes are placed on
the website. So you can check there. You can check in the offices. Copies are available. We
also, the Post Star does put the meeting notices out. So there are numerous ways to get
information.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Let’s get back on to our agenda, and let’s do approval of
minutes. Does somebody want to move them, please.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
June 15, 2004: NONE
June 22, 2004: NONE
July 20, 2004: NONE
July 27, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 15, JUNE 22, JULY 20, AND JULY 27,
2004, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED DORIS FARRAR PROPERTY OWNER: DORIS FARRAR/RACHAEL ALLEN
AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.03 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO
LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 3.03 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66-02
TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 LOT SIZE: 4.03 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MRS. RYBA-These were put together by George Hilton. “In response to the Planning Board
tabling this item on July 27, 2004 the applicant has submitted a revised EAF and a map showing
two test pits on this property. The test pits were performed on August 10, 2004 and indicate
mottling of 16” and 21”. Based on the test pit results, how will the proposed septic system be
designed to work in an area of high groundwater? Does the applicant proposed to fill and
regrade this area to provide the required separation distance from groundwater?” And those
are the questions, and as you know, Jim Houston is here from C.T. Male as well this evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Doris Farrar and Rachael Allen on this
application. As Staff has stated, and in the notes from C.T. Male there’s a couple of comments
that they wanted addressed. I did get that in my office, I believe, on Thursday afternoon or
Friday, and I’ve been attempting to address most of those. I apologize and let you know that I
just handed that to Mr. Houston tonight, hot off the press. As far as the septic systems, where
the test pits were done, and the perc test of three minutes, we did have Tom Hutchins of
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
Hutchins Engineering design an alternative system, and I believe that Mr. Houston can concur
that that still has to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Health as well. Is that
correct? That’s correct, to show that the septic system will be placed in the area where there’s 21
inches of fill. It’ll be a shallow absorption system, basically a mat system. I don’t have the exact
details. Like I said, it was handed to me about 15 minutes before I drove over here from
Hutchins Engineering, and your engineer is looking at it right now. The other comment was, as
far as showing a proposed well on Lot Two, we have done that. It complies with the 100 foot
separation. The approximate septic area on Lot One is behind the house. That’s all I can tell
you. I couldn’t find anymore information on what type of septic system it is. If anything ever
happened to that, naturally, they’d have to comply with new standards.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, do you want to take the week to review that? I’m not looking for an
answer from you tonight on this thing.
MR. HOUSTON-I’d like to review it more thoroughly before I issue any kind of a comment
letter on it, but just a brief thought of mine, what I see, it definitely is a raised system, importing
fill, and it’s in line with the type of system that would be required on such marginal soils. My
only concern that I would see is setbacks with well and the implications that that would have on
the note that’s on the plan that says Lot Two may only be subdivided into two more lots.
MR. STEVES-We would remove that note.
MR. HOUSTON-Okay. Because that makes it very difficult to be able to, I’d highly recommend
that note be removed. It’s very tight. I think the lot’s large enough to support the type of
system that we’re talking about here, but not two of them, and so that note is inappropriate for
what soil conditions we’re encountering.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you like us to table this thing until next Tuesday? I mean, we’d feel
comfortable with it if you want to take that time to review the thing.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes. I’d like to look through the notes more thoroughly than what I’ve done.
MR. MAC EWAN-Doable.
MR. STEVES-No question.
MR. SANFORD-Before you table it, I’ve got a question.
MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead.
MR. SANFORD-Since wetlands haven’t been delineated.
MR. STEVES-Yes, they have.
MR. SANFORD-Well, according to our engineering letter, they say they haven’t been.
MR. STEVES-I was getting through that when we were discussing the septic system. Also on
his map is the boundary of the Army Corps wetlands, and the area of them, and like I said, I
just got the print about 10 minutes, 15 minutes before I came over here. I will gladly submit
copies of that tomorrow to everybody at the Town, as well as.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I want to see the density calculation.
MR. STEVES-And that’s on there as well.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. STEVES-And I said because of the soils since the last meeting, and having Charlie Maine
do the test pits, we are not objectionable to just making it the one lot.
MR. ANDERSON-I think there was another question at the last Board meeting that the activity
at that ditch that’s shown on the south end of the property.
MR. STEVES-Yes, and we located that.
MR. ANDERSON-And the box culvert, what is it and what does it do.
MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s a drainage along the Route 9L. We’ve located it and put it on the plan.
MR. SEGULJIC-So I assume it just directs the water from the east side to the west side down
into the wetland.
MR. STEVES-From the west side to the east side, yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-There’s only one other comment that was in your review engineer’s letter. Before,
we know, on your tabling motion, if you would like that, I just need to know so I can get that
accomplished for you, would be, it’s a very flat site. Do you want any topography?
MR. HOUSTON-My comment in that regard was related to how high is the house pad and the
septic system relative to drainage that would be flowing in that ditch, and you can’t tell that
without seeing contours or some kind of spot elevations.
MR. SANFORD-I wouldn’t hurt to have that.
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like a good idea.
MR. STEVES-No, I don’t disagree. Like I said, I got the letter last week, and I was working
diligently trying to get it all accomplished and I just couldn’t pull it off.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I’d like to see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-How quickly can you do that?
MR. STEVES-When’s your next meeting, next Tuesday? That would be close, very close, but we
can certainly try, but I have to have a cut off date to know when you want it in by.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’d need to have it here by close of business, I would think, Thursday. So
he can have it in his hands by Friday to review it. Friday is when we cut off all communications
between the applicants and the consultant.
MR. STEVES-Understood. We will see what we can do. If I can get it to Jim, I will send it
directly to him as well as to the Town, so you can forward it to him as well, but if I can get it in
his hands a few minutes earlier. I mean, if I’m not able to, I’ll call Marilyn up and let you know.
MR. SANFORD-When are you looking to table this to, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-Next Tuesday.
MR. SANFORD-Next Tuesday.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you need from him?
MR. HOUSTON-No.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. STEVES-Would you like it on the entire site, Jim, or just say 100 feet around the
developable area, where we’re proposing? I have no problems either way. If you want the
entire site, let’s do it.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, particularly from the wetlands out towards the road, the back part behind
the wetlands, just for the Board’s information, the wetlands basically traverse the site and leaves
basically an area, I don’t know if you’d say undevelopable in the back side of the lot. So what’s
most critical to me is where you would develop from the wetland edge out to the road. That
would be the most critical to me.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Absolutely. It works.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re going to provide a new map that’s got contour lines on it. Right?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And also take out that note, two may be subdivided into two?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do the motion. Table it.
MOTION TO TABLE PRELLIMINARY AND FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004,
DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by Mr. Seguljic, who moved its adoption, seconded by Mr.
Sanford:
With the following conditions:
1. That the note, Lot Two (2) may only be subdivided into two more lots, be removed.
2. The contour survey be completed for Lot Two (2).
3. To give time to C.T. Male to review the septic design and provide a final sign-off.
4. A density calculation be provided on the plan.
5. Tabled to the September 28 meeting with the condition that all the requested
th
information be received in the Town office by close of business on the 23 of this month
rd
[September].
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 26-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED G.R.J.H. PROPERTY OWNER:
ATLANTIC REFINING AGENT: ARLEN ASSOCIATES ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 52
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A VACANT GAS
STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A 2,520 SQ. FT. BUILDING AS A
REPLACEMENT. GAS STATIONS AND RETAIL USES IN THE HC-I ZONE REQUIRE
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
REFERENCE: N/A WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/9/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-95 LOT
SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
GENE BILODEAU & LLOYD HELM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes.
MRS. RYBA-Also written and reviewed by George Hilton. “In response to the tabling of this
application on July 27, 2004 the applicant has submitted additional information in support of
this application.
The lighting plan and landscaping plan have been revised, and the applicant has submitted
various architectural renderings of the proposed building.
The lighting plan has been revised to show two wall mounted lights attached in the front and
rear of the building. The proposed wattage of the wall-mounted lights appears appropriate,
however the fixtures do not appear to be completely downcast fixtures. Staff suggests that wall
mounted light fixtures be installed that are completely down cast. I have enclosed an example
of downcast, wall mounted fixtures recently approved for a commercial site plan in
Queensbury.
New architectural renderings have been provided with various colors and materials presented
for the Planning Board’s choice.
The landscaping plan now proposes a row of Arborvitae on the eastern property line. This is a
suggested evergreen shade tree listed in the Zoning Ordinance, however, consideration should
be given to including some shade trees listed in the Zoning Code to provide a mix of vegetation
in this area of the site.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. BILODEAU-Good evening. I’m Mr. Bilodeau from Arlen Associates. Beside me is Mr.
Helm from G.R.J.H.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. BILODEAU-We have endeavored mightily to meet the Town’s requirements, and
hopefully we’ve done it. I noticed in Mr. Hilton’s comments that there may be a few revisions,
very minor revisions to the downcast light, things that can easily be adjusted, hopefully post
approvals with whatever contingencies the Board might feel is necessary to ensure that.
Primarily, I think the big element in the Board’s concern is the color and the styling of the
building itself. So we have endeavored to give the Board significant input into that design in
the form of the sketches. I think you have them.
MR. SANFORD-I didn’t get them.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t have any in my packet. None of us had them in our packet.
MR. SANFORD-That was my Number One question is that was one of the big issues, and I
didn’t get them.
MR. MAC EWAN-I know George, in the office the other day, showed me like you submitted
three different variations of it.
MR. BILODEAU-Five variations, and I have six copies of each.
MR. MAC EWAN-Not in our packets. We do apologize for it.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. BILODEAU-And I also have paint swatches, and I have photographs of blocks, colored
blocks, from the (lost word).
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, why don’t we go into, it seemed to be the biggest concern we had, at
that point, with no architectural renderings.
MR. BILODEAU-I just hope I haven’t given you too much to choose from, but whatever you
choose, we’re willing to use. I’ve shown various siding configurations. One with boards, cut
boards, similar to, I think there’s kind of a night spot, or I forget, maybe it’s a beer distribution
company up on 149. It’s kind of a log cabin effect. I’ve shown a block base with a metal veneer,
a metal wainscot, about the block. I’ve even shown clapboards and managed to put the framing
around the windows, which I think was one of the particular point was they wanted to see
framing around the windows. So I’ve endeavored to do all that, and hopefully we’ve given you
something that you can work from.
MR. RINGER-You gave us too many choices.
MR. MAC EWAN-My mind’s going through, we’re going to have six different choices here.
MR. SEGULJIC-But they all look good.
MR. RINGER-Yes, they all look good.
MR. SANFORD-I want to go with Number Three, all right.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two of you for Number Three?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, we’ll go with Number Three.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Pass it down this way. Why don’t we just continue on with our
discussions here, while the remainder of the Board’s looking at the renderings.
MR. BILODEAU-All right. Well, we don’t really have a lot more to say. Drawings, we revised
the drawings and revised the lighting, and revised the lighting data and the tables, and so the
current revised drawing reflects the conditions as preferred by the Town Board, by the Planning
Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the only issue relative to the lighting that was called out in the Staff
notes was the wall mounts.
MR. BILODEAU-He wants it downcast. We have a, which is a simple matter to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a matter of putting a hood on it, isn’t it?
MR. BILODEAU-Well, it’s a different light, but essentially, the company puts a hood on it, and
also I had arborvitae along the line between the, along the eastern property line. George Hilton
suggests maybe that we could introduce some red maples or whatever, which is fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have no problem with that?
MR. BILODEAU-I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll give this back to you. The consensus is your Design Number
Three.
MR. HELM-Which is?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. RINGER-We’ve marked them. The sheet’s marked Number Three.
MR. BILODEAU-Okay. As long as we know what it is, you’ve got it, and we can loft that.
MR. SANFORD-They all look pretty good.
MR. BILODEAU-My wife painted those, by the way. She’s an artist, and she put me into the big
leagues just by her efforts. So I know the Board appreciates her efforts. I’ll tell her.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from the Board?
MR. SANFORD-No. I think when I reviewed it, there is, is this the one where there’s some
issue regarding light spill off, or is that another one?
MR. MAC EWAN-No. This is, the only issue relative to lighting is the wall packs.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. BILODEAU-We have a design on the drawing which shows the lights being recessed into
the canopy.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, I see that.
MR. BILODEAU-The company that makes those lights does not make an external light that can
be flush mount, because of the fact that it’s an exterior light, they have to be sealed, and so the
whole unit comes sealed, and normally it’s meant for applying to a surface. We have adapted it
by cutting into the surface and dropping and setting the light up so that the lower part of the
lens is flush with the ceiling, and then sealed.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, no, it was another application that has some light issues, not this one.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the canopy will be designed to match the building, then?
MR. BILODEAU-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. BILODEAU-It’ll have that standing seam.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HELM-I didn’t get back the Number Three. I guess I should know which one it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m holding it right here.
MR. BILODEAU-That’s my choice, too, by the way. Was that with clapboards? Yes, okay.
What I was trying to do there is to match the color of the building across the street. It’s tough to
do, especially to get it reproduced and Xeroxed. You know the motel across the street that
someone said they liked very much. I tried to match that color. We actually have, I think in the
patches, in the swatches, there is a color. It’s ivory, I think, that actually matches the color of the
one across the street, and would probably be.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MR. BILODEAU-No, I mean, in the swatches. We’d have to use one of those colors that’s in the
swatch list in order to really practically answer the design dilemma here, and the color that I
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
think closely matches Number Three would be described as ivory on that swatch list that you
see there.
MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have to take a couple of moments to pencil a resolution on
this one. Jim, are you all set on everything? The only other comment that was in Staff Notes
was relative to maybe more of a variety in the eastern side of the property line.
MR. RINGER-And he agreed to put some red maples in there.
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
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we need to do a SEQRA.
MR. METIVIER-Long or Short?
MR. RINGER-Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 26-2004, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
G.R.J.H, 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
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Vollaro
MR. MAC EWAN-What we’re going to do is take a five minute recess while they pen a
resolution. We have a draft resolution, but I think they’re going to add some amendments to it.
Okay. We’ll reconvene. Tom, have you got a motion ready to go?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 26-2004 G.R.J.H., Introduced by Thomas Seguljic
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 26-2004 Applicant: G.R.J. H.
SEQR Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Atlantic Refining
Agent: Arlen Associates
Zone: HC-Int
Location: 52 Aviation Road
Applicant proposes to demolish a vacant gas station / convenience store and construct a 2,520
sq. ft. building as a replacement. Gas stations and retail uses in the HC-I zone require Site Plan
review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference:
Warren Co. Planning: 6/9/04
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-95
Lot size: 0.66 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 6/15/04, 7/27/04, 9/21/04
WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/17/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with documentation [see file];
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 15, 2004, July 27, 2004 and Sept. 21, 2004;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. That three (3) shade trees will b added along the east side of the property.
2. Building and canopies to consist of colors, design, and materials as depicted on
Rendering No. 3 and colors will be used based on the color swatches of the
FLUOROFLEX 2000 on the KYNAR500 color swatches submitted as part of the
application.
3. The lighting plan to include downcast lights on building front and rear. The colors to
match ivory noted in the color swatch submitted.
4. All lights shall be inspected, by Planning Staff, prior to installation.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. BILODEAU-I don’t see a brown here that quite matches that. We’re going to ask Morton if
they have a color that more closely matches that brown there. There’s kind of a red in there,
and this brown here is kind of a gray, a greenish-brown, which may be nice, but it doesn’t really
mimic the image.
MR. ANDERSON-Add, after the reference to the rendering number, just comma, that color
card, okay. This will go with that.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I was trying to accomplish.
MR. SANFORD-The only other thing I would add is that typically we also reference not just the
site plan number, but also the applicant, and the applicant in this case is G.R.J.H.
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. BILODEAU-Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Get back to digging.
MR. HELM-Yes.
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 SEQR TYPE II NEMER FORD PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT
AND PETER NEMER AGENT: FRANK ROMAINE ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION:
323 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL NEW FREESTANDING
LIGHT FIXTURES IN THE PARKING AREA OF NEMER FORD ON QUAKER ROAD.
LIGHTING ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE HC-INT.
ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SV 38-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/11/04 TAX MAP
NO. 296.20-1-7 LOT SIZE: 3.72 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
FRANK ROMAINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. “The applicant is seeking approval to install new freestanding light fixtures
in the front parking area of Nemer Ford. The applicant has requested the following waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
The applicant proposes to construct 10 freestanding poles in the front parking area. The light
fixtures appear to be cut off type fixtures, however the proposed height (25 ft.) exceeds the 20 ft.
height requirement listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed footcandle average for the
parking area is listed as 24.8 fc. on the applicant’s lighting plan. This exceeds the average of 20
fc. listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
With similar applications recently approved by the Planning Board, the Board has approved
lighting that is closer to the 20 fc. average listed in the Zoning Ordinance. In fact, the Planning
Board has recently approved lighting plans for automobile lots lower than the 20 fc. (according
to the approved site plans for Saturn of the Adirondacks, the northern parking area was
approved at 8.3 footcandles).”
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it?
MRS. RYBA-That is all.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. ROMAINE-Good evening.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours.
MR. ROMAINE-Frank Romaine with Nemer Ford, and this is Mr. Komora with Point Source,
which is the lighting expert. Obviously I’m not. What we’re trying to do, really, is get our
dealership up to the 21 Century. The lights that are there, I took over 10 years ago, and they
st
were there probably the 10 years prior to that. Right now I think they’re very obsolete. They do
shine to the road. You can see from the road. The lights that we’re presenting to put in are
strictly a down force light, and the reason for the height was to be pretty equal to Della, which is
right next door to us with the new Honda store. I’m not sure exactly what theirs are, but
looking at where ours would go in reference to theirs, it would be pretty level, depending on
the grading, I guess, and it obviously, if anybody drives by and you see the two lots, one looks
like it’s closed and the other one looks like it’s open.
MR. RINGER-Have you given any thought to the 20 foot instead of 25? I mean, what would it
do to you if you dropped it down 25? You just really wouldn’t line up with Della?
MR. ROMAINE-That’s, yes, pretty much, and probably, I mean, Greg could probably answer
more than I, is the lower you go, obviously, the less spray you have for the entire lot, and I’m
just trying to get it so that we can get light through that entire lot. I mean, I’m not going to use
that as an excuse, but, I mean, we have bumpers taken off our trucks right in the front line. The
back, I’ve got more lights in the back now than I have in the front, and I’m just trying to cure
that a little bit, and again, get it so that, you know the summertime is not a bad problem because
we close at eight o’clock, but in the wintertime, with people out on the lot and all, the more
light, the better for everybody. We’re also, it was approved. I mean, it really doesn’t have
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
much bearing on it, but we’re changing the façade also, to bring that up to standards, and we
want to enhance the whole look of the dealership, basically.
MR. RINGER-We did have a car dealer, not too long ago, that came in with taller poles, and his
feeling was he had security cameras on top of his poles and he needed the high poles to get the
direction. Are you running security cameras on your poles?
MR. ROMAINE-I can’t divulge that information as there may be somebody here.
MR. RINGER-But his position was if he had a lower pole, he couldn’t get the thing, and I just.
MR. ROMAINE-That is true. I do have one camera, but, again, it is, it’s not in the front of the
building, it’s in the back, but long term, you’re correct. The higher it is, the better you’re going
to get for visibility.
MR. RINGER-Now, aren’t you enclosing that façade, too, making your display room larger,
too?
MR. ROMAINE-No, no, no. The showroom will stay the same. The only thing we’re doing is
we’re bringing out a small, probably four by four foot entranceway that will head into where
the two doors are right now, kind of like a vestibule.
GREG KOMORA
MR. KOMORA-With the height of the poles, we were really trying to minimize the number of
poles and locations.
MR. RINGER-Yes, we hear that a lot.
MR. KOMORA-Because of the cars. With the pole lights we were trying to minimize the
number of poles and locations because of the cars and the movement of cars within the lot. We
didn’t want to stick poles all over the lot, trying to just minimize damage to cars and things like
that.
MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, can you just give me your name, please.
MR. KOMORA-Greg Komora.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding the plan view here of the lighting intensity, it seems like
there’s a lot of light spillage to the east, I guess it is. You have numbers of 12, 12.1, 15.9, off your
property, if I’m reading it correctly.
MR. RINGER-It’s hard to tell.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where you looking, in Area B?
MR. SEGULJIC-In Area B.
MR. MAC EWAN-High spillage, way over. I mean, way beyond the property line. I mean, by
the property line, you’re supposed to be down as close as you can be to zero.
MR. SEGULJIC-To zero.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you go way beyond the property line, before you even come close to
zero.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now is that taking into account the other lights on the other property?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. KOMORA-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s just Nemer.
MR. MAC EWAN-This is his property line right here.
MR. RINGER-That’s the back lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the back lot?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the front lot. That’s the NiMo right of way right here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Am I interpreting that correctly? Okay.
MR. ROMAINE-Also the other reason is because of Niagara Mohawk power lines, we had to
drop those lights back further from the road, which is why we kind of spread them out a little
bit more.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I think what we’re focusing on is the amount of light spillage that
goes over on the adjoining property, which would be the eastern property, that you show on
your tax map here as the property of, where did I see that.
MR. SANFORD-Is that Midas?
MR. ROMAINE-Midas Muffler.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the Valente property, down in back, Stella Valente. I mean, you go
considerably into their property before you get down to a point one or a zero number. I mean,
to me, in my mind, considering the way the lighting standards are in the Town and what we’ve
tried to achieve for the last three or four years with lighting, this, to me, is just way too bright.
I’d like to see those light levels brought down. I mean, we’ve done it with two other
dealerships, and they seem to be living with it okay, and it’s not been an issue with them.
MR. METIVIER-Why are those two poles there, the B poles?
MR. ROMAINE-Are you speaking on the eastern side?
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. ROMAINE-Probably to get more light on that side, plus there’s, if you look at the layout,
there’s a runway that goes down that whole left side of the building to our prep shop and body
shop.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MR. ROMAINE-When I, we originally put this together, I had Mr. Hilton take a look at it to just
give me an idea of what we needed to do, and I thought we were kind of on Code.
MR. METIVIER-I’m just trying to determine if those two B lights are the ones responsible for the
spillage. If they’re downcast maybe towards the west, they wouldn’t be the ones responsible
for the spillage. It would be the A lights on the east side. Correct?
MR. KOMORA-It’s a combination of both.
MR. METIVIER-It is a combination of both?
MR. KOMORA-Yes.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-Those A lights are throwing down some pretty strong light, 47.9, 46.5.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask, what are you at now, for lighting, about, intensity wise?
MR. KOMORA-Two foot candles at most.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, about two, about two foot candles at most.
MR. SEGULJIC-Really?
MR. ROMAINE-But it’s open also. Do you know what I’m saying? It’s something where if
you’re going by, you’re looking from the road, you actually see the light. So they’re floods, but
they’re in such a direction that you can’t get them all down. It’s going in every other direction.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, are you amenable to dropping it down to in the neighborhood of 20?
MR. ROMAINE-At the last Board meeting, you know, I told them I don’t know anything about
the Board. I’ll do what you guys want. I’d like to have it where it is, but.
MR. MAC EWAN-What neighborhood? Marilyn, again, where were we with the, 8.3 foot
candles for the Saturn, and I think we were a little bit higher than that for the Garvey Hyundai
on Dix Avenue. I think that was a little bit higher.
MR. RINGER-Garvey went to 30 foot poles, though.
MR. KOMORA-What does that 8.3 represent? Is that total lot, or is that display lot? Is that an
average or a minimum or?
MRS. RYBA-It says the northern parking area it’s average.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s average. Those are average numbers.
MRS. RYBA-There are a couple of things here. One, the Board’s been consistent about spillage.
Two, and understandably, this is what happens with lighting, and I understand perfectly what
the applicant’s saying, and you’ve seen photos yourselves about this creep that occurs when,
you know, one place has significantly high lighting and then the next place looks as those it’s
not as well lit, and you just keep going higher and higher and higher, and I think the standards
were put into place so that eventually everything would get down to a certain point, in fact,
even the Luminating Engineering Society of North America, or IESMA, used to have a much
higher standard for gas stations and parking lot, or car parking lots and canopies, and they
brought that down, and at this point, the car dealerships are the highest lighting that’s allowed,
or the highest foot candle level that’s allowed for the Town. I know we’ve heard often about the
security issues. Well, I know the RPI Lighting Center has done research where they say that
above three foot candles people really don’t feel any more secure than at three foot candles. The
other thing, and this is certainly something that your security company can talk with you about,
but the other concern was if you have lighting that’s too significant, the shadows that are cast,
you couldn’t identify a person anyway. So there are a number of things that are going on here,
but in terms of what the Planning Board wants to sort out, with downward lighting versus
having flood lights currently, that’s certainly the one thing that you have been really consistent
about is not allowing that spillage to go on to adjoining properties.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. From my position here I guess I would like to see this come more,
obviously more in compliance with what our Code dictates.
MR. KOMORA-I would, too.
MR. MAC EWAN-Only because we’ve made great strides in the Town, whether it’s been a
convenience store, a shopping center, or, you know, we’ve done it with Home Depot. We’ve
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
done it with Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart was a huge struggle for us, but we prevailed on it and we
got what we think is desirable for the Town, and we’ve done it with, like I said, other
convenience stores and other automobile dealerships, and everyone’s on the same page, it
seems to be, these days.
MR. ROMAINE-I don’t want to be above and beyond anybody else. I want to be equal. You
did mention Garvey, I know, and you mentioned Saturn, I know. Saturn has a set plan for all
their stores. Okay. My nearest competition is Della Honda next door. Their lights are fairly
new, two to three years old, had to be approved by the Board. All right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t recall Della being in here.
MR. SANFORD-What we’re talking about here is less than a 20% reduction from what, your
drawing comes close to 25. We’d like to have it at about 20 foot candles on average.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’re looking for less than that, because if you’re trying to get it in
comparison with say the Saturn dealership, they’re running at 8.3 right now.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but doesn’t Code, the Zoning Ordinance, specify 20? Am I wrong?
MRS. RYBA-The lighting standards are a guideline. So the Board has varied in some instances,
and the reason why it’s a guideline at this point is because off of Route 149, for example, you
were very successful in getting the Stewart’s canopy lighting down and the Getty station
lighting down, because it’s a more rural area. In area where there is more intensive commercial
activity, you have allowed it to go a little bit higher, but I think what the Chairman has said is
that you have asked different applicants that are near each other to try to be consistent, for
example the Wal-Mart used the Home Depot as a model, or part of a model. Of course the
Board, as you learn more and become more knowledgeable about the standards, that’s the other
aspect, and I’m not really familiar with what is next door to do, you know, that analysis, or that
comparison. So I’m afraid I can’t really help you out at this point.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, but the other side of the coin, too, is the cumulative impact, and in this
particular case, you’ve got three dealerships lined up right in row right there, and with the
Midas shop next to it. So you take a cumulative impact of all that lighting, if they were all at 24,
you’re looking for some serious light pollution out of there.
MR. SANFORD-But I’m thinking the spillage over to Midas isn’t really affecting a whole lot,
and in fact provides an added degree of security to the cars that are left there by customers
overnight. So, I mean, I have less of a problem with the spillage to the east than would
otherwise be the case, simply because it is Midas and sometimes there’s a lot of customers who
need their cars left there on an overnight basis. They’ll have better light on them, but I mean, I
certainly would not be in favor of the 24.8. I would certainly want it to at least go down to the
20 foot candle level, which I thought was what the Zoning Ordinance called for, and so, you
know, but again, lighting isn’t one of my big issues. So I’m not going to go to town on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Two opposing point of views to your comments. Number One, our Code
says that we need to be down to zero foot candles at the property line. That’s part of the Code,
and Number Two, it may not always be a Midas.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I understand.
MR. MAC EWAN-It might be something else, but you need to look at, though, if you look at
their lighting plan here, you don’t get down to a zero until you’re almost on the far side of
Midas’ property line.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think if they reduced the intensity where the A poles are, it would drop
off relatively quick when you got over that property line to the east. It drops off to a pretty
reduced level, three columns over. I mean, basically it’s close to, it’s down to 1.9 at that point.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
They might be able to achieve it if they dropped it down in the core center there where the A
poles are, but, again, I mean, that’s for them to decide. I think what we need to do is merely, I
would recommend, Craig, that we table this, and give them parameters for them to rework it
and come back.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m in agreement with that. Mr. Romaine, are the two light poles labeled “B”
existing light poles or proposed?
MR. ROMAINE-Proposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Proposed. What’s that do with poles being located right on the property
line, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-Poles that have been located close to property lines before, I know that you had
that situation with Home Depot and you, the applicants, or in that case the property owners put
on house shields or a shield to deflect that light away from the property line.
MR. MAC EWAN-I do recall we also had that issue with Dunkin Donuts, too, and there were
poles that were located close to the property line, within two or three feet of the property line,
and we did the same thing. So that there wasn’t spillage onto a neighboring property. I guess
the guidance maybe we could offer here is to contact the Planning Department and request
maybe copies of the cut sheets. I’m just not really sure how to approach this. The cut sheets
that we used for Saturn and Garvey. The two concerns I have with this, I guess maybe three
concerns I have with this, from my point of view, is the height of the poles, obviously the
wattage that we have here, because we’ve got some really bright light flooding out, and
concerns I have also is those two “B” labeled poles that are in close proximity to the property
line. Maybe by eliminating those two poles all together, you’d be able to get your lighting
down substantially along that property line. So it’s not spilling over onto the neighboring
property.
MR. RINGER-The two “B” poles on the east.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, eliminating the “B” poles on the east, and then reducing the wattage of the
“A” poles a bit might bring it into the average that we can live with, plus not having the spills.
MR. KOMORA-If we took the B’s out, and the two A’s that are closest to those B’s that are in
discussion, and made those singles, with shields on them towards Midas, would that, I mean,
that’s going to bring your average, that’ll bring your average down to about 18.17, without even
trying.
MR. SANFORD-Well, how does the Board feel about that?
MR. SEGULJIC-What about spillage?
MR. KOMORA-Well, that’s going to cut down a lot on that spillage on the east side.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather see a plan.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, we can see a plan, but I mean, I think if you could come back to us
with a plan like that, I mean, I’m only one person. I guess I’d like to hear the opinion, if they
came back with a plan, doing what he just said, would you still want to have it materially
reduced from there, Craig?
MR. MAC EWAN-In my mind, I’d want to see them get as close to the Saturn, or to Garvey.
That’s where I want to see them, get down that low.
MR. KOMORA-The problem is, with the Saturn and the Garvey layout, is that when they went
in, they had no site restrictions, no power line, 50 foot power line right of way running through
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
their lot or whatever, and this, we have that. So it’s harder to, that was the one reason we went
to the 25 foot pole, because we have limited places where we can put a pole.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to say that I’m not being flexible. I certainly would be flexible,
but to me 20 foot candles seems to be extreme, and it goes in opposition to what we’ve been
trying to achieve for the last three or four years with lighting in the Town, and I just don’t see,
at this stage of the game, a change in the game plan. It sends a bad message to future
applications. I think we need to be consistent.
MR. ANDERSON-You have a competitor next door, Honda. Can you determine the average
foot candles that are in that lot? What we want to do is be equal. So maybe there’s a way that
you may be surprised in what lighting they actually have.
MR. ROMAINE-I would not be able to, Greg might be able to do that.
MR. ANDERSON-If you can come in with that information.
MR. MAC EWAN-And the reality, too, Al, is that the Della and the Honda dealerships, you
know, they may be pre-existing the lighting code in Town, the Ordinance in Town.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t think we really can, I mean, next time they come in, they’ll get the
same treatment. I mean, I think that’s what Craig’s hitting at, but I think what we have to do,
Craig, I mean, we have to give them clearly a target, and you’re saying, you know, like eight or
nine, as a target.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a target, and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable target.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. No, I would just like to poll the Board, and then I’ll go along with what
everybody feels is appropriate, but what I don’t want to have them do is have them come back
with something and then we all say, well, it’s not enough. Let’s feel pretty comfortable, what is
the target.
MR. RINGER-I like the idea of trying to eliminate those two B poles and see what they come up
with, and maybe reducing the wattage on the A’s.
MR. KOMORA-Because I would like to know where the 8.3, where that number is coming from.
Because you can extend this calculation zone and I can make it as low as you want to see it.
MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean extend the calculation zone?
MR. KOMORA-You can extend areas to make it, or change the grid to lower what the average
would be. I’m trying to just stay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you could, but you have to remember that the key here is to keep your
lighting on your property.
MR. KOMORA-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-No spillage on neighboring properties. So if you spread that grid, yes,
you’re bringing your lighting down, but you’re also spreading the lighting, too.
MR. SANFORD-No, I think what he might be saying, Craig, is that if you take that back area,
and you just put zeros in there, you’ve got a pretty low average.
MR. ROMAINE-Very low.
MR. KOMORA-If Saturn’s coming up with 8.3 as an average, that’s a great average, but I would
like to know what they have on the hood of their cars in the front, which is where.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-Make sure you come up and get copies of their lighting plan, to give you the
guidance, where you need to be. Does the Board, as a whole here, I mean, are we looking to try
to achieve and get lighting down as low as possible, in accordance with the Code as written?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Is that where we’re going with this?
MR. RINGER-I would like to see them get it down, you know, I’d like to see them come back
with something closer to the Code.
MR. SANFORD-But the Code isn’t definitive, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Closer to the Code, is what I’m saying.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what is the Code?
MR. ROMAINE-I was told 20.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, what’s the Code?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know. I have no idea, not a clue.
MR. ANDERSON-Well, the Staff Notes indicate a 20 foot candle average.
MR. ROMAINE-I was told by Mr. Hilton it was 20, because he said the same thing, you’re a
little high here. He said they like to keep it at 20 or under.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, from the Board’s position, Mr. Romaine, if we can do better than
that, why can’t we achieve that?
MR. ROMAINE-I understand that.
MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s where I’m going with the fact that we’ve done with the Garveys,
with the Saturns, with the Wal-Marts, with the Home Depots.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, but I just don’t want to spend all this money for lighting and have less
light than I’ve got already.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I do think we have to be consistent, and the issue, I mean, I’m not trying
to, I don’t think it’s an esoteric point that you made. When you’re doing your calculations on
averages, if you’re eliminating and not factoring in the whole rear section, which is, is that lit at
all?
MR. ROMAINE-As far as poles in the back of my dealership? No.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So what I want to know is, when we’re talking about Saturn and we’re
talking about the other ones, I mean, I think we have to do apples to apples. Were they looking
at the average lighting on their total physical property?
MR. ROMAINE-Right, front, back, the whole thing.
MR. SANFORD-Or, you’re just showing the basically road front.
MR. ROMAINE-Right.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. KOMORA-What I’ve done is I’ve broken this into two calculation zones for you. The one
being spill light, and the other being a parking area, and the parking area itself, you know, if
you take into account the spill light with all the zeros in there, you’re going to be down, even
this printout here, you’d be down around 10.
MR. SANFORD-I understand. I think, I don’t know, I would like to know what the Saturn
dealership did in terms of what they included in their area for calculation. I’d like to see some
level of consistency. I agree with the Chairman’s position. The goal here is to have it work for
you but also be as low as possible, and if 20 is still too bright, we’d like to see it lower than that,
but again, I can’t comment because I don’t know how they, what property they included in
their calculations, off the top of my head. Marilyn, would you know that?
MRS. RYBA-I don’t have that knowledge offhand, or that research. I know many times we’ve
put together tables to compare different similar type of applications. So that’s something I can
direct George to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-How long will it take you to revise your plans, do you think?
MR. KOMORA-Not long.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s not long?
MR. KOMORA-I could probably have something back to Frank tomorrow.
MR. ROMAINE-That’s the other thing I’m looking at is a time thing here, because we missed
the last one, and I’d like to get this thing done.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I’m asking. I mean, we could table this application to next
Tuesday’s meeting, but that would require you to have your have your submissions in to the
Town Planning Office no later than close of business Thursday of this week, to make that
agenda.
MR. ROMAINE-If I can make it, I’ll hand carry them up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ve got to open up the public hearing first. Does anyone want to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll leave the public hearing open.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 NEMER FORD, Introduced by Richard
Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Albert Anderson:
In order for them to revise their lighting plans, and have them submitted to Town Staff by close
of business the 23 [September], and in the revised plan we’d like to see the deletion of the
rd
eastern B poles, and a reduction in lighting, as well as have comparable intensities to the Saturn
dealership down the road.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Close of business Thursday afternoon.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. ROMAINE-Thank you. Should I bring those right to Mr. Hilton?
MR. MAC EWAN-Bring them right down to the Planning Department.
MRS. RYBA-Just an FYI, we close at 4:30. Even though I’m there beyond 4:30, we have people
coming in at 5:30 and 6:00 o’clock. So just so you know, that’s when it’s official is 4:30.
MR. ROMAINE-That’s all right. I don’t play golf on Thursday. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 54-2004 SEQR TYPE II SWANK; ADIR. FACTORY OUTLET CENTER
PROPERTY OWNER: ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER, INC. AGENT:
KATHY HILL, MANAGER ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1444 ST. RT. 9, SUITE 7, ADIR.
OUTLET MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A 1,200 SQ. FT. TENT AS PART OF A
SEASONAL OUTDOOR SALES USE. RETAIL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 8/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 LOT SIZE: 4.64 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-
020
KATHY HILL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes?
MRS. RYBA-“The applicant is seeking approval to use a 1200 sq. ft. tent for a temporary tent
sale at the Adirondack Factory Outlet Center on Route 9. The 1200 sq. ft. tent is located in the
southwest corner of the site adjacent to Route 9. The applicant has requested the following
waivers:
Stormwater Management Plan
-
Grading Plan
-
Lighting Plan
-
Landscaping Plan
-
As Staff has previously commented with similar applications for outdoor tent sales, should the
Planning Board approve this application, the Board should specify how long the sale will be
approved for and when the tent will be taken down after the sale.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MS. HILL-Hello there. My name’s Kathy Hill. Swank has been at the Adirondack Mall since
June of ’87. We’ve been doing a tent sale since 1991. We’ve done 14 of them, annually, it’s
usually all of June. We’ve always been inspected by the Fire Marshal. We always try to do
everything by Code, get our sign permits, everything. Just trying to, I was notified that this is
something brand new, that we had to do the site plan this year. I usually have been using a 30
by 45 tent, because I have security at night. I’ve been using a generator. The sale is a lot of my
business. Like last year it was 25% of my annual sales, because we’ve been doing it for so long.
We have customers that call us starting in January to find out when the sale is so they can plan
their vacation and come up to the area. This year it was June 26 through August 1. It was 37
thst
days. It was the same last year.
MR. SANFORD-What are you looking to do now? That period of time has passed.
MS. HILL-Okay. Well, Craig had said I had to put it in. They allowed me to do, they allowed
me to do the sale, but he said I had to have my site plan in before I started the sale.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-I’m sorry. I think I understand this. You already had the tent up, and it’s
already down, and you’re asking for an approval, I guess, and my question is, what does it
matter really?
MS. HILL-The way I had understood it is that they told me I had to put this in, and this was like
for next year and stuff, too, for doing this.
MR. SANFORD-For next year you would have to, yes, but you’re not doing, you’re asking for
this year, for 2004? You’re not clear?
MS. HILL-I wasn’t clear. Okay. All I was told was I had to have the site plan in before my tent
went up. This was in on the 23 of June.
rd
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MS. HILL-And the sale started the 26.
th
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-When do you take the tent down?
MR. SANFORD-It’s down, I think.
MS. HILL-It’s down.
MR. METIVIER-No, I know, but when do you take it down? I was just thinking, if we approve
this, they have a year, so we could approve this for next year, right?
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think we want to, Tony, remember we’ve had applications and we’re
not sure what makes sense for the Town, and I think this is something for the PORC Committee
to address.
MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m just thinking that, you know, we can approve this because it’s good
for a year, if that’s the stand you’re going to take. Because it’s already September, and if they
have a year for a site plan.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know why you’re here either. Why is she here, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-I’m looking through the file right now. It’s a question, I think, if it’s something
that’s already occurred, and has taken place without going through the process, it’s the same as
if somebody put up a building and didn’t get the proper permits.
MR. MAC EWAN-But in this case they took the building down.
MRS. RYBA-Right. So I’m not really sure exactly what’s going on.
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s happened here is that the history behind that is that you’ve been
holding this annual tent sale for X number of years. Unbeknownst to her, this is the first year
that they held the tent sale when they did not get their required site plan approval that’s
required by this Board to have this tent sale. It was an enforcement action that brought you
here, because basically you got a visit from either the Code Enforcement Officer or got a call
from someone up here and said that the tent requires site plan review, and it was already in the
midst of you having your tent sale, and the leeway that the Zoning Administrator gave you was
make application to the Planning Board to get on their agenda to get your site plan approvals,
and you can continue using this tent until the end of your sale period. However, you will be
required to have the approvals in place before you can put the tent up next year. How am I
doing?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MRS. RYBA-Right.
MS. HILL-Yes.
MRS. RYBA-I just found a note here from Craig. It’s dated June 18. Proceed with the event
th
this year. However, you must file a site plan review application for next year. An application
must be filed now, ASAP, because of the enforcement situation that you discussed. I think
that’s, at least that’s what I get from the note.
MR. MAC EWAN-It kind of seems, at this point, because her season’s over, so to speak, it seems
silly for us to sit here and review this thing.
MRS. RYBA-Right. One of the other things that happened, in looking through the file, I see here
that because of the agenda limits, things did get prolonged. Otherwise, this might have been
heard earlier, before the end of the sale period.
MR. MAC EWAN-Might I offer you a suggestion?
MS. HILL-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Speaking on behalf of the Board, there have been at least one application.
How many?
MR. RINGER-Four applications.
MR. MAC EWAN-Four applications.
MR. RINGER-Counting yours.
MR. MAC EWAN-For tents. Three of them in the Million Dollar Half Mile area?
MR. RINGER-All of them. Well, all the ones we got applications for are in that Million Dollar.
MR. MAC EWAN-How many have we denied?
MR. SANFORD-One.
MR. RINGER-We denied one.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which was basically an all summer tent. The other ones were very short
periods of time relatively speaking.
MR. RINGER-I think the problem was, once one started, we knew there was going to be a
snowball effect and we took a different approach to how we were going to look at these, and I
think our approach is and was that it isn’t necessarily what we want on that corridor is a bunch
of tents, and that’s what we were getting, and I think that we eventually will be referring this to
the Town Board to look at our Code and what they feel tents should be, and perhaps the Code
should be changed or somehow modified, where a tent may be up, but up for a sale period. I
don’t consider a sale period 60 days, though. I consider a sale period more like seven days or
two weeks. A sale for two months is not a sale.
MS. HILL-No, mine was 37 days.
MR. MAC EWAN-A suggestion I might offer you is I know that this is an issue that’s going to
be taken a look at by this Committee that’s been established by the Town Board, which I’m
lucky enough to have to serve on that one, too, and I know that’s one of the issues we’re going
to be looking at. My suggestion to you is maybe ask you to withdraw this application, sit back
and see what this Committee ends up making for their suggestions to the Town Board, which
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
will be taking place over the next three or four months, and then in the spring, pending the
outcome of the recommendation from this the Committee, and what the Town Board elects to
do with the recommendations, is to resubmit for an application in the spring for your next
summer festivities.
MRS. RYBA-Except that maybe legal counsel can state otherwise. Because it’s an open
situation. I mean, I don’t see a specific enforcement action. It appears to be a verbal please file
your application now. Is the suggestion the Chairman making, is that going to be a problem?
It’s something that’s out there that wasn’t resolved. That’s the question.
MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, it’s not something that we’ve been involved with as a formal
enforcement action, in the sense of having taken it to court. So, as long as, you know, Craig, as
long as the Zoning Administrator doesn’t have any reason to prosecute it at this time, and I
don’t know why he would, it’s not a problem.
MR. SANFORD-It sounds like a good suggestion to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s nothing to prosecute. There’s no tent.
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s done and over with for the season. So that would be my suggestion to
you.
MS. HILL-Okay. See, I was just doing everything because this is, you know.
MR. MAC EWAN-We understand that. What’s played a role in this whole thing is the timeline
event. By the time they became aware that you didn’t have the site plan approvals in place, you
were already like three-quarters of the way through your sale event, and by the time you were
able to get filed and get on an agenda, and get here in front of us, your sale event’s already over
with and your tent’s gone.
MS. HILL-I had put in for my temporary sign permit. I’ve always, every year I go over, put in
for my temporary sign permit, and that’s what I found out, that you’re supposed to have a site
plan, and it probably would have almost closed my doors this year without, you know, all of a
sudden, because our company depend on it.
MR. MAC EWAN-We understand, but I will tell you that the long event tent attractions or
however you want to phrase it is a concern of this Board, and we have been seeing a pretty
good increase of activity in the Million Dollar Half Mile area, with tents, and I know that’s
something we’re concerned with. It becomes a safety issue. It becomes a traffic hazard issue,
people rubbernecking, looking to see what’s on the sale not paying attention to where they’re
driving. A lot of people just cross the roads up there, jaywalking without using the crosswalk
areas. These are the concerns we have, and I know this is one of the issues that this Committee
is going to be looking into and how to try to resolve it.
MS. HILL-When is this Committee going to be looking into this information?
MR. MAC EWAN-The Committee has its first meeting this Thursday night. As part of the
Zoning Ordinance, it will probably be within one of the first of three meetings that we’ll
probably be dealing with the issue, and making recommendations to the Town Board. So it will
be done relatively at this end of it as opposed to toward the tail end of our meetings. The
Committee is set up to review the Town’s Zoning Ordinances, Town Subdivision Regulations,
and make suggestions on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Zoning Ordinances are what
we’re doing first, and we figure it’s going to probably take two or three meetings to get through
those issues. So it’ll be looked at some time late this fall probably.
MS. HILL-Okay.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. RINGER-As a suggestion, if you have to order your inventory early, I would check with
the Town to see the status of what the tent sales are, before you got your inventory ordered.
MS. HILL-Well, our company starts, they start looking for things for me back in December and
January for unique items.
MR. RINGER-I realize that. I was in that business. So I know, but you want to check before you
place your order for your inventory and see how they’re coming on the Codes.
MR. MAC EWAN-If you would just maybe like note on your calendar to call up here like the
Planning Department and say like in mid-December. We might have it resolved by then.
Hopefully we will.
MS. HILL-Yes, because I was one of the first tent sales that was ever up on the strip, because
I’ve been up on the strip, I’m the oldest store up there and I’m the oldest employee up there.
MR. RINGER-Everybody sees your success and they want to duplicate it, is what happens.
MRS. RYBA-So there is a formal withdrawal, then?
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m waiting to hear.
MS. HILL-I guess that’s the way I’ve got to go is a formal withdrawal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you certainly don’t have to go that way.
MS. HILL-Well, this is the first time I’ve ever.
MR. RINGER-The chances are if you don’t withdraw you may be rejected or denied tonight. So
I think it would be better to withdraw then run the risk of being denied. It just seems like a
better way for you to go.
MS. HILL-And then wait and see how the Board goes.
MR. MAC EWAN-This Committee. It wouldn’t be this Planning Board, but it’s called the
Planning Ordinance Review Committee, or PORC for short.
MS. HILL-Okay. Then I formally withdraw my application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. We should have some word for you hopefully by mid-
December, as to where we’re going with this tent issue. Okay. Sorry to make you sit around all
night. The Planning Ordinance Review Committee is having our initial meeting this Thursday
night. It’s an organizational meeting, it was advertised actually in today’s paper.
MRS. RYBA-It was in the Chronicle.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It was in today’s Post Star.
MRS. RYBA-It was in the Post Star. It’s going in the Chronicle.
MR. MAC EWAN-Erroneously, though, the Post Star said we were going to be reviewing the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which we are not. It’s the Zoning Ordinances we’re going to be
starting with.
MRS. RYBA-It’s going to be in the Chronicle on Thursday as well. It’s been on our website for
over a week. Once again, it’s available in the Town Offices. The Post Star is also good about,
we did a display ad. They also put that in their meeting notices on a weekly basis.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-And the Committee is comprised of four members from the Planning Board
and four members from the Zoning Board, and we’ve been empowered by the Town Board to
review the Town Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations, and Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, to make recommendations and changes where we feel need to be made or revisions,
deletions, additions, what have you, and that’s just one of the things we’re going to look at.
Whether we get to that specific issue on Thursday night or not, I can’t tell you, but we’re
starting the process on Thursday night. The agenda has been published. It is on the Town’s
website. It was in the Post Star today, and it’s going to be in the Chronicle I think, what did you
say, on Thursday? So it’s well advertised. Okay.
SITE PLAN NO. 53-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED HENRI LANGEVIN AGENT:
JONATHAN LAPPER, JAMES MILLER, MILLER ASSOCIATES ZONE: RC-15
LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 8,210
SQ. FT. INDOOR SKATING FACILITY. RECREATION USES IN THE RC-15 ZONE
REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE: AV 65-04, AV 7-04, PZ 2-03, SB 6-04, SP 17-04 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 8/11/04 TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-3 LOT SIZE: 21 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MAC EWAN-Staff Notes.
MRS. RYBA-“The applicant proposes to construct an 8120 sq. ft. indoor skating center on a 1.19-
acre property located on Sherman Avenue, west of I-87. The proposed use is allowed in the RC-
15 zone with site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. The proposed project is a
SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has submitted a short form EAF.
Vehicular access is proposed to connect to a private access drive located on the adjacent
property to the south and east. The ZBA granted an Area Variance (AV 65-04) on August 25,
2004 in order to allow this property to have access from this property.
The proposed lighting plan appears to meet the requirements of the Town Code. Staff
recommends a condition of any approval of this plan, that Planning Staff inspect the light
fixtures prior to installation.
The proposed landscaping plan also appears to meet the requirements of the Town Code.
The site plan and associated stormwater management report has been forwarded to CT Male for
their review and comment.
As this project involves the disturbance of greater than one acre, a SWPPP and NOI are required
to be filed. Staff recommends a condition that the required NOI be submitted prior to final
signature of the plans by the Zoning Administrator.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Just as a comment, your third paragraph up, proposed lighting appears to
meet the requirements of the Town Code, and Staff needs to inspect the light fixtures prior to
installation. A month and a half ago, two months ago, the Board asked, or I should say
requested that that become a standard boilerplate in our draft resolutions.
MRS. RYBA-And I think you’ll see in the proposed resolutions it’s in several.
MR. MAC EWAN-Which leads me to my next question. I don’t have one. I don’t have a draft
resolution in my packet. Anyway, good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Miller. As the Board will
recall, this is the last component of the Adirondack Sports complex project. We came to the
Town Board for a rezoning, which this Board recommended. We did the site plan and
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
subdivision for the two projects together, and this is a small piece of it which is an ice hockey
training facility for little kids. Henri Langevin is a commercial banker by day, but passionate
about hockey at night. He will probably be here hopefully after we’re gone. He’s at ice hockey
tryouts now, in Saratoga tonight with his son, but he’s determined that there’s a need and a
market for a training facility for the young kids. This is only a quarter the size of an ice hockey
rink. So it’s not for games. It can’t accommodate games. So it doesn’t produce the traffic that
you have if there were teams and parents. It’s just to get the kids training, get them ice time
when they’re young, because apparently that’s a big problem. I have daughters, and I don’t
know that, but that’s what I’m told, and they can play hockey, too, but they don’t. So we were
here for the subdivision. The Planning Board asked that we use the one driveway for both
projects, and that was a condition of the subdivision approval. We had to go to the Zoning
Board to get a variance because one of the inconsistencies in the code, and a PORC like issue, is
that even though you recommend shared access, if each lot doesn’t have its own access, it
requires variance. So we did go to the Zoning Board and we did get that approval. So this has
a deeded easement for the access for the single access. So there’s only one curb cut on Sherman.
In terms of the Staff Notes, we certainly concur with the two comments that the, submitting the
NOI and of course the lighting comment. There were C.T. Male comments that Jim responded
to and hopefully we’re all set with those, but let me just ask Jim to quickly walk you through
the site plan.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. The site is on Sherman Avenue, and the area to the east and south
is the Adirondack Sports complex that Jon talked about. This is a driveway coming off of
Sherman that goes on back to that facility, and this driveway is going to be shared with the
training facility. So the access will be off that main road. We’re proposing there would be just a
small directional sign at this driveway where we would turn in. We’ve got a parking lot for 41
cars, as required by Code, with planted islands within the parking. So it could function either
as a parking lot, and this function obviously gets a lot of drop off of parents that drop children
off and leave and come back and get them. There’s an on-site septic system. There’ll be
municipal water. The water line will be extended down the driveway. That’ll provide water to
the facility. The storm drainage in the parking lot is being collected and taken into some
drywells to the north side of the parking area. We’ve got landscaping within the parking lot,
and along Sherman Avenue. In addition, some of the trees outside of our grading area will
remain along the road, and then there’ll be planting around the building. The heavy planting to
the south of the building is a requirement to try to provide shade against the building because
they’re trying to maintain ice throughout the summer. That’s it. Any questions?
MR. MAC EWAN-Before we open it up to questions. Mark, just procedurally, we don’t have to
do another SEQRA on this, do we?
MR. SCHACHNER-I was wondering the same thing when I noticed it was listed as a SEQRA
Unlisted Action, and the answer is it depends on the extent to which this particular component
of the facility was contemplated back when the original SEQRA review was done for the re-
zoning, and I don’t recall the answer to that.
MR. MILLER-Well, I think it was always indicated on the plan in a similar configuration to
what we have, but I believe the final drawings basically had an X in it and said that it wasn’t
part of the project.
MR. SCHACHNER-Was not?
MR. MILLER-It was not, but I think it was there as, you know.
MR. LAPPER-To avoid segmentation, it was there.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. A proposed type use thing, but with no details.
MR. MILLER-So I think we really did review it.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same token, in our discussions around that clearly indicate that
one of the issues we were looking for was a common drive feeding this facility as well as the
other one. So from that standpoint, not only with the original subdivision, but with the original
site plan for the domed facility, I think we took this into consideration, knowing that it was
going to be there, not knowing exactly about the plantings or the architecture of the building, it
was taken into consideration in our SEQRA review that this other proposed building was going
to in fact be part of this parcel.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with that. That was my memory.
MR. LAPPER-I know traffic was done for the whole site.
MR. MILLER-Yes, it was.
MR. SANFORD-We even asked quite a few questions about it.
MR. SCHACHNER-“It” meaning this particular component?
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-My answer is what my answer was. If it’s been previously reviewed, if it
was a project component in sufficient detail so that you were able to previously review it in
your overall SEQRA review, then it would not require a new SEQRA review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good. All right. I’ll open up the floor for questions. We’ll go down
our criteria sheet. Building design and layout. Anybody got any questions relative to that?
No? Site development criteria? I think a lot of this was covered originally. Site conditions,
vehicle access, pedestrian access, parking field, emergency access, stormwater/sewage design?
MR. RINGER-We’ve got Male’s comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. We’ll get to Jim here in a second.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but that’s all stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-While we’re right here, Jim, chime in.
MR. HOUSTON-Just to bring you up to speed on what’s transpired since my letter. My letter’s
September 16. Since then, dated that same day, I’ve got a fax from Jim Miller regarding
th
responses to my comments, and it addresses most of my concerns. My outstanding items I just
want to briefly talk about here, and I don’t consider them major, but it’s just something you
should be aware of. Item Number Three talks about, we don’t have any test pit data down to
the bottom of where the drywells are, and we do have test pit data about seven, eight feet deep,
but what we’re showing here is approximately twelve, thirteen feet of cut, and the proposal is
to, in the installation of those drywells, put in a, do a test pit or excavate that far and go past the
drywell to make sure it’s dry conditions and leave them that deep. If not, they can put in more
shallow systems and still accomplish the same objective, but it would be a design change more
or less during construction. Basically you’re putting in a drywell that’s deeper than what our
test pit data is telling us, and there’s nothing to indicate that there’s not, that you would
encounter clay or groundwater, but it’s just something that I’ve noted there, and they have
added a note to the plan that indicates that such a test would be done before installation of the
drywells to confirm that that’s an appropriate size and depth of the drywell, and that’s fine with
me, but I don’t know if, the next item was Item Number Four, and some of the site work and
some of the stormwater, temporary sedimentation basins for the construction of this site are on
the adjoining parcel, and I was considering about either an agreement or some kind of
agreement in place between this developer and the property owner and there was mention in
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
the response letter an agreement with the adjoining property owner, Doug Miller, indicating
their willingness to accommodate this intrusion for the grading and/or sedimentation basin
during construction. I haven’t seen that agreement. I would assume that such an agreement
exists, and the other thing along those same lines is my comment number six, and it deals with
the retaining wall off of the northwest corner of the parking lot, and as shown on the plan, that
wall is right up against the pavement, and there’s concern usually about some kind of a break to
keep cars from going in and hitting or damaging that wall, and/or damaging cars and trying to
recess that back, not only from that purpose but also drainage between the wall and the
pavement, and in doing that, if you move the wall back, does it require construction or any kind
of temporary construction onto the adjoining property owner here, which is Niagara Mohawk,
as opposed to Doug Miller on other two sides, and they’re going to try to pursue a temporary
construction easement. It’s my understanding there’s an agreement of some sort with Niagara
Mohawk to do that work. The nature of that construction requires that you excavate the area
out behind that wall and basically build that up in stages with fabric that goes back into the
embankment. That type of construction requires, just from my experience with that, it’s going
to require encroaching past that property line to do that construction, and so I guess that’s the
only other item I had there, and I don’t foresee any of those to be either major obstacles to the
project plan. The other items that I talked about have been addressed in the fax that I received
from Jim, regarding lowering the pond out front, adding the striped line that was missing, and
miscellaneous things that we saw on the plan. So that’s about the nature of my comments.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to respond?
MR. MILLER-Sure. The first item, with the depth of the drywells, is referring to the two
drywells here. The site is fairly high here and drops down and to accommodate we’re basically
cutting the front and filling towards the building area, plus some of the fill may be used
elsewhere on the site. So we’ve got a situation where these drywells are located there was test
pits done, but we’re only using the backhoe. So we were only down about eight feet. With the
cut and the drywells themselves being eight feet, we would have to go about 14 feet, and it’s
just not practical to do. So what I suggested to Jim, we’ve done other test pits, not too far from
here, that, from an elevation point of view, we had no problems and encountered no
groundwater, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t here. What we have done is added a note on
the plans directing the contractor when the site is rough graded to either excavate for those
drywells or do a test pit and verify that there’s no groundwater, but we’ve done this in similar
situations, and as a matter of fact, one other project we had in Saratoga, we encountered
groundwater during construction, and we basically reduced the eight foot drywell to use some
infiltrators which are only about three feet deep, basically accomplish the same thing with a
different detail. We’d prefer to use the drywells, the deeper drywells. So what we propose to
do is add that note, and then, you know, during construction, just confirm that there’s not a
problem there, and if there is, we would just make the modification that it would be required to
handle that stormwater. The other issue about the retaining walls in this corner, again, this is
where we’re cutting into the site, as Jim stated, that the wall that we’ve shown is basically it
goes from just a couple of feet on each side and follows the grade and steps up the grade to the
highest point’s about five feet, and we’ve shown the detail shows a six foot fabric in the back. I
spoke to Tom Nace today about that, and we could probably, because the wall is curving and
it’s not that tall, we could probably decrease the amount of fabric behind the wall so we could
step that wall back a couple of feet to give us a little bit more overhang from the edge of the
pavement. So I think we could accomplish that one.
MR. LAPPER-So that you won’t need to go on to the NiMo property.
MR. MILLER-That’s right. Well, I think, you know, we’d be excavating right tight to the
property line, but I think we could accomplish that by modifying the fabric on the wall, and
what was the third one?
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your response, though, to Jim’s concerns about the damaging either
the wall from cars, or the wall damaging cars?
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MILLER-Well, what we’ll do is pull the wall back a couple of feet from the edge of the
pavement, to provide some overhang from the cars, and we can accomplish that by changing
the detail of the wall, so we can get closer to the property line without disturbing the grade
beyond the property line.
MR. LAPPER-Not that we couldn’t get an easement from NiMo. It’s just a six month process
for a minor detail. It would be better to change the wall than to deal with NiMo.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-There was another comment?
MR. MILLER-Yes, there was.
MR. HOUSTON-The temporary sedimentation basin.
MR. MILLER-That’s right. They were related to Doug Miller. Well, originally Doug was going
to start the construction for the big project first, and then we were just going to do this, and the
way the schedule has gone, it looks like Henry is going to start first. So his agreement with
Doug, I don’t know if anything’s in writing or not. I know they’ve discussed it, is that he’s
going to cut the driveway in and grade the site. So he’s going to be grading in this area, and
some of the sediment basin is back in this corner, where eventually that’s going to be a
permanent settling basin that’s going to be part of the grading of the road. So basically what
he’s doing is the work where he’s over the property line, he’s really doing prep work for that
access driveway, and they have an understanding. Our client bought this property from Doug
Miller. So they’re really working together.
MR. SANFORD-Is there a dependency, among the two projects? In other words, are they kind
of viewed as collectively they’re going to constitute this sports center? In other words what I’m
wondering is if for some reason the Miller project doesn’t go, then is this project at all
contingent upon the Miller project happening?
MR. LAPPER-The answer is that they compliment each other, because they’re so similar in
nature, even though a different sports, but in terms of whether they rely on each other, when
we did the closing, Henry’s piece has a deeded access easement, which gives him the right to
put the road in as Jim was describing. So it’s a standalone and if Doug’s doesn’t happen for
another year, the driveway will already be there to get to the back of the other parcel.
MR. SANFORD-So they can, each project stands alone, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER-As a matter of fact, this is the second site we’ve looked at for Henry. He
originally looked at getting a property over on West Mountain Road where he needed a
variance, and he ended up withdrawing that.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you answered my question. My concern was that, you know, we don’t
typically get into the capitalization of these projects as a site plan criteria, though when you
look at the price for, for instance, of Six Flags stock, maybe we should have done more on that,
but, okay, yes, I hear you. They standalone.
MR. MAC EWAN-Jim, you’re satisfied with his responses?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, I have no problem with that.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MAC EWAN-He just needs to adjust his drawings accordingly for you, put notations on
them or whatever?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes. I haven’t seen any revised drawings that show that wall being moved
back. So I think.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, you would want that, though?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, that’s right.
MR. MAC EWAN-You would want that to reflect. The other thing was, I don’t think it really
needed it, was a note. I mean, if the drywells need to be changed because you didn’t have
them, you haven’t got a depth to water table or whatever.
MR. RINGER-All we need is a condition that they get a signoff on Items Three, Four and Six of
C.T. Male.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Here’s a little irony, which you might have heard Jim mention. We had started
this project looking at the West Mountain paint ball property for Henry, and we went to the
Zoning Board because we needed a variance because we didn’t have three acres in the three
acre zone, a small variance, and the neighbors were ballistic that they didn’t want to have an ice
skating facility where the paint ball facility ultimately decided to go. So we just withdrew the
application, and found this site instead, and I’ll bet they would have been happier having this
there, but you never know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions relative to lighting design? Landscaping?
Environmental? Neighborhood character? Other involved agencies? Anything I missed? I’ve
got one quick question for you. It’s a curiosity thing more than anything else. Your A1
drawing, there’s not a place inside for spectators to watch during practice.
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Basic drop you off, pick you up later kind of thing?
MR. MILLER-Well, I think there’s like a little waiting area.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I see a waiting area.
MR. MILLER-Sort of a viewing area, but there’s no spectator area.
MR. MAC EWAN-There doesn’t look like there’s any bleachers, no center ice seats or anything
like that.
MR. MILLER-No, there’ll probably be, there may be some movable benches or something in
there for people to sit down, but they’re small groups. He typically works in groups of six to
ten or so, and they’d basically be skating drills and polish skating and stick handling drills and
that type of thing.
MR. MAC EWAN-It is a regulation sized rink, though?
MR. MILLER-No.
MR. LAPPER-Quarter size.
MR. MAC EWAN-Quarter sized rink. All right. I’m sorry.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s very small, yes. It’s about as long as a regular rink is wide.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions? Comments? I’ll open up the public hearing.
Does anyone want to comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion?
MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. Was the SEQRA issue resolved?
MR. MAC EWAN-Resolved. We don’t need to do it.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. So that was resolved, then.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 53-2004 HENRI LANGEVIN, Introduced by Larry
Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 53-2004 Applicant/ Property Owner: HENRI LANGEVIN
SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jonathan Lapper, James Miller
Zone: RC-15
Location: Sherman Avenue
Applicant proposes to construct a 8,120 sq. ft. indoor skating facility. Recreation uses in
the RC-15 zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 65-04, AV 7-04, PZ 2-03, SB 6-04, SP
17-04
Warren Co. Planning: 8/11/04
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-3
Lot size: 21 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 9/21/04
WHEREAS, the application was received August 2004; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application
materials in file of record; and
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 September 21, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 9/21/04)
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
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 which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. The sign-off from C.T. Male for items 3, 4 and 6 of their September 16, 2004 letter.
2. NOI to be submitted prior to signature of plans by Zoning Administrator.
3. Light fixtures to be inspected by Planning Staff prior to installation.
Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 2004, by the following vote:
MRS. RYBA-I’ve been looking for the County condition, and I didn’t see anything here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got nothing for County.
MRS. RYBA-I don’t, either.
MR. RINGER-Sherman Avenue is probably not a County road.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not on the list, you’re right.
MRS. RYBA-I know the SEQRA form did say County. That’s what had me confused.
MR. MILLER-It did go to County, because I was there. There was No County Impact.
MRS. RYBA-Yes. There’s nothing listed on the.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
41