2008.08.26
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 26, 2008
INDEX
Subdivision No. 5-2008 Dariusz Jackowski 1.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.2
Site Plan No. 18-2008 Jolley Associates 3.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-29
Site Plan No. 13-2008 Lake George Campsites, LLC 9.
Tax Map No. 295.12-1-6
Site Plan No. 7-2008 K Twin Holdings 24.
Freshwater Wetlands 4-2008 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9, 10
Site Plan No. 32-2008 Doug Livingston 30.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-7
Special Use Permit No. 30-2008 Marylee Gosline & John & Kim Polunci 36.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1
Site Plan No. 3-2007 Vance Cohen 63.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETNG
AUGUST 26, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THOMAS SEGULJIC, ACTING CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
TANYA BRUNO
DONALD SIPP
PAUL SCHONEWOLF, ALTERNATE
DONALD KREBS, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to open up tonight’s meeting. If you’re here for the Gosline site,
that, at this point, is going to be last on our agenda, and I cannot say when that is going
to be. We have five items to go through before that.
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you have some business to take care of with
Cohen.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I was going to do that after. Can I do it after? Those two items, if
you’ll remind me to do them after.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2008 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED DARIUSZ
JACKOWSKI OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION BAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF
3.0 ACRES EACH. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SUB 14-06 [O’REILLY] WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73.2 SECTION A-183
MICHAEL & DARIUSZ JACKOWSKI, PRESENT
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could come up and explain to us your application, and if you could
state your name.
MR. JACKOWSKI-My name is Michael Jackowski.
MR. D. JACKOWSKI-My name is Dariusz Jackowski. I’m the owner.
MR. JACKOWSKI-We have a six acre lot. We’d like to subdivide it into half, three acres
each side. It’s going to go right down the middle.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else to add? Not that you have to add anything else.
MR. JACKOWSKI-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess I should have asked Staff. Could you take care of the Staff
Notes, please.
MR. OBORNE-I would be more than happy to read the Staff Notes. Okay. This is
Subdivision No. 5-2008 Sketch stage, Dariusz Jackowski is the applicant. The applicant
proposes the subdivision of six acres into two lots of three acres each. Sketch Plan is
requested. The location is the east side of Bay Road, between Ellsworth Lane and
Pickle Hill Road. Rural Residential Two Acres is the zoning. SEQRA Status is Unlisted
No SEQRA action is required at this stage. The Project Description: The applicant
proposes the subdivision of six acres into two lots of three acres each. The two lots are
to have one single family residence built in the near future on each of the lots. Each lot
will be accessed by a shared driveway located directly in the centerline of the new
subdivision. Staff comments: Both of these parcels will each need site plan review prior
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
to issuance of a building permit per the condition of approval of the previous subdivision.
Both parcels reside in the Lake George CEA, specifically the eastern portion of the
property, and the following is Site Plan Review for that. Typically at Preliminary you can
go ahead and pay more attention to that. At this point, the applicant is looking to have an
okay for their Sketch Plan at this point.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board for comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Did you get a copy of the Staff Notes in advance?
MR. JACKOWSKI-I did, yes. They’re right in front of me.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. In my opinion, the Staff Notes were very insightful, and you’ll
need to address the issues that were identified there before you would proceed with
Sketch. That would prepare you for the discussions that we would have when we would
do a Site Plan Review. The other thing that I would recommend is that you go through
the meeting minutes, which are available on line. I think it was the O’Reilly, is it the
O’Reilly subdivision?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-The O’Reilly were the folks that you bought the property from, and we
had a tremendous amount of discussion, when that parcel was subdivided. I think it was
like a 56 acre parcel, and that this six acre parcel was broken off. The back part of that
land is in a Critical Environmental Area, and so there was a lot of discussion. One of the
reasons why there was a condition on their approval that whoever would buy that land
and would subdivide that land, you would have to go through individual Site Plan
Review, that’s because of the Critical Environmental Area, and as the Staff Notes
identified, that this may be a Major Stormwater project, because of the location of the
property. So I would encourage you to go back and read through the meeting minutes,
and that would help you to prepare your plan to make sure that it provides the Planning
Board with all of the information that it needs to do a good Site Plan Review. Otherwise
it will prolong the process. If you don’t take a look at all the information, it’ll prolong the
process. So that’s my recommendation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any comments from anyone else?
MR. KREBS-Well, I was just going to say, you know, one of the comments here, when
we visited the site, we were wondering why the wells were downhill from where you were
putting, I mean, the septic systems were downhill from, the septic systems were near the
highway and the wells were down level from that. It’s unusual to have that. Was that
because you intend, eventually, to be able to connect to the sewer system and wanted to
put the?
MR. JACKOWSKI-That’s what the engineer said. That was the best idea, and we
listened to him.
MRS. STEFFAN-What is the likelihood of a sewer line going down Bay Road? On the
other side of 149?
MR. KREBS-Well, you know, when I grew up, you didn’t think there was going to be a
sewer line on Bay Road from Quaker Road up to here either.
MRS. BRUNO-I don’t think it’s going to be anytime soon, though, and I think we have to
think about the health hazard.
MR. TRAVER-Well, and there are also some engineering constraints that you might want
to take a look at, again, prior to Site Plan Review, because there’s going to be quite an
investment in the mechanicals and so on to enable that system to pump uphill, and the
expense involved in making a system that’s going to be subject to approval, that’s uphill
from the well, may be less than the, or I’m sorry, greater than the cost of later making a
connection to some future municipal system. So, again, we don’t need to discuss that at
length tonight, but that certainly is one of, when we did do the site visit, it was very
notable that you were walking downhill as you entered the site, and it really stuck out on
the proposed design. So you might want to really spend some time thinking about that
and discussing it further with your engineer.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Okay.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SIPP-With the test pits you already have, it’s obvious that there’s ground water at
about three feet, three and a half feet in most places. So your stormwater plan has got to
be adjusted to make that work.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Right.
MR. SIPP-And that kind of soil, plus the septic system, and you’re nice sandy soil, but
it’s, at 36 inches or thereabouts you’re getting water some time during the year, and one
of these systems is going to fail because of that.
MR. KREBS-Particularly if you’ve got 48 inches of frost and it’s frozen solid.
MR. SIPP-It’s a nice set up that you have there, but I think it’s going to take some work
here, in order to get this passed, especially with that CEA.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I’m a little leery of the fact that your area of disturbance is 14,999
feet, and you know what 15,000 feet does to you? Potentially it could be a Major
Stormwater project, as I look at it. I think it’s going to be Major anyway because you’re
going to disturb more than 5,000 square feet, and you’re going to have more than 1,000
square feet of impervious area. So what I’m really curious about is where exactly is that
CEA on this site? I know it’s a line somewhere, but I’d like to see that line drawn on
here. Okay, and I’m going to really be looking at the stormwater, and the other thing is,
I’m not sure about this, but I believe you need two test pits in your areas of the septic
system. You might want to verify that. Those are really my comments. So I think Staff
did a good job with their notes. If you follow those, hopefully we can get you through this
relatively painlessly.
MR. JACKOWSKI-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-And you might want to also reference on line, because you can look at
the stormwater, for a Major Stormwater project, that’s 147, that’s the Code section, and
so you might want to take a look at that, because the criteria for meeting the Major
Stormwater requirements is quite significant, and so you may want to look at that before
you proceed.
MR. JACKOWSKI-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Any other comments? And you understand this is just Sketch
Plan, just to have a discussion about what’s going on, but we don’t take any action
tonight.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to come back with Preliminary plans, at some point. Is
there anything else from anybody? Everybody all set? Okay.
MR. JACKOWSKI-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have you got any questions?
MR. JACKOWSKI-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re all set then. Thank you for your time.
MR. JACKOWSKI-Thank you.
MR. D. JACKOWSKI-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 SEQR TYPE II JOLLEY ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) NACE
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 777 GLEN
STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING 944 SQ. FT.
CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A 2,288 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE. GAS
STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 24-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/14/08 LOT SIZE 0.81 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-29 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-If you could introduce yourselves. If I could have Staff read Notes first,
and then introduce yourselves and tell us about your project.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan No. 18-2008, Jolley Associates is the applicant for this request.
The applicant proposes to remove an existing 944 square foot convenience store and
replace it with a new 2,288 sq. ft. convenience store. The property is located at the
intersection of Route 9 and Route 254 at the southwest corner. 777 Upper Glen Street.
The property is zoned Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a Type II SEQRA action.
No further SEQRA is necessary. Most recently the ZBA, or Zoning Board of Appeals,
approved an Area Variance granting setback relief for the proposed building on May 28,
2008. The approving resolution from the ZBA did not include any conditions. Project
Description: The applicant proposes to construct a new 2,288 square foot convenience
store at the site of the existing Mobil station on the southwest corner of Route 9 and
Route 254. The following is Staff Comments: The applicant has requested the following
waivers, basically at this point all it is is grading. Lighting plan has been submitted. The
landscaping plan has been submitted by the applicant, and the stormwater management
plan has been addressed by the applicant. Consideration should be given to requiring
some form of stormwater management that would capture the roof water from the
proposed building and the existing canopy. This has been addressed by the applicant.
Further is Site Plan Review, and the Board may wish to consider some of those points.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The floor is yours.
SEAN CRUMB
MR. CRUMB-Sean Crumb with Jolley Associates. Tom Nace with Nace Engineering. I’ll
let Tom give a brief description.
MR. NACE-Okay. I think one of the things the Board asked last time we were here is for
us to take a look, even though we aren’t increasing the impervious area of the site, to
take a look and see what we can do about stormwater. I met with Dave Wick of Warren
County Soil and Water Conservation, and he suggested that we handle the roof from the
canopy and the building and put that into drywells in the front of the parcel. We certainly
will do that. The final or the detailed design for that we’d like to hold in abeyance until
the actual site is opened up, so that we don’t have to go digging test holes at this point in
the game in the finished pavement of the operating gas station, but what we would agree
to do is to, once the area is opened up to do the tests we need to get the permeability of
the soil, submit a detailed design to both the Town Engineer and to Dave Wick for
review, and follow their requirements. The other thing, you asked for a lighting design.
We have submitted a design based on what the initial layout of the lights was. There are
some rather hot spots in that design, and one of your Staff comments was to reduce that.
We would certainly agree to reduce that to the levels that were approved for the Exit 20
Route 9 station, and I think the maximum we had there was somewhere around 11, 12,
13 under the canopy, and we would redesign the light layout in this canopy to mimic that
and to get those same light levels.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MR. NACE-I think that’s, the rest of the stuff has pretty well been covered with your Staff
and engineer comments letter.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board. Any questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions on the, you needed a Sign Variance for five of the
six signs. Is that because you’re going to have that short stop sign on each end of the
building?
MR. CRUMB-No, that was an oversight on my part, and I’m going to reduce the signs to
meet those. I’ll have one building sign and preferably one canopy logo.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, getting to lighting, so you’re going to submit a revised lighting plan,
is that what I heard you say?
MR. NACE-Yes. I will submit a revised lighting plan to comply with the, I don’t know that
I can get down to exactly 10 foot candles, but something less.
MR. SEGULJIC-Something reduced.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. CRUMB-Something more in line with Exit 20 and 19. I think we had a little bit of
variance there with both of those, but in the end we were able to, I don’t think we met it
exactly, but we came very, very close.
MR. SEGULJIC-Because you understand what we’re trying to achieve.
MR. NACE-Sure.
MR. CRUMB-Yes. We’re not looking to make an argument out of the lighting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then, with regards to stormwater, so the reason why you
don’t have to have a stormwater plan is because you’re not creating any new impervious
surface. Is that correct?
MR. NACE-That’s correct, but we have agreed, as the Board and Dave Wick have
wished, that we will reduce the existing stormwater runoff by handling the canopy roof, or
canopy runoff and the building roof runoff.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got to give it a shot, but why, can’t we do something about the
parking lots, too, all that asphalt. Are you just going to do a drywells?
MR. NACE-We’re going to do drywells for the roof area.
MR. SEGULJIC-For the roofs, but I mean.
MR. NACE-For the roofs, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-But can we try and do something about the paved areas, too?
MR. NACE-I don’t think we can do it all. There’s quite a bit of runoff that comes down
through there.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about from all the way up coming down by the Burger
King and all of that?
MR. NACE-Correct, yes. I’m confident we can take care of the roofs, and I think that if
you look, the roof area, including the canopy, that’s a good portion of the site.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because the building is significantly bigger than the building that
exists right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m always trying to do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but at least they’re going to be dealing with all the runoff from the
roof and the canopy, which is a much better situation than they have right now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I mean, it’s definitely an improvement. I was just trying to push,
nudge you in a little more.
MR. NACE-The canopy’s a large area.
MR. SIPP-Did the recent drainage work done by the State on Route 9, is that going to
catch some of this water coming down.
MR. NACE-It already does catch this water coming down, and they’re putting a separator
down at Halfway Brook or creek. At any rate, their separator does catch the runoff from
this site eventually as it gets down to Halfway Brook.
MR. SIPP-So Halfway Brook will not get all, all the runoff.
MR. NACE-We’ll be reducing the amount that presently goes into that system.
MR. SEGULJIC-And, Mr. Sipp, I assume you like the sign?
MR. SIPP-Is that one or two?
MR. CRUMB-That is still two, and the only note I would make on there is the base would
be consistent with the brick of the building, the same as we had agreed to do for Exit 19.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, my only question would be, how high is the sign overall? It says
five by eight.
MR. CRUMB-That sign is eight feet. It’s five feet tall by eight feet wide. So it’s much, it’s
reduced in height over what’s existing there now, as well as the, let’s see, this is 40
square feet, would be just about the same square footage if my memory is correct, within
a foot or two.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m no sign expert, but I think it’s a good looking sign.
MRS. STEFFAN-I like it much better.
MR. SIPP-So any plantings around the base?
MR. CRUMB-We would certainly look to do that. Again, I don’t have any issue with
adding some plantings around the base. The State had had question, as you recall, with
the street trees. However, I have no problem with additional.
MR. SIPP-I meant to look this morning and I didn’t at what is there now.
MR. CRUMB-There’s not much there now.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s in the grass strip, isn’t it?
MR. CRUMB-It is, but, you know, I’d refer you over to Exit 20 to take a look at our site
there and what we’ve done there. We’ll be consistent with that.
MR. SIPP-All right.
MRS. STEFFAN-The sign looked good and the plantings, the Exit 20 is coming very
nice.
MR. CRUMB-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any other comments at all?
MRS. BRUNO-Perhaps this was in the previous discussion. I think you came in front of
us maybe when I was on vacation. Why do you have a little deviation in the elevations
from your other shops?
MR. CRUMB-This has no food service. So our stores with food service are named
Jolley, where the stores that are not are Short Stop.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So the Jolley, you keep that look. It’s just that particular.
MR. CRUMB-We do, and actually the sign, which you can’t read on here, it says Short
Stop by Jolley.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right, and then you submitted your, I’m trying to think what the
term is for this.
MR. CRUMB-Building elevations.
MR. SEGULJIC-Building elevations. There you go. Now, you submitted some last time
also.
MR. CRUMB-I did.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are these different?
MR. CRUMB-These are just slightly different with the Mobil logo on the canopy, and after
I learned a little bit with Exit 20 that we went a little overboard on the signs there. I didn’t
realize that. So again I would scale this back with one building sign and one canopy ID.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I apologize if you went over this before, but the canopy, is that
going to be lit?
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. CRUMB-It will have an illuminated blue band.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Any idea what type of lighting that’s going to be?
MR. CRUMB-It’s fluorescent. It’s backlit, or, I’m sorry, it’s internally illuminated. It’s a
very low glow. If you give me about a week and you take a ride past Exit 20, you’ll have
a pretty good idea of what that will look like.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. What’s the will of the Board? Is this public comment?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-When would you be starting construction on this?
MR. CRUMB-Probably in the Spring.
MRS. STEFFAN-The Spring.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Why don’t we open it up to public comment. Anyone wish to
comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Do you want to close the public hearing at this point?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not sure.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’ll keep it open for now, I mean, because what I got out of this
is we need to see a revised lighting plan.
MRS. BRUNO-We need to be able to view the luminosity of the blue up at Exit 20.
MR. SEGULJIC-The sense I’m getting from the Board, correct me if I’m wrong,
everyone’s satisfied with this, other than the lighting. Is that accurate? I don’t want to
put words in anybody’s mouth here.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So, what we’re going to be looking for is the revised lighting plan. So
everyone’s happy, satisfied with the building elevations then? No comments on that?
MR. CRUMB-Now is the lighting plan something that we need to come back before the
Board for or is that something that you’re willing to allow us to go to Craig Brown?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s always a discussion, but I will turn to Staff for that one.
MR. OBORNE-You can definitely condition it. You can condition the approval on, the
wording can be conditioned upon the applicant submitting revised lighting plans that are
within the Town Code, or something along those lines.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it might not meet the Town Code if the canopy lighting, I mean, it
may meet the Exit 19 and 20.
MR. NACE-If you’re saying 10, it’s going to be slightly, you know, just judging by the
other ones, the other two, it’s going to be a little over that, but it’s going to certainly down
from the 30 something it is now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct.
MR. CRUMB-Now my interpretation of the Highway Commercial Intensive, all three sites
are zoned that. Is there a different lighting requirement at this intersection?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m correct.
MR. OBORNE-Not that I’m aware of, no, not at all.
MR. SEGULJIC-The Code is by use, not by zone.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, not by zone, right.
MR. CRUMB-Basically I’m sure we can meet that requirement.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. CRUMB-We’ve done it in the past.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. How does the Board feel about that? Mr. Traver, are you okay
with doing that?
MR. TRAVER-See, if the applicant seems confident, he’s demonstrated that he’s done it
in the past, so I would think we could do it conditional.
MR. SEGULJIC-Gretchen?
MRS. STEFFAN-Why not get everything together in a package so that when they come
back it’s ready to signoff and go, because they’re going to come back and they’re going
to change the building signage, because the plans are just going to be a little bit different
with less signage. A revised lighting plan, and then they’re going to provide a revised
stormwater plan with the drywells. They’re doing it.
MR. NACE-Well, that will be certainly after you approve it. The actual design of the
drywells will depend on test pits that we have to do once we’ve started construction.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about, there’s one issue in the VISION Engineering comments,
Item Four, it appears one side of the west fuel island will be blocked by the proposed
building. Please clarify, and you didn’t provide any additional information.
MR. CRUMB-That’ll be a one sided dispenser. So as the vehicle pulls up, it would be
normal on the other side is blank.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you need to address that comment.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what do we want to do here?
MR. KREBS-Well, you’re not going to build it until the next Spring anyway, right? So why
don’t we have him just come back with all the right information, and then approve it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I’ll leave the public hearing open and it looks like we’re going
to have a tabling motion then.
MRS. STEFFAN-So they’re going to provide us with a revised lighting plan and also with
the revised signage, and then to address VISION Engineering comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s going to include the test pits then.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it won’t, because they can’t do that until after they start to dig.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. So how are we going to handle that in the motion? Do we have
to have that in the motion?
MR. NACE-You can do that just as a condition of CO, that your engineer reviews and
approves the final drainage details.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Does that sound good, Staff?
MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure VISION Engineering did not have a problem with that.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So we’ll just say for condition of the CO.
MRS. STEFFAN-Tom, do you already have a plat notation on that, or do you have?
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. NACE-I can.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if that was on the plat, that would be easier. That way Code
Enforcement would be able to follow through on that, the CO.
MR. NACE-As a reminder, sure.
MRS. BRUNO-We addressed the waiver for the grading in the motion?
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. The first thing we’re granting a grading waiver.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-The second one we’re revising this, we want a revised lighting plan,
that we want a revised signage plan, and that the applicant will add a plat notation on
stormwater management of the roof and canopy drainage. That they will submit a plan,
and they will be required to have VISION Engineering review and signoff on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-VISION Engineering signoff, yes, Town Engineering signoff.
th
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and that’s going to be September 15 for an October 21 meeting.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2008 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
st
Tabled to the October 21 Planning Board meeting, with a submission deadline of
th
September 15. This is tabled so that the applicant can submit:
1. A revised lighting plan,
2. A revised signage plan,
3. The applicant can add a plat notation regarding stormwater management
of roof and canopy drainage,
4. Plans and that VISION Engineering will be able to review and signoff on
those plans, and
5. The Planning Board will also grant the applicant a waiver for grading.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. CRUMB-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-See you in October.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 SEQR TYPE I LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES AGENT(S)
LEMERY GREISLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1053 ST. RT.
9 APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CAMPSITE OPERATION
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR APPROXIMATELY 340 CAMPSITES AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES INCLUDING A NEW FIELD HOUSE,
RESTROOMS, POOL AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS
NECESSARY FOR ALL USES REQUIRING A USE VARIANCE. PLANNING BOARD
MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND COMMENCE SEQR REVIEW.
CROSS REFERENCE USE VAR. 10-08 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/12/08 LOT SIZE
38.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020
JOHN LEMERY & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan No. 13-2008, Lake George Campsites. This is Site Plan
approval is the requested action. Location is 1053 State Route 9. Existing zoning is
Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a SEQRA Status Type I. Project Description:
The applicant proposes expansion of the existing campsite operation to provide for
approximately 340 campsites and the construction of new facilities including a field
house, restaurants, pool, and laundry facilities. The property is accessed by Hidden
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
Farm Road, a Town of Queensbury road. Project Review Status: The applicant has a
Use Variance application pending review before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in the SEQRA review, which it may complete
once it deems it has all the information necessary to make an informed determination.
Site Plan Review by the Planning Board cannot occur until the SEQRA review is
completed and a Use Variance is granted. Staff Comments: The applicant’s proposal is
outlined above. The applicant has not used the Department of Community Development
generated application forms. The forms submitted have been generated by the
applicant’s agent. The submitted forms have been modified. Further, there is critical
information missing from these forms. I would like to make an addendum to this, in that
the forms that the applicant downloaded were 2005 forms, and as such, the forms were
not updated on the website as it stands. However, the applicant most certainly should
have picked up the most revised forms, but we apologize for not having that on the
website. Again, there are a few pieces of information that are missing, although I deem,
in my mind, being Staff, that they are not critical to this Site Plan Review. There have
been waivers requested. I am going to make the assumption that the Planning Board
has reviewed the Site Plan Review, and as such I won’t spend 20 minutes going over it.
Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. The floor is yours, if you could just identify yourself and tell us
about your project.
MR. LEMERY-Yes. Hi. Good evening. John Lemery, counsel to Lake George
Campsites. Joe Durrand, of TDK Engineering, our engineer, also Ethan Hall is here, our
architect who has designed and provided the elevation sketches for the buildings. I
understand we have to go to the Zoning Board to get the variances. So I’m not sure, at
this point, what kind of information, additional information the Planning Board might
require, but I’d like to start out by saying that this site has been a campground if you will,
I use that term loosely because it has RV sites and actually people have tented in there
for a long time. I remember when the Cinema 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or whatever was in existence
out there, and we’d go to the movies at night and you could smell the campfires and all
that in the summer. This has been around a long time. It was owned by the Gardner
family in Queensbury, the same people who own the drive-in theater. Right now it is an
existing RV campground. The reason that our client, Morgan Acquisition, and they’re
the largest owner and developer of RV parks really in the country at this point, and the
reason that they were interested in upgrading this site after they acquired it was because
they are going to put the entire facility on the Queensbury sewer. So as part of that plan
to sewer the entire site, our client thought that it would be a good idea to see if he could
come in, re-vamp it, update it, clean it up, and create a destination for people who do RV
park camping. There are 300 RV park and tent sites available right now at that site. It’s
a completely seasonal operation as it exists right now. Right now there is absolutely no
buffer between the campsites and 87. The campsites go right up to the back of 87, and I
don’t know if you folks have gone in and looked at it. You may have done that. It has an
office/store, a small pool, and a bathhouse. We’re proposing the addition of 46 new
sites, although I met with one of our neighbors here tonight, and I think, based on that,
we may reduce this by seven or eight sites in order to accommodate some of his issues.
He’s an adjoining property owner. We would intend to eliminate the tent sites. We
would create an additional buffer between the campsites along 87. It would involve a
check-in office and store, two bathhouse laundry facilities, all of which would be on the
municipal sewer, a maintenance building, a recycling building, a dump station, a
recreation building with indoor and outdoor pools, a volley ball/basketball court, things of
that nature, and a guardhouse with a portcichere to be located at the entrance. So that’s
basically the plan for the re-development of this site. It is a non-conforming use, to the
extent that the zone has changed. We think it is an expansion, to some extent, of a
nonconforming use, but it is, in our opinion, a continuation of a nonconforming use,
although we’ve agreed, as part of the process, to be willing to go seek a variance from
the Zoning Board, which was your initial determination by the Zoning and Planning Staff.
So we’re comfortable with that. As the Zoning Staff indicated, the applications we filled
out, this has been pending since last November of ’07, I think, late ’07. So we had our
applications in, and some of the Staff comments relating to the new applications are the
applications of August of this month. So we think we’ve answered these questions that
were raised as a result of the new applications. We’ve provided, we think, all of the
plans that are required, and would ask that you refer this, please, to the Zoning Board, so
that we could get in front of the Zoning Board to see whether or not the Board would be
willing to give us the variance. We don’t require any other, we require no setback
variance. We require a waiver from the I-87 corridor, as proposed, but we have met all
the side setback variances. So the only variance we’d be looking for would be the
variance of a campground in a high intensive commercial use. So I think that’s basically
it, Mr. Chairman.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So a question of Staff. So we have the possibility of
acknowledging lead agency status.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. We do lead agency status. We could give them any input, but
they’re not.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, then they have to go to the Zoning Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, before they can come back for Site Plan Review.
MR. LEMERY-Before we come back.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we get public comment tonight, then?
MR. OBORNE-What does the agenda say?
MR. SEGULJIC-It says public comment tonight.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I guess we should wait until after that to take, accept lead
agency status. Okay. Does the Board have any comments at this point, before I open
up the public comment? I guess just one quick question. The discussion about the 50 or
26 sites that could be year round.
MR. LEMERY-It’s not year round.
JOE DURRAND
MR. DURRAND-Right. The campsites, they’re proposing to provide 41 or 42 sites that’ll
have water and sewer year round. It’s not a permanent structure. It’s for transient traffic,
just like it would be during the summer.
MR. SEGULJIC-So if someone wanted to do winter camping they could?
MR. DURRAND-Yes, and actually it’s just for the transients north, south. They advertise
it on their website that those sites would be available, so they would have some
wintertime use.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. DURRAND-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I guess with that, we’ll open it up for public comment.
MR. KREBS-Excuse me. One question on that. Is there any limit on the timeframe that
they can stay there in the wintertime? Is it a week or two weeks?
MR. DURRAND-According to Keith’s comments it’s 120 days.
MR. OBORNE-It’s 120 days, and then they have to go.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Typically, I’m pretty sure the Town would not allow that to happen,
because it’s not a structure that you can get a CO for, not that you would need a CO, but,
I mean, for the health, safety and welfare of individuals in our Town, I would not that that
would be allowed, to be honest with you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-I have one question, too. What was it zoned prior to the Highway
Commercial Intensive?
MR. LEMERY-I don’t honestly recall that. I know it’s been a campground for 20 years.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. BRUNO-Keith, do you know when the zoning changed on that particular site?
MR. OBORNE-No. Well, I know that there’ve been updates to the Zoning Code, through
the years, and currently we’re going through one right now. I would, Route 9’s been a
Highway Commercial or another designation throughout the years.
MR. LEMERY-The original Ordinance was passed, I think, in ’67, and I think this pre-
existed the original Zoning Ordinance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-With that, why don’t we open up the public comment, then. Assuming
there’s someone that wishes to comment. Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador, and I’d like to address the
issue of wastewater, and it is good that they do plan to tie into the Route 9 sewer system.
However, we have no idea, we haven’t seen any place, the quantity of wastewater that
might be generated from this facility when it’s built out. You should know that the Town
has been criticized for exceeding its capacity, delivering to the Glens Falls Sewage
Treatment plant, and they have recently purchased additional capacity. At the same
time, the Town is granting waivers to facilities that don’t chose to tie in. So we have a
map plan and report for that Route 9 corridor that has been put together by building up,
for each tax parcel, a certain build out quantity of wastewater that’s going to be
delivered, and the sewer lines and the pump stations and everything has been laid out in
accordance with that estimate. The question arises today is when this facility is built out,
will they meet or exceed what is in the map plan and report? And if they exceed it, who’s
going to do what when? Who’s going to pay for any facilities upgrade that might be
required? And I might add, it’s not only this facility. It’s all of the facilities on Route 9.
We don’t have a current build out plan. Everyone, I think you’ve probably heard the
school system wants to punch under the Northway and tie into the Route 9, and that’s a
lot of wastewater there. It’s not been provided for in the map plan and report. So I think
before you can do any kind of SEQRA review, you’ve got to have a handle on the
amount of wastewater that could be generated by this facility when it’s built out. Thank
you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a good point, John, thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else?
JEFF MEYER
MR. MEYER-Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Meyer. I’m an attorney with Fitzgerald,
Morris, Baker, Firth. We represent Turnpike Enterprises, which are the owners and
operators of the drive-in, which is southeast of this lot. I just want to set out our
concerns with the project, and I do have a letter that more or less memorializes what our
concerns are, and I guess the, I know the Board is looking to determine Lead Agency
Status, and we just have some comments that go toward the actual SEQRA review and
some comments that essentially dovetail into becoming the Lead Agency, because in
doing so you have to look at, in order to, you know, avoid segmentation, you obviously
need to look at all the zoning implications. So, you know, I am just going to touch on a
couple of the zoning issues, mainly being, you know, the Use Variance, and if you guys
want to cut me off, you’re more than, it’s your obligation, it’s up to you guys, but I’ll just
hedge the letter and you can take it as you may, the first being the pre-existing,
nonconforming use. It’s a threshold issue for analyzing any Use Variance is whether or
not they can, the applicant stands to incur substantial losses if they’re forced to use it as
it’s presently zoned. Right now, I mean, they own 37 acres within this zone, and they’d
be forced to demonstrate, through competent financial proof, that each one of these uses
are not economically feasible. So, I mean, that, first off, we think that we haven’t seen
anything in support of this request, and that, alone, is kind of a threshold issue for getting
to the rest of it, and one that we felt was important to raise. The other is that this is a
dramatic expansion of what’s presently there. It requires grading the lot and improving
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
all these hookups. By my count there are only 54 of the campsites that presently have
the trio of, you know, necessary for the RV park, the water, the cable, the electricity, the
sanitary, you know, those things, and to increase that number to the 340 number is
obviously quite the increase. My client’s primary concern is buffer and screening of the
project site. We’re located to the southwest of the project, and it appears from the
drawings submitted that there is no buffer there. There’s some stormwater controls
located there, which will further prevent the growing of a buffer, actually, you know, you
can’t have trees in a wetland swale, and things of that nature, and they, you know, have
the pads all the way out to the boundary line, and, you know, we request that the Town
not make any exceptions to the buffering and screening requirements. Another
comment we have is, you know, we disagree with the Planning Department’s review of
setback requirements, essentially as it relates to RV parks and this type of use. Maybe it
is a use that’s better, or a project that’s better handled through the Town Board, you
know, adjust the Zoning Ordinance, make a permitted use, let the Town tell the
applicant, you know, these are what we’re looking for for buffers, setbacks, things of that
nature. Because it’s a moveable vehicle, it’s my understanding that that was one of the
reasons why there are no setback requirements. From our reading, though, it should be,
the setback, there should be a setback, and it should be measured to the slip, because
while no single RV will be parked there for more than 120 days, the way it’s designed is
to always have a vehicle there. So, there’s always essentially going to be a single family
dwelling on wheels located in close proximity, or wherever the pad’s located, and we
argue that there should be, the location of the pad should be the definition for the
setback, and alternatively, our reading of the definition of Structure, the pedestal style
hookup, falls into that definition, and is another option when reviewing this setback. The
environmental components, the ones that are of greatest concern to my clients and the
ones that we resolve to have a potentially large impact are the physical alteration of the
land. They’re essentially leveling it, including portions that have 15% or more slope.
The surface water runoff. We have no reason to doubt that their retention basins and
everything won’t work, but it is a concern. There’s a lot of pavement. There’s a lot of
automotive fluids that are likely to, or that it’s possible, I don’t want to say likely, that it’s
possible to go into the, onto the pavement. The impact on the visual resource, and it’s
not just, you know, people looking out, but it’s people looking in. You have this, the goals
of the Town, and, you know, what does the Route 9 Corridor look like? Does it look like
how you want it to look like? How do you want it to look like? And that should be from
those people looking in, but it’s also, you know, the people that are there looking out.
The buffer and all those things work both ways. The impact on the transportation
system. I know they’ve started to submit some of the drawings and the requisite
materials to show the turn radius and everything else. Route 9’s pretty congested. I
don’t need to tell anybody that, and to have the larger RV’s going in and out is a concern,
and whether or not it’s detrimental to the community. The way the law stands and reads,
it’s a Use Variance, and to fully build out the project site, you know, is going to be
detrimental. This community plan as it’s written says we don’t want RV parks here.
Okay. So, I’ll end there. Thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. So, with that, we’ll leave
the public hearing open, and I guess at this point we should discuss the acceptance of
the Lead Agency Status. Okay. What’s the will of the Board with regards to that?
MRS. STEFFAN-We can just go forward with that part.
MR. SEGULJIC-Go forward with the motion? Okay.
MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE
PLAN NO. 13-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 10-2008 FOR LAKE GEORGE
CAMPSITES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
WHEREAS, in connection with the Lake George Campsites project, the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community
Development office to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board
to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have
been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead
agent, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review according to the
resolution prepared by Staff.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SITE
PLAN NO. 13-2008 AND USE VARIANCE NO. 10-2008 FOR LAKE GEORGE
CAMPSITES, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Donald Sipp:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I guess clarification. So the plans we have here, there have
been some revisions to, or there will be, the plans we have here, there’ve been some
revisions to, I assume?
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s been a lot of revisions.
MR. SEGULJIC-A lot of revisions. So there’s been a lot of revisions. Okay.
MR. LEMERY-Yes. I pulled it the last meeting. You were kind enough to table it for us,
and we came back and we re-did this. If I could make just a couple of comments
regarding that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Sure, go ahead.
MR. LEMERY-There’s no stormwater management plan on this site right now. There’s
no stormwater management. It’s subject to septic tanks in there. So there’s no
managed septic in there. So our client can continue to operate it just the way it’s being
operated, as a nonconforming use as a campsite. It’s not a massive change because
there were I think 46 or 47 additional sites. We’re not looking to cause our neighbors any
problem. What we’re looking to do is clean it up and conform. As far as the Glens Falls
Wastewater Treatment Plant is concerned, unfortunately that’s an issue we can’t
address. That’s an issue between the Town and we’re meeting our obligations as we
see it, which was we were asked to hook up to the system. It’s not a cheap endeavor,
and we’re doing that. Whether or not the Plant will accept it is something that the
Wastewater Department and the Town has to deal with, but.
MR. DURRAND-We were informed that they had the capacity for the water and the
sewer, and the gentleman raised some good points. We’ll follow up and give him more
teeth to that, but we were informed that the capacity was there.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would certainly be interesting, if nothing else, for the Planning Board
to know what was forecasted, and, you know, what the actual usage would be.
Obviously the Glens Falls Water Treatment Plant is going to accept it, but it would be
interesting to see the comparison between the two.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what do we do from here?
MRS. STEFFAN-I just want to know if Mr. Lemery is finished?
MR. LEMERY-I am, thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. You have acknowledged Lead Agency Status.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Now you have to deem if there’s enough information for you to
make a SEQRA determination.
MRS. STEFFAN-No.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, at that point, my suggestion, and this is only a suggestion
and recommendation, is to discuss the points of the plan that you’d like to see more
clarification on, discuss what you feel shouldn’t be on the plan.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my first comment would be, we don’t have the set of plans at this
point.
MR. LEMERY-We filed a complete set of plans, everything you need to make a SEQRA
determination.
MR. SEGULJIC-The plans we have are dated November of last year.
MR. DURRAND-We submitted them a month ago.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, when we filed our amended application, we submitted the
plans. They were submitted well over a month ago to the Planning Staff.
MR. SEGULJIC-November ’07.
MR. DURRAND-That was the original set.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, they’re so big.
MRS. BRUNO-They’re right there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because I have another set of plans that I left back in the office that we
got in May when you tabled the original application.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, 7/15. I apologize. So these are.
MR. LEMERY-That’s complete, a complete set of plans.
MR. SEGULJIC-So from the November plans there were a lot of changes.
MR. DURRAND-Yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-Not from these. Okay.
MR. DURRAND-Correct. Those are, that’s the set.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Gotcha. Okay. I apologize for that, then.
MRS. STEFFAN-The lighting details are significantly different, although I have to admit,
in reviewing the plans, that the Staff was right on with some of their comments, that you
really do have to look at the downcast, I mean, part of the Code requirement is downcast
lighting, and apparently you have some vertical, certainly you have some lighting that is
not downcast, and so you’re going to have to take a look at that. I’m on the fence on the
buffering. I think, you know, in first blush, we’ve obviously had a couple of times to look
at that, as it was tabled, but the buffering is a real issue for me. I mean, you are
absolutely maximizing the development of this site, and my concern is how it fits with a
lot of different things, with, you know, the aesthetic qualities of that corridor of I-87,
certainly the area. I know it’s Highway Commercial Intensive. It is right next to an
amusement park. It is right next to other kinds of commercial enterprises, but I’m very
concerned that you’re maximizing the development capacity of the site, and I know from
a developer’s point of view, that’s absolutely what you want to do. You want to get as
many sites in there as possible, but the amount of green space, you know, the amount of
trees and those kinds of things that will be eliminated by providing you with a 30 foot
buffer versus the required 100 foot buffer, is significant. That’s from my point of view. I
don’t know how the rest of the Board feels.
MR. KREBS-Have you had any discussions with your neighbor about buffering?
MR. LEMERY-No.
MR. DURRAND-No, sir, we have not. Now we have plans laid out for the buffering we
need against adjacent properties. We’re okay with that. It’s really just the Northway.
MR. KREBS-It’s just the Northway.
MR. DURRAND-Just the Northway.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. LEMERY-Well, we meet the setback. I’m confused. We meet the setbacks on the
north and south lot. So, if you’re talking about the I-87 corridor, we’re right up against the
fence now.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the clearing plan will be significantly different. The proposed
clearing plan that you’ve got will affect the aesthetic appearance of that buffer area.
MRS. BRUNO-It will open it up.
MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe I’m not expressing myself.
MR. LEMERY-Well, there isn’t any buffer right now.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, but there are a lot of very tall trees there, and even though there
are campers that camp right along side the Northway, you rarely will see a camper. With
the new proposed development, you’re going to be able to see right into that property.
There’s the crowning, you’ve got a landscaping plan where you’re crowning a lot of trees,
and so it’s physically going to change the appearance.
MR. DURRAND-But are you talking about the buffering along the adjacent properties or
along the Northway?
MRS. STEFFAN-Along the Northway.
MR. DURRAND-Because there’s nothing there now. So we’re giving the 30 feet, and
we’re going to landscape that area and provide a 30 foot buffer where right now there is
none. So we’re going to, there’s going to be nothing in that 30 foot area, where right now
there’s campers there.
MR. TRAVER-But the context is entirely different.
MR. LEMERY-I think we’ve provided a landscape plan, I think that’s in there, with what
shows the landscaping along the buffer.
MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to throw something in there that kind of adds on to what you were
saying, Gretchen. It just agrees only on one point. I think Gretchen had some great
points, but the one thing is, she said that in terms of commercial developers, they do
have every right to maximize their property, but I would hope that the owner would look
at it from a different direction. A lot of the people that are coming up to camp are coming
up, I would hope, to the Adirondacks, because of what the draw is here. We all know
what that is, and I’m wondering if the developer has actually considered what it will do to
their balance sheet? Will there really be as many or more people coming up to stay at
that campsite, or is it going to actually change the campsite enough that there might be a
decrease in use?
MR. DURRAND-Right now, roughly it would eliminate over 100 sites, 100 sites along the
Northway.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m not just speaking in terms of just along the Northway. That was what
the spring point of the discussion was. I do agree with Gretchen that even if you give
that, the whole site is going to change considerably, you know.
MR. LEMERY-Well, I think that’s a good comment. I’m not the developer. So I can’t
speak to where the industry’s going, except I do know, based upon the other projects,
that the old style camping where people come in and pitched a tent is going away.
People are coming in. Families are buying the RV’s. They’re renting the RV’s, and
they’re coming and they’re staying, with those kinds of facilities, and they expect that
there will be water at the site and cable at the site, and, you know, sewage facilities and
those kinds of things. So we think that it will be attractive to campers, much like the one
up at 149. Although we think this will be, I mean, this is going to be owned, it is owned
by a company that this is their principal business, developing and operating these things,
and the owner lives here. So, but we can certainly take a look at that, and if you would
look at the landscape plan, and if you think that’s inadequate, and you know something
else, sure, I mean, we’ll look at all that, as we always do, in these matters to try and
satisfy everybody’s concern, both our neighbors to the south, our neighbors to the north,
and the Board. I think what I’m trying to understand, though, I think we need to get to the
Zoning Board to see if we can get a variance, and we have tabled this thing and been
here quite a few times.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and some of the things I’m talking about obviously we’ll talk
about in Site Plan.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, sure, in Site Plan Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-But I was just trying to tip my hand and let you know what some of my
concerns were. Certainly we talked about Type C Buffers. That’s an ideal buffer. It’s
got, it’s three dimensional, it’s 3-D, and so it provides a great deal of cover, and as some
of the recent developments in the area, when we’ve got a buffer that’s well designed,
Type C, it’s a thicker buffer, but with some of the other development projects over the
last few years, I mean, even The Great Escape parking lot, you know, over the last few
years the trees have grown up, it’s very nice. I mean, you’re not seeing all the cars.
Obviously there’s a large concentration of cars there, but it looks better every year. So
we’ll talk about some of those things during Site Plan.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. TRAVER-One of the concerns I had relates to the archeological survey. As you
know they did a test shovel survey throughout the site, and they specifically identified
two site, the Miller Hill prehistoric campsite to the northwest, and the Miller Hill Farm
historic site. It’s noted in the report that the pre-historic campsite is outside the site.
However, with the amount of development, and it’s shown on the, I believe on the map
that you have on display there, with the amount of development and the numbers of
campers that are going to be immediately adjacent to that site, I think one of the things
that we will need to consider is the potential for disturbance of that site. The other site,
the Miller Hill Farm site, the report indicates will be destroyed altogether, a quote from
cutting and grading for road, RV park and facilities, and installation of underground
utilities. Although, again, they did some sampling, it’s not clear what the value of that
Miller Hill Farm historic site ultimately is that will be destroyed, should this development
go forward.
MR. DURRAND-I think I can take a little bit, explain that a little bit. It’s my understanding
the archeological assessment of the Miller House is the actual Farmhouse that’s there
right now, and the debris piles that are associated with that. So, we had elected to do
avoidance on the primitive site, the prehistoric site, and then the other site, basically
regarding the Miller Farm where these culture deposits are not considered significant
and require no further investigation.
MR. TRAVER-Based upon the survey that was conducted.
MR. DURRAND-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-But again, we don’t know what may have been overlooked in that survey.
In other words, granted, they are, in doing this, I’m sorry, I forget the acronym that they
use, but the shovel survey was conducted, my understanding is the primary purpose for
that is to detect whether or not there are historic sites present. Okay. This has
successfully identified the two. The one we know or we may need to be concerned
about because of its immediate proximity to this expanded development, and I was
looking on the plans for some fencing or something that might separate, you know,
perhaps children or other curious people who inevitably are going to become aware of
this site, and might be tempted to go in there and start digging around looking for
arrowheads or whatever. That’s one issue. The other issue with the Miller Hill Farm
historic site, I understand your point, and I did look at the data in the report that
discusses the potshirts and the various other items that were found, some modern, and
that those items that were found were not considered valuable, okay, but I guess one of
the things that I keep thinking about is what wasn’t found, and the fact that this site is
going to be 100% destroyed.
MR. LEMERY-Well, the Miller House has been bastardized over the years. It’s not
anywhere near maybe what it was when the Millers were here. By the way, I worked for
the last surviving Miller. So I, you know, maybe it’s time I moved on, but that site is, and
there’s nothing there of any value. That old farmhouse is just, it’s been added to and
taken down over the years. So anything that might have been there that was remotely
related to a historic site is long gone. We have to be able to rely on our experts. These
are an independent company that come in at a considerable expense to do the testing,
and I think we have a right to rely on their findings. If you think those findings are
inadequate or not accurate, that’s a different issue, but we can’t comment on what might
not have been found or what might not have been looked at. They were there for a
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
considerable period of time. In fact, we had a Phase I and Phase II done of the site.
Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Right. I appreciate that, and my comments are not directed as much to
the structure that has been a dwelling for many, many years, I guess since the 1800’s, I
understand that. What I’m concerned with are the artifacts that were found in the
ground, surrounding that area, and I’m not questioning the accuracy of the report. In
fact, I’m taking it at face value and reading from the report that just says that this site will
be destroyed, and my only comment is, I’m not saying that I have more information than
they do regarding this site. I’m just saying that when it comes to SEQRA review, that I
have some concerns about the fact that this site is being destroyed, and a complete
archeological dig, if you will, recovering all artifacts that are in this area that is going to
be destroyed forever has not been conducted, and I don’t know if we have enough
information to know what the historic impact of that is. That’s all.
MR. KREBS-Steve, it says right at the end, if you go to Page 54 of the report,
conclusions and recommendations, the last sentence of the conclusions and
recommendations says, and I quote, these cultural deposits are not considered
significant and require no further investigation. That’s the conclusion of the PhD that did
this study.
MR. DURRAND-And again they started with a broad scope shovel test pits, identified
sites, and then zoomed in with tighter grid patterns.
MR. LEMERY-We actually sent them back two or three times to go tighter and tighter to
look at this.
MR. TRAVER-I understand. I’m just expressing my concern with that that archeological
aspect of the site.
MR. DURRAND-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Question for Staff. What is the end game tonight, a motion or no
motion?
MR. OBORNE-The end game?
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, are we going to motion, requesting additional information?
MRS. STEFFAN-Do we have to table this so that?
MR. OBORNE-If you feel that you do not have enough information to make a SEQRA
determination, you should table it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And direct the applicant as to what you would desire.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-When are they on the agenda, the Zoning Board agenda, is it
September?
MR. LEMERY-We’re not. We can’t get on the agenda until you move it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. They can’t get on until.
MRS. STEFFAN-What would a likely date be for them to get on the Zoning Board
agenda?
MR. OBORNE-I can’t answer that, ma’am.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-We don’t know what else you might want to see.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess one other thing, I don’t know if it’s a concern or not, but as
was brought up, is all these RV’s now, potentially 300 of them coming up for Memorial
Day weekend. What is that going to do to Route 9?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. DURRAND-We have our traffic impact assessment.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and that only called for like four or five increased trips, I think.
MRS. STEFFAN-Eleven.
MR. SEGULJIC-Eleven.
MR. DURRAND-Yes, no it’s 11 increase during peak hour, during peak hour.
MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, it was non peak hour, because there was.
MR. SIPP-Yes, now my question about the traffic report is what are the hours? You say
peak hour, morning and afternoon. What are the hours?
MR. DURRAND-It’s typically a seven to eight, and it’s also a five to six in the evening,
but, in that report, it’ll explain in there, GTS’s study, is just by the nature of that industry,
it’s random. They don’t have peak hours for, you know, going to work and so. It’s
random.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s the thing. This is spread out over possibly half of the day, and
Route 9 is in bad shape right now. At four to four-thirty to five o’clock going north on
Route 9 is like 10 feet at a time.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the traffic study indicated that the increased traffic trips would
probably be in non peak hours. Actually in the evening or very early in the morning.
MR. TRAVER-And the numbers were not significant.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I think it was plus 11 was the number, but it was non peak trips.
MR. KREBS-I’m reading it right here. The evening peak hours, the additional was 11
and the entering and six in exiting, and the morning peak hours, it was an additional four
trips entering and five trips exiting.
MR. SEGULJIC-But what kind of vehicles are those?
MR. DURRAND-Again, this project is modeled for the RV, for the Class A Big Rig, but
the sites are being set up to accommodate the bigger rigs, with tow behinds, but again,
you’re still going to have the same client base that they have now. There’ll be more
RV’s, but there’ll also be the ones with just the tow behind campers. There’s going to be
a mix, but we modeled this for the RV’s, for the big RV’s.
MR. SEGULJIC-So how many RV spots are there now?
MR. DURRAND-I think there’s probably, I don’t know the exact count.
MR. LEMERY-I can answer that exactly.
MR. DURRAND-I do have a Site Plan for it, too.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the traffic study is approximately 300 campsites in an older style
layout. The implication by that is a tent, one vehicle driving in.
MR. DURRAND-Primitive, plus trailer.
MR. SEGULJIC-Now we’re going to 346 campers, big, large vehicles, probably towing a
vehicle.
MR. LEMERY-Well, it’s designed, so that if you pull into the site, the site’s big enough to
accommodate a larger.
MR. SEGULJIC-I understand that, but my concern is on Route 9, come the Friday before
Memorial Day, when all of a sudden this site used to just, as I read it, used to be 300
campsites with someone coming in a car and pulling out a tent. Now we have, for
argument’s sake, a bus towing a car.
MR. DURRAND-Yes, sir.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the impact going to be on Route 9?
MR. DURRAND-That’s what the traffic assessment report addresses.
MR. SEGULJIC-But it says plus 11 trips. What are the 11 trips?
MR. DURRAND-Well, again, there’s more sections in there that talk about basically the
control points for turning, entering and exiting, what it does to the entrance. That’s been
addressed in there.
MR. SEGULJIC-But what are the eleven trips, cars or RV’s?
MR. DURRAND-Vehicles.
MR. KREBS-Maybe I’ll ask a question. How many of these people stay for over seven
days, that pull in with their RV’s? Do you have any idea?
MR. DURRAND-I can’t answer that, but it’s usually more than an overnight situation.
MR. LEMERY-It’s usually two days, three days maximum that people stay in these
things.
MRS. BRUNO-I have a quick question for you. We had discussed 120 days more or less
a year. In your traffic report it mentions approximately 50 campsites will remain in
service year round. Could you clarify that, year round and not 120 days?
MR. DURRAND-Yes. In the, on that Site Plan you’ll see an area just to the south of the
recreation center that has the proposed sites that’ll be winterized, so that they could be
used, and again, with the understanding that if, they’re going to be vacant sites that are
going to be periodically occupied during the winter season, and our understanding is the
120 day limit for a permanent structure. Did that answer your question?
MRS. BRUNO-I think so. Sounds like something I need to read more.
MR. LEMERY-There are over 300 sites now, and we’re adding 47 sites with this
proposal. We get, you know, all of us who’ve been around a long time and deal with
Route 9, we can’t do anything about Route 9. Route 9 is Route 9. It’s a public highway.
It’s sized. We’ve dealt with trying to put traffic lights on Route 9 at The Great Escape
and were told by DOT there’s no need for that. We’re not going to give you the ability to
do that. We don’t think Route 9 is an issue, and all applicants can do before this Board
is retain competent independent traffic consultants such as Creighton Manning and
others to come in here and give an assessment, and that’s what we have to rely on. We
don’t have any other ability to rely on the science, other than what provide. Based on the
science, we don’t think we have a problem. Now we have provided the Planning Board
with a traffic report with the archeological studies, with a stormwater management plan,
with a lighting plan, with a landscape plan, with elevation sketches, with the Site Plan.
All of the items that you require to do a Site Plan analysis we’ve provided. When we
looked at the original Staff comments, after we originally applied at the end of December,
we took those comments and we realized, well, we’re short. We don’t have enough
information here. They require information. That’s when I asked you to table the
application. We went back, we re-did everything, and we answered everything single
question that was posed by your Staff, hopefully to their satisfaction, and your engineers,
th
and that’s the result. That’s the plan that was then submitted on July 15. So we think
we’ve got everything you need to make a SEQRA determination here, so we can get to
the Zoning Board.
MR. DURRAND-To summarize that traffic issue is the design vehicles, when the system
is modeled, and Route 9 corridor is modeled, the geometry of Route 9 with the center
lane for storage, that’s ideal setup. I mean, yes, there’s going to be bigger vehicles.
There may be less smaller vehicles, but the road alignment is set up to accommodate
that. Capacity is not an issue. Is it going to slow things down, perhaps, but the summary
of all that assessment is that the impact on additional traffic, vehicle trips is going to be
minimal.
MR. SEGULJIC-But my concern is that you’re comparing apples and oranges, it sounds
like.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. DURRAND-You’re going to have a vehicle in the storage lane, whether it’s a 40 foot
Class A rig or, you know, a 10 foot Chevette. You’re going to have the vehicle there.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s where we’re having a difference of opinion. A 40 foot
vehicle is four Chevettes.
MR. DURRAND-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Plus probably towing a car.
MR. DURRAND-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s five Chevettes.
MR. DURRAND-But it’s the turning patterns, the turning movements, the capacity of the
road. You have the storage lane out there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what I’m asking you to do is give me further information on it. I
mean, you made the statement yourself, if I understand this correctly, that in a day’s
time, any given day you’re going to have 175 vehicles, 40 to 50 feet in length, towing a
car potentially. You said it turns over every two days.
MR. LEMERY-Let’s not get into numbers that have no basis in reality, Mr. Chairman. We
might have, at the maximum, four to five a day of these large campers with cars on them
that might come in there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m just pointing that out because you had said it turns over every
two days. Four to five a day?
MR. LEMERY-Four to five at maximum. Maximum. Now Route 9 is built for that. That
center lane, if a car’s coming from the north and going into the site, it pulls into that
center lane and makes the turn. It’s like a 10 second kind of thing. So, I mean, let’s not,
you know, ask the applicant here to start redesigning Route 9 turning lanes. I went up
and I looked, I looked at 149, and the RV park at 149. Their entrance is smaller than
ours. That 149, they’re coming up a hill on 149 to get into that, and there’s no turning
lane there, and there isn’t any ability of those large, other than to go into the other lane
and come in, so we have the ability to do that now.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe if you showed us a comparison to that, that would be
helpful. I mean, my concern is that you just stated four to five vehicles a day.
MR. LEMERY-Well, I don’t know how many a day, but I know it is not 170 a day.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you said a typical person would stay two days. There’s 346 spots.
MR. LEMERY-We don’t plan to change, just so you know, we do not plan to change, try
to come in here and look at somehow redesigning Route 9 or entrances to Route 9. We
think that we’ve met, and our traffic consultants don’t think we have an issue either. So,
you know, unless we’re going to look at all the campgrounds all over the Town of
Queensbury, and say, hey, you know what, your entrances aren’t big enough anymore, I
don’t think it’s necessarily fair to this applicant to deal with that. It’s already the way it is.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I also believe that some of these are Site Plan issues, and we
need to get into these when we’re actually doing (lost word).
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, correct, but the question was, are we requesting any additional
information in regards to SEQRA. What I’m saying is the traffic study, I believe, deals
with the existing conditions at the Park, which is, if I’m correct, there’s only 46 RV spots
and 300 tent sites. It’s a big difference to me that now we’re going to have 346 RV spots.
I’m not saying it’s going to impact traffic. I’m saying you have to make me comfortable
with that. It has the potential to impact it.
MR. DURRAND-We’ll address that for you.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all I’m asking for.
MR. DURRAND-Okay.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SIPP-I would like to find out in a traffic study, because right across from you is high
volume in and out, Suttons, and if you take that third lane and use it as a turning lane,
which it is supposed to be done, you’ve got people turning. If they’re coming north
they’re turning to the east, and if they’re coming to the north their turning to the west, and
that turning lane can only hold so many people along with the miniature golf, the go
karts, that is already there. So I would like to see a more comprehensive study.
Granted, I know very well what DOT and Route 9, and I’ve dealt with them for years on
Glen Lake Road, along with Mr. Lemery and The Great Escape, and they would not put a
light in there, even though we had people killed on that corner, because they didn’t
believe that it was necessary. As soon as The Great Escape came along with a few
cars, then we got a light. Now, maybe there’s need for a summertime traffic light there. I
don’t know, probably not, but that is a high volume area that I think we’ve got to look at in
the case of turning both east and west for people coming north and south. I’m also
concerned about your buffer area to the south, and I would like to see that remain at 100
feet. Now, what’s along the Northway I think can be easily covered with leaving what
you say are the 18 inch trees. Am I correct on that? You’re leaving anything of an 18
inch caliper?
MR. DURRAND-Plus there’s some landscaping in there. Yes, we’re going to address
that 30 foot buffer. We’re proposing to do that, but there isn’t a 100 foot buffer on the
south side.
MR. SIPP-Now, that is a church on the south side, Unitarian Church, that’s the property
that it butts up against, and I think that it’s necessary for aesthetics that across the
bottom of that property there to have your 100 foot buffer. Now what you do between
there and the drive-in, I think you’ve probably got enough. The drive-in is what I’m
worried about. I don’t think the Skateland is going to be too, but I am concerned about
the southern buffer.
MR. LEMERY-Well, let me make a couple of points. First of all, as to additional traffic
information, I don’t know, Mr. Sipp, how we can supply anything. We’ve gone to our
consultants. Our consultants have, I mean, I can ask Bob Mosher. How many, based on
your experience, how many of these large rigs come in here a day. I can ask that. We
can get that answered, but as far as how that might impact everybody up and down, from
Sutton’s to the drive-in theater over here, to everybody else, ingress and egress on the
east and west, so far to my knowledge that hasn’t been a problem for anybody. This
property, this area is zoned Intensive Highway Commercial. So we could knock all the
trees down and put a major hotel sitting in there, or do something else, and we’d be
zoning compliant. Now, the problem my client’s got is that he’s willing to sewer the entire
site, and in order to do that, he’s got to have an economic return, so he’s got to have
enough sites that he can keep rented in order to spend, it’s over $2 million to run sewer
lines into that site and hook up all those sites, water. So if we start saying, okay, we
want 100 feet here and 100 feet there and 100 feet there.
MR. SIPP-I didn’t say that, John. Now I just said the south end.
MR. LEMERY-Well, but my only point, Don, is that if we continue to shrink the site, it no
longer becomes viable for him to do anything with it except operate it as an RV park,
land bank it, just land bank it, operate an RV park, land bank it and when something
comes along, if somebody comes along and wants to develop it with something that fits
the zone, he can do that. That’s the issue.
MR. SIPP-No, I’m not saying that, John. What I’m saying is, do you have any, let’s go
back. Do you have any figures on how many sites are taken each weekend? What is
your present, what is the present?
MR. LEMERY-I’ll get all that. That’s a fair statement, and I’ll try to find out, based on
their typical campsite.
MR. SIPP-You have 250 sites on the weekend, then obviously your traffic is going to be
much less. If you have 400 taken on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July.
MR. LEMERY-Right. I’ll get that. That’s a fair comment.
MR. KREBS-And I think we need to qualify that, too, John, by saying, between Memorial
Day and Labor Day, because you could spread that out over a year and you’re going to
have very low numbers in the wintertime. So, you know, we’d like to know what the
traffic, what the usage.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. LEMERY-I would hope we don’t have to hold up going to the Zoning Board, though,
over these kinds of questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, not at all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not at all. You’re on your way.
MR. SIPP-I think this is information that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Information that we’re looking at to help us get through SEQRA.
MR. SIPP-I don’t care about the Northway. If people want to look at cars going by at 80
miles an hour, that’s, to me, that’s not a campsite.
MR. LEMERY-I’m with you there.
MR. SIPP-I mean, you might as well be at the Indianapolis 500.
MRS. BRUNO-On the flipside, I recall back when the Comprehensive Plan was first in
front of the public, one of the things that they did, the public did speak about was keeping
it green going up the highway, and that’s been a returning, or a recurring comment.
MR. LEMERY-Well, we’ll do our best to satisfy. We know what you like to see going up
the highway. So we’ll do our best to accommodate you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Does the Board have any other issues that they would like to see
additional information on to help us get over SEQRA? That’s the question we’re trying to
answer here.
MRS. STEFFAN-So Keith, let me just, to just be sure that we’re on the right path, we
have accepted Lead Agency Status. Now the applicant can go to the Zoning Board for
their Use Variance.
MR. OBORNE-You have accepted Lead Agency Status. The applicant can go in front of
the Zoning Board, but the applicant would have to wait until that variance is granted
before you can come back and do Site Plan Review.
MR. LEMERY-We understand that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct, but I’m just, the only thing I’m trying to anticipate, I wanted to
find out if that’s valid. The only thing I’m trying to anticipate that recently we’ve had the
Zoning Board have the applicant come back for some Site Plan issues so that they could
gather more information in order to make a Use Variance determination.
MR. OBORNE-A recommendation. Well, that very well may be what happens.
MRS. STEFFAN-That could happen.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m just putting that on the table so that we’re all. All right. I
would make a motion to table this application and provide the applicant with some input,
give them a firm date when they can come back, which seems reasonable, and I think
that that’s the best we can do.
MR. SEGULJIC-Should we include that we’re requesting additional information with
regards to traffic?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I’ve got that in the motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. KREBS-I don’t know if we’re asking for additional information on traffic. We’re
asking what the occupancy rate is per day at the Park, and of that occupancy rate, how
many are 45 foot RV’s. Because that’s what we’re really trying to determine.
MR. SEGULJIC-No. What I’m asking for.
MR. LEMERY-That’s a Site Plan issue. Why do you need to hold us up?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re not going to. We’re trying to short circuit the process so when
you come back you have this information for us.
MR. LEMERY-Unless I’m missing something, Gretchen said table this, which means we
have to come back here. Am I correct?
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-But you’re going to have to come back here anyway, but you’re going to
be going to the ZBA before you come back to see us.
MR. LEMERY-But you’re sending us to the ZBA. Gotcha. Thanks.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re all set. Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2008 LAKE GEORGE CAMPSITES, LLC,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
th
Tabled to the November 18 meeting. That would require a submission deadline of
th
October 15.
1. So that the applicant can appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
Use Variance.
2. So that the applicant can satisfy VISION Engineering comments.
3. So the applicant can address Staff Notes.
4. So that the applicant can revise the lighting plan to be Code compliant.
5. So that the applicant can review the traffic assessment report to
ensure it provides for additional RV traffic, i.e. large RV’s. Please provide
comparable experience from other similar developments during peak
summer season, to further clarify that, occupancy and type of use,
6. So the applicant can provide the Planning Board with projected
wastewater use as compared to the map plan and report.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED
K TWIN HOLDINGS AGENT(S) RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) K
TWIN THREE, LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION WEST SIDE MEADOWBROOK
RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION SITE PLAN: APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,886 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS:
APPLICANT PROPOSES DISTURBANCE, FILLING AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
100 FEET OF A DEC DESIGNATED WETLAND. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FEET
OF ANY REGULATED WETLAND REQUIRES A FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEQR
REVIEW AND UPON COMPLETION FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 5-08 WARREN CO.
PLANNING 2/12/08 APA/CEA/DEC DEC; GF-19 LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES; 0.43
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9, 10 SECTION 179-4-020, 179-9-020, 94-5
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess Staff Notes, first, then.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. This is K-Twin Holdings, Site Plan No. 7-2008 and
Freshwater Wetlands No. 4-2008. The requested action: The applicant proposes to
construct a 2886 square foot office building with associated parking and site work. All
activities, with the exception of 408 square feet of road access, are to be performed
within 100 feet of a DEC wetland. The Zoning Board of Appeals has asked the Planning
Board for a recommendation concerning stormwater and retaining wall issues. Location
Northwest corner of Meadowbrook and Quaker Road Existing Zoning Highway
Commercial Intensive. Just a quick note that the Planning Board, on July 15, 2008,
recommended to the Zoning Board of Appeals the following, but since applicant has
submitted revised plans which address the concerns of the ZBA, any concerns that the
ZBA would have of the revised plans can be adequately addressed at Site Plan Review.
I would like to note that the reason that K-Twin Holdings is before you is for SEQRA
Status. The Planning Board has acknowledged Lead Agency Status on May 20, 2008,
and may continue SEQRA review tonight. This is a coordinated review with the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. The table is yours. If you could identify yourself and
tell us about your project.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record Richard Jones, the architect for the project,
representing K-Twin Holdings. Basically, we have, and I’ll address the Staff comments.
We’ve basically, at this points, responded to all Staff comments, and satisfied their needs
at this point as far as anything that they were looking for. In reference to the VISION
Engineering comments, these are similar to the comments that we had received in June,
with the addition of one comment, Number 22, in reference to the size of the orifice that’s
being provided on our Stormwater Management system. Basically, the comments from
VISION Engineering, the response that we have is identical to what we had previously.
The items we feel are minor in nature. Most of them are additional details that they want
us to provide as far as manhole details, inverts, those types of things. We have updated
the stormwater management plan and report, which basically addressed his concerns
relative to what he perceived as being an infiltration system. It is not an infiltration
system. In reference to the orifice size that he’s referring to, basically the one inch orifice
that we’re providing is recommended for an internal orifice system, which is what we
have. The three inch that he’s referring to is for an external system which we do not
have, and that’s why we have the one inch. We will provide details of the anti clogging
devices, or a trash rack that would be provided as part of that system. It’s our intent to
basically add and provide these details to the Town Planning Department for submission
th
prior to September 15. Right now we are back on the agenda, I believe, for September
thth
18, 19 for zoning, for the addressing of the variances that are required for the project.
With that, I’d be happy to answer anyone’s questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Questions from the Board?
MRS. STEFFAN-I guess one of my questions is how come you didn’t answer the VISION
Engineering comments? You told us that they’re addressed, but since the last time you
were here and submitted.
MR. JONES-Well, we had gone back, we thought we were going back to the Zoning
Board for an approval, but when we got back there, the Planning Board had not provided
th
the SEQRA review. They gave us additional time until I think the 25 of August or July to
re-submit information to get back to the Planning Board. We did not address these
comments at that point, in adding the additional details, and it is our intent to do that. We
knew we had to go back to the Zoning Board again, and they’re not issues for the Zoning
Board. They’re issues for the Planning Board, and that’s why we did not do them yet.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. There’s a question in the Staff Notes about the retaining wall.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-And you took that out.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But what about the stabilization element?
MR. JONES-The stabilization of the graded areas?
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Staff has a concern regarding the removal of the retaining wall from the
updated plans. What, if any, slope stabilization is planned, in the area to be cleared.
MR. JONES-That has been completed. The notes I have indicate it’s been completed.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got it highlighted as completed.
MR. JONES-Okay. I thought you had me there for a minute.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just checking this.
MR. JONES-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. So all we have to do is SEQRA at this point.
MR. JONES-I hope so.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s been a long road.
MR. JONES-Yes, it has.
MR. SEGULJIC-So is everybody comfortable going forward with SEQRA?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Anyone here to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. SEGULJIC-With that, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-All right. This is a Long Form.
MR. JONES-Do you want to do that, because we haven’t gone for a final Site Plan yet.
MR. OBORNE-That’s true. You should leave it open.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll leave it open. Sorry. Good point.
MR. JONES-I don’t want to come back again.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, folks. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the
project site?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate.
MRS. BRUNO-Small to moderate.
MRS. STEFFAN- Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as
protected?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. KREBS-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body
of water?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or
or quantity?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. BRUNO-Wait a minute. Proposed action will, this is where we’ve gone over
everything. However, I think we need to just clarify that it’s been mitigated. I think we
just have to be really careful in.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, there’s several elements of examples. So, will the proposed
action require a discharge permit? No. Will the proposed action require a use of a
source of water that does not have approval to serve the proposed action? Number
Three, does the proposed action require water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity? Construction or operation causing any
contamination of a water supply system. Proposed Action will adversely affect
groundwater.
MRS. BRUNO-Wait, back up, even the one about the groundwater, because we’ve heard
so much public comment that the applicant has stated that all of that potential has been
addressed. So that’s, I’m not saying hold them up. I’m just saying let’s just put it in the
documents that it’s small to moderate, but the applicant has proven that it will be
mitigated. That’s all.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Everybody okay with that?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or
surface water runoff?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. BRUNO-It’s the same issue, isn’t it?
MRS. STEFFAN-Would the action change floodwater flows? No. Would the action
cause substantial erosion? No. Is the action incompatible with existing drainage
patterns? No. Will the action allow development in a designated floodway? No. So it’s
a no.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-
historic or paleontological importance?
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or
future open spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. BRUNO-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique
characteristics of a critical environmental area?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy
supply?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts?
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. KREBS-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SP 7-2008 & FW 4-2008, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
K-TWIN HOLDINGS, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all we can do tonight, right? So now you’ve got to go back to the
ZBA.
MR. JONES-Yes, and then I come back to see you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But we still have to table it, don’t we, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-If he wants to come back for Site Plan Review.
MR. SEGULJIC-Then we have to table it.
MR. OBORNE-So, yes, ma’am.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS 4-2008
K TWIN HOLDINGS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
stth
Tabled until the October 21 meeting with a September 15 application deadline. So
that the applicant can appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. So that the applicant
can satisfy VISION Engineering comments and any outstanding Staff Notes.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You’re all set for now, then.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in two months.
SITE PLAN 32-2008 SEQR TYPE II DOUG LIVINGSTON AGENT(S) JOE ROULIER
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 303 CLEVERDALE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION OF A 3 SEASONAL CAMP.
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 08-37; 08-
66; AV 50-08; BOH SEPTIC VARIANCE WARREN CO. PLANNING 8/13/08
APA/DEC/CEA L G CEA LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-7
SECTION 179-13-010
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Just a quick question to the Board, or quick recommendation. After you
make a SEQRA review, make sure that who is the standing Chairman signs that SEQRA
review.
MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like something you’re going to have to remind us of.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. This is something we want to start to do from now on. We’ve
got to keep it clean.
MR. SEGULJIC-And with this application I’ll recuse myself, and turn it over to Mrs.
Steffan.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-One second, please. Site Plan No. 32-2008, applicant is Doug
Livingston. Requested action is Site Plan Review for the expansion of a 1,195 square
foot nonconforming structure. The location is 303 Cleverdale Road. Existing zoning is
Waterfront Residential One Acre. This is a Type II. No SEQRA necessary for this
application. Parcel History, there has been many historical parcel actions done, Area
Variances, Septic Variances, and of note the Board of Health has passed Septic
Variance No. 14-2008 for this, which is holding tanks. So it’s not a septic per se. Project
Description: Applicant proposes the demolition of a seasonal camp and rebuilding on
the remaining footprint of a similar but taller updated camp. Staff Comments: The
applicant has razed original 1195 square foot seasonal cottage and proposed to rebuild
with modifications to roof design and floor plan, a similar 1195 square foot seasonal
cottage. The proposed new cottage will be on the same footprint as the original. No
change to the existing garage anticipated, and as I referenced before, the Town Board
has approved the Septic Variance, the Board of Health, 14-2008 for the installation of a
holding tank on the applicant’s property. The applicant may want to consider gutters to
direct water to an infiltration device, or at the very least install a percolation trench to
absorb stormwater coming off the roof. Soils in this area are classified as Sutton Fine
Sandy Loam. Permeability of these soils is typically moderate to moderately rapid,
according to the Soil Survey of Warren County. With this in mind, percolation trenches
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
and/or infiltration devices may ease the effects of stormwater on this parcel, as
concentrated water will percolate rapidly.
MRS. STEFFAN-Keith, I noticed that there’s no public hearing noted on the agenda.
There is a public hearing for this, isn’t there?
MR. OBORNE-There is a public hearing. It’s 8/26/08.
MR. KREBS-Yes, it’s on there.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. You’re right. Okay. Welcome, Mr. Livingston. Did you want to
talk a little bit about your project for the Planning Board?
MR. ROULIER-First of all, I’m Joe Roulier representing him.
MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry. Okay.
MR. ROULIER-What originally happened was that I had met with Craig Brown at the site,
and we had an approximately 1200 square foot older camp on the property, seasonal
camp, and at that time, we were actually looking at a re-model, and I met with Craig, he
said that we needed to do some footing work, which we obtained a permit for, which we
successfully completed, and at that time he also said that we could hook up to the
existing septic system, although, to be honest with you, we weren’t totally sure what was
there. The structure was probably 60 to 70 years old. So what subsequently happened
is that as we started the work on the structure itself, as we removed the siding and we
removed the roof, we determined that everything we were working with was so old and
so rotten that we actually couldn’t go forth with the project. So, in order to rebuild the
structure and to come into conformity with the current Town of Queensbury Building
Code, we then had to raise the structure so that we could meet height requirements for
head room, both on the first floor and second floor, and of course meet all the current
Codes. So once that happened, of course, I had Dave Hatin at the site. I had Craig
Brown come back to the site, and we all agreed at that time that the best avenue to go
down was to first of all obtain approvals for holding tanks, because it is a seasonal
property, and because we couldn’t, at that point, meet all of the setback requirements for
a conventional septic system. I then went in front of the Town Board. They’ve approved
the holding tanks that we propose. I went in front of Warren County and of course we
had No County Impact, and last week I went in front of Zoning Board and we, it was a
unanimous decision to approve the variance for the height increase. It simultaneously
kicked in the Floor Area Ratio, but the preceding structure was slightly larger than the
allowed Floor Area Ratio, and the ZBA approved the structure as it was, with the
increase in the Floor Area Ratio. So I’m now before you actually to answer any
questions that you may have. One of the comments that Staff has is that we consider
some type of stormwater management on the property. We will consider that. That’s not
a may. That’s a will. There will be gutters put up, both on the east and west side of the
roof to accommodate any runoff. We’ll have the leaders go down into drainage basins
on both the east side and the west side of the property. The proposal that you currently
have is a far superior proposal than the existing structure for two reasons. The septic
system that we did have to work with was old. I have no idea if it was a tin can or a
couple of garbage cans or cinderblocks. So the proposal and the approval of the new
holding tank system obviously is a far better choice, both for my client and for the
associate homeowners in the area, and secondly we will be addressing the stormwater
issues created by the roof, which have never been addressed before. The structure will
be, it’s the identical square footage. It’s a two story home. The ZBA approved us to go
to approximately 22 feet, and we feel as though it’s a much better structure
environmentally and from a safety standpoint, in the Cleverdale area. I said to Mr.
Schonewolf, because I know he’s involved in the fire department, and I know this was a
candidate for a burn down after we got into it. So if you have any questions, I’d be happy
to answer them for you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-I do. Could you repeat, again, what was done when you were first, after
you said it was Craig Brown looked and thought that footing work needed to be done. It
was actually his determination first of all that that was what initiated the project, or, you
know, besides the fact?
MR. ROULIER-No. What initiated the project is that my client, Mr. Livingston, wanted us
to totally remodel the structure.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. BRUNO-Remodel it, okay.
MR. ROULIER-And what had happened is, through the 60 or 70 years, it had been put
on old cinderblocks. It had been put on stones, and it had become significantly out of
level, and in some areas we’re actually down on the ground. So, at that point, I had
Craig Brown come to the site, and Craig Brown determined that, if I obtained a building
permit, I could proceed ahead with the renovation and still do all new footings down
underneath it. Once we initiated that process and started to literally raise the structure
into a level so that the structure was level, we took off the existing board and batten
siding. We took off an old metal roof, and at that point everything that we were taking off
of the structure was totally rot.
MRS. BRUNO-So you already had everything up on?
MR. ROULIER-On new sonotubes, new footings, yes.
MRS. BRUNO-It was already up on the new foundation?
MR. ROULIER-Correct.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. So it had gone from being lifted, the foundation was put in, and
then you started taking off the rest of some of the other envelope and you discovered rot.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. In the process of lifting it to lighten the structure up, we took off
some of the siding, and then additionally it had old metal roofing, and we took off some of
that in the process, and as we were doing this, and a lot of this is going on
simultaneously, it just, we made the determination that it really wasn’t a structure worth
remodeling. It was more worth taking it down.
MRS. BRUNO-It certainly sounds like it wasn’t.
MR. ROULIER-And unfortunately when I was at the ZBA last week, I probably had 36
photos, and they asked if they could keep the photos, and I said, yes, of course, and it
showed, the structure, not only showed rot but apparently years ago it was probably an
old barn that someone actually converted, and even some of the post and beam
structure that was still to it was actually completed rotted off, and somebody had
annexed on like two by fours or whatever wood was available in Cleverdale 40, 50, 60
years ago. So it’s been an ongoing process, but once we made the determination that
there was no salvaging or no remodeling to the property, I then had Dave Hatin come up
with Craig Brown and we mutually agreed that the best way we could do this would be to
totally renovate the structure, bring it into current Code requirements, and go down the
avenue of obtaining all the necessary approvals, and that’s why we’re here.
MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Did you have any engineers or architects determine if it was
structurally sound enough that it could have stayed there or whether it would have
needed shoring, which is structural support, if it was going to be safe to stay there?
What I’m getting at is, and you know, this is a different, slightly different situation,
because it, you know, it does sound like it was in horrible, that it needed to be raised, but
we’ve had many circumstances in the past where we’ve had folks come in who have
already taken down, and then are asking can we do something now, and I’m just kind of
wondering, I understand that Craig and Dave came in and took a look at everything, and
I’m not really sure how that can play into, you know, should really the demolition permit
have been given before, if you were coming in front of us because it was a CEA. I’m not
quite sure how clear I’m being. It just seems like we got the cart ahead of the horse a
little bit with some strange situation thrown in there because, you know, it was rotted.
MR. ROULIER-Initially Craig Brown met me at the site, and at that point, he felt as
though, and I felt as though, the addition of the new footings or sonotubes under the
structure was all that we needed for the structure. I then went to the Town of
Queensbury and obtained a building permit and Dave Hatin approved the building permit
for that particular work. It wasn’t until after we got into the structure and to be honest
with you, once we got in and we found out how much rot was in it, I actually had Dave
come up, and Craig Brown, to view the dilemma that we were in, and we agreed that
doing the variance, going in front of the Planning Board and obtaining the right septic
system was the right avenue to go down. Once we were all in agreement, it was then
that I applied for the demolition permit. It wasn’t that I applied for the demolition permit
and then filed this. We were in agreement at that time that I would go down this
particular avenue, and because of the structure, then the demolition permit was filed for.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. BRUNO-It sounds like my questions are more of an administrative type thing than.
MR. ROULIER-But I just want you to know that.
MRS. BRUNO-No, I understand the order in which things have built up, because you
very well explained them to me a few times, I appreciate that. I think before, it certainly
sounds like the house would have stood, since you were able to actually get it up on the
foundation, that it wasn’t a situation in that it was a safety hazard for the neighborhood,
and I guess administratively, perhaps they should have put the, that the Town offices
should have suggested to go through some of this process before giving out the
demolition permit, but I’m not going to, not to use another barnyard, but we’re not going
to beat a dead horse when it’s something that’s, here we are, and you’re obviously not
looking for a huge expansion.
MR. KREBS-Tanya, I would just say, though, that I think as part of a CEA, we are much
better off with what they are going to do today, because if they had fixed the house, they
were going to use that existing septic system, and now you’re going to have a holding
tank and it’s going to be trucked away and none of it is ever going to get into the lake.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m not debating that whatsoever.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-I completely agree. I’m just talking about, you know, because we run into
this all the time. Should the Planning Board and the ZBA and everyone that is trying to
protect certain parts of the Town, the water quality and all of that, should we have been
able to have a say before something became demolished, you know, and like I said it
sounds more like it’s come down to more an administrative type thing. Perhaps (lost
word) should have a discussion more with them than belabor it with you.
MR. ROULIER-I would just like to add one additional item to that. I can understand what
you’re trying to tell me, okay, but I’m only coming back with a proposal for the identical
square footage of the structure that was there.
MRS. BRUNO-Right, and that’s one of those things that I was saying, you know, I
understand that, and that’s what makes it a little different from some of the other
examples that I’ve alluded to.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. I mean, if I was coming back with 2800 square feet versus 1200
square feet, I could understand that, but it’s not.
MRS. BRUNO-Right.
MR. ROULIER-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Thank you.
MR. ROULIER-You’re welcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-Other comments. Steve, do you have any comments?
MR. TRAVER-No. It sounds a bit like I can identify with the process that the applicant
went through. It sounds as though he was clearly hoping to avoid having to reconstruct
the entire building and rather simply improve what was there, hopefully at a lesser
expense, a bit like trying to cut a paper circle where you start trimming around, and the
next thing you know you’ve got to trim a little more, and before you know it you have a
whole project ahead of you. So I can understand.
MR. ROULIER-And, you know, in retrospect, even, I wish I had a duplicate set of
pictures, but if you saw what we ran into with the wiring and the lumber and pieces of
lumber, once we took down paneling on the inside and we started to remove things, it
just became so apparent that it would have been an injustice to my client to proceed
further ahead, and I think that the conversations that I’ve had with Craig and with Dave
were beneficial in that now we are going to have a new structure on Cleverdale that’ll
meet not only the Town Code, but more importantly all the safety codes that are out
there today, and then, in addition to that, the septic system is just going to be much
better by hauling it out of there. I mean, I’m a firm believer of the holding tanks.
MR. TRAVER-That’s definitely going to be an improvement, I think, to the area.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. ROULIER-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, Steve?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Paul, any comments?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Krebs?
MR. KREBS-I’ve made my comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP-You say you’ve found the old septic system?
MR. ROULIER-The old septic system right now, the best that we can tell, is just a pipe
going into the ground. We have not excavated that area. So that’s the extent of what
I’ve found of the septic system.
MR. SIPP-There’s no 55 gallon drum or?
MR. ROULIER-It may well be.
MR. KREBS-That’s probably what it is.
MR. ROULIER-Yes.
MR. SIPP-If this were found, you know, you’ve got to remove it.
MR. ROULIER-Yes. What the proposal is now for a 3500 gallon capacity concrete
holding tank.
MR. SIPP-I understand that. I just want you to understand that an old septic system, if it
is a barrel or?
MR. ROULIER-It’ll be removed, absolutely.
MR. SIPP-It’s got to be removed. Now, when we were out there a couple of weeks ago,
we lifted the canvas that you have over the deck. Now the footings that you put in are
stone?
MR. ROULIER-No, the footings that we put in are concrete, and they have, it’s a 10 inch
sonotube that goes down to a two foot square big foot, and we put in a series of
approximately 20 of them under that structure.
MR. SIPP-It just looked like a wooden post.
MR. ROULIER-No, the post, yes. Excuse me. The concrete goes to grade, and then
there’s eight by eight treated lumber that then go from the concrete to the deck of the
house.
MR. SIPP-Are you going to leave this open underneath?
MR. ROULIER-Yes. It’ll probably be enclosed with a lattice or some type of closure like
that. All of the plumbing will be exposed underneath the structure. It is a three season
structure.
MR. SIPP-Is the damage and the rot that you found before, was this from the deck that is
remaining there upward? In other words, where did the moisture come from to get this
amount of rot? Was the roof leaking?
MR. ROULIER-Probably 60 years old of laying essentially one corner on the ground, of
having a high water table in the area. It was an old metal roof that no doubt had leaked
through the years. I think it’s pretty much a.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SIPP-Are you going to seal the top of this deck so that the moisture that comes off
of the ground is not going to penetrate into the first floor?
MR. ROULIER-Yes. What we’ll be doing, we’ll be putting plastic underneath the deck at
the grade, and then we’ll probably cover that with like a pea stone or some type of
covering.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Any other questions from the Planning Board? Okay. Is there
anyone here to speak to this application during the public hearing phase?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Is the Planning Board ready to move forward with this
application?
MR. TRAVER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-And the only condition that we would have to approval of this
application would be that the applicant design and install a drainage system for the
stormwater runoff for the roof. Correct?
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2008 DOUG LIVINGSTON, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
1)A site plan application & freshwater wetlands application has been made to the
Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes reconstruction
of a 3 seasonal camp. Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA
requires Planning Board review and approval.
2)A public hearing was advertised and heard on 8/26/08; and
3)This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record;
4)Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter
179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
5)NOT APPLICABLE
6)Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with
Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning
of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building
permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this
resolution.
7)The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed
according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
8)NOT APPLICABLE - If applicable, Item 7 to be combined with a letter of credit;
9)NOT APPLICABLE - The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to
the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
10)MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-2008 DOUG LIVINGSTON,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Paragraph Four complies. This is a Type II SEQRA, so SEQRA review was not
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
required. Paragraph Eight does not apply. Paragraph Nine does not apply. This
is approved with the following condition. That the applicant will design and install
a drainage system for roof stormwater runoff which will need to obtain VISION
Engineering signoff.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver,
Mrs. Steffan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Seguljic
MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck with your project.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 30-2008 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED OWNER(S) MARYLEE
GOSLINE & JOHN & KIM POLUNCI ZONING RR-3A, P O APPLICANT PROPOSES
DOG PARK KENNEL. KENNELS IN AN RR ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 18-2005; AV 48-08 WARREN
CO. PLANNING 8/13/08 APA/DEC/CEA DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 20.58
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-10-060C
MARY LEE GOSLINE & JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-I’ll go through Staff Notes, Mr. Chairman. Note: The Zoning Board of
Appeals, through a resolution on August 20, 2008, has requested a recommendation
from the Planning Board in regards to the location of the dog park in relation to the
applicant’s property line. The previous Friday, and this is not on the notes, because the
notes went out on Thursday and the applicant came in on Friday and withdrew the Area
Variance, and will now install the dog run, dog park, dog fencing for the kennel in a
compliant location. This is Special Use Permit No. 30-2008. Applicant: John and Kim
Polunci Requested Action, the applicants propose to build a dog park and kennel on
20.58 acres. Site Plan Review is required for Special Use Permits. Location is 21 Blind
Rock Road. The existing zoning is Rural Residential Three Acres. This is an Unlisted
SEQRA. The applicant has submitted a Short Form EAF. Review required for this
recommended Unlisted Action. The parcel history, the AV on the parcel history has now
been rescinded or removed per the applicant; Site Plan for filling operations from a
previous owner of the land, and multiple parcel splits from ’89 through ’96 resulting in the
current 20.58 acre parcel. Project Description: The applicants propose building a kennel
and dog park on 20.58 acres owned by one of the applicants. The kennel would be
located in excess of 200 feet from any property line, according to the plan submitted.
The kennel will be comprised of four, 192 square foot pre built structures placed on flat
ground. The total square footage for these structures will be 768 square feet. The
structures will be placed in a square configuration and surrounded by 680 linear feet of
six foot chain link fencing. Each structure will have its own fencing and gate in order to
segregate each structure. There is a grass strip running through the middle of the
proposed kennel. Access to the kennel proper will be on the north side through a chain
link gate. Vehicular access is achieved on a yet to be designated crushed stone road.
Parking for 6 vehicles, including one handicap space is provided. The proposed kennel
is located on the center of the parcel and upland. Concerning the Dog Park, the Zoning
Board of Appeals tabled, and you now know that the AV has been rescinded by the
applicant. Again, the verbiage following this can basically be ignored, concerning the
dog park. There are DEC and National Wetland Inventory Wetlands on the property.
However, the proposal as submitted has no impact on these wetlands, and a quick blurb
on Staff comments, the applicants intend to kennel up to 20 dogs maximum. This
equates to 5 dogs per 192 square feet, the size of one structure, or 38.4 square feet per
dog. The applicant states that water will be supplied by a 4x4 Gator utility vehicle with a
water tank attached. Electricity will be provided to the kennels. Site Plan Review
follows, and I assume that the Planning Board has reviewed that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. The floor is yours. Would you identify yourself and tell us
about your application.
MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. As you know, I’ve withdrawn
my request for a variance. So I’m not asking for any favors. I’m looking to put in a dog
kennels. Kennels have been a permitted use in the RR-3 zone since 1983. We see this
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
as an opportunity to reclaim an area that’s been used for years to dump fill from
construction sites. Our plan is to restore this area to be compatible with the surrounding
terrain and to beautify it in a natural way. Being sensitive to the environment, this area is
not visible from the road or surrounding neighbors. We feel this is our contribution to
open space in the Town of Queensbury, benefitting our community while not requiring
any additional Town services. John will tell you about the.
MR. POLUNCI-My name’s John Polunci. I live on 5 Blackberry Lane. We’re proposing a
24 hour, seven day a week kennel. There will be drop off and pick up of the animals at
set scheduled times. We’ll also be offering delivery service. I mean, for a little extra fee,
we’ll drop your dog off and pick them up ourselves. We’re doing four prefab buildings, 12
by 16 Hamilton shed-like buildings. Three of them are only going to be for dogs. The
fourth one will be storage of walls for the inside of these. These kennels are going to be
set up so that we can accommodate any size dog. When we say 20 dog limit on the
property, what we’re meaning is we may not be able to do that according to the size of
the animal. If we have three Great Danes, that’s going to limit the size, but if you have a
small little Italian Greyhound, and you have a Great Dane and they’re together, they’re
your family’s dog, you have the opportunity to rent that whole shed and have the dog in
there. We are going to have a run that’s going to be down, it’s going to be within the 200
foot area, and what that mainly is going to be used for is for us to exercise the dogs, only
occupied. Meaning at night time they’re not going to be out there. They’re not going to
be there unattended. At nighttime they’re going to be put into these individual kennels,
and that’s where they’re going to be kept.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else?
MR. POLUNCI-Any questions?
MR. SEGULJIC-Questions from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-Well, yes. There are a number of comments and concerns, many related
to the conditions that the animals would be housed in. Did you have an opportunity to
review the comments by the Planning Staff?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, I did.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The issues listed there, no temperature control, water.
MR. POLUNCI-These are all going to be tiled, the same as what your shower would be
with no floor drains, so that when the animals do go to the bathroom, we can contain it in
that structure, wipe it up and sanitize it and take the waste from the animals off site, with
pads and wiping up and disinfectants. As far as heat goes, there’s going to be in-floor
electric radiant heat in each building. There also is going to be air conditioning in one,
with indoor air quality. As far as water goes, it will be controlled by, we’re going to be
getting it off 5 Blackberry Lane. The main reason is we do not want to disturb this land
with a well and my well’s right next to it, in the next property, and the water is not very
good and it has to be treated, and that’s very costly, and this water is treated because we
have high iron content, and it’s actually iron bacteria which is a pain to treat. We would
be using a Gator with a 48 gallon storage tank, the same thing you use for watering
horses or say the amount of water would depend on, of course, the temperature outside.
If it’s colder outside, we have to use less water, take more trips.
MR. TRAVER-And what about hot water?
MR. POLUNCI-As far as hot water goes, we won’t need it. Any cleaning of bedding and
stuff will be done actually on 5 Blackberry Lane, which would be my house. I have a
separate washer and dryer for that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. What do you anticipate in terms of the noise that will be generated
by the animals?
MR. POLUNCI-Okay. The noise, during daytime hours, there will be some noise
because dogs are dogs. They’re going to bark, but it’s going to be controlled under, our
whole thing is we want to control this. That’s why we’re controlling the number of dogs
that are going to be there and try to exercise them, try to get them to move around a lot.
At nighttime they’re going to be locked in the kennels. Secured. In the kennels we’ve
got provisions to build, I actually have, we’re going to be using a sound blocking material
on every internal building. It’s going to be tiled, insulated and it’s going to be, it’s going
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
to be sealed off. So it’s going to get fresh air, but it’s going to be sealed up so the noise
is going to be dropped considerably.
MR. TRAVER-There’s also been some concern expressed regarding the roadways.
MR. POLUNCI-As far as the roadways go, I mean, we’re going to control, it’s not like
there’s going to be a lot of traffic coming and going, because it has to be set (lost words).
The roads are going to need some maintenance on them, basically what’s there, shear
them up and clean them up, by adding either more gravel or, you know, we are trying to
keep this, we don’t want to be disturbing the land. That’s why we’re not trying to put
septics or anything else in the system or drilling for a well or do anything else with that,
keep it natural, plant more grass, and plant more plants.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. The, let’s see, you talked about the flooring. You noticed the
comment regarding the pet care services association and recommendation that the
flooring is the concrete?
MR. POLUNCI-Concrete or some type of sealant. If it’s sealed tile, that’s going to be the
same thing as a shower or anything else. It’s going to be sealed so that the dogs are
going to be able to, if they go to waste, it’s not getting into the, the underneath wood,
there’s actually going to be dirt rock under that before you put your electric heat and floor
radiant. So it’s going to be in floor radiant, dura rock, and then put your (lost word) down
over the top of it. So it’s going to be sealed. You could shower in there and it’s just
going to stay in there. It has to be cleaned out.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and you say that this structure is going to be sound-proofed in
some way so that the?
MR. POLUNCI-I’ve got a sheet here on the type of material we’re using. You can’t, it’s
not even called sound-proof. It’s going to help absorb sound. It’s the same stuff they do
on stereo systems or music rooms they put in, so that when there’s loud noises, it
absorbs the sound, and barking would be one of them. It’s actually, they use these a lot
in dog kennels, per say, to absorb sound.
MR. TRAVER-And with regards to the daytime potential for noise, you indicated there’d
be staff on site the entire time?
MR. POLUNCI-Correct. When the dogs are out of the building, there is going to be
someone there, staff, so if, during the day in cleaning they will be out. When they’re
being walked or exercised they’ll be out with someone.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. You also mentioned, I think, electricity. Is there going to be wiring
involved?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes. There’s a 200 amp service coming down from 5 Blackberry Lane
through my property over to a pedestal, and it’s going to be divided up individually to
each kennel.
MR. TRAVER-And that will also manage the heat and the air conditioning?
MR. POLUNCI-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-What about sanitary facilities for the workers?
MR. POLUNCI-We’re going to use the same thing at the bike trails or at the parks, the
portable potties.
MR. SEGULJIC-The port-a-potties?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-But really the workers are us.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s today.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, right, that’s how we’re doing that is with port-a-potties.
MRS. GOSLINE-I mean, we’re not planning on.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. SIPP-Are you planning on paving the access road?
MR. POLUNCI-The access road is already paved at the very front of it. It was pre-
approved. That’s what Richard Schermerhorn used for dumping all that, the very front of
it. When it goes across the pond, or when it drives across there, we’re going to keep that
all crushed stone, as you can see up there.
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s paved 400 foot in from the road.
MR. SIPP-Four hundred feet.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, that’s already pre-existing. We’re not going to alter that at all.
MR. SIPP-All right. You’ve got the snow removal equipment to handle it?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes.
MRS. GOSLINE-We have a Kubota Tractor with a five foot snow blower.
MR. SIPP-Now while these dogs are out, who takes care of the waste material?
MR. POLUNCI-Who takes care of it? You mean, like, well, there’s always going to, when
the dogs are out, they’re going to, the property’s going to be picked up throughout the
day. We’re actually proposing putting up doggie pick up stations, too, which are going to
be by the entrance of the one gate, and there’s going to be two of them on the property.
So basically what they are is it’s a biodegradable bag, and it stands there and you go
pick them up, the same thing as what’s at Hovey Pond, but it’s a little bit fancier, and
then you throw it in the side, you can pick up and throw it out that way and take it off the
property.
MR. SIPP-I’d like to see some contours, some elevations. These sketches don’t give us
an idea of.
MR. POLUNCI-On the elevations on the buildings or the land? The land?
MRS. GOSLINE-The land is flat.
MR. POLUNCI-Well, it’s flat at top, and it does drop down into a gully down, down lower.
We’re just, we’re not altering anything that’s there. We’re keeping everything the way,
we’re not digging into this ground and adding anything. Actually these sheds that are
going to be on the ground are only on six inches of crushed stone, what the
manufacturer recommends.
MRS. STEFFAN-Are you putting those buildings on the top of the mound?
MR. POLUNCI-Correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re going to be on the top of the hill?
MR. POLUNCI-Correct.
MR. SIPP-And the horse farm is yours?
MR. POLUNCI-The horse farm.
MRS. GOSLINE-The horse farm, my home.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes.
MR. GOSLINE-Between the two properties, we have 30 acres of land.
MR. POLUNCI-Right where that 10 is up there is where the buildings would sit.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SIPP-Was that all fill that was brought in?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s been being filled in for five to six years.
MR. SIPP-There’s a lot of limestone in it from some place. When we were up there,
there’s a lot of limestone rock in there, which is not terribly common in the Town of
Queensbury.
MRS. GOSLINE-I don’t know where it came from.
MR. SIPP-I still would like to see some elevations, if they’re only relative. In other words,
if the buildings are at 100 feet, what is the approximate elevation of the pond or, in other
words, are we running downhill or is this perfectly flat, or is there?
MR. POLUNCI-Well, as you can see right there, that is flat.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but it does slope.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, when you first enter it, correct.
MR. KREBS-Well, actually it’s a flat plateau that’s been created and it falls off on all
sides.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, correct.
MRS. GOSLINE-And the kennel will be back, the kennel itself, from the edge of that,
where it goes down, is going to be back maybe 300 feet, 300 feet at least from there, or
more.
MR. TRAVER-It looks like 200 feet on the drawing you submitted.
MR. POLUNCI-That’s on the back, but she’s talking about from the.
MR. TRAVER-From the actual change in elevation.
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes.
MR. POLUNCI-Change in elevation.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anything else at all? Because it looks like we have a lot of people to
comment.
MRS. GOSLINE-I do want to comment. There is a dog law in Queensbury for barking
dogs. It’s prohibited activities under 73-5 B. It shall be unlawful for any owner of any
dog in the Town to permit or allow such dog to engage in habitual loud howling, barking,
crying or whining, or conduct itself in such a manner so as to unreasonably and
habitually disturb the comfort or repose of any person other than the owner of such dog,
and that was passed by the Queensbury Town Board on June 10, 1980.
MRS. STEFFAN-I wish my neighbors knew about that law.
MR. POLUNCI-So that works out to be, with what we have for the dogs, that works out, if
full capacity, meaning we have all the right size dogs, that’s one acre per dog.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Shall I open up the public hearing, then? Unless you have
anything else. Okay. I’d like to open up the public hearing. A couple of things before we
start. Number One, there is a sign-in sheet. When you come up we’d like you to sign in
your name so that we can, we record all the meetings, so we’d like the names, and,
Number Two, limit the comment to four minutes. Okay. Please come on up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DIANA COTE
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. COTE-Good evening. Before I make my statement, I have a petition here with 42
names on it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. If you could just state your name for the record.
MRS. COTE-I’m sorry. I’m Diana Cote. I live at 63 Cedar Court.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. COTE-I also have several letters from a lot of the neighbors. A lot of the neighbors
in our neighborhood are elderly, and, you know, they thought this was going to be on
very late. So I also have letters from them. Should I give those to you?
MR. OBORNE-Go ahead and read what you have to read, ma’am.
MRS. COTE-All right. I’d like to express my strong opposition to the proposed dog
park/kennel at 21 Blind Rock Road. I refer to recommendation A-12 of the Town of
Queensbury Comprehensive Plan dated August 2007. The Planning Board should
required detailed neighbor plans for commercial, this is a quote. The Planning Board
should require detailed good neighbor plans for commercial projects. Currently, the
Planning Board may ask applicants to submit a good neighbor plan. This should be
required of all commercial projects. The Ordinance should be reviewed to include a
greater range of quality of life issues such as noise and light in the plan. The goal of this
plan is to make sure that some seemingly incompatible uses can actually work together.
However, the Planning Board and Town staff need to make sure that plans are created
and enforced. I secondly refer to Recommendation B-12 of the same plan. Noise should
be an important factor in zoning approvals. Noise is an important quality of life issue that
deserves the attention of the community. Noise can be generated by things like cars,
radios, truck brakes and commercial establishments. The Town should consider
enacting a noise ordinance. In addition, the Planning Board should consider noise as a
quality of life issue and reviewing applications. This should be one important criterion as
applicants must face review under the Town’s good neighbor plan. I was told that if I had
a concern about this or any other projects in the Town of Queensbury that I should come
before the Board to voice my concerns. I was told that the Town Boards listen carefully
as they represent the people. You can imagine my total disappointment when I obtained
the minutes of last week’s Zoning Board meeting and read one of the comments from a
Board member, after we had all left, and I’m quoting here, they’re going to go in and
whine and complain about noise, whatever we do about the dogs. This disturbed me
greatly because most of the people in this room have never come before you to complain
about any project, and I feel that we are far from whining, but rather we’re voicing the
concerns that we hope you have as well. Our neighborhoods totally surround this piece
of property, and it’s much more residential than rural. So with noise pollution invading us
on all sides, please respect my request to deny this dog park’s kennel Special Use
Permit, so that we’ll be able to enjoy the serenity that we currently enjoy without further
pollution. There are two petitions, the one that I’m going to give you now and another
one, and they total 128 signatures of residents surrounding this whole project. Thank
you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
DORTHY SEHLMEYER
MRS. SEHLMEYER-My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer, and I’ve written a letter about the
dog project. Although there are other issues, the one that concerns me most is noise,
since I live very close to where the kennels and runs will be located. The applicant
claims there will be no noise, at least at the last Zoning Board meeting she said that, but
doesn’t disclose just exactly how this will be accomplished. The ASPCA literature states
excessive barking is nothing new. Dogs appear to enjoy barking and do so when they
want something, to say hello, when they are having fun or alarmed, defending their
territory, threatening someone, or frustrated or hear other dogs barking. At present,
there is no Queensbury Town noise ordinance for noise. Now I was unaware, until the
applicant stated that there is a barking dog ordinance. Even so, many business owners
pay fines and go ahead with business as usual. The kennel and runs would be on our
west border, and that is where any breeze or wind originates, 95% of the time, carrying
any noise with it, right into our area. In the evening and night, when the air is heavy and
still, it would carry also. If the Special Use Permit is granted for 20 dogs and expansion
is requested in the future, it is likely permission will be granted. Another way noise from
the dogs affects me is my purse. I have been told the re-sale value of my home will drop
appreciably, which means I probably won’t be able to relocate somewhere quieter. I feel
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
the noise from barking dogs day and night will definitely affect my health. I am in my
later years of life, and my nerves are upset easily by noise. I need peace and quiet,
which this neighborhood offered when I moved here. The applicant bought the property
and planned this kennel, knowing full well the contiguous neighborhoods were well
established for 10 to 12 years. Her kennel will directly benefit only herself. I also feel the
Rural Residential land zoning under which she is applying is no longer appropriate. With
two developments of 99 homes, a nine building, 66 apartment complex Town Hall,
College, big box store and professional offices, all within walking distance, rural no
longer applies. Thank you for listening to my concerns.
KAY KRENZ
MS. KRENZ-My name is Kay Krenz, and I live at 70 Cedar Court. I have several
concerns concerning the proposed dog park. First of all the noise factor. In talking with
my daughter-in-law, a former employee of Paws N Claws, a veterinary clinic and
bordering facility on Route 9 in Wilton, I understand that there is incessant barking by the
dogs in the kennels. Secondly, the pollution and cleanliness of the facility is another
huge concern. I understand from the proposal that water will be carried from their home
to the kennels. My daughter-in-law tells me that each kennel at Paws N Claws is
pressurized each day, and treated with a chemical called Rocal D to prevent diseases
such as distemper, parvo virus, bronchitis and kennel cough. Some diseases that dogs
get can be passed to wildlife. Rocal D is a commonly used fungicide, virus cide, bacteria
cide used in veterinary clinics and kennels. Rocal D is a toxic, environmental hazard and
cannot be discharged into lakes, ponds, streams or estuaries, and cannot be used
unless in accordance with the national discharge elimination permit. From what I
understand in this proposal, none of the above will be possible. Now I understand from
tonight, which we didn’t know before, that they will have a tile floor. Most kennels used
sealed concrete, but possibly this tile will work. As a dog lover I would warn anyone not
to board a dog at this facility which will have, well, now they’re saying they will have
heating and cooling. There are no State or Federal standards for kennels, but the SPCA
and American Kennel Club do have standards. I have no idea what kind of chemical
they will use to clean their kennels. They obviously, with a potable water supply, cannot
pressure wash. If they do, they have to have a septic system for these drains. That’s the
other question I have. They say they’re going to have drains. What is it going to drain
into? Is it going to drain out onto the land or into a septic system? And if they do use a
chemical to clean them with, it will protect the dogs, then the chemical probably is
hazardous. If it’s not Rocal, it’s got to be something else. Diana was kind enough to
print off of the Internet information on Rocal and I have included it with a copy of my
letter to give to you. Thank you.
RUTH FRANK
MRS. FRANK-My name is Ruth Frank, and I live at Cedar Court, and I did a study,
because I also am very concerned with noise, that I don’t feel is being checked that
good, and the reason I say this is a couple of years ago the Post Star wrote a very nice
article how our area of Queensbury is considered the Hamptons of the North, and we
have all the amenities of the Hamptons without the Long Island Expressway and the
congestion. We have Lake George. We have mountains. All our friends retired to
Florida. We, being middle income people, we wanted the four seasons. So we chose
Queensbury because it had the amenities of the Hamptons without being a millionaire.
The noise that I’m going to be concerned with is every morning I have my coffee on my
deck, and I am amazed at the quietness. You don’t hear a thing. You just hear the birds,
the flowers. You don’t hear trucks. There’s no noise on the highway. We hear nothing
but birds. You couldn’t get a million dollar place like that in the Hamptons, or anywhere,
and we chose this. Last meeting there was a woman who made a remark that she was
very upset the way we were all complaining, and we brought all, we were the ones that
moved here and brought all this trouble. The way I look at it, my father was born in
Bolton, and we spent all our summers at Lake George when we were kids. That farmers
around here that used to be farms, for some reason had to sell their farmland for
personal reasons, and developers bought them and developers built beautiful homes
that we decided to move here. We didn’t invade the place. We were invited. So, with all
that, I did a little study on noise. It’s eight pages, and I’m going to give it to the Board
that you don’t have to read, and I just made a synopsis of the main thing. The study was
done in a shelter and ends up with the new, latest dog kennels. It’s called the Animal
Shelter Environment Affects of Daily Noise Exposure, Animal Behavior Center, ASPCA
Urbana, Illinois. This is just a synopsis of the journal, and inside the journal lists all the
names of the researches and the institutes that did this study. The first noise level is
pertaining to dogs, and it says, noise levels at a newly constructed animal shelter were
measured using a noise decimeter, in all indoor dog holding areas that included all size
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
dogs. A noise decimeter is preferred for measuring noise levels when the noise levels
are variant or intermittent, such as barking. The noise level was highest in the large area
where most dogs are kept. The noise affected some of the noise measurements from
the other room. Peak noise levels regularly exceeded the capability of the decimeter,
and that, the peak is 118.9. Often, in a new facility design, there is little attention paid to
noise abatement, despite the evidence that noise causes physical and psychological
stress on dogs. Kennel design should also address optimal sound range. Do these
specifications that they are presenting design show this.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. I’ll just ask you to wrap it up, if you could.
MRS. FRANK-Well, I’ve got just two more paragraphs. The journal further study report
the sound is measured in decibels. Therefore, any sound in the 90 to 118 range will go
such as 70 is considered as loud as a subway train. 110 would be like a jackhammer.
120 would be like a propeller aircraft. So, to be noted, the journal then goes into detail of
kennel noise as pertains to physical stress on dogs, and the new design dog housing
that they’re having today, self-contained rooms, instead of the traditional kennels, these
rooms are enclosed and noise is absorbed and contained within the smaller room,
increasing the time animals sleep. Unfortunately, the report goes on to say, even in
these new kennel construction, the noise abatement designs are often ignored because
of cost restrictions, making noise a hazard to animals, employees and people. So I’m
ending up with saying we residential owners were told that we would not hear the
barking. Even with individual apartment type kennels, the viewing of windows, use of
partitions, results in dogs that are constantly being surprised by people walking by. That
stimulation increases barking, which in turn stimulates other dogs. It further states, that
because of its unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of dog kennels, they are not only
a stressful environment for a dog, but for humans, which include employees. The last is
one can compare a level of a house, 45, compared to the noise level of animal houses,
118. It concludes by saying without regulations regarding noise levels ink kennels, noise
may continue to be overlooked and contribute to reduced overall welfare of the
community.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
WILLIAM LONGWORTH
MR. LONGWORTH-Good evening. I’m William Longworth. I live at 52 Surrey Field
Drive, Queensbury. It’s an adjacent property to the proposed dog kennel, park. We at
Surrey Field, I can speak for 35 households, are against this proposal for the impact on
our property values, and for the noise level, and for the negative impact on the
environment. Barking dogs have been linked to health problems, to impair healing, and
in Surrey Field we have some seriously ill folks that are healing, or mending, that are
under doctor’s care. In a study done by John Hopkins University, and a European
medical journal, a study was reported there that barking dogs impact the healing ability
of ailing people and also it creates stress and other impacts on well people that make
them unwell. Also, the proposed impact on the environment, the surrounding area, we
are concerned about the cleaning chemicals that will be seeping into groundwater, that
runs into tributaries that feed Halfway creek. There is definitely tributaries that go directly
from their property down into Halfway creek. I attached a map to my letter I submitted to
the Board earlier, which demonstrates this. So I only conclude that we wish that the
Board would heed our words and not approve this. Also under Queensbury Code 179-
10-050, Section E, it brings up the negative impacts of an environment, natural
resources including physical sustains of site development, risk of fire, flood, erosion,
electrical charges, etc., vibration, noise, detrimental to public health, safety and welfare.
So it’s in the Code. I just wish that we would enforce it. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
BOB MURTHA
MR. MURTHA-Hi. My name’s Bob Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road. I’m submitting
this petition with 83 names in opposition to the kennel and dog park. Our concerns are
noise, the effect on the wildlife, the decrease of property values, and the environmental
impact. I’m going to keep this short and sweet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
NANCY MURTHA
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. MURTHA-I’m Nancy Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road as well. On the map
before you here our property is on the western most end of the long strip. The whole end
of their property adjoins our property. You can see house sitting there. Where those
kennels will go is close to our property line, as a matter of fact. That’s our main concern
is that, of everybody that’s involved in this right now, I feel like we’re impacted more than
anyone else might be, as far as the noise level goes and other issues that will be brought
up. We don’t want to be repetitious tonight with some of these issues. So I’m going to
keep it brief as well, and I just want you to know that I’m opposed to this project and I
have submitted another letter as well which goes into more detail as to what my feelings
are about it. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
PEGGY HARRIS NOBLES
MRS. NOBLES-Hi. I’m Peggy Harris Nobles, a new resident of 61 Surrey Field, just
being there a year. I moved to Surrey Field from Ridge Road because of where it is in
the Town of Queensbury, and many of you may know how active our family has been in
the Town for many, many years. It was more like Ridge Road where I came from with 40
acres, and I’m on the west side of Surrey, looking out from my screen porch into the
woods, and that’s what I love, and in the morning, sitting like the other woman from
Cedar Court, having my coffee and hearing the birds, and that’s what I really enjoy, and
that’s why I moved to Surrey Field, because of the quietness, solidarity, and the
convenience to the rest of the Town, but we are, it is secluded and we don’t hear all the
noise, and that’s why I’m there, and that’s why I’m against this, because I don’t know
how, I’m a, I like dogs, but I don’t know how you’re going to maintain all the noise when
you get a lot of dogs together. Thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
ANNE GAGLIARDI
MRS. GAGLIARDI-My name is Anne Gagliardi and I live at 23 Cedar Court and I am
opposed to this petitioner’s application for a proposed dog park and kennel on the
following grounds, that it’s a proposal that could set a precedent for future enterprises in
this area, and that this area, designated as Rural Residential, has a high concentration of
homes which closely surround almost the entire proposed venture, so close, I feel, as to
directly affect area homeowners from the noise level of barking dogs, and over time the
inevitable runoff from dog waste. Thank you.
LEO COTE
MR. COTE-My name is Leo Cote. I live at 63 Cedar Court. I live in the Woodlyn’s and
am strongly opposed to this project within our residential area. The area, as you know, is
currently zoned Rural Residential, and as stated in Section 179-3-040 of the
Comprehensive Plan, quote, the Rural Residential districts are intended to enhance the
natural open spaces and rural character of the Town, unquote, and it’s not intended to
enhance the commercial character of the Town. I base my objections to the granting of
any Special Use Permit on the following. First, the project is totally out of harmony and
incompatible with the current character of this area, and does not promote the general
welfare of the residents who are affected by the project. It violates Section 179-10-050,
Paragraph B, entitled General Standards for Special Use Permits. It also violates
Paragraph E of that Section because of its negative impact on the, quote, noise
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, unquote, and finally the project
violates Paragraph F of that Section because of the negative effects it has on the long
term community character of the surrounding properties. I request that you deny
approval, regardless of the scope of the project or assurance of the applicant that her
dogs won’t bark, or that her project will have no effect on the contiguous neighbors. This
issue comes down to a question of property rights in the Rural Residentially zoned area,
and with over 128 signatures on various petitions, I feel that the rights of the petitioning
neighbors and others surely should outweigh those of a single applicant. The Town, this
Board and other Town Boards listened to complaints at nearly every meeting. On many
of these complaints, although presented as facts, are really anecdotal in nature. The
complaints and issues of these neighbors that you’ve heard are based on facts. Fact
One, the project proposed will result in up to 20 dogs being boarded on property
contiguous to several residential neighborhoods. Fact Two, dogs bark. They bark when
they’re happy, sad, hungry, lonely, threatened, frustrated, any number of reasons.
Barking is what dogs do naturally, and the more dogs you have, the more barking there
will be. Fact Three, dog barking is annoying to listen to. Responding to barking
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
complaints is one of the most common complaints that police and Animal Control
Officers respond to. Fact Four, there are unresolved sanitation issues with this proposal.
Fact Five, there are pollution and stormwater runoff issues with this proposal. Fact Six,
there are traffic safety issues with this proposal. These are all facts. They’re not
opinions. Together they reveal a project that is poorly designed and engineered. Based
on these facts, the Board should reject the request for Special Use Variance for this
project, and I’d like you to know that regardless of your decision regarding this proposal,
all of the people in this room, both the applicant and the people that are here opposed to
it, want to thank you for all that you do for the residents of Town of Queensbury.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else?
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O’CONNOR-I’m Michael O’Connor at 74 Fitzgerald Road, and I wrote a letter to the
Board. I’d like to pass you copies of it if I could. I’m Michael O’Connor. I live at 74
Fitzgerald Road. A little typo there, it says 73 at the top. With my wife and two children,
ages six and three. We oppose the granting of this special permit for the operation of a
kennel on the Gosline property. We believe the negative impacts of this proposal far
outweigh the positive impacts. Our property overlooks the Gosline property. From our
backyard and the second floor we can see the area filled by Schermerhorn. Any noise
from this area goes directly to our house. We have no other businesses in our
neighborhood. What is proposed is not in harmony with the Rural Residential character
of the neighborhood. This application is a moving target. First it was a dog walk, then a
dog walk and kennel, and now we understand it’s been changed to a kennel only. Much
of what has been presented is oral only. There’s nothing in writing as far as what they’re
going to do with the building. So now we’re going to soundproof them. We’re going to
have tile floors supposedly. There’s going to be no drain so if one of the dog’s does go
to the bathroom, they’re going to be standing or laying in it. We think what has
happened, as somebody pointed out, this standalone business of a dog walk or dog park
is not a permitted use in a Rural Residential Three Acre zone. The letter signed by Mrs.
Gosline quickly points that out, saying that she’s going to join it with the dog kennel and
call it, I guess a run, or whatever she’s going to do with it now. Under definitions of the
Ordinance the term dog kennel is based on an establishment to house dogs, etc., with
grooming, breeding, boarding or selling of animals is conducted as a business. The
commonsense terminology of kennel has to do with a place where dogs are kept for a
period of time. Kennels are not businesses where you take your dog for a one hour run
in a fenced area. Again, you would like to look at the minutes of the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting where the applicants walk in off the definition of a kennel, try and
describe what their business plan or operation is. The applicant should be required to
specify what their plan operation is going to be for two purposes. So that the Board and
neighbors can fairly assess the impacts and it is important so that the Town staff can
enforce the operation with the terms applied for. Again, application continues to state a
kennel is a permitted use such as, you know, it’s one of the things that they’re allowed to
do, not something they’re required to receive a Special Permit to use. It’ll be the only
commercial use in that area, anywhere near there. We’re fearful of the noise impact of
this project. As they’re doing their sheds, how do you get in and out? Are you going to
fly or magically be transported? You have to open the door and I don’t know if you’ve
ever opened the door to your house and you have a dog there, the first thing you’re
greeted with is barking. In-depth studies and discussions of noise mufflers when this
Board was consider the car go tracks on Route 9 on Route 9, the Twicwood area. How
do you effectively muffle 20 dogs? If you go to the SPCA and stand outside any of their
buildings, you can clearly hear any of them. They have three doors you go through
before you’re actually exposed to any dogs. This application is (lost word) to the point
that we are not sure of the referral to the County Planning Board should stand. The
parcel in question fronts on a County highway and we presume same has been referred
to the County Planning Board. What version of the application was referred to the
Planning Board? The Town staff has looked at the application as best they can and
indicated the many failures or incomplete portions thereof. We don’t understand why
there is not an engineered site plan application, a plan with metes and bounds and
definite measures, a stormwater management plan. We don’t understand why there has
been no sight distance information provided on what will be a commercial driveway onto
Blind Rock Road as to what was at one time thought to be a single family or two family
residential drive. We don’t know the composition of the sheds, other than what they’ve
said, because you can’t really guess. There’s no plans. We’ve been told that the water
will be trucked in. Where is it going to go once it’s trucked in? Are they going to have
portable lights? What kind of lights are they going to have? There remain unresolved
issues. Before the Board can undertake a fair review of this application the applicant
should be required to supply a complete application. Has a noise study been done or
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
suggested? This is a big issue. They’re saying that they’re going to keep up to 20 dogs
on the property, and because the dogs are going to be happy, they’re going to be quiet.
Commonsense would indicate that that is not the case. They speak about interjecting
new dogs to this small area, maybe not the same run, if there are openings, and there
are less than 20 dogs being boarded. What ruckus is caused by each new arrival of
dogs? Who’s going to greet that person. What kind of noise is going to be created when
they’re in their opening their doors, closing their doors, yelling to get their dog in? How
are they going to make sure that everybody shows up with their dog on a leash and the
dog’s going to be in a new surrounding. What’s going to keep it from taking off into the
woods and directly to my house where my dog’s probably going to be barking at them?
The operation is not a mom and pop operation with 20 dogs being introduced into the
neighborhood. This is a business and it does not fit into the Rural Residential quiet
neighborhood. This is year round, seven days a week, and it’s 24 hours a day. I ask
each Board member, would you want this operation next to your residence? Thank you.
MIKE WILD
MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. I live at 11 Blackberry Lane. I have
property that adjoins this parcel, and I also have a controlling interest in some
undeveloped land that is near this property also. The comment that I’d like to make to
the Board, and I still stand on the fence from time to time about this project, and I really
considered what was done in the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, and they
talked about preserving character of the neighborhood. One of the things to consider,
and I’ve really struggled with this, is how do you preserve the character and define what
character really means? One of the ways to look at it is the character of this community,
when I moved here in 1984, is such that people had a lot of respect for each other, a lot
of trust for each other, and they gave people the benefit of the doubt to do what they said
they were going to do. If we talk about character, that’s part of this community that I
think that this Board should really strive to maintain. Now, the Board also has the
opportunity, I think, to satisfy a number of concerns, and that is by using a mechanism
that’s called a renewable Special Use Permit. You could define and set this up as a
Special Use for a said term, one year or two year, to allow the applicant to prove that
they have the ability to not change the noise levels, and I’m concerned about the noise
levels, just like any neighbor would be, but I also believe that the applicant should have
the right to prove that they can manage this to the satisfaction of the neighbors involved
in the community also. So I would implore the Board to strongly consider that option. It
satisfies everyone, all the concerns about noise. Noise is a concern, but there’s no
definite value in terms of what that noise will be. It’s a concern. People are worried
about it, but no one knows really what it’s going to be until it’s actually in place. You
have the ability to do this on a temporary basis, a renewable basis, I believe is what it
says in the Code, and set it up for review again in another year or two, depending on
whatever makes sense for the applicant and the Board, and that’s about all I had to say.
Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Anybody else to comment? Yes.
LINDA DEL SIGNORE
MS. DEL SIGNORE-Hi. My name is Linda DelSignore. I live at 2 Blackberry Lane,
Queensbury, with my husband, Richard, and I’m here to strongly support this project.
Between my mother-in-law, who’s 85 years old, who I’m also speaking for, who is as
close to this project as anybody, we strongly support this. When we’re talking about
property owner’s rights, when we moved to this area, we knew exactly what the zoning
was, and I am understanding that this is suitable in this zoning, but I also knew, when I
moved here 18 years ago, and my mother-in-law some 35 to 40 years ago, I knew things
would change. I knew the character would change. I didn’t know the apartments would
be there, but they are. I didn’t know Surrey Field would be there, but it is. The traffic has
increased considerably. I have to accept this. It’s change. It’s what it’s zoned for. It’s
what you may have to anticipate is going to happen where you live. So we accept it on
that basis, and also when, Mary Lee is a well known businesswoman in this area.
Everyone knows how she operates her business. Everyone knows she’s always on the
up and up. Everyone knows that what she does is first class. I addressed her myself
and I said, what are you going to do about noisy dogs? And she said call their owners
and send them home. She lives on this property, too. Her daughter lives on this
property, too. They don’t want to listen to barking dogs, and I’m sure, I just think that you
need to consider the fact that, I agree with Mike, maybe a limited type of use in order to
prove what the business is going to be like, but I just don’t think you can reject it out of
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
hand. I think there are property rights involved here, too, and that’s about all I have to
say, other than that I’m speaking for my neighbors on Blackberry Lane who can’t be here
tonight, and one neighbor, Dan Williams and his wife Cheryl, who just had a baby and
couldn’t be here, are closely impacted, more closely impacted than anyone and they are
very much in favor of this. At any rate, it’s neighbors on Blackberry Lane, with the
exception of Mike who’s on the fence, but I think he’s more pro than con. So it’s
neighbors on Blackberry Lane, some neighbors on Blind Rock Road. We’ve been
neighbors on that road, all of us have lived there a minimum of probably 10 to 40 years.
So longtime residents, very much for this, and I really think you should consider what’s
being proposed here. After all, we’re not talking about the ASPCA. We’re not talking
about a huge project like that at all. We’re talking about a small scale, like Purrs and
Paws. We’re talking about probably during the week there won’t be many dogs at all. I
don’t know, probably more on the weekend, but we’re not talking about dogs overrunning
the neighborhood or a large scale operation. It’s a boarding place for dogs. They don’t
want nuisance dogs. Of course they don’t. I’m sure they wouldn’t keep them as
customers. That’s my comment.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Good evening. Betty Monahan, Sunnyside. I’ve been doing a little bit
of review of our zoning history in this Town, and I couldn’t go back before 1983, but since
then, kennels have been listed as an allowed use in the Town’s RR-3 Acre and RR-5
Acre zones, and I would assume anybody coming into this Town would look at the zone
that they’re moving into and the uses that are allowed there. The kennel use in these
zones has stood the test of time and scrutiny by several Town Boards and public
reviews, including the findings of the Environmental Impact Statements. The Zoning
Code adopted in 1988, which I feel is one of the most thorough ones that we ever did,
had many public information meetings and a public hearing with an environmental
review. Kennel use in Rural Residential zones remained an acceptable and compatible
use. As part of the revised Zoning Code, the Town Board completed an EIS, which
found that the proposed zoning, among other things, was consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations, were among the reasonable alternatives.
Therefore the action approved is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental
impacts to the extent practical, and that it was consistent with the social, economic, and
other essential considerations to the maximum extent practical. Adverse impacts
revealed in the Environmental Impact Statement process will be minimized or avoided.
Again, as the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan was under review for revision, it was
adopted in 2007, the public, the consultants, Saratoga Associates, and the Planning and
Ordinance Review Committee scrutinized the allowed uses in Rural Residential zones
and kennel remained an allowed use. The history of Board and public zoning reviews for
acceptability and consistency in this Town is one of intense analysis and thoroughness.
At no time was a kennel considered an incompatible use within a Rural Residential use,
and I will say I think to compare an SPCA type of undertaking with the type of
undertaking that the Goslines and Poluncis will do is an insult to those two families. I
was over there last night for about an hour. There were five dogs there. These dogs do
not know me. These dogs did not bark one time while I was there. In fact, certain ones
of them were not allowed off the leash together because they figured it was like two kids
together. They would get each other into trouble. That’s how much they know their
animals, and if the children in this country got the TLC care that their pets do, believe
me, we wouldn’t be reading about these cases of child abuse that we do in the paper.
The neighbors worry about the chemicals and so on and so forth, and I’m wondering if
they consult with their lawn care people about the number of herbicides and pesticides
that are being used around them and what that does to the wildlife. I also, for several
years now, have been on a national board where environmental concerns is my area,
and I would suggest that these same people look at the dangers in the household
chemicals and the household cleaners that they’re using that they’re letting go into the
water table. There’d be some change in habits, believe me.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you.
KATHY SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I’m on the fence about this. I
know Mary Lee. I know she would do a good job. She’s been a good neighbor, but like
my neighbors, we’re concerned about the unknown. We don’t know how much noise
we’d hear. I do know we hear noise from their property. Most of the time they’re very
quiet, but there’s a pond between them and us and the sound carries across the water.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
So there’s definitely going to be some noise. Now, are we entitled to total quiet?
Probably not. I read up on the Special Permit section of the Code, and I did notice the
renewable type of permit. I don’t know whether that’s practical in this case, but that
might be a way of giving them a chance but still protecting the neighbors if it turns out to
be too noisy. I don’t know what kind of conditions can be put on a permit. I know they’ve
stated they wouldn’t have more than 20 dog, but if the Board decides to go forward with
this permit, I would appreciate seeing some kind of restriction so that this can’t expand
into something that would be definitely more of a problem. Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m not a resident in the
neighborhood of this project, but I did participate in the planning that was done that lead
up to the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance, and frankly I can’t remember any of the
issues we’re hearing here tonight brought up at that time. There are 30 other uses
allowed in this three acre zone. In any case, I’d like to address the issue of the
suggestion that a Special Use Permit be limited to one year. My wife and I, when we first
arrived in this community over 30 years ago, we had to qualify for a Special Use Permit,
and we did. We obtained one of the very first Special Use permits issued by this Town to
operate our commercial business, and that’s been in effect, wasn’t time barred. We’re
not expecting to make investments and work on a permit that can be withdrawn at any
given time at the discretion of the Town. So the Special Use Permit, I think, is a right that
goes with the land, just like a variance. Noise is a great concern. I can appreciate that,
and the Town has been faced, many times, with the adoption of a noise ordinance, and
they just simply have not had the political courage to do it. We have a noise ordinance in
our neighborhood. The Lake George Park Commission promulgated regulations that
regulate noise, and we’ve had to live with that and we can live with that, and it doesn’t
seem to be a big problem, and I think if you can come to grips with this issue of noise, I
think most of the problems would go away, but this summary of allowable uses in
residential zoning districts is our basic problem, and we don’t have enough input, at the
time that these regulations are adopted, to address these issues. It’s too late right now
to argue. The debate is over with as to whether or not these people have a right to this
use. It is in the Code. It’s an allowable use. The question is, how are you going to
handle the noise? Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. Anybody else?
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You have more written comments.
MR. OBORNE-I have a ton.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. If you could summarize those for us, then.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. For the most part they’re opposed. There are 27 I believe right
here, and.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe if I could ask, do they cite other issues besides noise?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There are a few things in here for forever wild on the Surrey Field
Homeowners Association. There’s concern about that, and that is from a Frank Kelly,
concern about a proposed commercial venture that will compromise the forever wild
nature of the property. Again, there are other petitions here.
MR. KREBS-Now you’re talking about the forever wild of the applicant’s property or?
MR. OBORNE-No, Surrey Field.
MR. KREBS-Surrey Field, but Surrey Field is a condo complex that has a piece of
property that’s forever wild. Surrey Field is not forever wild.
MR. OBORNE-I’m the messenger.
MR. KREBS-I’m just pointing it out. It’s not.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. OBORNE-I have other petitions with many, and one in particular I’d like to read. I
think this will summarize pretty much everybody’s opposition to this. This is, We the
undersigned offer this petition to the Queensbury Planning Board in opposition to the
above named applicant and pertaining variance, and this is actually pertaining to the Site
Plan itself. Issues of concerns are as follows. Noise. The proposed dog path and runs
will be open from dawn to dusk, seven days a week. The kennels will be operational
24/7. This will be a business set in the midst of a primarily residential perimeter. The
infringement on the quiet, peaceful buffer between any and all adjacents and interested
property owners will be compromised with what dogs are naturally expected to do, bark.
It will be practically impossible to impose a quiet time with dogs. Wildlife. The tranquil
environment this geographical buffer now provides has also become a natural refuge for
wildlife as those of us living here can attest to nearly every day. The possibility of dogs
barking 24/7 will doubtless impact the current presence of wildlife in this area, creating
an interruption in the balance of nature now existing in this natural habitat. This
disruption will also affect the enjoyment experienced by property owners who have come
to appreciate the presence of those animals and birds. Property values. What do you
say to a prospective buyer while walking through your yard when they hear the barking?
Of course you will have to disclose that there is a kennel next to your property, yes, back
in the woods, but still there and still within earshot. Somehow that might not seem as
attractive as the serenity or wooded surroundings might have originally appeared to
offer, and finally Environmental. As mentioned, a natural habitat exists in this buffer
zone between the surrounding residential and commercial populous. The influx of
vehicles and people along with the addition of dog excrement and dog noise, will
ultimately have a negative effect on the overall environment, including the forever wild
area designated as part of the Surrey Field development. With these issues foremost in
our minds, we, the undersigned, are asking that you not grant the variance or Site Plan,
and that you reconsider the possible commercial zoning purposes for the lot designated
on the above noted variance. Rest assured there are many dog lovers on the perimeter
of this property and in adjacent homes. There is no intention or implication these issues
have any bearing on one’s like or dislike of dogs. Thank you for your consideration, and
for the most part all of these touch on those issues, and if I’m remiss to the crowd, I
apologize. I think the amount that’s here speaks to what they’re trying to tell you.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you. If the applicant would come back up. Are there any
further comments based on what you heard?
MRS. GOSLINE-Right now in our neighborhood I can count up to 13 dogs that are there.
So I don’t know if they’ve been that noisy. This started out as being a dog park, but I was
put under dog kennel because you don’t have a qualification for dog park. We’re not
having dogs coming in and out of there all day. This is going to be used for our own
dogs boarding. Only the boarding dogs will be there in the runs. Our property, talk about
wildlife, it was a vast area of fill and dead trees. We’ve been cutting down the dead trees
and cleaning out where the things have been filled in and trying to plant grass and trees
and bring it back to some kind of normalcy. I guess that’s about all I can think of.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. POLUNCI-As far as the noise goes, we understand that dogs do bark. They are
going to bark. We’re putting everything in place to try to limit the amount of barking.
One, by prescreening the people before they come in. If they dog becomes a problem,
we won’t have it back. Two, three individual buildings to separate the dogs. So if you
have one that feeds off another one, we can move it into the other space. Also, we want
to, I can’t see soundproof, but put sound deadening material in it to restrict the amount of
it. These dogs are not going to be left alone. They’re going to be with someone
whenever they’re outside. We really want to try to work with our neighbors. Most of
these people that are signing, I mean, if you look at that piece of property, that’s 20 acres
of property. They’re all very far away from us, and there is things in place right now for
dog barking. If it becomes a problem, call the cops. The cops show up, we have to stop
it. We have to stop the dog barking. It’s already in place. Even though there isn’t a
noise ordinance, there is something for dog barking. So file a complaint.
MRS. GOSLINE-I have one last thing. I looked up a Site Plan Review, 35-95, it was on
Tax Map No. 123-1-37-23. There was a kennel going in this area, too. It’s on Clendon
Brook, on West Mountain, and after some review of the same situation, with the
problems of noise, Mr. Paling, who was a member of your Board, he put down, there’s no
violations of zoning or anything else here, and we don’t really have the right to turn them
down on the basis of potential noise, but I just thought I’d put in that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Comments, questions from the Board?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. TRAVER-Well, I think it appears that we would need some additional information to
complete Site Plan Review in terms of the items that we discussed when you first did
your presentation with regard to the air conditioning and the electrical service. None of
this information is on the plan that you submitted.
MRS. GOSLINE-Are there any standards for dog kennels?
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think so because we haven’t done one.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know.
MRS. GOSLINE-I don’t believe there is, and what we’re doing is above and beyond
what’s called for.
MR. TRAVER-Excuse me. There is reference, as noted by Staff, to the pet care services
association. I think that you might find some information there with regards to
temperature levels and water requirements and that type of thing, perhaps square
footage. It’s the kind of information that would certainly be appropriate to accompany
your application.
MRS. GOSLINE-When I was reading on the Internet for one of these other kennels, they
asked them about heating, and he had a kerosene stove and he said the dogs huddled
up together, and that was the ’98 one that I referred to.
MR. TRAVER-In the Town of Queensbury?
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes. We’re trying to make this a very, I don’t know if you’d say State of
the Arts, but we’re going to be doing all this, but we have no problem with you reviewing
it, but there’s really no.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand. I’m just, it’s just, and I’m not speaking for the whole
Board, but for my own information, I would need to see information on addressing these
different issues that were raised, regarding the temperature control, the water
requirements, and so on.
MRS. GOSLINE-Don’t you have that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, do you need any licenses or registration from anybody
else?
MRS. GOSLINE-No. I checked, we checked on everything.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know, when it comes to air conditioning, we don’t ask that for
buildings, though. I mean, all of a sudden for dogs we’re asking for that? We never get
into that.
MRS. GOSLINE-I really, I did a lot of reading. Sometimes I forget where I see it, but it
was something I read that said there was no standard on the buildings. There’s nothing
put in place.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I mean, my big concern would be the noise, and what I’d be asking
to see if you’re alluding to having sound deadening material. I’d like to see what the
attenuation of that sound deadening material is.
MR. POLUNCI-The material on what it is?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, what’s the sound, the attenuation of that material.
MR. POLUNCI-I don’t know, well, no, I have the information on how they do it and how
they put it in there, and the decibels it drops down to.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. You did not submit that, correct?
MR. POLUNCI-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That’s what I’d like to see. The other thing is information.
MR. KREBS-That information is good, but that’s only good for when they’re inside.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct.
MR. KREBS-I’m just pointing that out.
MRS. GOSLINE-Inside. We’re planning on exercising them and entertaining them, or,
you know, being, this is supposed to be a facility, when you bring your dog, these dogs
aren’t just dogs. They’re family pets. They’re part of the family. They’re babies, and
we’re going to baby them just like they do at home. So, I mean, we’re not treating them
like they do at the SPCA.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. POLUNCI-Okay. As far as the noise goes, this is above and beyond what we have
to do to meet the requirements of the Special Use Permit. Am I correct? Because
there’s already a law in place for excessive dog barking, if I’m not mistaken.
MRS. GOSLINE-There is a law.
MR. POLUNCI- It is in place. So it’s going to police itself. All they have to do is make a
phone call and someone will come up and address that problem and at that point in time
we have to address that problem.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it’s likely that that law was put in place to handle a dog in a
neighborhood, not necessarily a professional business or a kennel situation.
MR. POLUNCI-So in that case there’s no noise ordinance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what happens is, correct me if I’m wrong, since you need a
Special Use Permit, you have to come to the Planning Board. That means you’re subject
to Site Plan Review.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and the Planning Board’s supposed to be looking at all these
issues. That’s what it comes out, and looking at it at that noise ordinance for dogs, I
mean, one of the things that that does is, you know, do the folks in the neighborhood, if
the dog is barking excessively, yes, it’s annoying to them, yes, it affects their quality of
life, but then they have to call the police. They have to file a complaint, and then it’s a
process that causes an individual, a homeowner, stress, one of your neighbors, and, you
know, I’ve listened to the public comment tonight, and I came in here on the fence
tonight, because you know we always get Special Use Permits, and you can grant three
different kinds of Special Use Permits, and I thought about well, certainly, you know, if it
were up to me and you got a Special Use Permit, there would be a duration on it. If you
ever sold the property, somebody else would have to come back for Site Plan Review
before the property could be used again, but I’ve also been on the Comprehensive Land
Use Committee. I spent three years on that Committee, and we looked at the Use
tables, and one of the reasons why we didn’t change the Use tables is because it would
require this use as well as all the other uses in the Rural Residential zone would have to
come before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and there’s an opportunity to look
at your project as well as any other project that would come through and all the criteria
and how it would affect community character and all those kinds of things that are listed
in 179-10, but I have to admit, when I looked at your project, I went back to, I was on the
Planning Board when Rich Schermerhorn actually came for Site Plan Review on filling
that property, and so I’ve been back there and I thought, okay, they’re going to put a
kennel on top of this mountain, manmade mountain, and then I thought about noise, you
know, carrying, and then based on some of the comment that we’ve heard, the public
comment tonight, I have some quality of life concerns. The area in which the kennel is
going to be located, and where you live, is Rural Residential, and although the Use
tables allow kennels, you know, what real estate agent tells folks that, okay, you know,
because some of the comment that’s been made is the kennel’s an allowed use. I get
that. I know the Use tables, but when most folks are looking for a house, what do they
see? It’s in the RR-3 zone or RR-5 or whatever it happens to be, Suburban Residential.
They don’t think about all the other uses. Most folks have never been before a Planning
Board or a Zoning Board, and they have no clue what other things could be located in
their area. They just know they’re moving into a residential area, and people are going to
have homes, and they’re going to live. There are considerations if there’s duplexes or
multi-families or those kinds of things, but most folks don’t think about the other uses that
are allowed, and so, you know, I know that there was a couple of discussions about that,
and I just don’t, I don’t know if I agree completely with it’s an allowed use so it’s okay,
you know, we have to grant it. Based on some of the public comment, you’ve got some
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
pro, some con, and, you know, a large amount of the audience is believing that the
project’s being inflicted on them, and that there’ll be adverse impacts to the
neighborhood, and we can grant a Special Use Permit a couple of different ways.
However, from my point of view, and I’m only one Board member, I don’t think the
project’s good planning. It is in the middle of a Rural Residential area, and you can’t
regulate barking dogs, and even if there is an Ordinance on the books, how do you
gauge or how do you measure annoyance? If the neighbors are sitting out on their
porch, and you had some folks that talked about sitting out on the porch in the morning,
how do you measure annoyance or quality of life for those folks who may have barking
dogs that never had barking dogs before? How do you measure whether somebody’s
property values are enhanced or deceased by having a dog kennel in the neighborhood?
I’m not, I don’t know that. I’m not a real estate agent, and so I don’t know that, but it’s a
factor for you, and then when I look at the Special Use Permits, 179-10-050 B, E, and F,
overall compatibility with the use in the neighborhood. This is Rural Residential, and it’s
E, the positive and negative impacts on the environment. Noise is one of those. F, the
extent to which the use provides positive or negative effects on the long term economic
stability and community character of the Town and surrounding properties, and so we
talk about property values. I’m not sure whether it would have a detrimental effect or not,
but as a Planning Board member, I have to think about those things, and so I’m not
overly enthused about your project, and the other thing is I know that there’s been some
comment that came up about, you know, give you a renewable or a temporary Special
Use Permit, but the plan you’re talking about will require a tremendous investment.
You’ve already invested in the land, and I’m actually pleased that you have the land, but
if you’re going to invest in the infrastructure, the Staff comments indicate that you’re
going to have to do some fortification of your roads in order to make it accessible.
MRS. GOSLINE-We’ve already started doing that.
MRS. STEFFAN-So there’s an investment there. Then you’re going to have to invest in
buildings and equipment and those kinds of things, and so once you invest in that, it
would be unfair of us to put a renewable term on your.
MRS. GOSLINE-We’re willing to do that, because you’re doing this all on potential noise.
You’re talking about potential this and potential that. This is my potential, you know, use.
MRS. STEFFAN-Correct. I know.
MRS. GOSLINE-And where else in Queensbury are you going to find 20 acres, all of it is
completely surrounded by trees, it’s off the road. I’m 600 feet off the road. I mean, you
don’t see it. You don’t.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, I know. I’ve been up there and we did the Site Plan Review.
MRS. GOSLINE-And like I said, there’s 13 dogs in our neighborhood, and I know there’s
dogs in Cedar Court, and some of their dogs bark continually. There’s one right up near
the entrance. There’s a dog, a small collie type dog that I’ve heard that barks, but they
do have dogs.
MRS. STEFFAN-But those are individual uses and you’re talking about a commercial
enterprise, and so I am one Board member.
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s a very, very small.
MR. KREBS-But at the same time it’s a permitted use.
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s a permitted use. It’s on the books.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s correct, but it’s up to the Planning Board.
MR. KREBS-But we can’t keep creating laws. We have laws on the book. It says it is a
permitted use.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s a permitted use, but the Planning Board has to use the criteria that’s
listed in the Zoning Regulations to weigh and consider it. It’s not a done deal, just
because it’s listed in the Use tables, it doesn’t mean.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but what she’s saying, and I happen to agree with her, you have some
people who have said there’s a potential problem for noise.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s correct.
MR. KREBS-That’s a potential problem. These people are saying they’re going to
control that.
MRS. GOSLINE-And we’re willing to make the investment with your two year, I think it
said two years, they had like a two year, what did you call it, like a renewal I think it was.
MRS. STEFFAN-A renewable.
MRS. GOSLINE-A renewal, I think it was.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’ve got three different, you’ve got a permanent, a temporary, and
renewable.
MRS. GOSLINE-I think the temporary started out as two years.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, here’s what I’d like to see, information on noise, barking noise
from dogs, how many decibels is it, for example.
MRS. GOSLINE-Where do I measure that?
MR. SEGULJIC-I am sure there’s literature out there. That’s first. Number Two, you
know, how far is it to the property line? Noise drops off literally.
MRS. GOSLINE-We’re 200 feet back from all the property lines.
MR. SEGULJIC-So what does that mean, if your kennel is here, what does that mean the
noise in theory is going to be at the property line? I mean, you’re also going to have the
attenuation of the material you’re going to put inside. That’s going to give me a good
indicator of the potential. Is the potential high or is the potential low for the noise?
MR. POLUNCI-So you want a decibel reading from when the dogs are going to be in the
kennels outside while she’s cleaning them or walking them? Because there’s going to
be noise there regardless on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would think that you’re going to, and this I’m going to have to probably
work out, but I would think you’re not going to have all the dogs outside at once.
MR. POLUNCI-No. Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to limit the dogs outside.
MR. POLUNCI-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-The highest probability is that the dogs are going to be barking inside, I
would think.
MR. POLUNCI-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-We have to make some assumptions here.
MR. POLUNCI-Correct. I understand that, but my thing is, if you have a dog in your
house and the dog barks, you can barely hear it to begin with, and especially when
you’re over 200 feet and in some cases 400 feet, and to the first house 800 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Correct, but I want, and if this is all true and you can, and I’m not
doubting that it is, if you can show that on paper, maybe you’ll be able to alleviate a lot of
Board member’s fears and a lot of public’s fears. You’re going to say the decibels is 90
is the max, it gets attenuated down to 60.
MR. POLUNCI-I guess what I’m saying is, how do we measure this, and do we take a
decibel reading, take a tape measure and measure from that point?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not going to direct you as to what to do, but I would recommend
there’s probably, my indication, the indication was that someone had cited a study, if I
recall correctly it was 118 was the max decibel that the study cited, and then the
material’s going to attenuate it by some degree. So let’s say it gets it down to 80, and
then you go down to the property line, there’s a distance, there’s a mathematical
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
equation, to show what it is at the property line. If you want you can go out and hire a
noise engineer. I am not recommending that, but that’s a possibility.
MRS. BRUNO-I think you could probably do enough research on that that you could
determine well enough the decreased level of the decibels over the linear footage.
MRS. GOSLINE-What are the acceptable decibels?
MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure. I haven’t done that.
MR. KREBS-Well, that’s the question. Let me ask Staff that. In a lot of police
departments in the State, when they go out, they take a sound measurement, okay. Is
that a law here in Warren County, or is it just disturbing the peace? If they get a
complaint on a barking dog, what’s the rule?
MR. OBORNE-That’s a civil issue. That’s not in the Zoning Code.
MR. KREBS-Yes, I know, but what is the level of sound?
MR. OBORNE-For dogs or for any sound?
MR. KREBS-Yes, for any.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not in the Zoning Code.
MR. KREBS-Usually some of the have music, animals and so forth.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I can’t recall that being in the Code. It may be, but I know that
there are general tables online or general tables that you can research for that.
MR. KREBS-There’s nothing in Warren County? Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-There’s no noise ordinance. So they don’t have a decibel reading. So
what it is is the dog is habitually barking and annoying people then they can make a
complaint, and that’s on the books. The law is on the books.
MR. KREBS-That’s disturbing the peace.
MRS. GOSLINE-We have the measurements here. I know this isn’t to the inch, but it’s
on a County map, and it shows you, on this map we did some of the measurements.
This is the one inch to one hundred feet, from the different homes, and we tried to show
you the distances. Now Mr. O’Connor, from this, is about 650 feet. He must have a very
high house because he can see this property, but we’re about 500, 800 feet away from
the Murthas. We’re 800 feet away from Cedar Court, and we’re much closer to the
people on our side.
MR. POLUNCI-And these people are for it.
MRS. GOSLINE-And all these people are saying they’ll give us a chance.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, these people are all for it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but one of the things that the Code.
MRS. GOSLINE-We’re talking football fields here, treed football fields.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but one of the things the Code says we should look at is noise,
and what I’m asking is, I’d just like to see this on paper. A dog bark’s 118, attenuation is
such and such. Therefore at the property line it will be this. That’ll help me make a
decision. Sitting here, I would agree, it should be plenty far away, but for me to make a
decision, I have to have something to base that on, other than, well, it’s far away.
MRS. BRUNO-I think the height of where you’re looking to put it does play into the
distance. It’s not like it’s on level with these houses that are 600 feet away. It’s up
higher. So the sound is going to travel differently from that down, and again, that goes
back to how the trees and everything might muffle those sounds. We’ve heard in the
Town over and over again, just in terms of sound coming off the highway, do trees muffle
that, do buildings muffle it more, and that type of thing.
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MRS. GOSLINE-In our area, I mean, we’ve got trucks, motorcycles, lately it’s been jets.
How do you take care of that? I mean, we’ve had jets going over our house all month,
and it’s getting more and more and more, but how can I take care of that? I can’t go up
in the sky and tell them to disappear. People are becoming very unfriendly to dogs, and
we’re trying to make a park where they can come, be welcomed, and have like their own
area, because you can’t walk them on the bike trail, you can’t go in the wetlands, I mean,
the watershed. You can’t go at the School. It’s becoming habitual. So that’s what we’re
trying to do, and we’re not asking, these dogs are not going to be just off the road dogs.
They’re probably going to be very well trained, very well traveled dogs, pets, family dogs,
because they’re going to have to pay to come.
MR. TRAVER-I’d like to return to the issue of the designs that were submitted in the
application. I think, you know, it’s, there was a lot of discussion about happy dogs and
so on, and I think that it would strengthen your application if you could submit the details
of what the recommended temperature zones are for dogs and how you’re going to
address that, the water needs of the dogs, how you’re going to make the area sanitary
and keep it so. All of these things that are addressed right in the Staff Notes, I think, if
you can respond to those in your application, you’re going to strengthen your argument
that you’re putting together a facility that is less likely to create a situation where dogs
are going to be howling and uncomfortable, and if you can indicate to us that your design
for this facility is along the guidelines of organizations that make such recommendations,
and I’m sure there are some. I’m not currently a dog owner, but I’m sure there’s
information out there on how to do that, and that information isn’t in here, and in your
presentation you spoke about some of these issues, but they’re not in your application
for review, and I’m just suggesting to you that you will strengthen position if you can
document some standards for these things, and show that you’ve met them. You then
are going to have an argument that you’re less likely to have unhappy dogs.
MR. SEGULJIC-And you know we all don’t like unhappy dogs.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And getting back to your plan, I don’t believe you had the port-a-potty on
there.
MR. POLUNCI-I believe it was written in the paper, though. It wasn’t drawn on the thing,
but it was in the actual.
MRS. GOSLINE-We’re not even, we don’t even have to have a toilet, because it’s not
required.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, that’s not required.
MRS. GOSLINE-And I’ve already checked with Dave Hatin on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-I believe you do, if you have workers. I think that’s an OSHA Code.
MRS. GOSLINE-We don’t have, they’re family. It’s us. What am I going to do? I go to
my own house.
MR. TRAVER-His response might have been based on the fact that it wasn’t residential.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think you’d have to check OSHA. I think OSHA requires that.
MR. TRAVER-I think having employees there.
MR. POLUNCI-It is in here on the port-a-potty.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, having patrons, I would think would do that right there.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but what I’m saying, it should be on the plan. So that when we look
at the Site Plan it shows a port-a-potty.
MR. POLUNCI-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-And that actually leads me to something, because I’m not really sure. I
think if you have patrons you should have those facilities, but also, even though this is a
private piece of property, because you will be having patrons bringing their dogs in, that
is bringing the public into that property, and I think on the engineering report it did
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
mention that the road and everything hasn’t been engineered. I understand that you’re
starting to work on them, but going back to the details and the information needed, I think
we do need to see even more information on not just the buildings.
MR. TRAVER-The infrastructure.
MRS. BRUNO-But the infrastructure. Thank you.
MRS. GOSLINE-So you want us to complete everything and then come back, or just tell
you what we’re going to do?
MRS. BRUNO-No, document it.
MRS. GOSLINE-Document it.
MRS. BRUNO-And perhaps get some more input from people who do this for a living or
who have gone through the process before, you know, just to shore up your methods of
showing us what you’re trying to say.
MRS. GOSLINE-There aren’t too many kennels in Queensbury.
MRS. BRUNO-If you can break it down into pieces, your road, you know, the buildings,
whether they’re going to help the dogs be happy.
MR. TRAVER-If you can present information that indicates that you’ve addressed the
issue, the sanitary issues, the waste management issues. Again, you’ve spoken to
those issues before us tonight, but it’s not in your application for the review.
MR. POLUNCI-Well, are you talking about the sanitation as what the buildings are going
to be built out of? Is that what you’re referring to?
MR. TRAVER-Among other things, yes. There’s also concern about, and again, this
probably gets into suggested management techniques for kennel operations. How do
you handle dogs, for example, that are coming in that have some illness or something
that’s going on? There, I’m sure, are recommendations for.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes. All these dogs are going to be pre-screened first, and they have to
have their information before they come in, proving that they’re vaccinated and they have
everything with them.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. That information is not in your application.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So it sounds to me like we’re going to table this, and what
information would you like to see? Is there anything else?
MR. OBORNE-If you’re going to table this, I would suggest you be very specific on what
you’re looking for.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m all over the place so far. So do we want to just start, so far we’ve got
the decibel level of the dogs barking at the site, and then, two, how the levels decrease
over the linear footage. We feel that the application needs to be, how were you saying
it?
MR. SEGULJIC-Like a plan for handling of sanitary waste.
MR. TRAVER-Waste management, stormwater management, structure detail, in terms
of electrical service, heating and air conditioning, floor construction.
MRS. BRUNO-How about atmosphere control?
MR. TRAVER-Water supply and management.
MR. SEGULJIC-For water supply they said they were going to bring a water tank on site.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, of 40 gallons.
MR. POLUNCI-Forty-eight gallons.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. TRAVER-Forty-eight gallons, but we have no information if that’s adequate for the
facility at that point.
MR. POLUNCI-I’d just make more trips. I’d just go back to the house, get more and
come up. That’s irrelevant.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I mean, we’re kind of bordering on how they operate their business,
which isn’t really our purview.
MR. TRAVER-But that impacts on the noise.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess what I want to be satisfied with first is even if they bark, it’s
not going to be an issue at 600 feet away, for example. It might not even be an issue.
They can bark all they want, if it’s not going to leave the property. I don’t know that for
sure.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s why I’m asking for the noise information. If they can take care of
that, the noise problem, I think a lot of these other things will go away. That’s just my
opinion.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I don’t, I think if we can get over the noise issue, then I think we do
really need to make sure that the infrastructure is, from how I feel, is safe and proper for
the public.
MR. POLUNCI-So you mean roads?
MRS. BRUNO-Roads.
MR. TRAVER-And for the animals.
MRS. BRUNO-And for the animals, yes. Roads for the people and the buildings and the
comfort levels for the animals.
MR. TRAVER-Yes. How are you going to maintain the temperature? What’s the floor
surface that the dogs are going to be in? How is the waste going to be handled? All of
that is very important.
MRS. BRUNO-It just needs to be, yes, documented.
MRS. STEFFAN-You know, folks, I’m listening to this conversation, and I don’t know if
anybody has really spent some time with the special use permit. The intent of a Special
Use Permit, it sets forth requirements which shall apply to certain land uses and activities
which due to their characteristics or special characteristics of the area in which they are
to be located require special consideration so that they may be properly located and
planned with respect to the objectives of this Zoning Chapter, their affect on surrounding
properties and community character. The primary purpose of special use permit review
is to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and to ensure the long-term
benefit of the use to the Town. B. While recognizing that certain types of uses may be
desirable or necessary in the Town, their nature can cause certain problems or
difficulties. Consequently, particular uses are controlled by a special use permit
procedure which requires additional regulations designed for each use in order to
mitigate such problems or difficulties and to minimize the impact of these upon the
zoning district in which such use is located. The things that you’re all talking about
putting in the tabling motion are business specific items, and I don’t think that you’re
looking at the big picture, and so I have to throw that out because I think we’re missing
the boat here, and I know we have to weigh and consider all options, but I think we’re
really missing the boat on the big picture.
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, he said when we take care of the, we find out if it’s going to be
noisy, if the noise is going to carry, that would cover a lot of your problems, because
you’re worried about the potential.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was only speaking for myself, just to clarify that.
MRS. GOSLINE-All right. Well, you’re worried about the potential noise.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. TRAVER-It’s my feeling, in fairness to the applicant, that we have a complete
application to review, and some of the information that has been presented to us tonight
is not included in this application, and they address issues of health and safety and
comfort of the animals that are going to be in the kennel, all of which deals with health
and waste issues of the facility and that goes to noise and all the rest of it, and for the
benefit of the applicant, I think to not have that information before we make a decision is
unfair.
MRS. GOSLINE-Are you saying we can’t have a kennel in Queensbury?
MRS. STEFFAN-No. What we’re evaluating.
MRS. GOSLINE-You’re not going to find any other place, you’re not going to find any
place that would satisfy you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I don’t know whether that will work or not. All I know is that the
application in front of us is the one we’re looking at now.
MRS. GOSLINE-I know, but I’m saying there’s no other parcel in Queensbury that would
be adequate.
MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know whether that exists or not. It’s just this application on this
address. I can’t talk about big picture because every application is based on the location
that it’s being presented. Otherwise we could go anywhere with that.
MR. KREBS-They’re asking you for more detail.
MRS. GOSLINE-I’ll get the detail.
MR. KREBS-On how you’re going to run your business at that location. Okay. We’re not
going to tell you. We’re asking you to tell us. These people down here have specified
some areas that need shoring up and need more detailed information and that’s what
you’re asking to come from you.
MRS. BRUNO-I also, you know, I definitely think that the whole noise thing in the
neighborhood is extremely important, what you were saying, Gretchen, in terms of we
don’t want it to impact the neighborhood negatively. One of the reasons why I was giving
the other points is if you come in here and you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it
isn’t going to travel to the extent that we think it could, we want to make sure that you
then have the rest of the information that we might cover under other parts of site
planning that we do for any other application such as the infrastructure and all of that,
because we wouldn’t want to have table you then again, because then it just prolongs
the process. So it is at a couple of stages, but I don’t know, Gretchen, do you want to
make a motion this evening to the effect of what you’re thinking and?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, apparently I’m in the minority. So.
MRS. BRUNO-No. I wouldn’t necessarily say that.
MRS. GOSLINE-But would you say we have the right to do this? It’s zoned for it. It’s a
permitted use, or a Special Use Permit.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and that’s the reason why you’re here, and that’s why your
application’s being heard, and so it’s up to the Planning Board to review whether this
kennel is the right fit for Blind Rock Road, and that’s the responsibility of the people that
are on this side of the table, and so, from my point of view, based on the criteria for this
special permit, Special Use Permit, the zoning, the public comment, the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, and the potential impacts of noise, I would not be in favor of the project.
So, that’s my position, but the rest of the Board may not share my position. I think that’s
obvious.
MR. KREBS-And I think it might be helpful if you came in, I’m sure Keith could provide
you with a copy of 179-10-050, which is the general standards for Special Use Permits,
and it very specifically tells you what you need to do, and one of the concerns is noise.
Now in my personal opinion, a kennel in the middle of 20 acres, I’m not worried about the
noise.
MR. SEGULJIC-Noise is a big concern. For myself personally, I think you can show it on
paper, but I have to be able to see it.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. POLUNCI-Okay. That makes sense, but as far as, I mean, there is going to be
some noise. I guess what I’m asking is what is a tolerable?
MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure because we’re not sound engineers.
MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m going to do is I’m going to pull out the decibel chart where they
go through the different things and they say what the noise is comparable to in reality.
MR. TRAVER-If you do your homework, we’ll try to do ours.
MR. POLUNCI-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So I think we’re ready for a tabling motion. Is anyone ready?
Because I think what we need is more information. The public hearing will be left open,
and part of the motion will be when this will be heard again, and at that point you’ll be
able to further the public comment.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m just going to be reading this to the Board, just to make sure that I
haven’t missed anything.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Number One would be the decibels at origin of 20 dogs. Two would be
the decibels at various ranges out to 600 feet of, I guess I should clarify that, of dog
barking, 20 dogs barking. Okay. Three would be the topographic detail of the site, in
other words the contours. Four would be the infrastructure details for roads and grounds
and the building structure. I’ve got to clarify that, building structure, electrical and
atmospheric controls. That’s bumpy. We’re going to have to clarify that. Five, evidence
the design of the facility is in accordance with industry standards and six would be the
waste and stormwater management details.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. KREBS-What if there aren’t any industry standards to look at? I’m just asking the
question.
MRS. BRUNO-Well then, yes.
MR. KREBS-You’re asking them to do something, and if there aren’t any industry
standards, and they come back without any, how are you going to address that? You
might want to say if there are industry standards.
MRS. BRUNO-And then what do they come back with if there aren’t? We want to make
sure that something comes back.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m uncomfortable with getting involved in the interior of their
operation. That’s not our, that’s their gig.
MRS. BRUNO-Don’t we have, this has got to be true. Isn’t it a law that animals have to
be taken care of a certain way, you know, humane society and all that?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not our purview. Our Code says we look at things like
stormwater, noise, lighting, you know, a site layout, traffic flow, traffic flow, traffic
impacts. It doesn’t talk about atmospheric control of buildings. I mean, we are involved
with buildings for people and that never comes up, but all of a sudden we’re concerned
about dogs. I mean, I would disagree with that.
MRS. BRUNO-So we can say the infrastructure details for the roads?
MR. TRAVER-Well, we don’t have to require that. However, I think we can, it’s certainly
my feeling that that information ensuring us that the animals are going to be comfortable,
will help address some of the issue of noise. So, we don’t need to require that as
something they come back with. If you’d care to offer that information, that’s up to you.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’ve also identified the sound deadening equipment, the internal
sound deadening that they’ve talked about. The other thing is you can put in to address
Staff comments because there was Staff Notes. There was no VISION Engineering for
this, but there were Staff comments that could be addressed.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SEGULJIC-Right because at Staff, the engineering comments we talked about the
road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. They identified those.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think if you just say address the engineering comments, you’ll
address all the infrastructure.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s no engineering comments. There’s just Staff Notes.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no engineering. Just Staff comments.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not on this one. I don’t think there are. There were VISION
Engineering comments.
MR. SEGULJIC-They would have been of the road, right?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. There were VISION Engineering comments. There were just two
of them.
MR. SEGULJIC-There was a study cited. There’s got to be information on it.
MRS. BRUNO-Well, that’s what I’m thinking. I mean, everything is out there.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re getting bogged down in this. What have we got for a motion
here?
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I think, you know, going back to the Staff comments, they really
covered all of what we’re trying to put into words.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’d say address Staff comments.
MRS. BRUNO-And any products that have been offered for our review should be.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, any materials the applicant would like to offer for our review with
regards to how this facility is going to care for the animals, their well-being, to reduce the
likelihood that they will be creating any kind of a problem, whether it be noise, pollution,
whatever. If you wish to offer that, that’s fine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you asking for a sanitary plan?
MRS. BRUNO-No, just things that they’ve offered this evening, like how he said.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve got to be specific. You’re not asking for anything. You’re leaving
it up to them to maybe submit things. You have to be specific.
MR. TRAVER-Well, that’s not going to be part of, what I just said is not part of our, not
going to be part of our tabling resolution.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. That’s just a general comment. All right.
MR. TRAVER-Exactly.
MRS. BRUNO-Gretchen, we’ve gotten very used to you being so thorough. I am not a
wordsmith. Well, I think we’re just going to really address Staff comments. Okay.
Another try. One will still be the decibels at origin of 20 dogs barking. Two will be the
decibels at various ranges out to 600 feet of the dogs barking. Three will be the
topographic detail of site, i.e. the contours. Four will be to address Staff comments. Five
is to submit the documentation regarding sound attenuation, and that’s it.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. One comment there. What do you want for topographic detail?
I mean, if they come in with a line every 20 feet?
MR. TRAVER-Well, that actually came from Mr. Sipp early on. What contour interval
would you like, Don?
MR. SIPP-What’s that?
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. TRAVER-For the topographic information you were looking for.
MR. SIPP-Contour lines, or at least elevations.
MR. TRAVER-What interval?
MR. SIPP-Ten feet.
MR. TRAVER-Ten feet.
MRS. BRUNO-Ten feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would think if you go to a topographical map and get that.
MR. OBORNE-Could you say 10 feet or less?
MRS. BRUNO-Ten feet or less.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I think we’re ready to go.
MRS. BRUNO-All set? Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 30-2008 MARYLEE GOSLINE &
JOHN & KIM POLUNCI, Introduced by Tanya Bruno who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Stephen Traver:
Tabled to the October 21, 2008 meeting with submission of materials by September 15,
2008.
1. Tabling for, one, the decibels at origin of 20 dogs barking,
2. The decibels of the dogs barking at various ranges out to 600 feet,
3. Topographic details of the site be submitted, that is the contour lines to be
10 feet or less,
4. Address Staff and engineering comments,
5. Submit the documentation regarding sound attenuation for the kennels.
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Steffan
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and do you understand? Okay. Thank you. All right, we have
three more things to do. Okay. We have setting of the September, and Cohen.
MR. OBORNE-And Cohen, that’s two things. Yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and then Mr. Salvador asked for five minutes. So we’re going
to establish a third meeting, first of all, for September, and our potential dates are?
thth
MR. OBORNE-The potential dates are, we would say the 18 or the 25.
MR. SEGULJIC-And those are Thursdays, correct?
MR. OBORNE-Of September. They’re both Thursdays, and I would like to put in a plug
th
for Staff, and I would like to request the 25.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do we have to do a motion for that, or it’s just?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That sure would be clean.
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Is everyone okay with the 25? I’ll make a motion.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE A THIRD MEETING IN SEPTEMBER,
TH
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 25, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
MR. SEGULJIC-And then the Cohen. We have to go back and it is the, clarify for me.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Let me pull out my notes. Okay. Last week everybody got a copy
from Mr. Cohen discussing his Site Plan Review for, I believe, Site Plan No. 3-2007, and
this had to do with the demolition of the former restaurant and construction of parking,
construction of a parking lot at 1169 and 1161 State Route 9. What he’s looking for is a
continuation of his Site Plan. Irrespective of what he’s doing at 1471 State Route 9, he
should not have put that in his letter. Okay. To clarify, what we are asking you to do,
what he is asking you to do is to extend the Site Plan for another year.
MR. SEGULJIC-Site Plan approval.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan approval for another year.
MRS. BRUNO-For the one up in the Outlets, the demolition of?
MR. TRAVER-No, for the parking across from The Great Escape.
MRS. STEFFAN-So he’s asking for permission to continue to use that as a parking lot?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I believe that the Site Plan has to do with building a parking lot.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, he was changing.
MR. KREBS-Well, to tear down a restaurant.
MRS. STEFFAN-But he’s not made any significant movement in that direction. So if we
approve this, if we extend it, it’s just going to, are we just giving him permission to leave
that nasty old building there?
MRS. BRUNO-And not have any of the wastewater system, or stormwater?
MR. TRAVER-Yes. I think there was an old septic system that he had to remove.
MR. OBORNE-I took the liberty of bringing the file with me tonight. I’m not familiar with
the septic or what the wastewater system is. You can probably give me some guidance
on that, to be honest with you.
MR. SIPP-He addressed that, too.
MR. TRAVER-We did. There were some changes to the stormwater management
system, and I apologize, I don’t have my notes with me tonight, but I do recall the Site
Plan recalled for some improvements.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely to stormwater. I thought you were bringing up wastewater
issues.
MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, I said wastewater at first and I meant stormwater.
MR. OBORNE-Stormwater, yes, I can address that no problem.
MR. TRAVER-And again, I don’t have my notes in front of me, but did I recall that there
was an old septic system on this site?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-Which, as part of this Site Plan was to be removed?
MR. SIPP-Right.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and that was a concern, as I recall, the continuing presence of that
septic system. We were anxious to see that removed.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
MR. SIPP-There was also a landscaping provision.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, I’m sure all your points are valid. I think the issue is, does the
Board, the Planning Board, wish to extend this Site Plan, as it stands?
MRS. STEFFAN-I would not, and looking at the applicant, the applicant had two Site
Plan approvals, and they have not gone forward with either one of those approvals. My
feeling on this one is that I would not be willing to extend this for another year. I might be
willing to extend it for six months, so that they could get the work taken care of through
the Fall and into the first quarter of next year, but not to prolong it.
MR. OBORNE-And that is certainly, you know, what you can do.
MR. SIPP-Well, I think so, because he was told he’d have to put up a sign saying to stay
on the west side of Route 9 until it got to the overhead walkway. That was not there for
three-fourths of the summer. When it was there, half the time it was turned around so
that people couldn’t even see it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do we have a Site Plan number?
MR. OBORNE-3-2007.
MR. SEGULJIC-3-2007.
MOTION TO EXTEND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN NO. 3-07 VANCE
COHEN FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Schonewolf
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So, the last item, then, is Mr. Salvador has asked for five
minutes.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. It’s come to light, in another community, that a County
agency has been doing work under contract for certain applicants. This agency is the
Soil and Water Conservation District, and Mr. Dave Wick has entered into contracts with
private undertakings to do consulting work. He has performed the established scope of
work, did the project design, acquired the permits, and supervised the construction. Now
this would all probably have gone unnoticed except that there was a complaint issued,
during the course of the construction, and the Town looked into it and issued a Stop
Work Order, and with that, you know, the fit hit the shan. In any case, the reason I bring
this to your attention is that Mr. Wick, as the Managing Director of the Warren County
Soil and Water District, has played a pivotal role in two projects in this Town. One, the
Schermerhorn project, and, Two, the French Mountain project. I think you observed, at
least I recall, when the Schermerhorn project first came before you, the contingent from
Glen Lake was very vocal and outspoken about the concerns they had for the
environmental damage that it might cause to Glen Lake, and Mr. Paul Derby lead the
band on this, very forceful, very outspoken. The next round, Mr. Wick got into it. You
remember Mr. Lapper saying we got a signoff from Soil and Water. What does that
mean? There’s no provision in our Code to get a signoff from Soil and Water, but
anyway, that was the presentation that was made, and with that, Mr. Derby disappeared.
Now we know that the Glen Lake Protective Association is always looking for grant
money through Soil and Water for their aquatic weed protection, whatever. Okay. The
other thing is that the French Mountain project, where Mr. Macchio has been cited by our
Town Code Enforcement people for violations of our Ordinance, has gotten a report from
Soil and Water, from Mr. Wick, that is being used to support, in court, to support the fact
that he’s remediated some of the problems up there. This, if it turns out that he’s working
under contract for these people, then I see serious problems here. First of all, I see no
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
basis for a County agency to be engaged in this sort of work. Absolutely none
whatsoever. It’s a conflict of interest. He holds great sway when he goes to an APA, an
Army Corps of Engineers, a DEC to get a permit for an applicant. That’s what he did.
It’s been stated on the record. In any case, I’ve raised this issue of the impropriety of
this. A little bit of, I’m going to leave with you a copy of a letter that I’ve written to the
Chairman of the Planning Board in the Town of Lake George, and in this letter, I outline
some of the problems I see with the way Soil and Water is being operated. For your
interest, the County Soil and Water District came about because, in the late 1940’s, early
1950’s. There was great concern for the flooding of farmland, and so Ag & Markets got
the State legislature to authorize Counties to organize for the control of drainage.
Drainage is the word, and they did this in 1955, ’56. They passed this law and allowed
Counties to establish these agencies, and the County did. They established the Warren
County Soil and Water Conservation District. The whole operation was supposed to
establish areas in the County that required drainage regulation. That was the whole
reason for it, and they were supposed to establish districts where this drainage would be
controlled, and you know when you form a district you have district participants, and
those people who have a drainage problem in their neighborhood, in their district, they
pay. Now they way we do it in Warren County, if there’s a drainage problem in
Queensbury because we’ve overdeveloped for some reason, the folks in Johnsburg help
pay for it. Because it’s a County wide district. In any case, it’s all gone, it’s gone amuck
and I have found out that these fees that Mr. Wick is charging, and there’s no denying
that he was paid, numbers range from $13,000 to $16,000 for this consulting work he did
in Lake George.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Salvador, if you could just wrap it up, because it’s getting late.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, okay. In any case, that money is supposed to go to the County
Treasurer, to be used for drainage control in the County. Now, who knows where it’s
gone? I don’t know. The suspicion is that Soil and Water has their own private bank
accounts.
MR. OBORNE-Can I address one thing, having been a former Soil and Water
Conservation District employee. It was Federally chartered, not State chartered.
There’s over 1500 Soil and Water Conservation Districts across the United States. Now,
it doesn’t mean that they were all enacted all at once, and Warren County could very well
have been chartered in ’55, but that is definitely a Federal, and it’s usually under the
auspices of the USDA.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, our legislature adopted a law, and I’ve got the law, okay, and it
allowed, it permitted Counties to organize these drainage districts. That’s all.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Their charter also involves a lot more than water management, too,
because I’ve purchased trees and shrubs from them in the Springtime and volunteered
as a cooperator when I acquired my own home property, and they had a ranger come
down and walk the property and make recommendations for flora and so on. So they
provide a lot more services than just flood control at this point. I don’t know who their
governing.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and, it’s beyond, I’ll tell you, if you read this, it’s beyond their
authority. They have certain authority that’s been given to them, and they’re getting out
into this consulting work. I understand the Town of Queensbury, you mentioned that
drainage, the drainage, sand, separation there at Enterprise cars, I understand Town of
Queensbury paid them $80,000 for their work, and guess what, the project’s going
nowhere. They struck oil.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right, and with that, I’ll make a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF
AUGUST 26, 2008, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
th
Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Schonewolf,
Mr. Seguljic
NOES: NONE
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/26/08)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Thomas Seguljic, Acting Chairman
65