2004-12-21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LARRY RINGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ROBERT VOLLARO
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
ANTHONY METIVIER
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA
PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JAMES HOUSTON
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 19, 2004: NONE
October 26, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 19 AND OCTOBER 26, 2004,
TH
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-We’re going to change the agenda around a little bit. We’re just moving one item.
SITE PLAN NO. 14-2000 PREVIOUS SEQR MODIFICATION STEVE & DONNA SUTTON
AGENT: JIM MILLER, NORTHFIELD DESIGNS ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION:
1036 STATE ROUTE 9, SMOKEY BEAR BBQ, RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 1000 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT.
RESTAURANT USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/04 LOT
SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George?
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. HILTON-This is modification of a previous site plan approval. The applicant proposes to
construct an approximately 1,000 square foot addition to an existing restaurant. The addition
would be constructed behind the existing restaurant. I’ve listed the waivers that have been
requested. The proposed addition would be built over an already impervious surface. So, no
additional stormwater is expected with this expansion. The applicant has submitted a building
elevation showing what the addition will look like. It will match the existing restaurant, and
with that, that’s all I have at this time.
MR. RINGER-Thank you, George. Identify yourself and tell us a little bit about your project,
please.
MR. MILLER-Good evening. I’m Jim Miller from Northfield Design. I’m representing the
Suttons. This is Gabe Sutton, representing the Suttons, and basically what we’re looking to do
is to add a 1,080 square foot addition to the rear of the existing Smokey Bear Restaurant,
formerly known as Fish Tales Restaurant. The new addition will be going over the top of the
existing concrete patio, and the new footprint will be entirely over the existing concrete
impervious area. We meet all the requirements for setbacks for parking. The site is already
heavily landscaped, and actually the area we’re disturbing is not landscaped. It’s concrete. So,
basically we feel the impact is minimal, if any impact at all.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Any questions? I’m not going to go down our formal list. Any questions
from the Board?
MR. VOLLARO-Do we a have to do a SEQRA on this?
MR. RINGER-Well, it’s a modification. So I wouldn’t think we’ve got to do a SEQRA on it, but I
noticed from the agenda, George, that you showed that this is, you had scheduled a public
hearing. Did you send out a notice? It’s a modification. We wouldn’t normally have a public
hearing.
MR. HILTON-Yes. Typically with a modification we wouldn’t. I guess I’m not sure if that’s a
typo or if we actually did notice, send notices out. I guess you could open and close the public
hearing.
MR. RINGER-Well, why don’t we, just to cover ourselves. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone
from the public care to talk about this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-I don’t think we need a SEQRA on this because it is a modification and we can,
any approval would be that the no changes in the SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-I only have one condition on it. It was the condition that Mike Shaw put in
with his attachment.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Did you want to make the resolution, Bob, and put that condition in?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2000 STEVE & DONNA SUTTON, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
Site Plan 14-2000 Applicant/Property Owner: STEVE & DONNA SUTTON
Previous SEQR Agent: Jim Miller, Northfield Designs
Zone: HC-Intensive
MODIFICATION Location: 1036 State Route 9, Smokey Bear BBQ, Rt. 9
Applicant proposes to construct a 1000 +/- sq. ft. addition to an existing restaurant. Restaurant
uses in the HC-Intensive zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board.
Warren Co. Planning: 12/8/04
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-15
Lot size: 0.96 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 12/21/04
WHEREAS, the application was received on 10/15/04 and 11/8/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/17/04, and
12/17/04 Staff Notes
12/14/04 Notice of Public Hearing
12/8/04 Warren Co. Planning Bd. Recommendation: NCI
12/1/04 Transmittal to applicant: refund
11/30 /04 Meeting Notice sent w/project ID marker
11/24/04 Wastewater comments
11/15/04 Application; Waiver requests from Stormwater Mgmt., Grading, Lighting
and Landscaping Plan; and Maps A2 received 11/8/04 and Map SP dated
10/13/04
10/25//04 Applicant from GH: Incomplete application
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. The restaurant shall hook up to the sewer system by September 2005 as requested by the
Wastewater Superintendent.
Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-You’re all set, gentlemen.
MR. MILLER-Thank you.
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE:
UNLISTED DORIS FARRAR PROPERTY OWNER: DORIS FARRAR/RACHAEL ALLEN
AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.03 +/- ACRE PROPERTY INTO TWO
LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 3.03 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 1-03, AV 36-04, AV 66-02
TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-70.1, 70.2 LOT SIZE: 4.03 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George.
MR. HILTON-Okay. Since the Planning Board tabled this application, the applicant has
submitted a revised subdivision plat showing the proposed home and septic system, along with
the approximate location of wetlands. The wetlands are new to this map, and I guess, in terms
of the Town’s wetland policy, a full delineation should be submitted for a couple of reasons.
Number One, to determine lot density, to calculate residential density, and secondly to, I guess
in siting the septic system in the home, the precise location should be delineated so that the
proposed construction can meet those setbacks. The septic system is required to meet a 100 foot
setback from any wetland, and the proposed home is required to meet a 75 foot setback. So I
think in terms, as I mentioned, in terms of determining residential density, and siting the
infrastructure on site, we may need to see a full delineation. As I’ve mentioned, the applicant
has submitted the results of two test pits and based on those results it appears that a raised fill
system will be constructed. That information has been submitted to C.T. Male, and Jim
Houston from C.T. Male is here this evening to, I guess, summarize his comments. With that,
that’s all I have at this time.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Doris Farrar who’s with me tonight. At
the last tabling motion, there were a few items you wanted to be placed on the plan, which we
did, as far as where that ditch line is on the southerly end of the property, and there were some
comments from C.T. Male regarding the septic system, that they wanted some spot elevations to
show the two foot separation requirements. We have added that to the plan. I submitted new
copies. I faxed that over to Jim today. I don’t know if you got that or not, Jim. We did do that.
So we have no problems with the three comments that he had. We have modified the plan
accordingly. As far as the wetlands comment that the Staff has brought up, we had asked about
that at the last meeting. I showed them to be 24,500 square feet of wet area that’s on the
property. It is not a DEC wetland, and it was delineated by Charlie Maine, and if it is an Army
Corps wetland, we had looked at it, it’s a pocket in there, on a low area, and it rises up in all
directions, and it would therefore be classified as an isolated wetland, if it was, in fact, an Army
Corps, which we don’t believe it is, but it is not a State wetland. I checked that with the State,
O’Connor, John O’Connor with DEC. So we have no problem with the location of the septic
system that we have proposed. Yes, it is a raised system, and the details have been submitted to
your engineer.
MR. RINGER-Okay. George?
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. HILTON-Well, I guess, you know, as far as whether it’s a New York State DEC wetland,
jurisdictional inquiry or letter, from DEC would answer that, but assuming that it is an Army
Corps wetland, the setback for the septic system that I mentioned and the home still applies.
MR. STEVES-Okay. As I stated, it is not a DEC wetland. If it is, meets the criteria of Army
Corps, we believe, in discussions with them, that it is an isolated wetland and therefore
wouldn’t be jurisdictional by them. If it’s something that you want, I don’t have a problem with
a conditional approval that I supply that information, but in talking with them for them to be
able to come up here and actually confirm that it is isolated, could take them up to six weeks to
do that.
MR. RINGER-This application has been hanging around since last August or July.
MR. STEVES-Right, you know, and instead of bringing it back and bringing it back and
bringing it back to the Board, if that’s a concern has, I understand, and we can accomplish that,
if it’s all right with this Board.
MR. RINGER-I’m not saying it’s going, you know, one way or the other. I understand your
point. I know that this has been dragging on with the ZBA and everyone else for a long period
of time.
MR. STEVES-I’m just putting that out there, but I did, at the last meeting, go through, it’s a
three acre lot we’re talking about, and the total wetlands, or so called wet area, is 24,500 square
feet. So as far as the density calc’s, there isn’t a problem with that. I actually showed that on
the bottom of the map, a usable density at 3.47 acres. So we are well within the guidelines of
your zoning.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s move on from here, and we’ll start with questions from the Board. I
wasn’t here the last time this was here. Did Craig go down the subdivision list for all the items?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve been down it once, Mr. Chairman, and I didn’t go down it the second
time. I’ve got questions, but I didn’t follow the protocol this time.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, we’ll go down it, then, if that’s what you would like. So, let’s start
with design standards. Any questions on design standards, anyone from the Board? No one?
Okay. Development criteria?
MR. VOLLARO-I think we went down a lot of those the last time.
MR. RINGER-Well, do you want to go down them or?
MR. VOLLARO-I would rather try to get to the areas that I have here.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Go right to your questions, then, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m probably going to be talking to our engineer on this for a minute.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking about a raised absorption trench here, a raised system, and both
our 183, which is our subdivision code, 183-28, and 179-9-080, drives us to the 136 spec, which is
our specification for sewage disposal. Now when I read that, there’s an ambiguity in my mind,
and I’ll read that to you. It’s 183-10, 136-10 talks to fill systems, and I think they mean raised
systems here, fill systems are something else. I think we’re talking a raised system, but it says,
in those cases where the test for high groundwater determination and soil percolation as
provided for in Appendix FEN(5), and I don’t know what that means, indicates that the quality
and depth of the natural soil is inadequate for installation a fill system may be utilized, but then
it goes on to say the design and installation of a fill system shall comply with the following
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
specifications. There must be at least two feet of natural occurring soil over impervious layer of
seasonally high groundwater. Now, the word “naturally occurring” is what I can’t seem to get
over. For example, if I was to find that I had groundwater six inches from the surface, and I put
18 inches over the top of it and let it go through a freeze/thaw cycle for a year, or tamped it,
either one, would that satisfy this condition, and I’ve taken the opportunity to look at the DOH
requirement, individual residential waste treatment system design, 1996. This I’ll refer to as
Appendix 75A. You’re probably familiar with that one. 75A is very ambiguous in this area. It
doesn’t really nail it down, and it looks to me like our 136, which is what I have to go by, and
136 is directed by both the Subdivision Reg’s and the zoning regs. In both cases it directs us
here, and I can’t quite get over the way that’s written, in terms of naturally existing. To me that
means that if you don’t have two foot of clearance from high groundwater, between the
seasonally high groundwater and the surface, that you might not be able to build this thing. So
I don’t want to put you on the spot, Jim, but I’m trying to get a clarification of myself on how
this works.
MR. HOUSTON-Just in looking at the regulation there, this is 136-10B, where it talks about the
design and installation and particularly parenthesis number one there must be at least two feet
of naturally occurring soil.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HOUSTON-And per the test pit where the system was shown indicates mottling at 21
inches, which would mean insufficient depth to meet that requirement.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HOUSTON-Just as far as a strict interpretation of what I see at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s how I read it. Now, 75A gets a little sloppy in that area. You’re
familiar with 75A, I’m sure, and it doesn’t really nail it down.
MR. HOUSTON-75A requires that there be a minimum of one foot, and then you can import
material and basically create what they consider a natural.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, for 100 feet around.
MR. HOUSTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I saw that, but that didn’t seem to fit this definition.
MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-It didn’t fit this particular site. They talk about that in terms of slopes and stuff
of that nature, and the fill, but the way I read this, and the way I read our Code, unless our
Code is wrong or for some reason doesn’t mimic a DOH requirement, I see that this is an
unbuildable site, the way I read it. Now I could probably, you know, I just gave you an
example. If I had a site that had six inches of, between the surface and impervious layer, and I
had 18 inches of fill that I brought in, let it go through a freeze/thaw cycle, then I would have
satisfied the requirement, but that’s not naturally occurring. That’s brought in fill. So I don’t
know where we are on that.
MR. STEVES-After a year, I think the Department of Health considers that naturally occurring.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. If it does, that’s fine.
MR. STEVES-Yes, it does. I think your engineer can answer that question.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-See, 75A doesn’t, I can’t get it nailed down and I can’t get by the wording here,
I guess, and I’m trying to get some definitions from.
MR. STEVES-If it sits for a year by Department of Health standards it becomes naturally
occurring soil.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to go through one freeze, one thaw.
MR. STEVES-Or compaction.
MR. HOUSTON-And that’s true, but the key condition that we have is what’s being proposed
here is a condition where we don’t meet that 24 without that fill being imported.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. HOUSTON-And so I guess if you did that test after that fill had been placed, after it went
through a freeze/thaw cycle, then you’d be all prepared to be able to indicate that particular
regulation.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s got to go through a perc test to determine the length of the laterals. In
other words, when he’s all done, he either compacts it or waits a year, depending upon how
many bedrooms he’s got, that would determine the length of his laterals, based on what the
perc says.
MR. HOUSTON-The length of the laterals would then be determined based on the percolation
of the fill material that you placed there. You’d want to do another test in there to confirm that
there’s adequate separation to meet this requirement of the regulation. So it would be two-fold.
The purpose of the test would be to get the depth to groundwater to mottling , confirm that
there’s at least 24 inches, and then analyze the percolation of the material that was imported so
you could do the design of the system.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and that’s what I’m talking about here. It’s not clear that that’s going to be
done.
MR. SANFORD-Right, and really, I mean, the issue is, is the system going to work or is it going
to fail, and right now, based on what I’m reading here, it seems highly probable you’re going to
have problems with proper drainage.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the mottling shows 21 inches, from Charles Maine.
MR. SANFORD-Well, another test pit showed 16.
MR. VOLLARO-And one showed 16, but not where they’re putting the septic system, but still
and all, there’s high groundwater here.
MR. SANFORD-That’s the issue, and I’m not comfortable with it.
MR. RINGER-The system as they show it, Jim, will it work, to the best of your ability or
expertise, I should say.
MR. HOUSTON-That type of system is what you would have to do in this case. What you’ve
got to do in order to meet the reg’s, whatever is place that fill and confirm that the soils are
there before you construct the system. So that type of system is what the regulations are
pushing you towards, and that’s the type of system you want to, is what would be conducive to
this site, but in order to meet that 24 inch requirement, the plans that are submitted here do not
indicate that that 24 inches is being provided yet.
MR. RINGER-And that wouldn’t be done for a year, unless it was compacted?
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct, that’s using the Appendix 75A.
MR. STEVES-To back up, Jim, isn’t it a requirement of a system like this to have to go to the
Department of Health?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, it requires, I guess it depends, it goes through the Town Building
Inspector. If he’s not comfortable with that, it goes up to the County Health, and if not, it goes
to the State Health Department. That’s the way it works, and so it should be reviewed by
someone that’s comfortable with that system.
MR. STEVES-At the time of installation, and we would agree to that. That was the intent.
MR. HOUSTON-The only other aspect of it that I see, in a sense, subsequent to writing our
letter, is the proposed expansion area goes off further to the south, closer to that ditch, and if
that was ever constructed and it’s not really an expansion system, per se, it’s a reserve area, as
it’s labeled here, it’s an area that if there was a failure in that system, it’s intended to be able to
move that system over and construct it, and it shows adequate room to do that, but also at that
time there would be the taper required off of that new constructed system that would move
further down towards that ditch, and as a matter of fact would be within a couple of feet, two to
three feet of that ditch. So I’m not sure that that actual location of where the reserve area is
shown is acceptable for the standard codes. It’s supposed to be able to show a reserve area
where a system could be built or expanded in the event of a failure of the primary system, and if
where you’re showing that reserve system doesn’t meet the setbacks and requirements, then
that’s really not a valid reserve area.
MR. STEVES-Okay. We could, you know, in theory slide the well to the north, to the house to
the north, leave this system where it is and then have the reserve system on the north side.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you slide the house to the north, you’re going to be getting closer and
closer to this approximate location of the wetlands.
MR. HOUSTON-Just one other point that I would say about the wetlands, I’m not an expert,
wetlands expert, whatever, but just to, I have some familiarity from the projects that I’ve
worked on, and isolated wetlands usually do not have a surface path of drainage that it can get
out of there, and the whole regulation that started that was landfills or depressed areas out in
the mid west where basically created an excavation and had wetland plantings that were
developed in there, and they were totally isolated from any surrounding streams and what not.
On this particular project, it appears that there’s culvert pipes leaving this area, drainage pipes
coming into this area, and not a clear separation, in my mind, to be in an isolated wetland.
MR. SANFORD-I think what you’re saying, then, if I understand it, it’s just wet, where there’s
not that clear distinction, where a site is pretty wet.
MR. HOUSTON-Well, in order to be isolated, it has to be basically a depressed bowl that
doesn’t drain.
MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you, and that’s not what we have here.
MR. HOUSTON-That doesn’t appear, based on what I see here.
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ve got an input and an output to this.
MR. HOUSTON-That, in my mind, is, maybe this goes into a bigger basin that doesn’t drain
some place, and meets that criteria, but based on what you see here, it looks water comes in and
goes through and would not meet the strict requirements of an isolated wetland, in my mind.
MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s got to be, you know.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Did you have anything else on that, I don’t know if we’re going to be able to
move on, but did you have anything else?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the extent of my input on the thing, Mr. Chairman. I just couldn’t get by
the 24 inch requirement with the kind of perc, with the kind of groundwater I was looking at
here.
MR. SANFORD-My concern is, and again, maybe this is somewhat for legal, is to some degree,
when we do site, this is subdivision. When we approve, or if we were to approve something
like this, and if, down the road, there were problems, my understanding is, we’re not
exonerated. I mean, we’re a party to this process, and there’s liability the Town incurs by the
basis of our decision, and so before I’m comfortable with these areas that are involving very wet
areas, I want to make 100% sure that we’re not going to have failed systems and problems that
are going to come back and create potential liability for the Town. Here, at this particular point
in time, with what we’re seeing, there’s no way we have that level of comfort. It’s just suspect,
and that’s as simple as that, and I just want, I think, the rest of my fellow Board members to
recognize the fact that it’s not just the builder or the developer but also the Town of
Queensbury, by way of approval, that is sharing and taking on a certain degree of liability, and
I think that’s important for us to recognize.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I brought up this whole 136. We don’t normally get into it.
Usually this Board shies away from 136, but you’ll see that 183 and 179 drive you into this other
specification, and that’s the reason I made an issue of it tonight. I think we’re bound by 136, by
the fact that 183 and 175 tells you to look at this, and that’s where I started to stumble.
MR. STEVES-What are your thoughts? To bring in the fill and then come back with a design
after the fill’s in place?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think I’m really following the engineer’s position on this thing. I think
that that, he makes a statement in his own, in the response that, his response number two says
the required two foot separation should be shown between the bottom of the raised fill trench
and the mottling. So he’s already made that statement, but I think we have to have a little
design information here.
MR. STEVES-I show that on the cross section of the absorption field section. We show two foot
minimum bottom of trench to seasonal high groundwater table or mottling, and we show that
on the detail. Sheet Three, right on the top.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at Three.
MR. HOUSTON-I think that addresses that comment, but this 136-10 specifies that that 24
inches has got to be naturally occurring soil or existing out there at the time, and what we’ve
got presented is 21 inches, something less than two feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Exactly. That is the crux of the problem.
MR. RINGER-Rich had a question for legal. Did you understand Rich’s question, or is it a legal
question that you would care to answer?
MR. SCHACHNER-I didn’t understand it to be a question.
MR. RINGER-I thought he started that he had a question.
MR. SCHACHNER-He did, and then I didn’t understand it to be a question.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t either, 100%, but I didn’t know.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-I wouldn’t agree with the assertion, as a blanket generalization, about Town
liability. It’s a little thornier than that. The Town, typically, would not have what we call
principal liability. The principal liability if something goes awry actually would be with the
developer, but it is correct, as Rich says, that the Town’s not necessarily exonerated, using his
word, but the bottom line is what I’m hearing as, as Counsel, is that we have a failure to meet
one of the required standards, and if, in fact, it’s a required standard of our Sanitary Sewage
Disposal regulation, to which Bob points us, we’re referred to by both the Zoning Ordinance
and the Subdivision Regulations, that’s not a standard that this Board has the authority to
waive. That’s a standard that only the Town Board, acting as the local Board of Health, has the
authority to waive. So in response to the applicant’s question about, does this mean the
applicant has to come back after a year with compacted soil or what have you to meet the
standard, I suspect, as your Council, that that answer to that’s yes. It’s your determination, but
that sounds like an appropriate, whether the applicant likes it or not, that sounds like an
appropriate response, as a Board.
MR. RINGER-How about if we had tabled it and had the applicant go to the Town Board, acting
as the Board of Health.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t think this Board has the authority to request or require that,
but that’s certainly, you can table if you wish, and the applicant can seek that remedy if they
wish.
MR. RINGER-You hate to hold an applicant up for a year, if there was another way to go about
bringing this to a resolution. You’d rather approve it or deny it. I mean, I just wanted to move
it along. So I’m looking for suggestions. Otherwise, we’re going to be denying it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that if we recommend that this goes to the Town
Board, we’re kind of sort of saying that we don’t have the responsibility and we’d like them to
help us out. I think we have, we’re staring a specification in the face, and I think we have to
deal with it. I don’t know whether I necessarily agree with sending it over to the Town Board
or not. I think what has to be done here is that they’ve got to build this system and put the
required soil over the top so they’ve got their 24 feet, let it sit for the.
MR. STEVES-Twenty-four inches.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-four inches, let it sit for a period of time, or compact it. Now our
zoning code doesn’t go into compaction. 75A does. It gets very, very, correct me if I’m wrong,
Jim, but it gets very complicated. I have to stick with 136. It is the Code that I use, and must
use. I mean, that’s the Code we’re directed to by 183 and 179.
MR. SEGULJIC-What do they consider compaction?
MR. VOLLARO-A machine that goes over the top.
MR. SEGULJIC-Tamping along?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s a compacting machine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Rolled over by a track.
MR. VOLLARO-Not rolled over by a track. It’s a compacting machine.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, a tamper.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a tamper. It compacts the soil.
MR. STEVES-A question for the Board, Council, too. If you had an approval in place that was
subject to this and septic system being, meeting that criteria, fill in place, and then approved by
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
the Department of Health, we can stipulate that we will do that, okay, and then bring that back,
so that your Staff has that before a building permit is issued.
MR. SANFORD-I’m not at all comfortable with that, personally. I’m one member of the Board.
Since you asked the Board, I thought I’d volunteer.
MR. RINGER-I don’t think it’s going to fly, Matt.
MR. STEVES-Because the reason I have, give you that is you have a two lot subdivision, and I
guess the crux comes down to the septic. Now, if we pass that on to the Department of Health,
which our engineer and the Department of Health works that out, and they say fine with it. If
they say no, it’s no good, then we didn’t meet the stipulation that was put on to this application.
If we do, it would be the same thing as coming back to you and saying we had the Department
of Health approval. The fill is in place. Then what would your opinion be? If you’re saying
that you wouldn’t approve it, irregardless of that, then why would I wait a year and come back
in front of this Board? And the fact is I’ve been in front of this Board four times on this
application. You’ve seen the septic. You’ve seen the wet area delineated on it the last time, and
these issues weren’t brought up last time. Now, the next time I come in in a year, are you going
to have another issue?
MR. SANFORD-What I would suggest that might be.
MR. STEVES-So if you have issues, lay them out on the table now.
MR. SANFORD-It’s too wet, but again, if you want a constructive advice, my opinion to be,
rather than to go down the avenue of potential denial, would be if the applicant felt it
appropriate to table this, I think this Board might agree to it, and then you could pursue other
avenues that you may wish to do, which would be perhaps more advantageous than going
down the road of a potential denial and/or the year. If you feel that there’s any potential in
getting the Department of Health, the Board of Health, or whatever they’re referred to, in terms
of some form of a compromise arrangement, but this Board, at this particular point in time, the
way I see it, can’t move forward based on what we’ve just been discussing. Okay. So, again,
that’s how I see it.
MR. VOLLARO-There may be a remedy here that can close this rather quickly. If we were to
table this, with the understanding that you were to get together with our engineer, and discuss
how you were going to do this and put this into words, like a small specification, if you will, it
doesn’t have to be large, but this is what we plan to do, how we plan to do it, and tie it to this,
so that we can clear 136.
MR. STEVES-That’s exactly what I was saying.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine, but I think I’d like you to get together with our engineer to
work the words out, so that when I read them at least, they comply with 136, which is the one
year thing. Well, it depends on what Jim and the applicant can work out.
MR. SANFORD-The one year thing is pretty definitive.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is.
MR. STEVES-Well, it’s one year, or compacting.
MR. VOLLARO-Or compaction.
DORIS FARRAR
MS. FARRAR-But we have no guarantee that when I come back in one year that you’re going to
approve this.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. SANFORD-No, you don’t.
MS. FARRAR-It’s been going on for three years now.
MR. SANFORD-Just to not single you out, I mean, as a Board.
MS. FARRAR-I’m starting to feel like that. I’m sorry.
MR. SANFORD-No, no. Well, no, as a Board, we’ve become increasingly concerned about the
number of applications that we’re seeing that are dealing with extremely wet areas, and this
particular Board member, and I know a number of the others, have a lot of concerns about
potential failures of septic systems, and as I’ve talked to legal staff about, what the potential
concerns could be in terms of legal liabilities, and what have you. I think Mark did a nice job in
answering that. The reality of it is, it’s not good practice for us to do anything but be diligent in
this regard, and this is a wet story. End of story.
MS. FARRAR-And I understand that, but every time we come back there’s another issue, and it
keeps going on and on and on. I mean, I would have suspected that a lot of these issues could
have been brought up in the forefront. That’s my personal opinion.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t recall the history vividly, but I’m not sure that we had test pit data in
the past, and it’s the test pit data that’s showing somewhere between 16 inches and 21 inches,
when we require a minimum of 24, that has triggered this discussion. I think had we had that
information in the past, and maybe we did, Bob, I don’t know, but we would have brought it
up.
MR. RINGER-We asked for that on the 21 of September.
st
MR. VOLLARO-This is the first time we’ve seen the test pits.
MR. SANFORD-So it’s very understandable that we have these concerns when we look at the
drawings and we see the fact that you have very close, you have groundwater very close to the
surface. It’s a problem, and we don’t want to see somebody build a house there, and then have
a problem where their system fails. It’s as simple as that.
MR. RINGER-Well, I like your thought process there, Bob, if that’ll work, to have the applicant
and the engineer get together with Staff. The Staff should be in at that mix, too, and try to come
up with something, and it may be that you do have to compact that, if you don’t want to wait a
year.
MR. STEVES-Correct. I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and then we could table it. The other thing, you could withdraw the
application, which I really don’t think you want to do now, and the other thing would be a
denial, because you’re not going to get an approval. So I think that that suggestion of tabling it,
with the understanding the tabling, with the condition that the applicant, Town Engineer and
Staff get together and come up with a proposal to present back to us, and, you know, and that
doesn’t guarantee, certainly, Ms. Farrar, that you’re going to get an approval, but it’s certainly
better than a denial, or better than withdrawing the application, perhaps.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, that’s a good way of putting it.
MR. VOLLARO-Is Staff and support engineering in agreement with that pursuit?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. HOUSTON-I don’t have a problem with that, from a septic design standpoint. What we’re
just discussing is the separation to the wetlands and how we want to handle that or what the
issue with that is, and can that be remedied.
MR. SANFORD-I do think, Bob, I mean, again, I’m not sure I understand fully your point that
you were making, Jim, but I think what you’re saying here is, in other areas, that the wetland is,
what, more distinct and serves almost a unilateral, it’s not as commingled with the whole water
table. Is that the idea that you’re getting at?
MR. HOUSTON-Not so much with the water table, which would be a subsurface condition, but
how it mingles with the surface water flows.
MR. SANFORD-So this could be additionally problematic, based on your understanding of the
layout.
MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, I think what he’s suggesting is that even if the
compaction, or the year wait, gets a test pit that is 24 inches or greater, he still has concerns
about the overall site conditions.
MR. STEVES-Setback from the wetlands.
MR. RINGER-Setback.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Which means you may have to move the house or something.
MR. STEVES-The question for the Board, if the Army Corps does not require a setback, and it’s
only Army Corps and not State wetlands, does this Board still require a different setback?
MR. RINGER-The Board or the Town.
MR. HILTON-Again, my understanding is if it is an Army Corps wetland, there is a septic
setback. Their septic has to be 100 feet away, even if it’s Army Corps.
MR. STEVES-Right, by your standards, not by the.
MR. HILTON-Correct.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HILTON-And that the structure would have a 75 foot setback.
MR. STEVES-Correct, by the Town standards. Not by the Army Corps.
MR. HILTON-I guess I just have to say that the first time that I’m seeing that we saw the
wetlands approximate location shown was when we received the plans on November 18. So
th
to say that why didn’t we address these issues in the beginning, we’re just seeing this data
recently.
MR. STEVES-That was on the map the last time I was in here in front of the Board.
MR. HILTON-Not on the map that I have.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. STEVES-It was on the map that I had in here in front of the Board last time. Because I went
through that scenario of the area. I guarantee it. I know I made the map, but I have no
problems with that at all.
MR. VOLLARO-But this is the first time we’ve seen mottling information.
MR. STEVES-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that’s what triggered my look at it was the level of mottling. Okay.
Does the applicant agree to a tabling with getting together with the?
MR. STEVES-Are there any other questions that the Board has before?
MR. RINGER-I was going to ask that, and also I’ve got a public hearing still open. Is there
anyone from the public that wishes to comment on this application? I’ll keep the public hearing
open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. RINGER-And if there’s no other questions from the Board, then we will table, and, Bob, if
you can, you did so well presenting that, try the tabling motion.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’ll give it a whirl.
MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE, FINAL STAGE
DORIS FARRAR, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
That the applicant, Doris Farrar, and her support personnel get together with Town Staff and
C.T. Male to discuss a method, the methodology of how they would attack or satisfy the 136
Code, the Sanitary Code of the Town of Queensbury, and also in that discussion with our
engineering they should also discuss the separation between the septic system and the
approximate location of wetlands, 24,500 square feet.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
MR. HILTON-I just want to say that I will bring this to the Director of Building and Code’s
attention, who reviews Section 136, for the most part, in our Department. I’ll bring it to his
attention, and he’ll sit in on the meeting.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-So you’re tabled again, Ms. Farrar. Hopefully we’ll get some resolution for you
down the road.
SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ARLEN ASSOCIATES/G.R.J.H., INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: KING FUEL CO. ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION:
INTERSECTION OF QUAKER ROAD & DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING KIOSK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,930 SQ. FT.
CONVENIENCE STORE AS WELL AS SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ASSOCIATED
GASOLINE ISLANDS. CONVENIENCE STORES AND GASOLINE STATIONS IN AN HC
ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN CO.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
PLANNING: 10/13/04 TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-61 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-
020
GENE BILODEAU & LLOYD HELMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George.
MR. HILTON-Since the last tabling, the applicant has submitted revised plans, based on the
changes contained in the tabling resolution that the Board passed. Changes to the lighting plan,
parking layout, along with architectural renderings, color sheets for the proposed colors, as well
as catalogue sheets for the proposed building mounted lighting. The lighting plan appears to
conform to Town standards. I guess the only comment I have is in terms of the one way only, in
and out drives, including some signage to better direct people, just to kind of prevent some
accidents and make sure that cars don’t enter the site the wrong way or try to leave the wrong
way. Beyond that, I believe C.T. Male has some comments, and, with that, that’s all I have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Do you want to do yours now, Jim, or would you rather wait until after
we hear from the applicant?
MR. HOUSTON-I’ll just give a brief statement about it. In my response, in our review of the
plans, we drafted a letter, December 15, 2004, and went through and gave our comments on
those plans. As of today I’ve not received a response to those comments, have not, and if
there’s any clarification or information requested about those comments, I’d be glad to fill you
in on that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, let’s hear from the applicant and then we probably will be getting
back to you. The floor is yours, sir.
MR. BILODEAU-My name is Mr. Bilodeau. I’m with Arlen Associates. We’re
architect/engineers working with the GRJH corporation, which is represented by Mr. Lloyd
Helms, sitting beside me. Unfortunately for the project, I was on vacation last week when we
got the comments. I did make the changes that were referred to in the comments earlier. I have
the drawings here. This is Revision Four. In the final analysis, I will propose that these issues
which are technical be addressed through this design, and to meet their approval, and that it’s
really, hopefully the Board would agree that these are issues that can be resolved without
further study of this particular Board. That’s just.
MR. RINGER-The eight items you’re talking about from C.T. Male.
MR. BILODEAU-They’re all enclosed here, C.T. Male, and also.
MR. RINGER-C.T. Male hasn’t had an opportunity to see them.
MR. BILODEAU-Right, but I have them here, and I would hope that we could present these to
him and that we could get some kind of a commitment from this Board that if these comments
are addressed properly, and when they are addressed properly, then the project, as a
contingency, the project could then proceed.
MR. VOLLARO-Is your drawing Rev. Four by any chance?
MR. BILODEAU-Yes, it’s Rev. Four.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The last thing we’ve got is Rev. Three, dated 10/31/04.
MR. BILODEAU-That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have a brand new set of drawings there.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. BILODEAU-I have three sets here.
MR. VOLLARO-So, that nobody here has seen yet, including our engineer.
MR. RINGER-There’s eight things, they may not be significant, but there are quite a few. Jim
hasn’t had an opportunity to see them. I’d be tempted not to go further with it and just table
the thing, and we get new plans tonight, that we’re going to see for the first time.
MR. VOLLARO-I have some questions for him that might help him the next time around,
because I think he’s got some lighting problems here that could be exposed, but I’ll hold them if
you like.
MR. RINGER-Well, does Jim have any questions on lighting? You show some spillage.
MR. SANFORD-I thought C.T. Male thought the lighting was fine.
MR. RINGER-Yes, just a little bit of spillage.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a problem between the drawings.
MR. SANFORD-On McDonald’s, but, all right.
MR. RINGER-All right, but I just don’t want to, you know, Jim hasn’t had an opportunity to see
them. We haven’t had these prints. I’d rather just table the thing and, you know, I understand
what you’re saying, and it’s unfortunate that you were on vacation and didn’t get an
opportunity to get back earlier, but I just don’t want to put our engineer in a spot, and so I’d be
more inclined to table this right now, to a future meeting.
MR. BILODEAU-I appreciate your attitude there. The comments from Mr. Houston are fairly
technical and straightforward and they’re fairly easy, they’re quite easy to resolve, and I’m sure
that he would agree that that’s the case, and that it’s a simple matter to address those
comments. The one issue that I would like to discuss is regarding Mr. Houston’s last comment,
and it’s the spilling of the light into the McDonald’s property. If you’ll remember, we proposed,
if I could answer that issue, we proposed a set of low bollard lighting, specifically to address
this issue, but that the Board requested that we change that back to the overhead lighting, and
at the meeting two months ago, I suggested, or I noted that this would cause spill over, but the
Board didn’t seem to have too much concern if the spill over directed into the McDonald’s
property, because that area’s so well lighted anyway that it really didn’t seem to be a problem.
MR. SANFORD-That’s my understanding as well.
MR. BILODEAU-That’s the one issue that really I wasn’t able to resolve here, in this revision.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see a problem with that amount of spill over.
MR. BILODEAU-The wording on the signs is I guess a question I prefer certain wording that
Mr. Hilton and the planning group may prefer other wording. We’ll put whatever wording
they want on it, or whatever wording you might want. So I just wanted to address that to you
now so that we’ll get that out in the open. I prefer one way to direct public to not enter a road,
someone else might prefer different language. I really don’t care. We’ll put on whatever you
want.
MR. RINGER-Leave it to the Board, then. What is your desire for tonight?
MR. VOLLARO-Our past protocol has been when we get drawings on the night of a meeting,
we haven’t had before, we don’t.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-We don’t take them. That’s why my initial reaction was to say, no, we’re not
going to do it tonight.
MR. SANFORD-Can they be back in January?
MR. RINGER-I don’t know what the agenda is for January. Bob, did you sit for the
completeness review?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I did, it’s fairly reasonable. I think we could get somebody on in January.
MR. SANFORD-I’d rather table it and get them in in January, like you were saying, Larry. I
don’t want them to go much further than that. That’s the point.
MR. RINGER-Well, I don’t like to hold applications up too much longer, either. I like to move
them along.
MR. SEGULJIC-That sounds good to me, have them back in January.
MR. RINGER-January.
MRS. STEFFAN-We have to stick with our policy.
MR. RINGER-Okay. January we’ll do. We’ll try to accommodate you as best we can to the first
meeting in January, but that’s not a guarantee. It might be the second meeting. We’ll do our
best.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I could, I just want to try to be clear here. If you could, and you
probably were going to anyway. If you could just specify exactly what you’re looking for, when
you want it by, and the date that you plan to re-hear this application.
MR. RINGER-All right. I’ll try to do that, but if I miss something, I’ll make this motion. If I
miss something, George, please step in and let me know.
MR. SCHACHNER-And you’re presumably keeping the public hearing open, correct?
MR. RINGER-And I’ll keep the public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2004 ARLEN ASSOCIATES/G.R.J.H., INC.,
Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Tabled to our first meeting in January, January 18. The reason for the tabling is for them to
th
answer the questions from C.T. Male and to provide with the updated site plan, and that the
applicant will provide to Staff that material by the 11 of January 2005.
th
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-Gentlemen, have a good holiday, and sorry we couldn’t accommodate you more.
MR. BILODEAU-Thank you very much.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 PREVIOUS SEQR HOME DEPOT PROPERTY OWNER: NPA II,
LLC AGENT: LA GROUP ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE HOME
DEPOT IN THE NORTHWAY PLAZA. MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SITE PLANS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO.
296.18-1-46
JON LAPPER & DAVE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George?
MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess as far as this application is concerned, the applicant is seeking a
modification from the originally approved plans. The modifications or the differences, let’s say,
between what was approved and what has been, the way the site has been developed, have
been outlined in a letter from Staff, specifically Bruce Frank. I guess, in terms of that letter,
those items either need to be approved by this Board to be constructed as not originally
approved, or the applicant has to agree, or the applicant has to construct the site as was
originally approved. Again, I’m using that letter by Mr. Frank as the basis. If we go down each
items, those items are outstanding items. Some deal with lighting, some deal with stormwater,
but I guess, the and I’m not sure if there is an easy way, but I guess the easiest way to look at
this is that those items in that list have to be reconciled somehow, either approved by this Board
to remain as developed or developed as was originally approved, and I hope I made myself
clear, and I probably didn’t. With that, we do have some engineering comments, and Jim
Houston is here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Let me just ask. You were talking about the letter dated September 28, 2004.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Not the October 22, which was very similar to the letter of.
nd
MR. LAPPER-September 28 was the one that had all the detail.
th
MR. RINGER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what we’ve been working off of.
MR. HILTON-Yes. The 28 is the one I’ve been working off, and I believe the most recent letter.
th
MR. RINGER-Now, before we go to George, what are you asking for in the modification?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’ve, for the record, Jon Lapper and Dave Carr, since the letter came out,
we’ve been meeting with Staff and with Home Depot on site, and most of the items that needed
to be changed, fixed, made to comply with the approval, have been changed. For example, a
whole bunch of lights were taken off that shouldn’t have been put up, but that the contractor
put up. So that was all fixed. There was some erosion that had to get properly fixed, and that
was taken care of. There was a guardrail that came down when there was other erosion, and
that never got put back up, and so that’s now been installed, and the recent letter still references
that the guardrail’s off, and that was just fixed last week. So all of those issues are really taken
care of, and I think what we’re left with is just, there’s a couple of engineering issues, in terms of
the location of catch basins and the construction of a swale as a curb, just to make sure that the
water is channeled into the catch basin, and those were still being discussed between the project
engineer and the Town engineer, but we can just go down the list quickly. We think that 99% of
it’s all done.
MR. RINGER-What I’m asking is, what are you asking for the modification? The stuff that
hasn’t been done, you’re going to do. That’s between you and Staff. The modification is for
things that you want to change on the plans.
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. LAPPER-There were seven parking spaces that were eliminated because of the cart kiosks,
cart corrals, excuse me, eight, and so we were asking not to have to replace those because it’s
not, because there’s plenty of parking. So there’s no need to add those spaces, and our theory
there is that on the Traveler’s side of the Plaza, there’s too many spaces under the Code,
although they’re approved with a variance, and since there’s a reciprocal easement for parking
for the whole site, there’s no reason to build eight extra spaces on the Home Depot side just to
build them, because they’re not needed. So we’re asking you to modify that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So you want, the modification is for the parking, but that doesn’t, that isn’t
shown in your application on the modification. So that should be included in your application
on the modification.
MR. LAPPER-That was our intention in our application. We might have been vague.
MR. RINGER-I read your application today, and it doesn’t say anything about.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. What Dave said was that when you take the whole site together, that’s what
he meant, that it’s not necessary because there’s extra spaces.
MR. RINGER-Okay, but what I’m saying is your application for the modification didn’t show
that you wanted to change the parking.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-The only thing that I see that we’re here for tonight is a modification for this site
plan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-One of the modifications you’re asking for is traffic, or excuse me, is parking.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. RINGER-What other modifications are you asking for besides parking?
MR. CARR-Well, and Jim Houston can jump in. One of the other modifications we are asking
for is in the original plans there was a retaining wall designed, and when the project went under
construction, basically as part of our plan, the final design of these walls were not done by our
office. I believe they were done by Chazen. I’m not sure about that, but they had a concern
with the retaining wall at the stormwater management basin, that the water in the basin would
undermine the material behind the wall. So an engineer in our office, Kevin Hastings, re-
designed that. We sent it to the Town during construction, and this was, I believe, in 2003, and
we never heard back. The contractor constructed the wall. So when Bruce Frank did his walk
through, the plan showed the wall, but the wall hadn’t been constructed. So Kevin Hastings
did an analysis showing that the pond, indeed, had the volume necessary, and the wall wasn’t
needed, and I believe he spoke to Jim, as late as today on that. That was one issue. Another
issue that, I’m not sure it would necessarily be called a site plan modification, but during the
heavy rains and after the construction of the project, there was some erosion that was found
behind the access road, behind the Post Office, and Staff noticed that, and we received a letter,
and we spoke with them within the past month, and what we did was we added, we filled the
eroded area. We added a wing swale, so the water could not run off the pavement and cause
the erosion again, and replaced the guardrail that was also written in Bruce Frank’s comment
letter. That guardrail was removed, it was my understanding there was some material that was
stored there by, I don’t know if it was the Home Depot site or store manager or the maintenance
guy or whatever, but it was not supposed to be stored there. So that was removed, and then the
guardrail has been replaced. So that was done. So I’m not sure whether you would call that a
site plan modification or a field change.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Is it the guardrail that was on the original site plan?
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. RINGER-Then I wouldn’t call that a modification. What other modifications?
MR. SEGULJIC-Quickly, are you referring to Number Twelve and Thirteen on this drawing?
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. CARR-And that’s been completed.
MR. RINGER-What I’m getting at here is we only want to get involved, the Planning Board only
wants to get involved with what they’re asking for to change from the original site plan.
Anything that’s going on between Staff and the applicant in any other areas that a modification
isn’t required from or requested then we should not, tonight, get involved in that.
MR. LAPPER-I think that that eliminates most of the stuff on the list.
MR. RINGER-Right, all that stuff except for the issues that you brought up, the parking, and the
retaining wall.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and there were two others, Number Four and Five on the September 28
th
letter. These are lighting issues on the Traveler’s side of the Plaza. Four is two pole lights still
not installed along the east side of the existing retail building, and what happened there is that
when Dave and I went in to do the Home Depot, we looked at the whole site for some aspects,
because the Board wanted us to, landscaping, lighting and stormwater, primarily, but when we,
what happened here is that the pole lights that were designed were very close to the actual
building, and instead of putting up the pole lights right next to the building, they put lights
underneath the canopy, soffit lights, and there’s just no need to put an extra pole light.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So you’ve changed the site plan to show the different poles, and we’ve got
that, or the lack of the poles?
MR. LAPPER-Eliminating the poles.
MR. RINGER-And the new plans we’ve got show that?
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a completely different proposed lighting system here. Their originally
proposed system had a maximum of 8.8 foot candles. The proposed has a maximum of 31.4.
When you do the analysis on that, you can’t get to a uniformity ratio at all because they have
their average at 1.4 and their mins are at 0. So their uniformity ratio is 0.
MR. RINGER-We’ll do the lighting. I just want to get the issues that we’re going to talk about
tonight and lighting’s going to be one of those, and your comments at that time. You had one
more, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Number Five. Two extra wall pack lights were found on the north and west
façade of the Traveler’s Insurance building, and that was, that’s been there since the beginning
of time, and it’s not something that Dave didn’t put on the plan because he wasn’t dealing with
the lighting on the back of that building at all.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Now they’re on the plan?
MR. LAPPER-Are they on the plan?
MR. CARR-No, they’re not on the plan.
MR. LAPPER-We never addressed that in the Home Depot. It’s just that Bruce went out and
looked at it as something that was new, and it’s actually something that’s always been there.
MR. CARR-It’s on the existing Traveler’s building.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, then that’s something that, then we aren’t going to consider that as a
modification.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. RINGER-So we’re not going to discuss that tonight. That’s something you can discuss with
Staff.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-So what I see now, parking, retaining wall, and lighting issues. Okay.
MR. HOUSTON-I’d just like to add, the one thing that Dave had mentioned there with that
erosion, a guardrail is something that’s a construction issue. It has resulted, it’s heading
towards a new catch basin and modifications to the drainage system. So I think that portion of
it should be an additional comment that should be included, and that’s basically a site plan
modification that has spun out of Comment Number Thirteen from the September letter.
MR. RINGER-Did you change your site plan to reflect what Jim is talking about?
MR. LAPPER-We’re in discussions with him about whether it should be done.
MR. RINGER-Then it’s not part of our discussion tonight.
MR. LAPPER-You want us to deal with C.T. Male.
MR. RINGER-I only want us to stick with, if you’ve got to come back for another modification,
you’ve got to come back for another modification, but I want to stick with what we’re going to
deal with tonight, so far the three things you’ve brought up.
MR. LAPPER-Probably on that issue, which would be tabled, then, so we can continue to work
with them, because it’s really part of our response to Bruce’s letter.
MR. RINGER-Bruce’s letter, the way I see it, is between the applicant and Staff, okay. Then
what you decide, then you come back to us for modifications with us after discussions with
them, if you can’t resolve the questions and answers that they’ve got without a modification,
and if you’re still working on something that hasn’t been resolved yet, it’s not going to be a
modification until you come up with some plan.
MR. LAPPER-Agreed.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-Question, Mr. Chairman, and if I’m the only one not understanding, move
right by me, but Staff has shared, and our Town engineer consultant, are sharing with me,
documents that appear to have been prepared on behalf of the applicant and submitted by the
applicant that do, in fact, show stormwater modifications. So I’m confused.
MR. RINGER-But there’s nothing in the application that the applicant has filled out to address
stormwater.
MR. SCHACHNER-There’s also nothing in the application that the applicant has filled out to
address the eight reduced parking spaces either.
MR. RINGER-No, that’s why I asked him to include it on the application.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand, but what I’m saying is documents that the applicant has
submitted appear to indicate, if I’m understanding them correctly, that the applicant is
proposing modified stormwater infrastructure. If that’s the case, then that should be part of the
proposed modifications. If that’s not the case yet, if there’s not been agreement, that’s fine, but
then I’m confused as to what the applicant has submitted here.
MR. RINGER-I thought I understood from the applicant that he’s still working with Staff on
that issue?
MR. LAPPER-Well, whether we need a new catch basin we’re still discussing.
MR. HILTON-That’s something that C.T. Male has been reviewing. So I think that would be
considered, whether you want to call it a modification or an addition, it’s something new that’s
reviewable, I believe.
MR. RINGER-Okay. If they’ve got it on their plans to show it.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what we’re saying. It’s on submissions from the applicant.
MR. RINGER-Okay. If they’ve got it on the new site plan, then let’s go with it, then.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, let me just say one thing before we continue. What I’ve tried to
do is, a preponderance of information on this has come from Kevin Hastings, a good deal of it.
He’s got several memorandums here. The one regards to stormwater, he has a November 11,
2004 memorandum that addresses the stormwater problem, and prior to that was a November
3, 2004 letter that never got to where it was supposed to go, apparently.
MR. CARR-I’m not sure what you mean, never got to where it was supposed to go.
MR. VOLLARO-Just let me get to Kevin Hasting’s stuff here for a minute, and I’ll get to you.
MR. HILTON-I’ve got October 23.
rd
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got November 14, that was his last letter, that concerned the runoff
th
catchments that were tributary to the CDS structure.
MR. CARR-The last one I have is the 11. Maybe I just do not have the 14.
thth
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. You’re right. I beg your pardon. It is the 11.
th
MR. CARR-Correct. Okay. I do have that.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s this letter here. Okay.
MR. CARR-And then previous there’s November 3, and October 23, 2003.
rd
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I have that. Now the 2003 letter, I guess, is the letter that, this was the
letter that was attached to a Barry Pardeau’s letter.
MR. CARR-Barry Pardeau, yes.
MR. RINGER-Let’s take them in order, and we’ll do the stormwater issue last. Okay, and then
we’ll try to get through all the issues, and keep it in a sequence.
MR. VOLLARO-A lot of the issues on Bruce Frank’s letter have been addressed by Kevin
Hasting’s memorandums. I think that’s what Counsel was discussing.
MR. RINGER-Well, when we do the stormwater, if that’s the issue, then we’ll address it at that
time, or hopefully we’ll get to it, but it we stay in order. So let’s go to the top one. You had
parking. We’ve got the new site plan. Right?
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. RINGER-And you’ve said you want to eliminate eight spaces.
MR. LAPPER-Eight spaces.
MR. RINGER-And you’re still within Code. Any questions on the Board on parking?
MR. SANFORD-I’m comfortable with parking.
MR. VOLLARO-The parking was okay. I looked at that.
MR. RINGER-Okay. No problem on that one, that I can see.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s not just Home Depot parking. That is the whole parking.
MR. LAPPER-It includes the office building.
MR. VOLLARO-Includes the office building. Your little chart shows that.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. RINGER-Does Staff have anything on the parking?
MR. HILTON-No.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Retaining wall? Any modification request?
MR. LAPPER-That’s really an engineering issue for C.T. Male to signoff on.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, is that retaining wall sign off, are you going to be looking at Kevin
Hasting’s letter on that?
MR. HOUSTON-Yes, and I have looked at that and discussed that with Kevin this afternoon,
and just to fill you in on what the nature of the conversation was, the prior plan, the original site
plan, had included an access roadway or drive, if you would say, from the adjoining road there
to get down to the stormwater basin, and also would give vehicular access to that pipeline that
goes around the stormwater basin. I guess part of the reason why that road was feasible is
because of that retaining wall that was in there and was able to provide a fairly level area to be
able to get this access in there. Without the retaining wall in there, this plan does show
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
constantly graded slope all the way down into the basin from the road, and I don’t have a
problem with that. The only concern that I have is the elimination of this, apparent elimination
of this access road down into this portion of the site, and that road, the pipeline that skirts
around the outside of the basin, carries drainage from the road there and it’s a Town
responsibility, and it’s my understanding that the Town has an easement in there to be able to
maintain this pipeline, but basically with no provisions to get vehicles in there and maintain it.
So that’s a summary of my analysis of what I saw there, the proposed modification.
MR. RINGER-Yours, try to answer him.
MR. CARR-Well, it’s my understanding that what Jim’s looking for is that the plans showed, it
didn’t actually show a road. It showed it a graded area that a vehicle could drive on. It didn’t
show gravel or any kind of material. So I believe what he’s saying is that we need to grade an
area that a vehicle can get over that pipe and access to it. Correct?
MR. HOUSTON-That’s correct. Yes, it was not a paved driveway.
MR. CARR-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and you can show it on your plan?
MR. CARR-We will show that on our plan.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Jim, are you satisfied with that?
MR. HOUSTON-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Lighting issues. Bob, you had some, bunch of stuff on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got, yes, first of all, I want to make sure I’ve got the latest and the
greatest lighting plan, and that November 11, 2004, is that correct?
MR. CARR-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In that, I’m trying to take a look at that proposal versus what we
originally approved. We originally approved 8.8 foot candles as max. This is showing 31.4.
MR. CARR-Where do you find the 31.4?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s up in a box, hang on, I’ll get it for you. It’s in your, it must have been the
plan before this. I see your max now is 25.8. The original max was 8.8. Now we’re at, it looks
like 25.8.
MR. CARR-The only problem is, is I don’t see 25.8 anywhere on this plan. I see the box.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s to the east, below the store, see where Number Two is in the triangle.
MR. CARR-Yes. Okay. Those, I can tell you what those are. Those are floodlights that were
mentioned in Bruce Frank’s comment letter that we discussed that with Town Staff, and those
are actually floodlights that are placed on top of the outdoor garden center fence that are
directed inward, and when we discussed those with Staff, they didn’t really have a concern
with those, because they were pointing into the building and not out onto the site. Now, again,
if the Board is asking us to remove those, obviously, we would talk to Home Depot, and they
would do that, but again, I was at the site tonight, and they were on, and they are pointing
inward, and you can look at the point projections, and they’re directly under those lights. So
they’re not directing out. They’re directing in towards the building. They’re actually shining
down on the materials that are inside the garden center.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you take a look at the uniformity ratio number, the average over the
min for the garden center, you’re at, our spec is four to one, this is forty-four and a half to one.
MR. HILTON-And I guess the question is whether the garden center inside the fence area
would be considered part of the site or part of the building, I guess, as far as the lighting goes.
Because it doesn’t spill out onto the site.
MR. RINGER-It’s not roofed in. It’s open space.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. The idea of the whole idea of uniformity ratio is so that when
you leave that space, your eyes don’t have a tremendous problem dealing with the rest of the
light system.
MR. CARR-Right, but you don’t leave that space into the site. You leave that space into the
building. That is completely fenced in with a fence that’s as high as the building. The fence is
probably 25 feet high, and that’s the difference. It’s so you don’t, and I understand the
uniformity ratio, but it’s not like you’re walking directly from that into the parking lot. You’re
walking from that space back into the building.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that light’s used to light up that retail area.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what we have to understand what we’re changing here is that the
original uniformity ratio for this project was 2.77 and 1, the original uniformity ratio. 2.77 was
your average and your min was 1.0.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Now we’re really coming up to a uniformity ratio which is, see, the thing that
I’m looking for here is, for example, when I see uniformity ratios, I like to know what it is for
the entire front of the building, the building entrances, the front west parking lot, the rear of the
building, and the southernmost entrance parking lot. In other words, what we did for Wal-
Mart, not to bring Wal-Mart up, but Wal-Mart, you remember that I believe, they did their
lighting based on sections of their parking lot, and they did it very well, and they managed to
hang into the uniformity ratios on almost every one of those.
MR. LAPPER-Let me respond, Bob. When Bruce first went out, there were some extra
spotlights on front of the building, which weren’t on the site plan, the contractor put up. We
met with Staff. We talked to Home Depot. They came down, and the only thing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If that’s the case, do these numbers reflect them being taken off?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. As far as I know, the only change on this plan is the lights that Dave was
just referring to, which are facing the inside of the garden area. So there’s nothing else in the
parking lot that’s changed, in terms of what was approved, and our argument there, our
position is that because they’re facing the interior of that, that they shouldn’t be considered for
the uniformity ratio, because they don’t affect the parking lot. It’s just inside space, but nothing
else on the site has changed. I mean, there were issues and we got them fixed, and we got lights
taken down, and it’s just those lights that Dave was talking about.
MR. SANFORD-What kind of a fence is it?
MR. LAPPER-It’s chain link.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. CARR-You can partially see through it. It’s green.
MR. SANFORD-So it is, there’s a barrier?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. CARR-There’s a barrier, and what you see, well, what I saw today, is they’ve got a lot of
materials, like pallets of 2 by 4’s stacked all the way up.
MR. SANFORD-I understand. I think I understand what you’re talking about. I just didn’t
know, if it’s chain link, you’re going to have a spill out, but if it’s chain link and it has some
kind of a fabric.
MR. CARR-It does have, yes.
MR. SANFORD-It’s kind of going to buffer it.
MR. LAPPER-And it’s facing away from the parking lot, too.
MR. SANFORD-I think that sounds like a reasonable explanation to me.
MR. RINGER-Any more on lighting, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, the only place they’re meeting the uniformity ratio, they’re saying
that the average over the min for the spill light is not applicable because the min is zero, and the
front lot summary, the minimum is zero. So there’s no uniformity ratio there. The max is 17.9.
Your average is 1.9 over zero. So they’re saying that there’s nothing there, and then we’re
saying this garden center is enclosed, even though it’s got a uniformity ratio of 44 and a half to
1, because it’s enclosed and doesn’t spill off it, should be okay. Does that summarize what
you’re trying to tell us?
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe also the five floodlights on the north side of the
building are additions from what was previously approved. I believe you’re going to shield
them.
MR. CARR-Yes, and as we discussed, we removed, it’s removed, we removed two on that side
and two on the west side, to bring it down to what was approved on the plan.
MR. HILTON-It’s also my understanding that you’re going to put some shields on there, too?
MR. CARR-And that has not been done, I checked, but we are going to put those on. They were
not required or approved on the plan, but Bruce had mentioned that when you drive down
Montray Road, you kind of look right into those lights, and you do, because I checked that
tonight. So we’re going to put shields over the ones that are there.
MR. LAPPER-Even though they weren’t on the plan. They should have been.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Again, this plan does, the statistics on this plan does reflect the removal of
those.
MR. CARR-Correct.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m trying to get at. Does this plan, this lighting plan now reflect
exactly what we’re going to do?
MR. CARR-Yes. The only thing I believe it does not reflect is the house shields that will be
placed on those wall packs.
MR. VOLLARO-Which should improve this.
MR. CARR-Which should improve it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Mr. Chairman, I’ll go along with this.
MR. RINGER-Any other questions on lighting? Okay. The next item on the modification was
the stormwater. Jim, have you got any?
MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t that the Hastings November 11 memorandum has to do with the
th
stormwater?
MR. CARR-Yes, that’s one of the issues. I think that is the stormwater basin issue. The second
issue was really an issue that came up after the October Bruce Frank letter which was the
erosion, and Staff can correct me if I’m wrong, the erosion that happened behind the Post Office,
that was noticed, and when we made our first submission for modification that was eventually
tabled, that’s when Staff brought it to our attention and we came up with a plan and discussed
it with Staff, and the plan was basically to fill in the eroded area with fabric and stone to bring it
back as close to its naturally condition, replace the guardrail that was removed, because one of
the things that exacerbated that problem was that the site maintenance people, because the
guardrail was removed, they were using that area for snow storage, which they should not have
been doing, which they cannot do now because the guardrail has been replaced, and that we
introduced an asphalt wing swale the length of the rear access road which would prohibit any
runoff from leaving that paved area towards the wetlands.
MR. LAPPER-To prevent future erosion.
MR. CARR-To prevent future erosion. Now we discussed that with Staff. We requested that
we could do that prior to this meeting, because the asphalt plants were going to close and we
really wanted to get that wing curb in, or wing swale in prior to the winter, and then the spring
runoff, which they agreed, the plan was sent to Jim, and basically we got a comment letter back
from Jim, I believe it was Friday or last week, and I believe that’s probably in your packet. I’ve
got it here somewhere.
MR. RINGER-December 15 is the letter.
th
MR. CARR-And that’s what we’re talking about this additional catch basin, which is, Jim had a
comment that now that we’ve added the swale, he’s concerned that the runoff isn’t getting,
possibly, to the catch basin at the bottom of the hill, and that we need to add an additional catch
basin which Kevin Hastings created a sketch, sent it off to Jim, and they discussed that, and it
looks like we’ve come to an agreement that a catch basin needs to be put in at the bottom of that
slope, with a new pipe going to the treatment chamber, and Kevin Hastings also included an
analysis showing that the treatment chamber could handle the additional flow associated with
the wing swale.
MR. VOLLARO-That was 7.62 to 11. The 11 is the design capability of the chamber.
MR. CARR-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO- We’re up to 7.62 cubic feet per second.
MR. CARR-Right.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Jim?
MR. HOUSTON-I think Dave’s summary is very accurate. Just to clarify a couple of things, my
first comment on my letter indicates that addition flow to that unit will not cause a problem as
Bob was indicating. The flow that it will see is around 7.60 at best, which is much less than it’s
design capacity. In order for that system to work, the flow has to come in to the pipe that enters
the unit. It cannot fall directly into the unit because it requires this circulation in order to do its
job, and from that standpoint, it’s critical that the runoff from this area get conveyed over to the
storm drainage system, and what was most recently proposed is a catch basin, and a sketch
that I received from Kevin Hastings showing where possible connection of this new area would
be into the existing storm drainage system. It’s not clear to me that that’s at the exact low point,
but the concept of what they’re proposing is fine with me, and that’s where I think we’ve got to
go. It’s just the details of the exact rim elevation and some of that is yet to be resolved.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So that’s not a site plan mod then, is it?
MR. HOUSTON-It is in the fact that it’s a new catch basin and it’s a modification to the drainage
system to handle this area.
MR. RINGER-If we get that far, we can do an approval with stipulation that a final signoff on
the stormwater by C.T. Male would be done. Anything else on the stormwater from the Board
or from Jim, or from Staff? Okay. That’s all the issues for the modification. Now, there was a
public hearing, again, scheduled for the particular reason. I mean, it was open. So the public
hearing is still open. Anyone from the public wish to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. RINGER-Do you know why they had a public hearing, the same situation, major
modification maybe?
MR. HILTON-I guess due to the extent of the modification.
MR. RINGER-No big deal. I was just curious. Okay. No SEQRA required. We can say that the
changes and modifications do not affect the SEQRA.
MR. HILTON-I just have a quick question. It sounds like to me that you’re probably going to
have a condition that a final C.T. Male signoff.
MR. RINGER-Final C.T. Male signoff and I put down another note about the shields, the lights
and the wall pack. I had that as a final, as part of a condition.
MR. HILTON-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Someone else may have some others, but those were the things I had. Did you
have anything else, George?
MR. HILTON-No. Okay. I’m ready to entertain a motion on this, if someone would like to
make the motion.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can I just make a comment? I just wanted to make a comment about the state
of this particular application. It was a mess, and it took a great deal of time to go through, and I
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
have to admit that the time that it was robbing me of was offensive, and so I just wanted to
mention that it could have been laid out much better. It could have been much more reader
friendly or user friendly. So I just wanted to put that on the record. This took a great deal of
time, and I think it could have been handled much differently.
MR. LAPPER-I think what happened was that Dave was addressing, a lot of these things were
really construction issues and not so much site plan and really should have been, we were just
trying to address Bruce’s issues, but a lot of them really didn’t have to come before the Planning
Board. So, our apologies.
MR. RINGER-It seemed to have made it complicated, and that’s what I tried to resolve tonight,
to get it back in order.
MR. LAPPER-Right, yes.
MR. RINGER-But Gretchen’s point was well taken. It was confusing as the devil. Ready, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 12-2002 HOME DEPOT,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No.12-2002 Applicant: HOME DEPOT
Previous SEQR Property Owner: NPA II, LLC
Agent: LA Group
Zone: HC-Intensive
Location: 820 State Route 9
Applicant proposes modification to site improvements at the Home Depot in the Northway
Plaza. Modifications of previously approved site plans require approval from the Planning
Board.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-46
Public Hearing: 10/19/04 [tabled]
WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/30/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/21/04, and
10/19/04 PB resolution: Tabled
12/17/04 Staff Notes
12/15/04 CTM engineering comments
12/2/04 Fee received from LA Group
11/15/04 J. Edwards from CB: info for review
11/15/04 CB from Jonathan Lapper
11/9/04 Mr. MacEwan from Jonathan Lapper
11/9/04 Fax to J. Houston from staff: as requested by J. Edwards
11/3/04 J. Houston, CTM from LA Group: revised grading plan for detention
basin
10/19/04 Mr. MacEwan from Jonathan Lapper
10/19/04 PB from GH: Staff Notes w/9/28/04 Site Plan Inspection report form,
10/12 CTM eng. Comments, 10/18/04 memo from CB to PB
10/15/04 BF from Jonathan Lapper
10/15/04 Fax to D. Carr from Staff
10/12/04 Notice of Public Hearing
8/27/04 Affected Applicants: application to next month
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and held on 10/19/04 and 12/21/04, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
That we find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the
resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on
the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Strike the Condition Number One in the prepared resolution – so stricken.
1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2. Any new lighting fixtures shall be inspected by Staff for compliance prior to installation.
3. That the shields on the wall packs facing Montray Road would be put on.
4. The access to the Town right of way behind the building should be shown on the new
plan.
5. A sign-off from CT Male on stormwater.
Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, did the motion include the prepared resolution by Staff, or no?
MR. METIVIER-Yes, it did.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-All right. That being the case, I think we need to do something with Staff’s
prepared resolution Condition Number One. Because Staff is informing us that they don’t have,
or that we don’t have a copy of the Notice of Intent, but we’re talking about prior to issuance of
a building permit, I think that ship has sailed on this project.
MR. CARR-Yes, and there was a Notice of Intent filed, and there was a Notice Of Termination
filed, and I can get you a copy of that.
MR. HILTON-And that’s fine, and I think that’s all we’re looking for.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s all, so, obviously Condition Number One should be re-worded,
either re-worded or eliminated. That’s all I’m saying.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Well, why don’t we leave it in, since George hasn’t got it yet, and just make your
conditions two and three, Bob.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, don’t leave it in with the words, “prior to issuance of a building
permit” is my point.
MR. RINGER-All right.
MR. HILTON-Just eliminate the words “building permit”, that it shall be provided.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got it and George is going to have a copy of it. Eliminate it, Bob.
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer
NOES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. CARR-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 44-2002 MODIFICATION PYRAMID CO./TARGET AGENT: THE LA
GROUP ZONE: ESC-25A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SITE PLAN, INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE APPROVED LIGHTING AND
LANDSCAPING AND GRADING PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TARGET STORE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE AVIATION MALL. MODIFICATIONS TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING
BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.12
JON LAPPER, RUSS PITTENGER, & BOB ORLANDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George?
MR. HILTON-I guess kind of a similar situation. The applicant is seeking some modifications
from a previous site plan. Perhaps there are some items in here that may not be considered
modifications, and I guess I’ll go down, quickly, the ones that I would consider modifications,
site plan modifications. First of all, in regards to the development, or construction of the
parking area west of Friendly’s, as I’ve mentioned, the applicant indicates that the parking isn’t
required at this time, and they’d like to reserve the right to construct the area in the future. I
guess that’s fine, however, should the applicant wish to develop this as something other than a
parking area, that could trigger further Planning Board review in the future. As far as the
lighting, I’ve noted the changes, additional fixtures for the poles in the parking field. There is
an increase in the lighting, foot candle values in front of the Target store, and as far as the
landscaping, I’ve I guess suggested that the Planning Board may wish to set a date in the Spring
by which the landscaping will be evaluated and replanted, if, in fact, it’s required to be
replanted. With that, that’s all I have. Like I said, it’s a similar situation. You do have a letter
from our Staff, Bruce Frank, outlining the outstanding issues, and with that, that’s all I have.
MR. RINGER-Okay. The floor is yours.
MR. LAPPER-This is really very similar to what we just talked about. Russ Pittenger from the
LA Group is replacing Dave Carr from the LA Group, in this act, and Bob Orlando, the Mall
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
Manager, and we also have a representative of Target here if there are any questions for them.
Very similar to what we were just talking about. Obviously the construction of the Target store
is now nearing final completion, and Bruce raised a few issues when he was out on the site.
Really the biggest one is just that parking area on the north side of Friendly’s. That’s something
that exceeds the Town parking requirements. So it’s not something that we would need to get a
variance not to construct, and it’s something that isn’t necessary now.
MR. LAPPER-Excuse me, Mr. Lapper. Could we just go on this November 17 letter to Craig
th
Brown and just go down these one by one, so, otherwise, a lot of this interjection is very
confusing. It’s confusing to me. The last one was really confusing. So we look like we’ve got a
good question and response letter here, in the November 17 letter, I think it was by Russ
th
Pittenger, is that correct? Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I was just trying to hit the high points.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s go quickly through.
MR. RINGER-Unfortunately, Bob, I don’t have the letter, and neither does Gretchen have the
letter of November 17.
th
MR. RINGER-Have you got it, Tony?
MR. METIVIER-No,
MR. RINGER-Tony doesn’t have it either.
MR. RINGER-Have you got it, Rich?
MR. SANFORD-I received nothing new in my packet this month on this application.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t, either.
MR. HILTON-What letter are you, can you show me?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, November 17, 2004.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve got one.
MR. SANFORD-I received nothing.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have one, Gretchen doesn’t have one, Tony doesn’t have one, and Rich
doesn’t have one.
MR. VOLLARO-Russ’s letter of November 17.
th
MR. RINGER-George, if you’ve got one, maybe the three of us up here could share it and Bob
and Rich and Tom can share it, as Bob is reading through it, because we’re at a loss here, if
you’ve got an extra, George.
MR. SCHACHNER-You have two between you. Doesn’t Tom have one and Bob?
MR. RINGER-I thought you three and us three, you’ve got one. Okay. All right. So we’re all
right then, George. Okay, Jon, go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. One, eight concrete wheel stops for newly created parking spaces next to
Friendly’s restaurant not built. Response, 11 additional wheel stops shall be installed by
November 30, and they were.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-And they were. They are installed?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can get rid of that. Number Two.
MR. LAPPER-Caution sign missing at ring road pedestrian crosswalk (northeast of west end of
mall). Response: These signs shall be installed by November 30.
MR. RINGER-Jon, this is very similar to the Home Depot one and what are the modifications?
MR. LAPPER-That’s where I was going.
MR. RINGER-Bob, are you interested only in the modifications, or are you interested in all of
that?
MR. VOLLARO-You see, if we go down as fast as we’re going here, we’ll get through this and
I’ll be able to understand what we’re doing. On the last one, I was out to lunch, didn’t
understand a thing about it.
MR. RINGER-Well, the last one was complicated. I haven’t seen this. So if it’s less complicated,
let’s do it the way you’re doing it, then. Okay, go ahead, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Caution sign was installed. Number Two. Three, crosswalk mentioned in
Number Two not built per plans (does not cross curbed island, which also is missing approved
7 parking spaces). Response: See attached Exhibit 3, “Crosswalk Revision, which is a
modification. We shall reconstruct the crosswalk and relocate the sidewalk onto the curbed
island as discussed during our meeting with Craig, and that was done.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s completed?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re done with that.
MR. SCHACHNER-Wait, but that is a modification, Bob. I think the applicant’s saying that’s
been done, but it’s a cross off revision and the applicant’s proposing that be a modification.
MR. VOLLARO-Was it on the original drawing?
MR. PITTENGER-Let me say. We had the walkway that went through an island. We’ve
relocated that off the island and it ran through the parking lot. Staff considered that to be
incorrect and improper. So then we revised it back to be across the same island in a similar
location, the safety issues were the same.
MR. SCHACHNER-I withdraw my comment.
MR. PITTENGER-So that was done. It was a modification to make it like it got approved.
MR. VOLLARO-Like it got approved.
MR. SCHACHNER-And not a modification.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct. It was a change.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m glad even Counsel has a little problem with this application. Okay.
Number Four.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. LAPPER-Caution sign missing along drive isle just west of handicap access ramp to Target
main entrance.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s in place.
MR. SANFORD-That’s not a modification.
MR. LAPPER-No, it’s just a missing sign.
MR. VOLLARO-Five.
MR. LAPPER-Stop signs missing at both sides of handicap access ramp mentioned in #4.
MR. PITTENGER-Those are in place.
MR. VOLLARO-Six.
MR. LAPPER-Curb not built per plans (per site plan approval) in front of Target (rolled-curb
found built instead), and we’ve submitted drawings of the new Target design rolled-curb,
which we would like as a modification, and Russ can explain why Target thinks this is
preferable.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is a modification to the site plan.
MR. LAPPER-This is a modification.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Why don’t you explain them now, then, if you can.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. Very good. The new Target prototype that they’ve been building,
there’s 150 new stores that were built this year with this modification, that rather than a
conventional six inch rise curb, what they have is 12 inches wide with a four inch height, and
it’s rolled. It looks like almost like a winged wedge on some of the more, some of the
subdivision roads. There are the textured strips above to delineate that. They find this works
better and they have less, it’s a safer design for them. They’ve used it on other prototypes, and
as I say, the Target representatives say that they’ve built 150 of those this year.
MR. VOLLARO-This allows the wheel to go slowly up against that stop. Is that the whole idea
behind this?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, it’s in the inner ring road. It’s along the front of the store, except where
we do have a conventional drop curb for access, and there are also a series of big red bollards
that are 30 inches in diameter to define that, but that is, it’s something we did not realize or
anticipate when we got the site plan approved, and that’s their prototype that’s what they built.
MR. VOLLARO-This whole Target curb thing is a modification to the originally approved plan?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And it shows on the new plan?
MR. PITTENGER-It shows on our as built plan. That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Questions on that, from the Board? Okay.
MR. ORLANDO-Larry, just while you’re there, you should have also received, but it sounds to
me like maybe you haven’t, the as built drawing, but I have some with me.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-And the Staff may have them. We don’t have them.
MR. ORLANDO-Okay.
MR. HILTON-I have to speak up. We do have copies of this letter and these as builts in the file,
and the fact that some of you have them and some of you don’t, I don’t, I guess I don’t
understand, but it seems to me that we had the information and we distributed it.
MR. RINGER-Well, we seem to be moving along. Hopefully we be able to continue through
without it.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve only got one mod so far, in this whole thing, painted pedestrian
crosswalk work has been completed on Number Seven.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Number Eight. The sign should be installed by November 30. Was it?
th
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. It’s the truck entering sign, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Nine. Hatch not painted on pavement where ring road meets the entrance
from Aviation Road near Friendly’s.
MR. PITTENGER-That has been completed, that’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Ten.
MR. LAPPER-That’s the parking area.
MR. PITTENGER-This is the parking area. It’s the 124 spaces that are across the entrance drive
from Friendly’s, that’s up the hill, that the applicant would like to not build at this time.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This turns out to be a mod?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the second mod we’ve got. Okay.
MR. RINGER-Explain that, Jon, why you’re.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. This was something to meet a tenant requirement but not a Town
requirement, to have certain parking ratios. So this was to ask for this extra 124 some odd
spaces. You’d be crossing the main entrance, the Friendly’s entrance, from Aviation Road. So
this would really be kind of overflow parking for Christmas, for the busiest weekend, and it’s
just, it’s something that the Mall doesn’t feel they need now. They’d like the right to do it in the
future if it was necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. This is not necessarily a mod. This is the fact that they want to do
something at a later date. It’s on the drawing now.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s just going to be held in abeyance until a later date.
MR. LAPPER-Until it’s needed.
MR. VOLLARO-This is really not a mod.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Staff has recommended that they come back for site plan approval if they do put
it in at a later date. So we’re going to have to consider it a modification. Otherwise, if we don’t,
they could build it at any time, I would think. So I would consider it a modification, and we’ll
have a stip in that if they do construct it, they come back for site plan approval, or application.
MR. ORLANDO-Wasn’t the Staff comment, though, that if we built it differently that we would
need to come back?
MR. RINGER-I’ll read it.
MR. HILTON-Yes, that was my comment. However, I guess it’s also, I’m looking at it as a
modification that it can’t be an outstanding item. Either the Board’s going to let you not
construct it right now, or they’re going to say, you can construct it at any time, and that’s, I
guess, how I’m looking at it.
MR. RINGER-Okay. You’re right, Bob, the way that Staff has written the note, and the
stipulation would only be if you developed it other than as a parking area, and that’ll be a
stipulation that we.
MR. ORLANDO-Certainly, fair enough.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’ll be a condition.
MR. RINGER-Any questions on that from the Board, on that?
MR. VOLLARO-If they do it later on.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t like the idea of giving them an option to, an indefinite option to build
this. I mean, I’m not sure, in this particular case, how significant it is, but I think the policy is
kind of strange. I mean, 30 years from now, they might all of a sudden construct this parking
lot and it would be part of the original application. I don’t think that’s good planning. I don’t
know.
MR. VOLLARO-You want to put a date on it, is that what you’re saying, a date certain for
completion?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and if they don’t do it then, then they’d have to come back for approval. I
mean, that makes sense, doesn’t it?
MR. LAPPER-What’s your date, what are you thinking?
MR. SANFORD-What are you thinking?
MR. RINGER-You’ve got to come back for site plan, or we don’t come back for site plan.
MR. SANFORD-I agree with you. I think they should come back. The modification as I see it, is
they don’t want to build it, and now I’m saying that if we grant them that, then if they want to
build, they have to come back.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Then, all right, then we’ll make that a stipulation. Okay. Go ahead. Next
item.
MR. VOLLARO-Eleven.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. PITTENGER-Next item, Number Eleven, the inspection for the drainage structures that the
Town, Bruce Frank did not observe those. I certainly did, and Kevin Hastings, my engineer,
did, and we have evidence and photos of that stuff. So I think we’ve satisfied that concern. My
engineer has certified that they were indeed installed.
MR. RINGER-Okay, and that’s not a modification anyway.
MR. PITTENGER-And Number Twelve is a big one, though. Number Twelve is the lighting,
and that’s something that bears some discussion. In fact, the photometrics that I supplied to
you are not entirely correct, in fact, they’re incorrect. It was always our intention to replace the
lighting that was existing on the Mall and when the Board, when we first came to the Board, I
have our 2001 approval here, that was certainly our intention to reuse the existing lights and
light poles. What is confusing and what was incorrect, in the materials that were submitted to
you was that what we had approved were to use those lights and to re-lamp them with 1,000
watt bulbs from the existing bulbs which are 400. What actually happened, and what was
constructed, was they stayed at 400 watt bulbs. So I can describe it right now. This is the as
built plan. What we have is five lights along the entrance road next to Friendly’s. This is the
demolition plan. What existed before was six lights along the entrance road to Friendly’s.
Those are double-headed, 30 foot poles. What we’ve had, and what we removed were 12 lights
through the parking field that were four headed, 400 watt lights. What we currently have on
the as builts are 12 four headed 400 watt lights. What we got approved was a combination of
this stuff, but they were all 1,000 watt lights. So, unfortunately the material I supplied to you is
not accurate. I thought that they had built it according to the design that we had, but indeed
they just re-lamped them. They fixed them up, and they replaced them. So the light levels are
very similar, almost exact to what pre-existed on the site, not reflective of the photometrics I
gave you, and I apologize for that.
MR. SEGULJIC-We have a few dates here, 4/12 and 8/26.
MR. PITTENGER-That information was photometrics developed by the designers from
Minnesota at our request for different lighting schemes. Some of those have all 48 foot high
poles. What we have is what we started out with, and it’s not reflective of that, except for what
was approved. Now the approved plans do show, the approved plans show two lights up here,
two poles, double-headed, thousand watt bulbs, which is more wattage than what we have with
our five and two’s, at 400 watt, and then these in here, we have four, we have seven of these
four-headers along the building with 1,000 watt bulbs in them. We have seven of these two-
headers with 1,000 watt bulbs. I don’t have the photometrics for you of what exists now, but
they’re the same poles and bulbs as we started with, which I believe was certainly our intention.
It’s less than what got approved, lighting levels to the degree of the approved plan has 53, it’s
50,500 watts of light. The existing plan, prior condition and proposed condition that we have
now is 23,000. There is, the wattage is over half of what we had approved. We did not build
what was approved. I don’t know how we got onto this plan.
MR. SANFORD-On this particular modification, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels,
but I mean, I would almost rather put this aside and let’s get it cleaned up and then we can look
at later on the lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask a specific question to Mr. Pittenger, on the lighting. On the
statistical summary, on your light drawing dated 8/26/03, you’re up to the top where you have a
statistical summary there. Now, is that reflecting the 1,000 watt bulbs that I see down
underneath the luminar schedule?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So 400 watts would reduce this considerably. Your max is now 8.3.
MR. PITTENGER-That’s the leap I’m asking the Board to make. I don’t have that, but these are
400 watts, not the 1,000’s. That’s correct.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a considerably reduction. I’m wondering if putting the 400 watts in
there, and I’m a big proponent of not lighting up the sky, as you know, but I also want to make
sure you’ve got enough light on that. Right now your max is 8.3 with 1,000 watt bulbs.
MR. LAPPER-We’ve got Hess which lights up the whole Mall. So we don’t need anything else.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just trying to make sure that these statistics are in line, but right now
you’ve got a uniformity ratio of 1.89 here, which is your max over your min. It’s average over
min, I’m sorry.
MR. ORLANDO-So if you look at the site and these five circles up top here, where the
Friendly’s entrance is, the difference from what we had, to what is here, is one light pole,
because if you remember, this driveway was longer. The reconfiguration of the front lot
brought the outer ring road out, which made us shorten this entrance way. So it’s the exact
same lighting as what we had when we started, before we came in to see you and apply for this
site plan. We just eliminated one light pole. We did ask for something different, and that was
our mistake, in front of you before, but what you have is the exact lighting levels that you had
before, which were acceptable. Here, it’s the same thing. We’ve just reconfigured it in a way to
accommodate the new ring road and the new area that’s in front of the Target store. So, I know
it’s different than what we asked for, but it’s almost exactly what we had before.
MR. VOLLARO-We had approved 400 watts previously.
MR. ORLANDO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you’ve got 400 watts now.
MR. ORLANDO-No, the 1,000 got approved, because we asked you to.
MR. LAPPER-Four hundred got approved.
MR. ORLANDO-Prior to this site plan approval, yes, you had approved 400.
MR. VOLLARO-We approved 400, and you’re essentially back for that now.
MR. ORLANDO-That is correct.
MR. VOLLARO-These statistics are no longer correct.
MR. ORLANDO-That’s correct, as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think we need an accurate lighting plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I’d certainly like to see a lighting plan, this lighting plan, reflect
what you’re going to do, so that I can take a look at this statistical box which means a lot to me,
in terms of site lighting.
MR. LAPPER-If we could make that a condition, we’d certainly get you the correct numbers to
look at, as Dick is saying also.
MR. VOLLARO-Without a plan that we would approve saying this is going to be the lighting
on the Target site, I’m up in the air as to what that would be.
MR. SANFORD-Why don’t we deal with the other modifications, and put this aside. Again, I
think I’d like to see a new drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Okay. George has got a comment.
MR. HILTON-I actually just have a question. I just want to clarify. Is your intent to keep the
400 watt fixtures?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Okay. I think, obviously, that’s going to have a positive impact, as opposed to
1,000 watt fixtures.
MR. VOLLARO-Absolutely, for the record.
MR. HILTON-But absolutely, for the record, whether it’s a condition or not, we would, I guess
my suggestion would be seeing that on a plan.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that your lighting expert ought to look at that, though, to make sure,
this is a quantum leap, you know, from 1,000 to 400 watts.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, but there’s two of them, isn’t there?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know.
MR. SANFORD-Isn’t that what you were saying earlier? It was 1,000, it was a single, and they
were double? Am I wrong on that?
MR. VOLLARO-This luminar schedule shows everything at 1,000.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s not what they’re doing.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what they’re doing.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s right. They’re taking all of these 1,000’s back to 400 watts.
MR. SANFORD-Is that right?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct.
MR. SANFORD-It’s not, there’s not on each pole two 400’s?
MR. PITTENGER-Well, there are two 400’s on the twos, and then there’s four 400’s on the fours.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. They’re not changing the number of fixtures. Correct me if I’m
wrong.
MR. ORLANDO-That’s correct.
MR. SCHACHNER-They’re changing the wattage.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what we want to see in the new plan is it should reflect what they’re
going to do.
MR. PITTENGER-For example, the entrance road to Friendly’s, what we had gotten approved
was two poles with two fixtures on each, which was each 1,000 watts, so there were 4,000 watts
of light along that entrance drive to the ring road.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. PITTENGER-What we have now, that exists now, and what we had previously, except we
took one down, is we have five with 400 on each, so five times four, which is 2,000.
MR. VOLLARO-Russ, what I had as a comment, when I do my review at home, and I’ll read it
to you, make it like the picture, for Number Twelve. That’s what I had, make it like the
drawing. Because that’s what we approved. Anyway, we’re up to 13 now. We’ll come back to
12.
MR. LAPPER-And 13 is landscaping, overall landscaping is good. Health of most of the 85
Siberian Cypress, I’ll leave out the Latin, is poor, and will be re-inspected in the Spring. So
there was just one species that may not survive the winter, and if that has to get replanted, it’ll
get replanted.
MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s not a modification.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a response to 13, and probably our Executive Director ought to listen to
the response I’m going to make on this one. It says the areas developed per changes approved
by Chris Round were found developed as per the marked up plans. I’m just wondering, did the
previous Executive Director change what we had approved? Is that what this says, or am I
wrong?
MR. PITTENGER-I could answer that. As we were going through the construction of the
project, we had minor modifications that we took to the Town, or took to Chris, and he would
consider if he felt it was something worth taking to the Board or if it was something that could
be dealt with. For example, in one case, we had a grade change. We were trying to work with
the existing utilities, and not uncover an electric line. So we adjusted the grade, but to do that
we lost seven parking spaces. Up at Friendly’s they wanted more parking. We wanted to add
some spaces. We took that to Chris. He said it was okay. They made a modification in the
loading zone, the loading service area of the building that was a modification from the
developer, and we took that and said what do you think, before we do it, you know, what
should we do. He said, you know what, it went out 10 feet, it came in the same way, give me a
sketch on it, and that’s where it stands. So I apologize for bringing a lot of issues to the Board
that may be minor or may be major, and I apologize that it’s not really more clear of what we
want for the modification. That could have been done clearer, but there were, there was a
process during the construction where we submitted drawings to the Town, and they
considered, the Staff considered it wasn’t worthy of taking to the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-So the comments in parenthesis say see the marked up plans approved by
Chris Round.
MR. ORLANDO-There was also a memo from Chris to the Planning Board dated May 27 that
th
covers all those issues with the sketches and plans that go with it.
MR. RINGER-I remember that memo. Well, 13’s not a modification anyway. So, next one.
MR. LAPPER-That’s it.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. We’re done.
MR. RINGER-That’s it. All right. So the thing that we’ve got to come back to, that I saw, was
the lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, we want a new drawing.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Before an approval, or a new drawing to go to Staff?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Staff doesn’t approve drawings.
MR. RINGER-Right. I realize that. With the information they’ve given us tonight, do we feel
we’ve got enough to approve it with the stipulation that a new luminar should go to Staff, or do
we want to not approve it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the fact that the drawing that we’ve got is based on 1,000 watts, they’re
going back to the original 400. It’s a real positive move in the right direction. I’d go along with
a new drawing back to Staff, that reflects that. If it was going the other way.
MR. SANFORD-You’re saying approve it conditioned upon a new drawing being submitted?
MR. VOLLARO-Being submitted, yes.
MR. RINGER-I’d kind of lean towards that myself, Bob, but I want to make sure that we.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be basically for record purposes, because I think they’re heading in
the right direction.
MR. SANFORD-I’m just thinking about Gretchen’s comment. This is another really sloppy
application.
MR. RINGER-I don’t know if it’s sloppy or, again, we’ve made it sloppy by combining so many
things in their modifications, and things that weren’t completed, and stuff that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it was a lot easier to go through than the last one.
MR. RINGER-Absolutely. Well, there was so much correspondence in the last one.
MR. SANFORD-I didn’t even get the material. So it was very easy for me.
MR. SEGULJIC-And what about Comment 10 with the parking lot?
MR. RINGER-There were no questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-I assume what we’re going to say is.
MR. RINGER-When they go to approve it, that it’s going to have to come back for site plan
approval, for a modification.
MR. VOLLARO-Return to Planning Board when parking area is built for approval.
MR. RINGER-Right. Okay. There’s a public hearing. A public hearing again. Okay. The same
reason, George?
MR. HILTON-I believe so.
MR. RINGER-Okay. We must have put it out. I’ll open the public hearing. Any comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-SEQRA we can make a stipulation that there’s no change in the SEQRA. Now
we’re looking for a resolution. Why don’t we have Tony and Gretchen work on this resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-All they’ve got to do is mod, response to six as a mod, and response to ten with
a note that says they’ll return to the Planning Board when parking area is built for site plan
modification approval. So you’ve only got to work on the response to Number Six and Number
Ten, and a new drawing be submitted.
MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question. We’re happy to submit the drawing. I’m
wondering, I hate to take away an approval that Mr. Orlando does have at the Mall. Could we
put a two years or something that he could build that if he wanted to for that extra parking, and
then if it doesn’t, it could lapse? Would you entertain that? That’s all.
MR. RINGER-Well, how does the Board feel?
MR. SANFORD-I think you made it clear that, when we were discussing it earlier, you didn’t
want any part of that, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Yes, I didn’t, but now that I’ve got a two year frame in there, I’ve kind of, when
I’ve got a short term, I consider two years a short term, I kind of would go along with that, but
again, I’m looking for the Board’s feeling on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if they do it within that two years, they still have to come back to the
Planning Board?
MR. RINGER-No. If they do it within the two years, and put a parking lot there, they wouldn’t
have to. If they put other than a parking lot, they would, but after two years, that complicates
it. No, sorry, Russ.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay.
MR. RINGER-We want to keep it simple.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re ready to go.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 44-2002 PYRAMID CO./TARGET, Introduced by
Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 44-2002 Applicant/Property Owner: PYRAMID CO. / TARGET
Agent: The LA Group
Zone: ESC-25A
MODIFICATION Location: 578 Aviation Road, Aviation Mall
Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan, including changes to the
approved lighting and landscaping and grading plans associated with the Target store under
construction at the Aviation Mall. Modifications to previously approved site plan require
approval from the Planning Board.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.12
Public Hearing: 12/21/04
WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/17/04; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 12/17/04, and
11/30/04 Meeting Notice
12/17/04 Staff Notes
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
12/14/04 Notice of Public Hearing
11/30/04 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and held on 12/21/04, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of
the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if
application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act
have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is
necessary; and
WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits
whether Federal, State or Local, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
We find the following: The application is hereby APPROVED in accordance with the resolution
prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final
plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator:
1. Strike Number One that a NOI would be provided prior to issuance of a building permit
– so stricken. We will strike the building permit part, since it’s already been issued.
1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2. A new luminar schedule will be submitted to the Staff.
3. The parking area west of Friendly’s and the Mall entrance road, if they plan to construct
it, they have to return to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval.
Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
MR. SCHACHNER-I thought there was a proposal to revise the curb.
MR. RINGER-Yes. We aren’t making any conditions to it and it’s already part of the new site
plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not a modification is what I’m asking?
MR. RINGER-Yes, it is, but it’s on the new site plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-So you’re approving that, how, as part of the prepared motion?
MR. RINGER-As part of the modification that they’ve requested, with the new site plan.
MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that. My question is, how is it being approved? Nobody
mentioned it. Is it approved because you’re approving the revised site plan?
MR. RINGER-Because we’re approving the modification, and that new curbing is part of the
modification.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s on the revised site plan?
MR. RINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Great.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: Mrs. Steffan
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-Okay. You’re all set.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 67-2004 SEQR TYPE II RICHARD MAYO PROPERTY OWNER: 52
MAIN ST. WEST G.F., LLC ZONE: MU LOCATION: 52 MAIN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES A RESTAURANT IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
RESTAURANT USES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/8/04 TAX MAP NO.
309.10-2-28 LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020
RICHARD MAYO, PRESENT
MR. RINGER-George.
MR. HILTON-This application is for a restaurant in an existing building on the southeast corner
of Richardson Street and Main Street. The applicant’s site plan shows parking that appears to
go on to an adjoining property within the Richardson Street right of way. Parking on the
adjacent property is acceptable, or can be approved by the Planning Board, provided that it’s
under the same ownership or permission is granted by the adjacent property owner. I guess
our question is, how does parking on that property to the east impact operations of that
property? Does it interfere in any way with access or other aspects of the property? As far as
parking within the street right of way, that’s probably not acceptable and the plan should be
amended to show that the parking areas are not within the Richardson Street right of way.
Additionally, that the lanes, the travel lanes to access the parking areas need to be 24 feet,
according to our Zoning Code. So it appears in some areas of the site that that may not exist,
and I guess our suggestion would be that the site plan be revised to show the areas, the drive
lanes being 24 feet to access these parking spaces. Beyond that, that’s really all I have at this
point.
MR. RINGER-Okay. A question for you before we start. The County denied this without
prejudice. Do you have anything from the County besides this sheet that?
MR. HILTON-Let me check the file.
MR. RINGER-While you’re doing that, the floor is yours, sir. Please identify yourself for the
record and tell us a little bit about what your project is.
MR. MAYO-My name is Richard Mayo. The project is a restaurant and café. I’m not sure
where else to go with it. It’s more health conscious. Low fat. Nothing fried. Carry out. Sit
down. That’s basically it. You said Warren County denied this?
MR. RINGER-Well, all of the applications go to the County, and they either approve or have No
County Impact. In your particular case, they denied without prejudice. We just got a note and
we’re just curious if they gave a reason, and that’s what I was asking for.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. HILTON-I have it. I’ll read it out loud. The recommendation is deny without prejudice.
Warren County Planning Board recommends deny without prejudice, requesting additional
information regarding parking requirements, parking on adjoining lot, site map showing true
boundaries, dumpster location, confirm access drive to parking spaces at rear of building,
signage, lighting and landscaping.
MR. RINGER-They were looking for some additional information, but it’s important to us, in
that, when the County denies an application, if we approve the application, we need a super
majority to approve it, instead of a simple majority. So we’d like to know why they had denied
it, and that’s why I asked George to look that up. So, what it would mean tonight is you would
have to get five, five approvals tonight. So that’s why I was checking with that.
MR. MAYO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Excuse me, Mr. Mayo, how many seats do you anticipate for the restaurant?
MR. MAYO-Thirty-two.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thirty-two seats.
MR. RINGER-We’ll go down our sheet, and with what we’re doing, I haven’t seen you before
us before, Mr. Mayo, but what we, we have a procedure that we go through, and the Board will
ask questions among ourselves and of you.
MR. MAYO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-And so we cover all the bases, we have a little form that we use, and that’s what
I’m going to go down through right now. Okay. Design standards. Any questions from any of
the Board members on design standards? Design standards would be conformance with
Comprehensive Land Use, conformance with design corridor standards, and we’ve got the
Main Street corridor. So if anyone’s got any questions on the Main Street corridor.
MR. VOLLARO-I do. Tom’s got some as well, but I’ve got some questions, I think. 179-7-030 is
the Main Street Corridor, in 179. In there it talks about, if you look at the figures that they have,
Figure Number Six, they’re picking up from Main Street itself will consist of eight feet of green
space, five feet of sidewalk, and eight feet of green space for a total of 21 feet from Main Street
toward his building. Now he’s got plenty of room here. He’ll still have 35 feet, even if they take
that, but he’ll lose parking spaces right along the front. Now I think, Gretchen, your question
was how many seats. It looks like it translates into eight spaces. The Code says one space for
every four seats for a restaurant.
MR. RINGER-One parking space for every four seats?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what 179 says.
MR. RINGER-That doesn’t seem like many, does it.
MR. VOLLARO-It sure doesn’t.
MR. RINGER-Anything else on design standards?
MR. VOLLARO-So I just want him to know that, if Main Street, or when Main Street goes in,
you’re going to be possibly losing about 21 feet in the front because of that stipulation.
MR. SANFORD-Do you have the eight parking spots? I mean, because we walked the site, and
in the rear, that was very confusing to us whether or not that was your property or whether that
was common drive or what that might have been.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. MAYO-Right. That’s up front. That actually goes from approximately (lost words).
MR. VOLLARO-But if you use your 18 feet for your space, you’ve got it nine by eighteen, which
is what our Code is. Out of that 40 feet, you’re picking up 18. You’ve only got 22 feet left. You
need a 24 foot drive aisle there to be in Code. So those, all of those spaces are kind of in
jeopardy, in a way. Do you see what I’m saying?
MR. RINGER-Is there a right of way that goes from behind your building to the house that’s
next door?
MR. MAYO-(lost words) there’s another house there, but it does (lost words) the driveway goes
all the way around.
MR. RINGER-But is there a right of way that that house has?
MR. MAYO-Yes. I remember I saw cars parked back there. So they can come through the back
through there.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but I’m asking, do they have a legal right of way to that?
MR. MAYO-The owner owns all the property. He owns those two lots there.
MR. RINGER-All right. Well, there was a comment, George, you made, on how does that react
to.
MR. HILTON-Well, the Code as far as the parking on the adjacent property?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HILTON-Yes. The Code says that parking is allowed on adjacent properties, if it’s under
the same ownership. I guess our concern is, again, the drive aisles and the parking spaces
within the Richardson Street right of way. What appears to be parking within the Richardson
Street right of way.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t think he’s looking, on this drawing, for Richardson Street parking, is he,
George?
MR. HILTON-Well, if you look at, again, I’m looking at the bold line that appears to me to be
the property owner. The parking spaces along Richardson, in front of the building, appear to
go into, or off the property, and also the first space in the back. Those parking spaces I’m not
sure if they, as designed, or shown on this plan, would work.
MR. VOLLARO-The whole problem, I don’t know if any of those spaces will work because of
the 24 foot drive aisle problem.
MR. RINGER-What I was wondering if there is a legal right of way to that building next door,
because it looked like the cars went through there, and you don’t know that. Are you the owner
of the building, Mr. Mayo?
MR. MAYO-No, no, I’m not. Marvin Dobert is the owner. Actually, I was hoping, I asked him
to be here tonight.
MR. SCHACHNER-The owner would know the answer.
MR. RINGER-Yes. The owner would know, and as I understand your Staff notes, that if that is
a right of way, a legal right of way, then you can’t have parking in that right of way.
MR. HILTON-Well, I’m not sure if I addressed that in my notes, but certainly.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-I thought you had made a comment.
MR. SCHACHNER-His reference in the Staff notes is to the road, the right of way of the road.
MR. HILTON-That’s what I’m talking about.
MR. RINGER-Not to the legal right of way that next door might have.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s not what he’s referring to.
MR. SANFORD-He’s referring to Richardson Street right of way, not in the back.
MR. SCHACHNER-Not some potential private owner way.
MR. SANFORD-Which is that gravel piece in the back, yes.
MR. RINGER-Mark, from a legal standpoint, then if there is a legal right of way to that property
next door, can he have a parking lot that goes across that?
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s a private property issue between the owner of the property, and the
applicant’s apparently not the owner of the property. If the owner of the property wants to, I
don’t know if it’s a lease or a purchase, whatever, it doesn’t matter. It’s none of my business,
but if the owner wants to provide the applicant with the opportunity to park there, and that
somehow encumbers some other property of the owner, that’s up to the owner and the
applicant.
MR. RINGER-Works for me.
MR. MAYO-In fact, he’s actually taken some of the property next door, if you will, the renters,
actually take some more of that property (lost words).
MR. SANFORD-Yes, well, I mean, parking was the only issue I had with this, and I’m not sure if
it’s a whole lot clearer at this point. What would you suggest, we table this to get clarification
from the owner?
MR. RINGER-Well, he meets the parking, what do we have for questions for parking, Richard?
He meets the requirements.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we don’t for sure whether or not that there’s a right of way to the other
tenants in the rear, which would then cause problems with those spaces that are earmarked on
this drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-The drive thru aisle here should be 24 feet. Is that correct, 24 foot’s the
requirement?
MR. HILTON-Yes. The Code says each parking space should be, or must be accessed by a 24
foot drive aisle.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and it’s not.
MR. SCHACHNER-So, if that happens, do you lose those other spots?
MR. VOLLARO-I think so.
MR. SCHACHNER-And if you lose those other spots, do you have eight left?
MR. SANFORD-Not really.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he does now. He’s got eight now.
MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on the widening of Main Street.
MR. VOLLARO-But when they take 21 feet from Main Street.
MR. SANFORD-I hear you, but that might not be our issue at this point.
MR. RINGER-And it may not be that side of the street. We don’t know which side of Corinth
Road.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know if we can jump to those conclusions.
MR. VOLLARO-If you leave the whole Main Street development out, he has enough spaces.
MR. RINGER-He has enough. Yes. So he would have enough parking to meet the Code,
without that.
MR. VOLLARO-If you drop the whole Main Street corridor out there.
MR. RINGER-And if he puts a parking lot back there.
MR. SANFORD-Is there a handicap parking requirement here? And are they a different
dimension than what is shown?
MRS. STEFFAN-George, do you know the answer to that, handicapped parking required and
different dimensions required?
MR. HILTON-I guess honestly I don’t know. I mean, that’s something that our Building and
Codes Department would look at.
MR. RINGER-As I remember, the handicap depends on the number of parking spaces. I don’t
know if it’s standard eight or five or what, but there was a certain number of parking spaces
where you needed a handicap. I don’t know what the number.
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a big number.
MR. HILTON-Yes. It would be completely a guess, but one or two at the most would be my
guess.
MR. VOLLARO-Who’s going to erect the fence? When we went there Saturday, there was no
fence.
MR. MAYO-The owner’s actually going to do that.
MR. VOLLARO-He’s going to put a fence in?
MR. MAYO-Right.
MR. SANFORD-So I see. What you’re saying is you’re going to have parking spaces that are
going to cross over this property line because some how or another.
MR. VOLLARO-He owns the other.
MR. SANFORD-You’re renting, and so this is almost a mini little plaza or something that we’re
dealing with here. This whole property, these three lots are kind of all part and parcel of the
same deal.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-Two of the lots are houses and one of the lots is going to be a commercial
establishment, but one owner owns the three lots.
MRS. STEFFAN-So the owner owns the building behind this building, in addition to the
building on the left? Okay.
MR. SANFORD-That makes a little more sense.
MR. MAYO-Actually correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-He owns that house behind.
MR. MAYO-He did mention that, too. He actually said if there is a problem, which is not on the
drawing here, but if there’s a problem, technically he can go back almost five feet to this other,
behind him. I’d rather not because it actually eliminates the next door house, his driveway. So
I don’t want to move into an area and cause a problem with the neighbors. So to me that’s (lost
words) pretty harsh for somebody else (lost words).
MR. RINGER-It looks like for now you can meet the parking requirements the way the Corinth
Road is established right now, Main Street.
MR. MAYO-Maybe I’ll park back there.
MR. RINGER-Or employee parking or whatever. Okay. Site development.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, getting back to the Main Street corridor, one of the requirements that
they talk about in here is having the streetscape, the trees that would be about 20 feet, I believe.
MR. RINGER-You’ve got landscaping design coming down here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. We’re going to talk about that later.
MR. RINGER-Site criteria development, site conditions, soil hydrology, vehicle access, traffic
patterns. No questions?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I wanted to show some ingress/egress. How are people going to get in
and out? What’s the turning in and the turning out?
MR. MAYO-Yes. I thought that what I could propose is everybody comes in on the Main Street,
and that the Richardson exit next to the building is for exit only. I don’t want to try to go in and
out of that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Because there’s a traffic light there.
MR. MAYO-There’s a traffic light there.
MR. VOLLARO-Comes out at Richardson at the traffic light.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s a good idea.
MR. MAYO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-Yes, getting out with the light is the best way to go.
MR. VOLLARO-So there would be no out onto Main Street. They would be coming in on Main
Street and out on this driveway.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-No. I think he’s saying you can go in and out on Main, but you can only exit
on Richardson.
MR. MAYO-Correct.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-So there’s no reason why you shouldn’t go with the traffic on Main because, it
might not be wise to try to cross the lane, but.
MR. RINGER-Right hand only you mean. Okay.
MR. MAYO-I would suggest a sign there saying exit for cars coming back out. I live right down
the street here. That’s a pretty busy street to try to go across.
MR. RINGER-It sure is.
MR. VOLLARO-The best way to get out of this lot, it seems to me, is to take the driveway only
exit onto Richardson and use the light to do whatever you’ve got to do.
MR. RINGER-Well, or right only out. You could have a right only out.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Parking field design. Anything on that? Emergency access?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’ve already talked about the parking in the back. It may not work.
MR. HOUSTON-Just one comment that I had, looking at the plan for the parking in the back. It
seemed like if you put in angled parking in there, especially if you’re using this circulation
clockwise around the building, that you could come in and angle those parking spaces and
conceivably get the space that you need to get that 24 foot island. It may be a reduction in the
space, but it would be consistent with the one way pattern of flow around the building.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a good idea.
MR. RINGER-Yes. I don’t know if you had planned on actually marking these spaces with lines
and stuff or not.
MR. MAYO-Yes.
MR. RINGER-You are going to? Very good, then, Jim.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s certainly an option to put them in.
MR. HOUSTON-Just keep in mind with that, you’re going to force the maneuvers between the
parking spaces out on the, I don’t know if it’s the west side, towards that fence side and the
corner of the building there. It seems tight so you might have to eliminate that one space.
MR. RINGER-Well, he’s loaded with parking spaces.
MR. SCHACHNER-That’s the thing, even if you lose that one, you preserve the integrity of the
back ones, even if Main Street is expanded on that side.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, and I would seriously look to the angling.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. MAYO-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Stormwater, sewage design, no changes on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I asked, this drawing doesn’t show where the septic system is located.
You’ve got sewage disposal, but nothing on the site to even show where the current septic
system is, because you’re going to be putting a new building in there, or a new use, and I don’t
know, well, what was the old use?
MR. RINGER-Well, the old use was a heating and plumbing, air conditioning heating and
plumbing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. This is going to put an entirely different load on that septic system. I
don’t see it listed on the plan here at all.
MR. RINGER-Do you know where the septic system is?
MR. MAYO-No. I’m sure I could find it on this drawing. This is the drawing we submitted
when he first (lost word) the property, but, I’ll be honest with you, no, I don’t. I don’t see it on
there.
MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure that it’s not under one of the parking spaces.
MR. MAYO-We discussed that, and he asked me, well, when that conversation comes up, ask
about when we could tie in, because we’re going to tie into your Main Street sewage system
anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-The Spring of 2006. That’s according to our Wastewater Superintendent’s
memo to us.
MR. RINGER-It’s coming down Corinth Road? I thought it was going over to Veterans Field. I
didn’t know it was coming down.
MR. VOLLARO-Mike Shaw, if you took a look at Mr. Shaw’s letter which I have here, he talks
about this project, this proposed restaurant is currently not within the Town Sanitary Sewer
District. The Town is installing sanitary sewer mains on Main Street as part of the Warren
County road project. The project construction is to begin in the Spring of 2006.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Of course he’s not the owner, but he would be connecting in.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, that’s what Mr. Shaw recommends that you connect in the Spring of
2006.
MR. MAYO-My understanding is that Mr. Dobert was going to try to get more dimensions,
because I have to, if I’m going to put in a restaurant, I have to put three or four drains in here
anyway. So he’s actually (lost words), and at the same time planned to tie into the Main Street.
So when I asked where should I put this on my drawing, he said, well, wait and see what the
Planning Board says.
MR. VOLLARO-See what the Planning Board, let them design it.
MR. RINGER-You know whatever septic system has been in there has been in there for years,
and with very limited use because of what the occupancy of the building was. The restaurant
really does generate some wastewater.
MR. MAYO-Little grease stuff. In fact, there shouldn’t be any grease.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. RINGER-You might want to find out where that septic is.
MR. VOLLARO-I would just be interested, to make sure it’s not under those parking spaces or
something like that.
MR. RINGER-There’s no other place for it, Bob. Lighting design. Any questions on lighting?
Are you going to put any lights there that aren’t there now?
MR. MAYO-Yes. We are. I’m going to have to do that. I asked for a waiver of that initially, on
October 15. Basically (lost words).
th
MR. RINGER-We’ll want to know what kind of lights you’re going to put up.
MR. MAYO-Whatever the city requires. Judging by the previous meetings (lost words)
whatever you tell me to do, that’s what’ll get done.
MR. RINGER-Well, we don’t tell you. You tell us what you want to do, and then we’ll tell you
if it’s acceptable or not.
MR. MAYO-Do you have some wattages or something?
MR. SANFORD-You could probably work with Staff, for guidance. They’ll give you some
guidance.
MR. RINGER-Work with Staff on that, but we’re going to need something that you and Staff
will have to come up with.
MR. MAYO-Sure. Well, again, I don’t see the lighting going in for two, three months, maybe
four months.
MR. VOLLARO-You’d probably be looking at wall packs, as opposed to standing lights. In
other words, no poles. You’d be putting packs on the building.
MR. MAYO-Correct.
MR. RINGER-That’s still something that he should be working with Staff with. Landscape
design. Tom, you had some questions on, this is a tenant. So it becomes somewhat difficult
when you’re dealing with landscaping, but.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess one of the bigger issues is when Main Street goes through, what
do we do?
MR. SANFORD-We don’t know, Tom, what it’s going to look like when it comes through. I
think it’s kind of difficult to speculate.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. That’s the problem, I mean, because we do want to upgrade it to meet the
design requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-He has enough room, based on the Main Street corridor design. He’s got the 21
feet he’d need for five feet of sidewalk and two eight foot of green spaces. He’s got 21 feet in
the front. If they come through with the sidewalks and the two green spaces, he’ll lose a little
bit of his frontage. He’s going to, his parking, then, or his entrance will then move up 21 feet
from Main Street.
MR. SANFORD-That makes it imperative that he has the parking in the rear really, if you think
about it.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. MAYO-I plan on the angled concept, or something of that sort. I’ll tell you, one of my
strongest (lost word) for this location is because of the Main Street project.
MR. SEGULJIC-Have you seen the design corridor standards? Because one of the things that
the design corridor standards encourages is trees every 20 feet, I believe it is. So I guess, my
problem, where I get hung up is if we have him put in the trees, and then in two years they get
ripped out.
MR. RINGER-It may get ripped out if they go in on that side.
MR. SEGULJIC-On the other hand, to take out the trees and move them isn’t that big a deal.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’s not going to be able to get very many trees in with this driveway the
way it’s set up now. I mean, he’s got a landscaped corridor here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but I mean we want to improve all the landscaping along that corridor,
though.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-We should, you know, get more limited access.
MR. RINGER-It’s difficult because of the limited amount of space and the fact that he’s a tenant,
and.
MR. SCHACHNER-Just one legal point. It doesn’t matter whether the applicant is the owner,
tenant, renter, leaser, relative, friend, you know, whatever, you have to deal with the site plan,
not the identity of the owner.
MR. RINGER-I know, but I think we tend to be more lenient when it comes to the tenant
because we can’t, you know. Legally, I realize what you’re saying, but we have a tendency, or
we have in the past, when we’ve got a tenant versus an owner, to be somewhat more lenient
when it comes to landscaping.
MR. SANFORD-Well, where are we going to go with this tonight, Mr. Chairman?
MR. RINGER-I would think that we should probably get some more information on the sewer
system. We probably ought to find out if there is a right of way back there or not, too. Just for
our own satisfaction.
MR. SANFORD-Right. I mean, I agree with you. I think we’re going for a tabling.
MR. RINGER-I just want to make sure we cover all the areas, so he gets a clear picture of what
we’re looking for.
MR. SANFORD-Would it be reasonable for us to request that, at the next appearance that the
owner appear with you, so we can get clarity on these, and then maybe we’d be, you know, at
that time at a position to move with this?
MR. RINGER-Well, we can ask. We can’t demand it.
MR. SANFORD-That’s my point.
MR. RINGER-Tell Marvin, if he wants to rent, he better be here.
MR. MAYO-Yes. He asked me a couple of times, do you mind if I don’t go, so I didn’t push it.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-Because I think we do need some clarification on a few of these things, and
you’re just, you just don’t know. You’re not in a position to know.
MR. RINGER-Landscaping, perhaps if you can come up with some kind of a planting schedule.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see a sidewalk, some plantings, green space.
MR. MAYO-Have you got plans for the Main Street?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you go to the Zoning Code, 179-7-030, it lays out what the appearance
along the street, what the streetscape appearance should be. So if you follow those guidelines.
MR. MAYO-There’s a sidewalk there now.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a question I have, because it’s blacktop. It’s blacktop from the road.
MR. SEGULJIC-I was there when it was snow covered. I couldn’t tell.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the only thing that’s there is that little landscaping.
MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I think ideally we want a sidewalk there because we want the whole
street to have a sidewalk along. I mean, we have someone here who is encouraged by the
streetscape appearance. So he should become part of it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it looks like we’re going to want something here. My suggestion would
be that the applicant get a little bit of assistance from Staff before the next meeting on these
types of issues, so that he’s clear on what the vision is.
MR. RINGER-These issues didn’t come up when you did your?
MR. HILTON-Well, again, I was just saying to Rich, we did have a pre-application conference,
and as you’ll see in your information, the applicant requested waivers from lighting,
landscaping, stormwater, grading, everything.
MR. SANFORD-So we’re going to want some of that stuff addressed.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s continue down our thing. Environmental. I don’t think there’s
anything there. Neighborhood character.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-That’s fine.
MR. RINGER-Involved agencies. The County. We’ve already got a comment on the County.
So that’s it on this. We’ve got a public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anyone want
to comment from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. RINGER-I’ll leave the public hearing open. So now let’s, I don’t even want to do a SEQRA
tonight. Why don’t we just do the tabling.
MR. VOLLARO-Just do the tabling motion.
MR. RINGER-Okay. Anybody working on a tabling?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2004 RICHARD MAYO, Introduced by Richard
Sanford who moved its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
1. So that the applicant can continue to work with Staff to define the plans by providing a
landscaping plan and an alternate parking configuration in the rear of the building,
calling for slanted rather than vertical parking.
2. In addition the Planning Board would request that the applicant encourage the owner to
appear at the next meeting so we could get additional information on the site. We’re
interested in knowing where the septic system is located.
3. And a lighting plan.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
MR. HILTON-Just before you make any motion, if you are not specifying a date, for the
applicant’s understanding, for everybody’s understanding, if there’s no meeting specified and
no date when we’re going to receive new information, the next deadline would be January 15,
th
to be on in February.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So the tabling motion won’t specify a date, but the applicant does
understand the time considerations. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-Thank you, and you’ll get together with Staff. They’ll help you out.
MR. MAYO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-Larry, I have one more piece of business.
MR. RINGER-I’ve got some other stuff, too, that I want to go over, and Marilyn’s got a couple of
things, too.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. RINGER-Go ahead, Richard.
MR. SANFORD-Around this time of year, we give our recommendations to the Town Board for
officer positions of the Planning Board, for their consideration, and I guess I’ll make a motion,
and then if it gets seconded we can discuss it.
MR. RINGER-Well, before you make a motion, can I say this? I talked to Craig about this, and
Craig asked me to consider holding off the election of officers, until, you’re going to have a
workshop scheduled for January, and he wanted to do that at a workshop in early January.
MR. SANFORD-No, I spoke to him after that, and my question to him was whether or not he
still had an interest to serve, and he said he did. He encouraged me to move forward if I
decided to do it. My motion would be that we recommend to the Town Board the
reappointment of Craig MacEwan as Chairperson with Mr. Vollaro serving as Vice Chair with
Chris repeating as Secretary.
MR. RINGER-Okay. No problem with that. However, I’m going to ask you to make your
motion for nominations one, two, three, and we’ll vote on them all as separate entities.
MR. SANFORD-All right.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF
CRAIG MACEWAN AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE YEAR
2005, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MOTION TO NOMINATE MR. ROBERT VOLLARO AS THE VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE
YEAR 2005, Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Seguljic:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Vollaro
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD RE-APPOINT CHRIS
HUNSINGER AS SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE YEAR 2005,
Introduced by Mr. Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2004, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger
MR. RINGER-The only thing with your motion is the Town Board only has to approve the
Chairman. The Town Board doesn’t approve the Vice Chairman and the Secretary. It’s all right
the way it went, but it doesn’t have to be approved, only the Town Chairman. Any other things
that anyone had? All right. I had one thing that I wanted to bring up. We went to site visits
Saturday, and during the site visits, or after the, during the site visits, we got to the site over on
Eagan Road, and they didn’t have the sign up, the subdivision sign. So we weren’t able to, we
determined that we weren’t able to put them on the schedule because no sign was posted.
When I got home, Bob called me and he had stopped at the Hayes and Hayes on Ridge Road,
after we had done our site visits as a group, and told me that there was no sign posted also at
the Hayes and Hayes. At the time, Bob told me, and I remembered, that the Hayes and Hayes
was the second week of the month, or the 28. The sign has to be posted 10 days prior to the
th
meeting. We talked on the 18. So if they posted the sign that day, we could hear them on the
th
next Tuesday. So I felt this was a technicality, so I called the agent for the Hayes and Hayes, in
this case Jon Lapper, and told him, Jon, you don’t have a sign there. If you get the sign up
today, we’ll hear you on a week from Tuesday because you’ll comply with the 10 days. He
thanked me and said he’d make sure the sign got up. I went up to make sure that the sign did
get posted. However, the mistake I made, I thought the Eagan property was tonight instead of
next Tuesday. I should have called the representative for Eagan and given him the same
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
opportunity, and I neglected to do so. So the Eagan property won’t be heard next Tuesday,
unless Counsel tells me that we can waive that, and I don’t think Counsel’s going to tell me that.
MR. SCHACHNER-You are correct.
MR. RINGER-Okay. So Counsel’s not going to. So we’re going to hear Hayes but we won’t
hear Eagan, and I feel bad because we’ve given one account preferential treatment. Now, to go
on from there, I received a letter from Marilyn Ryba that was delivered today. Marilyn
somewhat objecting to the fact that I had contacted the applicant because she feels that that’s
Staff, and I’m a strong supporter and believe that everything should be conducted through
Staff, and I support that. However, this happened to be on a Saturday when the office wasn’t
open, and the action had to be taken that day in order to comply with the 10 day requirement,
and that’s the only reason that I contacted the applicant, and I got Marilyn’s letter, and I respect
her for writing it, and I agree with her, in principle, on the whole thing, but I feel this was a
completely different issue and I would do the same thing again tomorrow if the Staff wasn’t
available, or the office wasn’t available, for a technicality such as this, but I wanted to make sure
that everyone knew what had happened, and that we did give, or I did give preferential
treatment, unwittingly, to one applicant, and the other applicant, unfortunately, won’t get, I
wanted everybody to know what had happened.
MR. SANFORD-Are you asking for our comments?
MR. RINGER-No, I’m not asking for anything. I just wanted to let you know what happened.
I’d do the same thing tomorrow. If the office isn’t open, and I feel you’ve got to act, you’ve got
to act.
MR. SANFORD-Well, in the past, we have acted by basically not hearing the application, and
now, you know, there’s no consistency, is what I’m saying.
MR. RINGER-Sure there is. Richard, you do everything you can to get the application in front
of you. Making that call and reminding someone, hey, you’ve got to have this up if you’re
aware of it, I think we should do it. However, I think we should go through Staff. Saturday
and Sunday, Staff’s not available. So you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do.
MR. SANFORD-I don’t agree with that.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve never run into. We never done that before, though, Larry.
MR. RINGER-Well, maybe we should have. To me it’s the way to do business and I’m not
looking for approval or disapproval. I only want to let people know.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s fine, but I don’t know if you have, you certainly don’t have my
support on it, but that’s fine. You didn’t ask for it.
MR. RINGER-I didn’t ask for it. You’re right, and I told you I would make the same decision
tomorrow, but I do feel that, you know, you should know, and when you’re in the shoes, you’ve
got to do the job that you feel you should do, and that’s what I did.
MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask Counsel a question? Does Mr. Threw have any recourse here, the
fact that, or is he just?
MR. SCHACHNER-Which party is Mr. Threw?
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Threw is the party that was not advised that he.
MR. SCHACHNER-No recourse.
MR. VOLLARO-No recourse.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SCHACHNER-It’s the applicant’s responsibility. All Larry’s done is done someone a favor,
no big deal, from Counsel’s, from a legality standpoint, no issue.
MR. RINGER-From a professional and business standpoint, I think I did the right thing.
Marilyn, you wanted the floor. Go ahead.
MRS. RYBA-I just had a couple of things. Probably last Saturday was one of the two Saturdays
or Sundays I haven’t worked since I started as Executive Director. So, anyway, just to put a
little levity into things here. I think my main concern is dealing with ex-parte communication,
which is why I wanted legal counsel or Town Counsel to comment on that, and that’s my
primary concern. Whenever there’s any kind of discussion with an applicant, whether or not
it’s appropriate, and I think we got a clarification from legal counsel. So that’s one thing, and
then certainly to the degree we can work with Staff, that’s always a good thing. So thanks.
MR. RINGER-I think I made that point, Marilyn, but there’s exceptions to every rule, and in
order to provide the services that the Town should be providing, you’ve got to make those
exceptions.
MRS. RYBA-I hear you.
MR. RINGER-I think the Town makes a big mistake by not helping out applicants.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. I don’t have a clarification. I know what Larry said and I know what
happened, and that’s one person’s opinion. Did Larry do what is appropriate, or is it
inappropriate, or is it whatever anybody wants to do is kind of okay?
MRS. RYBA-I just explained my concern was from a legal standpoint, and that in terms of ex-
parte communication, and if it’s somebody doing someone a favor and it doesn’t provide
liability to the Town, then that’s their decision, and I would prefer that, you know, people work
through Staff, as Mr. Ringer pointed out, Staff was not available. I think the danger comes,
though, where there’s a line, and in crossing that line. So that if Planning Board members call
up a person to say, an applicant, let’s just draw an example, well, you know, I heard so and so
on the Board is going to discuss this or, there’s some information that’s being processed or
discussed about an application, then that is not appropriate.
MR. SCHACHNER-Can I clarify something? I’m hearing a lot about legal concerns, but it
seems like that maybe I should chime in. I didn’t say, all I said was that I don’t see a legal
liability issue having arisen as a result of what Mr. Ringer did. I think he indicated pretty
clearly that he agrees that appropriate communications come from Staff, and my understanding
of what he said, not these exact words, was that if this had happened on an ordinary work day,
he would not have directly contacted the applicant. He would have contacted Staff. There’s no
question that that would have been the more appropriate thing to do, but that’s not the same
thing as saying that it was inappropriate for him to contact the applicant. I would have a very
serious legal concern, as your Counsel, if any portion of his discussion with that or any other
applicant or anyone else, not just Larry Ringer, involved in any way, shape or form or manner
any aspect of the merits of an application. That’s an important legal distinction. If any
discussion involves any aspect of the merits of an application, that’s an inappropriate, the
legalese term is ex-parte communication. Calling an applicant and saying, your sign wasn’t up
when it’s suppose to be, you might want to think about putting it up, in my opinion, in no way,
shape, form or manner involves any aspect of the merits of an application, but, having said all
that, one of you just used a phrase of, I think it might have been Rich, you know, what guidance
do we have, is it particular to any Board member, can any Board member call up and say
whatever they want to say to any applicant. Most definitely not. Most definitely not. You have
to stay away from any thing that could even arguably be construed as dealing with the merits of
an application.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. SANFORD-Well, I could argue that there’s preferential treatment given to an applicant and
an agent, a particular applicant and agent, that we haven’t afforded to other applicants in the
past, and so from an ethical point of view, I think it’s suspect.
MR. SCHACHNER-You can argue that, and I’m going to just say that, it’s only my opinion, but
my opinion is that, A, it was an isolated instance, B, if it had happened on a business day, it
would have come from Staff, but most importantly, it doesn’t have anything to do with the
merits of an application. I mean, Mr. Ringer said that if he had realized that the other applicant
was not on tonight, but was on the other night, he probably would have called the same person.
I mean, I’m not going to dominate this debate. I just felt that I should give some legal guidance,
from the standpoint of legal propriety, there’s nothing legally inappropriate, so long as no
communication involves the merits of the application.
MR. VOLLARO-And I understand that.
MR. SCHACHNER-And I just want to say one more thing in response to Rich’s comment.
Certainly, if there was some continued pattern of preferential treatment to a particular
applicant, versus the community, that would be a different story, but I don’t view an isolated
instance as raising any specter of a continued pattern.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand completely what Counsel has to say. However, our visits
are made on Saturday morning. From now on, it probably is, and Staff is usually, Marilyn, you
may be there, but Staff is usually not in on Saturdays. When we complete our site visits on
Saturday, in the past protocol has been, if the sign isn’t up, you don’t get on. Now, we have a
new situation, where on Saturday, if the sign’s not up, are we supposed to now make sure that
we call the applicants to make sure those signs are up by Sunday morning so they meet the 10
day?
MR. SANFORD-No, by Saturday, before the close of the day.
MRS. RYBA-That’s a policy issue, and if you want to change your, you know, policies and
procedures document, that’s something we can put on our workshop schedule for early
January.
MR. SCHACHNER-See, but I’m going to suggest that that’s not a good policy change to make,
as a matter of routine practice, and the reason is because if you make it a policy change as a
matter of routine practice, then you can be subject to criticism for failing to observe it. So I think
that’s a bad idea, because whether Mrs. Ryba happens to be at work on every Saturday and
Sunday, or George or Stu or anybody else, I don’t think it’s appropriate to make that an
obligation, and if you make that part of the policies and procedures, then it could be construed
as a legal obligation. So I’m going to advise against that.
MRS. RYBA-Thank you, Mark.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the protocol in the past has been when there’s no sign observed by
Planning Board visits on Saturday, they’re off. That has been the past protocol over the last,
since I’ve been on the Board, six years. So that protocol should remain, I believe.
MRS. RYBA-Okay. A couple of things that I had observed tonight, and a couple of things I’ve
heard in the past. I really don’t understand how some Board members get materials and some
Board members don’t, when we distribute them equally to all Board members. So I’m just
curious, who did not get materials tonight? I know Rich said he didn’t. Gretchen and Tony.
MR. SANFORD-I didn’t get it on that one application, which was Target, and I thought that the
reason I didn’t get it was because, you know, I’ve got a stack downstairs. I figured I might have
had something from the past that was, that I needed to look for, but when today I went looking
for it, I didn’t have anything. So it was too late to do anything with it. So I did not have my
Target, I think it was Target information.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MR. METIVIER-Marilyn, that’s a rarity. I mean, I think in the three years I’ve been on the
Board, that’s the first time that I actually did not have all of the application. I mean, I may, you
know, in the past, have left something home or in my car, but, I mean, this was definitely a
rarity.
MR. RINGER-What happened in my case was it probably came out in October when I wasn’t
here, and maybe Gretchen wasn’t on in October.
MRS. RYBA-I’m just looking to see if there is a concern, because I have heard different people
say that they might not have something, might not have received something. If there is a
problem, I want to be able to address it and if we need to give you transmittal and do
certification of receipt or whatever it takes to make sure that you have the materials you need
for a meeting, I want to make sure that you have that information. The other concern I had, and
I do apologize for this, in terms of Target and Home Depot, we had discussed and sat down
with most of our Staff, and with both Home Depot and Target, to go over this site plan
inspection report form, and actually had outlined, here are the things that we believe are
modifications and here are the things that we don’t think are, and I mean, they were very
consistent with what came out tonight, and so I don’t know what happened there, but we do
debriefing session, the day after Zoning Board meetings, the day after Planning Board meetings,
and we do distribute those notes to the Town Board members. We go through, here’s, it’s a way
of communication. It’s a way of trying to make things a little bit better next time around, and
that’s one of the things that we will have. I do know, in some defense, that of course with a new
person on board, and Staff being extra cautious in terms of what does the Planning Board want
to see, what don’t they want to see, and that’s always a little difficult for us to make a
determination and then be accused later of, well, why wasn’t this brought in front of the
Planning Board. So, in Staff’s defense, I will say that I think everything was put forward to
have you folks make that determination, but to go a little bit further, too, I know that with Larry
leaving that we’ve had Bob Vollaro and Larry review applications for completeness before they
go to the Planning Board. So I just wanted to make a note for the record that we will need
another person to come and review applications with Staff before they go forward, and we
found that to be really helpful. I think it addresses some things we’ve heard about just making
sure that the applications are complete for review, in the opinion of Planning Board members
who, I think, have been appointed with some very distinct points of view, and that’s a good
thing, and we might want to put that on our Planning Board workshop.
MR. SANFORD-Do we have an agenda for that workshop yet?
MRS. RYBA-No, and it’s developing. I will tell you the one thing, and this is one of the things
Stuart is putting together, and he’ll be addressing the Zoning Board tomorrow night, is a
program, an education program, continuing education program that we’re very enthusiastic
about, and I know your Chairman, as well as the Zoning Board Chairman, are delighted to hear
about and actually something we’ve been trying to put together for a while, and we finally have
it. So Stuart will explain that at the workshop, and if you are inclined to get an early dibs on it,
you can come to the Zoning Board meeting tomorrow night and hear his presentation
tomorrow night, but that’s all I had, but probably getting someone to be appointed, or two new
people, even, I don’t know how you want to work that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a good idea. I’ve been doing it for two years now.
MRS. RYBA-For those plan completeness reviews, and then the explanation about the
continuing education program, which I don’t think will be very long either. So if you have
other ideas for workshop items.
MR. SANFORD-You see, that’s the difference. In the past, Mr. Strough would volunteer right
away, but here everybody’s silent.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MRS. RYBA-But we can always revise things, depending on people’s schedules. I mean, it’s
certainly, when people are willing to do something extra, Staff, I think, is willing to do
something extra, too.
MR. METIVIER-Eight thirty, nine o’clock at night good?
MRS. RYBA-For me.
MR. METIVIER-I’d love to volunteer, but I work. I don’t have a way to get out at 10 o’clock on
any given day.
MRS. RYBA-I understand that. That’s all I really had, and to the degree we can try to make
things a little bit easier and clearer, you know, there are some other things here, too, but those
will be discussed with Staff in the morning.
MRS. STEFFAN-Maybe on the January workshop you could revisit some of the things we
decided in the prior workshop about deadlines. Tonight Matt Steves, for example, had faxed
some things to C.T. Male at the last minute that, of course, we didn’t get to see, at the Home
Depot project, the Target project, they had a revised drawing with them. The Arlen project,
obviously he had some last minute things. We didn’t look at it, thank goodness, and we
rejected that, or actually we tabled it so they could come back, but I think we need to revisit
some of the deadlines, because folks are trying to play fast.
MRS. RYBA-And that’s a very good point, and I know that’s something that just even
discussions with C.T. Male that I’ve had, too, in terms of the deadlines, and then the other one,
along with that, is just even revisiting, which was discussed at the last workshop, revisiting the
value of having C.T. Male at these meetings, not anything offensive to Jim Houston, but it’s
something that the Board did say that they would discuss after C.T. Male had been in place for
a while, and I think it’s something that we probably need to at least discuss, and the cost as
well, the practical aspects of it.
MR. RINGER-It seems like if you’re going to have C.T. Male at the meetings, I think it’s a good
idea, when you sit down and do your scheduling, you might not need C.T. Male, certainly don’t
need C.T. Male at all these things, but maybe you could schedule the meetings that you think
C.T. Male, you need them, at the same meeting, rather than come to both Tuesdays.
MRS. RYBA-Right. We’ve looked at that, and the other possibility even is seeing possibly
maybe even a half hour before, have the meeting start a half hour earlier and have them address
certain issues up front, but I think it comes back to the deadlines as well. That gets a little
complicated, and it gets complicated when it goes back and forth fast and furious and then we
don’t have information for the record, and that’s my concern, because everything always comes
back to the record.
MR. RINGER-Well, we had set a rule up a couple of years ago that the applicant had, wasn’t to
go to C.T. Male. That the applicant had to go to Staff, and then Staff could relay that.
MRS. RYBA-Right, and many applicants have kind of waylaid that process, and that’s where I
said I’ve gotten.
MR. RINGER-And that’s when you get on their case and say, hey, stop it right now or we won’t
accept it, or C.T. Male should say, wait a minute, don’t send me anything, send it to Staff. It
may delay the process, but once you get the applicants working with you, it’ll speed it up again.
MRS. RYBA-Right, exactly. I agree exactly.
MRS. STEFFAN-And if those applicants are going around the Planning Department, perhaps
they need to be billed by the hour for C.T. Male’s time, because the taxpayers are paying for
them.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 12/21/04)
MRS. RYBA-Exactly.
MR. SEGULJIC-Marilyn, what’s the date of the workshop?
MRS. RYBA-We don’t have one set yet.
MR. RINGER-Craig told me we’re planning for early January, but early January, you don’t
know just what that date may be.
MRS. RYBA-Right, which we’ll follow up with Craig. I know with him not being at meetings
this month, getting that communication with him is a little bit different, but we’ll do that in the
morning, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Craig has to make a motion before this Board, in early January, to pick up on
the motion I made to reduce applications. He said he would do that in early January. I had
made a motion to reduce.
MR. RINGER-You presented that for him to do that in December, but I think that you could
change that to the workshop in January. You might get a better feel.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. RYBA-Okay, and then of course we also have to see if Town Counsel can make dates, as
well. So there’s a little bit of logistics going on.
MR. RINGER-Is that it, Marilyn?
MRS. RYBA-That’s all I have, thanks.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman
62