2005-02-22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
INDEX
Site Plan No. 6-2005 Cingular Wireless 1.
Tax Map No. 279-1-50
Site Plan No. 8-2005 Robert E. Supply, Jr. 2.
Tax Map No. 226.19-2-32
Site Plan No. 9-2005 Arrowhead Equipment, Inc. 4.
Tax Map No. 309.9-2-7
Petition for Change of Zone John Dreps/Eugene Cerniglia 18.
PZ 1-2005 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1
Subdivision No. 17-2004 John Dreps/Eugene Cerniglia 18.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHRIS HUNSINGER
RICHARD SANFORD
THOMAS SEGULJIC
GRETCHEN STEFFAN
ANTHONY METIVIER
MEMBERS ABSENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. VOLLARO-We do have a change in the agenda that you may have looked at, and the
change is Cingular Wireless has been moved to the top of the agenda.
SITE PLAN NO. 6-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED CINGULAR WIRELESS PROPERTY
OWNER: DALE BALDWIN AGENT: SHANE NEWELL ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 1447
RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND ANTENNAE FOR ONE PROVIDER NEAR THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROUTE 149 AND RIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 9L). NEW
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL
FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACCEPT SEQRA REVIEW
LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND PERFORM SEQRA REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 15-
2004, SP 17-94 APA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 279-1-50 LOT SIZE:
25.24 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-030
MR. VOLLARO-Due to the incomplete submission of some application materials, this
application will be tabled to, I believe it’s the second meeting in March.
MR. BAKER-April.
MR. VOLLARO-The second meeting in April.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now I will open the public hearing tonight, and I will leave it open.
This application will be re-advertised with a new hearing date. So I don’t know how many of
you are here for the tower that Cingular is proposing but if there’s nobody here, then you’ll
have to catch it some place else.
MR. BAKER-We would prefer to have a formal motion and vote on tabling for Cingular.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 6-2005 CINGULAR WIRELESS, Introduced by Robert
Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
The reason for the tabling is due to incomplete submission of some application materials.
Tabled to the second meeting in April [April 26, 2005].
Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 8-2005 SEQR TYPE II ROBERT E. SUPPLY, JR. ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: 20 HONEY SUCKLE LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A PORCH ON AN EXISTING PROPERTY ON ASSEMBLY POINT.
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AREA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 13-2005, BP 98-705, 94-298, 89-288 APA,
CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-32 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES
SECTION: 179-4-020
ROBERT E. SUPPLY, JR., PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Supply, if you’d like to give us a little presentation of what you’d like to
do.
MR. SUPPLY-Well, I think you have the site plan in front of you. I’m planning to build a 139
square foot porch adjacent to my house on the north side, and I think you have the proposed
drawings.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Yes, we have all the information. Is there anything you wanted to add to
what the drawings convey?
MR. SUPPLY-No, not at all.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does anybody on the Board want to comment on this application?
MRS. STEFFAN-I noticed in the package that was sent, that there was some information
actually in the zoning resolution that the person on the left side, or the addition side of your
property is a relative?
MR. SUPPLY-That’s correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-So there isn’t any concern by the relative of the runoff from the roof?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SUPPLY-No. When we talked about it to begin with, I’m so far forward of the house that
we didn’t see that there was any, you know, bothers with one side to the other. The house is
approximately 25 feet behind mine, and off to the side. So there’s no problem either way.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. We saw that when we did our drive around. That’s the only question I
had.
MR. VOLLARO-Are there any other questions from the Board on this application?
MR. SANFORD-I have no comments. I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-I do have some comments, however. The application came with a site
development plan, site development data, and I think it had, the proposed addition was 142.2.
It’s 139.5. That’s what it should say.
MR. SUPPLY-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And as a result of that, some of the other figures changed, and also down at the
bottom of that site development data plan data is permeability numbers, which really should
be, the existing should be 76.24, and the total should be 74.26. I don’t know. Does Staff want to
have that corrected? I think that ought to be a corrected.
MR. BAKER-We can correct it on the original. Do you want to read the numbers again?
MR. VOLLARO-Where it says proposed addition, it should be 139.5 versus 142.2, and so the
total square foot carried over to the right hand column is 139.5. As a result of that, the total
non-permeable is 1799.5, and the percent non-permeable is 25.76. It didn’t change any, and
down at the bottom of that form under permeability should be at 76.24, and on the right hand
extended column it should be 74.26. Now, one other thing, and I’ll just put this out. It’s not
going to be very much of an impact on this, but the variance that was granted here should really
have been 7.9, as opposed to 8 and ¼. I don’t know where the ZBA got that from, but if you use
8 and ¼, technically he can add another foot and two-tenths to his porch, based on the 12.2 and
¾ foot side setback that was originally granted by the surveyor, or as posted by the survey. So I
don’t know if you want to let that stand. I think we can let that stand, but, depending upon.
MR. BAKER-Yes. The Zoning Board decision stands as written.
MR. VOLLARO-But I just wanted to let you know that the applicant could, if he wanted to,
press to build that porch larger than it is, based on that ZBA analysis. Now the last thing is a
comment on the runoff to the north. You could put what they call an eaves drain underneath
that, just to prevent that roll off, even though your neighbor is a relative. They may not always
live there. So that, right underneath the drip edge.
MR. SUPPLY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-You can put a, what they call an eaves drain. You know what they are.
MR. SUPPLY-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether we want to make that a condition of this approval or not,
but I’ll ask the Board how they feel about it. Mr. Sanford?
MR. SANFORD-I don’t have any real comment on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-It would be a good idea.
MRS. STEFFAN-It sounds like a good idea.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we should.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I think a condition of approval would be that an eave drain be put
underneath the drip line of the porch. All right. With that, I’ll open up the public hearing if
there’s anybody here that wants to talk to this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just briefly. I’m Paul Schonewolf, 239 Assembly Point Road, and my
backyard backs up to Honeysuckle Lane, and I have no problem with the addition. I guess I’m
speaking for my neighbors, too, because I’m the only one that’s not on a beach someplace, but I
agree with the Zoning Board of Appeals decision.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Very good. All right. Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was waiting to see if there were any comments from neighbors. That was
really the only issue I had on the project.
MR. METIVIER-When did you do that extreme makeover?
MR. SUPPLY-Between 1991 and present day.
MR. METIVIER-It’s been a progressive project?
MR. SUPPLY-It’s been an ongoing project, that’s true.
MR. METIVIER-We live up there, and I’ll be honest with you, I don’t remember you doing that,
and now that I look at the pictures, I’m like, I remember I used to hang out at that house, but we
won’t go there. So it’s a work of art. Nice job.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I will close the public hearing on this.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And I’ll entertain a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2005 ROBERT E. SUPPLY, JR., Introduced by
Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following:
Site Plan No. 8-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Robert E. Supply, Jr.
SEQR Type II Zone: WR-1A
Location: 20 Honey Suckle Lane, Assembly Point
Applicant proposes to construct a porch on an existing property on Assembly Point. Expansion
of a non-conforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area requires site plan review and
approval from the Planning Board.
Cross Reference: AV 13-2005, BP 98-705, 94-298, 89-288
APA, CEA
Warren Co. Planning: 2/9/05
Tax Map No. 226.19-2-32
Lot size: 0.16 acres / Section: 179-4-020
Public Hearing: 2/22/05
WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/18/05; and
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all
newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/18/05, and
2/18/05 Staff Notes
2/16/05 ZBA resolution: approved
2/15/05 Notice of Public Hearing sent
2/9/05 Warren Co. PB recommendation: No County Impact
1/25/05 Summary Record from Govern program
1/18/05 Meeting Notice sent
WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury
a public hearing was advertised and was held on 2/22/0505; 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. That the applicant shall apply an eaves drain for the roof runoff for the proposed new
addition.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. SUPPLY-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 9-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM EHLERT AGENT: SCHODER RIVER ASSOCIATES
ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 106 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 9,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO BE USED FOR THE REPAIR AND SALE OF
HIGHWAY TRUCKS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND
SERVICE IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE
PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 35-04, SP 8-98, 30-96, 86-90, 44-91, UV 47-96
WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-2-7 LOT SIZE: 3.23 ACRES
SECTION: 179-9
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
SHAUN RIVERS & MIKE GEBRAL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask the Board a question. If you notice, when I Chair the Board, I
haven’t been asking for the Staff notes to be read. How does the Board feel about that? My
feeling is then that the applicant has read the Staff notes. We have read the Staff notes, and that
reading it again doesn’t really add too much except for public consumption. Some of the Staff
notes are rather long, and just how do you feel about that? I just wanted to get a feeling from
the Board members.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with it. It helps to move things along.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s okay with me.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. I always kind of thought it was a good introduction, but I
really don’t have strong feelings one way or another.
MR. METIVIER-I think maybe it depends on some of the applications. If there’s a lot of public
out there, and we know usually what they’re here for, then it might be a good idea. In this case,
I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of public out there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. For the record, please, you are?
MR. RIVERS-Hi. I’m Shaun Rivers, from Schoder Rivers Associates. We’re the civil engineer on
the project. Mike Gebo. He’s the Manager of Arrowhead Equipment facility in Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RIVERS-The owner’s Bill Elhert He couldn’t be here tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There will be a SEQRA required on this tonight, and there will be a
public hearing held tonight on this application. What I’m proposing is that we go through our
design standards, you know, our checklist on site plans on this. I think we ought to do that.
MR. BAKER-Mr. Chairman, just to note. The applicant did submit a response to the
engineering and Staff comments on this that were received by fax at the Community
Development Office yesterday, but they haven’t been distributed or reviewed by C.T. Male.
MR. RIVERS-I have additional copies if you’d like.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, our policy on the Board is not to accept information on the night of a
meeting because the members here have not had a chance to digest, read or digest the
information. So it’s one of those things, it’s a logistics thing. Now if you’d like, you can
describe the project to us.
MR. RIVERS-Sure. Arrowhead Equipment is located on Luzerne Road. They’re the first lot and
structure you see on Luzerne Road as you head west, just after you go underneath the
Northway, on the right hand side. The current lot is approximately 3.3 acres in size, zoned
Light Industrial. The existing facility is about 7500 square foot. It’s a concrete masonry
structure. Arrowhead’s proposing to construct a new 9,200 square foot addition to this
structure. The new structure would be a pre-engineered metal building. The bottom three and
a half foot or so of that structure would have a brick wainscot. We would also put new siding
and wainscot on the front of the existing structure that faces Luzerne Road. So the appearance
would be the same. I have color samples here if you wanted them, of the proposed colors.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we probably would want to look at the color samples. Most of us would
like to get an idea what it’s going to look like when it’s completed. You have provided a set of
elevation drawings.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-But you can tie those samples to that, the elevation drawing.
MR. RIVERS-The main siding color is the brownstone brown, and the trim color, which would
be the corner flashings, eaves flashings, flashings around the windows, that would be the
browns color.
MR. VOLLARO-And that tracks back to your elevation drawings?
MR. RIVERS-Yes. Those are called out on the elevation drawings.
MR. HUNSINGER-What color would the brick fascia be?
MR. RIVERS-It would be a standard red brick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RIVERS-One of the benefits of the project, the reason we sited the addition the way we did
is that currently you can see most of the trucks and other equipment. Well, I should back up a
minute. Arrowhead’s business is basically the sales and service of truck related equipment.
Most of it, a large, large percentage of the business, are plowers and sanders and that type of
thing. Currently, if you drive out there, you would see the trucks and the plows and so forth,
you know, parked at different parts of the facility. Now the way we’ve sited the new addition,
all that stuff would be behind the building. You really wouldn’t see it. So, you know, from a
visual aspect, siting the addition the way we did, we believe, is very useful. There’s an existing
office trailer in front of the existing building, which is office space right now. That office space
will go into the new addition. The trailer will be removed, you know, so that’ll also be an
improvement. In addition to the addition itself, there’s numerous improvements associated
with this project. One of the bigger improvements will be, a fence currently runs for security
reasons along the front of the facility right offset from Luzerne Road. That fence will be
removed. It won’t be necessary anymore. There’ll be a gate on the east side of the facility
between the addition and the fence which is on the east border of the property.
MR. VOLLARO-Part of that fence runs off the property, I noticed, on the drawing. In other
words, you stop at a certain point, but it continues on. You’re only going to remove the portion
of the fence that’s on your property now?
MR. RIVERS-Right. There’s a portion of fence that is inadvertently located on New York State
DOT property. We’re going to remove that fence as part of this project.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to remove that.
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Now do you have any, does DOT have any input to that removal?
MR. RIVERS-Not that we know of. There’s been no complaint or anything like that, but the
other, as part of that also, there’s a small gravel area that was encroached on there. We’re going
to remove that and topsoil and seed it. That was one of the Staff comments, and certainly we
think that’s a wise idea.
MR. VOLLARO-Have you been in touch with DOT at all on this?
MR. RIVERS-No. Another site improvement will be a new septic system as part of this project.
A new stormwater management system. Quite frankly right now there isn’t a formal
stormwater system out there. We didn’t really look at a post versus pre development design in
this project because we would only be replacing impervious area with impervious area. So
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
basically what we did was we designed the system to accommodate all the runoff from the new
building, all the new paving, and actually we’re also taking a portion of the existing roof, just
because the way the roof pitches.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s your stormwater management plan, and that’s been under
review by C.T. Male?
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Did C.T. Male’s comments come back on that, do you know? We’re going to
be getting a look at C.T. Male’s comments, and it talks to that stormwater management?
MR. BAKER-Yes. Those C.T. Male comments were received on the 15. Those were distributed
th
to the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-I have their questions. I don’t have the answers. I have that.
MR. BAKER-You have the C.T. Male comments from the 15?
th
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. BAKER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re just looking for that to get itself toward a signoff, eventually.
MR.BAKER-Yes. Again, C.T. Male has not reviewed the applicant’s responses to their concerns
yet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RIVERS-Other site improvements will be the installation of new landscaping between the
front parking area and Luzerne Road. The landscaping was in accordance with Queensbury
requirements for a 10 foot wide buffer strip. We also installed additional landscaping on the
east property line. Even though it really isn’t visible to anyone, other than when you’re on the
Northway. It will help to better delineate the edge of their property.
MR. VOLLARO-That string of pines that you’ve got up there?
MR. RIVERS-Yes. Now there was a Staff comment that it didn’t really meet the zoning
requirements for interior parking lots, but in lieu of that they asked that we place a couple of
more additional Norway Maples in the front, and we agreed to that.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I noticed on your site plan you had seven maples listed in the box, but I
could only find five on the drawing.
MR. RIVERS-Well, the reason for that is we didn’t show the entire east property line, because
we blew up the scale of the drawing, because almost all the, well, all the project really occurs in
the front 40% of the lot. So those trees do go all the way back on the east property, and that’s
why you only see the five. There’s a couple of more beyond that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RIVERS-Additionally, there’ll be site lighting to illuminate the new paved areas. All the
fixtures will be downcast cut off fixtures. All of them are building mounted fixtures, with the
exception of one pole at the entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Have you supplied cut sheets at all with that? I didn’t see any in my.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. RIVERS-I have a cut sheet for the pole mounted fixture. I do not have a cut sheet yet for
the building fixture, but we will supply all that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. RIVERS-I guess we’d be willing to take your questions, but in closing, we think this is a
good project for the Town of Queensbury, that it should add, that it will add some jobs. It’ll
add stability to the existing jobs at this facility. We believe it’s a significant visual improvement
over what is there now. It will also improve the environmental infrastructure with the new
wastewater disposal system and the stormwater management system, and I guess we’d be
happy to take your questions.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to go through the site plan review criteria check sheet here.
I’ll start off with design standards. Any member of the Board can comment on this, or either I
can poll the members, including myself. I’ll start of with design standards. Anything on
conformance with Comprehensive Land Use Plan?
MR. HUNSINGER-I like the proposed colors. I think those will do really well.
MR. VOLLARO-They do look good.
MR. HUNSINGER-I like especially like the use of the brick and the different materials.
MR. RIVERS-And we are going to wrap that a little bit around each corner. I said it was on the
front, but I think we’re turning it, I can’t remember the exact number, five to ten feet on the
sides.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. RIVERS-One thing I’d like to mention, too, I did forget, was the existing masonry building,
the portion that would be left over, the owner, after the project, intends to paint that in a color
to match the color of the new siding. So I believe right now it’s white, and one other thing I
forgot to mention. Really, there are no new signs anticipated with this project, other than the
name of the company on the front of the building, as you’ll see on the elevation, but there
wouldn’t be any additional signs.
MR. VOLLARO-That was going to be my next question. Is the signage only on the building?
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the site development design, do we have anything going there?
MRS. STEFFAN-One of the things that we noticed, driving down the Northway, is that it
looked kind of messy from the Northway, and I know that you had talked about the new
building and the configuration of parking with things behind. Have you taken into account the
visual from the Northway?
MR. RIVERS-I mean, I think we’ll improve it somewhat with the plantings we’re proposing
along the east property line, you know, topsoiling that one area that we discussed. I’m not sure,
but the nature of the business with the trucks and the plows.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not always pretty.
MR. RIVERS-Yes, exactly. I’m not sure how, you know, and the trees. We can’t grow trees that
are 80 feet tall there so you can’t see it from the Northway, or at least not fast enough. So I don’t
know if Mike has anything to add.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. GEBO-Well, another thing we’re going to be doing is that part of the old existing building
is going to be turned into storage. So we’re going to help eliminate some of the trailers that are
out back that we’ve got currently for storage. We’re going to eliminate a lot of them. So a lot of
the storage is going to be brought inside. So that’s going to help streamline a lot of that, the
stuff that’s carried outdoors. So that was part of the main plan of doing the expansion was to
eliminate some of that so we can get the yard cleaned up like that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-Are there a number of, I don’t know the word I want to use, vehicles that could
be disposed of there?
MR. GEBO-To be honest with you, most of the vehicles that are there are customers vehicles.
Sometimes obviously some customers bring some vehicles there, they leave them longer than
we really want them. We don’t impose a storage fee. I mean, we’ve got it posted, but some
people think it’s their local drop off, but for the most part, no. There is probably a couple of
vehicles that we could probably get rid of. We did currently get rid of a lot of them probably
within the last couple of weeks. Like I said, there were a few van bodies and stuff like that that
we will be eliminating once we get more storage.
MR. METIVIER-I mean, it’s a great opportunity to clean this up. This is obviously a business
that has proven to become very successful through the years. I mean, if you think about the fact
that, I think at one point you had fewer bays than you even have now. So, I mean, it’s a great
opportunity, and I certainly applaud everything you’re doing, but I think we should just take it
as far as we can, just once and done type thing, and just clean up the whole thing, and believe
me when I say I’m not in the least bit being negative about the project. I’m not. You just have
noticed through the past few years that it’s just becoming increasingly successful, and I mean, I
think in about October you must get your first shipment of plows in. I mean, you have stacks of
plows. So, you know, that’s wonderful, and now if you look at it, there’s only a few left. So,
you know, more power to you, but I just think it’s just a good opportunity to just be able to, you
know, like I said, clean it up once and done, and, you know, I think you’re going to have a great
project. I certainly have always heard wonderful things about you from other people and how
well you treat your employees and everything. So, you know, my hats off to all of you for that.
MR. GEBO-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does anybody have anything on parking fields at all?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. How many parking spaces do you have in total on the site? Is it 29, is that
what I’m reading?
MR. GEBO-Yes. There’s like 29. I mean, realistically, there’s plenty of places to park. Most of
the people that come, come and drop of a vehicle, they’re really not customers like you would
normally think of customers that would be there for a while.
MR. SEGULJIC-C-2, you have this strip up in the upper section of the drawing that says eight
spaces.
MR. GEBO-Yes. There’s a total of 20 behind the building, indicated.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s, you have a strip of parking up there, then?
MR. GEBO-Yes. It probably won’t even be striped or anything. It’s on gravel back there, but,
you know, that’s the space where most of the employees will be parking.
MR. SEGULJIC-So around the building is going to be the bituminous asphalt?
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. GEBO-Yes, and there’s nine spaces or so up front which will be primarily for customers or
for the people who work in the office.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So the employees would drive in on the asphalt and then go on to the
gravel and park out in the back?
MR. GEBO-Right. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and I guess, with regard to a site like this, what’s the requirement for
parking, like two, I was a little confused as to what category they fit into for parking.
MR. VOLLARO-They propose that, if you’ll notice, they couldn’t fit a category themselves, so
they used automobile repair, I believe, as a category for parking.
MR. BAKER-And the application was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and Craig was
fine with their proposed parking.
MR. VOLLARO-My only problem is, on the parking, the C-2 shows 29 spaces, I believe, and the
site development data shows 24. So there’s a little bit of a discrepancy between C-2 and the
design development data, not that that’s terribly important, frankly.
MR. RIVERS-You mean the data on the application?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. RIVERS-Okay. I know on the drawing, maybe I worded it poorly. In front I was saying
five customer, four employee, you know, and in the back 20 additional employees. So that’s a
total of 29. I don’t know if that’s the same way I worded it on the.
MR. VOLLARO-On the site development sheet, it’s merely a.
MR. RIVERS-I just said 25.
MR. VOLLARO-24.
MR. RIVERS-Okay. Yes, that’s incorrect then.
MR. SEGULJIC-Also between Sheet One and Sheet Two, maybe I’m just not understanding this
correctly, but isn’t that fenced area on C-1 repeat on the gravel parking area on the back on
Sheet C-2?
MR. GEBO-With the fence that we’re going to remove?
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. GEBO-Yes, that’s hatched. That’s the fence that continues over onto the DOT property.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So that’s all going to be removed?
MR. GEBO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-When I looked at the drawing, I did not see, if you can see my hash marks here,
in looking at the legend, I saw that this was all removable, but this doesn’t show being
removed.
MR. GEBO-No. That we would, that’s DOT’s fence.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s DOT’s fence. That’s what I had asked you in the beginning.
That’s not coming down.
MR. GEBO-No, I’m sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to go right up to the end of your fence. Okay.
MR. GEBO-Yes. We’re going to remove, and we had the property surveyed and Bill saw it.
MR. VOLLARO-So we really have 29 spaces on this property, is that correct?
MR. GEBO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Speaking of parking spaces, are you going to include that berm that was
recommended by C.T. Male?
MR. GEBO-Yes. I believe in my, I was proposing about a foot and a half tall. You don’t have a
lot of room. So I can’t make it too high.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Just to prevent the light from shining on the neighbors.
MR. GEBO-Yes, between the shrubs and another foot and a half, and I think that should do the
trick.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let’s get into the stormwater, sewage design. Anybody have any
problems with that? I don’t hear any, so I’ll make my own comment. On TP’s One and Two, if
you look at our Chapter 136, which is on-site sewage requirements, Appendix F, the test pits
should be done in March and June and these test pits were really done in December, in the
month of December. It says other times require certification by a qualified person approved by
the local board of health. Having had just a little experience on this Board, some good, some
bad, I would say the easiest way to get this is to supply the witnessed logs. Have you got a set
of test logs? You had to dig around.
MR. RIVERS-I was there. I did the perc tests and the logs myself.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have a set of logs that reflect what you found in the pit, in other words,
seasonal high groundwater or.
MR. RIVERS-Yes. I mean, I witnessed them myself, and there was no evidence of groundwater
within nine feet. Also, just so you know, they don’t appear on this drawing. We had borings
done to design the building, okay, for foundation recommendations, and I could also supply
those borings as evidence, but just so you know, all the borings, the static groundwater and
those borings were done last summer, static groundwater was around 16 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in that part of the Northway it probably is, but in order to, you know, to
document this, I would like to see a set of logs supplied. Now, the way the Code reads, on 136,
it says if it’s done at any other time other than March through June, then it has to be certified by
a qualified person approved by our local Board of Health. Our local Board of Health is really
our Town Board, and I think the Town Board certifies certain people in the Town to do that, if
it’s done other than the March through June timeframe. I believe one of those people is Mr.
Charles Maine. Is he certified, Mr. Nace?
TOM NACE
MR. NACE-As far as I know, Charlie and I are the only two.
MR. VOLLARO-The only two. Okay, and so that has to be witnessed by somebody.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just one member, but if he went 16 feet before he hit water, I’m not too
worried about it at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not worried about it either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just submit the data.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s all I’m looking for is the data. That’s all, something to support the
application. Other than that, I have no questions whatsoever, but I’d like the data to be
supplied to support the application, and I’d prefer that data to be a test log. So there’s not a lot
of discussion about who did it, when they did it, who handed what to who, just a log. That’s all
I need to know. Okay, and that would be a condition of approval if this site plan is approved.
Anything on lighting design?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Are you going to be working outside at all at night?
MR. GEBO-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just the light for the parking lot area.
MR. GEBO-It’s security lights.
MR. SEGULJIC-Security lights, and I assume what we’re looking for there, Bob, is like two to
two and a half, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re looking, I have notes on that myself. I think we need an average
and a min, in order to calculate a uniformity ratio, and I’m most concerned about a uniformity
ratio on the ingress/egress to the lot. That’s when it matters, when you’re going from one light
level to another.
MR. GEBO-Right now, it’s too bright, and I’ve been talking to the lighting engineer on that, and
they’re going to fix that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. GEBO-We will resubmit a new lighting plan that will address the excess of lighting at the
entrance, and there’s not, in the northeast corner it’s a lit dim. So we’ll be increasing the
lighting in the northeast corner.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if he’s going to do anything with the lighting, try to get as close as
possible to a four to one ratio in uniformity ratio. That’s an acceptable level that we’ve been
using.
MR. HUNSINGER-The part of the lighting plan that confused me is the southwest corner,
where, I don’t know if the numbers just got cut off, but you go from 5.2 and 5.1, to just nothing,
and it was almost like the numbers were just taken off the drawing. Do you see what I mean,
along your western? I mean at the northern part it’s because the building’s there, but at the
southern part there’s no building there to block the light.
MR. RIVERS-Well, what’s happening there is, you know, we don’t have a pole fixture on there.
What’s happening is that pole fixture on the entrance is kind of dominating that area and
evening out that area. We only have a building mounted fixture right above the entrance, and
when you get to the southwest corner, you start to lose it. I can have them look at that, too, and
see if we can increase that in the southwest corner.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if you need to increase it. What I’m saying is, you know, if you
see where there’s a Letter B, and then it says 5.2, and then to the west of that there’s just
nothing.
MR. RIVERS-I see what you’re saying. Okay, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would think that there would be a lesser number and the grid would
continue on.
MR. RIVERS-I think what happened was, when he did the grid, I said, I told him to do it on the
paving area and he took that literally, and chopped it off, so, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. See, at the northern end, where it goes from 6.7 to nothing it’s
because the building’s there.
MR. RIVERS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-But the building doesn’t get in the way in the southern end.
MR. VOLLARO-I had a similar comment. I just said that the light spill at the southern property
line should be shown, if there is any light spill at all, you know, a lot of times it gets down to
.01, but that’s fine. You’re going to get some light spill.
MR. RIVERS-No, the fixture is too strong, right now, that pole mounted fixture at the entrance.
MR. VOLLARO-So there’ll be a revised lighting plan?
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Any lighting plan for the buildings themselves? Like the sign on the building?
MR. RIVERS-It won’t be eliminated, or wasn’t planned on being eliminated.
MR. SEGULJIC-Nor light shining on it?
MR. GEBO-I don’t think so. He didn’t say anything about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-So just these wall mounted lights?
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then a couple of poles.
MR. RIVERS-There’s only one, actually.
MR. SEGULJIC-I see one right at the entrance.
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-As long as you’re going to supply us with another revised lighting plan, just
attach the cut sheets to that, to define the fixtures.
MR. RIVERS-Yes, we will have them.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Landscape design. Anybody have questions on landscape design? I
think, Gretchen, you just brought up a point on landscaping, on the berm. Anybody have any
comments on that?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it would be an improvement.
MR. VOLLARO-What do the Japanese Yews look like? I’m not even familiar with them. What
kind of bush are they?
MR. GEBO-Those are the small ones, I believe.
MR. VOLLARO-The reason we’re talking at raising that berm is because if somebody parks
right there, the lights shine right across the street, and the idea of the berm is to, I had two to
three foot high berm. I don’t know if that’s too high or what.
MR. RIVERS-Two feet might be feasible. I don’t know, it’s going to be hard to do, you know,
we only have 10 feet to work with there.
MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t want this, is what you’re saying.
MR. RIVERS-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, they’re very ornamental and you can shape them.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s that, the Japanese Yews?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know how much shaping they would be able to do. I’m just
concerned about it being able to deflect or diminish the lighting. Across the street there’s some
folks over there that would get hit by somebody pulling in at night or pulling out at night from
that space, you know, do what we can to screen that if possible.
MR. RIVERS-I mean, maybe what we could do is do a small landscape, some timbers to build
the height, and then get it up to two feet.
MR. VOLLARO-You could do that.
MRS. STEFFAN-What are your normal hours of operation?
MR. GEBO-Eight to five.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it’s not a big problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Not a big problem, I don’t think.
MRS. STEFFAN-Only in the winter for a half an hour.
MR. VOLLARO-You could just, the other two maples, you might want to put two additional
maples out front.
MR. RIVERS-Yes, and I agree. We’ll put two more equally spaced between the one on the west
side of the entrance and the west edge of the property, if that seems appropriate.
MR. VOLLARO-I think anything you can do with landscaping helps your business anyway. It
makes it look more attractive, even though I recognize that the customers that come in have
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
trucks and plows and they’re not going to be so much looking at landscaping as how good
you’re going to fix my truck or my plow. I understand the problem, but it’s something we like
to see in the neighborhood. I don’t have anything on neighborhood character.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just one last question on landscaping. You have that 18 inch maple, is
that going to remain?
MR. GEBO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. GEBO-That’s the one good tree out there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How about environmental? I don’t think there’s anything on
environmental there. I didn’t see anything there. I do have a question on other, though. I’d
like to get some explanation on handling and storage disposal of auto related material like
batteries, oil, fluids and so on. What’s the handling procedure for all of that? And the other
thing I’d put down, is there going to be an oil separator used?
MR. GEBO-He’ll have to answer the question about the oil separator, but we don’t get into a lot
of, we don’t do a lot of maintenance. We do very minimum maintenance, but as far as our
batteries, Interstate Batteries come and take the batteries away, every two weeks. So chances
are if any batteries, (lost word) or whatever, they take them away every two weeks. Our waste
oil, stuff like that, we’ve got a furnace that burns the waste oil and stuff like that, and then if we
develop any anti-freeze or anything like that, Safety-Clean comes and takes that stuff away.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have a removal facility for the people that come in and remove those
products?
MR. GEBO-Yes, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, do you want to talk to the oil separator?
MR. RIVERS-Yes. The need for the oil/water separator we’re investigating, if it’s required we’ll
definitely have one. The new service bays, Bill is still deciding the exact uses of those service
bays.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to be coming back, obviously, with a new site plan for the
lighting.
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And the cut sheets. So I don’t think, I think this is probably slowing moving
toward a tabling. I want to see that information, and also the comments from C.T. Male.
MR. HUNSINGER-You want to see what information, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-C.T. Male has commented on their letter. C.T. Male’s letter of February 15 has
th
been commented on by the applicant. The responses to the February 15, 2005 letter from C.T.
Male. We haven’t seen that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I know.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s what I’m talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. RIVERS-I mean, basically, I don’t think that there’s any issues that C.T. Male letter brought
up that, actually, there aren’t any that we don’t agree with. So, we are, in fact, I’ve already
basically implemented those changes, per their recommendations.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to ask Mr. Hunsinger a question. Do you think we ought to proceed
to an approval on this, based on them supplying new sheets for lighting and the cut sheets that
go with that?
MR. HUNSINGER-You mean as opposed to tabling it?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my feeling was, and I’m only one person, but my feeling was, once
they agreed to submit a new lighting plan, that then it became a tabling. I just wanted
clarification on your prior comment.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. I thought maybe you were leaning toward not doing that, by your
question.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was until we got to the new lighting plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could I just ask one more question?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-On Sheet C-1, behind the existing building there’s a containment tank. What is
that for?
MR. GEBO-That was, at one time, it’s not used anymore. That will be removed, but it was, at
one time we were storing waste oil like that, for the waste oil furnace, but we no longer do that
anymore. So it actually just needs to be removed.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to remove that.
MR. GEBO-Yes, sir.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I guess one of my last questions, is the Fire Marshal involved in this? Has he
paid a visit at all or talked to you folks at all about? This has really to do with this handling and
storage of material. Has the Fire Marshal got into this at all with you?
MR. GEBO-Wouldn’t that be part of the building permit process more than?
MR. VOLLARO-Usually the Fire Marshal talks, very often, on site plan reviews, get comments
from that office. I didn’t see it here.
MR. BAKER-The Fire Marshal’s Office did have a chance to look at these, and I don’t believe
they had any comments at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-They didn’t have any comments. That’s what I wanted to make sure of, that
they had a shot at this and either said everything is fine or whatever. Because sometimes we get
comments from them, Stu, and sometimes we don’t.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. GEBO-He was at the shop approximately a year ago and did a walk through with me and
stuff like that. So he went through and he was able to see the facility the way it was at that time,
and at that time he approved everything.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. GEBO-Everything was up to Code.
MR. VOLLARO-Staff indicates that he has no comment. So I’m satisfied with that. Now, and
we did talk about removal of material from the site so it’s more presentable. I think Tony got
into that pretty well, and you explained it to him pretty well, and I just want to, it just was a
comment we got, I’m just a substitute Chairman tonight. See, I just sit here because I do, I
guess, and our Chairman had asked that question whether the site could be fixed up a little bit,
and what he referred to as junk parts be removed.
MR. GEBO-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Going back to some Staff comments, I’ll just quickly go through that Staff
comments, and I’ll read it to you. The applicant proposes to remove the fence that sits on this
property and the adjacent New York State DOT land to the east. Does the applicant also
propose to remove existing gravel areas and vehicles being parked on the New York State DOT
property. If not, is there an agreement or easement that allows the use of this adjacent land, and
that’s what I was referring to when I had asked you, had you had any discussions with the
Department of Transportation.
MR. GEBO-There’s no agreement, so we’re going to remove the fence and remove the gravel
and plant that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’ll be there land, essentially.
MR. GEBO-Yes. It’s their land now. It still will be, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-You mentioned that you just didn’t know that that was their property?
MR. GEBO-That’s correct. They thought they owned the land to the fence, which they don’t.
MR. VOLLARO-They don’t. Okay. We talked about the light fixtures. Staff has a requirement
for the full cutoff and downcast fixtures, but you’re going to be supplying those, in any event,
and then he talked about the landscape parking out front, and that was it, but that’s the only
comments that I think were germane from our Staff on that, and with that, I don’t have any
other questions, unless any Board members do.
MR. METIVIER-Could I just go back to the waste oil for a second? I’m surprised. I mean, do
you do a lot of, you know, handle a lot of waste oil?
MR. GEBO-No, we do very, very minimal service work there. Our primary basis is truck
equipment, obviously snow removal equipment and stuff. We do very, very minimal
maintenance.
MR. METIVIER-Is it mostly, would you say, hydraulic oil versus motor oil type thing?
MR. GEBO-Yes. It probably would be the majority of hydraulic oil, and that you can burn in a
waste oil furnace, and then if any of it is contaminated at that time, at that time we put them in
a barrel and Safety Clean comes and takes them away.
MR. METIVIER-I guess, I don’t want them going away, if we do table this, and not know where
we stand with having them get the water, the oil separator. Do you know what I mean?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s why I asked for it.
MR. METIVIER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Because I thought it was a necessary. In a facility like this, I like to see it, but
they’re going to be exploring the need for it, and they’ll come back, I think, at their next
meeting, and tell us why they need it or don’t need it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you going to have floor drains at all?
MR. RIVERS-That is undecided right at the moment. We’re not sure if we’re putting them in or
not yet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would just say, if you’re going to have floor drains that discharge to
your septic system, you better have an oil/water separator. If you’re not going to have floor
drains, then I wouldn’t worry about it.
MR. RIVERS-Like I said, we’re not sure that we’re going to have floor drains. Obviously, if we
have floor drains, we’ll have an oil/water separator. That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I don’t have anything further on this. Mr. Sanford, did you
have anything on this one?
MR. SANFORD-No.
MS. RADNER-You do have a public hearing scheduled.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know. Okay. With that, I’m going to open the public hearing. Is
anybody here from the public to comment on this application? I don’t see anybody.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll leave the public hearing open until the next meeting.
MR. RIVERS-I’d just ask one question of Staff, as far as making the revisions. Will we be able to
get on next month’s agenda?
MR. BAKER-As Old Business yes, if you get us.
MR. RIVERS-Most everything’s already been done. I should be able to wrap this up in a week.
MR. BAKER-Yes, I would ask for 15 sets of the revised plans, get to us as soon as possible. As
you said, they’re pretty much ready.
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. BAKER-And we’ll get them distributed to the Board, and to C.T. Male, along with your
written responses.
MR. HUNSINGER-When would be the last date that you would want the information, Stuart?
MR. BAKER-Can you get the revised materials to us by the 11, March 11 at the latest?
thth
MR. RIVERS-Yes. No problem.
MR. BAKER-Okay. The sooner the better.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. RIVERS-Yes. I plan on having them by next week.
MR. BAKER-Okay. That’s perfect.
MR. VOLLARO-So that gets tabled then to what date? If they get it by March 11, what date
th
are we talking at for the meeting?
MR. HUNSINGER-The 22?
nd
MR. BAKER-I can’t speak to exactly which meeting, because I don’t know the Old Business
agenda load, but it would certainly be March.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’d be tabling it to some meeting in March, as opposed to a specific
March meeting? The tabling motion would have to speak to March as opposed to a meeting?
MR. BAKER-Let’s put a date on it, say the second meeting in March.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-March 22.
nd
MR. VOLLARO-March 22.
nd
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let me just run down through the list of items and make sure we
have them all. New lighting plan with cut sheets. The lighting plan should show the spill off
the pavement. Two foot berm as proposed by C.T. Male. Submission of the test pit data log,
submission of boring data, two additional Norway Maples on the west side, one on the entrance
and one on the west edge of the property, address C.T. Male comments, and applicant to
explore the need for oil/water separator and report to the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-One more thing on the lighting plan, too, that the lighting plan shows the four
to one uniformity ratio, particularly in the ingress/egress section of the site.
MR. METIVIER-Did you make mention of the test pit boring data?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-You did?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, he did.
MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to mention that the 18 inch maple on Sheet C-2 to remain?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Eighteen foot maple.
MR. METIVIER-When do you propose to start this?
MR. RIVERS-They want to break ground this spring.
MR. METIVIER-And is this your slow season coming up?
MR. GEBO-Yes.
MR. METIVIER-All right. So you have plans in place for continuing to operate business while
this is going on?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. GEBO-Right at the present moment, I guess it all depends on the workload and stuff like
that. We’re going to obviously encourage, it depends on how long it’s going to take to build,
basically. At that time, we’ve got a location down in Albany also. So what we’re going to do,
we’re going to trickle some of the workload down there, if we can, so they can take some of the
overflow if we need. Then I guess for that time being maybe, for how long, if we have to,
maybe some of the guys will go down there and work down there, or we’d have to obviously
work around this obstacle, but we’re still going to obviously open, and we’re going to try to
operate as long as we can. There’s still existing four or five bays that currently we would still be
able to operate out of.
MR. METIVIER-How long do they propose this building to take?
MR. RIVERS-I believe Bill, I wish he was here, but I believe he wants to occupy next fall,
certainly before the start of their major push in late fall.
MR. METIVIER-But I’m saying, how long will the construction period take for this?
MR. RIVERS-They want to break ground early April, and they’d probably be done in
October/November.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. METIVIER-We just have run into some instances with other businesses that are doing some
major renovations that it’s been a disaster for everybody. So, you know, it’s almost spilling into
the street type thing. So we want to try to prevent that, to make sure that you can work around
that during the construction phase.
MR. GEBO-One of the things is our business obviously really takes off in September. That’s
when we’re really starting to boom. So our goal is to have it so we’re all moved in by
September. So we can obviously be ready for our busy season.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-The siding sample that you submitted, the pain samples, now is that an
official submission for your application, or was that just for our review tonight? Because I just
want to make sure that the colors get into the record.
MR. RIVERS-Yes, that’s the color that the owner wants.
MR. BAKER-And we do have a copy of that in the file, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-You do have a copy, okay. I just didn’t want to lose track of that.
MR. VOLLARO-And the file copy does show the trim at medium bronze and the siding at
brownstone, is that correct?
MR. BAKER-We have the sample sheets. I mean, the Board can specify the colors.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was just thinking that perhaps since the applicant is resubmitting
their drawing, if they could just make the notation maybe right on the elevation.
MR. RIVERS-It is on the elevation. The color’s called out on the elevation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And the same colors that you showed here?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. RIVERS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are we ready for the motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Before a motion is made on the application, the Board
does need to address SEQRA on this, since it’s an Unlisted Action. I realize the Board didn’t
receive a draft resolution on SEQRA. I would ask you to just model your resolution on SEQRA.
MS. RADNER-If they’re tabling, though, they don’t have to do SEQRA tonight. They do the
SEQRA when they return.
MR. BAKER-Okay. That’s a good point.
MS. RADNER-Because they left the public hearing open.
MR. BAKER-All right. You can do SEQRA tonight or you can do it whenever.
MR. VOLLARO-I would rather do a SEQRA when we have a completed application.
MR. BAKER-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2005 ARROWHEAD EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Tabled to the March 22 meeting of the Board pending the submission of the following:
nd
1. A new lighting plan with cut sheets that also show spill off the pavement, and
achieve a four to one uniformity ratio as required by Code,
2. Illustration of a two foot berm as proposed by C.T. Male,
3. Submission of test pit data log,
4. Submission of the boring data on the site,
5. Notation of two additional Norway Maples on the west side of the entrance and
the other one on the west edge of the property,
6. The applicant shall address the outstanding C.T. Male comments,
7. The applicant will explore the need for oil/water separator and report to the
Board at the meeting,
8. On Sheet C-2 the 18 inch Maple as shown shall remain, and it will be so noted on
the site plan.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE PZ 1-2005 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
RECOMMENDATION JOHN DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA PROPERTY OWNER: BAY
MEADOWS GOLF CLUB, INC. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING, JOE WALSH, ESQ.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
WALSH & WALSH CURRENT ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE & P.U.D. PROPOSED ZONE:
P.U.D. & HC-INT. APPLICANT PROPOSES 1) A ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY
CHANGE INVOLVING CHANGING 1 +/- ACRE FROM PUD TO HC INTENSIVE AND
CHANGING 1.02 +/- ACRE FROM HC-INTENSIVE TO PUD, AND 2) A FIVE (5) LOT
SUBDIVISION OF 6.37 +/- ACRES. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACCEPT SEQRA LEAD
AGENCY STATUS AND PERFORM SEQRA REVIEW, ISSUE FINDINGS AS WELL AS
ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD RELATIVE TO THE
PETITION FOR REZONING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE:
SB 17-04, SB 12-98, SB 14-98, AV 3-99, SP 65-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX
MAP NO. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 LOT SIZE: 0.61, 1.10 & 5.76 ACRES SECTION: 179-15-020
TOM NACE & BOB SEARS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN DREPS,
PRESENT
SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN
DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA PROPERTY OWNER: BAY MEADOWS GOLF CLUB, INC.
AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JOE WALSH ESQ., WALSH & WALSH ZONE: HC-
INTENSIVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD, NORTH OF CRONIN APPLICANT
PROPOSES 1) A ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY CHANGE INVOLVING CHANGING
1 +/- ACRE FROM PUD TO HC INTENSIVE AND CHANGING 1.02 +/- ACRE FROM HC-
INTENSIVE TO PUD, AND 2) A FIVE (5) LOT SUBDIVISION OF 6.37 +/- ACRES.
PLANNING BOARD MAY ACCEPT SEQR LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND PERFORM
SEQRA REVIEW, ISSUE FINDINGS AS WELL AS ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE TOWN BOARD RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR REZONING ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-2005, SB 12-98, SB 14-98, AV 3-99, SP 65-
98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 LOT SIZE: 0.61,
1.10 & 5.76 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
TOM NACE & BOB SEARS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN DREPS,
PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to go down through a few things first here for the Board’s
consumption, and then we’ll get into the application. Just so the Board understands what we’re
trying to do, and if there’s any objections to this from Board or Staff, you just let me know. The
Planning Board will first do a resolution acknowledging Lead Agency Status, and there’s a form
in here that we’ll use in here for that. Now this will be a coordinated SEQRA review of the
Petition For the Zone Change and the proposed Subdivision. So we’ll be doing one SEQRA to
cover both. Now the first thing that the Planning Board will address each of the questions on
the Petition for Zone Change, and we’ll use the applicant’s response supported by Staff’s
supporting document. Staff supported that response with their own response. So we have to
look at both of those, and right after that, I will be opening the public hearing on the zone
change and also on the subdivision. So the public, if they’re here, if any of the public are here,
too, want to speak to either of those subjects, either zone change or the subdivision, they may.
Next, the Planning Board will enter into a SEQRA review of Part I and Part II. I want to go over
Part I very carefully, and then we’ll go to Part II. Now, the public hearing, another public
hearing is scheduled for the subdivision on March 22. So there’ll be two public hearings,
nd
essentially, on this. If somebody wants to speak to it tonight, they may, and on March 22
nd
there’ll be a public hearing on the subdivision itself. Then there’s a determination of no
significance is made. That would be if we get through the SEQRA, and we’ll do that as a
resolution. That’s also been prepared as part of Staff’s submission. Before we get started here,
do you want to introduce yourselves, for the record.
MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, Tom Nace, of Nace Engineering, and John Dreps, the
applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions here. Plan Drawing S-1 says that
this particular subdivision is located in the Queensbury School District?
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Staff’s input has it in the Glens Falls School District.
MR. BAKER-Actually, one of the properties, it’s Lot 14, is actually in the Glens Falls, I’m sorry,
in the Queensbury School District. The other two are in the Glens Falls School District. So there
is one parcel in the Queensbury School District.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How do we, do we have to change the drawing, basically S-1, to say
that we have a combined School District situation here?
MR. BAKER-It should be noted on the drawing, yes.
MR. NACE-Good catch. I didn’t pick that up. So, okay. Good. We’ll make that revision.
MR. VOLLARO-Now an intra property vehicle and pedestrian traffic circulation for this
adjacent commercial property should be discussed as part of this SEQRA, or we can do it at the
subdivision and site plan review. I want to make sure that when we do our SEQRA here we
don’t skip over something and come up with a neg dec on this SEQRA and then try to get into
something during site plan which somebody could say, that was already covered under
SEQRA. I want to make sure that all of this stuff is discussed and on the table. Now any
concerns on segmentation on this application are not an issue. I checked that off with Staff.
That’s because of moving the original PUD around. We wanted to make sure of that. So that’s
just one of the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We’re going to do the SEQRA on the proposed Zone
Change and the subdivision?
MR. VOLLARO-At the same time. We’ll be talking, that SEQRA will be talking to both. It will
be talking to the subdivision and it’ll be talking to the proposed Preliminary, be talking to the
Zone Change and the Preliminary Subdivision, at the same time. One SEQRA covers both.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-The first thing we’re going to do, then, is to.
MR. SANFORD-How can we do a Preliminary when we’re only doing a recommendation and
the Town Board may not agree with our recommendation? Isn’t there a presumption of
approval here that is unwarranted?
MR. BAKER-No. You’re not being asked to decide on the subdivision application. You’re
being asked to do the SEQRA review on both the proposed subdivision and the rezoning, but
you’re not being asked to take action on the subdivision application this evening.
MR. SANFORD-What I’m trying to say is.
MS. RADNER-You’re right. You’re not going to do it tonight. You’re not going to do
Preliminary until after the Town Board does their action.
MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s not what I just heard. I just heard we were doing a SEQRA on the
proposed zoning change, as well as Preliminary.
MR. BAKER-For SEQRA only. That’s correct.
MS. RADNER-The SEQRA has to consider both. The SEQRA has to assume that you get past
the hurdle that the Zoning Board, or the Town Board, rather, does make the shift. You have to
consider the total impact of this project if they get everything they’ve asked for and are able to
proceed with their project.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SEGULJIC-So we have to look at it worst case?
MS. RADNER-Precisely. You consider both the proposed project that’s on the table and the sort
of worst case scenario of the zone change that they’re requesting. Does that make sense?
MR. SEGULJIC-It does, but.
MS. RADNER-It’s not an easy task, but you don’t want to narrow your focus of SEQRA so that
you’re not considering the full environmental impacts of what this applicant is proposing to do.
So you’re not going to actually do the Preliminary Stage Subdivision Review, but you are doing
the SEQRA on that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess I’m a little confused with that, because under the review, things
could change. Here we’ve already done a SEQRA now.
MS. RADNER-If the things change significantly to where you need to revisit SEQRA, that can
happen, and that is a possibility. If the plan changes sufficiently, as the process progresses, that
you feel you need to revisit SEQRA, then they’ll have to come back and they’ll have to revisit
SEQRA.
MR. SEGULJIC-We’re reviewing it from what’s presented to us tonight.
MS. RADNER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that goes along with my first statement. I want to make absolutely sure
that we do a good job on this SEQRA, because if we skip over something, and don’t do it, then
at the subdivision review in March, I believe it is, and I’m not saying this presumptuously. I’m
just saying that the applicant could say, that was already approved at SEQRA. So we’ve got to
be real careful when we do this SEQRA. That’s why I want to.
MS. RADNER-That’s absolutely right. You don’t approve the project by doing a SEQRA of the
project. You are trying to anticipate environmental impacts when you do the SEQRA and any
members of the public who are here to comment, for purposes of SEQRA review, may comment
on the subdivision or on the zone change.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that. So, in keeping with that, I think the first resolution that
we want to make tonight is the resolution that.
MR. SANFORD-Excuse me, Bob. Why are we even contemplating the subdivision? I mean,
why don’t we just sequence this appropriately, whereas you give a recommendation to the
Town Board. If they accept our recommendation, and change the zone, then we have a
subdivision to deal with. We don’t have a subdivision to even deal with unless our
recommendation is accepted. Again, there’s the presumption of acceptance here.
MS. RADNER-No, because the Town Board can’t proceed and do the Zone Change without
SEQRA having been done in advance, and if the SEQRA isn’t done in advance, taking into
account the proposed.
MR. SANFORD-They could do the SEQRA.
MS. RADNER-They could, but you’ve sought Lead Agency Status here. Normally when we
have a project that’s going to include both subdivision or site plan approval, as well as a Zone
Change, this Board seeks and receives Lead Agency Status.
MR. BAKER-And it’s important to note that the Town Board actually passed a resolution
referring this project to the Planning Board and conceding, One, that the Town Board didn’t
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
want to be Lead Agent, and, Two, asking the Planning Board to do the SEQRA review for both
the rezoning and the subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and with that, I guess we’re going to make a motion here, and I will
introduce this motion.
MOTION TO ACKNOWLDEGE AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH PETITION
FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1-2005 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004 JOHN DREPS/EUGENE
CERNIGLIA, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony
Metivier:
WHEREAS, in connection with the John Dreps & Eugene Cerniglia project, the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to
notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated
SEQRA review, and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified
and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent [Town Board,
Warren Co. Planning Board], and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
The Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of
SEQRA review, and
BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED,
The Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as
may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations
of the State of New York.
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Now, the first thing we want to do is we want to look at the
questions concerning the Petition For Zone Change. The applicant has submitted his response
to that, and it’s been supported by a support document from Staff. The first question is what
need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone. The applicant contends that the
proposed zoning district boundary change permits a better use of the property and permits a
safer access off of Bay Road. I think what I’ll do is I’m going to use the applicant’s actual
responses to the Petition For Zone Change as opposed to the supporting piece from Staff. Does
everybody have that in front of them? It’s called a Petition For Zone Change?
MR. METIVIER-Bob, why are you reading through all these? If this is not a record.
MR. VOLLARO-But I want this Board to agree or disagree with what the applicant has put in as
the reasons why this is a good idea.
MR. METIVIER-All right. I’m just asking. That’s great. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, if everybody’s read them, and I presume all the Staff, all of the
Planning Board members have read this, is there any one of these that they would have a
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
negative comment on? I guess that’s the best way to put this, as opposed to me reading. Unless
you would like to go through them all.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we need to go through each and every one of them, Bob. The
only one I had questions and/or concerns on was Item Seven, Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Change, and specifically, and I’m reading from the Staff notes, the applicant failed,
Item A-16, the applicant failed to mention the Federally wetland to be conveyed to the PUD
district and immediately designated immediately adjacent to the proposed road, and then the
other comment that Staff had that’s bulleted as C-5, applicant states that the maximum potential
development of the site is five lots. We should ask the applicant to state the maximum building
size and most intense use, and I think that’s a very particularly relevant question as we consider
the possible subdivision, because it really addresses the intent of the use of the land by the
applicant. I think that would be a really useful discussion to have.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it’s a good point, Chris. We will be talking about that in some
depth in the SEQRA, because I would like to see.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, we need to ask the applicant before we start the SEQRA review.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m just saying, the SEQRA will also be addressing that topic. You’ll see
that will come up.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I also had some comments on the applicant’s answers to the SEQRA
that they completed.
MR. VOLLARO-So I guess there’s a question on Number Five, or Number Seven, really, I guess
it is. Now the applicant’s response to Seven was safer traffic access to the commercial property.
The supporting documentation from Staff has a rather large input on that particular one. Chris
just read the ones he was concerned about. I also feel that they are of concern. So does the
applicant want to just discuss that for a minute?
MR. NACE-Sure. The first thing, yes, you are right. There is a total of 4,750 square feet of core
flagged wetland that will be conveyed from the applicant to the PUD, to the Bay Meadows Golf
Course property, and, you know, that probably should be noted in there. There is no
development planned on that site. The proposed development of the Golf Course property,
which was approved several years ago, included wetlands permitting that would take wetlands
that were on the other side of the Golf Course with their proposed development, and in that
permit they agreed that no further wetlands on the Golf Course property would be impacted.
So this 4,754 square feet would remain as wetland. Would not, in the future, be impacted in any
way, under their previous agreement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-As far as the potential development, what I have done is taken a look at several
different uses, and have some numbers for you there. If the property were developed as five
individual lots, or one large lot with commercial retail type development, each of the five lots
would support about 8500 square feet of retail space.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, how much?
MR. NACE-Eighty-five hundred for each of the five lots, and somewhere here, I calculated that.
I don’t know if somebody has a calculator.
MR. SEARS-It’s 42,545.
MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. So that it would if it’s either one lot or five, for strip type retail
development or individual, five individual parcels, five individual businesses. If it were
developed as office space, each lot would support 11,000 square feet of office space, and the
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
differences here are the permeability requirements and the amount of parking required for each
use. So that would be 55,000 square feet total of office space.
MR. VOLLARO-And that 55,000 would be based on a single?
MR. NACE-Either single or individual.
MR. VOLLARO-They come out to be about the same. You’re saying it’s a wash, is what you’re
saying.
MR. NACE-It’s pretty much a wash, okay, and, you know, I’m taking past projects that we’ve
done and figuring out how much pavement is required for different types of uses, you know,
because it’s more than just the number of parking spaces. It’s all the circulations and roads and
everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure I understand. The total building size would be no
different if it was one big lot versus five small ones?
MR. NACE-Correct, for these two particular uses.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s about 55,000 square foot of building for either way, either a five lot
subdivision or a complete.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just wanted to make sure I understood him. Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. Now a third, actually not as big of building space, but more intense use,
would be to have a restaurant and hotel on the site, and the site is large enough for a fairly
sizeable restaurant/hotel combination. The total square footage, I’m looking at a multi-store
motel, I don’t have the total square footage of floor space, but the total footprint of that is
around 29,000, okay, if I remember right the hotel was four stories.
MR. VOLLARO-It would come out almost like 80,000, I think, Tom. You can just put four
stories on top of the footprint.
MR. NACE-It’s almost 80,000 square feet total.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I had.
MR. NACE-And that turns out to be a more intense use because of the parking requirements
and the traffic impact, and that would be as one lot. That would obviously not be as five
separate lots. That would be either one lot as it stands now or one lot with the zone change
instituted. Either way would work.
MR. METIVIER-Is that calculation right on your? 80,000? How can that be?
MR. NACE-What factors in is the parking requirements. There’s a big difference when you’re
looking at four floors.
MR. METIVIER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty-nine thousand square foot footprint with four floors and a parking lot.
MR. NACE-To tell you the truth, I was just looking at a past project. I didn’t run that through
your Floor Area Ratio. Your Floor Area Ratio is .3, right?
MR. VOLLARO-.3, yes.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. NACE-And that does include multiple floors, that’s not just building footprint. Yes, that
still works out. Your Floor Area Ratio allows 83,600 square feet. So, that still would fit the
parking requirements for the amount of green space required.
MR. VOLLARO-That kind of fulfills the highest and most intense use of that property.
MR. NACE-And again, I would emphasize that that’s possible either with the rezoning or
without the rezoning.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what did the original PUD call for, to be built? And first of all, when was
the original PUD approved?
MR. NACE-I think, and if I hesitate, it’s because it took several years going through the stages. I
think it was finally approved in 2000.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what I heard. Okay. I mean, a PUD is a mixed use type of thing. What
was going to be envisioned there?
MR. NACE-It was multi-family housing for elderly and median income.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the reason I think it might be relevant is that you’re looking to do a land
swap, and I guess my question is, if you don’t do the land swap, what really can you do on the
HC property now? Obviously those things that you’re mentioning would be heavily
constrained, potentially. Is that a safe statement? Because of ingress and egress and all of that.
MR. NACE-Well, there’s, currently, when the Planning Board approved Stewarts, this is North,
Stewarts sits here. When they approved Stewarts, and the original property, the current
property configuration, the southern boundary line comes in here, comes up and back down
here. So this is the existing frontage. When Stewarts was approved, it was approved only with
a joint deeded access for this property. So that currently is a deeded access that’s already
constructed access. So it’s existing. I agree it’s not the safest place for a high volume entrance.
MR. SANFORD-Well, then my question is, is the hypothetical uses that you were talking about,
which is appropriate. We have to consider all that. Many of those uses may be, in fact,
constrained, if, in fact, you don’t do this land swap. For instance, I think the idea of a restaurant
and a motel or hotel type situation, you may have problems getting that kind of a project
approved if you’re using, sharing a drive with Stewarts, in order to get into the land. Whereas,
if we approve this, you’re probably going to remove some of those barriers by having the road
further down and you would be able to do it. So I think that the question I’m raising here, for
my fellow Board members, is the desirability of removing these barriers for these potential type
of projects. It may very well be that some of these potential type of projects are not doable, in
the absence of this land swap. You do the land swap, and now they’re doable. So we may not
even be in a situation contemplating some of the things that Mr. Nace pointed out, in the
absence of the land swap, and I’m wondering if that’s an accurate or inaccurate statement.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I think we’d have to refer it to the applicant. If we didn’t allow
the land swap, which means we didn’t get into a zone change, we left it as it was, they would
then not have that extra piece that sits.
MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s important, Bob, because, I mean, you know, we’ve had problems with
donut shops having inappropriate access. Here, I don’t know if it’s desirable or undesirable for
Queensbury Planners to want to envision the potential for some of these construction activities
that are permitted under HC zoning. Now, if you don’t do it, then you may be effectively
eliminating the possibility. You do it, and you’re including the possibility.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct. I understand that.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s my only point, and I don’t have an opinion on it, but I think
there’s some substance to the question.
MR. HUNSINGER-I would tend to agree with you. When you think about this, you know, in
the sort of theoretical, you’re saying, well, we’re just swapping, you know, a little over an acre
of land from one zone to another. It’s really a benign sort of transaction, in the theoretical, but
then in the practical, there’s really a need to do it, and is the need, and I think this is where we
have to really show our direction and opinion, is the need good planning, or is it as you have
suggested perhaps the only way something could really be done? And that’s what we really
have to weigh.
MR. SANFORD-Well, let’s ask a direct question here, all hypotheticals aside. Is there already,
right now, intended use for these lots?
MR. NACE-I’ll let John speak to that.
MR. DREPS-Absolutely not.
MR. SANFORD-They’re speculative.
MR. DREPS-Yes. We have no definitive direction.
MR. SANFORD-I appreciate that. I mean, but, you know, for all I knew is you could have
already had things lined up, and then we could eliminate this exercise, to some degree, if we
knew exactly what was going in, but right now what we have to do, we’ve dealt with this
before, is we would have to consider all the contingencies of any possibility.
MR. DREPS-Right. We’re just trying to make sense out of the configuration of the existing lot
right now, and how, you know, I think it would be to everyone’s advantage to have the
utilization of that piece in front, because right now it sits with weeds and trees and I mean, it’s
not exactly attractive, but, you know, you’re right, though, it would give us flexibility in being
able to do more with our property.
MR. SANFORD-Right.
MR. DREPS-But we really don’t have any definitive plans right now.
MR. SANFORD-No, but I mean, I don’t know what everything that’s included within HC. I
mean, HC I think you can put, you can go in and you can sell trailers, mobile trailers and things
of that nature on that property under HC. If we’re facilitating that, by doing the land swap and
making that site, you know, conducive to that, then I would say, heck, I’m not all that much in
favor of having mobile homes be in, or used car dealerships put up there. You just don’t know
what you’re going to find.
MR. NACE-I think economics will dictate some of it. I mean, this is the Bay Road corridor. It’s
being developed on the higher end with the office space and with commercial. This certainly
isn’t going to support a super store type of commercial application. I think that rearranging it
so that there is a more palatable entrance to the property certainly is good planning, in my
mind.
MR. SANFORD-See, the problem I have is I don’t think we can nail you down. I mean,
appropriately, I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to nail you down. I remember when it was
here in front of Sketch, there was a general agreement that the Bay Road corridor, the vision of
that would be upheld. I don’t even know what that means, if you want to know the truth.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Mr. Sanford, I think what they’ve done, if I may, just moving to their
Response Number Three I think kind of answers a lot of the questions that are before the Board
right now, and the way the applicant has answered that, he’s said that, the question is, How is
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The more compatible than the existing
commercial land would front on Bay Road instead of existing PUD fronting on Bay. When I
looked at that, I wrote a note down on my review of this, it said, good point. I would just as
soon see the Bay Road be developed with offices up front, as opposed to having a piece of PUD
property right on the Bay Road.
MR. SANFORD-Well, then request a change of zone to Professional Office rather than Highway
Commercial. I mean, the request for the zone change is for HC, and if you’re envisioning that
the intent here is for PO.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t say that.
MR. SANFORD-What did you just say?
MR. VOLLARO-I just said that it would be better to have, rather than have commercial is to
have the property front on Bay Road that would be.
MR. SANFORD-I thought you said Professional Office.
MR. VOLLARO-No. I didn’t say Professional Office. I purposely stayed away from that, but
your point is well taken, Richard. I think that there is a point where we could look at this as
being rezoned to PO, as opposed to its existing Highway Commercial.
MR. SANFORD-Well, all I’m concerned about is, I remember when Cathi lead me through, we
were doing a give and take, and I was concerned about the potential development over by I
guess the plant store, where there was going to be potentially a Target, and they didn’t say
there was going to be a Target, and I was uncomfortable about the rezoning because I said we
have to consider every possible development activity that could take place in that zone, and we
were coming up with crazy things that we wouldn’t want there, and our attorney confirmed it.
She said you’re right. You’re right to look at it that way. They could put up used mobile homes
on that lot.
MS. RADNER-And you’re still right to look at it that way.
MR. SANFORD-Thank you, and so, again, I mean, you know, what I’m trying to say is if we’re
facilitating Highway Commercial, and if it’s Highway Commercial that we don’t like, then
maybe what we need to do is establish a dialogue with the applicant at this point in time as to
whether or not they would be receptive to a change in zone to PO rather than HC.
MS. RADNER-What are the surrounding zones?
MR. SANFORD-Well, going north it’s pretty much PO.
MR. NACE-Actually, not true. You don’t get PO until you get up north of the Golf Course
property.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what I mean.
MR. NACE-That’s here. We’re here. These lands are all Highway Commercial Intensive. The
other side of the road is all Highway Commercial. There is, on the other side of the road, the
dance studio, and this is that piece.
MRS. STEFFAN-Radiology, doctor’s office, funeral home.
MR. NACE-And there are a couple of residential pieces in there.
MR. SANFORD-No. I appreciate that, Tom. They’re pre-existing properties, but the theme of
the Bay Road corridor is to emphasize the PO characteristics, and admittedly you’re at the
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
southern end of that, but again, I don’t know what your intentions are, and I guess you just
don’t know, at this particular point in time, and obviously you’ll probably find there’s greater
flexibility with the HC than the PO, but, you know, I certainly wouldn’t want to agree to
something like this, and then find that there’s a terrible eyesore type of project that comes in
there that falls within HC that wouldn’t fall within the PO, and, you know, that’s just my
concern.
MR. NACE-Well, I certainly think that we could talk about some restrictions, as far as
architectural types of buildings, you know, conformity with the rest of the corridor.
MR. SANFORD-Actually, I think we can’t really do that, Tom, when we do the zone change. In
other words, that’s the problem. I mean, we can’t say, yes, we’re for the zone change to HC, but
it can’t have this or it can’t have that or it can only have this or it can only have that. I’ve been
schooled on that before.
MS. RADNER-Correct.
MR. SANFORD-I can’t do it.
MR. METIVIER-But wouldn’t everything that came up in front of us, from this point forward,
have to go through site plan review?
MR. BAKER-That’s correct. All of the uses (lost word) in the proposed zone would require site
plan review.
MR. SANFORD-If it’s HC, and it’s on site plan review, and it’s a deplorable project, but it fits
within the definition, our hands are tied.
MR. METIVIER-No, that’s not necessarily true.
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it is true.
MS. RADNER-You’re both right. Richard’s right that if you allow this, if you change the zoning
to Highway Commercial Intensive, somebody comes in with a project that is allowed in the
zoning, you can’t refuse to allow the project saying, you know, we don’t like mobile homes.
You do, though, as Tony’s suggesting, have site plan review criteria. You can check things like
does it meet the design criteria. You can apply your usual site plan criteria, but you can’t zone
away through site plan review.
MR. SANFORD-That’s my point.
MR. METIVIER-Right, but like everything else that comes in front of us, it goes through the
painstakingly long site plan review process that we have control over what ultimately happens
on the property. We can’t say, no, we don’t want your business. We can just say, look, this is
how we want your business to look.
MR. BAKER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-However, Tony, I think that Mr. Sanford has a good point. In looking at the
zoning map, it tells me a lot, as opposed to looking at that, and what Mr. Sanford is saying is
that making it into a PO zone almost guarantees, in some fashion, that a Professional Office
would be installed there, as opposed to what would be allowed in a Highway Commercial
Intensive zone. I think, is that your position?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it is, and, you know, this was something that just occurred to me when Mr.
Nace was doing a thorough job of talking about sizes of buildings that could be put in and then
giving certain scenarios of what some of those projects could be, and I’m sort of scratching my
head and I’m saying, yes, that’s what we would be basically giving the green light to,
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
potentially, and it may not be what we feel is appropriate for that corridor, and we’d be
facilitating it with a land swap. Right now, I mean, it’s HC except for the land swap.
MR. VOLLARO-Except for the land swap.
MR. SANFORD-But the land swap all of a sudden makes it a reality.
MR. NACE-Well, okay, let me raise another point. There is an access, right of way, easement to
this property from Cronin Road. It’s a deeded access easement down between Stewarts and the
Social Security Building that accesses the back end of this land. I think certainly between these
two entrances it would be feasible to develop as is some fairly sizeable commercial project on
there, okay, without changing it. We just said, hey, it makes more sense. It’s a cleaner project.
It’s better planning to do this land swap and make a more contiguous, contained, better access
off of Bay Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Could we look at it this way, Tom? We do do the land swap, let’s say, but
instead of do the land swap, and also have the zone change as PO with the land swap. That
gives you a nice piece of land under the PO zone to work with.
MR. NACE-But that only allows Professional Office.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I think that’s what.
MR. NACE-The land has some value for commercial. Okay, and I don’t think that the
applicant, at this point, is ready to give up that possibility. Obviously, being on Bay Road, it’s
not going to be used for some types of commercial establishments that might be an eyesore
because it’s too valuable for that.
MR. SANFORD-Stuart, could you please, because I’m not 100% familiar, it won’t take you too
long, could you read off the permitted uses under HC? I think in the Code they list them, and I
would like to know what they are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say, Richard, I don’t, I agree with what you’re saying,
but when you look at the use table, there are also things that are allowed in the Highway
Commercial that are not allowed in PO that I think would be perfect, in my own would mind
would be perfectly acceptable there.
MR. SANFORD-Well, there are some that would be perfectly acceptable, Chris.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, you know, maybe if there were some, you know, if you look at the
table and if there are some very specific ones that you have strong feelings against, maybe if we
could identify those.
MR. SANFORD-We can’t.
MR. HUNSINGER-We can’t for purposes of restricting the applicant, but we can in terms of this
discussion.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I mean, that’s my point. I mean, some of them are fine, but I don’t
know if we want an additional auto body repair shop or automotive sales and services. I don’t
have a problem with the bank. We already have one there. I don’t think we want another car
wash there, or how about commercial boat sales and services and storage. I mean, there’s a lot
of them that cause some concern. How about a drive-in theater? Let me see what else we’ve
got. We’ve got a lodge. You’ve got a mobile home sales. There you go. Motel. Restaurant.
Self-storage facilities. Shopping malls and plaza. T.V. or a radio station or a veterinarian clinic.
I mean, those are types of things that I wouldn’t want to see there, based on my vision of what
we envision the Bay Road corridor to be. Now, Professional Office can go in there under
Highway Commercial, but it can also go in there under PO.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess some of those that you mentioned, that you find objectionable, I
guess we have to think, in our own mind, some of the more objectionable ones, what would be
the likelihood that they could go in there, given the layout of the property, the size of the
property? I mean, mobile home sales, for example. I don’t know how many mobile homes you
would, I mean, how realistic that would be because of the size of the lot, just for example.
MR. SANFORD-We just don’t know, Chris, and you know something.
MR. HUNSINGER-But we can begin to make judgments, and I think that’s what I think we
need to do.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you don’t have to.
MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the highest density that you can build on that lot? What’s the most
objectionable use, and that’s what we have to consider in the SEQRA process.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, if the applicant would work with us in this regard. I mean,
admittedly, they’re giving up a number of options if the go to the PO, and I appreciate that.
You’re giving up the opportunity for many of these things that I just talked about for being
located there.
MR. NACE-That wouldn’t be objectionable.
MR. SANFORD-Right, but we’re also, you know, you’re asking this Planning Board to give a
recommendation on a land swap and a zone change for that land swap, and I think, you know,
what my position is, you know, I’d like to work with you so we can be assured, not reasonably
hopeful, but actually assured that we’re going to have the kind of development there that we
think is appropriate, and that would be moving to a PO type of a zone. Now there could be
great demand for that. There’s been great demand on the Bay Road corridor for, you know,
health related facilities and offices and things of that nature. Maybe that would work well with
your client’s interests. I don’t know. I’d have to hear from the client.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we really haven’t heard from the client’s interest yet, in terms of what the
their vision for this swap and zone change is. What do you see in your mind? I mean, I think
Mr. Sanford has raised a very valid issue for discussion, and I’d like to hear from the applicant,
because I know that you’ve got to maximize the return this, and the kind of installation you put
there is one that will, in your opinion anyway, would maximize the return on this investment.
A mobile home sale certainly wouldn’t do it. It wouldn’t cut it, see, and I’m trying to see, now,
what your vision is that’s going in there. We always have this thing, when we do rezoning, it
gets foggy, you know, and it’s all foggy in our minds as to what’s going in there, and I think Mr.
Sanford has done an excellent job of pointing out that in the Highway Intensive Commercial, a
whole bunch of things are possible, even though they may not be economically in your interest,
they are possible to go in.
MR. SANFORD-Well, you know, Bob, I asked the question, because maybe, you know, if there
already was a use, then we could have, just, you know, we could have decided. Like if they
said, okay, yes, what we’re going to do is if this gets approved, we already have something that
we’re working on with such and such a company, but the honest answer was, no, they’re
looking to put this in a more marketable way, and Mr. Sears is a realtor, and he’s saying, okay,
he’s then going to obviously look for buyers, and people to come in, but he doesn’t know who
they’re going to be at this particular point in time.
MR. VOLLARO-Whoever can maximize their return.
MR. SEARS-Can I speak?
MR. SANFORD-Sure.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SEARS-Okay. Thank you. My name is Mr. Sears. I’ve been a real estate broker for 29
years, no, 27 years. Yes, you’re right. Your concern is very warranted, and that’s the same
concern we have, as a developer, and as the owner has for the property. Obviously, you
wouldn’t want to put in there a used car lot. You wouldn’t want to put in there any kind of an
automobile related sales that would have automobiles or any other vehicle sales outside. You
would want to put in there things that would compliment the Bay Road corridor, and that
doesn’t mean that you would eliminate retail from going in there, but you would want to put in
higher end retail, and so, I mean, Richard, I could understand your concerns, and those are the
same concerns that John Dreps has, and obviously the same concerns I would have if I were
marketing their property, because the value of that property would go down very quickly if
you don’t have the right uses in there, and so our concern is the same as Richard’s, and there are
some good uses under Highway Commercial that would fit very well at that property.
Highway Commercial zoning is a service oriented zoning, and there are services that are
needed along the Bay Road corridor that can fit very well there, that fit under retail. So that’s
all I can do to address that issue, and the other issue is this, and that is zoned right now
Highway Commercial. I mean, we can walk away from this table tonight and we’ve got six
acres there that are still Highway Commercial zoning. We’re only asking for a land swap of less
than an acre, and that less than one acre will improve the transportation route to and from that
acreage. It will improve everything related to the Highway Commercial zone, and basically it
will help the Bay Road corridor, because you’re utilizing that land to its highest and best use,
and, like I said before, Richard Sanford’s concerns, which I think they’re at least stated a few
times, is the same concerns we have. So our justification for staying with the Highway
Commercial zone is to allow some flexibility. It allows the highest and best use, and obviously
we wouldn’t want to put any Highway Commercial use in there that would be detrimental to
the total use of that property, because the value of that property would go down and we won’t
be able to get the value that is warranted for that property.
MR. NACE-Could I ask a question of Counsel? I understand that when you’re doing a rezone
you cannot put conditions on the new zone, but here you’re also at the same time in parallel
doing a subdivision. Can’t deed restrictions be put on with the subdivision that would
eliminate outdoor display, that would eliminate some of the objectionable types of things that
the Board is concerned about, and rightly so?
MS. RADNER-Certainly at this stage of site plan review, or subdivision review, it can be, but in
terms of the SEQRA review for the Zone Change, you can’t do a condition to a Zone Change.
You can’t sort of create a special zoning just for this property. When the Board determines
whether or not to rezone, they have to consider their existing zones and which zones best fit this
property.
MR. NACE-Sure. I understand that, but what I’m saying is, at the same time, the applicant is
sitting here agreeing that he would like to limit, eventually limit, some of the uses on the
property, and you guys still have subdivision review to approve the subdivision and the
opportunity there to impose conditions that would be deed restrictions on the property. Would
that be an avenue?
MS. RADNER-What it appears you’re saying is that there are mitigation measures that you
might be able to offer that would offset some of the concerns this Board has.
MR. NACE-Exactly. Very well put.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, on the, when we got into site plan review, however, we wouldn’t have
very much, in other words, you wouldn’t even be able to tell us, then, what we would be seeing
in site plan review, assuming the swap was made, is what we’ll see there, and there would be
five lots, and you probably even at that time couldn’t commit to us what’s going on those five
lots. So we never get the vision.
MR. NACE-But we’re saying that we can tell you some things that won’t be going on.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-By the deed restriction route.
MR. NACE-Right, exactly. We can go through that allowable use list and say that we agree that
we will deed restrict these properties, stop me if I’m speaking out of turn here, that would
eliminate some of those uses effectively.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I appreciate the intention. The intentions, I think, are good, but the
reality is, if we approve this Zone Change, and if an individual business owner came in and
wanted to do a project that is objectionable, and offered a sizeable enough amount of money to
purchase that property, we would have a very difficult time, through site plan, we would not be
able to restrict it. We would, of course, go through what we go through in terms of buffers and
things of that nature, but if New Country car dealership wants to be on Bay Road because it’s
where it’s happening, and they’re going to throw a big chunk of money in that direction to buy
that land, we will not be able to say, well, wait a second, we don’t want the car dealership.
MR. NACE-Actually, what we’re saying is that at subdivision time, when that subdivision’s
filed, there would be deed restrictions filed with it that would, for instance, prohibit, if you’re
worried about auto dealers or travel trailers that would eliminate the use of outdoor display
areas.
MR. SANFORD-Again, I just don’t know how you’re, mechanically, going to be able to handle
that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What if we were to consider, instead of Highway Commercial Intensive,
Highway Commercial Moderate?
MR. NACE-I don’t know what’s on that list.
MR. HUNSINGER-It seems to eliminate a lot of the things that were considered to be
objectionable. I was just reading them quickly.
MR. VOLLARO-What page are you on?
MR. METIVIER-18079.
MR. HUNSINGER-18079. It would take out auto body repair shop, automotive sales and
service, car wash, commercial boat sales, convention center, fast food establishment, which,
personally I don’t find that objectionable, funeral home, golf course, mobile home sales.
MR. SANFORD-That might be a good compromise, Chris. It takes away a lot of them. It does
leave some that.
MR. METIVIER-The only one it leaves in there that you have been discussing at length is the
mobile home sales.
MR. NACE-No dealer in their right mind is going to try to sell mobile homes in Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, it does take out mobile home sales.
MR. SANFORD-How about Highway Commercial Moderate?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I suggested.
MR. SANFORD-That’s what I’m saying. I’m asking the applicant if that’s something that, it’s
not going as far to the PO, but it’s eliminating some of the less desirable sites of usage.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-And it also allows an office space with site plan review. So if they wanted to
put offices in there, they could under the Highway Commercial Moderate.
MR. SANFORD-That looks like a good idea. I mean, there’s only a couple in there that are a
little objectionable.
MR. VOLLARO-Probably from an return on investment they wouldn’t do it anyhow.
MR. SANFORD-Well, there’s a motel and lodge, which, you know, I don’t think that’s likely.
MR. VOLLARO-Rich, it appears that the applicant likes that particular.
MR. SANFORD-Tom has a question.
MR. SEGULJIC-Why do we have a subdivision plan if we have no concept of what we want to
do with the land at this point?
MR. NACE-For flexibility, okay. The Board, as part of the land swap rezoning, wanted a
concept of what we, what the property was going to look like and what wanted, where we
wanted to go with it.
MR. SEGULJIC-But if we have to look at it under its maximum usage, wouldn’t that be a single
five acre?
MR. VOLLARO-It could be a single lot.
MR. NACE-And that’s why we threw those numbers out on the table, because that’s part of
your SEQRA review process.
MR. SANFORD-It could be just one big lot.
MR. NACE-At this point, what we intend to do is construct the subdivision. They’re all
approximately one acre lots. If somebody comes in and wants two acres, then they can put two
of them together, okay, but it’s easier to put them back together than it is to take them apart
again.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if somebody wanted to buy the whole thing, they could buy the whole
lot.
MR. NACE-It’s just, this is the maximum number of lots that could be.
MR. SEARS-The other interesting thing is, by subdividing into five separate lots, there is a real
need, in Queensbury, for smaller lots for that 5,000 to 8,000 square foot user, and we thought
that was the target market that would be best suited on this property.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s interesting. I don’t think we ever heard that before.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, if the applicant’s willing to go Highway Commercial Moderate, since
we’re just talking about facilitating it through the land swap, I would support that.
MR. VOLLARO-So would I. I think that was a good suggestion to send to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
MR. SANFORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve already proceeded down the line of changing this over, this land swap
now would stay in effect, and the zone would now become Highway Intensive Moderate.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-No, Highway Commercial Moderate.
MR. VOLLARO-Highway Commercial Moderate.
MS. RADNER-That’s the recommendation you would be making to the Town Board.
MR. VOLLARO-To the Town Board, okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could we back up a second? In terms of the SEQRA, though, are we still
with the proposal, or can we consider SEQRA for Highway Commercial Moderate?
MR. SANFORD-Moderate. I mean, that’s our recommendation. Counsel can correct me, but I
would think if we would go and do the SEQRA under all conditions that could be developed
under Highway Commercial Moderate, and put that in our recommendation to the Town
Board, with the understanding that we did our SEQRA predicated on that, and then they could
do what they want with it, and if they don’t like it, they could say, we don’t like it. We want
you to go back and give us a recommendation on Highway Commercial Intensive.
MR. VOLLARO-What we can do is we can recommend to them using summary of allowed uses
in commercial district and tell them that we’ve used the Highway Commercial Moderate and let
them take a look at the uses, rather than listing them all down.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think what we could do with the SEQRA, though, in direct response to
the question, is that, in the back of our minds, we’re thinking about what could be done under a
Highway Commercial Moderate, not Highway Commercial Intensive.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think the SEQRA exercise becomes a whole lot simpler if it’s, if
we’re going from intensive to moderate.
MR. SANFORD-It certainly does.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no question.
MS. RADNER-And the applicant’s indicating an agreement to do that as well.
MR. SANFORD-And I don’t think the Town Board would have any objection to this.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t either. They’re looking for a recommendation from us, and we’re trying
to make as best a recommendation as we can, and I think this sounds like a pretty good
compromise. Do you folks agree?
MR. NACE-Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did have one other question on the actual SEQRA form that the applicant
filled out. On Page Five of Twenty One, maximum.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we at the SEQRA? Are we going into SEQRA now? I mean, you’re into
the SEQRA form?
MR. HUNSINGER-This is what the applicant filled out.
MR. VOLLARO-Part I.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-The maximum vehicular trips generated per hour, and you put 50, plus or
minus.
MR. NACE-I reviewed that, in fact, I’ll give you new numbers here, based on the maximum
development, potential development, that we just went through, with the three different
scenarios. When I came up with the original ones, it was kind of a guess as to what moderate
development would happen on the lots, not the most intense, which it should have been. Okay.
The numbers for, actually, the numbers for parking and for maximum trips per hour, for the
three different uses I described before, for office use, the parking would be 185, per Code, and
the.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, can I get on the page that you’re on?
MR. NACE-On Page Five, Question B-1F.
MR. VOLLARO-F. Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. So for office use, the answer to B1-F would be 185 spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-The answer to B1-G would be 83 trips per hour.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. NACE-The answer for those two questions for retail use, a retail strip center or individual
retail, would be, and again, per your Code, 215 parking spaces, and 196 maximum trips per
hour.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s if that whole lot went retail, that whole space went retail.
MR. NACE-Right. For motel restaurant use that I described, it would be 220 parking and 236
trips per hour.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So if somebody like a Quality Inn came to you and made a really, really
good proposal, you’d be looking at roughly 196 trips in that section of the Bay Road.
MR. NACE-236.
MR. VOLLARO-236.
MR. NACE-That, with the restaurant, okay, and that’s based on, actually we did one down at
Exit 15, which was a 62 unit motel at Super Eight and the Golden Corral Restaurant. It’s like a
350 seat restaurant. So that’s really maxed out, but it’s still about the same size site. So that’s,
I’m being, you know, really on the upper end with those numbers.
MR. VOLLARO-Would you be pursuing that kind of a thing, like a Quality Inn, for example?
MR. NACE-I don’t think, I mean, the space would accommodate it, but the Bay Road corridor is
too far away.
MR. VOLLARO-Too far away from the Northway. That’s a good answer. We’re trying to
create a vision from what you folks are saying.
MR. NACE-And I’m trying to give you the worst case scenario I can think of.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what we need to do with SEQRA. Okay. Then we can.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just one more question. Continuing down that, then, B1-I, dimensions, the
height should actually be 40 feet instead of 30 feet. Correct?
MR. NACE-Under your zone, that’s right, it could. I misread that. Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the highest use, without a variance, that’s their height, 40 feet.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Based on that, we could probably, let me just take a look at
something here for a second. Can we say, now, that we’ve effectively addressed the questions
concerning Petition for Zone Change, with the fact that we’re going to change this zone to a
different zone?
MS. RADNER-You’re going to recommend a change to a different zone.
MR. VOLLARO-Obviously this Board always makes recommendations. I understand that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can I ask a question? Since we’re on the SEQRA form that you had sent in. It
says, in Letter A, site description, number three, what is the predominant soil types for this
project, and you’ve got it checked off, moderately well drained, 100% of the site, but on the
PUD, the Queensbury Partners PUD on Cronin Road, which adjoins this, it lists that 50% of the
soil there is well drained, moderately well drained, and 50% is poorly drained.
MR. NACE-On the PUD, that’s correct.
MRS. STEFFAN-Right. So it is different.
MR. NACE-Yes. This is, compared to most of the PUD land, this is upland, and this is much
nicer soil.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing I had a comment on in mine, and I’d like to get into the
SEQRA review, because there’s comments like that. I have my written comments that I feel it
may be poorly drained in the northwest corner, due to the close proximity of the ACOE
wetland. That was a comment I had made.
MR. NACE-There may be two or three percent of the site that’s up in that, that goes down, if
you look at the topography, that goes down fairly fast to the wetland out there.
MR. SANFORD-I thought the difference was that you could still swim in it but you’re not as
likely to drown.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but I had some of the comments in my mind, and I did look into the
other. For example, going along with that, when we talked to depth to the water table, here we
talked to two to ten. The previous PUD was zero to four.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So we see a pretty big spread there.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. NACE-If you look at the topography, it tells the tale. We’re right at the edge of the
wetland, and the wetland, at the delineation line of the wetland there, there’s, groundwater
table’s within a foot of the surface.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you notice, one of C.T. Male’s comments, and you’ve obviously read
those even more intensely than I have, but he mentions a treatment, on this property, a
treatment pond relating to that wetland.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-So he’s got some, C.T. Male has some vision that this property has to have a
way to deal with that, not contingent, but very, very close wetlands.
MR. SANFORD-Well, this is sewered, right? All this will be sewered.
MR. NACE-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-All this will be sewered. Well, they have to go through a sewer extension on
this property.
MR. NACE-We’ll have to form a sewer extension district, but you’ll see on the subdivision
plans show the sewer, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to form a district. Mike Shaw’s letter, right.
MR. SEGULJIC-In that case, we have to assume you’d go to septic systems, then.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the worst case.
MR. VOLLARO-No, no.
MR. NACE-We can even be serviced, the Town will service, as a policy, service even an outside
user, okay, but our intention would be to form a sewer district.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, just to take a look, I think Mike Shaw put a note in here, and it says the
proposed subdivision is not within the Town Sanitary Sewer District. If the current Sanitary
Sewer District is extended to include this subdivision, the applicant must complete the district
extension process at their cost. That was the Wastewater Superintendent’s.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what would we need to do tonight to nail that down? Because I wouldn’t
contemplate.
MR. VOLLARO-Septics in there.
MR. NACE-No, we don’t either.
MR. VOLLARO-And I think that when the applicant did their, we’re getting into the SEQRA
though, but on Page 10 of 21, the applicant says, extension of the existing sewer district. He
acquiesces to that in the SEQRA reply, in his Part I.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, again, I just want to make sure that it’s clear and, you know, we’re
not, six months from now, scratching our heads and dealing with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, Rich, I put a note in that that says the applicant will complete the district
extension process at their expense.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Fine. Again, I don’t know what it takes to nail it down, but as long as
everybody feels comfortable it’s nailed down, it’s nailed down.
MR. NACE-The subdivision drawings clearly show the sewer connection, and, you know, those
will be filed with the subdivision.
MR. SANFORD-All right. I don’t think the property would be too marketable without it
anyway.
MR. VOLLARO-No. That’s right, it wouldn’t be. I mean, that’s a key issue in the marketing, I
believe, the sewer. Okay. I think we can proceed. If we don’t have any further questions on
this, I would like to, and I only see one person in the audience for public comment, but I will
open the public. Let me ask, if everybody satisfied that we’ve gone through the Petition for
Zone Change, the questions that he had in there, and that we can make this change from
Highway Intensive?
MR. SANFORD-I think we ought to have public hearing before we make that comment.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m doing, I’m opening the public hearing, but there’s nobody
here. So I’ll just say that. Are you part of this, you’re not part of the public, are you, in this
particular instance?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-No, I’m not. I am the public, but not part of this public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NEIGHBOR-I’m a neighbor. I don’t have a problem with either the subdivision or the zone
change.
MR. VOLLARO-You don’t. Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-Having done that, we will go to now both Part I and Part II of SEQRA. Part I is
the applicant’s response to the SEQRA form. Let’s go through that. Does everybody agree with
that?
MR. HUNSINGER-We usually don’t go through the answers that the applicant’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a lot of questions that I have comments on that the applicant has
made in Part I, that I would like to just discuss. We don’t have to go through them all, but I can
go through the questions where I have questions, if you like.
MR. HUNSINGER-I understand.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On Part I, this is the determination of significance and it says the name
of the action is John W. Dreps Subdivision and proposed Zone Change from PUD to Highway
Commercial Moderate. That’s on the first page, Page Two of Twenty-One. Is everybody in
agreement with that? That’s what we’re doing? Okay. On Page Three of Twenty-One, I still
have a concern about the comment moderately well drained, 100%, and if it wasn’t for C.T.
Male’s comment on building a retention type pond on that property that’s close to the wetlands,
I wouldn’t have this comment, but I knew that C.T. Male had made that comment for a reason,
and it wasn’t just because he’d like a pond on the property.
MR. NACE-If anything, Bob, it would be just this little corner in here that would be poorly
drained. So if you wanted to say five percent, eight percent.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we say moderately drained at 90, and poorly drained at 10. Would
that be acceptable?
MR. NACE-Sure. Yes, that would be certainly on the conservative side of it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does the rest of the Board agree with that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, what is the depth to the water table, two to ten. Now we don’t
only do test pits to determine. I think that that part of the world, we may not have a large
problem, but test pit data is not just for septic. It can be for building purposes as well, or just to
determine the seasonally high groundwater in that area, whether we have septics or not, and I
don’t know what you intend to do there for your client. Are you proposing to do any sort of
exploration as far as the test pit is concerned?
MR. VOLLARO-At this point, no, because none of the design is contingent upon groundwater
table elevations. Groundwater, at that two to ten feet, I’ve assumed that groundwater is within
a foot of the surface at the wetland delineation boundary, which is a fair assumption because
that’s the way Corps of Engineers defines it.
MR. SANFORD-Do you need a permit or something, or a signoff from Army Corps for that
road being within 100 feet of the wetland?
MR. NACE-There is no buffer to Corps wetland. We will be, in the spring, we probably will
have the Corps out just to confirm the delineation.
MR. SANFORD-But there’s a Town of Queensbury, isn’t there a Town of Queensbury 100 foot
freshwater wetlands permit for construction within 100 foot of a wetland that’s required?
MR. NACE-Yes, there is.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So I don’t know what that has to do with what we’re doing with
SEQRA, but in other words, they’re within the 100 foot barrier, that barrier the Town has
described as being somewhat problematic.
MR. NACE-We will be, as you noted, C.T. Male, and Bob noted C.T. Male’s comments, I’ve
talked, I haven’t yet gotten a written response back to Jim Houston because he’s been out of
town, but I have talked to him before he left, and we will be instituting a treatment, a buffer
type treatment, of stormwater prior to discharging toward the wetland. So that will be a
modification we make as we respond to their comments.
MR. VOLLARO-That would be part of the subdivision review in that area.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-But Rich brings up a point that the Town requires 100 foot, a permit for a 100
foot within a wetland, as opposed to just the DEC or the ACOE requirement. So I think we’d
have to pass on a permit of that nature, as part of the subdivision requirement.
MR. NACE-Okay. We will get it together and submit it with the subdivision.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we can’t do anything with it now, but again, I’m wondering, when we’re
doing SEQRA, there’s no such permit in place, now.
MR. VOLLARO-No, there isn’t.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-And so it really doesn’t meet Code having that road. That’s why I was
wondering, if we’re doing the SEQRA for both the subdivision or just the Zoning Change
because if you’re doing one SEQRA for both, we obviously have an issue that needs to be
addressed, and that is, you know, that whole road, that could be a potential negative, or, you
know, positive impact. I guess, so that road could be a positive impact, unless there’s a lot of
mitigation that takes place.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can say that what we would want in the subdivision review is a
permit, Special Use Permit for that.
MR. SANFORD-Not a Special Use Permit.
MR. VOLLARO-A Freshwater Permit.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, however you want to handle it.
MR. METIVIER-Actually, that’s a required, then we have to assume that it would be part of the
action anyway.
MR. SANFORD-But the problem I have is, if we approve SEQRA when it’s a requirement, and it
hasn’t been done, then there’s the presumption that we’re okay with it, and how can we be okay
with it when an application hasn’t been made yet?
MR. METIVIER-Wouldn’t we have to treat it as though they would be required to get the
permit. So we would treat it as though they have it as part of the SEQRA review.
MR. NACE-If we don’t get the permit, we don’t get the road there, we don’t get the subdivision.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MS. RADNER-Again, your SEQRA review is potential environmental impacts.
MR. METIVIER-Right.
MS. RADNER-So if you believe that creation of a road creates potential for environmental
impacts, then you’ll need to go through that. Are they small to moderate, and can they be
addressed with mitigation? And the mitigation questions have to be addressed by the
applicant. It’s not up to you to devise their mitigation measures, but because it’s not a separate
permitting agency, it doesn’t stop your SEQRA review, the fact that they don’t have that. For
example, if they needed an Army Corps permit, you would have to get Army Corps voice in
this as an involved agency, but because there’s no permitting or funding by Army Corps,
they’re not identified here as an involved agency.
MR. SANFORD-More specifically, though, if we say there’s a potential large impact, because
there could be a potential for large impact, could we then make a recommendation for a
negative SEQRA?
MS. RADNER-No. If you’ve identified a potential large impact, and they haven’t given you a
mitigation plan that’s going to address that, you’d have to give it a pos dec.
MR. SANFORD-Well, again, you know, I think what we’re saying is it’s likely it’ll be able to be
accomplished, but at this particular point in time, we can’t say that. We just can’t. I mean, C.T.
Male hasn’t come back with, you know, a give and take on what is needed, and so we have no
way of having an assurance that it’s addressable, even though we anticipate it’s likely to be
addressable.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-Under 16, Page Four of Twenty-One, 16, we shouldn’t be going through, this is
some of the comments that I made there, it says lakes, ponds, wetlands, areas within or
contiguous to the project area. My comment is wetlands north of the proposed drive are not
exactly contiguous. S-2 shows separation from the proposed property line. However, C.T.
Male suggests a permanent pond for treatment of the wetland waters. Okay. Now we can
make that as a statement in the SEQRA acknowledging the fact that there’s a wetland at that
point, and then when we get to the subdivision requirement, part of the requirement for that is
to submit an application for a Freshwater permit.
MR. NACE-It adequately mitigates the concern.
MR. SANFORD-Again, I just, and I don’t want to be, you know, beating this to death. All I’m
saying is I think we’re putting the cart in front of the horse by basically giving a, I mean, where
we’re leading on the SEQRA, obviously after an hour and twenty minute discussion, is for a neg
dec, but there’s some questions when we get to the Part B, that are potentially large impacts and
we don’t know, at this point in time, if they can be mitigated until we see what is proposed by,
as I said, the give and take between C.T. Male and Tom Nace. We just don’t know, and so
there’s no way we can say we’re sure there’s not going to be a problem. There’s no way I can
say I’m sure there’s not going to be a problem.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if we get into that situation, and I think Counsel has already told us that
we do have an opportunity, if necessary, to revisit the SEQRA.
MS. RADNER-Well, I think if you’re heading towards that point where you don’t feel you have
sufficient information to determine whether there could be mitigation, what you want to do is
re-open your public hearing and get more information. If Rich is out alone, and the rest of you
feel that you’re comfortable proceeding and that you can answer the questions, then you can
proceed tonight. You don’t want to keep ping ponging back and forth, saying.
MR. SANFORD-Well, what I’m saying is, again, the SEQRA for the Zone Change, does it have
to be the same SEQRA for the Zone Change as for the Subdivision, or can it be, well, you know,
we had no problems with the SEQRA for the Zone Change, but we’re holding off on SEQRA for
the subdivision until C.T. Male and Tom address the road in close proximity to the wetland and
addresses mitigation? I mean, why do we have to do both?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the issue is this, though. There’s only 4,750 square feet of wetland
that are affected here. Even if they were to completely wipe that out, that’s not a large impact.
That’s not even a tenth of an acre. It’s a tenth of an acre.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I think it’s against the law to wipe out an Army Corps of Engineer
wetland.
MR. HUNSINGER-What is it, as long as you’re less than two acres, you can get a nationwide
permit?
MR. NACE-No, you can get a permit up to two acres. No, the nationwide goes up to a tenth of
an acre, without formal notification. Okay. It’s not a Corps permit issue, here. As Counsel
advised you, if we were, had a Corps permit issue, it’s an involved agency. We’d have to
interact, at this stage of the game. This is simply a Town wetland permit. We will apply with
the subdivision, full subdivision review. I’m confident that we can, you know, working with
C.T. Male, come up with an adequate way of buffering any stormwater off the road before it
reaches the wetland. I mean, right now, face it, all the stormwater off Bay Road goes directly
into the wetland. There’s a pipe right there that takes it.
MR. SANFORD-Well, we could go Moderate, and then if we find, later on, any problems, could
we reopen the SEQRA at that point?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MS. RADNER-No. You need to make your SEQRA determination, if you find that it’s
moderate, you still have the opportunity to determine whether or not it can be mitigated. I
mean, small to moderate is your first problem, and then potential large impact, and then your
third problem is can impact be mitigated by project change, and you want to answer that
question as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I was just suggesting, if it’s only a tenth of an acre, I don’t see how it
could be a large impact.
MR. SANFORD-I hear what you’re saying. See, I don’t know the details and the ins and outs. I
thought, if it was Army Corps designated wetland, it was pretty well hands off, and this is right
butting right up against it. You’re saying that’s not necessarily the case.
MR. VOLLARO-They talk about it in the SEQRA as being contingent. If you read what it says,
it says, lakes, ponds or wetlands within or contiguous to the project area.
MR. SANFORD-Well, this certainly is. The road’s right next to it. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Contiguous means part of. It doesn’t mean separated. Contiguous says it’s
joined, and this is not, except that we don’t know that the delineation is absolute, Richard.
MR. NACE-And we will be verifying that with the Corps in the spring.
MS. RADNER-I hope I didn’t mislead you earlier when we were talking about, you know, if
you find potential large impacts, does that require a pos dec. That requires the next step, can
mitigation met which you have to establish with the applicant.
MR. SANFORD-Well, I’m saying we don’t know, but, all right.
MS. RADNER-If you don’t feel you can get past that.
MR. SANFORD-I think we’ll probably get past it.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re doing good tonight, Rich. I just had one more question on Part I, and
that was on Page Eight of Twenty-One. We have a yes and a no and a yes and a no.
MR. NACE-That’s that darn form. I apologize. I missed it. This particular form, you fill it out
in PDF format, in Adobe, and for some reason, the way the form was configured, if you check,
on some of them, if you check one, both of them get checked. So you’ve got to go through and
do it manually.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SANFORD-So the answer is, City, Town, and Village Board, yes?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s two yeses and no no’s, I believe that’s what this.
MR. SANFORD-Well, under the local agencies would be no.
MR. NACE-Is no, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the extent, I believe, of my comments on their Part I. I guess I do
have one other I’m looking at. We’ve already covered this. What is the maximum potential if
developed as a consolidated site? That’s on Page Nine of Twenty-One. Because their response
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
is five lots. My comment, what is the maximum potential if developed as a consolidated site,
and on Number Five I stated, why not a consolidated proposal for X number of buildings on
one site. Now we’ve already been through this, because I had asked for an alternate proposal. I
think what we’ve gotten out of all of this is that we’ve moved to a different zone, which is much
more palatable than the recommended zone. So I don’t have anymore questions in Part I.
MR. NACE-Bob, if I can interrupt. On that same page you were just on, Page Nine, you may
want to change Number Four to, what is the proposed zoning of the site, you may want to
change that to HC-Moderate.
MR. VOLLARO-This is Nine 4?
MR. NACE-Nine 4.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, HC-Moderate, that’s correct. It’s not in my notes because we hadn’t even
gotten to that.
MR. SANFORD-Okay. So that takes care of this part of.
MR. VOLLARO-I wanted to make sure that we understood what they were saying in Part I, and
now I think we can go to SEQRA Part II.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Part II. “Impact on Land Will the Proposed Action result in a
physical change to the project site?”
MR. VOLLARO-Physical change? I say no.
MR. METIVIER-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, wouldn’t it be yes, due to bullet number two, construction on land where
the depth to water table is less than two feet?
MR. SANFORD-Yes, it would be, and also on, well, yes, that’s it, it’s not a floodway.
MR. SEGULJIC-They said two to ten feet, I believe.
MR. BAKER-A proposed road is a physical change to the land.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The answer is yes, small to moderate?
MR. SANFORD-Small to moderate, and it can be mitigated by project change.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will there be any affect to any unique or unusual landforms found
on the site (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action impact any water body designated as protected
(under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law, ECL)”?
MR. VOLLARO-If I knew what that was, I could give you a real good answer.
MR. HUNSINGER-There are examples listed. Do you want me to read the examples?
MR. SANFORD-Go ahead.
MR. HUNSINGER-Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Which would be
no. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body.
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then it has other impacts. Maybe this is where we talk about the
potential impact on the wetland. Which, I think after we discuss it, we decide whether it will be
small to moderate. So I guess the answer for Three would be yes, under Other Impacts.
Proximity to Army Corps of Wetlands, Small to Moderate impact. Which can be mitigate by
project change.
MR. SANFORD-Mitigated by project change.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of
water?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?”
MR. SANFORD-Well, it could be. Runoff off that road, that’s what my concern was, with all the
salt and everything. I would say small to moderate, potential.
MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate, but can be mitigated by project design.
MR. SANFORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water
runoff?”
MR. SANFORD-Only as previously mentioned. I would say no on that one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will proposed action affect air quality?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-
endangered species?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?”
MR. VOLLARO-Can you go through what that might be?
MR. HUNSINGER-Examples. Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different
from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or
natural. Proposed land uses or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which
will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views
known to be important to the area.
MR. VOLLARO-I would say no to all of those, I believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So the answer is no. “Will Proposed Action impact any site or
structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. SEGULJIC-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future
open spaces or recreational opportunities?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will there be an effect to existing transportation patterns?”
MR. SANFORD-On that one, we don’t know for sure, the concern for traffic patterns on Bay
Road, why don’t we go for small to moderate and, yes, it can be mitigated by project change
because I don’t think we know enough to say nothing on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The highest use, the most intense use, would give us a good deal of traffic
off that site.
MR. SANFORD-If they put a motel in there, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that could have potential problems, yes. Okay. “Will proposed action
affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the
Proposed Action?”
MR. VOLLARO-No, not based on the way we’ve determined the zone. I’d say no.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety?”
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?”
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-“Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?”
MR. VOLLARO-Don’t see any.
MR. SANFORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. Based, then, on the answers provided, I will make a motion for a
negative SEQRA declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. SB 17-2004 & PZ 1-2005, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOHN DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a
significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 22 day of February, 2005, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. NACE-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, this is a Draft Resolution that says a Petition For Zone Change,
and Resolution when Determination of No Significance is made. I think this is what you’re
referring to, Cathi. Right. I’m trying to look in here where we make our recommendation.
MR. BAKER-You don’t have a draft resolution for a recommendation.
MR. VOLLARO-We don’t. Okay.
MR. SANFORD-I think you just wing it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In this particular case, resolution when determination of no significance
is made. It’s resolution for a zoning change.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is a resolution for SEQRA. I’m sorry. I didn’t realize we had one
prepared by Staff.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SANFORD-If you want to just wing it, I’ll make a motion for a Recommendation to the
Town Board from the Planning Board for a Petition For Change of Zone, PZ1-2005. The
Planning Board recommends that the Town Board approve the Change of Zone from one plus
or minus acres from PUD to Highway Commercial Moderate. Period, on the first one.
MR. BAKER-You also should recommend that the other acreage that currently is zoned HC-I be
changed to HC-Moderate.
MR. SANFORD-Thank you, and incorporate that as well, yes, that’s right.
MS. RADNER-You might want to set forth your reasons made for recommending the HC-
Moderate versus the HC-Intensive.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the minutes reflect it, if they read the minutes.
MS. RADNER-Then say as reflected in the minutes.
MR. SANFORD-As reflected in the discussion that took place at length. Yes. I mean, I think the
notes themselves, if they read the minutes on it, I think it was a good dialogue.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you might want to direct them to that particular table and make it easy
for them.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. SANFORD-Well, how about, it was the agreement upon, of the Planning Board as well as
the applicant that the Highway Commercial Moderate approved uses were more appropriate
for the site that was being reviewed.
MR. VOLLARO-That sounds fine to me.
MR. NACE-Question for Counsel. Do they also need to have in the motion the change of one
acre plus or minus from Highway Commercial Intensive to PUD?
MR. SANFORD-I did that, and then Stuart said, hey, you’ve got to bring in the rest of it, and
he’s absolutely right, which he did.
MS. RADNER-But then aren’t you also moving an acre into the PUD? Did you get that part?
All right.
MR. NACE-You got both an acre in and an acre out.
MR. SANFORD-Bob, do you want to try and restate the whole darn thing? I botched it up
pretty good. If you want to restate the whole thing, so it’s one flowing thing, you could take a
stab at it. I give up.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, first, before we do that, making a recommendation to the Town Board is
one thing, but we still have to complete this resolution when determination of no significance is
made, and I will make that, introduced by myself, and we need a second on that.
MR. BAKER-You already covered that.
MR. VOLLARO-This was supplied to us. What is the significance of this particular piece of
paper?
MR. BAKER-That was model language for the Board to use or to not use.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the resolution covered that.
MR. BAKER-Yes, that Chris made.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll put that aside.
MR. SANFORD-It’s just a long-winded way of doing a neg SEQRA.
MR. VOLLARO-It sounds that way to me. Now, the next thing is our recommendation to the
Town Board. That’s what we’ve got to make. Right? All right.
MR. SANFORD-I did it, but it was sloppy.
MR. VOLLARO-I thought that the words should come out all right on the.
MR. SANFORD-When you’re transcribing that, if you can come up with that flowing,
incorporate what Stu said and what I said, and we’re all comfortable with.
MS. RADNER-Just do a few minutes and put it together.
MR. SANFORD-All right. Do we have to do anything else on the Preliminary Stage?
MR. BAKER-No.
MR. SANFORD-No? Okay.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
MR. VOLLARO-No, that comes on March 22.
nd
MR. SANFORD-I think we all know what we want to do.
MR. HUNSINGER-While Stu’s working on that, not everyone was here at the beginning of the
meeting when I passed out this article. I just wanted everyone to know, this article,
homeowner, cost cutter, build your own constructed wetland, that was from me and not from
Staff. It came out of a periodical that got passed around the office last week, and I just thought
it might be of interest to other members.
MR. SANFORD-Yes. I was reading it when we were going over some other things, and I was
shaking my head.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if it’s allowed in New York State, but I found it so interesting
that I wanted to share it with the rest of the Board.
MR. SANFORD-Well, the idea of planting flowers to act as a filtration system makes sense, but I
also think that you’re encouraging a mosquito infestation if a lot of people start doing those
types of things, and, boy, that’s become a lot of problems, you know.
MR. HUNSINGER-You just kill them off with chemicals.
MR. SANFORD-Deets.
MR. BAKER-I think I’ve got the recommendation language for you.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD APPROVE THE REZONING
FOR PZ 1-2005 JOHN DREPS & EUGENE CERNIGLIA, Introduced by Richard Sanford who
moved its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier:
Rezoning plus or minus one acre of land from PUD to HC-Mod. Rezoning plus or minus 1.02
acres of land from HC-I to PUD. Then zone the entire project size, with the revised lots of plus
or minus 6.37 acres, rezone it to HC-Mod.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of February, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan
MR. VOLLARO-I wonder if the people who created all of this have ever sat through one of
these themselves.
MS. RADNER-I wonder that about (lost word).
MR. NACE-And we started this process January a year and a month ago, and it took us nine
months just to get out of the Town Board back here. It’s frustrating on both sides of the table.
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to adjourn.
MR. VOLLARO-Your motion is accepted, Mr. Hunsinger.
MR. DREPS-Thank you very much.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/22/05)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman
54