1992-10-27
"'-
......,/
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 27TH, 1992
INDEX
Subdivision No. 5-87
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLANS
Cedar Court
1.
Subdivision No. 14-1990
FINAL STAGE
Inspiration Park, Phase II
Adams & Rich Associates
6.
Major Commercial
Subdivision No. 88-1
Dix Avenue Industrial Park
Claude Charlebois
7.
Petition for a Change
of Zone P3-92
Charles R. Wood
8.
Subdivision No. 14-1992
SKETCH PLAN
Charles o. Sicard
17.
Site Plan No. 48-92
Grossman's Property Development
22.
Site Plan No. 49-92
Watkin's Nursery
31.
SEQRA Review Only
William Vosburgh
34.
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.
'----'
-......./
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 27TH. 1992
7:06 P.M.
MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT
EDWARD LAPOINT. ACTING CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY
CORINNE TARANA
CRAIG MACEWAN
ROGER RUEL
KATHLEEN ROWE
TIMOTHY BREWER
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
June 23rd, 1992: None
July 21st, 1992: None
July 28th, 1992: None
August 11th, 1992: None
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES. Introduced by Corinne
Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAHS TYPE: UNLISTED
SFR-1A CEDAR COURT OWNER: LAD ENTERPRISES WEST SIDE OF BAY RD..
APPROX. 1,000 FT. NORTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICABT HAS FINAL
APPROVAL FOR PHASE I OF 38 UNITS. THIS IS A FOOTPRINT OWNERSHIP
PLAB. APPLICANT IS SEEKING A MODIFICATION TO ALLOW DUPLEX UNITS
ONE AND TWO TO HAVE LAND OWNERSHIP AS PER ATTACHED PLAN. TAX HAP
NO. 48-3-36 LOT SIZE: +17 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:08 P.M.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 5-87, Cedar Court, October 19,
1992, Meeting Date: October 27, 1992 "prolect DescriPtion: The
applicant is proposing to modify an exist ng subdivision. The
master plan for the entire project depicted 64 units. The
applicant has final approval for Phase I which includes 38 units.
This is a footprint ownership plan. None of the buildings were
intended to have property included with them. The property was to
be in common ownership. The modification is to include land with
1
'''-----'
......,I
duplexes 1 and 2. These duplexes are located at the intersection
of Bay Road and Cedar Court. The modified lots are going to
consist of 16.655 SF and 10.380 SF respectively. This is the only
modification to the approved plan. The applicant states that there
is no market for footprint ownership and this modification is
needed to help alleviate a financial crunch. Proiect Analysis:
The modifications should not cause any problems with the overall
project. The location of the building will not be changed nor will
any other site specific items. The only issue that might be cause
for concern relates to the septic system. On the original approval
the system was located on common property. On the revised plan the
system appears to be located entirely on the property owned by the
owners of duplex 1. Since the system serves both duplex 1 and 2.
responsibility for the system should be agreed to prior to
approval. Conclusion: There does not appear to be any significant
problems that relate to this project. If the applicant can clear
up the issue of who is going to be responsible for the septic
system. the Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed
modification. However. if the applicant proposes modifications of
this type in the future. they should present them as an overall
modification to the plan and not in a piecemeal fashion."
MRS. PULVER-I have a letter from a Marylee Gosline. Can I read it
into the minutes?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. please read it in.
MRS. PULVER- "Dear Mrs. Pulver: It is my understanding that the
developer for Cedar Court is coming back before you to request a
change in the development plans previously approved by your board.
Therefore. at this time I would like to point out some problems
with the development as it presently exists. particularly with the
site drainage. We are one of the owners whose property abuts the
pond at the bottom of the hill; and over the past one and a half to
two years. muddy water has appeared in our end of the pond.
Investigation by myself and representatives from the BUilding
Department found drainage from this development entering into the
inlet brook and then to the pond. Because the developer had
installed the site drainage piping per the approved plans. the
BUilding Department inspector said there was nothing the department
could do. It is my belief that there was a code violation since no
temporary drainage control was installed during construction. I
would point out at this time that the site work is not complete.
and still no drainage control has been installed. I checked with
the Highway Department and found that the town has accepted the
road and the drainage system as it presently exists. During a site
visit inspection. it was apparent that as it presently exists means
that there are no shoulders on the road. that several storm water
catch basins are high and dry with no way for the water to get into
them. There are several places where the gravel berm along the
edge of the pavement have been washed away. and run-off water picks
up dirt and debris carrying it down into the woods to the double A
stream that enters the pond. At this time. I would respectfully
request that the Planning Board defer any consideration for a
change in the plans for this development until such time as the
si te drainage work is properly completed and require that all
future excavation and construction work at the site follow accepted
standards (namely. the use of filter fabric and hay bales) to
protect against run-off as provided in the building code. Since
the Town has already accepted this road. it would appear that the
taxpayers of Queensbury will bear the cost of properly finishing
the site drainage work on this development unless the Planning
Board takes this opportunity to have the developer rectify this
problem. Thank you for your consideration and attention to this
matter. Yours truly. Marylee Gosline (Mrs William Gosline)"
MR. LAPOINT-That's it for the written comments. Applicant?
MR. 0' CONNOR-Basically what we're asking for is a modification
which would allow simply a change of ownership or an expansion of
2
'---
~
ownership of the first two units that were built. As was approved,
this was going to be a footprint subdivision for townhouses, where
the people were going to get a deed of the land underneath the
townhouse itself only. What we've done is built ª townhouse as you
go into the property. We would like to expand that and give them
a yard in the front and back of the townhouse with a common wall
and not have that be part of the homeowners association, and that's
simply what's before you this evening. As to the septic system,
there will be an agreement between the owners of these two units,
sharing the septic system as built with easements back and forth,
with the right to maintain the existing system and also the right
to use the additional yardage that's not included in the present
system for a replacement system, if the case ever comes to need.
That's basically what you have in front of you. You don't have in
front of you, with response to the letter from Marylee Gosline,
maybe a report or memorandum from the Town Building Department, and
I guess it was to this Board, April 23rd, 1990. Apparently at that
time there was an investigation as to what was the problem and what
was causing the mUddying of the brook that Mrs. Gosline speaks of.
At that time. David Hatin, on a report dated April 23rd, 1990,
reported. "Dear Planning Board Members: At a recent Planning Board
meeting it was discussed that there are drainage problems." And he
goes on, and basically he said. "Therefore we concluded that it is
due to heavy runoff from the adjacent properties through the woods,
and not caused by recent development in these two subdivisions."
And it refers specifically to the office subdivision across the
street and to Cedar Court Subdivision. if you look at that letter.
I don't know if that's any different than what you have before you
or the letter that you have before you now.
MRS. PULVER-What letter are you reading from. Mike?
MR. 0' CONNOR-This is the report of David Hatin to the Planning
Board dated April 23rd, 1990.
MRS. PULVER-Okay. I don't have that. Do you have that?
MR. LAPOINT-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Maybe you want to read it in total.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If that were the conditions in 1990, and now the
gravel berm is washed out so that the interceptors are ineffective,
is that the case now?
MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don't know that. I think part of the
problem of this whole subdivision. and part of the reason that
we're here for the amendment, is that there has been really no
activity there at all since we built the road to Town
specifications and dedicated it to the Town. At that time, when it
was accepted, I know there was an inspection made and it was to
Town specifications at that point. Whether it's eroded from that
point now or not I don't know, but there's been very little
activity within the subdivision.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, we can assume that the gravel berm has been
eroded away at these intersections?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know.
MR. LAPOINT-Well. this is what Mrs. Gosline states in her letter.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. It is a Town road. It was built to Town
specifications. It was inspected by the Town Highway Department,
and accepted by this Town's Town Board.
JIM MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-There is updated information, too. as to the status of
the drainage situation over there. The owner has, in the past
3
'-
~
week, re-established the berm and put hay out. So, there is a
temporary system in place, although it's not anything of a
permanent nature. It has been re-established, and the problem, as
I understand it, has been caused by when the frost is in the
ground, the runoff goes over the drainage system that is there and
just gets into the pond. So, hopefully the berm tha~s in place
now will catch even that, until the development can be built out.
MRS. PULVER~So, what we're saying is, as far as ~ property is
concerned, they've done what they should do, in order not to create
any more runoff into this pond?
MR. MARTIN-Well, it's a difficult situation. If you go and look at
the drainage system, it appears that a lot of the things which it
was dependent upon were establishing the finished grade with the
lots, and the shoulders on the road, and that couldn't be done
until the buildings were all finished, and that's simply not the
case, due to a poor economy or whatever, but in the meantime, there
were supposed to be, you know how we always cite New York State
Standards for Sedimentation Control during construction. Well, I
think over the years those have washed out or whatever, and it
began to fail, and that's been re-established just this last week.
A backhoe was brought up to the site and a berm was put in.
MR. LAPOINT-That was the applicant who did that?
MR. O'CONNOR-On a vOluntary basis.
MR. LAPOINT-Great. So, you have re-established the erosion control
to the extent practical, given that the site has not been
developed?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and we also don't think that the mUddying of the
pond actually is entirely from our site or from our site, as is
verified from the report of David Hatin in April of 1990 when you
did have frost on the ground and you were talking about the
possibility of runoff.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what this will show is, I just talked to Dave
today, if there continues to be a muddying of the pond or whatever,
it's unlikely that it's coming from this source, anyhow, because
this berm is in place and it's his feeling now that it should catch
the runoff that's there.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's Dave Hatin who's been up there?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay.
agreement between
easement?
Great, and could you run by me again the septic
the two owners? This will be some type of
MR. O'CONNOR-There's one septic system that will serve both units.
MR. LAPOINT-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Units 1 and 2, and by easement, there will be an
agreement that they will share on a mutual basis the cost of
maintenance and operation of that septic system, and if necessary
the replacement of that septic system, and there will be a mutual
easement that not only will the existing site of the septic system
be covered by the easement, but possible replacement area.
MR. LAPOINT-Does Staff buy that?
MR. HARLICKER-There has to be something in writing, but.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Can we make that conditional, that they have that
in place for approval?
4
"--./
J
MR. MARTIN-I believe so. yes.
MRS. PULVER-Or put it on the site plan.
MR. LAPOINT-Could we put it on the plan?
MR. O'CONNOR-You're better off putting it in the deed.
MR. LAPOINT-Putting it in the deed?
MR. O'CONNOR-We can show you the proposed deed.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. According to my notes. that's both items.
MR. MARTIN-So. you'll have a draft of the deed submitted before the
signed modification?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we have to do a SEQRA on this?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-87. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its
adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana:
WHEREAS. there
application for:
is presently before the Planning
an aaendaent to a final plan. and
Board
an
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for
determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the
State of New York. this Board finds that the action about
to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is
hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative
declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1992. by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint
5
'......."
---/
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer
LEON STEVES
MR. STEVES-One of the comments made by Staff was that perhaps there
should be a master plan if you're going to have any more of these
presented in the future. I'd like to bring it to the Board's
attention that this plan was submitted in August to the Director of
Planning. Executive Director of Planning for the Board's review and
comment so that we could make an appl ication that would be in
keeping with the Town's thoughts. We ran out of time. therefore.
the application that you have just passed was the only thing we
could submit to you in a timely fashion and help this gentleman
along with his financial problems. but we will be coming back with
this type of plan for you to review.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Noted. Okay. I think we're ready for a motion.
HOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87 CEDAR COURT. Introduced by
Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan:
The amendment to the final plans. with the stipulation that there
be a deed restriction for the septic maintenance on the deeds.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1992. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer (7:22 p.m.)
SUBDIVISION RO. 14-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20
INSPIRATION PARK. PHASE II ADAMS AND RICH ASSOCIATES OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE CORINTH RD. JUST NORTH OF WEST HT. RD. FOR FINAL APPROVAL
OF PHASE II. TAX HAP NO. 148-1-7.1. 7.3. 1.4 LOT SIZE: 22.48
ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISIOR REGULATIONS
TOM NACE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:22 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 14-1990. Inspiration Park - Phase
II. October 21. 1992. Meeting Date: October 27. 1992 "Proiect
Description: The applicant is applying for final subdivision for
Phase II of a two phase subdivision. The subdivision. which
consists of 22.48 acres. is located on Corinth Road just west of
West Mountain Road and is for a total of 42 units. The applicant
received final approval for Phase I. which is for 26 units. and the
infrastructure for the entire project on 12/31/90. Phase II
includes 16 units located on the rear of the property. Proiect
Analvsis: There are no outstanding planning issues that have to be
addressed prior to issuing final approval for Phase II of this
project. All the engineering comments have been addressed as have
issues relating to the infrastructure. The Board waived the
phasing requirements due to the uniqueness of the project. every
lot was pre-sold and the funding for the project was received at
the beginning. SEQRA was done when the property was re-zoned and
the recreation fees were paid on 9/11/92. The Planning Staff is
recommending final approval of Phase II of this project."
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Does the applicant have anything to say?
MR. NACE-Not unless there are any questions we need to answer.
MR. LAPOINT-Does the Board have any questions? I think this is
something we went through about this time last year. or two years
ago. Okay. Based on Staff comments. and no questions from the
6
.~
'-""
Board. is anybody ready to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1990 INSPIRATION
PARK. PHASE II, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its
adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan:
All Staff concerns and Engineering concerns have been addressed.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1992. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe. Mr. Brewer (7:25 p.m.)
MAJOR COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION NO. 88-1 PRESENTATION ONLY SKETCH
PLAN PC-1A HI-3A HC-15 DIX AVENUE INDUSTRIAL PARK CLAUDE
CHARLEBOIS INTERSECTIOR OF QUAKER RD. ARD DIX AVE. EXTERDING
SOUTHERLY TO WARRER ST. APPLICART IS ASKIRG FOR AR ADDITIORAL
EXTENSIOR FOR SUBMISSION OF HIS APPLICATION FOR PRELIHIRARY
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT. SKETCH PLAN WAS APPROVED OCT. 17, 1988
FOR A SUBDIVISIOR OF 35.46 + ACRES INTO 13 LOTS. CROSS REFERERCE:
TAX MAP RO. 110-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: 35.46 + ACRES SECTIOR.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
GEORGE ZURLO. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (7:25 p.m.)
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we have any Staff Comments on this?
MR. HARLICKER-No.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. This is just a presentation by the applicant.
asking for an extension of submission of Preliminary approval.
MR. ZURLO-Attorney George Zurlo appearing on behalf of Claude
Charlebois. In my letter to the Planning Board. I addressed the
fact that Mr. Charlebois has been unable to finalize his plans for
Preliminary approval due to the fact that no exact sewer district
plans have been formulated in this area to service this project,
and we've had a number of discussions with Town officials in
relation to this. There have been different. alternate plans for
this location. and no direction decision in relation to it. waiting
for cost effectiveness. as far as location is concerned. and where
it's coming from. but since we were unable to get a final decision
in relation to this. and since we cannot formulate and finalize our
Preliminary application until that is finalized. we're respectively
requesting a one year extension for submission.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That would be one year from what date?
MR. ZURLO-Well. the Planning Board was kind enough to extend the
October 17th date to October 31. So. what I would be asking for is
if we could have an extension from October 31 of this year. through
October 31 of next.
MR. LAPOINT-1993. October 31st?
MR. ZURLO-That's correct. Okay. Any comments. questions from the
Board? Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
HOTION TO APPROVE MAJOR COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION NO. 88-1 SKETCH
PLAN DIX AVERUE IRDUSTRIAL PARK CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS. Introduced by
Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
To approve the one year extension from October 31st. 1992 to
October 31st. 1993.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1992. by the following vote:
7
~
J
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mr. Brewer (7:28 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS:
P3-92 RECOHMENDATION ONLY CHARLES R. WOOD PROPERTY INVOLVED:
CORNER OF AVIATION & GREENWAY NORTH CURRENT ZONE: SFR-10
PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RED LOBSTER SEAFOOD
REST. TAX HAP NO. 98-2-1, 98-3-1, 98-3-5 TO CONSOLIDATE THESE
THREE EXISTING LOTS INTO ORE LOT. THE DEVELOPHENT WILL CONSIST OF
A 8,336 SQ. FT. BUILDING, LANDSCAPING, PARKING FACILITIES AND
STORHWATER HAHAGEHENT FACILITIES. ACCESS ONTO GREENWAY NORTH AND
AVIATION ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:28 p.m)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, P3-92, Charles Wood, October 22, 1992, Meeting
Date: October 27, 1992 "pro;ect Description: The applicant is
proposing to consolidate three lots and re-zone the 4 acre parcel
of land located on the northeast corner of Aviation Road and
Greenway North. The current zoning is Single Family Residential
(SFR-10)¡ the proposed zoning is Highway Commercial (HC-1A). The
re-zoning will allow the construction of a Red Lobster Seafood
Restaurant. The development will consist of a 8,336 sq. ft.
building, landscaping, parking facilities and stormwater management
facili ties and access onto Greenway North and Aviation Road.
Pro;ect Analvsis: The proposed re-zoning was compared to the
following questions. 1. What need is being met by the proposed
change in zone or new zone? The applicant indicates that the only
need being met is economical. They state that the sewer rents will
be reduced by allowing the property to be re-zoned. The addition
of 80-90 new jobs, increase in property taxes from the site and
$200,000 in sales tax are also listed as needs being met by the re-
zoning. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
The applicant states that there are five different zones in the
Zoning Code that would permit a restaurant, including highway
commercial which is what they would like the property to be re-
zoned. The Planning Staff believes that this, like the answer to
the above question, is accurate to a certain extent. There are
other needs such as housing that could be met by re-zoning the
property to allow multifamily. In doing this some of the economic
needs listed above could be met while at the same time providing
housing units. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with
adjacent zones? The applicant states that the proposed re-zoning
would be compatible with the other commercial zones located along
Aviation Road. The re-zoning would not be compatible with the
adjacent residential zone. However, they propose a buffer zone nd
conservation easement around the perimeter of the property in order
to limit the impact on the residential zone. The activity on the
site will also be directed towards Aviation Road in order to limit
the impact on the nearby residences. The Planning Staff finds that
the answer to this question is acceptable. However. traffic
currently uses Greenway North and Old Aviation Road as a cut
through to avoid the Rt. 9/Aviation Road intersection and
commercial re-zoning of this property will intensify this dangerous
si tuation. Since the traffic that uses this cut-through goes
through the McDonald's parking lot, the Board of Public Safety
should investigate the possibility of eliminating their back exit
on to Old Aviation Road. 4. What physical characteristics of the
site are suitable to the proposed zone? The applicant states that
arterial frontage in a major commercial area. access to the
interstate. its size, and accessibility to the Queensbury Quaker
Road Sewer District are all characteristics which make the site
suitable for Highway Commercial zoning. 5. How will the proposed
zone affect public facilities? The applicant states that the major
8
'---'
..~
impact on public facilities will be on the sewer district and that
it has the ability to accommodate the increase in flow. They also
believe that the re-zoning will have a positive impact on public
facilities in that additional taxes will be available to the Town
as a result of the re-zoning. 6. Why is the current zoning
classification not appropriate for the property in question? The
applicant states that the property as zoned is out of character
with the area in which it is located. Fronting on Aviation Road,
being directly across the street from the largest commercial
development in Town and the fact that all the other properties
between Rt. 9 and the interstate, with the exception of Birch Lane,
are commercial are all factors that support the re-zoning. The
Planning Staff agrees with the applicant's response to this
question. The current zoning of the property is not appropriate
based on its location relative to other commercial zones along
Aviation Road. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the
proposed change? The applicant seems to feel that the main
environmental concern involves soil permeability. They state that
64% of the site will be permeable and that the sanitary sewer will
eliminate potential ground water contamination. The negative
visual impacts on the nearby residential properties will be
mitigated by a buffer zone. This buffer zone is intended to also
give the residence relief from the noise generated on the site.
The Planning Staff agrees with the applicant's response to this
question. However, Staff believes that another major environmental
impact of the re-zoning will be traffic. As stated in question 3,
Staff believes that the cut-through on Old Aviation Road has to be
examined and if possible eliminated. In their traffic study the
applicant comes to the same conclusion. Limiting access directly
to Aviation Road should also be considered. This would help
alleviate some of the traffic concerns in the Greenway North
neighborhood. Their study also shows that the re-zoning will not
have a significant impact on traffic or the intersections of
Aviation Road near the site. The traffic congestion currently
afflicting Aviation Road should be reduced in the future as a
result of the widening of the I-87 overpass. New York State DOT
has appropriated funding for the expansion with a scheduled letting
date of November 1996. The issue of odors associated with
restaurants has to be considered when discussing this re-zoning.
The property is south of a residential neighborhood and southern
breezes during the summer would carry odors over adjacent
properties. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant
portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The applicant
indicates that the re-zoning is compatible with relevant portions
of the Master Plan. The limiting of access to commercial
properties, creation of larger lots, establishing buffer zones and
the creation of employment opportunities are portions of the Plan
that the re-zoning is compatible with. The applicant also shows
how the re-zoning fits in with the description and characteristics
of the neighborhood. Furthermore, they believe that the re-zoning
is wi thin an area described as general commercial and is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It appears to the
Planning Staff that the re-zoning is compatible with the Master
Plan. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being
served by this proposal? The applicant's response relates to the
economic interests that will be met. They also state that the
buffer will permanently protect the character of the Greenway North
subdi vision. The Planning Staff agrees with the applicant's
response. However, as in question 1, there are interests other
than economic that should be considered when looking at a re-
zoning. Conclusion: Historically, the property has been zoned
residential. From 1967 to 1982 the property was zoned Residential
R4. from 1982 to 1988 it was zoned Urban Residential URS. the
current zoning is Single Family Residential SFR 10. Recent
development in the area has been commercial and the Aviation Road
corridor is one of the Town's most intensely developed commercial
corridors. The Planning Staff agrees with the applicant that the
property should be re-zoned but also believes that alternatives to
the highway commercial zone should be explored. Based on the past
zoning and because there is a community need for affordable and
9
\...../
.--../
rental housing, the applicant should investigate the possibility of
re-zoning the property either Urban Residential URS or MUltifamily
MRS. Both zones permit mUltifamily uses. Staff would like to see
a single EAF completed for this proposal. The two projects, the
re-zoning and the site plan review of the restaurant, are so
interdependent that environmental issues raised during the re-
zoning will affect and come up again during site plan review. The
Planning Board should note in its recommendation what issues it
feels are important and should follow up to make sure that the Town
Board addresses them during the SEQRA review process. From a
planning perspective it appears that the property should be re-
zoned. The present zoning is inappropriate considering its
location along one of the Town's major commercial corridors. There
are several options that have to be considered, but there is no one
specific answer. Each option has benefits and drawbacks and it is
a pOlicy decision that the Town Board ultimately will have to make.
The Planning Staff has several items that it believes should be
conditions of any re-zoning of the property. They are as follows:
1. There should be a buffer, approximately 100' wide around the
perimeter of the property. This buffer should include a permanent
conservation easement. 2. Since access off of Greenway North is
proposed, mitigating measures must be taken to ensure that traffic
does not impact the adjoining residential neighborhood. 3. In
order to ensure the orderly flow of traffic on Aviation Road, the
prohibition of left turns directly onto the site should be
examined. 4. Mitigating measures must be taken to ensure that
odors generated on the site do not negatively impact the
neighboring properties."
MR. HARLICKER-The Planning Department also received letters
regarding this project. Eight letters were against the project and
eleven of them were for the project.
MR. LAPOINT-And we also have in our package letters from Lemery &
Reid and Miller, Mannix, and Pratt. They're part of everyone's
application package.
MR. HARLICKER-Excuse me. A member of the community just dropped
off these petitions.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Before we get to the Lemery & Reid note, and the
Miller, Mannix, and Pratt note, is the applicant here to answer
questions from the Board and post a plan?
LARRY LEVINE
MR. LEVINE-My name is Larry Levine. I've been before the Board
before. I'm hired as the traffic consultant. I apparently am the
only one here right now. I do not know why. I can address the
traffic issues, as long as I'm here, if there are questions. I can
give you an update of what I've found out from DOT as of yesterday
and today, and hopefully someone else will show up.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do you have a copy of the Lemery & Reid letter
from October 13th?
MR. LEVINE-No, I do not.
MR. LAPOINT-Do you want to go through some traffic issues first?
MRS. ROWE-Excuse me for one moment, but I was appointed to the
Planning Board, as of last night, and I have definite concerns
about this issue, and I'd like to join you up there.
MR. LAPOINT-Please. Your name?
MRS. ROWE-Kathy Rowe.
MR. LAPOINT-Kathy, welcome aboard.
10
\......-
~
MRS. ROWE-Thank you.
MR. LEVINE-Would it be possible to delay the presentation and put
forth other business? Whatever the Board wants to do. as far as
I'm concerned.
MR. LAPOINT-Well. what we have on our agenda are four other items
of business. I'm not sure if everyone would want to sit through
those other four items of business. pending this discussion.
Corinne has some questions.
MRS. TARANA-I have A question. first. before we get into this.
Warren County is supposed to hear this project and advise us. Why
are we hearing it before Warren County. and is that appropriate?
MR. LAPOINT-Is it possible because it's just recommendation for re-
zoning? I mean. that's my guess.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
recommendation.
It's not officially a project.
It's only a
MRS. TARANA-Does the voting criteria then change because it's only
a recommendation? In other words. if they approve it. no problem.
If they disapprove it. and we approve it with a majority it's no
problem. but if the vote were different at the County level. that
would. I tried to get a hold of you to get this answered before
tonight.
MR. DUSEK-For the record. Paul Dusek. Town Attorney. At this point
in the process. all this Board is doing is making a recommendation
to the Town Board. The Warren County Board will have to consider
the project. However. their consideration. whether they approve or
disapprove. will have an impact on the Town Board's action in re-
zoning. If Warren County decides to disapprove. then it would
require a super majority vote of the Town Board in order to approve
the re-zoning. If they decide to approve. it would require a
simple majority vote. Usually this Board comes into contact with
that same type of problem. but it's when you are approving site
plans or subdivisions. In this particular case. it wouldn't effect
anything because under the Ordinance all your Board is doing is
making a recommendation to start with. and like I say the actual
re-zoning vote itself will be the Town Board's vote. So. whatever
your recommendation is. whether you approve. disapprove. whatever
the vote is. it's a matter of having to go to your Board and having
that information then transmitted to the Town Board.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's that question. Anybody else?
MRS. ROWE-I have a question regarding the traffic study. I
received information from DOT and also from the DPW here which
indicates that the traffic study is not in agreement with the
figures turned in by Red Lobster regarding the times that the
restaurant is in use. and there seems to be some conflict in
information here. I show from these documents. I don't have them
with me tonight. that the major periods of time and travel on the
road are exactly during the periods that Red Lobster claims will
not effect the traffic conditions on the road. They say that their
major or peak period is between lunch hour. and not during dinner
hour. which I don't see as a reality. but also my figures indicate
that lunch hour is a very heavily trafficked time on that road.
MR. LEVINE-Right. The way that the traffic study was done was to
identify what would be the critical hours. just like you're saying.
When will the capacity be a problem. when will most of the
conflicts occur. where there wouldn't be enough time for vehicles
ei ther to get in or out of the site. So. the peak periods on
Aviation Road and Greenway North were chosen as the base parameter.
and then what I've done is I've superimposed on that the Red
Lobster information. Now. I'm not sure what information you have
from Red Lobster. so I can't address that. but mine's based on
11
.~
.-....../
other restaurants than just, I can't depend on what Red Lobster
would tell me. So. I've used other Red Lobsters and national
figures.
MRS. ROWE-This is from Red Lobsters own submission to the Planning
Board.
MR. LEVINE-Well, the traffic study is done independent of all of
that, at least mine was.
MRS. ROWE-How many seconds were allowed for a car to enter and exit
that site?
MR. LEVINE-From which entrance?
MRS. ROWE-The Aviation Road entrance.
MR. LEVINE-Okay. From Aviation Road to get across the road would
be about, I can't say that there'd be an exact number because
there's a large median there, depending upon which kind of movement
you're talking about. if it's a right turn or a left turn.
MRS. ROWE-You tell me. right turn and left turn. I'm aSking you a
question.
MR. LEVINE-Okay. I'd have to refer to the capacity manual to tell
you exactly.
MRS. ROWE-The Red Lobster submitted in their paperwork six seconds.
MR. LEVINE-Well, that would be on the high side.
MRS. ROWE-To be very frank with you, living in that development. no
car can enter or exit that development in six seconds.
MR. LEVINE-From which entrance are you talking about?
MRS. ROWE-From Aviation Road.
MR. LEVINE-I'm not sure I understand what you're saying? Are you
talking about left turns into Greenway North?
MRS. ROWE-I'm saying to you that the Red Lobster is going to have
a severe impact on the travel on that road. The travel on that
road is already near capacity, according to DPW and DOT figures.
You're telling me that you want to alleviate some of our concerns
by closing down Old Aviation's thoroughfare, or traffic that goes
down to McDonalds, exiting through McDonalds. but you're not
telling me how you're going to alleviate the traffic on Aviation
Road.
MR. LEVINE-I can't alleviate the traffic on Aviation Road. The
only way I can tell you that will be alleviated, and it won't ever
be alleviated. The traffic is there. I mean, the area is built
up. It's a highly commercialized area. It has been building up
for years, okay, and until there is an alternative location for
people to shop at, go to, what have you, that road will be as heavy
as it is. and heavier. I talked to DOT, Mark Kennedy, and to Joe
Savoy's office. at the Bridges. I got a slightly different date.
The letting of the project I got was in August of '96. What I was
told was that the original project for the bridge was a $3.2
million project. That has now been increased to $4.4 million.
They are working on the project now. It is at the stage where DOT
will be giving the bridge design project to a consultant. So.
that's where it is now.
MRS. ROWE-Well, you stated to me that you can't find an alternative
to the traffic, but I say to you at this point that we ~ find an
alternative to the site.
12
...........,
---..I
MR. LEVINE-I think that would be addressed better by others. It
was addressed in earlier meetings by the Red Lobster people.
MRS. ROWE-Those meetings aren't relative tonight. This is a whole
new issue tonight.
MR. LEVINE-Okay. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just
trying to be as helpful as I can. The site is a tough site.
Everything along Aviation Road is going to be tough. What I've
done since the earlier submissions. there's been several
submissions. several traffic studies done on this. but the traffic
study that I did now has incorporated more accidents. I've looked
at more of the accidents through current day. I've been out there
more to try and figure out why the accidents are occurring. DOT
couldn't tell me. They couldn't come up with a reason why. My
observation was that the cut through through McDonalds is a major
problem in that area. I'd have to quantify that. and maybe the
best way to do it would be with a video tape. which I haven't done.
but what I see happening is during the peak hour people are cutting
through. There's a lot of commuter traffic being placed on the
local roads because of the cut through at that site. Everybody
knows about it. Everybody's using it. A lot of the accidents are
occurring during that time.
MRS. ROWE-Why do you think all those people are using that road?
MR. LEVINE-Which. the cut through?
MRS. ROWE-Yes.
MR. LEVINE-To tell you the truth. there's a right turn on red down
below. and people are cutting through anyway. It's a short cut.
distance wise. perhaps.
MRS. ROWE-Do you think that they're traveling on the road in order
to circumvent the traffic on Aviation Road?
MR. LEVINE-Sure. mainly to circumvent the intersection at 9 and
Aviation Road. That's what my guess would be. but there is a lot
of traffic cutting through. and what's happening is a lot of them
are cutting through coming up to Greenway North. using the signal
there, and what's happening is. I'm just estimating. but you're
doubling the traffic on that road and at that intersection. You're
also putting people at that intersection who are in a hurry to
begin with. who are cutting through. a lot of unexplained accidents
because of that.
MRS. ROWE-There was one yesterday.
MR. LEVINE-Well. we've looked at the signal. Over 10 percent of
the accidents that I found occurred when the signal was in flashing
mode. There's been some problems with the signal. I mentioned at
earlier meetings. there's problems with the loop detection at that
signal. DOT's looking at that. The timing of the signal has been
a problem. It has changed through time. the loops. the detectors.
the trips in the road. You can see some of the wires are exposed
at this time. They've put in new loops. The timing hasn't been
worked out to this point. I think a lot of people are jumping the
light. That's what it looks like. on the accidents. Most of the
accidents. though. are on the other side of the intersection.
They're eastbound on Aviation Road. right angle accidents with
people coming out of the mall or going into the mall. That's where
most of the accidents are. 80 percent or more. A lot of the
accidents are during inclement weather. The road is banked on
Aviation Road at that point. There is a problem with drainage on
Aviation Road because of ~he banking. and there's 40 percent of the
accidents. during wet and inclement weather on that road. So.
there is a problem. The best solution to that intersection problem
is to reduce the number of cars cutting through. and that's in my
traffic study.
13
',---"
"--""
MRS. ROWE-And that means not putting a commercial property there.
Am I correct?
MR. LEVINE-Well. what we're talking about is. like. 28 cars coming
out of there. I'm talking about 150 or so coming through
McDonalds. We're talking a significant amount of cars cutting
through there.
MRS. ROWE-And how many are we talking about exiting from the Red
Lobster onto Greenway North?
MR. LEVINE-I have talked to DOT about this today. They're leaning
towards controlling left turns out of the site onto Aviation Road.
because it's in a curve and it's on the high side of the bank. and
the site distance at that point. it's adequate but not terrific.
and the point is there's a signal there to use.
MRS. ROWE-How many are we talking about coming out onto Greenway
North?
MR. LEVINE-About 28 to 30 cars an hour. So. you're talking about
one every two minutes.
MRS. ROWE-And how many are we planning on coming out of the main
exit onto Aviation Road. from the?
MR. LEVINE-I'm sorry. I'm talking about. if it's closed off on
Aviation Road. if there's no lefts on Aviation Road. You're
talking about 28 or so coming onto Greenway North. That would be
the max onto Greenway North.
MRS. ROWE-You're saying that 28 cars are going to come out of there
each hour. Am I correct?
MR. LEVINE-No. during the peak hour on Aviation Road. when it would
be a problem there.
MRS. ROWE-How many cars are going to be enterinq each hour?
MR. LEVINE-I would have to look at the study to tell you exactly.
but it's in the same range of numbers. We're not talking a
significant number of cars.
MRS. ROWE-We're not talking about figures that were handed in to
the Red Lobsters' traffic study either. The study that I received
from the Planning Department does not include figures near what
you're talking about.
MRS. PULVER-Are you talking about this study?
MRS. ROWE-Yes.
MR. LEVINE-Yes. Which study are you referring to? Because part of
the reason we're here again is that DOT requested a whole new
format for the report. I just want to bring up to the Board.
apparently everyone is here from the Red Lobster. I can continue
with the traffic. or I can hand it over. which ever.
MRS. TARANA-I have one question. The standards that you used in
your study. were those the most recent ones that were available?
I notice some of them are almost 10 years old.
MR. LEVINE-Which standard do you mean?
MRS. TARANA-Just any of them that you cite. New York State DOT
Policy and Standards for Entrances to State Highways. dated 1983.
MR. LEVINE-Right. That's still applicable. Well. it's still in
force. Yes. That's the most recent revision. They've been
revising them since 1940. and every 10 to 20 years they come out
14
"----'
'-""
with a new one. The 1983 is the most recent, and that's based on
the AASHTO, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, which came out with a revised text in
1984 which is still the applicable book as far as capacity of
roadways and design of roadways. New York State DOT has its own
highway design manual that's based upon the AASHTO guidelines.
They may be somewhat more restrictive than AASHTO. The same thing
wi th the 1983 Policy and Standards. They are somewhat more
restrictive than AASHTO, I would say.
MRS. TARANA-Thank you.
MR. RUEL-Sir, I have a question. I imagine you had considered many
different alternatives, as far as driveways are concerned?
MR., LEVINE-Yes, at this point, I think we've considered almost all
the possibilities there are.
MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, this particular area here, cars can park here
while they're waiting?
MR. LEVINE-That's a 16 foot wide median.
MR. RUEL-16? Just one car?
MR. LEVINE-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. LEVINE-Normally they're 12, on most highways in New York State,
12 to 14. This is a very wide median.
MR. RUEL-It would seem to me that the most dangerous part of this
entrance and exit would be cars on this side, cars coming this way,
and cars trying to go that way.
MR. LEVINE-Cars eastbound on Aviation?
MR. RUEL-Right.
MR. LEVINE-Right.
MR. RUEL-So, why don't you limit the cars exiting, just going right
or cars going this way, entering this way, without crossing this.
This seems to be the danger zone right here.
MR. LEVINE-Right. That is what I think DOT, after my conversation
today, that was one of the alternatives that we've been looking at,
and it was discussed in earlier meetings.
MR. RUEL-Yes, because having cars parked here, waiting to make a
turn, seems very dangerous to me.
MR. LEVINE-In the median itself, waiting for a gap?
MR. RUEL-Yes, parked here, because people get impatient and will
take a chance and go across traffic.
MRS. ROWE-Then they only have six seconds to cross.
MR. RUEL-Six seconds?
MRS. ROWE-Six seconds.
MR. RUEL-Well, new cars are pretty fast.
MRS. ROWE-They'd ~ to be.
MR. LEVINE~Well, the point is that you're crossing 24 feet of
pavement.
15
"'--
-....,/
MRS. ROWE-In six seconds.
MR. LEVINE-Now the traffic signals, just to give you some basis for
this, traffic signals, the yellow time of a traffic signal is
almost never more than five seconds, then the all red is one
second. So, you've got six seconds, and that includes the time for
judgement if you're not sure you want to go through. If you're
approaching a light and you're not sure you want to go through it.
MRS. ROWE-Honestly, I wish I had a stop watch to time how long it
takes you to check right and left, and left again.
MR. LEVINE-No. I'm just saying, for the
procedures you see in there, in the back of the
numbers are shown, okay, and for this highway, I
seven to eight seconds are used in the analysis.
factor there, but what I'm saying is you don't
cross the road from a stop position. It's not a
capacity analysis
report, the actual
believe it's like
There is an extra
need all that to
judgmental thing.
MRS. ROWE-May I invite you to my house tomorrow to spend some time
with me, because I'd like you to travel with me up and down the
road as I go in and out six times, or seven times during the day
picking up my children, and see how many of those times you can
cross the street in six seconds or less.
MR. LEMERY-Excuse me. My name is John Lemery, and I represent the
applicant here tonight. I'd like to ask you a question, ma'am, do
you live in the neighborhood effected by this project?
MRS. ROWE-Yes, I do.
MR. LEMERY-Do you believe you should recuse yourself here?
MRS. ROWE-No, I don't. I'm here to represent the Town of
Queensbury, and part of that is that neighborhood.
MR. LEMERY-So, you believe that even though you live in the
neighborhood, that you can render an objective opinion here, and
you don't have a preconceived opinion about this project, because
I believe in fairness to everybody in the room, including the Town
of Queensbury and the people who have spent all this time and
effort on this project, that you have an obligation to excuse
yourself. If you're not willing to do that, I can't make you do
that.
MRS. ROWE-I believe that I am listening to the 110 neighbors that
live around me whose viewpoints I bring here tonight and that that
is not a reason to excuse myself from this issue. I have no
economic interest in this.
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Lemery, are you suggesting that consideration of?
MR. LEMERY-I'm suggesting there's a conflict here, Mr. Dusek.
MR. DUSEK-My question to you at this point would be, is this
something that you just want to recommend that the Town consider
and then we address it at a later date? I don't think there's a
need to take immediate action.
MR. LEMERY-Right. I understand that. I think people are entitled
to fairness. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood this
lady's position.
MRS. ROWE-Well, I'll make it very clear to you. I live at 17 June
Drive. I live in the effected development. I have been listening
and following all of this information since just about Christmas
time when it was first presented in the first proposal. I don't
think that there's anyone here in this room who has more
information on this than I do, and I definitely have the voice of
the people when I sit here before you and ask my questions, because
16
~
"-'"
these are relevant questions raised by the neighborhood.
MR. LEMERY-Well, I've made my point, ma'am, and I feel strongly
about it, but I certainly can't tell you what you should do.
MR. DUSEK-I think at this point it would be safe to say that the
Town will take it under advisement and I think we can leave it as
it is.
MR. LEMERY-I'd like to try to talk to you a little bit about the
presentation, and our position here with respect to the Red Lobster
projected proposed for this site. We have been here at a couple of
meetings. The first meeting that we attended, we gave you a
project overview, and those of us who now represent Mr. Wood came
back here from the time that this was before the Board in February
or March of 1992, and proposed a very different project and a very
different transaction than was originally put before the Board.
What we're proposing now has been significantly reduced with a
significant buffer for the neighbors of the Town who live within
that district. I'm going to give John Goralski a chance to put the
rendering on the Board which describes and shows you what Aviation
Road/Quaker Road looks like from the point where 87 appears until
the end of Quaker Road.
MARK SCHACHNER-I'm Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt
representing the effected neighbor. It's a procedural question
only, and that is, before Mr. Lemery and his team arrived, Mr.
Levine asked. or mentioned the possibility of holding off and dOing
this later in the evening, logically because some of his support
group wasn't here yet. One of the positions that I believe the
applicant has taken in the past is we should have as many Board
members present as possible. Mr. Lemery is nodding his agreement.
It's my understanding that Mr. Brewer is going to be attending this
meeting tonight, and before Mr. Lemery and his team got heavily
into the entire presentation, I wondered if, it's up to the Board
entirely. but if the Board is interested. you might consider
waiting until Mr. Brewer gets here for consideration.
MR. LAPOINT-It's my understanding, 9. 9;30?
MR. MARTIN-That's what he said.
Island.
Yes.
He's coming from Long
MR. LEMERY-I'm perfectly willing to do that. and I would prefer to
do that. but you folks had started. so I assumed I had to get
going.
MR. LAPOINT-I anticipated that people wouldn't want to sit here
that long. but if Mr. Schachner feels that way. and the applicant
and the Board doesn't have any other comments. we can move on to
the other three items of business. How does the Board feel about
that? Any objections? Okay. Fine. What we'll do is we'll skip
to the next items of New Business. clear them up. and hopefully by
then Mr. Brewer will be here. (8;09 p.m.)
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1992 SKETCH PLAN TYPE I SEQRA COMPLETED ON 8-
25-92 WR-1A CHARLES o. SICARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION:
SHORELINE AT GLEN LK., BETWEEN GLEH LK. RD. AND HORTH SHORE OF
LAKE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 68-1992 FOR A 15 LOT SUBDIVISION TAX
MAP HO. 43-1-24.1 LOT SIZE: +9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION
REGULATIONS
MICHAEL MULLER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (8;09 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1992 - Sketch Plan. Charles O.
Sicard. October 26. 1992. Meeting Date: October 27. 1992 "Pr01ect
Description; The applicant is proposing a 15 lot subdivision on
the north shore of Glen Lake. The lots range in size from .11
17
'--"
'-""
acres to 1.77 acres. The parcel is +9 acres in size and is zoned
Waterfront Residential (WR-1A). Each of the lots will have a
winterized cabin located on it. All of the lots required a variety
of variances regarding setbacks. frontage. etc. Eleven of the lots
are undersized and six of the lots have frontage on Glen Lake. The
Planning Staff had met with the applicant to discuss certain issues
including water service. septic systems. a homeowners association
and future expansion of the homes. The attached letter outlines
that discussion. The project received the needed variances on
September 16. 1992 and underwent SEQRA review and received a
negative declaration from the Planning Board on August 25. 1992.
Project Analysis: The applicant is presently before the Board for
review of a sketch plan for his subdivision. Access and Parking -
Access to the subdivision will be from Glen Lake Road. There will
be two roads leading into the subdivision: Nacy Road and George
Street. The roads within the subdivision will be private and
maintained by a homeowners association. Each lot will have access
via one of the internal roads except Lot 14. Lot 14 is landlocked
and accessed by a drive which crosses Lot 13. This will
necessitate an easement to allow access to Lot 14. An issue that
is related to accessibility is parking. some of the lots do not
have parking. Each lot should have parking and it has to be shown
on the plan. Since some of the lots have some rather steep slopes.
locating room for parking could be a problem. Utilities and
Sewer/Water Each of the structures is currently served by
electricity. The water source is a main well that services all the
units. There is to be a second well that will also be used by the
units. Each house has a septic system. as each unit is sold or
upgraded. there will have to be a new system installed that meets
current standards. The applicant should indicate the location of
the proposed well and the new water lines that will go along with
it. The applicant should also show that each of the lots has
enough room to accommodate a new septic system. Traffic should
also be examined¡ the proposal will mean that there will be more
traffic using an existing network that is rather primitive. Road
improvements will have to be included to bring the roads up to town
standards. The fire department's initial response to the proposal
was that there should not be a problem with the site providing the
roads are improved and maintained year round. Conclusion: The
Planning Staff has several concerns regarding the project. The
concerns raised in the meeting between the Planning Staff and the
applicant found in the attached summary and letter have to be
addressed. The applicant has to show that each of the lots can
accommodate an up to code septic system. the roads will be improved
to Town standards and an access easement for lot 14 is drawn up.
If the applicant responds to each of these issues to the
satisfaction of the Board. the Staff can recommend approval of this
sketch plan."
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and we all have the summary of the meeting
regarding Area Variance application for Charles O. Sicard. present.
Mr. Sicard. Mr. Muller. Mr. Parisi. and Mrs. York. and we all have
that in our packages.
MR. MULLER-Thank you. My name is Michael Muller. I represent Mr.
Sicard. and Mr. Sicard is the owner. and he's to my right.
Basically. the plan as you see it posted on the Board. we're under
a great deal of constraint. in terms of the size. Basically. all
of what you see on there. though. was preexisting in terms of the
construction. That is that we don't plan on any new construction.
We plan on principally taking five of the lots right off the bat
and giving them each to an adult child. Mr. Sicard's adult
children. who already do reside in them. and have. There was an
issue that was brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals upon the
recommendation of planning where they needed to be satisfied in
their own mind that these were year round single family dwellings.
and we invited Mr. Hatin in to inspect it. and he wrote a letter to
the Zoning Board of Appeals indicating that. in his opinion. all of
the facilities were up to code and they appeared to be year round
residences. and indeed they have been. We produced leases showing
18
'-'
~
year round tenants back into the mid 60' s and early 70' s. Mr.
Sicard built these units starting in the 1940's, and basically they
were complete in the early 50's. The issues that planning suggests
are important to resolve. we need to demonstrate where the new well
is located. Well, of course we don't want to advance upon our plan
unless we know where we're headed, that is that we've had an expert
come in and evaluate the eXisting well. and I'm prepared to present
that this evening. in terms of the output on that well. That was
18 gallons per unit. and indeed it services all of those units as
they presently exist now. We also had a water test done. and that
was demonstrated to be potable water. The al ternati ve system
that's already in place but not utilized. that was suggested by no
one. it just happens to be there. is that the facility also has the
abili ty to draw water right from Glen Lake. but of course that
would require a chlorinator. and we have not put that in. as well.
I think that the work that remains to be done by the applicant on
that issue is obviously to have a qualified well driller out at the
site to make the best guess as to where that next well goes. but I
want you all to understand. that's a back up situation. That's not
the primary source of water. I don't see a problem with
demonstrating on a Preliminary plan where that well ought to go.
It's not ~ guess. it's his guess. and I don't see any problem
with presenting on a Preliminary plan where the pipes in the ground
are actually located. because the gentleman who put all the pipes
in is seated to my right. I'm sure he could draw it. The septic
system question. I made the representation in the letter. I made
the representation at the Zoning Board of Appeals. and I guess I'll
make the representation here that is that ultimately subdivided
lots would go up for sale. That would be Mr. Sicard's choice to
sell them. or perhaps an adult child would sell them. I think
that's an honest representation. Right now we don't have that in
mind. but I think that if you as planners and us as the developer
come in suggesting that we'd like to have five lots cut out. and we
leave another 10 units just hanging there on one parcel. that's
sort of a half baked proposal. So. we did come in asking for 15
lots for the 15 units that are there. The plan. if it were
approved. would be that we get into conformity with the Zoning
Ordinance. and I'll explain how. Anyone of those units up there.
there's really no setbacks on them. side lot setbacks. So.
basically and hypothetically. they could be joined together. that
is that the side lot setback. as I'm sure you all realize. just
kind of goes from the side of the lot. We want to get these into
conformity. and in doing so. you create these smaller lots. if you
will. It would have been an ideal situation to just have bigger
lots. but of course we wanted to encompass the existing residences
that are there. and they are of substantial value. We submitted to
the Zoning Board of Appeals proof. through the testimony of a
broker. as well as appraisals on each of the units. They were in
the neighborhood of between $100,000 and $150.000 per unit. The
fi ve units that are the best. the most valuable in terms of
improvement. as they are in this subdivision. are to the left on
that plot. that is that they are these units. Basically. those are
the ones that are occupied by the adult children.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess the question is. are you going to be able to
show that the lots can accommodate code septic systems?
MR. MULLER-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. You'll do that for Preliminary?
MR. MULLER-Yes. but I wanted to suggest here. so I didn't get
misunderstood. that on the five units that are already. we sort of
have a hybrid here in that these five units are actually owned.
That is that there was a conveyance made that is. I think. an
illegal conveyance. That's why we started out here three years
ago. and we're giving these. there's no septic system failure. and
we didn't wish to propose where a new septic system would go on
those five units. okay.
19
\........--
~
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. They're eXisting. That's fine, and Mr. Hatin
has said they're up to code, in terms of year round residences.
So, we're concerned about getting the new septic on the new lots.
MR. MULLER-Okay. That's not a problem, right, Charlie?
CHARLES SICARD
MR. SICARD-No. They're eXisting now. Of course, they have been
for years, but if we have to replace or upgrade or whatever, we'd
be very glad to do it.
MR. MULLER-And we'd be very glad to do the easement, so that Lot 13
and 14 have access. There are two comments that I'd like to make
about Staff Notes that are a bit of a surprise, and that is that
they suggest that parking might be a problem. It's not a problem
now. The fact that we draw blue lines and make them memorialize
them into deeds, I don't know how that makes parking a problem.
The fact that we create these into separate lots is not going to
attract more vehicles. There's a substantial amount of parking
space, but it's not on the road, if you will, that is that there is
unpaved areas where people park under carports. They're all shown
on those maps. Some of them are exterior. One of them has a
garage. The other thing is that there was a suggestion by Staff
Notes that they were dirt roads. I've walked them. They're paved.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That sounds like everything. Any questions from
the Board?
MR. RUEL-I just have one question. What is this gas pump on Lot 8?
Is that gasoline?
MR. SICARD-I can explain that. This gas pump was put in when we
had the last gas shortage. I don't know whether that was 10 or 15
years ago, and they seem to think that maybe some day they'll use
it again, but that can be removed very easily. It's not been used.
It's never been used.
MR. LAPOINT-You have an empty 500 gallon tank on Number 18, or
something like that?
MR. SICARD-It's never had any gas in it. They had a small pump, a
farm pump, so to speak.
MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Muller, could you point that out, where that would
be on that drawing there?
MR. RUEL-On 8, yes. It's between 8 and 13, there. It runs right
next to the water line.
MR. MULLER-Mr. Sicard said it would come out.
going to be used. I wasn't aware of it.
I guess it's not
MR. SICARD-Take it right out. It's never been used.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I guess, an underground storage tank with that
proximity to the lake.
MR. SICARD-Yes. I can understand that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I think we may want to make a note that we want
that yanked, as part of the approval to go to Preliminary.
MR. RUEL-Another item. The pump-house supplies water to all these
buildings?
MR. SICARD-Yes.
MR. RUEL-And where does the water come from?
20
~
--..I
MR. SICARD-It's a drilled well. It's down 120 feet. We never did
get a history on it. so we dug up one of the men that worked on it.
and they came in and got this information for us.
MR. RUEL-So. you need considerable pressure in order to supply all
these homes. right?
MR. SICARD-Well, at the time. they said there was an adequate
supply of water. and we've been on it 25. 30 years. and I don't
remember once when we've ever run out of water.
MR. RUEL-It's all underground?
MR. SICARD-It's all underground.
was built.
It was put underground when it
MR. LAPOINT-I'll read a letter here from J & S Drilling. Hadlock
Pond Road. West Fort Ann. New York. dated 26 October 1992. to Mr.
Charles Sicard. "I. John Strainer. owner of J & S Drilling Company.
Hadlock Pond Road. West Fort Ann New York. conducted a four hour
pump test of the water well for Mr. Sicard on his property at Glen
Lake. The well was pumped at a continuous rate of 18 gallons per
minute for the duration of the pump test." And if that's for four
hours. it's a pretty good rate. that close to the lake.
MR. SICARD-We've been hoping for Town water, and we're still
waiting.
MRS. PULVER-I have a question. I'm a little confused. here. It
says. the applicant has to show that the roads will be improved to
Town standards and an access easement for Lot 14. Why. if the
roads are going to be under the supervision of a homeowners
association. would they have to be up to Town standards? They're
going to remain private roads. are they not?
MR. MULLER-I can't answer your question on why.
MR. HARLICKER-It was my understanding that all the Town roads have
to be maintained to Town standards. whether they're private or not.
That was my understanding.
MR. MULLER-I don't have the same understanding. They are indeed
going to be private roads maintained by the homeowners association.
That's Mr. Sicard's preference. He's been maintaining it since the
1940' s. Even and after and when he's not around. I think an
excellent plan is that a homeowners association has to maintain it.
pay dues. fill the potholes. plow it. It is a 50 foot wide path.
but it's not 50 feet wide pavement. It's pavement. okay, and it's
not a driveway. If you did look at the site. it's a considerably
wide road.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's something we can iron out at Preliminary.
whether it's an obligation of the applicant to upgrade that.
MR. MULLER-Okay.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Without any other comments. do we have anyone
willing to make a motion for a recommendation that the applicant
proceed to Preliminary subdivision?
MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1992 CHARLES O.
SICARD. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Craig MacEwan:
For a 15 lot subdivision. providing they remove the underground
storage tank. that they show on the Preliminary Plan that up to
Code septic systems can be provided on each lot. and that a second
well will be drilled somewhere on the plan to serve the units. and
an easement will be shown on Lot 14. both on the deed and the
Preliminary Plan.
21
\........-
-...../
Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver,
Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer (8:37 p.m.)
SITE PLAH HO. 48-92 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY
DEVELOPHEHT OWHER: HOSPITAL HORT. GROUP, IHC. 7 TRAHSCO REALTY
TRUST LOCATIOH: SOUTH SIDE OF QUAKER RD., APPROX. 1,300 FT. WEST
OF QUAKER RD. 7 BAY RD. INTERSECTIOH. CROSS REFEREHCE UV 88-1992
AV 89-1992 UV 112-1992 AV 113-1992 COHSTRUCTIOH OF A 4 BAY
STORAGE SHED, COVERED LUHBER RACK STORAGE AREA AHD ROOF SHIHGLE
RACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLAHHIHG) LOT SIZE: 2.238 ACRES SECTIOH:
179-23
MARK JUNTA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:37 p.m.)
STAFF IHPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 48-92, Grossman's Property
Development, October 27, 1992, Meeting Date: October 27, 1992
"Pro1ect Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a
four bay storage shed, a covered lumber storage area. and a roof
shingle storage rack. The shingle rack will be approximately 450
sq. ft. in size and will abut the rear of the main building~ the
storage shed will be approximately 1.428 sq. ft. and will also be
located to the rear of the existing main building. approximately
70' away. The covered lumber storage area will be located in the
middle of the existing storage area between the eastern side of the
main bUilding and the east property line and existing open bay
storage shed. The applicant is also applying for several
variances. These include side yard setbacks and an expansion of a
nonconforming use. The roof shingle rack and the storage shed
require setback variances. The use variance is required because
they are expanding the square footage and violating setback
requirements. Proiect Analvsis: The project was compared to the
following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code:
1. The location. arrangement. size. design and general site
compatibili ty of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed
addi tions to the site will not be incompatible with existing
conditions of the site. The two storage sheds will be located on
the rear of the site and will be barely visible from the street or
other locations on the site. The exterior of the sheds will be the
same color. orange and white stripes. as the existing buildings.
Their relative small size also lessens their impact on the site.
The covered lumber storage area will have the largest impact on the
site. Its central location on the site will cause it to be visible
from the street and adjacent properties. Even though the lumber
storage canopy will be very visible. its impact on the site should
be positive. It will enable the applicant to keep the lumber in a
central place instead ot being spread about the site. 2. The
adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation, including intersections. road widths, pavement
surfaces. dividers and traffic controls. Access to the site will
remain unchanged~ there are no new entrances proposed. They will
utilize the two existing curb cuts as access points. Access will
be controlled by a small guard house and control gates. The
entrance to the lumber yard will be located adjacent to the
existing main building. This will necessitate the relocating of
three handicap parking spaces. Traffic circulation wi thin the
lumber yard will be counter clockwise around the covered storage
area. Customers will enter the yard through the western most gates
and exit through the 3 gates adjacent to the main building.
Vehicular access to the site and the lumber yard should not be a
problem. 3. The location. arrangement. and appearance and
sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The applicant plans
on utilizing the existing parking area which consists of 48 parking
22
"--"
"-'"
spaces including 3 handicapped spaces. It appears that there is
adequate off-street parking. The handicapped spaces will be
relocated next to the main building. There was no loading area
shown on the plan. The applicant should show how the lumber and
other material is delivered. 4. The arrangement of pedestrian
traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of
intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian
convenience. Pedestrian access to the bUilding could be a problem.
All customers will have to cross the entrance to the lumber yard on
their way to the main building. This situation is hazardous and
needs to be addressed. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage
facilities. The new construction should not have a negative impact
on the stormwater drainage. The proposed bUildings will be located
on areas that are currently paved. and the amount of permeable
space on the site will actually be increased. The stormwater is
currently diverted to an existing drainage ditch that surrounds the
property and connects to an existing drainage line that runs along
Quaker Road. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal
facili ties. The additions are for storage only and should not
impact the water supply or sewage disposal. 7. The adequacy.
type. and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other suitable
plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or
noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including
the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance
including replacement of dead plants. There is some existing
landscaping on the site across the front of the bUilding and on the
north west corner of the lot near Quaker Road. The applicant
indicates that there will be a shed display area in front of the
main building fronting Quaker Road. Since there is an existing
paved area already designated as a shed display area. this seems
like an inappropriate location for such a display. The area would
be better off landscaped. There should also be some screening
placed along the east property line to lessen the visual impact of
the east wall of the main building. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes
and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. The
applicant met with the Fire Department to discuss accessibility of
the site and the Fire Marshall indicated that he does not feel
accessibility will be a problem. 9. The adequacy and impact of
structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility
to ponding. flooding. and/or erosion. There does not appear to be
any area of the site that is susceptible to ponding. flooding. or
erosion. Conclusion/Recommendation: The Planning Staff has
several concerns regarding this project. Pedestrian access to the
main building has to be addressed. There is a hazardous situation
where customers have to cross the entrance to the lumber yard. The
loading area has to be addressed as does the proposed additional
shed display area and landscaping. If the above issues are
addressed to the Board's satisfaction. Staff can recommend approval
of this project."
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We have a letter from the Warren County Planning
Board approving the project and concurring with local conditions.
We also have a note from the Queensbury ZBA. Motion to Approve the
Use Variance No. 112-1992. Grossman's Property Development. Okay.
If the applicant will introduce himself and proceed with addressing
the Staff Comments.
MR. JUNTA-Good evening. Mr. Chairman. members of the Board. My
name is Mark Junta. I am the Construction Manager for this
project. Seated with me tonight is Joe Linaro from C.T. Male. and
Tom Jarrett from C.T. Male. our local consultant for this project.
A few things that I would like to change. If you've driven by our
location lately. you will notice that the orange stripes are a
thing of the past. The building was painted in the recent weeks.
I'd like to just give you a brief overview of the project. What
we're doing primarily is just upgrading our facilities. making it
more convenient to shop for our customers as well as safer site for
everybody. employee and customers. We're utilizing the concept of
a drive through lumber yard which the customers will enter the yard
through the use of a manual lift gate for traffic control. There
23
"---'
-./
is a circular drive that will go around this auto-stack system,
which is a storage system that utilizes rollers. The materials can
be stored in an orderly fashion and covered from the weather. The
back of the site. the new resided storage building. is similar to
the one that we have there now. This is an addition for the use of
sold orders. back stock. things of this nature. The shingled
storage rack. the pad for that is about 450 square feet. but the
actual depth of the rack itself is palette depth. It's only about
32 inches deep. The upgraded paint scheme and the addition of the
guard booth yard check out. That about does it for changes. To
address some of the questions, or issues that Staff brought up.
pedestrian access, if you've been to our location. you realize that
it already crosses that gate. I think we're enhancing that by the
use of the traffic control arms.
MARK LINARO
MR. LINARO-In addition to the pedestrian access. I believe we're
proposing striping it. I'm not sure if it's shown on the plan. but
striping the pedestrian corridor in front of the gates to provide
protected egress for the pedestrians from the parking lot to the
main entrance. There is existing striping there now. I'm not sure
if it's reflected on the plan or not.
MR. LAPOINT-Will you also have a lift gate on the exit?
MR. JUNTA-Correct.
MR. LAPOINT-Correct. So. that's controlled manually by people
letting people into the yard and out of the yard?
MR. JUNTA-The cashier will leave the yard check out and manually
lift the gate for that customer to leave.
MR. LAPOINT-Now. you won't be stacking people outside the gate.
You'll be stacking them inside as they are being serviced?
MR. JUNTA-Correct. There are also areas for customers to stock.
load their car. in the site circulation. So. this alleviates some
parking concerns out front. It also allows the customer that
doesn't need anything inside the store to get in and out of our
yard without basically leaving his car.
MR. LAPOINT-All right. Now. correct me if I'm wrong. I go there
quite often. You go in and out the same gate now?
MR. JUNTA-Yes. What we're proposing is three gates now.
MRS. ROWE-Where is the third gate?
MR. LINARO-There's two on one side and one on the other.
MR. MACEWAN-And as far as any traffic from people driving through.
will be allowed to go in there just around that first major
building right there?
MR. LINARO-That's correct.
MR. MACEWAN-They won't be able to go back into that far corner?
MR. LINARO-That's correct.
MR. MACEWAN-Because that was one conaern we had when we looked at
the site.. We noticed with that little shed that you've got on the
end of the existing building. it made it kind of tight for traffic
to get through there. whether it be deliveries or people going in
there and using the lumber yard itself.
MR. LINARO-There would be no deliveries in the back. That would be
just for stocking returned items.
24
'-
'-'"
MR. JUNTA-Back stocked items. sold orders. and returns.
MR. MACEWAN-Is that somehow going to be fenced off or quartered off
so that people can't drive back in there?
MR. JUNTA-No.
customer would
load it with
associate.
because there might be a rare occasion where a
have to back his pickup truck in there and we would
a forklift. but it would be with a Grossman's
MR. RUEL-Can I just point to the plan here?
think this is in line with what Craig said.
this way?
I have a question. I
The traffic comes in
MR. JUNTA-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Flows through here?
MR. JUNTA-Correct.
MR. RUEL-And this seemed to be very constricted. this area.
MR. JUNTA-What you're seeing there reflects the roof structures.
The actual structure of it.
MR. RUEL-It overhangs. right?
MR. JUNTA-Yes.
MR. RUEL-And would the vehicles be going under that overhang?
MR. JUNTA-Yes.
MR. RUEL-You won't be storing anything in that area then? It's
indicated on the plan that you will use this for storage. So how
can you have both?
MR. LINARO-No. no. The roof of the darker rectangular structure.
that roof is over an area that has a curve underneath it. So. part
of the driveway is underneath that roof structure. So. there is no
storage immediately around that.
MR. RUEL-Is this incorrect then. this sharp corner?
MR. LINARO-That's showing roof area. not the actual.
MR. RUEL-There is adequate room there?
MR. JUNTA-Yes.
MR. RUEL-It certainly didn't seem that way.
MR. JUNTA-We have 19 feet.
MR. RUEL-Also. this structure here seemed to be in the way. but you
say no vehicles will be going back here?
TOM JARRETT
MR. JARRETT-That one's being removed. is it not. Mark?
MR. JUNTA-No. That one will be maintained there.
MR. JARRETT-That small corner piece?
MR. JUNTA-Yes. but that's an existing condition today. Those two
structures do exist.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's what we noticed when we were up there that
day. is how difficult it would be for traffic to flow evenly around
25
""--'"
.-....,¡
that without any obstructions.
MR. JUNTA-The need for that is that's where our Receiver is located
and he needs site access to the gate, so that we don't stack
deliveries up.
MR. LINARO-That rear area is being restricted to primarily the
restocked items, or returned i tenis. It isn't going to be for
customer access, or it would be limited customer access to that
back area. So, that's one of the reason the bui lding, when we
first reviewed it in-house ourselves, we had suggested removing it,
if customers were going to be allowed to enter into the back.
Since that was restricted from the proposal, we didn't feel that
that would be a problem. It would be restricted to just Grossman's
employees, primarily.
MR. RUEL-Also, you have a drain shown right here on the corner,
right?
MR. LINARO-Correct.
MR. RUEL-That's for the gutter from this roof, I guess?
MR. LINARO-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Wouldn't it be better to have the drain over here
somewhere, since that's where all the vehicles would be going?
MR. JUNTA-I'm going to default to our consultants on that, since
they were the ones that designed that.
MR. LINARO-The drainage, the roof is in general a gabled roof.
MR. RUEL-I' m thinking of the winter now, with the ice on the
ground, because if there's a drain right there, that's where all
the ice is going to be.
MR. LINARO-The idea of the drain, it's an eight foot diameter, five
foot deep drywell that's going to provide approximately 2,000
gallons of capacity. We don't anticipate large ponding problems
there. So, ice build up should not be a significant problem, as
far as vehicular traffic.
MR. JARRETT-We're actually going to improve the situation over
what's there now, because right now there's sheet flow off the
site, and this will provide at least some point drainage.
MR. RUEL-You don't think there'll be a build up of ice in the area,
right?
MR. JARRETT-No more so than there is now.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-One of the concerns 1. have with this is that back,
southeast corner, if you had to get fire or rescue equipment back
into that corner. How would they get them back in there?
MR. LINARO-One of the things we had identified during the survey is
the parking lot from the adjoining property which, the idea for
fire-fighting in the back of that property, an emergency vehicle
would access that rear southeast corner from the parking lot on the
adjoining parcel.
MR. JUNTA-I, personally, sat down with Mr. Kip Grant, the Fire
Marshal, and specifically asked him that question, and addressed
any concerns we did before we put anything on paper, and it seemed
to satisfy him then. I, too, asked him about the closeness of that
building. We reviewed the New York State Fire Code and found it to
be in compliance.
26
'--"
......"
MR. MACEWAN-Is there any way that you guys might consider moving
that small guard house. or whatever that building is. too. back in
that far corner. that receiver's bUilding or whatever it is. flush
with the existing building? Is that a possibility?
MR. JUNTA-If you've been to the site. you'll notice on the end of
that bUilding we have a window. and that site line is extremely
important for the receiver. so that he knows that a delivery truck
has come and he can proceed to unload that in a timely manner.
MR. HARLICKER-Kip. when I spoke with him regarding this issue. he
said that it would be a very rare circumstance where they would
actually drive a truck back there in case these buildings were on
fire. What they would do is run hoses back in. and the trucks
would remain out in the main lumber yard area. That was one of the
issues we talked about.
MR. LAPOINT-It says here. the applicant met with the fire
department to discuss accessibility to site. and the Fire Marshal
indicated that he does not feel accessibility will be a problem.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-Well. it's not only from the standpoint of rescue
vehicles or whatever. It's people driving through there as well.
getting through that tight little area to try to get a car or a
truck. or a larger truck through there.
MR. JUNTA-Primary site circulation will be around the auto stack
system. and the front half of that three sided storage shed.
MR. LINARO-In other words. that's going to be restricted to large
vehicles in the back.
MR. RUEL-What's the height of that structure. the large one?
MR. JUNTA-About 19 feet to the socket.
MR. RUEL-Do you have any illustrations to give me some idea of what
it's going to look like?
MR. JUNTA-I have a similar photograph of what we call. this is
crowder system. It differs in the fact that instead of having a
drive isle through the middle. this structure will be 24 foot wide.
and the material will be picked from the side. rather than the
material being stored longitudinally.
MR. RUEL-It's an open structure?
MR. JUNTA-Correct.
MR. RUEL-Full time guard?
MR. JUNTA-Well. there'll be personnel at the yard entrance. whether
it be a cashier or a guard.
MRS. ROWE-How many?
MR. JUNTA-No fewer than one.
MRS. ROWE-My question is. I've been inside the store on days when
there's been three cash registers going. and been backed up in
there. So. therefore. I have serious concerns about ~ cashier
running a yard. now that these people don't have to go inside the
store anymore.
MR. JUNTA-Part of your concern is the people that have been
shopping the yard. bringing their sales to the register. I think
from a customer service standpoint. this is a vast improvement.
where most of the lumber purchases. and you won't have somebody
27
'""-,,,
-...../
pushing a cart full of 16 foot floor joys through the building.
MR. RUEL-You mean that if I go into the store to buy just one
board. I have to go through this?
MR. JUNTA-No. You can still go out through the main cash.
MR. RUEL-Either way?
MR. JUNTA-Correct. You can drive your car into the lumber yard.
pick up your lumber purchases. run inside and buy two pounds of
nails. come back out to your car and check out in the yard check
out.
MRS. ROWE-Well. I know from experience. especially with Woodbury's
and their system. that it isn't as smooth as what you're trying to
illustrate here. that often there is a backup of cars. How many
can stack up back, in that direction?
MR. JUNTA-This check out has the capacity for two registers.
MRS. ROWE-Okay.
MR. JUNTA-And this is not a new thing for us. We're operating 26
of these conversions throughout the chain. and from all
indications. the customer satisfaction index on those has been very
favorable.
MR. LINARO-There's also. I believe. three exit corridors to allow
for additional stacking in the yard. for two cash registers.
MR. RUEL-Parking space is the same number?
MR. LINARO-Right. The number of employees will not vary. The
number of cash registers. a person working the registers outside
would either be someone that would be inside. typically. so there
would be no net increase in employees.
MR. LAPOINT-You've relocated the handicap parking?
MR. JUNTA-Correct.
MR. LAPOINT-To code acceptable?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It even appears to be closer to the access to
the building.
MR. LAPOINT-Great.
MR. LINARO-I believe there is one more than is required by code.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Any other questions?
MRS. TARANA-What about the Staff Comment regarding the shed display
area in the front of the main bUilding?
MR. JUNTA-As you realize. we have a shed display area now.
MRS. TARANA-That's what they're saying. and it says that they think
it seems inappropriate for that display to be there.
MR. LINARO-It's on a paved area. and I believe it's being shifted.
Part of it would remain on the paved area. Part of it would be on
the lawn area to accommodate the handicapped parking spaces. So,
it would be the same amount of display area. just relocated, part
of it on the grass. part of it on the pavement to accommodate the
new parking spaces.
MRS. TARANA-I see. Also. screening along the east property line.
Is that possible?
28
"-,,.
-...../
MR. JUNTA-The eastern side of the bUilding is approximately eight
feet to our property line. of which a drainage swale occupies that
space now. If you've noticed that building on the shopping center
side has staggered rows of white pines. and we did not intend to do
anything with that side of the building.
MR. LINARO-The adjoiner currently has a staggered pine buffer there
on their property. and then between that eXisting staggered pine
row. there's a drainage swale. and then approximately eight feet
from the building face to the top bank of that drainage swale.
MRS. TARANA-You're recommendation was to do something within that
eight?
MR. HARLICKER-I was just raising the issue.
addressed it pretty good.
He seems to have
MRS. TARANA-Okay.
MR. JUNTA-If I might interject. I think what made that facade of
the building so objectionable was the orange and white stripes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing.
anybody from the audience have any comments?
Does
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GEORGE WISWALL
MR. WISWALL-My name is George Wiswall. and my wife Polly is here
tonight. We sold this land to Grossman's after the Quaker Road
went through. little knowing that they were going to put up a
building with those horrible orange and white stripes. and it was
shocking to me. tonight. to hear that this new building that
they're going to build is going to have orange and white stripes.
MR. LAPOINT-It's not.
MR. WISWALL-So it's a good thing I came tonight. When I sit. we
Ii ve on the north side of Glenwood Avenue. We have property
between Glenwood Avenue and Quaker Road. and when I sit at the head
of the dining table. I look out our windows. and this is what I
see. this horrible bUilding with orange and white stripes. For 25
years. it could almost spoil your dinner. Now. they've done a
great job painting the bUilding. You probably all have noticed.
How could you help but notice. There's some shrubbery. One tree
in front of the building stands right out beautiful. I'd like to
see them put a few more shrubs there. because it is a nice looking
building now. We didn't know what they had planned. I hadn't been
that concerned to come up and look this over. but we came tonight
to find out what was going on. and to support what they're doing
over there. They're doing a great job painting the building. and
I'd like to recommend that you approve this. but change what it
says in the minutes there. that they're not going to have orange
and white stripes running up and down the bUilding. Never again
will they have orange and white stripes down the building. Thanks
for listening.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. PULVER-Have you met with the Beautification Committee on this
at all?
MR. LINARO-Yes. We had earlier. and I think they were satisfied
with the repainting.
MR. JUNTA-If I might just interject. This lack of the orange and
white stripes has been a real big issue. I don't think I need to
29
.............
"-"
tell you. as Project Manager. meeting with probably 40 or 50 boards
such as yourself in the course of a year. having to sell this to
various boards, this change of heart and management has made my job
considerably easier. and it's been very well received wherever
we've been.
MR. LAPOINT-Great. Any further questions or comments?
MR. RUEL-Just one comment. It has to do with the Board. I guess.
In the future. a design review board would have eliminated the
stripes.
MR. LAPOINT-I guess we don't have architectural standards in the
Town right now.
MR. RUEL-No. but isn't it the Planning Board's responsibility,
though. to review the structure and how it fits into the area?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well. we don't do sectional reviews. They're not
required of the applicant. and again. one man's eyesore is another
man's art.
MR. RUEL-There's another one, Blockbuster. That's an eyesore. How
do these things get through. It seems to me that we should be able
to see the building before they put it up.
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think you'd need a change of law to do that.
that would establish another review process.
MR. RUEL-That's not part of the?
MR. LAPOINT-No. Again. we can specify screening for rubbish boxes.
that type of thing. like that. but we don't require applicant's to
show us a sectional view of their plans. and I think it's a matter
of taste.
MR. JUNTA-If I may. Mr. Chairman. as part of the submission
process. we were requested. or as part of the application process.
required to supply elevation views of the bUilding.
MR. LAPOINT-You were?
MR. JUNTA-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Was that for Beautification Committee. then?
MR. JUNTA-No. I think that was for Staff.
MR. HARLICKER-Staff requested that they supply that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well. if we're going to tend towards that.
MR. RUEL-Maybe we should request it more often.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So noted. Any other comments?
MRS. PULVER-Do we need a SEQRA?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We need the SEQRA Review on this. Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 48-92. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, for construction
of a 4 bay storage shed. covered luaber rack storage area and roof
shingle rack. and
30
""'--'"
-...../
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for
determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the
State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be
undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental
effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that
may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana,
Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now are we ready for a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 48-92 GROSSMAN'S PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roger Ruel:
For the construction of a covered 4 bay storage shed that will not
be painted orange and white striped. All other Staff comments have
been satisfied.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver.
Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer (9:07 p.m.)
SITE PLAN NO. 49-92 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-1A WATKIN'S NURSERY
OWNER: MYRON WATKINS, JR. LOCATION: 126 RIVER STREET ADDITION
TO SALES BUILDING. A GREENHOUSE WAS MOVED AND THE ADDITION (30' X
48') WILL BE WHERE THE GREENHOUSE WAS. CROSS REFERENCE: UV,815
(WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 112-1-40 LOT SIZE: +11.2
ACRES SECTION: 179-26
(9:07 p.m.)
31
"'-'"
-......,¡I
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 49-92. Watkin's Garden Center.
October 26. 1992. Meeting Date: October 27. 1992 "proiect
Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 30' x 48'
addition to an existing showroom/sales building. The property is
located at 126 River Street. The rear of the property abuts the
old feeder canal and is 11.2 acres in size. The property is zoned
Light Industrial (LI-1A). The applicant received a variance in
1983 to operate a garden center/landscape business at this site.
Proiect Analysis: The project was compared to the following
standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The
location. arrangement. size. design. and general site compatibility
of buildings. lighting and signs; The addition will be compatible
with the existing structures and character of the site. The wood
siding and overall architectural style of the addition are in
character for the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of
vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections.
road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The
applicant is not going to be doing any modification to the existing
parking area. The existing traffic circulation system should not
be affected by the situation. 3. The location. arrangement.
appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; As in
question 2. the applicant is not altering the existing parking lot.
There are currently 70 parking spaces on the site and that will not
be changed nor will the arrangement of the spaces. 4. The
adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and
circulation. walkway structures. control of the intersections with
vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian
access to the building will not be changed. The addition will not
have an entrance; entrance to the building will be through the
existing building. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage
facilities; The addition does not appear to have any significant
impact on the stormwater drainage. However. it is not clear from
the site plan or the elevations how the runoff from the addition
will be dealt with. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage
disposal facilities; The water and sewage disposal facilities
should be adequate to service this addition. 7. The adequacy.
type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantings.
landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer
between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum
retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including
replacement of dead plants; The elevation shows that there will be
plantings across the front of the addition. There is an abundance
of trees on the sites since the business involves landscaping and
gardening. No existing landscaping or vegetation is going to be
removed as a result of this addition. 8. The adequacy of fire
lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants;
The site appears to be easily accessible by emergency equipment.
The addition will not change emergency vehicle accessibility nor
should it entail the need for additional fire hydrants" Kip has
reviewed the hazardous materials safety sheet that the applicant
submitted and he didn't have any problem with what was on the
sheet. nothing unusual. "9. The adequacy and impact of
structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility
to ponding. flooding and/or erosion; The property is adjacent to
the feeder canal. However. the addition is over 450' away from it.
None of the land around the addition appears to be susceptible to
ponding. flooding or erosion. Conclusion/Summary: It is the
Staff's opinion that the addition should not have any negative
impact on the site. The addition should be compatible with the
existing structures. The Planning Staff recommends approval of
this project."
MR. LAPOINT-We have one other piece of correspondence from the
Warren County Planning Board. an approval with concurrence with
local conditions. Okay. I think I just have one question about
the drainage. My one quick question is. you're just going to let
the water run off the roof. no gutters? It's not really a big
deal. It's only a 30' by 48'. You guys manage water pretty well
32
'---'
-...-I
over there. That's the only item that I gleaned of any
significance from the notes. Does anybody else have any comments?
Great. I'd like to open the public hearing. Does anybody from the
public have any comments about this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPOINT-We have to do a SEQRA Review for this?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. a Short Form.
MR. LAPOINT-Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS HADE
RESOLUTION NO. 49-92. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for
its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver:
WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an
application for: WATKIN'S GARDEN CENTER. for the addition to a
sales building. A greenhouse was .oved and the addition (30'x 48')
will be where the greenhouse was. and
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Quality Review Act.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the
Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of
environmental concern and having considered the criteria for
determining whether a project has a significant environmental
impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the
Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the
State ot 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 27th day of October. 1992. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Rowe. Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion?
33
""-'
~.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-92 WATKIN'S GARDEN NURSERY,
Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Craig MacEwan:
For an addition of a 30 foot by 48 foot sales office where the
greenhouse was.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana,
Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer (9:14 p.m.)
SEQRA REVIEW OBLY TYPE I WR-1A WILLIAM VOSBURGH OWBER: SAME AS
ABOVE GUBB LABE OFF OF CLEVERDALE ROAD FOR AB EVALUATIOB OF THE
ENVIROBMEBTAL ASSESSEMEBT REVIEW ABD A DETERMIBATIOB OF
SIGBIFICABCE OB THE REQUEST TO REMODEL EXISTIBG 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH
HOME SO IT REMAIBS 2 BEDROOMS, ABD 2 BATHS, HOWEVER, IT WILL HAVE
LARGER ROOMS (50\ EXPABSIOB). CROSS REFEREBCE: AV 95-1992
(WARREB COUBTY PLAMBIBG) TAX MAP BO. 12-3-4, 5 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE
SECTIOB: 179-16, 179-79
STAFF IBPUT
Notes from Staff, SEQRA Review Only, William Vosburgh, October 26,
1992, Meeting Date: October 27, 1992 "Pro1ect DescriPtion: The
applicant is proposing to enlarge a nonconforming structure. The
renovations will make it a greater than 50% expansion. In August
the applicant received a variance for an oversized garage which did
not meet the side yard setbacks. The property, which is
approximately 1/2 acre in size, has a second house making a total
of three large structures on this lot. The structure which is to
be enlarged is only 15 feet from the shore of Lake George, which is
a Critical Environmental Area. It is 4 feet from the northern
property line and 6 feet from the larger adjacent house. Proiect
Analvsis: The Planning Staff has reviewed the Long Form EAF
submitted with this project and has comments and questions
regarding the following responses: Part 1, A. Site Description,
question 1 - The applicant states that this property is residential
suburban. The Planning Staff disagrees with this response.
Waterfront residential would be a more appropriate description of
the land use. Part 1, A. Site Description, question 2 - The
applicant states that the total acreage is 1 acre. The Planning
Staff believes that to be misleading. The lot on which the project
is to be located consists of approximately 23,000 sq. ft. Part. 1,
B. Project Description. question 1b - The applicant indicates that
one acre is to be developed. The lot that is to be developed is
only 23.000 sq. ft., not one acre. Part 1, B. Project
Description. question 1h - The applicant states that there will be
only 1 dwelling unit on the site. however, the site plan shows that
there are two dwelling units on the site. Part 1. B. Project
Description. question 11"
MR. LAPOINT-Let me just jump in. If there's no one here to respond
to this. I see already enough to redirect this to the applicant to
remake out the form and re-apply. I'm willing to hear the rest of
this all out or read it into the record, but I don't think it's
necessary.
MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Yes. Essentially the first ones were just
minor clerical. The Staff does have some problems with their
responses to Part II, which deal directly with the environmental
review of the project.
MR. LAPOINT-If no one objects. I would just forward them. these
notes, and have them re-apply. I mean. there's no way we're going
to deal with all of these without the applicant.
34
'""-,,,
",-",'
JIM MARTIN
MR. MARTIN-This is SEQRA Review Only. This is a matter of a
variance which is before the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think the
intent being that this would be dealt with tonight and then they
would be back before the ZBA tomorrow night. but if there's not
sufficient information. or no one's here. you can certainly table
it.
MR. LAPOINT-I mean. do we want to read through it and then decide
to table it?
MRS. PULVER-No. I think there's enough questions to table it.
MR. LAPOINT-I've read it.
MOTION TO TABLB SBORA RBVIBW WILLIAM VOSBURGH. Introduced by Carol
Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
Until we can satisfy some of the Staff questions. That we will
send the Staff Notes to the applicant and make sure he's aware of
them. what our concerns are.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1992. by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Rowe.
Mr. LaPoint
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Brewer (9:19 p.m.)
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We're back to the first item under New Business.
It the Secretary would re-introduce it. and then I think where I'd
like to pick up is to have the applicant give his pitch. and then
we'll proceed from there.
MRS. PULVER-Okay. We're back to the first item under New Business:
P3-92 RBCOHHBNDATION ONLY CHARLBS R. WOOD PROPBRTY INVOLVBD:
CORHER OF AVIATION & GREENWAY NORTH CURRBNT ZONE: SFR-10
PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RBD LOBSTER SEAFOOD
REST. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RBD LOBSTER SBAFOOD RBST. TAX MAP NO.
98-2-1, 98-3-1. 98-3-5 TO CONSOLIDATB THBSB THREB BXISTING LOTS
INTO ONE LOT. THE DBVBLOPMBNT WILL CON$IST OF A 8. 336 SQ. FT.
BUILDING, LAHDSCAPING. PARKING FACILITIBS AND STORMWATBR MAHAGEMBNT
FACILITIES. ACCESS ONTO GREENWAY NORTH AND AVIATION RD. (WARREN
COUHTY PLAHHING)
JOHN LEMERY REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (9:19 p.m.)
MR. LAPOINT-One last thing. It's quarter after nine. We expect
our last Planning Board member to be here by 9:30. Should we just
go ahead and proceed. or wait until 9:30? Do you want to take five
minutes? Lets take five minutes.
BREAK
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I ask the applicant to proceed.
MR. LEMERY-Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Board. my name is
John Lemery of the firm of Lemery & Reid. and we're here tonight
representing the applicant. Charles R. Wood and the Red Lobster.
I had asked permission of the Chairman it I might just make a
couple of inquiries before I give you my presentation. to Mrs.
Rowe. Mrs. Rowe. I understand that you wrote a letter to the
Planning Board on August the 6th. and I quote. "We do not need a
Red Lobster around our residential neighborhood. Thank you for
allowing me to express my thoughts and feelings of myself. my
husband, and the neighbors." I'm also in possession of a letter
titled Neighborhood News Watch. which I understand you authored to
35
~
-./
the people in the neighborhood.
MRS. ROWE-Yes.
MR. LEMERY-The property is currently zoned residential. We do not
want the zoning changed to commercial. Now. I absolutely do not
question your right to write the Planning Board or to counsel with
your neighbors regarding this project. but I am having a
considerable amount of trouble having you participate from the
Board level. I certainly think if you were sitting in the audience
and asking these questions. you have a right. as anyone else does
here. but I think it creates a very inappropriate perception in the
Town. and I had asked you before to excuse yourself from the
deliberation and the voting. since you are a member of the Planning
Board of the Town. and it seems to me that a member of the Planning
Board. by its very definition. has to look at a Planning Board
issue from a town wide perspective. So. I guess I will ask you
once again. based on the fact that you have corresponded with the
Town Planning Board and have voiced your opposition to the project.
whether you would be willing to step down and if you wish to
deliberate from the floor, and I know that Queensbury has now
enacted a very tough ethics law. and I think it sends a message to
the community that is not entirely appropriate. and I speak as a 28
year lawyer in the community and someone who is before these Boards
from time to time and who's counseled with people that have been on
these boards. Anyway. it's your decision. I recognize that this
Board is only advisory. but I think people who come here take it
seriously. take your recommendations. and your determinations, and
your motions very seriously. I know ~ do. We've been here three
times. and these neighbors have been here all these times. and I
think if the shoe were on the other foot. and one of Mr. Wood's
employees were sitting up on the Planning Board voting on this.
there would be a hue and cry from the audience that would be fairly
significant. I also want to ask you one question. and that is. if
you have participated in paying a retainer to Mr. Schachner. if
you've paid money to that law firm to represent you. in connection
with this matter. and if that's the case. I think that that also
puts you in a position where I think you ought to consider
seriously stepping down. for this proceeding.
MRS. ROWE-I just want answer his last question. which is that I
have no involvement with their law firm in any way shape or form.
I haven't given them any money. I haven't retained them in any way
shape or form. I have no idea who does retain them. but I think
that they represent the neighborhood.
MR. LEMERY-Well. I know that. So. I gather you're not willing to
step down?
MRS. ROWE-No. I'm not. but I'd just like to say to you that I was
in education for several years. Part of being an educator is
remaining objective and unbiased. and I feel that I can do that.
MR. LEMERY-Well. you're already biased. ma'am, because you've
already pre-stated your opinion to the Town Planning Board.
MRS. ROWE-Is your opinion already stated at this point?
MR. LEMERY-But I'm not one who has to vote. I'm an advocate for an
applicant.
MRS. ROWE-I can't make a decision on a vote until I hear what you
have to say tonight.
MR. LEMERY-Very well. I've made my statement. Mr. Chairman. I'll
move on. I'm going to ask you if you could put all the rhetoric
aside for a moment. members of the Board. and look at this site. if
you will. from a Town Planning perspective. We've been here two or
three times. and I know you've heard all kinds of discussion about
the so called Red Lobster site. This is a rendering of Route 254.
36
"'-'
.~
Aviation Road/Quaker Road from Northway 87. all the way down to the
end of the road. here. at the so called Hudson Falls Road. These
parcels in green are parcels that are zoned otherwise than Highway
Commercial. This is the piece that we're talking about which is
zoned SFR-10. It's the only parcel of land that is zoned
commercial. fronting on Aviation Road. other than the Town
cemetery. a Niagara Mohawk easement. a piece of wetland at the
intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Quaker. and a small piece that
is involved in the wetland over at the Earletown parcel on Ridge
Road. or near Ridge Road. So. this is what Quaker and Aviation
Road look like. and this is the site. The question really before
the Town Board. or the Town Planning Board is. what's appropriate
for this site. What makes the most sense from a town wide master
plan and planning perspective? It's currently zoned now for single
family residences. I believe that there's a member of the audience
here tonight, Mr. Carusone. who was the Chairman of the Planning
Commission at the time that the re-zoning was done in 1988 and he
made a statement to your Board the last time we had a presentation.
I think he'll speak to the issue tonight. again. as to what the
Planning Commission had in mind at the time that they zoned the
site. It's a 4.4 acre parcel of land. What we're proposing is to
put a 8.000 square foot restaurant on this 4.4 acres. We're
proposing a 100 foot buffer of mature foliage. vegetation. and
trees which the applicant is prepared to convey to the Town by way
of a conservation easement so that the area would never be used for
anything other than a complete buffer to buffer the neighborhood.
not only from the Red Lobster Restaurant. but from the noise of the
highway itself. and the Pyramid Mall across the street. I have
read all the Letters to the Editors. as I'm sure you have. and I
have in my portfolio comments from the neighbors which have been
presented to your Board over the past several months as you have
deliberated this project. One comment says. what we don't need are
more empty and decaying commercial areas. What we do need are
affordable housing areas. and this particular writer suggested that
this would make a good site for affordable housing. Another
neighbor suggested that this would be a good site for senior
ci tizens apartments or housing for handicapped people. Your
Planning Staff says that in agreeance with the applicant's response
to the question. the current zoning of the property is not
appropriate based on its location relative to other commercial
zones along Aviation Road. Another neighbor says. if you locate
the Red Lobster there. we'll be robbed of the beautiful pines which
are in abundance on this site. Another neighbor says. if you
remove the only patch of trees that serve as a buffer between us
and a four lane highway. it won't be helpful. Another person says.
the wooded area which buffers our homes from busy Aviation Road is
what we need. Another person says. the property between Old
Aviation Road and Aviation Road would make a very good site for
senior citizens apartments. An entrance and exit to the property
could be made from Old Aviation Road. Well, I have a 79 year old
father and an 83 year old father-in-law. and I can't imagine them
Ii ving in a senior citizens apartment or a complex fronting on
Aviation Road, the busiest highway in the Town of Queensbury. I
can't imagine either. and one of the comments in those articles
said. well. lets make it an affordable housing site. There is no
place for affordable housing. Lets put affordable housing there.
Well. I could imagine the hue and cry from people if all of a
sudden we say. well. you know. people who are less fortunate than
others. lets stick them here on Aviation Road. Lets put them here
where children riding tricycles or bicycles can deal with this.
So. the question really is. is the way the site is zoned now an
appropriate use of the site. I want to stick on here for you a
moment what this site would look like. this 4.4 acre site. if it
was utilized as it's currently zoned. and keeping the people who
live in the neighborhood. keeping their comments in mind. because
these are the people who live closest to it. It wouldn't be the
neighbors who live on the other side of the road who would have to
look at. who would have no buffer and would have to look at the
Pyramid Mall. It wouldn't be the people who live. who are in the
audience. who live up in back in here. It would be the people that
37
"--'
'-'"
everybody wants to stick on this site. It would be the 10 or 12
families, assuming would buy a lot and build a house here. It
would be these people who would have no buffer, who would have no
pri vacy, and I submit to you that the green area would look a
little bit like this, assuming any of it was left, and I don't say
that by way of any threat or anything other than, if someone was
going to come in and clear the site for single family housing, this
is what it might look like, and this is what someone would put
before you as a Town Board and say, gee, would you zone it this
way, or this is what it's zoned for. I presume there would be some
members of this Board who would say, well, this makes no sense.
Why would we ever want to put single family residences here on this
site. What I said at a meeting some time ago was that the way it's
currently zoned doesn't make any sense for either the landowner,
the Town or the neighbors. After this Board looked at this project
as it was originally envisioned, and there were lots of comments in
the audience and by the members of the Board regarding adequate
protection for the neighbors. We went back, the purchase price was
substantially reduced. We took away the other lot that was part of
what the original proposal was involved with, and we came back with
a plan that does two things. It utilizes Aviation Road for what
Aviation Road ought to be utilized for, which is for commercial
development, and it provides the back end with what the back end
ought to be used for, to create a permanent buffer to protect all
the neighbors here. So that it could never be used for anything
but a permanent conservation easement to the Town. We think this
is a fair, appropriate applicable use of this piece of land in the
Town, putting all the rhetoric aside and all the emotion, and all
of the neighbors concerns aside doesn't this more fully protect the
neighbors long term, if they know, from today forward, and from the
time when the Town Board looks at this, that there is now going to
be a permanent heavily treed area which is now deeded to the Town
by way of a conservation easement, and will not ever be utilized or
cut or developed into something other than to protect those people
from the noise and the visual impact of Aviation Road and Pyramid
Mall. None of us in this room can deal with the fact or can
controvert the fact that it's the busiest highway in the Town.
It's the center of the Town. It's the center of the Town's
commercial area. This whole issue about traffic is good and needs
to be addressed, but it's not the real issue. Traffic here is not
the real issue. Traffic on Aviation Road, if Pyramid Hall put a
big store in there that was very successful, slam, more traffic
down Aviation Road. If another store developed down here that was
very successful, slam, more traffic down Aviation Road. The fact
that a Red Lobster Restaurant is located here will have a
negligible, if any, effect on the overall plan of this Town with
respect to this highway. It's zoned this way, and it has to be
dealt with this way. It's the way the Town evolved, and frankly
it's been one of the reasons that the Town has been successful in
it's ability to attract economic development and to have a Town tax
rate that is the envy of most other communities, including where I
live, in Glens Falls. I have here with me tonight some letters
which I'm going to hand up to you, from E W Development, the owners
of Regency Park, from Lou Gagliano of Aviation Hall, from Hr. Al
Boicheck of Hark Plaza, from Ken Noble of Noble True Value, from
Dan Salem of NAPA, from Keith Rowe of ABC Rental, Peter Garvey of
Garvey Volkswagon, Chris Gauthier from Regan and Denny, Tom Ross of
Silverstein and Loftus, Paul Spinnelli from Northway Floors, Wayne
Pelak from EconLodge, and a letter from the Adirondack Regional
Chamber of Commerce suggesting that this is the way this site ought
to be zoned. All these people here are paying a huge sewer tax
burden to the Town. They're concerned that the Town develop it's
remaining commercial property in a way that utilizes their
commercial property to get maximum value to the rest of the people,
these businesses and high tax payers in the Town who have to
support all the other kinds of projects that the Town does. This
Red Lobster Restaurant here will pay approximately $33,000 a year
in sewer rents. It'll pay a property tax to the Town of about
$18,000. It would generate sales taxes of $210,000, and Red
Lobster anticipates that it will produce between 80 and 90 jobs.
38
\..-
,........,/
I checked with the Department of Labor today before I came up here.
We have an unemployment rate in Warren County today of over 10
percent. We can argue about whether they ought to be manufacturing
jobs or they ought to be high tec jobs, and wouldn't it be
wonderful. and I would be the first to vote for that. but absent
that. we have high school children and people in the community who
need work. and we have a company that is a national company
prepared to come in here. make a substantial investment in the
communi ty. and develop a restaurant. I wish that there was a
better way to deal with the site in terms of what it's currently
zoned for. but it's not possible. There isn't anybody in the room.
I don't think. who believes that anybody would in any way be
willing to buy a house in this subdivision. I'd be very surprised.
and I don't think there's anybody who doesn't recognize that this
si te is a site that needs to be split in half. commercial and
residential and protection. and that's what we've attempted to do.
and we think we've done it in a fair way. So. I'd like to. by way
of mY summation, introduce you to the rest of our team who are here
this evening. and would be pleased to take questions from you.
John Goralski. who is with Richard Jones. did our site planning
work. Bob Parent. who's with Red Lobster. Les Broden. who is also
with Red Lobster and would be pleased to answer questions that you
might have. Larry Levine. our traffic consultant. and you may have
some more questions of Larry. We'd be glad to bring Larry back.
We ask you please look at this from a town wide planning
perspective. and what's in the best interest of the three people
you represent as a Town Planning Board. the Town of Queensbury. the
people most directly effected by it. and the applicant who is here
before you tonight. I just want to make one final comment.
Reading these letters to the editor. I realized we live here in
Glens Falls. New York in sort of a conservative. we pride ourselves
on property values and property rights. The letters I read would
suggest that this site should be kept forever wild. It's as though
the landowner doesn't have any rights to development of the land.
It's sort of as though the landowner has this piece of land and
whether he's Charlie Wood or Harry Smith. it doesn't make any
difference. The letters to the editor have all said. we don't want
anything to happen to our pristine site. Well. in a perfect world
that would be terrific. because someone might come up and say.
that's the way it ought to be. but that's not the way it is. The
way it is is that anybody in this room who owns a parcel of land
has the right to develop his property consistent with a plan. and
while I sympathize with the neighbors that it would be great if it
were a forever buffer zone. it can't be. It's not going to be. and
whether it's Mr. Wood or whether five years or ten years from now
this site sits here, it's going to be a problem for this Board.
It's going to be problem for the Town Board, and it needs to be
addressed because the way it sits now doesn't work, and so we're
providing now what we think is an opportunity to fix it in a
reasonable fashion. The only other comment. someone made a comment
about the sign coming in to the entrance to the Town. That's up
here. So, this is owned by the State of New York. So. that's not
going to be effected by anything here, in this little green area
here. I guess, with that, you may have some further questions of
Larry Levine. and I'd like you to introduce Bob Parent from Red
Lobster, and I would like. at the end of this, to sum up, and I
know, Mr. Chairman. we have some people in the audience who would
like to speak on behalf of the applicant. Thank you for your time.
and thank you for listening to me.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay, Board questions for the applicant, or any of his?
MRS. TARANA-I have a question. Did you say that the brown part is
all commercial. and the green is residential, right?
MR. LEMERY-That's correct. Yes.
MRS. TARANA-I'm just wondering. is this map that I have any good,
because it shows, maybe one of you would look at it. What I'm
seeing is residential all along that Aviation Road behind the
39
~
\.../
property. This is what I'm questioning. John. This is the site.
This is all residential here. until you get over to here. and I
don't see any of that on the map.
JOHN GORALSKI
MR. GORALSKI-No, because this is Aviation Road. This line here.
It goes down here.
MRS. TARANA-Right. and here's the Mall. and here's the site.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. This is on the other side of the Northway.
okay. This is the Northway here. So. we start right here. okay.
MRS. TARANA-No. I'm talking on this side of the street.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. What I'm saying is this is the exit right
here. This is Sunoco and the Silo. and the EconoLodge. okay. then
comes our site. right. then comes Warren Tire. Papa Gino's. and
Northgate Center. This is Route 9, okay. This is Northway Plaza.
This is the cemetery. which is the green.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. I see where you're at. Got it.
MR. GORALSKI-Just as a clarification. the actual zoning map of the
Town of Queensbury is a tax map and not that map. This was made
from the tax maps that have been marked by the surveyor.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. Thanks.
MRS. ROWE-May I ask another question, now. and please don't take
offense at this. okay? I have talked to the Director of Habitat
for Humanity. and he has said that there are many residents who
would be very. very willing to live on this site. as long as this
was reversed in this direction. with the cars exiting onto old
Aviation and a buffer zone created on Aviation Road either through
red wood fencing. or again. with trees. I would like to know what
your thoughts are on this.
MR. GORALSKI-The reason we didn't lay it out that way is because
the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulations would not allow
that. There's requirements for distances between intersections
along roads. and the only place on this parcel of property that
meets the required separation distance between intersections is on
Aviation Road itself. You couldn't put a road cut on Old Aviation
Road from this property without coming in to conflict with the
Subdivision Regulations.
MRS. ROWE-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-Obviously the place to enter and exit would be Old
Aviation Road. but you can't do it and meet the Town Subdivision
Regulations.
MRS. ROWE-One other question for you. please. These figures that
you show here. they wouldn't be generated by the Red Lobster on any
other site in the Town of Queensbury?
MR. LEMERY-That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not this
site should be generating revenue that would help all the other
owners ot those businesses who pay substantial tax to the Town.
reduce their sewer tax.
MRS. ROWE-By what portion would this be reducing anyone's sewer
tax?
MR. LEMERY-Well. what is does. ma'am, is it adds another $33.000 a
year in revenues.
MRS. ROWE-But spread across each individual business. what effect
40
'-"
'"'-'"
will it have on the individual businesses?
MR. LEMERY-Well. I don't know about how many pennies in each
individual business. but the only way the residents of the
communi ty. and there are a lot of residents who are paying the
sewer tax. and the businesses. is by increasing the tax base. and
you increase a tax base by bringing more revenue producing
residential and commercial projects to the community.
MRS. ROWE-But that can be done on any site.
MR. LEMERY-Well. I suppose it can be done on certain sites. This
site is a site that commands the kind of revenue that produces this
kind of income because of where it's located. and this kind of
income is what the Town needs over time to be a competi ti ve
community. in terms of attracting businesses. whether it's
Queensbury. Glens Falls. Albany or Saratoga. If you can't have
competi ti ve sewer rates. water rates. and tax base. we can't
attract industry. We're in a huge recession. Our economy is
stagnant. The State of New York is not a very good place to do
business. as we all know. So. if we don't sort of take care of
ourselves this way. we're not going to have an increased tax base.
MRS. ROWE-Well then who's going to be eating in this restaurant.
MR. LEMERY-Well. I hope you and I will.
MRS. ROWE-I won't be.
MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Lemery. are there other people in your group that
have to make a presentation?
MR. LEMERY-I'd like to just introduce Bob Parent. if I might. He's
with Red Lobster.
MR. MACEWAN-I motion that we let these guys go through with their
presentation. Let the neighborhood say their peace. and we'll take
it from there. Let them go through their full presentation.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you.
BOB PARENT
MR. PARENT-Hello. My name is Bob Parent. I'm with General Mills
Restaurants, out of Orlando. Was there a question? Basically.
what you want to know is why we're here, I assume. We've looked at
this Town for three to four years. We have a rather complicated
formula as to what ~ think is the best site for us. and in this
particular market. the site that we're looking at is in fact the
only site that we would consider in this market. Now. we've had a
lot of interest from people in the community that have asked us to
come in. They've been nice enough to call us and offer us other
sites in the community. We've looked at those sites. They're not
good for our use. That's why we're here. I mean. we want to be a
good neighbor. We're not here to cause problems. We felt like
this was probably a viable solution for everybody. but I guess
that's my answer. I think. to your question. I hope. would this
work somewhere else. It might.
MRS. ROWE-Well. just from my own point of view. and this has
nothing to do with the Board. my brother-in-law worked for Red
Lobster. okay. He has nothing but good things to say about Red
Lobster. even to this day. and that should make you feel good, so
it's not a question about Red Lobster. to me. as much as where you
want to locate it.
MR. PARENT-Well. you have to understand that we are in business.
This is a business decision. and that's why we've chosen this
location.
41
"--'
.~
MR. LAPOINT-Are you complete?
MR. PARENT-Yes. I just would like to say that who knows. years
from now. whether another Town Board. or another Planning Board
would look at that buffer. and I think the way the Town Board can
look at this is to put the buffer in place. keep it there. and it
forever protects everybody. with respect to the site. That's our
presentation. Thank you. It's been a long evening. and we
appreciate your forbearance. We do have some people who would
speak on our behalf during the public comment period.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now. again. the way the format is. is that if we
have questions for the applicant. before we open it to anybody
else. we'd like to clear those up now. and then take all the
questions.
MR. RUEL-I have a question. All right. Could you give us some
indication of how extensive your search for other properties was in
the area?
MR. PARENT-The search went on for a period of. like I said before.
probably about three. three and a half years. We had probably
three different individuals here. We've had a number of different
brokers who work with us. who have scoured the territory. We've
had the President of Red Lobster up here. We've gone through our
Market Development Department. Market Development. for us. comes
into an area and determines where the trade area should be located.
where the optimal area is within that trade area. That's what we
have to go by. That's what ~ have to live with. That's what I'm
charged with. That's my responsibility. My responsibility is to
find that location within that optimal area. and again. it's been
an on again off again process. I said about three and a half.
maybe four years. So. it's not something we decided overnight.
We've looked at a lot of areas here.
MR. BREWER-Specifically that piece of property?
MR. PARENT-No. not specifically that piece of property. I think
when we came in here. we determined initially that we wanted to be
and had to be by the Mall. and quite frankly. the reason that it's
taken us so long is that that piece of property wasn't available.
That was where we would really like to have been. We looked at
other alternatives because we wanted to be here. and quite frankly.
we couldn't find anything. We couldn't find anything that was
acceptable to us. that we felt would generate the guest counts that
we need to do here to be successful. This piece of property
affords us that.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. There's no public hearing scheduled for tonight.
but I'd like to ask the Board for maybe a straw vote or poll as to
whether we want to hear from the public before we consider any
motions. Roger?
MR. RUEL-If you feel obligated.
MR. LAPOINT-I don't feel obligated. but my inclination would be to
hear everybody out tonight. but I wanted to make sure that
everybody was open to that. because there is no public hearing
scheduled.
MR. RUEL-Well. it's okay. but it's all one sided. of course.
MRS. TARANA-What was the procedure last time it was brought up?
Was there a public hearing at this point?
MR. LAPOINT-I don't believe there was ever a public hearing. When
Jim was Chairman. we took more or less a straw poll and decided we
would hear. take pUblic comments. and that's what I'm asking again
tonight. I'm inclined to take them. in an orderly fashion. and I
just wanted to make sure that everybody else wanted to do that.
42
~ ~
because we're not scheduled for one. So, put Corinne down as yes.
Craig?
MR. MACEWAN-That's fine.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. LAPOINT-Carol?
MRS. PULVER-My only comment is that as long as Mark is representing
the neighbors, though, that the neighbors get together, and, Mark,
you represent them, so that we don't have to be here four hours
hearing the same thoughts, except if you're not representing some
of the neighbors. Then certainly they can speak.
MR. LAPOINT-Well. we can start with Mr. Schachner.
MR. SCHACHNER-No. actually, we're not going to start with Mr.
Schachner. but I just wanted to indicate that keep in mind that
this is a situation where we represent some of the neighbors, but
not every single one of them. and I just wanted to add that my
recollection, and I'm quite sure this is reflected in the minutes,
is that previously the Board did indicate that they would allow
comments from the public. I don't think anyone other than perhaps
the two attorneys will be very lengthy.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well, then, we'll take some public comments.
Does anybody volunteer to go first?
SANDRA ALLEN
MS. ALLEN-Contrary to Mark's comments, I hope I'm going to be
brief. I just wanted to point out just a few things on the
presentation made before. First of all. I wanted to point out on
this rather lengthy map of Aviation Road, that while it is true
that if this property is re-zoned that in fact there will be
another portion added that would be commercial, however, there will
still be another substantial portion of the property that will be
zoned residential and is used as a viable neighborhood, and you can
drive back there right now. Everybody's decorated for Halloween.
So. don't forget that there's this other strip there, too, that's
going to be adversely effected by the re-zoning. Another related
issue is that Mr. Lemery said that we're going to have a 100 foot
treed buffer just an attorney ese thing. In fact, we're going to
have a 75 foot buffer along the side. It's a 100 foot buffer along
the back. One last thing also is that Mr. Lemery constantly says
that we cannot redesign the property in order to have access off of
Old Aviation Road. However, I'm sure you're all aware that you can
get a waiver from any requirement in the subdivision regulations,
provided that it's necessary, which it could be considered here.
Going back to the main issue, though, basically what we have
tonight is a controversy between an established neighborhood and a
commercial interest. This is what we've been calling in the office
Red Lobster III. We're back to having access both on Greenway
North, which is exactly what I believe the Planning Board looked at
in its initial application and recommended against. The Town Board
then chose not to pursue the re-zoning. primarily, I believe,
because of traffic concerns, and here we are back with the same
entrance situation that we had originally. As you also know. in
Red Lobster II, we had an entrance on and off of Aviation Road
solely, without exits on and off of Greenway North, and the
Department of Transportation found that that was not satisfactory.
So, the applicant is in a situation where. in one sense, the Town
did not find the access satisfactory. In another sense, the
Department of Transportation did not find the access satisfactory.
I submit to you that we propose that that's maybe because this is
not an appropriate project for this site. Just another point that
was brought up in some correspondence, and I didn't hear it
addressed tonight, and maybe Larry knows something more about this.
The applicant requested to the Warren County Planning Board that
43
""-'
--'
the application be considered incomplete. and that's why it was not
on the agenda this month. The reason for that was because they
could not provide the County Planning Board with the Department of
Transportation notes reviewing the new traffic proposal. As far as
I know. I haven't seen a copy of those. and I've asked up until the
last minute from the Town to get a copy. I think that it's fair to
say that the Town has just as much interest in the traffic concerns
as the County does. and the neighbors have a genuine concern about
the traffic. I think it's fair to say all of us who are residents
in the Town of Queensbury are aware of the situation during rush
hour. particularly in the afternoon. from when school lets out
until five or six o'clock. They're proposing that they have left
hand turns on Aviation Road at a point where there's a slope in the
road. a curve around the road. and no light. Another point that
the neighbors have brought up is that. contrary to the applicant's
suggestions. this is not an economic boon. In fact. a lot of the
neighboring businesses. which we submitted a petition from a few of
them tonight, are very concerned that this may take away business
from their established restaurants. It may also take away. as a
result. jobs. and while it may generate tax revenues. it may in
fact take away tax revenues from other restaurants. It also. the
neighbors believe. will have a negative impact on the property
values of the neighboring properties. of the neighboring
residential properties. for two reasons. One is because it'll have
the additional. commercial property adjacent to it. which typically
is considered a detraction from the value of a residential
property. and two because we're going to have additional difficulty
getting in and out of that limited access neighborhood. Anymore
traffic. anymore anything right there just limits any traffic
flowing through that neighborhood. Of course. while this property
may be assessed at a much higher value. might generate more taxes
for the Town of Queensbury. if the property values of the
residential properties adjacent are devalued. then that will
presumably lower the taxes generated from the adjacent
neighborhood. The applicant claims that they can't sell the
property for residential. In fact. there is an existing home on
the property which is being used for residential purposes. as far
as we can tell. In addition. the request for a sales price of
approximately $1.000.000 is unreasonable. I think anybody who's
familiar with the residential real estate market in the Town of
Queensbury is aware that $1.000.000 for four acres is certainly not
a reasonable asking price. Furthermore. this property has always
been zoned residential. as far back as zoning goes. It was
purchased. pieces of it were purchased as far back as the early
1960's. and in fact there were deed restrictions in pieces of it
back in the 1960's. for it to be residentially used only. So. this
should not be a surprise. This should be no surprise that this
property was intended to be used as residential. and one other
point is the property currently is only assessed on the Town of
Queensbury tax rolls at $106.100. which is supposed to be the full
assessed value. certainly far away from the million dollar sales
price. or then the reduced sales price. but no where near $106.000.
So. basically. the question is. in the neighbor's mind. do we give
this one property owner and this one business this substantial
break. while giving a detriment to the remainder of the
neighborhood. Red Lobster would like you to believe that the re-
zoning is only to be used by Red Lobster. but as I'm sure you're
aware. re-zoning for just one owner is illegal. and once this
property's changed to commercial. I think it's hard for anybody to
imagine that the pavement will be pulled out and it will be re-
treed and reverted back to any sort of residential use. As was
pointed out by the Planning Staff. and the neighbors agree. the
multiple family zoning may be a more appropriate use for this
property. I'm not in a position to tell you. aesthetically.
whether one situation is better than another. but I have been told.
and your Planning Staff is certainly very educated in this matter.
that this might be an appropriate place for a multiple family
residential property rather than commercial. Again. on behalf of
the neighbors. I think most of them like and respect Red Lobster as
a restaurant. and they have every right to come to Queensbury. but
44
"--'"
c....../
we just don't see why there should be special allowances made just
for Red Lobster. In particular, we believe the Town of Queensbury
should not allow Red Lobster to coerce it, by saying that this will
be the only place it will come, and they will not come it they
can't come here. I think it sets bad policy for the Planning Board
to back down to something like that. It seems also that we have to
support the dozens of residential established neighbors in this
area, again, rather than taking into consideration, basically, just
one entity, and one property owner, and I think you also need to
look at all the economic impacts throughout the community, and not
just at the impacts that the applicant's presenting. You've got to
look at the fact that this could adversely effect the neighbor's
property and probably will. You've got to look at the fact that it
may take away jobs from other businesses, and it will take away
sales revenue from other businesses, and keep that in balance and
consider all those. Simply, we just really believe this is not the
right site for this project, and we ask again that you recommend
against re-zoning. Thanks.
JOE CARUSONE
MR. CARUSONE-Thank you. My name is Joe Carusone, and I was
Chairman of what was really known as the Town of Queensbury Land
Use Committee, and for a period of about 18 months to two years we
looked at every piece of property in the Town of Queensbury and
made a very valiant effort to re-zone the Town, and I'm not sure 18
months was long enough. At the time we first met, we were supposed
to meet for one year, twelve times, and I think we ultimately ended
up meeting something like 60 or 70 times, and still we were not
able to accomplish everything we wanted to do. When this property
came up for re-zoning, I had been asked to at least comment on what
our Committee did, what our thinking was, and what direction we
wanted to see this property go, and it's been difficult. I've
tried to search my own notes and recall as best I could, and I have
spoken to other members of the Committee to see what their memory
is and what their notes show, to see if we were in agreement, and
generally it would seem to be that at the time we looked at this
property, we recognized that property on the Aviation Road should
probably be zoned commercial, that the Aviation Road was
essentially commercial property and it only made sense that this
would also be that way. However, we were very concerned about the
neighborhood behind this property and how it could be protected.
In our discussions at that time, we were not able to resolve a
buffer zone, and how we could adequately protect the people who
lived in the residential area behind the property in question. The
problem that we had is do we create an extraordinary buffer, and by
extraordinary, I don't mean build a mountain or a 100 foot high
fence, but a buffer zone that was different than the other buffer
zones we proposed for both commercial and residential property in
the zoning and in the Subdivision Regulations, and because we knew
that those buffers, while adequate for other properties, were
probably not adequate for this property, and because we had so much
work to do when we got to that point, we felt it would be
impossible to create a special zone just for this property. I
would be not realistic to create a buffer zone unique to this
property. Frankly, if my memory serves me correctly and the other
members of the Committee seem to agree, we kind of gave up. I
believe at the time it was a 5,000 foot zone, and we changed it to
a 10,000 foot zone. We really did not see how we could solve the
problem, and we moved on to the hundreds, and probably thousands of
other properties in the Town of Queensbury. If I recall, we
probably spent one whole night and probably part of another night
just discussing this property, and we'd be still meeting if we
didn't go on occasionally, and what we finally did is took a vote
and moved on, and went on to other properties, but I just wanted to
clarify how this zone became the SFR-10 that it is now, and what
the thinking of the Committee was.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you, Mr. Carusone. Anyone else?
45
\,."...-'
..........,I
DAVID STRAINER
MR. STRAINER-My name is David Strainer. and my mother lives at 21
Old Aviation Road. Now. as the gentleman just said. they have gone
through and searched. This is the only parcel in the Town of
Queensbury that will. they could put a Red Lobster. I'd like to
ask the gentleman. have you ever been wrong? Has that Committee
ever been wrong?
MR. PARENT-I'm sure we've probably been wrong once in a while.
We're not infallible.
MR. STRAINER-Well. then. this could be the wrong site here. Well
of the 80 to 90 jobs that you're going to be supplying to the
community. how many are full time and how many are part time?\
MR. PARENT-Approximately 50 percent are full.
MR. STRAINER-And what do these part time and full time jobs pay?
Are they in the $8 an hour range. or are they $2.97 an hour jobs?
MR. PARENT-Quite frankly. I can't tell you that. That's whatever
the market requires.
MR. STRAINER-As I sat here and listened to these people. they make
this a sewer district issue. Does this neighborhood have to pay
for the sewer district? Is that what they're telling us? This
neighborhood has to be lost to pay for the sewer district. I mean.
that's the impression I am getting here. What about Twicwood and
Westland and the rest of them? Where's their share? This will
destroy this neighborhood. Don't kid yourselves. and I've been
there for 30 years. I know what that neighborhood means to me.
There's a lot of concerns here. and the traffic is an important
one. I. personally. am in a fire department. and I have driven
emergency vehicles along that road. and it is dangerous. Already
the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad is overburdened. Just
yesterday there was an accident at that very intersection. From
one mile north and one mile south. east. west. anywhere you go from
the intersection of Route 9. they average an accident a day. I
think that's a bit high. I also think it's a bit risky to have
volunteer people driving these emergency vehicles and trying to get
through a place that you know is going to be putting 60 cars
through an hour. both ways, 60 cars. I also know that the Red
Lobster plans on $2.8 million worth of sales. That's 800 meals a
day they're planning on doing out of that restaurant. That's a 10
hour period. That's an awful lot of meals to be putting out of one
little spot like that. considering right now traffic is too heavy
in that area. and if you're going up Aviation Road. or you happen
to get into the right lane. you're on the Northway. You don't get
back on that bridge. because that bridge is too small. There's a
lot of concerns here. but I want to ask you people just one other
thing. Would you want to live next to it?
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
PAUL LEVACK
MR. LEVACK-My name is Paul Levack. I've been a lifelong resident
of the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury. A tax payer
both in the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury. As I
personally evaluate this Red Lobster situation. it seems to involve
four different parties. Number One. the residents of Greenway
North which want the wooded area on Aviation Road to remain so as
to insure the tranquil nature that these trees have provided them.
and that they've enjoyed for many years. I think that this is a
fair and a reasonable request. Number Two. you have Mr. Charles
Wood. who has an opportunity to sell a piece of property in a
commercial area that he owns for $950.000. and he would like to do
so. I believe that this is a fair and a reasonable request.
Number Three, you have Red Lobster. a very reputable. national food
46
..........,
.......,
chain that would like to build a restaurant on a site that they
deem the best suited for their operation. I believe that this is
a fair and a reasonable request, and Number Four, and probably the
most important, you have the total spectrum of the tax payers in
the Town of Queensbury that demand, that demand that the Planning
and Zoning, Town Boards base all of their decisions on fair and
reasonable, fair and reasonable facts. These I believe are the
four key issues. Now what are the facts? Number One, Charlie
Wood, in his concern for the neighborhood of Greenway North, has
scaled down the original proposal to include a forever wild buffer.
This tranquil buffer has cost him $300,000, and I believe that that
is a very fair and reasonable contribution. Number Two, Red
Lobster has agreed to accept the additional cost of beautifying the
buffer zone, which will run into the tens of thousands of dollars,
in addition to injecting capital into our economy, providing jobs,
reducing the tax burden, and increase the sales tax incomes. I
believe that that's a fair and reasonable contribution. Number
Three, you have the Planning and Zoning Board who must, in order to
be fair and reasonable to all tax payers of the Town of Queensbury,
base their decisions on facts, not emotions, not politics, and I
believe if they do that, then they will have contributed a fair and
reasonable situation. Number Four, last but certainly not least,
you have the residents of Greenway North that are effected by this
project. I do not know of anything that they have brought to the
table that is fair and reasonable, in trying to solve this
situation. In closing, I would like to relate just one quick story
about Mr. Woods. Last August, I had an occasion to go up to Hidden
Valley, and it was a hot August day, and Mr. Wood was there with
his coat and his tie on and the perspiration coming down, and he
said he had to get that place ready for the kids, and we all know
what we're talking about at Hidden Valley. He had additional
expenses of $300 and $400,000 put on him up there, and he didn't
care about that. He had to get that place, in his words, I have to
get this place open for the kids. Well, I personally feel that
it's about time that the people, the residents of the Town of
Queensbury, stopped using Charlie Wood as a punching bag, and give
him some of the considerations and the credits that he's so dearly
earned in this community. Thank you.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. Yes?
KATHERINE KELLY
MRS. KELLY-I'm Katherine Kelly. I live on Carlton Drive. We're
not only speaking about Greenway North, Carlton Drive, June Drive,
the whole area. If you try to get out of the street during rush
hour, it's like playing Russian Roulette. You close your eyes and
you go. Otherwise you sit there until noon, and I would like the
Board to consider the neighbors. Thank you.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you.
STEVE SUTTON
MR. SUTTON-I'm Steve Sutton. I own Sutton's Market Place on Route
9, and I'm a resident. We have a very popular establishment, and
we've been voted in the past best place for lunch, and I do a
tremendous amount of business there, and frankly this project
scares me, but I'm for the project, and I've heard the same
sentiment tonight, that it's going to hurt other businesses.
That's the free enterprise system. Competi tion can come and
competition can go. There will be some fallout, but the ones that
do a good job will remain, and I don't think there'll be a negative
impact, as far as some of the points that have been brought up
about other restaurants. I don't think that's a valid argument,
and we have to keep that in perspective. Unfortunately, this issue
is going to keep coming up, whether Red Lobster gets tired of the
argument and moves on or whatever, but maybe they put the cart in
front of the horse or whatever, but there's a zoning issue here and
it's going to have to be faced, whether it's Red Lobster or anybody
47
""-'
.-.,;
else. and I think that's an important point. As one of the other
gentlemen said. they've put a lot of mitigating measures in here to
make this both livable for both parties. I don't see another
project coming down the road that will meet those things, but a lot
of other things get thrown in here. but it is one of the only
pieces on that commercial strip. and it just. I think somewhere
common sense is involved. that it's going to be commercial. and as
the other gentleman said. I wish it wasn't Charlie Wood's property.
I wish it was somebody else's so that element could be taken out.
Unfortunately. that's the way some people are going to look at it.
but I welcome them to come in. and I also. are we voting on this
tonight?
MR. LAPOINT-We're going to possibly vote on a recommendation to the
Town Board.
MR. SUTTON-Okay. Mrs. Rowe. are you going to vote on it?
MRS. ROWE-I haven't decided yet.
MR. SUTTON-Because I do have a problem with that. because it was
obvious. sitting in the audience. that you've done your homework.
You had preconceived notions on this. and I hadn't brought this up
to ~ Board. the Business Association. but I do have a major
problem if you're going to vote on this. and I agree with Mr.
Lemery 100 percent. You should excuse yourself. Thank you.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Schachner.
MR. SCHACHNER-As I think I mentioned earlier. I'm Mark Schachner
from Miller. Mannix. and Pratt. representing the neighbors in
opposition to the proposal. and I think I only want to make seven
short points. First and foremost. I want to make clear the air. if
it needs clearing. as far as our opposition on behalf of our
clients. This is not about Red Lobster. and it's certainly not
about Mr. Wood. From what we know. I myself personally have not
had the privilege of eating at a Red Lobster Restaurant. but I have
not heard anything bad about eating at a Red Lobster Restaurant.
As far as the property owner goes. I think that everyone feels that
the property owner has done a tremendous amount of wonderful things
for this community. Not everyone agrees with every single one of
them. but some of them I think everyone agrees with. and that's
just not an issue. This is not about Red Lobster. and it's not
about the owner of the property. Here's something else this is not
about. This is not about site plan review. This is not about a
use coming before your Board in a parcel that's properly zoned.
seeking site plan review. at which you get into a painstakingly
detailed. thorough. exhaustive. comprehensive review that includes
where things are located. buildings. buffers. trees. plantings.
driveways. traffic. everything else. that includes significant
condi tions. often. if you do approve site plans. and if this
property is re-zoned, my understanding is that in fact, and if this
proposal goes forward and is developed. my understanding is that in
fact you will have that opportunity at the site plan review stage.
but that's not what this is about. This is not about a Red Lobster
Restaurant. It's about a re-zoning. It's not just about any re-
zoning. It's about the most dramatic. Well. let me take that
back. It's about what I guess I would call the second most
dramatic type of re-zoning there could be. In my mind the most
dramatic would be from residential to industrial. and this is not
that. but this is the second most dramatic. It's from residential
to commercial. It's certainly not the type of re-zoning that we
often see in the Town. where the same type of use is re-zoned. for
example. from single family residential to multi family
residential, or from one acre zoning to three acre zoning. Those
are re-zonings. but they're re-zonings of what I call like kind.
meaning the same type of use. but a different zone. This is not
that. This is a very significant zone change. It's a significant
zone change which absolutely must have significant detrimental
impacts on the neighborhood. This particular proposal will have
48
"-'
-./
detrimental impacts on the neighborhood in terms of traffic. noise.
odors. and property values. Now. obviously. some future commercial
uses that may exist at this site will have different detrimental
impacts. For example. if there's something there that's not a
seafood restaurant. it may not have a significant odor impact. You
don't know, but the point is. we're not at the site plan review
stage, focusing on Red Lobster. It's a re-zoning. from residential
to commercial. Both Mr. Lemery and Mr. Levack made some very valid
points. I'm think some of the other speake~s did as well. about
what your focus has to be tonight. Your focus. in making a
recommendation to the Town Board. has to be on the Planning issue.
Is it good planning? Is it bad planning. and I don't want to paint
a black/white picture on that issue. I think this is a tough site.
I don't think that's a big revelation. although I think everyone
else seems to think, one side seems to think. it clearly has got to
be all residential. and one side seems to think. it clearly has got
to be all commercial. I think it's a tough site. but the fact is
that it's always been zoned residential. It was re-zoned in 1988
and although certain people can come forward and try to re-create
the record. or refresh their memories about what was or wasn't
discussed at that time. and I wasn't on that Commission. I can't
get into people's minds. but what I ~ do is I can look things up
and I can read them. and regardless of what the re-zoning
Commission mayor may not have had in the back of it's mind. what
it did was. it zoned the property single family residential. and
what it wrote. in it's official document was, the property was
discussed. This area will be recommended to change to single
family residential to protect the single family uses in this area.
That's what they wrote in their document that they adopted. It's
a tough site. Anyone who pretends otherwise. I think. is pulling
the wool over your eyes. but it's a tough site because there's an
existing residential neighborhood. and it's one whose interest
can't be overlooked. Your Planning Staff comments. and this is
your third set of them. and frankly I have to commend the Planning
Staff. because I think this is the best set of them. Your Planning
Staff has pointed out. I think. without using these words. they've
pointed out that it's a tough site. They've pointed out that there
are competing interests here. some commercial. some residential.
What your Planning Staff has indicated is that there are certain
transi tional types of uses. By the way. they didn't use the
phrase. transitional types of uses. That's my phrase. but what
they said was there are certain types of uses that maybe should be
on this property that would constitute a re-zoning. but not as
intrusive a re-zoning as what is proposed. and I think you have to
give careful consideration to those Planning Staff comments. The
applicant's claim has been well articulated time and time again.
Their claim is that if we don't re-zone this property. we're
depri ving the property owner of any reasonable use. To the
applicant's credit. they gave up on the highest and best use that
they previously mentioned. but they said. you've got to allow a
reasonable use of the property. One of the speakers said. it's not
fair to say it should be kept forever wild. That is absolutely 100
percent correct. You haven't heard us say it should be kept
forever wild. and you're not going to hear us say it should be kept
forever wild. because it's not appropriate. If somebody wants to
make donations to keep things forever wild. more power to them. but
again. the applicant's position is that's not reasonable. and our
position is that's not reasonable. but you did hear the applicant
say. again. and he's been consistent in this. that you have to
afford a reasonable use of the property. What we don't have here
is any efforts whatsoever from the applicant to use the property as
it's zoned. What we also don't have here is the logical follow up
on the applicant's argument. The applicant's argument is. it can't
be used as zoned. What the applicant's counsel has said time and
time again is. it doesn't work. We have a mechanism. under New
York State Law. to address that very situation. That mechanism is
called a variance. That mechanism is the reason that there is a
body called the Zoning Board of Appeals in existence. and if the
applicant wants to follow up on its contention that this property
must be used commercially. in order to get a reasonable return.
49
"--'
-......./
then the applicant has a wonderful argument to make to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, and if it meets that burden,
the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals will grant ita use
variance. Why is that different? What's the difference? Isn't it
going to be a Red Lobster Restaurant anyway? No. That's extremely
different. If it's a use variance that's granted, that does not
change the zoning of the land, meaning, if you look at your
Queensbury map, you don't see on your map little stars in all the
places that have gotten use variances. There's a reason for that.
The variance doesn't change the zoning. It does, however, allow a
use if a property owner can demonstrate that he can't use the
property unless he can use it in that fashion, and that's what the
applicant's pitch is here. It's been that from Day One, and
they're entitled to make that argument, but if that's their
argument, they should be seeking a use variance. From the
standpoint of the neighborhood, the reason that's so important is
because a use variance can be expressly limited to that particular
type of use, and I don't want to mislead anybody. It can't be
limited to that specific applicant, but it can be for that specific
use. The use variance can be for a seafood restaurant, with a
whole slew of conditions attached to it, and you can't get that
specific in a re-zoning. It's illegal to do that. You can attach
certain conditions, but you can't get as specific as in the use
variance context, and out of my seven points, that's the most
important one I think you should consider. Keep in mind, as some
of the applicant's representatives have stated, you have to look at
this as a planning issue, and keep in mind, as we've stated, it's
not Red Lobster specific, and it's certainly not Mr. Wood specific.
The issue is should the property be re-zoned from residential to
commercial. To suggest that the applicant has been cost $350,000
through the reduction in price, I think is almost too silly to
comment on, but I'll just say briefly that I'm planning on hitting
the lottery tomorrow. I'm planning on getting a million dollars
out of that lottery tomorrow, but you know what, if I only hit it
for $100,000, I'll be extremely happy, and I'm not going to think
of myself as having lost $900,000. I think that argument is just
silly. As far as other sites, what the applicant has said today
is, and this is a direct quote. I wrote it down. "We had to be by
the Mall". They're entitled to take that position. There's no
question about it, but if they want to limit it that much, if they
say, look, there's only one site in the world or in the Town that
we can possibly have, or make use of, thàt doesn't entitle them to
do so. We know that there are other sites in the Town of
Queensbury that are properly zoned as commercial, that have been
used previously as restaurants, that are available from voluntary
and willing sellers, at reasonable prices, and that are obviously
not in residential neighborhoods where all this fuss would be
created. We firmly believe that if any of those sites were
selected, this would have been a piece of cake. We wouldn't have
been here month after month, because everyone that I've talked to
says, bring Red Lobster into Queensbury. Amen to it. No problem,
bring them in, but at an appropriate site, and I think those are
the end of my comments. You have to look at this in the big
picture perspective. If the thing is re-zoned, you'll get your
shot at conditioning, in site plan approval or site plan denial,
whatever, you'll get that shot, but right now, that's not what's in
front of you. What's in front of you is a very significant
proposed re-zoning that's really going to prejudice the interests
of an existing residential neighborhood. The last aspect of that
is, I think somebody mentioned this earlier. I'll just highlight
it briefly. Obviously, this is not an applicant where the rug was
pulled out from under him without knowledge. In other words, the
property has always been zoned residential. There are a number of
proposals, viable residential use proposals. Your Planning Staff
has come up with some that we didn't think of, but there are
certainly viable residential proposals. To suggest that the only
way to residentially use that property is through that subdivision,
again, is just grossly illogical and the Planning consultants on
behalf of the applicant I think would even concede there are other
ways to do that. Obviously, we very heartily request that you
50
----
.-...../
recommend denial of the proposed re-zoning.
MRS. PULVER-Mark. I have one question. Talking about going before
the ZBA. do I understand that the neighborhood would support a use
variance on that property?
MR. SCHACHNER-I'm absolutely not taking that position. My position
is not that the neighborhood would support that. I'm not taking
any position on that. The point is that the applicant has said.
here's what we need. and here's why we need it. okay. If that's
what they want to bite off. they can bite that off by going to the
Zoning Board. and they can get exactly what they want. They can
get that site plan. They can get a use variance approved. I mean.
they mayor may not be able to. but they have the ability or the
opportunity to get exactly what they want. There's not one thing
that they've asked for that they couldn't get by gOing to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. getting a use variance, and by coming to
your Board. strictly in a site plan review mode. and then you'd be
able to pick this apart and say. well. the driveway should be moved
10 feet to the north. There should be three more parking places in
the back, and things like that. okay. but the point is. they're
biting off more than they need. We have no idea why. but that's a
fact. They're trying to do something that's going to effect this
neighborhood. because you don't know if Red Lobster's going to be
there or not. You just don't know. Things happen. Who knows
what's going to be there. Once it's zoned commercial. it's zoned
commercial. and it's very unlikely to change back.
MRS. PULVER-But you also know the Planning Board can take the
position to deny something on that property that they didn't feel
would fit in with the neighborhood. which means if it were not a
Red Lobster. and it was a. I don't know. another Blockbuster Video.
I mean, we could deny it. So. I mean. there is that protection
there.
MR. SCHACHNER-There is a level of protection there. There is
definitely a level of protection there. You certainly know that
your ability to do that is very strictly limited to certain
criteria in Section 274A of the Town Law. and you know that you
have to have a darn good reason to do it. and you know that. and
lets face it. statistically. it's very unlikely. What's certainly
very likely is that you would have tremendous input on conditioning
whatever use is proposed there. but the fact remains that they're
biting off more than they need here. and again. why even put the
neighborhood through that? If this proposal's going to fly. let
them try to get exactly what they ask for in front of the
appropriate Board. There's no reason to re-zone it. It's not
necessary. It's more than they need. It's more than they've asked
for. in terms of developing a Red Lobster Restaurant.
MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to take another quick poll of the Board.
here. I'm inclined to cut off the discussion now. because I think
we've got a pretty balanced view from each side. I think to allow
any type of rebuttal would just get us into an argumentative
situation. Does anybody else need to hear anymore discussion? We
can ask some questions. What I see is. if we start gOing back and
forth here. we'll be here until midnight. and then we won't get a
quality type decision out of us. Questions?
MR. BREWER-The first question I have. I would like to know. why did
you bring back the entrance onto Greenway North? That's my first
question.
MR. LEVINE-As you know. the driveway onto Greenway North was in the
original design. for several reasons. There's a signal there.
Number One. The safest. most efficient way. most controlled way.
to get people out onto Aviation Road is through a signalized
intersection. and that's the preferable way. DOT agreed.
independently. because we took off the Greenway North driveway.
submitted it to DOT. and DOT said. this is crazy. You've got a
51
'-'"
'-'
signal within 100 feet of the site. Why aren't you using it. and
DOT is interested in one thing. They want to move as many cars as
they can on Aviation Road. That's their purpose and being. and in
order to increase the capacity. the number of cars that Aviation
Road can handle. they have a policy. that DOT. if there's a signal
near a site. you use it. That's their policy. You can get a lot
of cars out of that signal because it's controlled. The cars know
they have the right-of-way. and they come out. You can get them
out safely. You can get them out quicker. You can get them out
more efficiently than any driveway that is not signal controlled.
So. that's why I wanted the driveway on Greenway North originally.
We've done certain mitigating measures. Number One. we're
controlling the driveway. There will be signing across from the
exit. As you see. the driveway is split now. It's different than
it was originally. It's an entrance only at the driveway closest
to Aviation Road. It's an exit only down below. The reason for
this is it's for people from Aviation Road.
MR. BREWER-Would there be a no right turn onto the exit?
MR. LEVINE-That's correct. There would be a no right turn sign
across from the exit and in front of the exit. So. there's only
going to be left turns out of that exit. I'd be lying to you to
say that people who come from the residences aren't going to make
a right turn. They're going to. and on Aviation Road. there's been
reference made to left turns in and out of the site. Because we
have the use of the signal. there's no reason to have left turns
onto Aviation Road from this site or into this site. There's
plenty of capacity at that signal to handle vehicles from this
si te. in addition to what's there. and for that reason. I'm in
agreement with DOT on this. I've spoken with them in the last two
days. and I've been pushing this all along. I'd rather see a right
turn in. right turn out on Aviation Road. Red Lobster is giving up
a lot not to have that full access onto Aviation Road. but there's
no reason for it when there is a signal that close. and the signal
can handle it. Now. to put into perspective the number of cars
we're talking about here. there may be 100. 110 homes in this
subdi vision that we're speaking of. During the peak hour. on
Greenway North. there are 392 vehicles going out of Greenway North.
Now. that means that there are four cars leaving every house in
that subdivision during the peak hour. or something else is
happening. and I think it's pretty clear that there's a tremendous
cut through movement through the McDonalds onto Old Aviation Road.
Now. we're talking about 28 vehicles with this plan. with the
limited access to Aviation Road. we're talking about 28 vehicles in
the peak hour coming out of Red Lobster. making the left turn on
Old Aviation Road. and leaving. Now. 28 vehicles represents seven
percent of the vehicles coming out of Old Greenway North in the
peak hour situation. It's insignificant. because normal traffic
varies five percent from day to day. What this means is, if the
residents want to regain control of.
MR. BREWER-Could you back up. I'm boggled by traffic studies. You
say 28 cars are going to come out of Red Lobster in an hour?
MR. LEVINE-That's about right. Yes.
MR. BREWER-Out of that one exit?
MR. LEVINE-Out of that one exit. yes.
MR. BREWER-How many do you suppose are going to come out of the
other exit?
MR. LEVINE-I'd have to work it out for you. but it would be
somewhat more than that. because most of the people will be coming
from the Aviation Road area. They're not going to be coming from
the Northway. There will be some from the Northway. but most of
them will be already in the area. During some hours of the day.
people will go specifically to a Red Lobster, but not always.
52
'-"
......,I
MR. BREWER-The only reason I ask that question is I'd like to know
what kind of percentage is going to go out that exit. versus the
other exit? If you're saying 28 cars. I don't know what the
numbers are. as far as.
MR. LEVINE-Well. the total cars in an hour. coming in and out of
this site. is around 60. 60 in. I'm sorry.
MR. BREWER-So. close to 50 percent are going to be using that exit.
MR. LEVINE-Right. Well. that's because we're containing it. We're
forcing them to go out Old Aviation Road. okay. and I think we're
being conservative on that. to go to Old Greenway North. but what
these figures are showing is a tremendous cut through movement.
We're not talking a few cars here. Commuter traffic is zipping
through McDonalds. and I saw it happening. They're zipping through
McDonalds at high speed and zooming through Old Aviation Road to
Greenway North. With the bump. the problem with the bump is. if
you go over it faster than 30 to 40 miles per hour. the suspension
of your car takes it. and you try it and you'll find that out. and
that's the problem with bumps. they don't work. Now, there aren't
four cars leaving every house in that subdivision. during the peak
hour. That's just not happening. So. if the residents want to
reduce the noise and the traffic level and the speeds on their
local streets. Red Lobster is really not going to make a difference
one way or the other. If they want to reduce it by 200 cars in an
hour and improve the signal capacity and so forth at Greenway
North. all you've got to do is close off that back entrance to
McDonalds. I think there's a safety reason for it. I think
there's. for the virtue. you've got cut through traffic coming
through a local street. but it's something for the Board to
consider in the future. I think it's something for McDonalds to
consider. too. It's a liability problem. all the way around. DOT
agreed with me on that. They can't say anything about it. It's
not their concern.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We've covered that. right. to your satisfaction?
Any other questions?
MR. LEVINE-Okay. Can I just clear up a few questions that were
asked. so that we don't have to go through them again.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm going to keep you right on the money.
MR. LEVINE-Okay. That's fine. The first one is. the capacity in
the study. and if you look at it, uses eight seconds for crossing
the road. First. and I think I answered the signal is policy for
DOT. That's why they want it there. ~ want it there. It's safer.
It's better. It's more efficient. The cars will get out of there
faster. every which way. and from the State's point of view. they
can fit more cars on Aviation Road. if everybody uses signals.
Number Two. the incomplete submittal question came up. Why was
this whole thing pulled? That was mY fault. It wasn't really my
fault. but what happened was. in April of 1992. after I had already
completed the traffic study. monies had been coming down to DOT
through the ICETEA. and I talked about ICETEA already. DOT pulled
off all of its Planning Staff. including the people who were
working on reviewing this project. to work on prioritizing projects
for the next five years. one of which is the bridge. So. all the
people who were reviewing this project are gone. As I said
earlier. Mark Kennedy is now reviewing it. with the help of the
older people who were there. He's been in that job five days. So.
what's happened is. in April. they requested of all traffic
engineers submitting studies. that they follow brand new guidelines
for format of those reports. in order to get any kind of review.
because they're understaffed. They sent me a two page document
with 24 listed questions. and I had to rearrange the old traffic
study to fit their format. and to include the capacity analysis in
exactly the tabular format they wanted. That's why I went through
and I redid the whole study and pulled it. because everybody would
53
""-'
........;
be looking at the same thing, and I requested of the developer if
he could do that, and it worked out all ways, I guess, because
that's what happened, and that's why, in redoing it, I will be
getting a response from DOT very fast, within the next week. So,
it's all the same information. It's just in a different format,
and so forth.
MRS. ROWE-Why wasn't the DOT's 1988 traffic study included in your
figures, the most recent one they did, showing the critical periods
on the road?
MR. LEVINE-No. It's not the most recent one. The most recent one
was for the Mall expansion. The Mall expansion study was a very
complete study that was reviewed by DOT. DOT has just done counts
in 1990-1991, and 1992, some counts, because of the bridge project.
Those are the numbers that I used, and that is the study that I
used. the most current.
MRS. ROWE-These. DPW did counts July 4th. the weekend after July
4th. I don't see those figures reflected in here either.
MR. LEVINE-Well, the figures that I have are the most recent that
I could get, that were in a complete format, and that could be
used.
MRS. ROWE-Another question I have for you. This shows 17 accidents
in your traffic study. Where are the rest of the accidents.
because these are only the reportable accidents over $2,000 for
that intersection. Where are the rest of the accidents that take
place?
MR. LEVINE-The rest of the accidents are not reported in the DOT
format. to be able to analyze. The reason that you use the 17 is
that it's what you've got. and what you can use. and you can still
get percentages to get patterns of accidents. What's happening at
this intersection is. the pattern is. there is no specific pattern.
The pattern reflects the cut through traffic. That's what's
happening. There are a lot of accidents out there that are
happening because of cut through traffic. There's no reason for
these people to be coming from Aviation Mall and coming across to
Greenway North, not 100 in an hour. Is everyone in that
subdivision shopping at the mall in the same hour and leaving the
same hour? It doesn't make sense.
MRS. ROWE-The studies I looked at don't reflect 100 coming across
that intersection. That's why I'm questioning your counts.
MR. LEVINE-72, but if you want reduce accidents at that
intersection. close off McDonalds. Stop the cut through, and
you'll slow down the accident rate. Whether Red Lobster goes in or
not, it's not going to effect things one way or the other. It's so
few vehicles. but if you want to reduce accidents. and the
likelihood of accidents, if you want to get people off of there who
are in a hurry and so forth. that's the way to do it. That's it.
I'm done.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Here's my poll. one more time. for the Board.
If you've got questions on new and substantive issues that get to
points. feel free to ask, but I think what we're doing is we're
just going to start creating the argument situation in the
audience. Do we have enough so that somebody's willing to make a
motion and move out on this, before we turn this into a free for
all?
MRS. PULVER-Well. I think we should give the applicant just one
chance to say anything that he wants to say.
MR. LAPOINT-And that gives him the closing. See. I think we've had
a nice balanced discussion here.
54
,,-.
.....,;
MRS. TARANA-I have a question. You may consider it old turf, but
Mark brought it up. He said that a variance could have been
applied for, and I'd like to have Mr. Lemery respond to that. Why
did you not go for a use variance on this property?
JON LAFPER
MR. LAPPER-I'm Jon Lapper, from Lemery and Reid. Quite simply, our
argument is not that there's an economic hardship here, as Mark
said. The standard for a use variance is that there's an economic
hardship, and that's not the case. We're not saying that you can't
put one single family house here and get some value out of the
property. What we're saying, very simply, when you look at the
zoning map, is that it's not an appropriate zone. It's not
appropriate to put residential there because it's the commercial
center of the Town, and that this is legitimately a legislative
decision for the Town Board to make, with the Planning Board's
input, recommendation, but that it's appropriate that it be
commercial. As Joe Carusone said, that that land, you look at the
land, reasonable people, objective people, should say that that
should be commercial, because it's across the street from the Mall,
next to the EconoLodge, the Silo, that's the commercial area,
Warren Tire, coming down on the major arterial. We're not making
an argument for a use variance that there's any kind of a hardship
here. We're just saying that this is the right way to zone it.
Residents, when we're saying that, looking at the map with the 14
houses, that someone wouldn't want to live there. We're not, it's
just not appropriate. It's not right that it should be residences.
It ought to be commercial, and when I listen to Mark, and the
neighbors, they're responding as if we never went back to the
drawing board, made a significant change. It's like they're
ignoring the fact that we put in a 100 foot buffer along Old
Aviation Road and 75 feet along the residences on Birch Lane.
That, to us, not even talking about the money, but just in terms of
cutting down the development possibility of the site, saying that
we're going to put an 8,000 square foot building on the site that
could support a 54,000 square foot commercial structure under the
Zoning Ordinance if it were all commercial. What we're doing, I
mean, we feel that we've really compromised, that they've already
won. That we've changed this so drastically that they're
protected, that the buffer's there, that it's protected, and
because of that people reasonably objectively, should recognize
that we did something right, that we've compromised, and I don't
hear that, but it's not appropriate be a zoning variance. This is
a legislative decision.
MRS. TARANA-Okay. I agree with that, but could I ask, then, why
you didn't ask for re-zoning before now, when the Master Plan was
done?
MR. LAPPER-Quite frankly, Mr. Wood has so many things going on, it
wasn't a priority at that point. I mean, he could respond if
there's anything else, but this has come up, now's the time to
focus on this land. He owns a number of parcels of land. It just
wasn't an issue.
MRS. TARANA-I do want to ask, can you tell us specifically why,
what other sites you looked at, why they are no good? I mean, I
thought Queensbury was full of good commercial property, and I'm
wondering what's so bad about it now, for the Red Lobster?
MR. LAPPER-Not to avoid the question, but our whole focus is that
if you, what Mark was saying, that this is a question of what's the
proper zoning, that that is the question, and just looking at that
si te, that ought to be commercial, whether it's Red Lobster or
anybody else. That should be a commercial site. Red Lobster
obviousl y loves that site because it's next to the Interstate.
People get off the highway, they're going to see it. It's visible.
It's across the street from the Mall, so the people that are
already there are going to eat at this restaurant. It's a good
55
~
-.I
commercial site. rather than being buried somewhere off Route 9.
That's why they like it, but for us, we're just saying that it
ought to be commercial.
MRS. PULVER-May I ask just one more question? Mark. you implied
that property values will go down. Do you have any documentation
or study that shows that if you have a restaurant in a
neighborhood. that property values do. in fact. go down. expert
testimony. something?
MR. SCHACHNER-I think the short answer is. no. I don't have a
specific document. We did consult with a real estate appraiser.
and not to our surprise. certainly. and I don't think to anyone
else's surprise. we were informed by a qualified real estate
appraiser that obviously a commercial use in close proximity to a
residential use decreases the property values for the residential
use. We do not have the means to commission an actually formal
appraisal of. and I'm not sure what we'd appraise. In other words.
there are dozens of homes there that could be appraised. and we
certainly didn't have the means to go and get formal appraisals for
each of them. I don't think anyone will take the position. maybe
I'm wrong. a different position. The notion is that the commercial
property does decrease the residential property value. How much.
we could argue about day and night and all that. but that's our
answer.
MRS. PULVER-Well. it's just that. as a Board. we always are hearing
that. that everyone's property values somehow are going down. by
everything we do. but we never see any proof or any documentation
that supports it. so that we would really have something in black
and white.
MR. SCHACHNER-Well. by the same token. you don't see any proof on
the flip side. not withstanding Mr. Lapper's comments, which.
although I don't disagree with some of his thoughts. he seems to
have throw, at least to me. a curve ball. in that I know I heard
the applicant's other representatives indicate a dozen times that
this was the reasonable use and getting some reasonable economic
return on the investment. and you don't see hard dollars and cents
proof of that either. and I'm not suggesting you need to. by the
way. Frankly. Mrs. Pulver. the shortest answer to your question is
that. the hard proof that you seek. is exactly what a ZBA. and your
ZBA. requires in the variance context. It's exactly what they
require. and you don't require that. I don't mean that you should
either. I mean. the law of the State of New York requires dollars
and cents proof to the ZBA and it doesn't require that to the
Planning Board. So. yes. you're right. I don't have an actual
appraisal to show you. and I admit it. By the same token. the
applicant certainly can't show that they're going to suffer
tremendously in terms of their carrying costs and their purchase
price and all that. and Mr. Lapper' s statement is. he actually
admitted that. He actually said. yes. you could get a reasonable
return on the property. Am I answering the questionl
MRS. PULVER-Well. yes. but I guess I'm not concerned with the
applicant. I'm concerned with the neighborhood and not with the
applicant's economics. I'm concerned with the applicant being able
to use his property one way or the other. not with how much money
he's going to make which ever way he ends up using it. but what
would be the best way for him to end up using it.
MR. SCHACHNER-In the Planninq sense?
MRS. PULVER-In the Planninq sense. yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-Agreed.
MRS. PULVER-But I'm concerned with the neighborhood. that if it
gets changed and the zoning gets changed. that they somehow are
going to be protected. So. as far as the applicant. I'm not
56
"'-"
"-""
concerned about his economics.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I mean, we did talk to a qualified appraiser
who definitely affirmed that position, but I do not have an actual
appraisal of numerous houses. Are we now going into open forum?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes. One closing comment from the applicant.
MR. SCHACHNER-And then one from us?
MR. LAPOINT-Yes.
MR. LEMERY-Thanks. I'll just leave you with one final thought.
Mark Schachner made a very good point when he said earlier, this
should not be all commercial, and we're not suggesting that it's
all commercial, and I can't imagine that there's anybody that sits
on that Planning Board that thinks it ought to be residential.
Just to leave you with this thought, the amount of the buffer is
two acres. This is a 4.4 acre site. The buffer is two acres, and
the commercial use is 2.4 acres. So, what we've tried to do is
split the site right in half, develop the front half for commercial
purposes, which is where it belongs, fronting on Aviation Road, and
the back half, two acres, forever green, and dedicated to the Town
of Queensbury with a conservation easement. That seems to me to be
a real good plan that takes care of this site for the future, and
by providing a conservation easement which says, this will be
dedicated to the Town. It will never be used for commercial
purposes. The citizens here have won a major battle and they can
look forward to the use of their property with a forever wild green
area of two acres separating them from the Red Lobster Restaurant,
Aviation Road, and Pyramid Mall. Now, if that's not a reasonable,
appropriate, fair use for everybody, there isn't one for the site,
ladies and gentlemen, and this will be back before this Town Board.
If it's not Charlie Wood, it's the next owner, or the next owner.
It'll never end until we face the issue like we're trying to face
it here, because there isn't a person in this room who would,
thinking about it objectively, would think that this could be used
to support residences, whether old folks homes or modest affordable
housing or anything else, not on the front piece, not fronting on
Aviation Road. Thanks for you time. I know it's been a long
evening.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you.
MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, a little bit quicker. It's certainly
empirically not true, not withstanding what the applicant's counsel
says about all of our mind sets. It's not true. There ~ people
in this room who can objectively, rationally suggest that there are
other uses of this property, and to suggest that that's the only
way it can be developed that will achieve a buffer is just folly.
It can be done as any number of different residential projects,
including affordable housing, habitat for humanity, and any number
of other things. In some instances, the buffer would be different.
In some instances the buffer would be right along Aviation Road,
because the existing neighborhood doesn't feel like it needs a
buffer from other residences, and lastly, as we look out there
today, the buffer is shrinking, not because of anything the
applicant's done, but because of Mother Nature. The leaves fall.
The buffer shrinks. There's certain limitations. There's only so
much you can do here, and to suggest that this is the only way to
go, if it's a home run, that's the only way to protect the
neighborhood is just folly. Is it ª way to protect it in some
people's mind? Yes, sure it's ª way to protect it in some people's
minds, but it sure isn't the only way.
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-If making this piece of property into a
commercial site reduces the property owner's value, what has the
property owner suffered by having a gas station, a motel, two
restaurants, a Pearle Vision Center, all along the same strip of
land? Could you answer me that question? What has the property,
57
~
-....,/
for the property owners, the residential owners, how has that
decreased, and will it decrease more for one more piece of
commercial property? I'd like to know.
MRS. ROWE-Have you compared the property value with other
neighborhoods?
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-No. That's the same neighborhood. I just
would like to know how much has your property been devalued by
having the rest of the existing commercial property there? Can you
tell me that?
MR. BREWER-We have no way to tell that.
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-But you do have a way of telling how much it
will go down, the property will go down?
MR. BREWER-No.
LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-That's all I wanted to know.
MR. BREWER-There's no honest way to tell exactly how much or how
little it will go up or down.
GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-Is Mrs. Rowe going to vote?
MR. LAPOINT-We don't know.
GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-Well, at some point in time, isn't the
conflict of interest, in light of the new Ethics Law in the Town of
Queensbury going to be addressed here?
MR. LAPOINT-We've tried.
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, insofaras the ethics law, I don't believe
that's the applicable concern here. I think that the concerns that
were previously raised were whether or not a court could find a
potential for a conflict of interest, and a court would in fact
evaluate the objectivity of the members of the Board, together with
the proximity of the individual's home or whatever, or businesses
to the site. So, I think what we're talking about here is a
factual determination that a court would make, looking at the
facts. It's not something that's black and white, unfortunately.
There's no law, if you go through the law, you're not going to find
a law that says she can't sit on the Board and make the decision.
The other thing I'd like to point out, too, that should be
considered, is that fact that this Board is making a
recommendation. That recommendation is non-binding on the Town
Board. It's meant to assist the Town Board in their
considerations, but the Town Board will take this up fresh on their
own, when the time comes. So, the last point I'd just like to make
is one of the things, I've been listening to what has been said
here, in terms of ethics and sitting on the Board and everything,
and I will say one of the things that I found quite important that
I heard was the fact that Mrs. Rowe has said that she will be
objective. She also indicated that she would reserve her right to
make a decision as to whether to vote until the time comes. So, I
think, for my two cents worth, I don't know that I see an obvious
conflict here. It I did, I would say definitely we ought to talk
about it, but I don't see an obvious one. I think it's something
that's up to Mrs. Rowe to evaluate herself.
MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. Okay. Is anybody willing to make a motion,
one way or the other, on this project?
MRS. PULVER-I've thought about this. I've thought about it a lot.
I've sat through a lot of these eleven o'clock meetings. I tried
myself to convince myself this was a whole new application tonight,
and tried to be fair and reasonable, as somebody said. I do
58
"-
~
believe that this piece of property has to be re-zoned. and the
issue is going to have to be faced one way or the other. I'm just
fortunate tonight that it will be left up to the Town Board. that
we are only advisory. We will only make a recommendation. The
final decision to re-zone and what they're going to re-zone it to
will be up to them.
MOTIO. TO RBCOHHBRD TO TUB TOWR BOARD APPROVAL OF PBTITIOR FOR A
CUARGB OF 10RB P3-92 CHARLBS R. WOOD. Introduced by Carol Pulver
who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwanz
For commercial to allow a restaurant.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October. 1992. by the following votez
MRS. TARANA-Can I ask a question? Is the motion. then. is the
application to re-zone to commercial for construction of a Red
Lobster Restaurant?
MRS. PULVER-No. I would make the recommendation to re-zone for
commercial for a restaurant. We cannot. as Mr. Schachner has
pointed out. and I have discussed with the Town Attorney. we cannot
specifically re-zone this property for a Red Lobster. but we can
recommend to re-zone for commercial to allow a restaurant to be put
on the property. and Highway Commercial would allow a restaurant to
be placed on the property.
MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Could you re-phrase that and get the word
"restaurant" in it this time?
MRS. TARANA-I'm voting no, and I'd like to tell you why. quickly.
I think it should be re-zoned. I don't think there's any question
of that. Maybe there is a question of that. but I think it could
be re-zoned to a zone. perhaps even a transition zone made which
would create perhaps a professional office building. something of
that nature. which would not be so offensive to the neighbors.
AYESz Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint
NOESz Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer. Mrs. Rowe
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Edward LaPoint. Acting Chairman
59