10-16-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2012
INDEX
Site Plan No. 48-2008 NPA II, LLC 1.
EXTENSION REQUEST Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47
Subdivision No. 12-2012 LARIC Development 2.
LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No. 308.12-1-1, 3 & 7.1
Site Plan No. 48-2012 Steve Kitchen 11.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Site Plan No. 42-2012 Daniel & Ellen Nichols 12.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18, 19
Subdivision No. 7-2012 Tra-Tom Development 18.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 290.-1-2.22
Site Plan No. 49-2012 Royal Hospitality 22.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-5.2
Subdivision No. 8-2005 Mountain Hollow H.O.A. 30.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 300.-1-19
Special Use Permit No. 63-2012 Glens Falls Animal Hospital 38.
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-14.1, 16, 17.1
Site Plan No. 64-2012 McDonald's USA, LLC 49.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-74
Site Plan No. 65-2012 Capital District Properties, LLC, 58.
D/B/A Dunham's Bay Resort
Tax Map No. 252-1-75.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
STEPHEN TRAVER
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
DONALD SIPP
BRAD MAGOWAN
THOMAS FORD
GEORGE FERONE (FILLED IN FOR C. HUNSINGER WHO CAME IN LATE TO MEETING)
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. TRAVER-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board meeting of Tuesday, October 16, 2012. My name is Stephen Traver. I'm
actually the Vice Chairman. I'm going to be briefly filling in for Mr. Hunsinger, our Chairman
who's just running a few minutes late tonight and asked me to get started on the agenda. There
is information on a table in the back of the room regarding public hearing and also a copy of our
agenda. You might find some of that information helpful, and to begin with we have a few
administrative items and we'll start with approval of minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 21, 2012
August 28, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF
AUGUST 21, 2012 & AUGUST 28, 2012, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Next we have Site Plan 48-2008.
SITE PLAN 48-2008 NPA II, LLC: a. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 3RD ONE YEAR
EXTENSION.
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-There is a letter that you received in your packet. Hopefully members were able
to review that. It appears that their project is hopefully going to be moving forward in the next
year, but they do need that extension because the current approvals expire on October 20, and,
Mr. Oborne, do you have anything you wanted to add?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I want to add that I'm recommending that this be a two year approval at this
point in time and not a one year approval. So I don't have to deal with the paperwork a year
from now.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So a two year approval would be appreciated.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-So out to 2014 if at all possible.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Out to 2014. Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant who wants
to discuss that suggestion?
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. I think my letter explains it. The lender has taken
over. It's being heavily marketed. There are some good sized development companies that are
interested in it and the value of the approvals is an important part of having that center re-
developed and re-tenanted. So I'm encouraged and Omni in Albany is a very professional firm
that's managing it now and they've got some real interests.
MR. TRAVER-I assume you have no problem with a two year versus a one year?
MR. LAPPER-I would have less paperwork. Hopefully something will happen before that, but I
appreciate Staff recommending that.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any questions or comments from Board members on the Planning Board?
If not.
RESOLUTION RE: SP #48-2008 NPA, 11, LLC FOR TWO YEAR EXTENSION
Site Plan 48-2008 NPA 11 received approval on October 20, 2009, the approval is good for one
year to October 20, 2010. On September 28, 2010 the applicant was granted the 1 st one year
extension to October 20, 2011. On October 18, 2011 the applicant was granted a 2nd one year
extension to October 16, 2012.
The applicant's agent is requesting a 3rd one year extension to October 20, 2012 (see letter
dated 9/11/12);
MOTION TO APPROVE A TWO YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 48-2008 NPA II,
LLC, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone:
Duly adopted this 16t" day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody.
SUBDIVISION 5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT a. DISCUSSION REGARDING WAIVER
REQUESTS; b. REQUEST BY PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES
OF SEAR REVIEW
STEFANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TRAVER-Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, for the record, here with Tom Center. As this
Board's familiar, LARIC Development is proposing a 36 lot subdivision which is immediately
adjacent and a continuation of the Burnt Hills subdivision. As you're aware, the way in which the
project is being presented, the lot sizes are going to range from one acre to 2.52 acres in size,
averaging 1.73 acres, which results in the need to seek the variance. The submission materials
that we presented, understand we have to go to the Area Variance before we go to Preliminary
subdivision. So obviously due to the fact that we might not obtain those Area Variances, we
were hoping not to incur a lot of those fees associated with some of those planning materials.
So that we could do that when we're ready for Preliminary. So they weren't necessarily waivers.
They were just at this time they're not ready for submission but will be at the time of Preliminary.
MR. TRAVER-I see. Okay. So we're almost at a kind of sketch plan type situation.
MS. BITTER-Right. Exactly.
MR. TRAVER-But with regards to the potential for these waivers that you're looking at.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would add that I would ask the Board to consider what the protocols
that we're dealing with at this point in time. We're talking about seeking Lead Agency right now,
which isn't a huge issue in itself. However, once you get to the Preliminary Stage, they're going
to have to have a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and with that you are going
to have to accomplish SEAR, and it is Staff's position that without these requirements of the
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
application, it's going to be difficult for the Board to get through SEAR. So that's Staff's position
at this point in time. Obviously it's up to the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Well, however, we're limited by the information we need in order to
conduct SEAR. So it is and it isn't, right?
MR. OBORNE-Right. Well, one of the issues that you're dealing with is a time clock. You have
a time clock once you seek, and that's a 30 day time clock. That in itself is not a big deal, but if
you do deem the application incomplete, you really can't go forward with Preliminary.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I would suggest, and I would also add that if you deem the application
incomplete at this point, not to seek either.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So that's a discussion for the Board.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and from the Planning Department perspective and from your analysis of
what you've received so far, what are the significant items relating to SEAR that you feel are yet
to be submitted?
MR. OBORNE-Well, pretty much all the waiver requests.
MS. BITTER-Are those items, I don't know if you had a chance to look at the items that we're
talking about, metes and bounds, landscaping, erosion and sediment, grading, limits of clearing,
stormwater and lighting, understanding that DKC, is that accurate, LARIC and the immediately
adjacent subdivision was DKC and obviously Burnt Hills was recently developed. So you're
familiar with the area. It's not as if this is a new found ground that this is not on the side of a
mountain. So that's why we're looking at these items as being a unique situation that stepping
forward would not be out of bounds.
MR. TRAVER-Sure. Well, I mean, certainly the, and I'm interested, obviously, in what other
members of the Board say, but certainly when we talk about stormwater obviously we're getting
into the environmental issues, and so if that's incomplete, you know, it would be difficult.
MR. CENTER-We do understand that all the lots adjacent to this, the stormwater is relatively
going to be the same no matter what we do on this parcel. Because of the size of this parcel,
it's, on the applicant's part, it's a rather large expense that he would need to foot out before he
can find out whether or not he can go to the one acre or less than two acre lots that he's
proposed, being that, you know, needing to go forward you will, during Preliminary, have that
opportunity to see it. We're not asking for a waiver to get to Preliminary. What we're asking for
is the waiver to get us into the Area Variance so that we can determine whether we can get the
less than two acre lots, and then that work then proceeds forward. SEAR wise, it's not much
different than any of the development around there. Wing swales, dry wells, but the actual
layout is a costly sum for the applicant, and if he doesn't get, you know, the variance or
something worked out with the Zoning Board, you know, moving forward will be very difficult or a
different arrangement, again, another expense incurred. So SEAR wise, environmental wise,
the stormwater will be the same type of, but not arrangement of, if you understand what I'm
saying. If the roads change, those things.
MR. TRAVER-Well, I understand your point of view. I guess I'm interested in feelings of other
Board members. We clearly have, I mean, you can see the, I think the intent and the position of
the applicant. On the other hand, we do have engineering and therefore some environmental
information absent. How comfortable do people feel about?
MR. KREBS-But at the same time, I understand what Tom's saying because you're asking this
applicant to invest a huge amount of money in creating all the engineering work that's required
to talk about stormwater, and what he's really asking today is will you accept a 1.73 average lot
versus the two acre zoning, when the average lot in the area is significantly smaller than 1.73
acres.
MR. CENTER-I'm sorry to interrupt, but engineering wise this would be similar to some of the
subdivisions where we have, we've done it on Route 149 where we've come back before the
Board when the individual lot was developed. We've gotten through SEAR on some of those,
and then come back when the actual lot was developed. We've kind of done this before, albeit
smaller projects, things like that, but here we kind of know the areas that we're developing. We
know the soils, as far as erosion and sediment control, stormwater management, and all that.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
We have a very good understanding. It's been looked at several times. SEQR's been approved
several times for various projects on this lot because we are bringing part of it into this, part of
this project was one of the DKC parcels, and I believe the Light Industrial might have had a
subdivision at one time also. So that SEAR has been looked at before, once before. So this is
just a different arrangement in a different manner, where, expense wise, we're just asking to put
off that work to get to there, but we have done SEAR before on most of the parcel.
MR. TRAVER-Again, I understand your position. I understand where you're coming from and I
hear what you're saying, Don, but on the other hand I would say we're not asking them to spend
any money, Number One, and Number Two, we can't approve the 1.7 acres anyway.
MR. KREBS-No, right.
MR. TRAVER-Other comments?
MR. FORD-I have difficulty approaching SEAR when we don't have the information that is
required in order to answer the questions.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 would like to do this, in a sense, to give them the opportunity and see if he
can go with the acreage size, you know, and the easiest way so trying to keep costs down, you
know, make it a little bit more builder friendly sometimes, but, you know, I'd like to see what we
could do so we could at least see if he can get approved for that before he (lost word).
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, one of my observations was in a way it's kind of like a sketch plan. I
mean, we can certainly, I think, give them feedback with regard to lot size. I don't know, would
that be helpful? Assuming that we could not go forward with, if we didn't feel comfortable going
forward with SEAR tonight, can we give you some feedback on?
MR. OBORNE-Let me clarify. You're not going to be making the determination tonight. The
only thing that's going on tonight is seeking Lead Agency.
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. OBORNE-1 just want to make sure that you're aware of that, and I apologize.
MR. TRAVER-Okay, and we do that and that's what triggers the clock running?
MR. OBORNE-That starts the 30 day clock.
MR. FORD-And I was looking at SEAR down the road, not tonight anyway.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-Right. That's what I'm thinking. Like they said, we really have nothing to
answer all the questions with.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. MAGOWAN-So I want to see how, you know, we become the Lead Agency, does that give
them the opportunity to move forward?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they still have to come back to you for a recommendation.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Now what I'm asking the Board is are they comfortable with seeking Lead
Agency without a complete application? That's really what it comes down to tonight.
MS. BITTER-They do have a complete EAF.
MR. OBORNE-Complete EAF?
MS. BITTER-They have a Long Form.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Well, again we still have members we haven't heard from. Don, I'm hearing it
sounds like you would like to start the clock running.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. FERONE-What's the jeopardy if we didn't do this, I guess?
MR. TRAVER-Well, we're compelled to move forward with the application before the, and how
many days?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it's 30 days. If you don't hear back from the agencies that are involved,
then it's an automatic. You are the Lead Agency, and then from that point they have to get a
complete application in. That's Staff's position. That is the Department of Community
Development's position at this point in time. Typically, they're requesting waivers, and this is not
normal. This is not something we usually do, but, you know, it's not against the law or anything
at this point in time, you know, they're seeking waivers, and the Planning Board has to be
comfortable moving forward with the project, with the knowledge that this application is not
complete.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I mean, I can certainly, again, I understand where the applicant is coming
from. I just generally don't think it's a good precedent, if you will. I know we're not an
adjudicative body. So technically we're not establishing a precedent, but we are establishing a
practice, and as much as I sympathize with, you know, wanting to move this project forward,
we've seen this time and again. I mean, many times it seems like any application before us is
an emergency and, you know, we need to move forward on it. I don't know. That's my feeling.
Do we want to poll the Board on how people are feeling, if we are to?
MR. FORD-I don't mind seeking Lead Agency status. However, I would anticipate that there
would be a complete application presented to us.
MR. KREBS-Prior to SEAR.
MR. FORD-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-And that would have to occur in order for us to get the recommendation to go to
the Area Variance?
MR. OBORNE-That's correct.
MR. FORD-Correct.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Because this is a Type I realty subdivision.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MS. BITTER-Can I ask a question to Staff? I mean, tomorrow night it's on the agenda as an
agenda item obviously to receive Lead Agency status.
MR. OBORNE-To acknowledge, yes.
MS. BITTER-Will that present an opportunity where the Zoning Board can discuss the project so
that there are obviously opinions as to what they feel can be discussed?
MR. OBORNE-If they are so moved to do so, yes.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. TRAVER-Other comments? So, am I hearing Board members feeling okay with accepting
Lead Agency status, with the understanding that we're not going to move any further until we
have a completed application?
MR. FORD-That's the way I feel.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-1 would ask that you put that in the resolution when you make it tonight.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Can you make that motion?
MR. KREBS-Sure.
RESOLUTION SEEKING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SUB #5-2012 LARIC DEVEL.
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Variance & Site Plan application for:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52.
Proposal includes interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as
boulevard entrance off of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review
and approval
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be an
Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617,
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury
hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes
and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such
intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies [as identified in EAF]:
Zoning Board of Appeals, NYS Department of Health
MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 5-
2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT LUZERNE ROAD TAX MAP PARCEL 308.12-1-3 AND A
PORTION OF 7.1, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. FORD-Don't we want to elaborate?
MR. TRAVER-Well, all we're doing is requesting Lead Agency.
MR. KREBS-Lead Agency.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think the first thing that you need to do, and we should start again, if we
could, is the first thing you need to do is discuss the motion to approve or disapprove the waiver
requests, okay, and we can move forward with the SEAR, that's fine, and I'm sorry to be so
wishy-washy on this, but continue with the seek and then make sure that we discuss the waiver
requests I guess is what I'm saying.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-You're doing fine. I apologize.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So we have the, in addition to the process of seeking Lead Agency status,
they have various waiver requests that they have made. We, again, get into the, because of
those waivers, that may have an impact on SEAR. So, how do we feel about that?
MR. KREBS-But the major point here is are we going to accept a 1.73 average acre lot or are
we not?
MR. OBORNE-That's not your call.
MR. KREBS-No, it's not our call, but we're going to recommend that it go forth to, because the
key is here the Zoning Board has to make a decision on that, and if you go through SEAR and
all the other processes, and the Zoning Board does not approve a 1.73 average lot, it's a zero.
MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. They could table and revise. We don't know how the process is
going to go.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-At this point in time, what I ask the Board to do right now is continue on with
seeking Lead Agency status and let's get that resolution out of the way. Because we're all on
board that we want to seek Lead Agency.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, that's what I'm hearing from folks, and we have a motion on the floor.
MR. FORD-I'll second it.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. Any further discussion on the issue of seeking Lead Agency? Okay. May
we have the vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Now you're dealing with the waiver requests.
MR. TRAVER-Right. So, would you like to discuss the waiver requests and your reasoning for
them. I know you've covered this to some degree.
MR. CENTER-Well, from an engineering perspective and looking at the layout, the applicant is
proposing the smaller than required lots, and the format that was provided, and knowing that the
stormwater, the erosion and sediment control, is all manageable, it's not an issue where we
have a mountainside where we have wetlands, where we have any major environmental
concerns, it's in a well-known developed area. It's a large parcel that's been developed all the
way around it. We've done multiple projects. We know we can get a compliant stormwater. We
know we can get a compliant erosion control, but to get to the point of developing the
engineering to go to the level that you're looking for prior to Preliminary without knowing if we
can get the approval of the smaller than required lots is a major expense or undertaking of the
applicant to do that when it may be zero that he's given, no, it's two acre lots, it has to be two
acre lots, which, again, is another expense of completely re-doing the design from start to finish.
Before we even get there, what we're asking, that work is going to be done. We know we can
develop this lot. We know we can do the stormwater. We know what kind of soils we have. We
know the environmental concerns aren't there. We're not developing around wetlands,
shorelines, waterfront, anything like that. Again, this parcel's been looked at. Everything around
it's been looked at through DEC, through the SHPO process. We found that out while we were
doing DKC. We went through and said the whole thing. We know prior to doing this we had
DEC come out and we did some mitigation area for the lupine. We did that on the previous
project where, you know, we knew we were connective. We gave her additional space knowing
that this project was coming up. We worked ahead with the DEC. To that, we provided that
management area in Burnt Hills and the connector. We've been working with the boulevard, the
connector road that this project has. That's going to be a major issue. So we know, you know,
we have other issues that are going to be discussed. As far as SEAR and environmental
concerns, we know a lot. You folks on the Board have dealt with a lot of the parcels that are
around there. You know, this Board in its entirety has. So, you know, what we're asking is a
partial waiver to get to the Area Variance and go before the Zoning Board and let them tell us
what they will accept and then come back and deal with all those issues. It's not like we're not
going to deal with those issues. We have Preliminary. We have Final. We have, you know, a
couple of more times. There's nothing in here that should surprise us as far as environmental is
concerned because we have looked at this parcel so many times. So that's why this parcel is
unique in that way. It is something that's been looked at many times.
MR. FORD-And the rationale for not maintaining a two acre lot?
MR. CENTER-Is the neighborhood, the neighborhood around it. As it was stated in here, the
neighborhood vicinity are all, these would be larger than those, but they'll be less than two
acres, and with the neighborhood and that's what the applicant is seeking, that he believes fits in
with the neighborhood is more compatible with the neighborhood.
MR. TRAVER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-Which, again, goes before the Zoning Board and we have to present that case to
them.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So it's somewhat unusual in that you're asking for a recommendation to
take to the Zoning Board without the items that are listed as part of your waivers is basically
what you're saying.
MR. CENTER-Exactly. Which they don't really have a purview to some of the stormwater
management and those issues. They're looking at it strictly on the acreage of the lots.
MR. TRAVER-And depending on how your discussion with the Zoning Board goes, you'd be
coming back and prior to Preliminary we would see that information.
MR. CENTER-You'd have a full submission, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. All right. Any questions or comments regarding that issue?
MR. MAGOWAN-Can we write this up as, this is just a partial waiver?
MR. KREBS-Or a temporary waiver until.
MR. CENTER-A temporary waiver until, when we submit for Preliminary, everything will be
done.
MR. TRAVER-So it would be, these would be waivers for purposes of recommendation to the
ZBA. I'm not sure we've ever done that before.
MR. OBORNE-You've never done it before.
MR. CENTER-Well, prior to this, I don't think we were doing recommendations, either. Prior to
this, we were going to the Zoning Board before we ever came for recommendation.
MR. OBORNE-1 strongly recommend that you do not grant these waivers at this time. You have
SEAR you're dealing with. You have to go through SEAR before you issue a recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-Right, and I don't see how we can do, again, we're getting back to the
information, I'm particularly concerned about stormwater and erosion, those issues. So I think
it's my feeling that all we can do is, this evening, is request Lead Agency, which is we have
done.
MR. FORD-What we've done.
MR. TRAVER-And then we have to wait for the rest of the information in order to do the
environmental review. I'm sorry, but I just, that's my feeling. How do other members feel?
MR. FORD-I concur.
MR. TRAVER-Okay. So then there is a motion in the packet.
RESOLUTION RE: WAIVER REQUESTS RE: SUB # 5-2012 LARIC DEVEL.
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Subdivision: Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 58.8 acre parcel into 36 lots ranging in size from 1.0 to 2.52. Proposal includes
interconnection between Sherman Avenue and Luzerne Road as well as boulevard entrance off
of Luzerne Road. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Variance:
Lot size relief.
The applicant is requesting the following waivers as the plan is not yet in final form: Metes and
bounds, landscaping, erosion & sediment, grading, limits of clearing, stormwater, and lighting;
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE WAIVER REQUEST IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO.
5-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver
NOES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp
MR. OBORNE-1 would suggest that if somebody's going to put forth a resolution to disapprove
and then vote no on that disapproval, then you should not put forth that resolution.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. KREBS-I'm sorry, but as secretary, I am forced to propose the motion.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's, to some degree, compulsory.
MS. BITTER-Does Mr. Krebs want to put up another motion?
MR. TRAVER-Yes, I guess I would ask those members that voted against the motion that was
just presented, would any of those members like to present an alternative that can be voted
upon?
MR. KREBS-Motion to approve waiver requests in connection with Subdivision 5-2012 LARIC
Development, Introduced by myself. Seconded by.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 have to see what it is first.
MR. KREBS-The Board has approved the following waiver requests, which are for stormwater
design, until such time as the project is passed or disapproved by the Zoning Board.
MS. BITTER-Well, there were actually a list. Metes and bounds, landscaping, erosion and
sediment, grading, limits of clearing stormwater and lighting. Just.
MR. TRAVER-Do you want to revise your?
MR. KREBS-As per what Stefanie said, yes.
MR. TRAVER-Well, if you don't mind„ why don't you read the motion again just so we have it
clearly in the record.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER REQUEST IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 5-
2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brad Magowan:
The applicant is requesting the following waivers as the plan is not yet in final form. Metes and
bounds, landscaping, erosion and sediment control, grading, limit of clearing, stormwater and
lighting.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs
NOES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver
MR. TRAVER-All right. So we have two motions. I'm not sure what our alternative motion
would be, other than I don't think you want to be, I don't think that we want to necessarily look at
a tabling.
MS. BITTER-Is there elements that Mr. Sipp would be willing to waive?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's, I mean, Don, you voted in the no to disapprove originally, and now
you voted in the no to approve.
MR. TRAVER-As presented.
MR. SIPP-Can't I change my mind?
MR. OBORNE-Of course you can change your mind, but now we don't have an approval vote
yet.
MR. SIPP-1 think we're beating ourselves to death over an item which has very little significance
on the whole thing.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I can't tell you how to vote, obviously.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Let the ZBA do something. That's where it belongs in the first place.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't write the law.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I know that.
MR. KREBS-No, but we have to start being realistic with the way we deal with business in the
world today, and we have way, way too many regulations. I don't care whether we're talking
about the Town of Queensbury, State of New York, the Federal government. There are way too
many regulations that add significant cost to doing practical things. This applicant is asking us
for the opportunity to go forth to the Zoning Board to determine whether they will accept less
than the two acre zoning. That's all they're asking us tonight, and if we force them to incur all
the costs, and then they go to the Zoning Board and they do not get acceptance of the 1.73 acre
average, we've wasted a huge amount of money.
MR. OBORNE-My rebuttal would be come in with proper zoning and compliant zoning and you
wouldn't have this issue.
MR. CENTER-That's what the Area Variance process is for, though.
MR. KREBS-If you look at what the zoning was in the area and what the lots are in the area prior
to the last re-zoning, these were not two acre areas.
MR. OBORNE-The chances that the Zoning Board will deny this, and I will state this for the
record, is very miniscule, but regardless, you have to get through this process, and this protocol,
and we just went through a hiccup. So I would approach the Board again to attempt another
resolution.
MR. MAGOWAN-How much better can we get than the last one?
MR. TRAVER-Well, again, the concern is whether or not we want to see the information that
would enable the applicant to have presented ourselves and the Planning Department with a
completed application. We've been pretty consistent on this issue with other applicants in the
past, and although Don's comment with regard to, you know, having to do the, providing us the
information to be able to do SEAR to make a recommendation, would be subject to change.
Should they fail to get the variances they need, not all of the information would be, would have
to be re-done, and again, my concern, as I expressed before, and we've discussed this with
other applications as we all know, is, you know, we're not asking the applicant to spend any
money. We're not asking the applicant to do any of this. They're asking us to move forward
with a legal process that requires us to have a certain amount of information. Our professional
staff have expressed concern that we have inadequate information to do that. I agree. Again, I
sympathize with the expenditures that developers have to incur, but I feel strongly that we need
to have established protocols and we need to deal with complete, as opposed to incomplete,
applications, especially when it comes to environmental quality review.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, in order to move this forward, why don't we abandon the waiver
request that's here, the waiver request approval resolution at this point in time, and pick that up
at another date, because it seems like we're not going to get through this waiver request.
MR. CENTER-Well, would there be information that we could supply that would help the Board
make their decision, as far as soil testing, as far as details as far as we're going to use wing
swales and drywells for the stormwater management?
MR. TRAVER-I would ask that you have those discussions with the Planning Department.
MR. OBORNE-That's good to me. That's fine.
MR. TRAVER-We're not engineers.
MR. CENTER-Right, and we're looking for a compromise, somewhere in between, if we can
offer the soil testing, knowing that we need wing swales, drywells, modified soil, septic systems,
if we have those details, not completed in full for the entire subdivision, but knowing this is what
we're looking at for the wastewater system, this is what we're looking at for stormwater. We
know we can use eight foot drywells and wing swales, and manage the stormwater
management that way. Our standard details for the erosion and sediment control in regards to.
MR. TRAVER-Again, I think we are not, you know, with respect to my colleagues, we are not in
a position to comment on engineering. I would say any effort that you can provide to reduce the
number of waivers that you're asking us, as we try to help you move forward with SEAR and
with making a recommendation to the Zoning Board would be, obviously, helpful because we're
at an impasse at this point.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. CENTER-Unfortunately, in order to meet any of those things, a full design for the entire
subdivision is required. In order for me to meet what you're asking for, a full design is required.
What we're offering is to go out and get the soils information, to provide the details of what we
plan to do for the subdivision road, for the individual lots, and give you that information as far as,
you know, we already, we have the DEC endangered species issue taken care of. The SHPO
we've discussed that on the DKC parcel and that kind of goes along with this parcel. We believe
we can meet all those things.
MR. TRAVER-And I understand your point. Understand that our point is, we have a process
that requires an application to be submitted for this process, and you're asking us to, you know,
exempt you from that normal procedure, and I'm not saying, and obviously we've had a long
discussion tonight. So we're willing to consider it, but I would have the detailed discussions with
the Staff of the Planning Department and try to come up with something that this body is going
to feel more comfortable moving forward, the details of which I'd let you talk to the Town
Engineer, talk to Staff and come up with something that you could present us that, because
obviously there isn't a comfort level of moving forward at this point, and I don't want to
specifically tell you what, when you already have a list that you're supposed to be providing to
the Town, I don't want to sit here and say, well, if you just provide something other than what
we've already said is required, that's going to be acceptable. We can't do that, so, but what we
can do is have you continue a dialogue with the Planning Department and see if you can come
up with something that is going to sway more members of the Planning Board to feel
comfortable moving forward, and that's, I think, unless someone else has a comment, I think
that's about all we can offer you at this point. We've tried several motions, several resolutions,
and it's just not going to work. Anyone else have any other?
MR. KREBS-It doesn't make any logical sense to me, though, to do this.
MR. TRAVER-I understand.
MR. KREBS-Because I'm sitting here looking at a diagram, I'm looking at the existing housing in
the area. The lots are almost twice the size of the other lots. I know the area. I know the
topography is pretty much flat. I know that the percolation is pretty good there because we've
looked at other subdivisions. So what is it that doesn't make you comfortable looking at this and
giving them a temporary to move forward to go to the Zoning Board and determine whether the
Zoning Board's going to accept the acreage?
MR. OBORNE-You have to get through SEAR before you.
MR. KREBS-No, you don't have to get through SEAR.
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me? As professional staff, I am informing you that you have to get
through SEAR before you can issue a recommendation.
MR. TRAVER-That's not an option.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Can they apply directly to the Zoning Board?
MR. OBORNE-They already have.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Well, let them go see the Zoning Board.
MR. OBORNE-They can't until they get a recommendation from the Planning Board.
MR. CENTER-And around goes the circle, and, I mean, that's where we come into the
commonsense of the design and what we're trying to, the point we're trying to get to.
MR. TRAVER-Certainly, you know, I understand. I know all the members understand there's a
lot of different perspectives on this.
MR. FORD-Where in SEAR does it say, does it make sense? Is that a question?
MR. OBORNE-Well put, Don.
MR. TRAVER-All right. So there we are. Unless anyone has any other comments, for the
record, I think we've done all the business we can conduct this evening, and I see our Chairman
has arrived.
SITE PLAN 48-2012 STEVE KITCHEN a. FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION,
REVISED DESIGN NEEDS VARIANCE RELIEF
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready.
MR. OBORNE-We are a 2.3, still at Administrative Items?
MR. HUNSINGER-What's that?
MR. OBORNE-We're still at Administrative Items?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-2.3, yes. Staff Notes?
MR. OBORNE-Okay, well there's really not much to go through here. We have to table this
application because they have submitted an Area Variance, and at this point in time we will be
moving forward, in November, on this application. How's that?
MR. FORD-We all agree on that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I make a motion we table it until November.
RESOLUTION TABLING SP #48-2012 STEVE KITCHEN
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Site
Plan / Freshwater Wetlands: Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with
attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned.
Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland in a WR zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 9/18/2012, tabled to 10/16/2012;
It been determined that the project will require variance relief,
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 48-2012 STEVE KITCHEN, Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled until November 27tH
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA
SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART& RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANTS ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 8 GLEN LAKE ROAD
& 1300 STATE ROUTE 9 SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. DINING
ROOM EXPANSION ADDITION TO EXISTING 3,465 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AS WELL AS A
2,500 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING DECK TO INCLUDE NEW BATHROOMS AND
BAR. FURTHER, CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING AND A 10,770
SQ. FT. BANQUET FACILITY WITH 4 GUEST SUITES ON SECOND FLOOR IS PROPOSED.
EXPANSION OF EXISTING RESTAURANT AND NEW COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES IN THE
Cl ZONE REQUIRE PB REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: FRONT SETBACK,
HEIGHT & TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK RELIEF. FURTHER, RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. THE PLANNING
BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND CONDUCT A SEAR REVIEW.
THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 35-12 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 8/2/2012- NO
COUNTY IMPACT W/STIPULATION LOT SIZE 4.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-18, 19
SECTION 179-9
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, at this point in time we did receive some information today from the
applicant, basically stating that endangered species and SHPO really have not been satisfied at
this point in time. It would be difficult for you to move forward with a SEAR, but with this, I'll read
into the record, because we do want to open up the public hearing and have discussion on this
project. The Planning Board may consider acknowledging Lead Agency status for SEAR
purposes if the Board deems the application complete. The public hearing is scheduled.
SEAR must be accomplished prior to the issuance of a recommendation. Obviously we've gone
through the time clock. Everybody has acknowledged that the Planning Board should be the
Lead Agent, or has acquiesced to that. Now the Planning Board needs to acknowledge that,
open the public hearing, have discussion on this project, and with the lack of, and it's not lack of
information. What's happening, and Tom and Jon will explain that better than I can. DEC and
SHPO are looking for additional information is basically what they're doing, and would you like
me to read the project into the record at this point?
MR. HUNSINGER-You might as well, yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. So application is Site Plan 42-2012 Daniel and Ellen Nichols. This is
Planning Board to acknowledge Lead Agency status. This is 8 Glen Lake Road and 1300 State
Route 9. This is in a Commercial Intensive zoning. This is an Unlisted SEAR. Warren County
issued a No County Impact on 8/2/2012. Project Description: Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft.
dining room expansion addition to existing 3,465 sq. ft. restaurant as well as a 2,500 sq. ft.
expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and bar. Further, construction of a 4,500
sq. ft. retail building and a 10,770 sq. ft. banquet facility with 4 guest suites on second floor is
proposed. Expansion of existing restaurant and new commercial businesses in the CI zone
require PB review and approval. Variances: Front setback, Height & Travel Corridor overlay
setback relief. Further, relief requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure. And what
follows is obviously the protocols that we've gone through. Planning, Staff does not have much
concerns with the design. We feel it's a good design and the engineers are looking at it. I think
it's in good hands, but what we are looking for is DEC signoff, New York State Office of Parks
Recreation Historic Preservation signoff for SEAR and SPDES coverage. You can't get SPDES
coverage without these. They're disturbing more than an acre, and as you see, there are some
design issues that we have. If we want to get into that, that's fine, at this point in time. We could
have that discussion. With that I do turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom
Hutchins. I guess we'd just like to give you a brief synopsis of where we are. Everyone's
familiar with this site, I know, and this was a case where the existing building was put there
before the road was expanded. So the Area Variances relative to the expansion of that building
are required because of the Travel Corridor and just the unfortunate location of that building in
the corner, but those proposed modifications are modest, if you will, just to sort of bring that
building into the new century. Dan Nichols is here tonight to address any questions. He bought
the site. The site's a horror. It needs to get cleaned up, and the proposal is to build this banquet
building in the center which would be the centerpiece of this project. We've submitted the
architectural renderings, a real change for that corridor. Dan's already doing a lot of weddings
here and at his facility in Lake George, and this is a way to be able to do banquets on this site.
So we have to go to the Zoning Board, much like your last discussion, but here it's just a
question that some of the outside approvals, what Keith has pointed out is that there's some
documentation that this site was disturbed previously, which would get us out of a detailed
SHPO analysis. We have been told that this is where a lot of stumps were dumped when the
Northway was constructed in '68 when it came through Queensbury. We believe that we'll be
able to submit to SHPO with an affidavit from Russ O'Connor from O'Connor Construction, who
has personal knowledge of that. Tom's done some soil test borings which show that, but we
need to be able to show SHPO that it doesn't make sense to go do 200 tests all over the site
because it was all fill and we think that we'll be able to accomplish that by the next time we're
before you. So that's really the technicality that Keith is talking about, but just in terms of the
project itself, I'm going to ask Tom to go through the site plan, but the concept is to create new
drive aisles to get away from the intersection of Glen Lake Road and Route 9, and to have an
entrance for right in, right out at least, and potentially left in on Route 9 because that's far
enough away from the interchange. We know those are all design site plan issues that we have
to talk about, but we need to go to, after we get through the SEAR, we've got to go to the Zoning
Board and talk about those Area Variances, and I think I didn't mention that there's a small
height variance just on that banquet building, really just for the architectural rendering to have
that cupola top which it could obviously be built without, but it will look better with it. So those
are really the variances. Tom, if you could just walk them through the site plan.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUTCH INS-Sure. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. As Jon indicated, it's a significant
upgrade to the existing building coupled with the proposed banquet building. As we see it, all
the utilities seem to work. The area, the parking appears to work, and we have, we did receive
some comments from the engineer on our first submission and we're advancing those. We're
very close to being able to resubmit back to that or when we get to site plan stage I don't foresee
any of those as deal breakers or major hurdles to overcome. Again, aside from the setbacks to
the existing building, as well as the height variance which is sort of an aesthetic thing but it's a
really important aesthetic thing for this building. Otherwise we believe we're compliant. SHPO
has asked us to document prior disturbance on the site. It's in the record that there is a prior
disturbance on the site, but they've asked us to document it and just how we're going to
document that is a little bit the area that we're struggling with at this point. If there's any
questions, we'll take them. That's all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-So does SHPO think that there may be some historic artifacts there or
something?
MR. LAPPER-An exception to what they generally require, which is a Phase 11, to go and do the
soil test, is in the case where you have a site that was substantially disturbed previously, so it's
therefore not an authentic site so it doesn't make sense to go hire the archeologist, and that's
what we're seeking their consent to, and we expect that we'll get it because we know, as I
discussed, that the site was disturbed, but they came back and said, okay, get us some more
information to prove that those are the facts, and that's what we're working on.
MR. SIPP-Does anybody have a record of when this site was closed to dumping?
DAN NICHOLS
MR. NICHOLS-1968 I think.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, it was all done at the time that the Northway was put in, it was a big ravine
there.
MR. SIPP-No, it was done in 1979 when the Courthouse Estates began selling lots. I have a.
MR. LAPPER-You live in Courthouse Estates.
MR. SIPP-1 have a neighbor who told me that it was '79 when he built his house, that they were
still dumping in that place, and his concern was that the rotting of this material is not going to
make a good foundation for a large building that you intend to put in there.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we are aware of that. I found evidence in all the test holes I did and we're
aware of that and there will be some significant geo tech input and analysis for the foundation
design, and it may have to be a less than conventional foundation design, a deeper foundation,
some piles or something to that extent, and we are aware of that, and I found it in every test
hole.
MR. SIPP-All right. Now, is that, my other question would be, was there a septic system in the
previous, used by the previous owners of that plot of land or restaurant that was there?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 can only presume there was. I'm not aware of the location of it. The facility is
completely sewered now, but that's a relatively recent occurrence.
MR. SIPP-1 just wondered if the septic tank had ever been removed or soil, which was part of
the system, had been replaced.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know the answer to that. A lot of times septic systems are abandoned in
place and I would presume that was what was done.
MR. SIPP-But we don't know where.
MR. HUTCHINS-We do not know where. Maybe Dan can add on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could state your name for the record, please.
MR. NICHOLS-Daniel Nichols. I'm the owner, my wife and I are the owners. Rubin Ellsworth
actually hooked that onto the Town sewer two years before I bought it. We're using the existing,
the holding parts for a grease trap of which are on County record. I have them cleaned every
three months or whatever, and that was all approved by Town of Queensbury and worked with
that with Rubin Ellsworth. So that's all on record and so forth, and that is on the existing
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
property where, right behind where the deck is, within, I don't know, I want to say 50, 60 feet, but
it's all been removed most of the stuff, but from what I know of the definition it's not toxic or
anything, but I know it has been removed and hooked into the Town. So that's pretty much
where it is.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. SIPP-1 have another question. Is this entranceway that you're going to have on Route 9,
which is only a right turn exit, or right turn entrance.
MR. LAPPER-We've got a right turn out and a right and left in.
MR. SIPP-Right and left in?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, at this point. That's what we're proposing.
MR. SIPP-Have you ever been on Route 9 at 3:30 in the afternoon in the month of July?
MR. LAPPER-That is something that we will, it could be that it requires modifications to the road,
but that's a DOT road. So we're going to have to review that with DOT. It could be that a turn
lane, a center left turn lane would be required in order to get that movement.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-How far is that driveway from the intersection?
MR. HUTCHINS-It's about seven to eight hundred feet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Seven to eight hundred feet, because you could actually come in off of
Glen Lake Road. Right?
MR. SIPP-Yes, but going out you've got a stop light, you're going to make a turn right or left onto
Route 9, and the number of cars there at times of the years, you've got a pretty deadly area.
MR. LAPPER-The right in and right out aren't a problem. It's the left turn movements that we'll
be talking about when we get farther down the road.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? The first order of business
for us is to acknowledge Lead Agency status. We do have a sample resolution provided in our
package. If anyone would like to move that. We do have to do that before we open a public
hearing. Right? Do you have any idea how long it'll take to hear back from SHPO? The
million dollar question.
MR. LAPPER-That should be pretty quick.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 mean, to hear back is usually reasonably quick. It's a matter of if they can
accept all the documentation.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. Would anyone like to move for the acceptance of Lead Agency
status?
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS RE: SP#42-2012 NICHOLS
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes a 400 sq.
ft. dining room expansion addition to existing 3,465 sq. ft. restaurant as well as a 2,500 sq. ft.
expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and bar. Further, construction of a 4,500
sq. ft. retail building and a 10,770 sq. ft. banquet facility with 4 guest suites on second floor is
proposed. Expansion of existing restaurant and new commercial businesses in the CI zone
require PB review and approval. Variances: Front setback, Height & Travel Corridor overlay
setback relief. Further, relief requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure. The
Planning Board may acknowledge Lead Agency status and conduct a SEAR review. The
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals;
WHEREAS, in connection with the Daniel & Ellen Nichols project, the Town of Queensbury
Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Community Development office to
notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated
SEQRA review;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been
notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent;
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA
VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
As per resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions or comments from the Board before we open
the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled on this project this evening. The
purpose of the public hearing is for members of the neighborhood and interested parties to
provide comment to the Planning Board for purposes of our deliberation on the project. Is there
anyone in the audience who wanted to address the Board on this project this evening? I don't
see any hands. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. "To Whom It May Concern: My name is Michele Niedermeyer and I own
the residential property at 18 Glen Lake Road, which shares the eastern border with The Blue
Moose Property. I am writing to you about the proposed expansion to the Blue Moose property
on the corner of Route 9 and Glen Lake Road. There are many concerns I have with this
proposed plan and hope that all these concerns are considered when moving ahead in this
process. My first concern is traffic. As we all know and have probably experienced, traffic
issues along Rt. 9, 149, the Northway exit ramps and Glen Lake Road are considerable at times
with the outlet malls, The Great Escape, Municipal Center, and local traffic. With this expansion
proposal there will be a huge effect to an already congested area. Many times over the summer
and early fall I sat on my front porch and in a 2 hour period of time witnessed 20+ large scale
travel trailers, Recreational Vehicles, 18 wheelers and delivery trucks traveling down Glen Lake
Road with local traffic. The word is out that the back up of traffic on 149 and Rt. 9 can be
avoided by this "shortcut". In that 2 hour period the traffic was backed up past my house 3 times
with cars waiting at the light to move onto Rt. 9. If this proposal goes through it will not only add
to the congestion and flow of traffic on Rt. 9 but also all the extra vehicles for the retail store,
restaurant and conference center that is being proposed will be trying to enter and exit onto Glen
Lake Road. Honestly, can we even support one more thing being added to this already way too
busy area? The second concern I have is noise. With the proposed outdoor seating for the
restaurant/bar building there will be an increase in noise coming from late night customers. Also
delivery trucks, garbage trucks as well as the people and cars moving in and out of the area will
add to this noise congestion. I learned at the zoning meeting in August that there is an open air
concept being planned for the conference center with large doors that can be open to have more
of a pavilion feel; which means more noise. At least 2 nights a week we are woken up by
customers in the current parking lot (which comes very close to my house) talking, fighting
setting off car alarms, etc. How much more noise will there be with this increased population?
What efforts are planned to protect the residents around the area from this increase in noise? I
see on the plans there is a small 50 ft. buffer between my property and theirs, which is already in
place (it is basically a pit where trees and other debris has been dumped and very little
vegetation) but does not do a good job of blocking the limited noise now! From what I can see
this only goes back as far as the retail space and there is nothing to block the rest of the area.
The third concern I have with this proposal is parking. Currently the parking lot is full at least 3
nights a week. Special events find people parking up and down Glen Lake Road making it
passable for just one car at a time. Now they want to add to this area retail parking, event
parking and a larger restaurant? I have looked closely at the plans and I do not see how there
will be enough parking spaces to accommodate this growth in population. You have a full
restaurant, folks coming and going to shop and then throw an event in, where will they all park?
Glen Lake Road? The Municipal Center where they all did last time? My thoughts are that this
property is just not big enough for these proposed expansions. One thing I would strongly
request in this plan is a stronger and deeper buffer zone between my property and theirs.
Planting year round trees along the whole border, landscaping, some sort of fencing to keep
people off my property are just a few suggestions I would like considered. If the current buffer
in place now stays, there is nothing to block the effects of the conference center on my home.
With its mass, height and location I would clearly see it, hear it and it will seriously diminish the
current view I have now along with our quality of life. I also would request that there be
consideration for the placement and type of parking lights. Right now there are no lights in their
parking lot and that is a strong security concern. I see that lights are in the plans however I am
concerned that now this will affect my home at night during sleeping hours. Positioning lights so
they do not affect my home is something I would like considered. I would also ask that serious
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
thought be put into approving this proposed retail space. There are empty retail stores up and
down Rt. 9. Do we really need more that will just add to the traffic, congestion and noise in the
area? I understand that my personal concerns cannot be taken into consideration when
approving these plans however I do want my concerns heard. I am a realist and when I
purchased this home in 1995 1 knew there was a restaurant next door and I knew that at some
point the property would be expanded, approved, or rebuilt. I understood that and accepted it. It
had always been a restaurant atmosphere and I was not concerned. In the past few years it has
become more of a bar atmosphere with all the late night noise and other issues that come with
this type of establishment. In a million years I would never have thought that an expansion to
this magnitude would be considered! My plan was to have my home paid off before I retire, to
have that security in my future. I know we cannot foresee the future, but I have to ask, how will
this all effect my property value? Will I ever be able to sell my home now if all this goes
through? Will our current quality of life be diminished? These are all questions that have
caused great concerns for my family and we have not been able to get answered by anyone.
This is a very aggressive proposal on the table before you and I hope that all concerns be
addressed and considered before any approvals occur. Thank you for your time and respect for
my concerns. Sincerely, Michele Niedermeyer Property owner, 18 Glen Lake Road" And that's
all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Just briefly in response to that, we can do a lot within that 50 foot buffer to add
trees, to add a fence, if that's what she really wants. I would argue that the site's not too
attractive now, and it's going to be much nicer with landscaping. The parking will be compliant.
We're not asking for a parking variance, but, you know, her quality of life is a legitimate issue,
and as we move this forward, we'll deal with what we can do to increase the buffer, in terms of
quality, and make it better.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good. All right, since there were no comments from the audience, we will
conclude the public hearing for tonight. I'm not sure, how long do we table this to?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would like to see this tabled until November,just to give them a chance, in
case SHPO comes through. Because all we're going to be doing in November is a
recommendation to the Zoning Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So all we need is documents from SHPO.
MR. LAPPER-I think we'll be able to provide that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I'd be requesting a tabling date, Tom, you have the 15th or the 27th. Which would
work?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought there were two meetings before Thanksgiving? We've got one
Thanksgiving week?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's the week after.
MR. OBORNE-No, the 15th or the 27th are the meetings.
MR. LAPPER-So let's take the 27th, if that's okay, give us enough time.
MR. FORD-That makes sense.
MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make that motion?
RESOLUTION TABLING SP#42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 & SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL &
ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
Tabled until the November 27, 2012 Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. Hopefully we'll hear back.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW:
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2012 SKETCH PLAN SEAR TYPE NONE AT SKETCH TRA-TOM
DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING LI-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 1533 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 53.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM 1.3 TO 19.4 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 16-05 LOT SIZE 53.2 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 290.-1-22.222 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-As stated, this is Sketch Plan Tra-Tom Development. It's a subdivision of land,
and as such requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is County Line Road. The
existing zoning is LI or Light Industrial. SEAR status not applicable at Sketch. Project
Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 53.2 acre parcel into 15 lots ranging in size
from 1.3 to 19.4 acres. The subdivision as submitted will require a road length waiver from the
1,000 foot maximum allowed as per §183-27(1)(4) due to a road length of approximately 1,300
linear feet. Further, the western portion of the parcel has a notation that lands are to be
conveyed; clarification as to whom these land are to be conveyed should be forthcoming.
Additionally, wetlands denoted as non-jurisdictional are assumed to be DEC classified wetlands.
What follows is a review, and you may want to discuss that road length waiver, you know,
generally tonight, how you feel about it. It's 1300 feet as opposed to other road length that
waivers you've given in the past, and documentation concerning endangered species and
historical issues required for Preliminary submittal, and what follows are basic, you know, off to
the Highway Superintendent for comment, at this point, when the Preliminary plan comes in, and
Town mapping denotes streams on site. Verification of stream classification, if any, is required,
and again, those lands to be conveyed to the west. You may want to have clarification on that,
and with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, representing Tra-Tom
Development. We're looking at a parcel of land due north of the airport on County Line Road,
54 acres approximately. We're looking to divide it into lots. The average lot size is around two
acres. We'd like to approach this with flexible division lines between the lots because it's
industrial development and we don't know where somebody wants one acre or three acres, and
we see foresee the possibility of coming back, you know, and asking for adjustments to those lot
lines as the development occurs. It's a fairly flat piece of land. On the west boundary it starts to
rise up toward Chestnut Ridge Road. It does abut residential land over there, and where the
terrain starts to climb up the hill a little bit we've proposed the 100 foot buffer, additional buffer
strip. There's a 50 foot buffer required between industrial use and residential, and in that
particular area it's land that's not really developable for industrial. We'd like to add the 100 foot
buffer to that, that we would convey to the neighbor, the adjoining neighbor. Keith's comments,
of course most of those will be, or all of those will be addressed at Preliminary. We are asking
for a waiver on the road length to serve this property. It appears that we're going to have to
have a 1300 foot or approximately 1300 foot entry road. We feel it's a reasonable request, that
we go an extra 300 feet with the road, and really don't see any advantage to putting in a
boulevard entry to cut that back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. FERONE-How big is that cul de sac?
MR. NACE-It's a standard cul de sac. You would ask me the radius, 55 foot radius, I believe.
MR. KREBS-It says R equals 70 on the drawing.
MR. NACE-Okay, that's the property line. The actual road itself is 24 feet less than that.
MR. FORD-Where you're proposing the 100 foot wide added buffer.
MR. NACE-It's way over on the left hand side.
MR. FORD-Yes, I know where it is.
MR. NACE-I see, not where is it.
MR. FORD-What is the current width of that strip of land that comes down?
MR. NACE-The width, north to south, you mean? 1300 feet, or 1,031 feet.
MR. FORD-Okay. I see a 103.52 on one end and one five and a quarter on the other.
MR. NACE-The actual width is 100 feet, the width east to west is 100 feet. There's the 103 and
the 105 are because the side property lines are skewed.
MR. FORD-Okay. Do you know the actual width of the parcel right now, that strip that comes
down to Hicks Road?
MR. NACE-Comes down to Hicks Road?
MR. FORD-Not to Hicks Road.
MR. OBORNE-County Line?
MR. FORD-Down to the back of the Heinsen property. This.
MR. NACE-The length of it?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. NACE-The length of it.
MR. FORD-I understand the length. What is the current width of this strip of land? Does that
not exist now?
MR. NACE-No, it doesn't exist. This is part of the parcel that we own.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So he's taking a piece out of it to make a buffer.
MR. FORD-Yes. I just thought that there was an expansion of a current.
MR. NACE-No, it's a property line adjustment, a transfer of.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you would actually give the neighbor.
MR. NACE-That 100 foot.
MR. HUNSINGER-That 100 foot.
MR. NACE-So that he controls the buffer.
MR. OBORNE-That would be if he's amenable to it, I guess.
MR. NACE-We haven't discussed, we will, after this meeting, we will discuss it with the
neighbor. We have not at this point.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-And that area is pretty difficult, that would be difficult to develop in that area.
MR. NACE-Yes, it's very little value to us. So it makes sense.
MR. FORD-Thanks for that explanation.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I wanted to talk about the length of the road and just try to
understand why it needs to be so long. If we're going into this knowing that, you know, you want
to be flexible and adaptable and try to accommodate different types of users, wouldn't it make
sense that there might be a user that would need more than, you know, the largest lot, which is
just slightly over two acres? And if you did that then maybe you could shorten the boulevard.
MR. NACE-There is the lot on the west side of the development of the lot that is 19 acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-We probably could shorten it up some. I'm not sure we could get that 300 feet. That
would take it way back up in, more than one lot width, but, you know, we're trying to aim at a 1.5
to 2 acre lot as being what is typically the smallest lot that some small industry would want to put
a 10,000 square foot building on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes.
MR. NACE-And with the idea that we might combine lots to make bigger ones or adjust lot lines
to accommodate, but, yes, we could probably shorten it up some. I don't think we can shorten it
up all the way to 1,000 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, for example, if you were to combine, you know, Lot Six and Seven. I
guess on the other side you'd have to have just combine three lots in order to significantly
shorten it up.
MR. NACE-That's true.
MR. HUNSINGER-But 10, Lot 9 and 10 are less than two acres each. So, you know, it might
only be two, you know, five and a half acre lot.
MR. NACE-Looking at it, I think the furthest we could go would be to shorten it up so that it came
up about 200 feet shorter than what it is now, which is the width of Lot 10. 1 think we could
probably do that. It would make sense.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You'll never really know until you decide what industrial companies, types
of companies you're going to put in there.
MR. NACE-That's true. It may sit there for five years.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I mean, if you put that pellet company here down at the end of the road,
that wouldn't be a very good idea because it's a long ways in, you know, and that thing catches
fire like once a month, or if you had something that had a lot of chemicals or petroleum, would
be better to have it out toward County Line Road. It's hard.
MR. NACE-You're guessing.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We're guessing, and it's just, it really boils down to who administers the
sale of the lots.
MR. HUNSINGER-And how they're marketed.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And how they're marketed. Right, that's exactly right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, obviously it's in the developer's best interest to shorten the road as
well because it cuts down on your expense.
MR. NACE-Sure. It's why I agreed to it.
MR. HUNSINGER-So, I mean, if we were to.
MR. NACE-1 don't think we can go all the 300 feet.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, if we could shorten the length of the road and just say, you
know, the lots in the back are going to be larger and that's, you know, if you have a bigger
building that's where that's going to go. Then maybe we don't need the 1300 foot.
MR. NACE-Yes. All I'm saying is if I shorten it up 300 feet, I'm going to be back up to the middle
of Lot 11 with the cut de sac, and that really leaves too big of a chunk off the end.
MR. HUNSINGER-So when you measure the length of the road, doesn't it go all the way to the
end of the cut de sac?
MR. NACE-No, it goes all the way to the single lane road, once you join another road, i.e. return
from the cut de sac.
MR. HUNSINGER-So it's to the center of the cut de sac or the end?
MR. NACE-To the throat of the cut de sac.
MR. HUNSINGER-The throat. That's what I thought.
MR. OBORNE-It's to the end. That's how the Zoning Administrator measures it, to the end of
the cut de sac.
MR. HUNSINGER-The end, not the beginning.
MR. FORD-Which end, the end closest to the?
MR. OBORNE-When you come in from the property line, you follow the road all the way to the
very end of the cut de sac.
MR. NACE-That's never been interpreted that way in my knowledge.
MR. FORD-That's not the throat of the cut de sac.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that means it must be an open cut de sac. Right? There must be
nothing in the middle of it.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Usually it's measured from the start of it to the end of the straight road is
how most people measure it.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I just know how Craig does it. I know how he does it, and that was a
question I did present him when we discussed this at our meetings.
MR. NACE-We've done quite a few cut de sacs in the Town, and we've always gone to the
throat. Because the purpose of the intent of the regulation was so that you had only a short
length or 1,000 feet that would be blocked off if you had an accident, so you couldn't get around
if you had an accident back in the cut de sac, somebody could always go the other direction to
get out of the cut de sac. We'll resolve that with Staff and come back to you with a waiver
request that represents whatever the interpretation is.
MR. KREBS-I'm looking at it and saying, instead of a cut de sac, why not have a loop road that
comes in where you are now and then comes back out beyond Lots One and Two. Therefore
you have no cut de sac to worry about.
MR. OBORNE-Wetlands.
MR. NACE-Wetlands.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but it's a non-jurisdictional wetlands.
MR. NACE-No, no, the finger that goes up into, from north to south, is jurisdictional. We're
trying to stay away from it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I thought about that, too, but.
MR. OBORNE-The exercise is to save on macadam also. I mean, that's pretty important.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. KREBS-Yes, I was just thinking that, you know, from a sales standpoint, or, you know,
getting people to come in, the fact that you had a loop street as opposed to a dead end cut de
sac would be more desirable because when people leave work, they wouldn't have, all would
not have to go out one way. They could go two ways. Plus the fact from safety fire standpoint, it
gives you two egresses to the property.
MR. NACE-If the wetland weren't there, we would certainly consider it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-This is all Town water supply in here, isn't it?
MR. NACE-Yes, it is.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is stating, it's pretty clear, street length shall be measured from the
point where the center line of the proposed road intersected with the right of way line for the
existing road, thence through the center line of the proposed road, the furthest point on the back
side of the turnaround or loop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-So it's the very back of it.
MR. NACE-Then we'll be asking for a little larger waiver.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Only in Queensbury.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, other than the road length?
MR. KREBS-The problem is you don't really know what, I mean, you're approving a bunch of
lots, but those can be reconfigured depending on who wants to buy, build, etc. So you'll have to
come back at Site Plan Review for the individual anyway.
MR. NACE-Sure, right, absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just in terms of, you know, what you're thinking for, you know, the size
building you'd be marketing this to, and what the largest size building would be, do you have a
sense of that?
MR. NACE-My guess would be somewhere in five to twenty thousand square foot range. Five
would be pretty darn small. Probably the average, ten, twelve.
MR. HUNSINGER-Which is pretty consistent with the airport industrial park that's already there.
MR. NACE-Yes. More in line with the County park.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? I think the only, you know, concern
that I've heard is the length of the road.
MR. NACE-We'll take a serious look at cutting that back as much as we feel reasonable.
MR. FORD-Good.
MR. OBORNE-But you're not going to be able to avoid it, it seems.
MR. HUNSINGER-Doesn't sound like.
MR. OBORNE-All right.
MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. You're welcome. Thank you.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 49-2012 SEAR TYPE II ROYAL HOSPITALITY AGENT(S) JOHN H.
RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE LOCATION 1533 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION
OF EXISTING SITE PLAN BY ADDING LIGHTING TO FOOT PATH AT REAR OF PREMISES,
INSTALL DIRECTIONAL SIGNS ALONG SAME PATH TO ADJACENT MINIATURE GOLF
COURSE, REMOVE AND RELOCATE TO THE WEST 4 TREES NEAR SAME PROPERTY
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
LINE AND CLEAR BRUSH. MODIFICATION TO EXISTING SITE PLAN REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 29-12, SP 49-05,
AV 62-05, AV 75-03 WARREN CO. REFERRAL 8/2/2012- NO COUNTY IMPACT LOT SIZE
4.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-5.2 SECTION 179-9
JOHN RICHARDS & RICHARD WEISZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Royal Hospitality, Site Plan 49-2012, Modification to an approved plan requires
Planning Board review and approval. 1533 State Route 9 is the location. Commercial Intensive
is the zoning. This is a Type II SEAR. Project Description: Applicant proposes to modify
existing site plan by adding lighting to foot path at rear of premises, install directional signs along
same path adjacent to miniature golf course parking lot, remove and replant four trees and clear
brush near southwestern portion of the parcel near footpath. Modification to an approved site
plan requires Planning Board review and approval. Review, this is not much different than
what was presented to you a few months ago, with the exception that the applicant is cutting
back on the brush by the property line and is offering, also, to plant four trees, upon removal,
and they also have offered an alternative lighting plan that utilizes a 35 watt bulb instead of a 70
watt bulb, which I know the Board would be amenable to, and with that I'd turn it over to the
Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. RICHARDS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards, and with me is Attorney
Richard Weisz. We're both agents for Royal Hospitality, and I do appreciate your hearing us
again.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure.
MR. RICHARDS-And as Keith pointed out, there's really four parts that we are asking for your
consideration, the installation of the signs, the pathway lighting, the removal and relocation of
the trees, and the removal of the brush. In addition to some of the points that Keith raised, we
also have submitted this time a more detailed analysis of the lighting situation, actual photos of
the signs in place as well as the landscaping report relative to the relocation of the trees. Really
it's pretty straightforward. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Weisz in just a moment. One
question on procedure before I do that. We do want to allow Attorney Andrew Kelly who
represents the neighboring owners an opportunity to address the Board. Do you want to do that
as part of the public comment? Because he really will have all the technical details. Would you
rather wait for the public comment and have him speak then, or just follow up with Mr. Weisz
and I so that you can ask questions directly to him?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess I would kind of leave that up to you. If he's, you know, if you're
presenting together as part of the application, he can certainly present with you.
MR. WEISZ-1 think we're presenting them together as part of the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm okay with that. Is the rest of the Board comfortable with that?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. RICHARDS-We'll hold on the questions `tit we're all done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. WEISZ-And I'm here as the business lawyer for Royal Hospitality to kind of give the Board
a context as to what's going on before we turn over to Mr. Kelly for some specific issues. The
hotel believes that it will be an enhancement to the hotel to be able to provide to guests the
opportunity to go to the golf course, the mini golf and the other recreational (lost words) without
having them have to get in their car. This is a walking area. People are trying to save money all
the time. So we thought it would be an enhancement to the value of the hotel, as well as the
neighbors' property, to work together to try and come up with something that solves recreational
issues for our guests. When we did that, and as we propose doing that, the lighting becomes an
issue because we're not on the road. We're behind the hotel property, and as they're walking
from the hotel down a gradual hill to the parking lot of the neighbor where the miniature golf is
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
and then coming back at night, which is generally when most of these activities occur, we're
concerned about the safety of our guests, and so it was felt that the existing lighting, although
appropriate for the parking lot and for people accessing their cars and for just, you know,
walking around in the back of the property, was fine as originally approved, with this more
pedestrian use of the pathway, we would need more lighting. We also thought that moving the
trees from one side to the other side of the property would be consistent with helping the patrons
see that this is an area they can go to. We went over with Mr. Kelly many views of what the
appropriate lighting is, and to that, of course, we're deferring to you. Our goal was to provide
enough light so that people walking the path would feel secure and safe, and would be secure
and safe, and we elected poles because since this is behind the hotel and up on the hill, we
believe no one would really see what we were doing as they were driving on Route 9 or in the
surrounding property because the surrounding property is here to join with us. So we were
aware of your concerns that it's too bright. We did bring in, again, that original point of view to
see if, with some more engineering studies, we could prevail upon you to go with the existing
poles, but in several conversations with Staff, an alternate proposal came out in which we're still
using poles, but we're using less wattage lights that will be a compromise in terms of the
illuminants that might go into surrounding, the night sky and so forth, but still provide a level of
safety for the lighting, and with that said, I was going to turn it over to Mr. Kelly to deal with the
specifics and the engineer who are here, and whatever your pleasure is on the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
ANDREW KELLY
MR. KELLY-Thank you. Andrew Kelly. I'm the agent for the neighbor, Lumberjack Pass, and
this is John Golde.
JOHN GOLDE
MR. GOLDE-John Golde, Golde Engineering.
MR. KELLY-So we would be happy to answer any questions. John can address the lighting
issues and the difference between the original plan submitted and the alternate, which we
believe conforms to the standard, even as, we don't quite understand the foot candle issue, but
we believe as, well, Mr. Golde can explain it better than I can, but we believe we're in
conformance with the standard.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KELLY-John, do you want to talk about that a little bit?
MR. GOLDE-Sure. We understand that the purpose of the Town Code is to provide safety,
reduce glare, and reduce unnecessary brightness at night. The intent also is that the fixtures be
consistent with the architecture and compliment the architecture and promote pedestrian
activities in the Town, and we understand that the initial plan satisfied those criterion. However,
they satisfy the consistent, that the fixtures be consistent with the existing facility because the
same fixtures are used at the facility to light the path out to the playground area. We understand
that there was some concern regarding the foot candle level, the highest, at the highest
measured point on the path, and that was 3.8 foot candles, directly under the fixture, again,
being the same fixtures that are on site. We met with Staff and in our discussions and I guess,
Keith, if I've got this wrong, let me know. We were discussing whether the Town Code
represented a maximum foot candle level or a minimum average level, as is the level stated in
the Illumination Engineering Society Standard for pathway lighting, and what Keith explained at
that time was that the level in the Town Code was meant to be sort of a guide to the Planning
Board, so that the level listed as one foot candle for path lighting would be that the lighting
should be about one foot candle. So it's not a strict minimum, or a strict maximum foot candle.
MR. OBORNE-It's a jumping off point, a standard, per se.
MR. GOLDE-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I agree.
MR. GOLDE-Okay. So after we met with Staff, you know, we tried to figure out, well, how can
we come closer to this standard? Using the same fixture, we have two options. We can lower
the wattage, and we can raise the fixture mounting height. The highest foot candle level is
always going to be directly below the fixture. So we're kind of, we're tied to those two elements.
We were able to, by lowering the wattage in the fixture to 35 watts, which is the lowest high
pressure sodium lamp that we can get, wattage lamp that we can get, and raising the fixture
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
height two feet from a mounting height of 12 foot to a mounting height of 14 foot, we were able
to reduce the maximum foot candle level under the fixture to 1.1 foot candles. So about one foot
candle. We slightly relocated fixtures so we would get an even, more of an even light
illumination on the path, and we ended up with an average on the path of .7 foot candles, which
is greater than the IES recommended .5 foot candles, and it is less than the Town Code which
listed one foot candle. So we feel that the compromise gets us right in the, kind of a sweet spot,
which provides good illumination. One of the concerns with safety, and one of the
recommendations in the Illumination Engineering Society standards is that for pedestrian
pathways that we have a decent foot candle level, I believe they call it .2 vertical foot candles,
say on somebody's face who's approaching you, at about 1.5 meters, about five feet above
grade, which we will get with the 14 foot mounting height.
MR. OBORNE-So in short the alternative lighting plan is more compliant than the other one.
MR. FORD-Yes. Got it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. GOLDE-Regarding lighting? No. Any questions regarding, or comments regarding the?
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? I really like the lighting plan. I think
you summarized it very well. You seem to have accomplished what you set out to, and what we
had asked you.
MR. GOLDE-And with the help of the Board, the Staff, we were better able to understand the
standards and get right to what you were expecting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you for that effort. It's appreciated.
MR. GOLDE-You're welcome.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board not related to the lighting?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, the proposed shrub removals and replacing, on the, you know, there's
already an existing path there. Is that, I know we discussed it I think it was last time.
MR. KELLY-It's in order to create a visual corridor from the parking lot of the hotel to the golf
course. If you remove these four trees from their current location, and when you're standing
back there in the parking lot, you can see through, if you look at the photo attached to the
application, you can see through there to the golf course, you know, the house where you rent
the, you can't really see the golf course because it goes down the hill, but it creates that visual
connection, because it's difficult, without the lighting and without the tree removal, it's difficult to
even see the new path that's there. So now with the lighting you'll see the path and you'll also
know where it's going, so, and then the brush removal along the side is just to clean up that
area, it's kind of overgrown, toward the path. It just gives it a more aesthetically pleasing place
to go.
MR. MAGOWAN-So how does this benefit Comfort Suites? Because it sounds like you're trying
to open it all up and bring everything over to Lumberjack. I'm a little confused there.
MR. KELLY-Well, we have an agreement with Comfort Suites to do that. It's a longstanding
agreement, and we're trying to comply with that agreement with these modifications.
MR. KREBS-Well, and the benefit of Comfort Suites is that they're already looking for activities
in the evening. They provide a water splash pool inside the hotel and they're looking to bring
families to the community and they want activities for them, and I would much prefer to see them
walk on a path out the back of the hotel over here than to walk out to Route 9 and go to some
other activity.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, there's already a path there.
MR. KREBS-Yes, there's a path there, but this is going to open it up, so you can see it.
MR. KELLY-We're trying to make it more visible for the customers.
MR. KREBS-And we're not putting a new path, we're not asking them to (lost words) for a new
path.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. TRAVER-The concern that we had last time with regards to the path was the tree removal
and the brush removal, and they're mitigating that in this application by planting trees on other
parts of the property.
MR. WEISZ-The other side of it is that if you look at the way the trees are aligned, now, they run
along the edge of the parking lot and somewhat kind of like an elbow. The path is on the other
side of the elbow, and so the question is always, are people going to take a path when they
really can't see where it starts and ends so easily, and, you know, the concern is always that if
people want to be able to walk some place and not spend money on gas, we'd rather have them
stay at our hotel and be able to walk down the hill than to look for a hotel that's in Town or
closer, within pedestrian walking, of some of those activities, and also, as has been pointed out
earlier, the last thing anybody wants are people to, particularly the kids, to go walking along
Route 9 and the parents say, we don't want to bother taking the car out, we don't want to spend
the money, go, here's some money and go next door. This way they can stay off the road and
just walk.
MR. KELLY-And that has been a problem in the past, people walking down Route 9 and up the
driveways. So there's no sidewalk along Route 9. It's a very dangerous place to walk.
MR. FORD-Is everyone board with this, the principle, all the principles?
MR. WEISZ-We've agreed to it. The last time we were here it was our belief that we would not
be able to convince you, on the original plan. As a result of that we came back with the parties
agreeing to a modified plan. We hoped we addressed your concerns. We'd like to have our
patrons feel safe, and so that's really what the lighting and the bushes are, and the signs. So
we've signed on to the deal. We're prepared to do the deal. I think this also will help our
concerns that we didn't want bright lights in the back of the hotel disrupting the sleep of those
guests whose windows look out the back, although presumably after the hours have closed for
the miniature golf, the lights might be turned off, but still, you know, and certainly at times during
the summer, particularly in August, when the lights really don't have to go off until 11 o'clock at
night. We wanted our guests not to look out the window and be blinded, and so we thought this
softer approach, not only is it more consistent with what you wanted, but it's consistent, it helps
us, too.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled
this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
Okay. We do have one. If you could come on up to the table and state your name for the
record, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NORMAN CARDINAL
MR. CARDINAL-My name is Norman Cardinal, and I'm a frequent guest at the Comfort Suites.
I'm a frequent guest of probably the three major hotel chains in the United States. I spend 250
to 300 nights a year in hotels. I spend almost 90 nights a year in that hotel. It's one of the
premier hotels, I feel, in the northeast. It's a beautiful piece of property, and this thing's going to
turn it into Coney Island. That lighting plan and that whole walkway thing is going to look like
crap. Right now it looks very nice. I've walked that walkway a number of times to go over and
play miniature golf there. You can see perfectly fine there now. You can see from the hotel
what it looks like. To take those trees down and put up those ugly lights is going to make it look
like hell. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so, but give me a second. Sorry. No.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The trees that were taken down are around the hotel property?
MR. KELLY-The trees that are being proposed to be taken down, yes, they're on the hotel
property.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And the trees are going to be planted are on the hotel property?
MR. KELLY-Yes, that's right.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's what I thought.
MR. KELLY-The back of the application it shows a little site plan, and as Mr. Golde pointed out,
this is a minimum, the illumination that we're proposing now really is the minimum that would be
safe for pedestrian lighting, and I'm not quite sure how that turns the whole site into Coney
Island, but we're just making a little more lighting on a path to an existing recreation facility.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not from me.
MR. FORD-I have none.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes, at least I am. I'm not speaking for the whole Board.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm still, that is a beautiful piece of property back there, and, you know,
you're asking to take out the four trees, and we know right over here, the next door neighbor
from the dollhouse has got that big dead oak there that overhangs, well, right there on the edge
close to the walk, right to the edge of the parking lot, and, you know, opening up that whole
corner over there, you know, you add the lights and you have the signage up there, I just, I don't
see the great benefit of removing those trees, and I think it looks really, like I said, it is a
beautiful piece of property. I like the look of it back there. You guys did a beautiful job planting
that out, you know, when it was built, and it's grown in nicely. So you throw in the lights and,
you know, you have the signs pointing from the pathway, don't you think that's enough?
MR. KELLY-Well, again, we believe that the path lighting, in terms of the engineering standards,
is inadequate right now for pedestrian path. There is no specific path lighting.
MR. MAGOWAN-No, but you're proposing the four 35 watters, right?
MR. KELLY-Thirty-five watt fixtures, yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you don't think, with just the lights in there and signage, is adequate
enough?
MR. KELLY-It will light the path, but as far as providing a visual, clear visual, you know, view of
the golf course, you know, the but where you get the clubs, you know, if the trees block it, block
that visual, that view, they block that view.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm not in favor of removing the trees. That's my opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does the hotel owner want to move the trees? I think that's what the
discussion was the last time you were here.
MR. FORD-Yes, right. I think this is the resolution of that conflict.
MR. WEISZ-We would defer to your decision. What we're trying to do is provide a safe
accessible welcoming opportunity for our guests. I guess if we have to choose between the
lighting and the trees, our druther would be to put in the lighting and not have the whole project
be (lost words) with the trees, but we do agree that the trees right now are a visual interruption,
and therefore, you know, not something that we would support.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you say we, who do you represent?
MR. WEISZ-I represent Royal Hospitality.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You represent the hotel.
MR. WEISZ-The hotel, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, and you do, too?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes. Just to clarify, my name's John Richards, again. We're both listed,
Richard Weisz and I, are both listed as agents for Royal Hospitality. We represent the hotel.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay, and Royal Hospitality wants the trees taken down?
MR. WEISZ-As part of the proposal we propose it, yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But they don't own the golf course?
MR. WEISZ-We do not own the golf course. We're concerned about our guests.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Okay.
MR. WEISZ-But we, you know, we're sensitive to your concerns, and the first time.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, the discussion we had last time was a little bit the opposite of that.
MR. WEISZ-Well, yes, but now that we've come up with a better lighting program, it's the hope
that the concerns you have are not there. I mean, we recognize there were concerns the last
time.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't have a problem with the lighting plan or the sign. I just, I was
concerned about cutting the trees down, because the last time I was here, I got the feeling the
hotel didn't want them cut down.
MR. WEISZ-Well, at the time there wasn't a proposal to replace it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right.
MR. WEISZ-So we hope that by replacing them that continues the.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Are you replacing them in the same spot where you cut them down?
MR. WEISZ-No, they're going to be on the other side.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. WEISZ-So, and we're sensitive to the fact that the oak is going to die, but all that being
said, we want our guests to feel that there is an opportunity for them. If you believe that they
would see that opportunity, as you pointed out, anyway, you know, we'd like to get both, but we
want to get something. So that's, I guess, where we are.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I believe the oak is dead.
MR. WEISZ-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-So that's a great concern, but that's, I believe that's on the dollhouse
neighbors.
MR. WEISZ-No, I believe that if you look at the map, I believe it's on Royal Hospitality.
MR. MAGOWAN-It's not that one. There's one behind it. Back in here.
MR. HUNSINGER-The dead one, you're talking about?
MR. WEISZ-Right. I mean, I think on the map that's up there it's almost just above where the
property lines intersect at that T, maybe a little bit to the right, but it's right, because it kind of
overhangs the parking lot area. So if you're standing in the parking lot, you're kind of looking at
the dead oak. I understand that. Presumably when it comes down there'll have to be some
replacement plantings anyway, and whether or not that will alleviate your concerns about
removing the four trees now or not.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any further discussion? Did you have something you wanted to add,
sir?
MR. CARDINAL-I just wanted to say one last thing. All it's going to do is open it up to a big view
of a dempsy dumpster and a big parking lot. You're not going to see any golf course.
MR. KELLY-Well, I would submit that if you look at the photos, the dumpster is surrounded by a
fence, and, yes, they would see the parking lot, but they would also see the golf course house.
There's a golf course in back of the hotel that they see as well, but the dumpster will not be
visible. The dumpster's surrounded by a fence and it's also, they're not going, they're not cutting
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
the vegetation all the way back to the dumpster. They're cutting back to the edge of the fence.
So they're going to see a fence. They're not going to see a dumpster.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. People comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-I am.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. This is a Type II SEAR. Are there
questions, Brad?
MR. MAGOWAN-Now, is that the dumpster right here that's in the brush?
MR. KELLY-Yes.
MR. MAGOWAN-All right, and on the poles that are here, you have clearing removed brush.
MR. KELLY-Well, you're looking at the old map. There's a smaller map submitted by Saratoga
Associates which shows that the, only cutting it back to the fence line.
MR. MAGOWAN-The fence line of the dumpster.
MR. KELLY-Yes, but the fence actually runs about six foot beyond the dumpster, and there's
fence around the dumpster as well.
MR. HUNSINGER-Drawing SP-1.
MR. KELLY-I'm sorry, it's 18 (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Drawing SP-1 that you're talking about?
MR. KELLY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, dated 7/3/12?
MR. KELLY-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-So everybody's clear on which plan we're looking at? The alternative?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have additional questions, Brad?
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, it's the same as here. Four trees are being moved out here, and the
clearing, the dumpster's right here. So you're going to be opening that view right up to the back
of the dumpster. So everybody from the back of the hotel is going to look right over into the
parking lot and see nothing but a parking lot and the dumpsters, in my opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, we closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to offer a resolution? We actually don't have a sample.
MR. WEISZ-We were presented with a sample.
MR. KREBS-Yes, we have it, right here.
MR. WEISZ-Staff gave a sample.
MR. KREBS-I'll make a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #49-2012 ROYAL HOSPITALITY
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes modification of existing site plan by adding lighting to foot path at rear of
premises, install directional signs along same path to adjacent miniature golf course, remove
and relocate to the west 4 trees near same property line and clear brush. Modification to
existing site plan requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised for 8/28/2012; the application was tabled to 10/16/2012-public
hearing left open;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2012 ROYAL HOSPITALITY, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel;
4) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work;
5) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
6) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. WEISZ-And I believe you're referring to the amended proposal, not the first proposal.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: Mr. Magowan
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. WEISZ-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MODIFICATION SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MOUNTAIN HOLLOW
H.O.A. AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-
3A, SR-1A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS EXISTING
AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE
ORIGINAL APPROVAL. FURTHER AN EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN (EAP) HAS BEEN
PROPOSED TO ALLEVIATE POTENTIAL FLOODING OF EXISTING DWELLINGS DUE TO
SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS AND SPRING THAW. MODIFICATIONS TO AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 LOT SIZE
26.15 +/-ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.-1-19 SECTION A-183
STEFANIE BITTER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is also known as Western Reserve Trail. This is in the MDR zone, off
of West Mountain Road. This is an Unlisted SEAR. The Planning Board, if you feel the need,
can reaffirm or go through a full SEAR if you care at this point. Project Description: In January
of 2009, the applicant proposed modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address
existing stormwater issues with a modification to an approved site plan. Specifically, the
stormwater basin was proposed to be enlarged to increase the water storage capacity from
approximately 8 acre feet to approximately 14 acre feet (See page 7 of the HydroCAD results for
the Modified Stormwater Basin). Further, an inflow gauging weir will be installed, and was
installed, near the stream inlet along with a pond level gauge in the main pond. The plan further
called for record keeping associated with the weir to include a "locked weather proof enclosure".
That seems to be an issue also. Just to speed this up a little bit, I'm just going to go to the areas
of concern with the Emergency Action Plan. What we're here for tonight is specifically that
Emergency Action Plan, and that's all, at this point. The previous conditions and plans
associated with the subdivision still stand, but again, this is specific to the Emergency Action
Plan or EAP, and Staff's concern, location of 6 inch HDPE pipe directly in conflict with existing
effluent pump stations located east of townhome parking lot. We'd like some clarification on
that. There is a continued presence of sink holes and voids along the south bank of the pond.
Plans for the compromised weir should coalesce to include plans for the weir, bank stabilization
and any vegetation erosion plans in the vicinity among others, and pond gauge installation
elevation and installation process in general. I'd like to have some clarification on that if at all
possible from Tom. I will say the sink holes, I think, are going to be an ongoing issue. I don't
know how Mickey's going to get around that, short of constantly dumping in dirt, maybe more
concrete. I don't know, to be honest with you, but the engineering is the focus on this with the
EAP, and I do want to reiterate that the previous approval for this still stands, and with that I'd
turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, Mickey Hayes and Tom Nace, here on behalf of the
project. I'm just going to be brief, and obviously bring to your attention that obviously the
implementation of this EAP would be ideal to have it done before the winter, and obviously the
installation of that pipe, we're on a limited window in which we can do that. Obviously as most of
you know, due to the extensions we've received to submit materials and come before you, this
has been a very long and detailed process that in a lot of permits were necessary from a lot of
different agencies and municipalities which we've definitely finally gotten in order. I'm now going
to turn it over to Mickey and Tom to go through some of the areas of concern that were brought
up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, with Keith's areas of concern and the engineer's review letter, one
of the things both of them alluded to was the fact that the pipe, the six inch discharge pipe which
is shown goes underneath the septic system. That pipe will be bored, a horizontal bore. So it
can be 12 feet deep at that point, and it'll go completely under the septic tanks and the pump
stations. So we realize in plan view it shows that there's a conflict, but it will be deeper than any
of the septic systems.
MR. FORD-And it will be 12 feet deep, Tom?
MR. NACE-It will be as deep as we need to get underneath the septic tanks. Probably around
10.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. NACE-But that'll be bored all the way from back where we show the pumps at the edge of
the pond all the way over to the receiving pit over on the east side of West Mountain Road.
MR. FORD-At that consistent depth? Or sloped?
MR. NACE-With the horizontal bore you can direct it left, right up and down. So we'll probably
come up to maybe six foot going under the road, deep enough to get under any gas utilities, and
then come up into our pit on the east side.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. NACE-The engineer had comments regarding the size of the pipe and the capacity. We're
definitely designing things for 1,000 gpm maximum, which is what the permit with the City
allows. So the Emergency Action Plan will be changed to reflect that 1,000 gpm as a maximum.
The pipe, the six inch pipe has been designed to handle that and the riprap slope protection at
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
the, at the discharge pipe has been designed for that velocity. Mickey can address some of the
other ones.
MICKEY HAYES
MR. HAYES-As far as the pond gauge installation, there is, I guess, Keith, I'll address that. We
did a walk thru today. We found a few more sink holes there we're filling in today. I think we're
going to actually, tomorrow, to try some, because as you guys must know, there's a lot of
concrete from the Ashton Cement days, and so there is, there are sink holes there. So we're
going to try to mix some cement in with, some areas due seem to constantly turn in to sink
holes. It's kind of a phenomenon that, who knows what's, you know, the voids that are there.
So they're more of a nuisance than anything else. So we're going to take care of that tomorrow
morning, and we'll just keep an eye on it, but as far as the, taking care of the weir and crushing
the weir and using the stone that we've got, it's a good idea instead of disturbing, having a major
excavation to pull the weir out. The recommendation of Staff is to crush in the weir and actually
stone it to make more, a bigger for the spillway. I think that was a good idea because it's
concrete as well. As far as the pond gauge elevation, we have one there where there's a
problem where the ice does have a tendency to batter it around. So we'll work with Staff,
whatever they're satisfied with, however they want to do it is, it's, you know, right now it's
cemented in and it's braced in three different directions, but I wouldn't say anything we install
there is going to be totally foolproof with the ice because if the ice does break free, it has a
tendency to be a massive force. As far as (lost word) the elevation, we're just going to coincide,
we'll have Van Dusen and Steves shoot the shot and set it with their, with them on site. As far
as any of the other stuff is that we're just excited that the City is actually allowing us to
potentially take this water. Because obviously when we have an outlet pipe, the elevation of the
pond can be controlled by the homeowners association. Even if it came into the Fall where they
felt the water was a little high, they could dump it off so they're comfortable, so it's never going
to get to a possible emergency situation to create capacity, not just reacting to an emergency.
Obviously it's very difficult to get the City to cooperate, because with Queensbury and Glens
Falls, it's a very difficult process with all the politics over the last couple of years, but the City did
step to the plate and said they want to make sure that we acknowledge that they're taking
something, they're not getting compensated by us to do that, which makes even the size of the
pond relatively irrelevant because we have a place to put the water now, which we never had
before. Besides that, I think it's, we're just excited that we actually have an outlet for the water,
potentially.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Where do the townhouses get their water, is that on City water?
MR. HAYES-It's Queensbury Town water, but the actual Glens Falls water main goes right
through the property. They have an easement right through the property on the backside, which
you've probably seen the maps in the past. It's a large, I think it's 24 or 36 inch pipe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you do have Town water service and hydrants?
MR. HAYES-Yes. The City owns a lot of land above us.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. HAYES-Which a lot of the water's coming off that. So I'm sure that's part of the
cooperation, but it doesn't, but they're allowing us to put it on their water shed. If we have to,
probably it will never happen, but they're still allowing us to do that, which is great.
MR. FORD-Could I ask Tom to address the advisability of using concrete when you're having
repeated sink holes? Is that an appropriate way to address that issue?
MR. NACE-Yes, I don't see why not. I'm not an expert in sink holes or geology, but I presume
what's happening is there are voids in the chunks of concrete that have been buried under there
over the years, and there's voids with water level rising and falling in the pond. Those voids get
filled up with soil that create other voids higher up in the strata, and that's what's creating the
sink holes. So filling in with concrete is probably eventually, if it works down into that layer
where the water level fluctuates, will solve the problem.
MR. FORD-Will that process include digging out a sink hole, making it actually deeper, wider
perhaps, before adding the concrete?
MR. NACE-I don't really know.
MR. KREBS-Tom, when we visited, if my memory serves me correctly, part of the problem with
the sink holes were they were pieces of concrete with dirt in between them and then as the
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
water came through, it washed the dirt between the concrete out, allowing the dirt that was over
the top to fall in. So if you fill in between those pieces of concrete with more concrete, the
surface you're going to put fill in on now is going to be permanent and will not allow that to sink.
You were there, too.
MR. FORD-Yes, I've been there. I've seen it.
MR. NACE-I think your question about whether you have to dig it out first depends on what the
sink hole looks like and how deep it goes, what you can see once it's developed.
MR. FORD-Thank you. Okay. Just wondering what the protocol was going to be.
MR. NACE-Take a look and see what's required, I think.
MR. MAGOWAN-Would it be more of a grout, a liquid as it pours in so that it would be finer, be
able to go deeper to fill some?
MR. NACE-Yes, you would want it to go (lost words).
MR. HAYES-We would pour it as wet as we could so it would, you know, normally drier is better,
but this case wetter is better.
MR. MAGOWAN-(lost words) it's not so big so that, you know, it just pours like a grout.
MR. HAYES-Yes, exactly.
MR. FORD-That's what I was getting at.
MR. HAYES-And, Brad, what we'd probably do is put it in and then we'd actually just have a
couple of hand temper vibrators on the top to try to work it as much down as we can. Because
it's not going to be a perfect, because God knows there's concrete the size of trucks in there.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 remember the lot.
MR. HAYES-Yes. So I'm sure we can get it done.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this on project this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address
the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. To myself from Steve and Joanne Borgos RE: Mountain Hollow H.O.A.
"We have carefully reviewed the latest version of the Mountain Hollow proposal as it appears on
the Town of Queensbury website, and we visited your office today to look at the plans. We
share the concerns expressed by the engineering review. Since the history of this site has
shown that the highest probability of a flooding issue is caused by heavy rains and/or rapid
melting of snow combined with rain during late winter or early spring, we have the following
concerns regarding the current proposal:
1. Will a 6 inch diameter pipe be adequate in size to accommodate the pump generated
water flow intended to be 1000 gallons a minute or higher?
2. If the diameter of the pipe at the hose connections is 4", how will 2 1/2" hoses be
connected?
3. Will two 4" hoses be adequate to carry the full volume of water flow coming from a 6"
pipe?
4. If the connections for the pumps are above ground in a small building, should we
presume that the 6" diameter pipe which will be buried under the road is to be
permanently connected to a mounting platform in the small building?
5. Have provisions been made to assure that the quick connect fittings to be used near the
pond and those to be used at the underground vault are properly mated?
6. The underground vault appears to be approximately 6 feet deep. Will there be a ladder
attached to the interior wall of the vault to allow quick access?
7. Since fire hose needs room to bend, and since it will have a tendency to kink near the
connection and as it emerges from the vault, have provisions been made to avoid a
restriction in the hose at the connection point and where the hose emerges? Even a
small kink will tend to restrict the flow of water.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
8. Have provisions been made to stabilize the discharge end of the hose or hoses? Under
pressure, the end or ends could swing wildly unless restrained.
9. In temperatures near the freezing point, there could be areas below freezing, and any
freezing will restrict the flow of water. Are there provisions for redundancy?
10. Is there any way to assure the availability of at least one 1000 gpm pump on site? In
severe weather - even if it's just rain and no cold weather - it will take an absolute
minimum of two hours round trip to obtain a pump, unless the pump supplier is willing to
deliver the pump. In the extreme case of a middle of the night emergency during an ice
storm, it seems reasonable to anticipate that it could take three to five hours for the
system to become operational.
11. It is noted that there is a proposed insurance policy to cover damages to the City of
Glens Falls in the event of loss or damage. Has the policy been reviewed by the Town
Attorney and have the triggers for damage claims been clearly presented? Are other
entities such as the Town of Queensbury or the public protected by the insurance?
12. In the event of a sale or other ownership change of the property, is there a record in the
deed that the system must be maintained, and the insurance policy kept in force?
13. What is the backup plan in the event that the City of Glens Falls cancels or fails to renew
its license?
We consider these questions and concerns to be important and based on common sense, and
we hope that there are adequate answers available.
ALTERNATIVES:
We ask that the Planning Board consider a simple, gravity system - with no electrical/gasoline
energy required. Provided that the City of Glens Falls is willing to accept the discharge of water
onto the lands of the watershed, it would seem reasonable to create a drainage ditch from the
appropriate location of the pond to a large capacity culvert pipe to be placed under West
Mountain Road. That system would be easy to monitor, requiring only that both ends of the
culvert pipe be kept clear of snow and ice, and the culvert itself be checked for blockage.
This system would be easy to design and would last for many years. The system would work by
itself when and if needed.
Thank you for considering the content of this note." That's all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. NACE-Okay. That's quite a shopping list.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. NACE-As far as the piping goes, we are looking at the hose connections and making sure
that the fittings inside will be oriented so that the hoses can come up out of the pit without
severe bends.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What are they, national standard or stores?
MR. NACE-What's that?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The fittings on the hoses, national standard or stores?
MR. NACE-We haven't gotten that far yet.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just make sure that they fit with what everybody's got around you.
MR. NACE-The whole system's got to fit together. Absolutely. We have provisions for holding
the pipe, the hoses down. There'll be some large concrete blocks available to stack on top of
the fitting to hold the discharge in down. What else did he have?
MR. FORD-How about has consideration been given to the culvert that was recommended?
MR. NACE-We did look at it, and it's quite a ways back through the woods to get to an elevation
where you're actually lower than the outlet of the pond. So it's way back in the woods. It would
require quite a bit of clearing and construction.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HAYES-The City felt that this is the lightest impact that they would have on their property,
since they're the receiving, they didn't want a big project going way back into the woods a
couple hundred, three, four hundred yards to get the elevation needed. They didn't want any
part of that. The same person who wrote this letter will complain that maybe that the weirs are
planned to be put along the roadway and work it around the corner to the outlet along Potter
Road. So this is how this plan came, and we had to work with the City. They felt that's the most
minimum impact on themselves, the receiver of the water.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. NACE-I can go back through the letter.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was quite a list.
MR. HAYES-We have an arrangement with the pump agency. That's what they do to respond.
We also have two pumps on the site that are capable of pumping 350 gallons a minute, which is
not necessarily going to do the job to the degree of this thing. Certainly, though, they can be
hooked up and used temporarily that are on site at all times.
MR. NACE-I know what I wanted to add. In the Emergency Action Plan we have actually
lowered the level at which the plan will come into effect to provide that additional storage so that
time is not critical, so that you're getting prepared in plenty of time to pump down before you
have anything.
MR. MAGOWAN-Now is that going to be a visual or is that going to be set up with like alarm
floats?
MR. NACE-It'll be visual. Alarm floats with the ice would be difficult.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes.
MR. HAYES-And basically like we said leaving it up to the homeowners association here if they
felt they could actually drop the pond in half in a day if they chose, because Glens Falls' license
agreement allows them to be, not just respond to an emergency. They could say, hey, we don't
like the way it's looking November 15t". Come end of the season, let's drain this baby right
down. They have that right to do that, to actually, so the odds of it having to pump are very slim,
but they could actually make it almost nil by just saying, hey, let's take a million gallons and
dump it off today. I mean, that's the beauty of the situation, the fact is it's eliminating the
possibility to just have to be a kneejerk reaction, and we're glad the City allows us to do that,
because they might have said, no, it had to be emergency only They didn't do that, which is
very important in this.
MR. MAGOWAN-Pretty much what a lot of reservoir lakes do all around the region.
MR. HAYES-Exactly. They just put the board in, take the board out. So you're reacting to
potential. Of course it's still, it's not exact science because they may expect a lot of rain to come
and they drought the pond and that's the balance that the homeowners association will have to
make their own choice.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-So where do you enter into that decision making?
MR. HAYES-Well, I do right now, but eventually the homeowners association will have their
own president, their own little, the people, the ownership will control it and they'll actually decide,
as a group, the policy they want to handle their, how their elevation of their pond.
MR. MAGOWAN-So you haven't transferred?
MR. HAYES-1 won't until this is all resolved, because I don't want them to have to worry about
going through all this process and stuff like that when it's really my doing, my responsibility to
make it right.
MR. FORD-Do you anticipate taking that pond down, then?
MR. HAYES-To be honest with you, there's not much more to take it down. If you have been
there recently, the pond got expanded, and when it was expanded a lot of concrete got broken
up. So it's a lot more permeable as you can probably tell if you guys have been to the site a lot.
The pond right now is almost, it's so low that I would say it's an eyesore at this point.
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think the water tap's low all across the Town anyway.
MR. HAYES-Yes, but I was there today, I was even shocked.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-No, I like it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are we comfortable moving forward?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is a Type, I'm sorry. It's an Unlisted action. We had a previous
SEAR. Are there any new issues or concerns that the Board has to reconsider the SEAR
finding? No? Okay.
MR. FORD-I think that based upon the discussion that we have and our understanding of the
analysis and the project, we could reaffirm our previous findings on SEAR.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. OBORNE-If I could interject just real quick.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-What I would like, as part of the motion, or request, recommend as part of the
motion, would be that any previous approvals are still, they still stand. This is focused on the
EAP, Emergency Action Plan. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater, lighting
and grading and landscaping. Stormwater obviously is being managed here. So that's a good
thing, but there are still some open items that need to be taken care of with this as far as
compliance goes, and if Mickey does that, it's fine. I just want to make sure that we're focused
only on this Emergency Action Plan for this. So I guess the language, and I guess to put words
in your mouth, is basically to state that any previous approvals still stand. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-In the previous approvals there were no waiver requests.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the waiver requests are just for the Emergency Action Plan.
MR. HAYES-I'm not sure. Maybe Keith can explain that to us.
MR. OBORNE-Well, there are some outstanding issues in Bruce's compliance letter that need to
be taken care of. I just want to make sure that those, that this approval does not absolve you
from those.
MR. HAYES-Yes, no problem. I agree..
MR. OBORNE-That's what I'm talking about.
MR. HAYES-Yes. No problem.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I figured it would be.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So there really are no waiver requests.
MR. KREBS-Right. So we just eliminate that. Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATION TO SUB # 8-2005 MOUNTAIN HOLLOW H.O.A.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes stormwater modifications to an approved subdivision in order to address
existing and proposed improvements to the site that were not part of the original approval.
Further, an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) has been proposed to alleviate potential flooding of
existing dwellings due to severe weather events and spring thaw. Modifications to an approved
subdivision require Planning Board review and approval.
Previous meeting dates: 2005-5/26, 6/28, 10/18, 11/15/05; 2006-4/24/06,2008-12/18/08, 2009-
1/27/09, 2010-7/20, 9/28, 11/16; 2011-1/20, 3/15, 5/17, 7/19, 9/27, 11/17; 2012-1/24, 3/20, 5/15,
7/17, 9/18/12;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 10/16/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 MOUNTAIN
HOLLOW H.O.A., Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions:
a) Any previous approvals will stand and will be required,
b) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183,
the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
c) We re-affirm a Negative Declaration for SEAR;
d) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff
e) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman.
f) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
1. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any
site work.
2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
g) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
1. The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; and
2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
h) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
i) As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans
to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. You're all set.
MR. HAYES-Thank you, gentlemen. It's been a long windy road. I'm sorry. Unfortunately you'll
see me again.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-For this?
MR. HAYES-Not for this one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Thank you, Tom.
NEW BUSINESS:
SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2012 SEAR TYPE II GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) ROBERT & DORIS
O'CONNOR ZONING OFFICE LOCATION 66 & 68 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO BOARD HORSES AS AN ASSOCIATED USE WITH THE VETERINARY
HOSPITAL. PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE THE USE OF EXISTING BARN ON ADJOINING LOT
AND THE CREATION OF A 2.8 ACRE FENCED PADDOCK ON A PORTION OF TWO
ADJOINING LOTS. EXPANSION OF VETERINARY CLINIC IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 16-10, BP 10-534;
SB 8-98, SP 50-98 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC
WETLANDS LOT SIZE 13.4, 1.52 & 1.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-14.1, 16, 17.1
SECTION 179-9; 179-10; 179-5-040
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is an expansion of the veterinary clinic, and as such requires Planning
Board review and approval. Location is 66 and 68 Glenwood Avenue in the O zone. This is a
Type II SEAR at this point. Project Description: Applicant proposes to board horses as an
associated use with the Veterinary Hospital. The proposal includes the use of existing barn on
adjoining lot and the creation of a 2.8 acre fenced paddock on a portion of two adjoining lots.
This is a Special Use Permit and it's actually not a restaurant use, obviously. This is a
veterinary use. I just want to clear that up for the record there.
MS. BITTER-Now I'm sure everybody'll go home.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Soils follow. Review, I'm going to break it into two parts, one being
environmental, and the focus is basically on manure management. I think that you were given
some pointers on what that entails. It's not as simple as piling it up. It needs to be moved. It
needs to be turned, it needs to be heated. That's the main thing. They are offering a passive
manure system, which in my experience does not work, and pasture management also would be
important, too, but I'm not sure if these horses are, if the horses are there for a vet use, I don't
see horses being put out into the pasture too often, to be honest with you, but it should be
considered. Turning to the use portion of this, I think the applicant needs to demonstrate to the
Board that this is not just a boarding operation, that this is actually part of the vet use. I see
absolutely nothing in the plans that state other than a boarding operation going on here, unless I
can be pointed to an area where it actually says that we're going to be doing this when the
animals are sick, okay, and to finish up on that, that proof is on the applicant's shoulders to
prove it to the Board. Okay, and with that I do turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with Larry Pelchowitz, also, for GFAH,
LLC. With regards to the veterinary clinic, we're utilizing the definition of veterinary clinic which
obviously when you read through it it ends with and boarding facilities. The way that we're
proposing this is the Glens Falls Animal Hospital is leasing property that is owned by the
O'Connors. When you look at these parcels collectively, there's a number of parcels that are
owned by the O'Connors as well as the Hospital that total about 30 acres. Those 30 acres will
be used for this boarding facility or boarding operation. The applicant's seeking a Special Use
Permit which would be permanent in nature, so that three horses could be used to be allowed to
be on that pasture that's demonstrated on the Dickenson survey. There's already an existing
1,000 square foot barn on the lot which maintains three box stalls and two tie stalls. As is
demonstrated on the survey, there's two corrals that are proposed. One would be .3 acres in
size, the other one would be 2.8 acres in size. Both of which the fencing mechanisms would be
about 100 feet away from the property line, which is where the Westwood Association is located.
In our materials we did talk about this being, I referred to it as being a split rail fence which is
probably not appropriate, but a fence that would be tall enough for the horses to be maintained
within the corral. A wire fence was mentioned, but that's actually already existing along the
perimeter, which the applicant has confirmed. For purposes of horse maintenance, the vet
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
would obviously keep all records of these horses that are being maintained on this site. They
will obviously be kept healthy. Their shots will be maintained. In that vicinity they'll be
associated with that vet hospital. Charts, like I said, would be maintained. For purposes of
manure management, we understood Staff's concern. We actually reached out to Warren
County, as was one of their recommendations, which then they deferred us to USDA. The
USDA said that they do deal with this on a lot of occasions and actually come out and do a site
visit and at that site visit then issue a written report presenting their recommendations, which
we'd be willing to work with, so that that would be a condition of approval as to how we maintain
our manure management. When looking at the factors relative to this Special Use criteria,
realize you have to look through those. One of them being is it in harmony with the
Comprehensive Use Plan. Obviously what we're doing here is we're trying to maintain a rural
area, a rural characteristics of Queensbury which obviously is important to the community. This
would be a minimal use, a minimal impact to the area. Is it compatible? I understand that, I'm
sure I have a group of people sitting behind me that are all worried about their houses and are
worried about development on this lot, but obviously we feel that this is a minimal impact.
Obviously in looking at the other permitted uses for this property, this is an office. So we could
talk about offices, apartments, obviously larger impacts to that lot. For purposes of access
circulation parking, all of that will be achieved from the Glenwood entrance, which is already
maintained through the veterinary hospital. So again, no additional impacts. We're going to be
utilizing the existing infrastructure for this project. We feel that there would be positive impacts
to the environmental and the natural features of the area, and we do not anticipate any long term
negative effects. I'd open it up to questions for the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from members of the Board?
MR. KREBS-So what you're basically saying is it is just a boarding situation, it's not horses that
need medical care that are there temporarily and you're housing them temporarily.
MS. BITTER-Understanding that that could be a possibility, but, no, we're looking at it for
purposes of boarding.
MR. KREBS-But you're also looking at horses that would be just for boarding purposes?
MS. BITTER-Right, but through the hospital.
MR. OBORNE-And that's not an allowable use.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. FORD-And you're indicating that it would be a maximum of three?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. FORD-Which doesn't make it any more allowable than if it were six or.
MS. BITTER-I'm sorry, and if that number goes up, we'd understand that that would be the
number that would be based on this decision.
LARRY PELCHOWITZ
MR. PELCHOWITZ-Just to clarify, the maximum number of horses that they're seeking on that
site is three. In the event that there was ever, and it could be limited to three. In the event that
you do limit it to three, then certainly if there was ever any idea, and there isn't presently, to
increase that number, then they would have to come back and get further approvals, but at this
point, because of the fact that the existing structure has three box stalls, that would be the
limiting factor, in as far as the number of horses that would be maintained there, but also the, as
far as the operation, the Animal Hospital would be involved, as Stefanie said, with regard to not
just maintaining the charts and so on, but making sure that the animals that are there are
properly, have the proper medical veterinary care while they're there. So it's not a matter of just
a boarding facility unto itself. It's connected to the veterinary facility where they're going to be
making sure that those horses are getting the appropriate veterinary care, not just feed and, you
know manure removal.
MR. TRAVER-But that's not unique to a veterinary environment. Any boarding facility, whether
it's cats, dogs, anything obviously responsible for the health of the animals. The issue here is
that boarding of horses is something not allowed. The other concern that I would have is the
16,000 pounds per year estimated plus bedding material. I think I would like to see the FDA
recommendations before we can make a judgment about whether this can be managed.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. PELCHOWITZ-1 did speak with Scott Fischer today and discussed with him that issue and
he indicated to me that he wasn't sure where that number came from, but he did indicate that all
the guidelines talk about basing this off of 2,000 pound animals, even though in reality they're
not 2,000 pound animals, and basically indicated that he was familiar with the site and that he
was confident that as far as manure management of the site, that it wasn't going to be any issue,
but obviously the veterinary hospital is willing to cooperate and to accept the recommendations
of the USDA, Scott Fischer, who we contacted, at the Town's request, we contacted the Warren
County Conservation, and they were unable to handle the situation, and they told us to contact
the USDA, Scott Fischer at USDA, which we did, and again, we're willing to cooperate with their
recommendations, and he didn't appear, he indicated that he didn't appear to be any problem.
MR. FORD-Could either of you, would either of you please address the issue that it is not an
allowable use?
MS. BITTER-Well, actually, if it's necessary to appeal to the Zoning Board, we'll go to that step,
but I was actually just contemplating it when he brought that up that I believe this came up with
Dr. Kelleher's facility on County Line Road, whether or not boarding facilities were allowed, but I
was trying to think that I don't know if it necessarily got to the decision of the appeal because the
Use Variance from Dr. French was already in place.
MR. OBORNE-That was a Notice of Appeal, I believe.
MS. BITTER-Right. So I'd have to look at how far that got back, but a similar type situation. I
mean, I'm not sure if you guys have the definition in front of you of a veterinary clinic, but it's not
clear that it's not allowed. It essentially says a facility providing health services and medical or
surgical care to animals suffering from illnesses, disease, injury, deformity and other abnormal
conditions, including related facilities such as lavatories and boarding facilities. So, if it's the
Zoning Administrator's determination that those two have to be connected in the sense that
surgical patients are only allowed to be boarded at these vet facilities, then that might be the
direction that we have to go in to seek a Zoning Board determination.
MR. OBORNE-1 would agree with that.
MS. BITTER-And if that's the case, I think that what Staff's saying is it's not something that I
could argue before this Board.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it's an Ag use, and an Ag use includes the boarding of domesticated
animals, horses, it specifically says horses, actually, cows, pigs.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, and I do think the manure management, I mean, that's a huge issue, you
know, in that area. I know you're proposing sort of some on site passive composting and so on,
but it sounds as though you're getting information initially from Warren County that this may be
quite an effort, and so I think it would be appropriate for us to have whatever recommendation
that you obtain from the FDA to evaluate whether or not the number of animals can be
appropriately managed, the manure management can be handled on the site.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-To clarify, though, Warren County did not say that it was not manageable or
that it was difficult. The individual that I spoke with there indicated that he was not familiar with
the manure management requirements. So it wasn't an issue where he didn't think that it could
be done. He just forwarded me to Scott Fischer from the USDA and it was Scott Fischer who
indicated that there really wasn't going to be an issue, but certainly we can obtain their
recommendations. The only problem is that he wasn't certain as to what the timing of that was
going to be through the Federal government, but also the initial thoughts on where the manure
management would occur would be in the northwest component of this pasture, which is the
furthest possible point away from the neighbors to the east, and again, unless the USDA tells us
that that's inappropriate or they have a better plan, certainly then we would, Dr. O'Connor's
veterinary operation would comply with whatever the USDA said.
MR. SIPP-1 think if you contacted Cornell University College of Agriculture you'd get a much
quicker answer and a better answer, both commercial and.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-1 appreciate that very much. We went to the Warren County, as a result of
the recommendation from the Town, and they pushed us to the USDA.
MR. SIPP-Call Ithaca. I'm sure you'd get a much better, quicker advice on this, both boarding
and treatment. The veterinary college there has a lot of information on that I know.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-Thank you. I mean, as you all realize that this site was used as a horse
farm and actually a training facility at one point, there was a training track. There's still remnants
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
of that training track on the site, and there were many, many horses that were maintained on
that site. Again, the limitation of three, we thought, would be having such a minimal impact
compared to the other possible uses of that site that we thought that this, barring the analysis of
what the regulation requires, it seemed to us that it's a minimal impact on the site.
MR. OBORNE-Well, there really is no regulation, per se. I mean, you're dealing with the
National Resource Conservation Service, which is an arm of the USDA, and they'd be the ones
that would be advising mostly like on this, and it is an issue. I mean, it really is. I mean, those
numbers are borne out over time as far as the pounds and the volatility and the nature of that
type of waste, and I have concerns that somebody from the USDA would, with limited
knowledge of the plan, would actually say that he has no concerns.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-Again, he didn't say that he didn't have any concerns. He believed, he was
familiar with the site and he believed that there would be a way in order to have the appropriate
manure management for that site.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I misunderstood what you're saying. There certainly is definitely a way,
absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think my bigger concern, I can only speak for myself, not the whole Board,
is the issue of whether or not it's an allowable use. I think in your cover letter, you know, you
said you're proposing to board horses as part of a services of a veterinary clinic is different than
just boarding horses, and in the reading of the definition, I attribute that to being a use within the
veterinary services that are being provided, and that's just my take on it, but I don't know how
the rest of the Board feels. So I think if this is like a really standalone use to board horses, then
we'd probably need the opinion of the Zoning Administrator before we could really do anything.
MR. OBORNE-He's already offered that opinion.
MR. HUNSINGER-He has?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You should have a letter that states that here.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry if I missed that.
MS. BITTER-I guess where we are distinguished here is whether or not the horses have to be
under the surgical care or just under the care, and that's what we were trying to describe in the
sense that obviously the vet would be watching over these horses to make sure that they're
healthy and that their (lost words) maintained. They won't be just keeping them out to pasture.
There will be a connection to the vet.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-It will be an ancillary use to the veterinary business.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Again, his letter, though, says that the, "It is my determination that a
position could be presented for the expansion of the Veterinary Clinic to include the care and
treatment of horses and that such expansion would be subject to a Special Use Permit"
MR. FORD-By this Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn't find that clarified, personally.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-Yes, again, we're asserting that the veterinary clinic will be doing the care
and treatment of these horses as part of their veterinary practice.
MR. MAGOWAN-Am I confused or am I missing something? Do you want to board horses or do
you want to board horses that you're taking care of?
MR. PELCHOWITZ-We want to board horses that they're taking care of, but they don't
necessarily have to be surgical patients. They don't have to be.
MR. MAGOWAN-So they're not going to be just personal horses that are going to be out in the
pasture, or he's going to, you know, they're horses that are going to be under his care as a
doctor?
MR. PELCHOWITZ-One doesn't preclude the other. In other words, they will be under the care
and treatment of the veterinary clinic. That doesn't mean that, you know, there's going to be any
limitation on what horses, you know, could be there, but they will be under the care and
treatment.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. TRAVER-Would it be, another way of saying what you're proposing would be that these
animals wouldn't necessarily be under active medical treatment. However, they would be under
the observation of the Staff of the veterinary clinic?
MR. PELCHOWITZ-1 think that's fair.
MR. TRAVER-Well that, in my opinion, is boarding, for what it's worth.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-Well, when we say observation, observation by medical, by a veterinarian.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I'm saying, if they come in for surgery or if they have, you know.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, invasive, active medical care.
MR. MAGOWAN-Medical care, but if they're just there for, you know, an observation where they
could be observed off site, then that's where I'm a little confused is, you know, are you treating,
like I know I bring my animals there and I have a lot of respect for them, you know, I go in for
treatment and then I bring them home, but I have to leave them overnight or so long, blah, blah,
blah, but they're coming back home. Are the horses staying there permanently or are they just
there for treatment and then leaving?
MR. TRAVER-Correct. We're talking about a maximum of three.
MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. So you have three horses there and then another one comes in. Now
we're up to four.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-You would not have four. The most you would have is three.
MR. MAGOWAN-So what do you do, kick one out when another one comes in?
MR. FORD-But they could spend their natural lifetime there.
MR. TRAVER-Right. So it is boarding. They're limited in number, but they're asking.
MR. MAGOWAN-But it is boarding.
MR. TRAVER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I'd like to hear from the public.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. The purpose of
the public hearing is for interested parties to provide comment to the Planning Board. Anyone
who wishes to address the Board, I would ask that you state your name for the record, speak
clearly into the microphone. We do tape the meeting. The tape is used to transcribe the
minutes. The tape is also available on the Town's website if anyone cares to listen to it, and
with that, I see we already have our first presenter.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL BORGOS
MR. BORGOS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try to keep things moving tonight. My
name is Michael Borgos. I'm the attorney for the Westwood Homeowners Association. As you
can imagine, at this late hour many of those in attendance this evening are part of the
Homeowners Association. We've tried to coordinate so we don't belabor any points, and I'll try
to even shorten my comments because it's obvious from the questions that have come from the
Board tonight that you're already aware of many of the issues of concern that we have. Staff
has raised some of the same issues as well. I do want to hit on a few topics, though. The use
issue is certainly one we I think is first and foremost something that the Board needs to address.
We don't think that this is an acceptable use, and I say that in reference to both the April 20th
determination of the Zoning Administrator, which I think is very clear, that it requires care of an
illness or an ailment that the animal has. That is the purpose of a veterinary clinic. It is not a
horse farm or a riding facility or a training facility. Those things clearly are not allowed under the
Code. If you look at the Code in whole, and you examine the Ag uses in 179-5-040, it's very
clear that there are restrictions for office zones. Poultry, other small livestock is not allowed at
all. If you get down to Section C of that particular Code section, it says within any district other
than those cited above, and Office is one of those, large farm animals may be kept. So it says
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
they're not allowed in Office. It's very clear that that's not allowed, but for the animal hospital
exemption. So it almost seems that the counsel is doing a very fine job of lawyering, trying to fit
this round peg into the square hole here, but it really would have to be something to do with the
care and treatment of an animal if it's going to go in that direction. The other part of this section
I think that's very instructive to us is that it specifies that where within the Town these things are
allowed to be kept. It has to be for private, non-commercial use, and clearly this is a commercial
use. So that's inconsistent, and I think that this analysis has to be undertaken because in the
applicant's mapping that they've submitted to you, in the supposed area table that they have on
the left hand side here, it talks about minimum, Town of Queensbury minimum area per horse.
There is no such requirement within the Town Code, but there is a reference in this particular
section I've cited, in this Section C, that doesn't include the Office zone, it does set forth the
minimum of five acres for the first animal and two acres for each additional animal. The 100 foot
setback from property line is also contained in there. So it may be instructive for other zones,
but not here necessarily, but if we're going to take that as an area description, we also have to
be cognizant that it's for non-commercial, private usage. The next section tells us that in the
very rural most expansive zones that we have in the zone, the RR, the PR, and the LC districts,
farm animals such as horses and cows may be kept, but there's a 10 acre minimum there. So I
think the concept is being conveyed by the planning of the Ordinance that these things are for
large expanses, large tracts of land. What we have here is a very dense development. The
Homeowners Association are in fourplexes. They have chosen to live in a very dense, urban
type environment. Certainly this was a historic use for the property, but these homeowners are
in this location for other reasons. Location, foremost among them. Now they have ordinances
and rules within their own property that restrict pets. They're not allowed to have dogs. So it's a
very different philosophy, and it's kind of an odd way to look at things, because usually people
are here opposing projects where you're intensely developing, and this is kind of an opposite,
but obviously the odor, insect control, other health issues, are very much of concern to these
neighbors because they are downwind from the prevailing westerly's, and those are some of the
highlights. I'm going to allow some of the individual residents to speak about some of the other
issues that they have.
VIVIAN BERGSTEDT
MRS. BERGSTEDT-My name is Vivian Bergstedt, and I'm president of the Westwood
Homeowners Association. Our concern is also that if their horses are on the field, they will
certainly be leaving waste, and when our borderline, in the spring and in the fall and after heavy
rains, there are lots of water standing on our lot line, especially in the northeast corner, and in
some of the areas in the spring we actually have lakes that ducks are in. So we are very
concerned about the health issues that would come with that. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome.
RON PISANO
MR. PISANO-I'm Ron Pisano. I live in Westwood, and I have the same concerns, and we want
to be friendly neighbors, but one horse we had talked about that we probably, we're not even
sure, but three horses with the manure, the flies, the wind comes from the west mostly it would
come over there, and also for property values later on, somebody coming in, we're concerned
about the metal fence not in keeping with a rural area with wooden fences or modern, white
plastic fences would be more appropriate, and for people coming to look at any of the
townhouses that are listed, or come up for sale and they see horses running around and
especially if it's in the summer and there is an odor coming through, it eventually would impact
on the property value. Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-1 certainly don't want to foreclose anyone who came here to speak tonight from
the Association, if there's anyone else you may. While you're thinking about that, I just want to
add two more points. Mr. Magowan mentioned bringing an animal into the veterinary clinic, and
in, I think, was an important key word. It's an enclosed structure currently. That's the way it
operates. This, by description, is a large open pasture. It's out, and that's where these origins,
the origins of these odors and pestilence could be coming from. I think in essence this is an
incomplete application. We don't have a manure management plan. We don't really know how
to evaluate those aspects of it, and whether it's Warren County Soil and Water or USDA, this
Board is still responsible to evaluate whatever is proposed with their guidance. So it can't just
be shoveled off to them to say go ahead and approve something, because you have to then
consider the Town Enforcement Officer is going to have to figure out how to enforce whatever
protocols or criteria you approve, and how do you do that? If it's care and treatment of an ailing
animal, do you have the enforcement officer check monthly to see the records and the charts for
the animal to evaluate whether or not there was some type of ailment? It gets to be very
cumbersome. So I think it brings you back to that initial use evaluation which has to be
evaluated. I think that's it.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you.
PHILLIPA HEINSEN
MRS. HEINSEN-My name is Phillipa Heinsen, and I'm a tenant owner in Westwood, and my
question is, who's paying the animal hospital the board for these horses? If this is a hospital
use, then the owners of the horse pay the vet clinic to treat the horse and they take it home. If
this is a boarding facility, they're paying probably $450 a month, year round, to keep the horse
there, and they're not getting vet treatment. The vet hospital has no facilities to treat large
animals at this point that I know of. It's a small animal hospital. So if they're calling it a hospital
use, where are they treating these animals? You can't treat a horse, very much, in a barn. You
need a horse operating facility. There's a large animal treatment center in Granville. I don't
think they board horses there. It's a hospital treatment. So I would say that is your criterion for
whether this is a vet hospital use or a boarding facility, who's paying to keep their horses there.
Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No, no written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there are no other comments, we will conclude the public
hearing for tonight. I don't know if you had anything you wanted to add as a result of the public
comment?
MS. BITTER-Well, we appreciate the use being the main issue, as to what's on the table, as to
what exactly is deemed appropriate for the vet clinic and that boarding facility. Like I had
mentioned earlier, it seems to me it may be something that has to go before the Zoning Board,
because from my memory, it has come very close to going before the Zoning Board for this
particular issue, more so on the dog end than on the horse end, but similar concept. We
obviously did mention the fence issue. I think that was one of the things that one of the
gentlemen had asked, whether or not the fencing would be metal or plastic, which at this point is
not really one of the main issues to be discussed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?
MR. KREBS-Well, I would just like to say that 1, looking at what Craig Brown wrote, I would have
to have legal counsel tell me, does it have to include care and treatment of the horses to meet
our requirement and therefore if it does, then it has to go to the Zoning Board for a variance
because it's certainly not going to meet the requirements.
MR. OBORNE-On the use.
MR. KREBS-Of the use, correct. That's my feeling.
MR. TRAVER-And I think that was made clear by the applicant.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MS. BITTER-That is the direction we were heading.
MR. OBORNE-So I guess do you want to table or what's the applicant looking?
MR. HUNSINGER-I can't see us doing anything but tabling, personally.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there are certainly outstanding issues, manure management being
one.
MS. BITTER-Right, we understand.
MR. HUNSINGER-We clearly don't have that plan, but then there's also the outstanding issues
from the Zoning Administrator.
MR. OBORNE-1 agree. I mean, use is the first thing to get through.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Use.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I would table it for legal review and then at that time you can decide
whether you want to drop it or send it to the ZBA.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's going to come back here if it goes to the ZBA. I mean, in terms of a
comment from the Zoning Administrator, I'm sure we could get that in time for.
MR. OBORNE-You have one.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but.
MS. BITTER-For clarification purposes, so that if it's necessary we appeal it to the Zoning
Board.
MR. TRAVER-Well, he says in his letter, "An agricultural use, such as keeping of horses, is not
listed as an allowable use within the Office district." That's in his letter of April 20tH
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-1 think it's pretty clear.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Again, if you're not comfortable with that, then, you know, ask for additional
clarification.
MR. FORD-I'm comfortable with it.
MR. TRAVER-And perhaps as far as the manure, I mean, Paul has a point in the sense that if
we get through the use issue, at that point, if necessary, we can address the manure
management, and that would govern, perhaps, for example, horses or, you know, whatever is on
site or off site, whatever recommendations come from whatever sources they use.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I'm the only one that might be still confused about the use issue.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-He's saying the Town law says you can't board horses, but it doesn't say
that you can't have horses, you can't treat horses. Right, is that what you said?
MR. OBORNE-You can't, it has to be part of the veterinary use.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right.
MR. KREBS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-What's being offered is not part of the veterinary use.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, okay.
MR. FORD-So I can accept that. That's what I'm accepting. It's not an appropriate use.
MS. BITTER-The other thing is there's a distinct definition for a kennel, and I think that's where
it's.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, here's where I'm confused, because in his letter he goes on to say, if
this direction satisfies your needs, please proceed with the necessary Special Use Permit
review. So because they're here, to me, he's then saying.
MR. OBORNE-I'm just going to read, and I'll paraphrase.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you following what I'm, where I'm coming from?
MR. OBORNE-To me it's black and white, but I can understand why it's gray to you because of
the way it's written and the flow with this. I understand that, but what I see is within the Office
zone a veterinary clinic is listed as an allowable use. We know that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Under the auspices of a Special Use Permit.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's also grandfathered.
MR. OBORNE-But it's, right here is the phrase. An agricultural use, such as the keeping of
horses is not listed as an allowable use within the Office district. What has been offered is there
has be no indication that this is associated with the veterinary use. It's a boarding use, and that
is an Ag use, black and white.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Now if it was a veterinary use, would it be allowed or not?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely, if it's associated with this vet clinic, but they're not offering that.
MR. TRAVER-Although we (lost words) the outstanding issues of the manure management, the
number of horses.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's right, but what you're saying is veterinary use is okay.
MR. OBORNE-If he is treating them for a certain amount of time, yes, not for the rest of their life
obviously.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, no, until they get well.
MR. OBORNE-Until they get well and they ship out, absolutely.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is that what you're saying you're doing?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-What we're saying is that that's a possibility, however that we believe that
the care and treatment is more encompassing than just surgical care or acute care, that it could
also be long term care.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but that would be boarding.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-No, not necessarily. It could be under the care, an ancillary use of a
veterinary facility could be the care and treatment of those horses.
MR. OBORNE-Of sick horses, of horses that require vet.
MR. TRAVER-I think the point that they're trying to make is that rather than active, aggressive
medical care, having an animal on property associated with a veterinary facility, merely under
the observation of, without the animal suffering from an acute or chronic illness, could be an
allowable use is what their argument is.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-Not just observation, but providing treatment to that horse when necessary.
MR. TRAVER-When necessary, right.
MR. OBORNE-Horses require shots. All horses are required to be re-shoed. They're nails,
which is a hoof, needs to be filed down.
MR. TRAVER-So do cats and other animals that are boarded, yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think part of the confusion, too, is that the opinion from the Zoning
Administrator is in response to a letter, not a review of the application.
MR. OBORNE-And that is what you have before you. You have my review of the application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. BITTER-But if it wasn't a permitted use, I guess I was anticipating it to be rejected, as
opposed to getting to this point.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-I think I'm concurring with you, which is why I was saying, you know, where
he says later in the letter, I agree with you, that one paragraph is very clear, but then he goes on
to say, if this direction satisfies your needs, please proceed with the special permit review.
MR. OBORNE-Well, in their mind, they believe it satisfies their needs, and in my notes I state
the burden of proof is on the applicant.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but, Chris, I think he's saying if it is in fact care and treatment, meaning a
veterinary treatment of the horse, that, you know, if this direction satisfies you then you need to
do a special permit for having horses there to be treated by a veterinarian.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's exactly.
MR. KREBS-But I do not believe, and when he goes on here and says if you have any additional
information that you would like me to consider that may have an effect on this determination,
which is saying okay, no, there's going to be some additional information supplied by the
applicant that is not going to affect what we've already determined. So that's my interpretation
of what he said.
MR. FORD-Everything, in my perspective, hinges on this one sentence: An agricultural use,
such as the keeping of horses, is not listed as an allowable use within the Office district, period.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, that's clear, but is this an agricultural use, that's the question.
MR. TRAVER-Would a suggestion be to ask the Zoning Administrator to review the minutes or
listen to the audio tape and render a clarifying position?
MR. OBORNE-If the Board so wishes.
MR. TRAVER-We now have, in addition to the application, we now have statements by the
applicants representatives and so on, you know, maybe that would have an impact (lost words)
leading the Zoning Administrator one way or the other. That would clarify that issue at least and
then we could move on to the other manure management and so on.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is everyone in agreement?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I can agree with that.
MR. KREBS-Yes, well, I think we could table it and have Craig come back and explain what he
meant in this letter.
MR. OBORNE-Or he can clarify. Again, that's not a determination, well, I'll stop right there. I'll
stop right there.
MR. TRAVER-Yes, why don't we just have him re-evaluate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-You know, with the updated information.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Is there room for it on the November?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we haven't set the agenda yet.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, we haven't set the agenda yet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don't know what the submissions are.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I wouldn't put this on the November agenda, because let's go down the path
of, okay, the use is allowed, they don't have a plan ready to go.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-So table it to December.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-But it's my opinion, which is all it is is an opinion, is that this use is not allowed,
as presented. That's the caveat.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think Craig's letter was really clear, to be honest with you
MR. FORD-No, to add to the confusion.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, he's what's added to the confusion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any preference? If we're tabling this to December, we have meetings on the
18th and the 20th. Any preference?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-It doesn't matter to me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't we say the 18th. Do you want to move that, Mr. Krebs?
MR. KREBS-Yes.
RESOLUTION TABLING SUP# 63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes to board horses as an associated use with the Veterinary Hospital. Proposal
to include the use of existing barn on adjoining lot and the creation of a 2.8 acre fenced paddock
on a portion of two adjoining lots. Expansion of Veterinary Clinic in an Office zone requires
Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/16/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO TABLE SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 63-2012 GLENS FALLS ANIMAL HOSPITAL,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan:
For further evaluation by the Town Zoning Administrator and counsel to determine whether or
not and what is permitted in the zone, based on tonight's proceedings. NOTE: Tabled to
December 18, 2012.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And just for members of the audience, the public hearing was held open. We
will take public comment on the 18th of December. You're also welcome to provide written public
comment to the.
MR. OBORNE-Did we provide a date for this tabling?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, 12/18.
MR. OBORNE-It's the 18th. Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're also welcome to provide written comment to the Town through the
website or through the mail. Thank you.
MR. KREBS-And I just want to forewarn you. Using the fact that this property was used for
horses before really doesn't cut it because if you look at the Town of Queensbury, 90% of it was
used for horses, cows, cattle before, so that doesn't make it.
MR. FORD-A lot of us are living in former pastures.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. PELCHOWITZ-And current ones.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
SITE PLAN NO. 64-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED MC DONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S)
BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE LOCATION 192 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING 5,420 SQ. FT. MC DONALD'S AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,200 SQ. FT. MC
DONALD'S TO INCLUDE PARKING RECONFIGURATION, NEW LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING
AND STORM WATER CONTROLS. NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION IN A Cl ZONE
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SV 51-12,
SP 15-93, AV 1437, SP 43-88 WARREN CO. REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 LOT SIZE 3.14
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-74 SECTION 179-9
CHRIS BOYEA& RENE REARDON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. McDonald's USA, LLC. New commercial construction requires Planning
Board review and approval. Location is 192 Corinth Road. Existing zoning is Commercial
Intensive, and this is an Unlisted SEAR. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 5,420 sq. ft.
McDonald's and construct a new 5,200 sq. ft. McDonald's to include parking reconfiguration,
new lighting, landscaping and storm water controls. New commercial construction in a CI zone
requires Planning Board review and approval. I do want to say Warren County Referral did have
a No County Impact with a stipulation. So please make sure you read what that stipulation is,
and it's basically the same one I have under C-2, alignment of access drives with associated
access drives on the southern portion of Corinth Road should be depicted. It appears as if the
eastern access drive aligns opposite of motel access drive and is not an immediate issue,
however the western access drive has been moved further west and clarification is requested.
Silt fencing, again, should be installed perpendicular. There's some issue, a very minor issue
with landscaping. Site lighting does appear to be excessive. An average foot candle calculation
should be submitted for the site, and also DEC endangered species and the ubiquitous Office of
Parks Recreation and Historical Preservation signoff required for both SEAR and SPDES
coverage, and Sign Variance 51-2012 associated with this request has been approved back in
September. With that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. BOYEA-Yes, good evening. My name's Chris Boyea. I'm with Bohler Engineering out of
Albany, and here with me tonight is Rene Reardon. She is the local owner and operator of this
facility, here from McDonald's, as well as Francis Esion, who's with McDonald's Corporation out
of Boston. That's the region that handles this area of the United States for McDonald's, and just
in case anybody here's wondering, I've done some research, and unfortunately the Yankees are
losing right now. It's two zero. Bottom of the fifth. So just as a mental break for you. All right.
So to kind of focus in on the application, we're here tonight to request site plan review and
approval for a very large re-investment that Rene has decided to undertake at this facility. The
existing McDonald's has been up there for many years. It's right at the Exit 18 onramp and off
ramp, as I think everybody's familiar with, and when it comes in to re-investments, there's a
couple of options for re-investments. I mean, we could do paint, and we could do small re-
model and things of that nature, but what Renee's really looking at here is a very large re-
investment where we're actually going to take a dozer and run it right through the whole building
and start over. The benefits of making that larger re-investment project is that we can not only
kind of clean up imagine, but we can also correct all of our ADA, handicap accessibility, both
outside parking spaces, including new sidewalks, as well as inside we're going to have a brand
new well thought out, laid out building that would have much larger restrooms inside. Also ADA
accessible counters and seating. So it runs the whole gamut where we can correct almost
everything, but it's a very large investment. So we are proposing to re-develop that site, and as
far as re-development projects go, I'm glad I'm at the end of this night, because this one's fairly
easy. Our building's getting smaller. We're going from a 5,420 square foot building today down
to 5,200 square feet. We're going from a half an acre of green space to 1.2 acres of green
space. So we're adding a lot of green. So we're smaller building, more green space, you know,
less parking, well thought out. It's just a home run all the way around. I did bring some exhibits
here just to show you. This is the existing aerial showing our site here. There's a new Taco Bell
that's being built right now at that location. As you can see just from the aerial, we're getting rid
of all this pavement over here, really increasing green. Renee's done a great job of landscaping
on her existing facility, and we're going to keep as much of that as possible. We are complying
with Code and putting in trees to help break up the asphalt inside the parking lot area. The
general orientation and flow of the facility will function much like it does today. We have the
front of the building facing the road here. We have a one way traffic circulation around the
building for drive thru purposes, and we have this lot over to the left, which is used for buses and
trucks, oversized vehicles. The existing access remains the same, right where it is today, which
has worked out better than expected, especially with the new roadwork that has happened over
there in the last two years. It just works perfect. There's no incidents that we know about. Drive
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
thru traffic would enter here. We are going to have aside by side drive thru at this location. So
again, not only are we going to be ADA compliant, but this is really bringing a world class
McDonald's. It is the best of the best McDonald's that we have in the country right here where
we have a changing demographic. When the building was built in the 70's and early 80's, we
had a lot more dine in traffic than we had drive thru traffic. Now it's kind of flopped the other way
around. We're having more drive thru traffic than dine in. So with that we've got two order
stations in the rear that funnel into one, pre-pay window, pick up window, and again, building a
new building, we can make those windows accommodate today's car lengths, versus car
lengths that were thought about in the late 70's early 80's and then after thoughts where we put
in a pre-pay window that wasn't really at the right car lengths. So everything's just going to get
much more efficient, kitchen's more efficient. The cooking equipment's more efficient. Heating
and cooling's more efficient. Water fixtures are less flow. So it's definitely a good upgrade all
around. Parking spaces, we have 94 parking spaces, which is slightly less than what we have
out there today. We have a lot of parking all over the place there, but as everybody I hope
knows here this is a very busy location. We're pulling people off the interstate, making them
stop in Queensbury before they go on up to, whether it's the Adirondacks or Montreal, as they
continue. Access was the other item. We're keeping this one here. Today this access is right
here. We're pushing the access further away from the intersection another 20, 30 feet. The
reason why we did that was just good access management. It's always liked to get as far away
from intersections as possible, and this is our bigger truck's access over here. So that's the
reason why we pushed it as far possible the other direction, and lighting, we will have brand new
lighting throughout this whole site. We don't want to make this type of investment and leave a
rusty pole. So we're going to put in new 20 foot tall poles all around the facility, and we did
provide lighting cut sheets for the down full shielded cut off light fixtures. As far as the building
goes, again, everything just gets better and better. What was out there was completely state of
the art in the early 80's where we had a double red mansard roof with yellow lighted roof beams.
Very recognizable. It's been a great building. It's been a great look for McDonald's across the
country, but we're upgrading now, as you can see here on the bottom. We're going to go with
straight parapet walls instead of the familiar double red mansard roof. No more lighted roof
beams. No more of the lighted monster wall signs that are on there. We did go to the ZBA and
did receive approval from the ZBA within the last two, three weeks for the signs as you see them
on the illustration at the bottom. So overall it's an exciting project. More green space, smaller
building, re-development, large re-investment and we're excited to hopefully get this under
construction as soon as possible. With this Board's approval then we would apply for a building
permit. I think that's the last one that we would need from the Town of Queensbury. I've got a
great staff here. Lots of help with me tonight. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer
them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board?
MR. FORD-I have a question. How is this going to impact employees at the facility?
MR. BOYEA-Renee actually owns other facilities here. She owns one up on Route 9 as well as
Lake George. They're going to be transferred to other locations.
MR. FORD-During the transition, during construction.
MR. BOYEA-During construction.
MR. FORD-I'm talking about now versus the final product. Is there going to be an increase or
decrease?
MR. BOYEA-Would there be an increase in employees?
MS. REARDON-Yes. I have about 50 now in that location. I'll be pushing 75 to 80, somewhere
in there. So there'll be a lot more. Right now I have 135 year round employees between the
four locations. So I'd go up around 160.
MR. FORD-Okay. So at this facility, how many are full-time and part-time and how would that
compare with after the project?
MS. REARDON-Right now I have about 10 full time, but it depends on how you define it, you
know, with the way insurance regulations are changing, how full time is determined is different.
So if you're talking about the new regulations, which is 30 hours, I actually, I'm about 50/50 or 25
and 25, but what I consider full time is somebody that works 40 hours a week, and right now I
have 10 and 40. So when I go to a bigger building I'd need twice as many if not more of the full
timers.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you move that driveway over, do either of those driveways line up
with the building across the street?
MR. BOYEA-Yes.
MS. REARDON-It does now.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I know it does now, but I'm talking about when it gets done.
MR. BOYEA-Lined up perfect with the driveway for Motel 8. We can actually see the curb cut
that's down here. So it's lined up exactly.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-What about the second driveway. Does that line up with anything?
MR. BOYEA-The second driveway does, and it's close to lining up with Taco Bell's right out, but
it's kind of right in between those. That's right. We've pushed it as far away as possible.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-You don't think they want to go from Taco Bell's across the street to
McDonald's, is that what you're saying?
MR. BOYEA-Well, we'll catch them first, anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn't look like you have enough room to push it out anyway. Do you?
MR. BOYEA-We can't go any further.
MR. KREBS-Not enough to make the difference.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-You lose the green space if you did.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. TRAVER-What about the lighting? It's a little bit hot. Can you do something to tone that
down a little bit?
MR. BOYEA-Actually the average foot candles on the site as submitted was three foot candles,
or two or three foot candles. So we have a couple of hot spots, and those are right underneath
the light poles and the sconces along that drive thru side, but that's no different than what's
there today. I mean, we have hot spots there today. Again, it's with that drive thru oriented
business that we want it at least bright there, and if you look at where our drive thru is here
along the side here, I mean it's really the center of the property. So even by the time you get to
the property lines or anything that would be impacted, you're still well below one foot candle. So
I think it's definitely an appropriate design for this area. It's not more than what's there today,
and we're satisfied with what's there today. I'm not sure if the Board feels that what's there
today is excessive, but we're not aware of any issues.
MR. KREBS-But you also do want sufficient light there because if you have buses unloading
and the people are walking across to go inside, you want adequate lighting at night, because
they're going across the drive thru.
MR. BOYEA-That's correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but you're pushing 12.9 there on the, you know, right on the property line,
but in the center you're down to, where the buses would be parking would be .1, an 04 and an
03.
MR. BOYEA-Right, and what we've done is put the house side shield on the back side of those
lots, at least they should be shown there, so that the lot doesn't spill, you know, it's 12 maybe
right under the light, but then right behind that light pole I hope that you're seeing one or less.
MR. MAGOWAN-.1.
MR. BOYEA-Yes, we have, it's almost like a piece of sheet metal that hangs down from that light
pole to make sure that the light cuts off immediately at the pole and doesn't impact any
neighbors, which is woods.
MR. MAGOWAN-You have a 22.8, 20., those are considered like wicked hot.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. BOYEA-Yes, that's right under the light, and the reason why is because we have the 20
foot poles. So if we were to raise that pole height way high, we would be able then not to have
such a hot spot, but the Town has a Code ordinance for that and we still have a responsibility to
light the middle of the parking lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have taller poles now I'm sure, right?
MR. BOYEA-We do. We do have some very tall poles that are upwards of 30 feet, but again,
we're not asking for any variances. This is a variance free layout. We've complied with green
space, parking, everything, all of it. The only variance that we sought was just for a sign.
MR. HUNSINGER-Signs, yes. I really like the new look. There's one like that down in South
Glens Falls.
MR. BOYEA-Yes, that was a re-model. That was a re-model, yes, but very similar look.
MR. FORD-Where is this one?
MR. BOYEA-This is computer generated. So, yes, we can't get blue sunny days like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Sure we can. Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do
have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-1 will open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-This is one of those projects where the endangered species and SHPO
signoff seems kind of silly.
MR. BOYEA-Actually, we've already done it.
MR. HUNSINGER-You have?
MR. BOYEA-We've gotten consultants that have already gone out, visited the site, drafted
professional opinion letters. We forwarded that off to SHPO. There's no further action for, well,
there's no place to even dig another test hole.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say.
MR. BOYEA-But we crossed that bridge anyway.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the stormwater permit requires it.
MR. BOYEA-That's right.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you'll need to have signoff from both of those entities.
MR. HUNSINGER-But, I mean, it's an already disturbed site.
MR. BOYEA-Fully.
MR. TRAVER-We're creating more green space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-There's going to be less disturbance.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you've already received the clearance letter?
MR. BOYEA-We have not received it from SHPO. We have forwarded the clearance letter from
the archeological consultant off to SHPO. So I would imagine within the next two weeks or so,
three weeks, we would probably obtain that SHPO signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the feeling of the Board here?
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I like it.
MR. FORD-Let's go forward.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we've got some outstanding engineering issues, and we've got some
regulatory clearance issues. People satisfied with the lighting discussion?
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, if it's going to be hot, I'd rather have it in the center, you know.
MR. FORD-Yes. There appears to be a substantial rationale for the hot spots.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you see what the Fire Marshal said?
MR. BOYEA-That's correct, 20 foot lane, and there's plenty of room, and I would just note that
the engineering comments recommend no real further action from Chazen. We had worked with
them to make sure that they're satisfied.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, they had questions on the SWPPP that would have to be
addressed.
MR. BOYEA-That's correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-A lot of them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Conditioned upon meeting the engineering approvals.
MR. HUNSINGER-And the SWPPP catches the SHPO side.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Also this is an Unlisted action.
MR. OBORNE-It doesn't matter. They require, well, it's because it didn't reach the threshold of
a Type I so it's Unlisted. It still requires SPDES permit because it's disturbance of greater than
one acre. So they have to provide that in order to get SPDES coverage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they gave us a full assessment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Did you get the sanitary sewer connection?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I apologize. There is a Long Form based on the size of the project. So
Staff requested a Long Form be submitted for this, as opposed to a Short Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-Now we previously had a letter from DEC related to non-threatened or non-
endangered species, and historic preservation, as it relates to SEAR.
MR. OBORNE-Not on this project.
MR. HUNSINGER-Not on this project, but in general, saying that, you know, unless there's
some known issue or some known, we can go through SEAR, I mean, because they only need
the clearance letters for the SWPPP, not for SEAR.
MR. OBORNE-Well, if the Board is comfortable moving forward with the professional
evaluations that they've submitted, which should give you a level of comfort moving forward,
then there's no issue with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That's why I asked for that clarification.
MR. OBORNE-Again, this is an Unlisted SEAR.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-The Long Form.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it's a previously disturbed site.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. FORD-Right. The site has been reviewed.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's already been torn up. If there were any artifacts there.
MR. OBORNE-And again, there is that word that comes out commonsense. Absolutely. You
have sites that are not disturbed that are virgin sites.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-You want to have those type of evaluations taken care of.
MR. FORD-This would not be classified a virgin site.
MR. OBORNE-I apologize, undisturbed.
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-And this is a Long Form. So we'll go to SEAR.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Clearly, yes. Small to moderate impact which is mitigated by the design, site
plan.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Actually it improves it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. TRAVER-No.
MR. FORD-It may actually improve the runoff and absorption.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-Only in a positive way.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Then I'll make a motion for a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 64-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
MC DONALD'S USA, LLC, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved: NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Are you ready for a motion?
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #64-2012 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes demolition of existing 5,420 sq. ft. McDonald's and construct a new 5,200
sq. ft. McDonald's to include parking reconfiguration, new lighting, landscaping and storm water
controls. New commercial construction in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and
approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/16/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 64-2012 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
5) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans;
7) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any
site work.
b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
9) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building
Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
11)Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
12)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Just an item of discussion. There is a waiver request on the draft resolution
which is not applicable because there were no waivers requested.
MR. BOYEA-Right.
MR. OBORNE-That shouldn't even be there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Remove Item Three.
MR. FORD-Good catch, Chris.
AYES: Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. BOYEA-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Make the engineers happy and then you're all set.
MR. BOYEA-We really appreciate the time and help tonight, late night.
MR. HUNSINGER-Nice project.
MR. FORD-Very nice. Congratulations.
SITE PLAN NO. 65-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES LLC,
d/b/a DUNHAM'S BAY RESORT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S)
SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING RR-3 LOCATION 2999 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A NEW
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE OUTSIDE BANQUET PATIO.
MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 34-10, UV 23-08, NOA 2-08 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL OCTOBER 2012 APA, CEA, OTHER LG PARK CEA LOT SIZE 13.54 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 252-1-75.1 SECTION 179-9
TOM JARRETT & ANTHONY MANNY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is a modification to Site Plan 34-2010 and obviously a modification to
an approved site plan requires Planning Board review and approval. 2999 State Route 9L is
the location. RR-3A is the existing zoning. SEAR status is Unlisted at this point. You can also
reaffirm if you wish. Project Description: Applicant proposes a modification and after the fact
approval to a previously approved site plan for a new stormwater management system for the
outside banquet patio. What follows is my review, which is basically engineer driven. As with
one of the previous applications, notably Western Reserve, I would ask the Board to also state,
if they are to approve this, that any previous approvals with conditions still stand. One issue that
you may want to discuss is noise emanating from any parties associated with the tent, which is
associated with the stormwater. That's something you may want to take up now or not. With
that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett and Anthony Manny for Dunham's Bay Lodge. In
light of the late hour, I will not read my entire file, but will jump to the salient points and any
questions you might have. As Keith said, we're here strictly to address a modified stormwater
plan for the patio, which is behind the main lodge, but if there are other questions that the Board
wishes to bring up, we'd be glad to try to address those. Originally we designed a stormwater
management system which was below grade for this patio, the western edge of the patio, and
the owners, when installing it, felt it was going to interfere with landscaping that they wanted to
provide, and they felt it was impractical to provide that subsurface system. So they asked me to
put together a detail for a surface system which was done in draft form, and it was a rain garden
type system. That system was installed by the owner not to the capacity that we had designed
in draft form. By the way, it did not come back to this Board. It was reviewed informally by Staff,
but the owner put it in not realizing that he needed formal approval from Staff and/or the Board.
Confusion there for sure, but the capacity did not meet our design, so we subsequently have
j8
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
designed an amended system further west, down gradient of one of the driveways, which
provides in excess of the capacity that was originally provided, and I'm very comfortable with
this new design. I think it's very appropriate. We have some technical comments from your
engineer which I think are not germane. I asked Craig for a clarification of what standards apply
and he confirmed that the Lake George Park Commission standards applied for a project such
as this, of this nature in the Lake George Park. Your engineers are attempting to apply the
normal, the standards, commercial standards to this project, and I think they're not appropriate,
but I'll defer to Keith on that. I don't know if Anthony wants to add anything right now, or we'll
just jump to your questions.
MR. MANNY-I have nothing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? I mean, I had
questions related to the engineering comments, specifically Items One and Four. Number One
you just addressed, which is.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we originally, when sizing the original stormwater system, we used Lake
George Park standards, which are incorporated by the Town, in Chapter 147, and that is for a
minor project it's 1.5 gallons of retention volume for each square foot of new impervious, which
we designed in the original application, and carried forward in this new design. So all the
standards that the Lake George Park imposed in the Lake George Park and the Town adopted
as part of the Chapter 147 we've utilized for this design.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you comment on Item Four where he talks about the potential for water
to pond against the retaining wall?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Actually this suggestion was made by the owner. They thought that was
an appropriate design. The wall that the pond would sit against, you know, during infrequent
inundation, once in a very infrequent time, that's not living space. That's maintenance. It's
basement. It's maintenance space, and we don't feel it would impact the building negatively,
and actually the owner suggested it. So I stand by our design. I don't think it's going to damage
the building at all.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board?
MR. TRAVER-An issue that had come up, not directly related to the stormwater, but related to
the patio, is the noise, and there's been some concern, there's been some communication to the
Town on the part of neighbors, particularly I guess not so much necessarily the volume but the
lateness of the hour of the noise. Can you comment on that?
MR. JARRETT-I'll let Anthony attempt to address that. I'm not privy to those, I haven't seen
those comments and I'm not sure what the issue is.
MR. MANNY-We've put in some additional controls at the Lodge regarding noise, and no longer
have music past 11 o'clock on weekends. I don't know what else the Board's looking for. If you
have a standard or a norm for other types of venues.
MR. TRAVER-Can you describe the additional controls that you speak of?
MR. MANNY-Well, we put into the banquets, when it comes to a banquet now, we tell them
specifically the band has to stop at eleven o'clock.
MR. FORD-So there was a control imposed.
MR. MANNY-Well, it's controlled also by our contractor for the banquet. So that's the use we
allow, and if it goes beyond that then they've violated our rules and the additional site plan
controls, we would consent to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-How about the volume? Has there been any discussion with neighbors or
concerns raised about that?
MR. MANNY-I know through Craig there's been a question about the noise. I don't know
specifically if he meant the volume or not.
MR. KREBS-One of the things that we found with West Mountain Ski area was that one of the
major things that cause problems for people living in the area was the use of electronic bass
equipment as opposed to standard instruments, because that vibrates significantly greater. So
that may be a problem that you may face if you're using electronic equipment to create the bass
for the music.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. MANNY-We wouldn't know. Most of it's brought in by the band.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 think they brought up a lot of that was the techno music with the constant
thump, thump, thump, thump. You hear it from the young kids driving by in the cars now days
that hurts your ears. So you mainly use bands.
MR. MAN NY-Or a DJ.
MR. MAGOWAN-Or a DJ. See now with the DJ you have the opportunity to bring in the techno
music with the big thumping, the concerns that the neighbors have.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When you came up before for the approval of the (lost words) in the back,
you were primarily going to use it for weddings and banquets anyhow. Isn't that what you're still
doing?
MR. MANNY-Yes, that's all we're using it for. We have no plans of any kind of major music
venues there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I live in the area and I've never heard anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Nothing else? Okay. We
do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I imagine you're here for the public hearing. I
think you were here when I introduced the notion of the public hearing before. So whoever
wants to go first, go ahead.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHERYL BALDWIN
MRS. BALDWIN-Hi. I'm Cheryl Baldwin. I'm the President of the Dunham's Bay Association,
also a resident of Dunham's Bay, 24 Joshua's Rock Road, and this is my husband Bill. We live
directly across from the Dunham's Bay Resort, and I'm here because I was referred to be here
by Craig Brown when I kept calling and complaining about the noise and the volume of the
noise, and if I didn't, my husband did, and we were not always in the best of spirits when we
called Mr. Manly. I don't know where you live in the blazer, or the sweater.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Across the street, but I come in there, you know, but I don't go to the back.
I generally go to the bar to get a drink.
MRS. BALDWIN-You don't live on the Bay, then. You don't.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, I live on Assembly Point across the road.
MRS. BALDWIN-All right. Well, you would not hear the noise. The noise is very bad.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I hear the fireworks once in a while.
MRS. BALDWIN-I promised my husband I wouldn't talk about the fireworks, but if you want me
to bring that up, I'd be glad to.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-But everybody has them up there, so they're not the only ones.
MRS. BALDWIN-Not commercial fireworks that are like the Lake George Village that went off
last Memorial Day.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Come on over to Assembly Point some time and see some of the people
that buy.
MRS. BALDWIN-These were not people. This was a professional group.
BILL BALDWIN
MR. BALDWIN-Well, in this case, you brought it up, it was a wedding that they had on what I
was told when I called over there was it was a gift from one of the people in the wedding to the
bride and groom, and it was a commercial.
MRS. BALDWIN-From Mechanicville. Same group that does the Village.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. BALDWIN-And it really was incredibly noisy.
MRS. BALDWIN-It was frightening.
MR. BALDWIN-Because it's a small area and you've got the water.
MRS. BALDWIN-And not only that it may have been dangerous.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, if it's a commercial professional group, they ought to know that
they need to have a permit to do that.
MR. BALDWIN-I called and they said they did not need a permit as long as it was over water,
and then we talked about how close it was to their gas tanks.
MRS. BALDWIN-The gas tanks at the Boat Company, okay, but that's just an example of some
of the things we're having to deal with and this, but the noise issue, from their weddings, and,
yes, you say, okay, they may be once in a while, well it appears like they're every Saturday
night, and, oh, it's only until 11 o'clock. When you aren't invited to a party, nor do I want to be,
but I wouldn't have to be, because I'm there. I'm not sure I'm expressing things, but the noise
concerns, the volume of the noise in a residential zoned area is not acceptable. They're not
good neighbors. My husband has called, as I said, and we're, you know, please turn down the
music, please, we don't want to hear it. We're trying to put our grandchildren to bed. We come
from the Rochester, New York area to stay up here. This is not the Adirondacks that we have
known.
MR. BALDWIN-Last summer I called three or four times and I spoke with Anthony Manny, and
he said he would try to get them to turn the volume down, but they never did turn the volume
down, and it is that bass music, and they have DJ and the DJ is there yelling at the top of his
lungs and trying to fire the crowd up, and because it's over water, there's nothing to impede this
sound. It may actually amplify it. So, if you're going to allow this activity, then certainly you
should consider imposing some kind of noise remediation with this. Because it, my wife is
President of the Dunham's Bay Association and we are representing 60 houses, 60 cottages
around the Bay, and we have a letter, and actually we sent a letter in.
MRS. BALDWIN-Yes, I sent a letter in, if you want to read it, you're welcome to.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're talking about the letter dated August 8 th?
MRS. BALDWIN-That's right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Was there anything else?
MRS. BALDWIN-I don't see why they don't just take the party inside. Why do they make us
suffer, lose our peace and quiet? We pay high taxes. It's everyone.
MR. BALDWIN-Everybody on the Bay.
MRS. BALDWIN-That we come all the way up here. We work hard, you know, and we're
victims.
MR. BALDWIN-Thank you very much.
MRS. BALDWIN-Thanks.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador and I'd like to just remind everyone
that the name the Dunham's Bay Lodge is our property. We still hold title to that. We haven't
relinquished it to anyone. As you know, my wife and I owned and operated this facility for 28
years. It terminated about 11 and a half years ago when we sold the Lodge facility. There have
been three owners since then, and only this owner has elected to have this outdoor activity. We
hosted many wedding receptions over the years, countless. We never had any outdoors. If we
did, we had something maybe in the swimming pool area we'd have a reception. It was always
indoors and a sit down meal. The Zoning Ordinance allows food service in a three acre
residential zone, in which the facility is in. Food service is defined in our regulation, any
establishment that prepares and serves meals for eat in or take out customers. The food
service component must be the primary use in the building to fit this definition. While we
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
operated this facility and all the other previous owners, food service was not the primary function
of the facility. Lodging was the primary function. Nowhere does food service include outdoor
patio, that sort of thing, tent. It's any establishment. The establishment is a building with
windows and doors. A restaurant is defined as a place for the preparation, serving and
consuming of food and beverage. Nothing about outdoors. Nothing about a patio. Nothing
about a tent. I'd like to speak to the one issue that's hanging from the last review and I don't
know if it's ever been settled or brought to an end, but the Zoning Administrator wrote Mr.
Goldstein a letter and he said, partial, he said the previously identified issues including the
change from a seasonal use to a year round use are still active and must be addressed should
you wish to operate the Dunham's Bay Resort year round. We await your submittal of the
requested information. Please note that any submission must address all aspects of operations
of the facility past, present, and future. In the past I can attest that the facilities were not used
for outdoor dining. It was a seasonal use facility. We operated from Memorial Day to Columbus
Day. Our Health Department permits were predicated on that use. Our liquor license was a
seasonal liquor license. They differentiate between seasonal and year round. Our water
system's disinfectant inspection was on a seasonal basis. Our marina permit from October 1St to
October 31St, seasonal, and our assessment. We were able to have a marked reduction on our
assessment when we could show that we were a seasonal operation, and I have the record of
our testimony in that regard, and the information that we supplied to the Assessor. That was
part of a court proceeding. I maintain this was a seasonal facility, seasonal use facility. If it
needs a use variance, it should be obtained. There's a letter in the record from the Water
Keeper. He's not here tonight but he's appointed me his deputy. In any case, he says that the
low flow fixtures, plumbing fixtures, were installed and that updated SPDES permits have been
submitted as well as certify the construction of the approved plans. Mr. Jarrett has submitted
plans that have a stamp on them but not for construction. Something's wrong. If you stamp
them not for construction you don't have to put your stamp on them. I'd like to speak to the
subject of wastewater, because I brought this up at the close of the last round we had, and I got
this sort of treatment from the Town. Mr. Hatin was taking care of the wastewater and that the
Planning and Zoning people were not involved in this, but since Mr. Jarrett has submitted with
this application, this plan you see, I'd like to refer to that because there are serious errors in this.
These go to stormwater and wastewater. Because the wastewater system they put in to the
north, up in the corner of the property is probably not working because it's being flooded by the
stormwater that comes off the parking lot and off the roof of the building, and it's so bad that that
flooding water is winding up on Alexy Lane. The road is always flooded when we have a
rainstorm. So that's not working, and the reason is we put these stone ditches in, these stone
ditches all over, and they're just a channel for the water. It makes it easy. So that's really not
working. If you have a copy there, I can refer to it. The six buildings to the south, we called
those our motel buildings. They are all on one SPDES permit system, permitted system, and
that leach field is improperly located to the southwest. That belongs further to the north and to
the east, okay, that's improperly located, and the indication is that only four of those buildings
are on that system, and that's wrong. That's wrong. These two buildings over to the east you
see there shaded green seem to indicate that they're on their own septic system, and that's not
true. They say that there's an infiltration system there between the two buildings. It can't be. I
can't tell you the tons of material they trucked through there while they were doing the clearing
for this tent. That was their access and it could never have gone over to that if it was a leach
field. Back to the system to the southwest, it says 1250 gallon septic tank. It's 2,000, unless
somebody changed it, and there is no leach field over there where the green is. There is a
septic tank there. There is a septic tank there and there's a lift station in the cellar of the
southernmost of those two green buildings that lifts the sewage and puts it in to that ring line that
takes it over to that septic tank there. Now, what's gone on here is they have converted these
buildings from what we call motel rooms, two bedrooms and a bath, to kitchen facilities. Now
this puts an increased load on the septic system. Not only that, it's a different kind of a product.
Grease from a kitchen should be separated, and it's not. To the west of the large building here,
we had installed there a very deep infiltration system to take all the water from the roof top, half
of the roof top of that big building and half of the swimming pool building. All that water came
down in that area, and we put in an infiltration system and we planted our own rain garden
before anyone ever even heard of a rain garden. We planted that there. It was all in there to
take that rain water, and that's been taken out. The garden's been taken out and they put
crushed stone in there for mark parking. Now that's something that's not recognized in the plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-John, the only item that's really before us is the change in their patio
stormwater management.
MR. SALVADOR-This map has been submitted to you in this application, I believe.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, but we're only talking about stormwater, John. You've given us the
same song and dance you've given us for years.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This map has been submitted to you?
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-We have that, yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Fine. You have this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This is only a partial plan of the site. This, I think they have in their
application some hundreds of thousands of square feet of total area, and that's not on this plan,
and we should detail the square footage calculation. Because we've got parking areas and all of
that. With regard to the noise issue, you don't see the second tent. They have another tent they
put up out here for liquor service and for the band, and it's outdoor. There is no way that you
can condition this application for outdoor music in any way, shape or form. It simply doesn't
work. It's not unusual, I've been through this, it's not unusual when closing time comes,
somebody throws the band a $100 bill and they play for another hour. We're having a good
time, and by the time anybody can respond to this, it's all over with. You folks are not here on
the weekend, and believe me the Sheriff is busy with a lot of other things in the village. Doesn't
have time to respond to this, okay. We do have a noise ordinance in the Lake George basin.
We do have. The Lake George Park Commission has a noise ordinance. This system, with
regard to stormwater, they show here a proposed six foot, six inch riser outlet pipe. I guess this
is the preliminary retention basin here and then the overflow is going to go to this basin. That
retention basin is bucked up against that building wall, and about two feet underground is a
foundation drain for that building and it runs across the road and down through this field. So
you're never going to get anything into that basin they're going to build across the road. It's
going to be short-circuited. We should see some details on this crushed stone. It's been put in.
I don't know, does anybody have any pictures, anybody know what it is? There's got to be a
specification and a calculation as to what the flow is. The Water Keeper mentions the fact that
this basin is going to have an influence on a septic system that's to the west over here. That's
something to be considered. I might add that when we laid out this whole thing many, many
years ago, all of the stormwater was going to go to the east, and the wastewater was going to go
to the west. That's the way everything's laid out. You'll see what we did. What they're trying to
do now is counter current to the topography of the land, forcing, all the drainage wants to come
this way and the general topography is in the other direction. This is all fill material in here.
This is all fill. The other thing that you see it on the plan here, this S, this mark, it's called S. I
think that means shed, shown in the photographs as a shed. That's actually a water well, and
the casing of that water well is about three feet below grade, and the reason for that shed is, we
didn't use to have that shed. We had a traffic bearing cover with a manhole in it, and you could
drive over it, okay. The Health Department made us put in that riser. Okay, and they're
concerned about that casing which is three feet below grade being flooded and contaminated.
That's why that's there. Now we're bringing all this stormwater in this direction. It's just, I think
we should have a permit from the Health Department on that because they were influential in
having that put in. But in any case, this system is not going to work because of the way this is
laid out here and that foundation drain, it's going to just cause this whole thing to be short-
circuited, and the wastewater really has to have a serious look.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? There's no one else here. Any written
comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-1 have written comments from the Water Keeper, October 15, 2012. Mr. Chris
Hunsinger, Chairman. "The above referenced site plan review application was personally
reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water
Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper expresses concern about the apparent failure of the
applicant to comply with conditions of the previous approval and recommends the Planning
Board review the conditions of the July 20, 2010 approval. The Lake George Water Keeper
requests that the Planning Board apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-9 Site Plan
Review, during its deliberations regarding the above referenced site plan review application.
The applicant should be required to document compliance with the previous conditions of
approval. Important components of the plan approved two and a half years ago to protect water
quality have been neglected including stormwater management and landscaping. In addition,
the Planning Board should require the applicant to certify that low flow fixtures plumbing fixtures
were installed and that updated SPDES permits have been submitted as well as certify the
construction of the approved plans. The potential impact of the stormwater management
facilities to the existing "Jack & Jill" Studios leaching system should be evaluated. Part of the
submission for Site Plan 34-2010 included a drawing of all wastewater systems for the resort
("Wastewater Systems" prepared by Jarrett Engineering, PLLC dated June 2010 attached),
which indicated a seepage pit consisting of 7' diameter, 6' deep dry well west of the "Jack & Jill"
studios. This system appears to be located approximately 40 feet down gradient of the
proposed stormwater management basin. The potential impact of the stormwater management
on the system should be evaluated. The proposed stormwater basin should incorporate
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
amended soils and planting to improve treatment capabilities. The proposed basin should
incorporate bioretention/rain garden design to improve treatment through biological process and
plant uptake. Waivers should not be granted for landscaping due to failure to implement
previous approved plans. The landscape plans that were previously approved have not been
installed. Therefore, the Board should not consider waivers from landscaping requirements.
The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the following to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board table the application and: 1) Require certification of compliance with Site Plan 65-2010
conditions of approval; 2) Evaluate potential impact of stormwater basin on existing seepage
pit; 3) Incorporate bioretention into proposed stormwater basin; 4) Deny requested waiver for
landscaping; and 5) Require compliance with previously approved site plan. The Lake George
Water Keeper Program looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your
consideration. Christopher Navitsky, P.E. Lake George Water Keeper" And that's all I have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I'm not sure where to start. We're mixing an awful lot of applications, an
awful lot of past history here. The wastewater systems that have been discussed by Mr.
Salvador and Mr. Navitsky involve a system that was replaced about two years ago through a
design by our office and a SPDES permit was obtained for that updated system, that replaced
system, and at the same time as we went for banquet patio approval from this Board, we
updated a full wastewater plan for the entire resort, including the lodge building, that was largely
based on Mr. Salvador's records from the motel previously, and was updated with records that
we obtained since ownership change. So I take issue with a lot of the comments he made,
including the direction of drainage to the property. It's largely to the west, naturally, not to the
east. So there's an awful lot of things I disagree with, but there's an awful lot of material that
was thrown at you. I'm not sure how you want to handle it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Could you talk about the existence of a foundation drain? Is that something
that you were aware of?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We did find a remnant of a drain. We don't think it's functioning very well,
and it really would not provide direct short-circuiting. It would be really essentially an earth filter
by the time the stormwater gets down to that drain, and we had planned to actually capture it in
this basin. We're not sure it's really functioning, but we had planned to address it during the
construction. Now also the Water Keeper brought up the supposed leaching system that is 40
feet down gradient of this proposed stormwater basin. It's not directly down gradient in our
opinion and it's more like 80 to 90 feet away. There's a number of issues, I think, that are either
we, our opinion is different than theirs or we think they've been misrepresented.
MR. FORD-If it's not down gradient, where is it?
MR. JARRETT-It's partially down gradient, partially cross gradient. The flow from this system, if
and when it overflows, would not go toward that leaching device. It would go toward the Alexy
Lane drainage ditch.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We discussed this when we talked about putting the terrace out there.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We looked at the whole campus.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've looked at it, we've gone all through this. This is all old stuff.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we did.
MR. MAGOWAN-What about the shed and the water (lost word)?
MR. JARRETT-We didn't really address that at all here. We just documented what was shown
on the survey, and I believe, as Mr. Salvador is representing, I think we label it as a shed, but
actually right now runoff from the property goes by that shed and probably impacts that area
more than what our proposed system would do. So I think we would be directing stormwater
away from that particular structure, as opposed to what it did before.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I was just concerned of it being three feet below, if it happened.
MR. JARRETT-Our new basin is actually quite a bit down gradient and lower in elevation than
that system.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what's the, where are we here? What's the feeling of the Board? We
do have outstanding engineering issues.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, I think if you go to the Town's suggested resolution, we've got to,
you've got to make that contingent on satisfying the engineering issues. Outside of that, I don't
have a problem with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? What about the noise concerns that have been
raised?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-The noise concerns are, you know, you get that all over the lake. I will
correct one thing that he said. I've probably called the Sheriff six or seven times in the last two
years over noise created by gun shots, fireworks in a dangerous location, not music because
that doesn't bother me, but anyway, every time I've gotten a response from the Sheriff's
Department. They're always there when you call them. Now, is the guy still doing it when they
get there? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but, you know, it's not that they all come from Lake
George. They don't.
MR. KREBS-But as a Town, we don't have a noise ordinance anyway.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's true. There is no Town noise ordinance, and it's more looking at
the public safety issue.
MR. KREBS-Yes, but I'm just saying, I don't know how we would correct that problem because
we don't really have a sound ordinance in the Town. That's all.
MR. SALVADOR-It's not regulated. You're right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I think that cutting the music off at 11 o'clock is fair.
MRS. BALDWIN-Well, Craig, in his letter to me said that I discussed your noise concern with the
property manager (lost words) and he stated you would discuss the same with the property, and
I also mentioned to Mr. Manny (lost words) at the Planning Board meeting and he goes on to
say that he (lost words) would look at some of the options and remedies and hopefully he could
discuss it with Mr. Manny. So he has been forewarned. They have full knowledge of this.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, ma'am, but you need to get on the microphone.
MRS. BALDWIN-I think you can hear me.
MR. FORD-It has to be recorded, ma'am.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Plus, a public hearing, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Ma'am, we have a copy of your letter. We have a copy of the response.
MRS. BALDWIN-Why don't you read it, then.
MR. HUNSINGER-Each of us have a copy of it.
MRS. BALDWIN-Because you're saying that's noise ordinance all over Lake George. I've been
sitting here all night and I am very frustrated to hear that comment.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-There is noise. It's a fact of life, but I'm saying that when I call the Sheriff
about it he comes out there. John says the Sheriff doesn't show up.
MRS. BALDWIN-Can you open your windows?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MRS. BALDWIN-Well I envy you.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-What's the feeling of the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-Is there anything we can do to, there's nothing we really can do since we don't
have a noise ordinance. Right?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right. Because you can't enforce it.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MRS. BALDWIN-I wish you had told me this before I had to sit here for four hours.
MR. JARRETT-We're certainly willing to stipulate the 11 o'clock that Anthony mentioned earlier
that as a cut off time for the music. That's a voluntary remediation effort, compliance effort.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-And I think that, I appreciate that because that's about all we can do.
Some towns I've lived in had noise ordinances and the police had instruments, made
recordings. We don't have that.
MR. SIPP-The Town tried, about 10 years ago. The only thing we could come up with was time
regulation, and there would be no garbage pickup before six a.m. There would be no chainsaw
action before 8:30, and at night time it would close down. That didn't even pass.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, because you were on the committee that drafted it,
right?
MR. SIPP-Yes. They said you couldn't conform to it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it's tough to enforce.
MR. FORD-The one thing we did do with West Mountain, we cut the outside music back from 11
o'clock to 10 o'clock.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we did.
MR. FORD-And we might want to consider that in this case.
MR. OBORNE-1 was going to mention, the Planning Board obviously can make it a condition of
approval, as long as it's reasonable, but you're right, there is no noise ordinance.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then how is it enforced?
MR. OBORNE-That's the next step, exactly.
MR. HUNSINGER-There's no code enforcement officer on duty on a Saturday night at 10
o'clock.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's right, and the police won't do it, and I could understand why the
Sheriff's Department doesn't want to do it because he goes to seven towns.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you know, when moving forward when applications like this come forward
and you have a special use permit associated with it, you have a lot of teeth in that special use
permit, especially with your terms of validity.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, that's true.
MR. OBORNE-So this is a site plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-It is a site plan.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And on the other hand, you know, I think the applicant has a reasonable
expectation that you can use your facility to earn money so that you can operate it.
MR. MANNY-We've spent a lot of money on improvements that to try to make this place a
successful venture, to try to be a good neighbor.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So where's the balancing act, you know, where's the happy medium, if
you will?
MR. MANNY-I think most of our weddings get over at 11 o'clock and that will be our policy.
MR. FORD-What was that?
MR. MANNY-Most of our weddings and functions, 11 o'clock. I think that's a fairly reasonable
hour if we can have that for our policy. It won't be enforced on your side, but at least we'll tell
you that's what our representation will be.
66
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. OBORNE-1 do want to remind the Board of my comments when the application was first
read into the record that, you know, this modification does not absolve the applicant from the
previous approvals. There's some validity to what the Water Keeper has said, with landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the landscaping wasn't completed.
MR. OBORNE-Right. It's open still. That application's still open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Well, we only approved it in July also.
MR. OBORNE-Well, 2010. The 2010 application is what I'm talking about, 34-2010.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-When we put the thing for the terrace is when we did it.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. KREBS-Well, I had added any previous conditions from previous approvals will continue to
be required.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Fabulous. Thanks.
MR. SALVADOR-It seems to me if they're in non-compliance, if they've been in violation of a
previously approved plan, they don't have standing to come here until they mitigate the problem.
MR. JARRETT-We're here to modify one aspect of that original approval. So the remaining
aspects remain in the.
MR. HUNSINGER-There's no waiver requests. I was looking through the package to see if
there were any, and there aren't.
MR. JARRETT-No waiver requests because we're only here for stormwater.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, you're only here for stormwater. I don't know, I was looking through
the application during the public comments to see if there were waiver requests made, and there
weren't.
MR. JARRETT-Originally, you mean.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Give me some sense of how we're going to know that this plan as you've presented
it is going to be complied with?
MR. JARRETT-That it gets built.
MR. FORD-It gets built.
MR. MANNY-The primary reason we didn't do the first plan was because as we were doing
construction, going to construction, we ran into some granite issues, some significant rock
issues. That's what caused the re-design, but this new design we've done test pits. We're going
to put this design in immediately. We can put it within 60 days this design will be complete, this
improvement will be in place, just as soon as we get approvals. If you want to condition it upon
it being done in 90 days, we would be happy to do that.
MR. FORD-Well, you said 60 originally. Can you do it in that?
MR. MANNY-Sixty if the, and from the time these engineering comments are final, we're going
to put it right in 60 days, whatever is reasonable.
MR. FORD-How about the time of the year. How is that going to impact it?
MR. JARRETT-It's likely still doable. If winter closes in very quickly, we may have to ask for an
extension, but it's likely still doable. We can probably resolve these comments by early
November, and we should have time to do it. A normal winter we would have time have time to
do it.
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, I think the dilemma here for the Board is, if we were only looking at
the requested changes, I think we're okay with it, you know, pending an engineer signoff, but
these other issues have been brought to light, and that's what we're really wrestling with. We're
not really wrestling with the application itself or the change in the stormwater management.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We've listened that story for the last five years. One person.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. What's the will of the Board? Is the Board comfortable moving
forward?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Just as long as you've got the contingencies in there.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. KREBS-What I would say is that, from what he has just said, if we approve this, it will be
more compliant than it was prior to this.
MR. MAGOWAN-But it's just one more project they have to do in front of what they should have
already done.
MR. OBORNE-That's correct.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, I think what he's saying is that part of what wasn't done wasn't done
because it wouldn't work the way it was originally planned.
MR. MANNY-That's exactly why we stopped, and then we thought we could do it
administratively, and then after some consultation we found that we couldn't, and then
precipitated the new design.
MR. JARRETT-I'm not sure exactly what issues are outstanding with regard to the patio. The
issues that were raised regarding low flow toilets by the Water Keeper was a condition of, I think,
the new wastewater system that was put in under a separate application to the Town Board and
the Building Department. The issues that remain regarding this project I think are just
landscaping and stormwater.
MR. OBORNE-There may be some parking issues. I'm not sure. I'd have to look at it, and that's
a Code Compliance issue at this point.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. I don't recall parking issues being outstanding.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Parking was an issue when you put the terrace in.
MR. JARRETT-Right, we addressed it at this Board.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-We had many arguments over that, and it got resolved, as far as I know.
MR. JARRETT-I think so, too, but, okay, we'll defer to that.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Well, I'm hearing the Board's comfortable moving forward. Right?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action.
MR. OBORNE-You can re-affirm if you wish.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Go ahead.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #65-2012 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES/DUNHAM'S
BAY RESORT
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a modification to a previously approved site plan for a new stormwater
management system for the outside banquet patio. Modification to an approved site plan
requires Planning Board review and approval.
68
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
A public hearing was advertised and held on 10/16/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2012 CAPITAL REGION PROPERTIES, LLC
D/B/A DUNHAM'S BAY RESORT, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-
080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) We are just reaffirming the previous SEAR Negative Declaration.
3) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing
shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
4) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department
for its review, approval, permitting and inspection;
5) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office;
6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved
plans;
7) The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
c) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any
site work.
d) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project;
8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
c) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved;
d) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
9) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
10)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
69
(Queensbury Planning Board 10/16/2012)
11)Any previous conditions from previous approvals will continue to be required.
12)This approval is based on the project being completed within 90 days.
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. JARRETT-If the resolution of engineering comments delays until winter sets in, then I would
have to submit a formal written request to you for an extension and then you'd take it up with
either with Staff or at this Board level, I guess, right? But you'd allow me to formally write,
formally prepare an extension request to the Town if the winter conditions set in before we get
the engineering comments resolved?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think you'd have no choice.
MR. JARRETT-I'm just putting it on the record that we might have to if winter closes in early.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, if you get three feet of snow in November, you'll have a little problem.
MR. JARRETT-In some recent years we've gone all winter. In some couple of winters, we've
gotten closed in in early December.
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MR. MANNY-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-No, but I move we adjourn.
MR. HUNSINGER-Motion to adjourn. Is there a second?
MR. FORD-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER
16, 2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Krebs, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman