2006-07-18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2006
INDEX
Site Plan No. 16-2006 Stephanie & Travis Norton 1.
Tax Map No. 290.1-84
Site Plan No. 22-2006 Martha Schmulbach 5.
Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12
Site Plan No. 27-2006 Jeffrey Schwartz 19.
Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2
Site Plan No. 13-2006 Cover 3, Inc. 25.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-56
Subdivision No. 5-2006 Scott Spellburg 27.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-2
FINAL STAGE
Site Plan No. 24-2006 Boldan, LLC 33.
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-36
Site Plan No. 27-2006 John Miles 45.
Tax Map No. 308.16-1-60, 59, 58
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
CHRIS HUNSINGER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. We have a couple of
announcements. We’ll start with approval of minutes from previous meetings.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 21, 2006
March 28, 2006
April 18, 2006
April 25, 2006
May 16, 2006
May 22, 2006
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, MARCH 28, APRIL 18, APRIL
25, MAY 16, & MAY 22, 2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now we’ll get into the scheduled agenda items.
SITE PLAN NO. 16-2006 SEQR TYPE II STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON
OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 920 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE
SHORELINE OF A WETLAND. FILLING OR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF THE
SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REF. AV 24-06 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 290.-1-84 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-6-060
STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. This is a Type II SEQRA. So we won’t be doing a State
Environmental Quality Review Act tonight, but there is a public hearing on this
application, and would you identify yourself for the record, please.
MRS. NORTON-Sure. My name is Stephanie Norton.
MR. NORTON-Travis Norton.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Do you want to state a little bit about your application, just
tell us what you want to do. We think we know pretty well. We’ve been there. We’ve
looked at the lots, I think two or three times. We have your proposal before us. I’m sure
most of this Board was at site visits and they understand what the site looks like and so
on. Did you want to say something before we start? Did you want to talk about your
project a little bit? Instead of taking a lot of time, I’ll open this up to Board questions, first,
and you can hear what the Board has to say.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. NORTON-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-So would the Board like to start, and I’ll start over with Mr. Sipp.
MR. SIPP-My only question is where is the septic system located in relation to the well?
MRS. NORTON-The septic is in front of the deck, when you first pull in the driveway next
to the house, and the well is in the rear of the property.
MR. FORD-So the septic’s on the right side of the driveway going in?
MRS. NORTON-Correct.
MR. NORTON-The leach field is actually right in front of the house. The septic’s right on
the side, it goes out toward the front.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s what we thought. It’s the only place that you could put it. When I
drew the 100 foot circle around your well, the only place your septic drain field could go
is in front of your house, and that’s where it is.
MRS. NORTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD-Was consideration given to an attached two car garage?
MRS. NORTON-We did think about that. However, we would have to reconfigure the
entire interior of the home. Because we have vaulted ceilings, and our kitchen runs
across the back. So if we had to put our deck on the back, we would have to pull off all
of the cabinets and reconfigure the kitchen to put the sliding glass door on the back of
the house, and then because it’s a raised ranch, you can’t go from the garage level into
the house. You’d have to actually go up the stairs, which would then take up part of our
garage as well to have a staircase inside. We did think about it. We just didn’t want to
reconfigure the home.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t have anything.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I had is on the site plan itself, it’s labeled proposed
driveway, and it looks like you’re proposing a U-shaped driveway?
MRS. NORTON-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you’re looking for an additional curb cut than what’s already there,
or was that already approved?
MRS. NORTON-Currently there’s just, you just pull straight in because we didn’t have,
and then there’s the way to turn around, but there’s not an additional curb cut. There’s
not really a curb there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right. We call it a curb cut even though there’s no curb. Yes.
MRS. NORTON-Right, because right in front of our house, the street is 55 miles an hour
and no one goes 55 miles an hour. So we do really need to be able to pull in and pull
straight out.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and that’s part of the reason why we don’t like to see more than
one curb cut per lot, for the same reason. I mean, obviously you want some room in your
driveway to turn around, but especially with the curb cut close to the edge of your
property, if the neighboring property were ever developed, then there would be conflicts
between your driveway and their driveway.
MR. NORTON-The neighboring property is actually wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I realize that.
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. NORTON-It will never be developed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know how far away the next driveway is?
MRS. NORTON-At least a half a mile.
MR. NORTON-Pretty close.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I know it’s pretty far, but I didn’t know if you had a better feeling.
MRS. NORTON-I don’t know exactly. I’d say about a, across the street is a little bit
closer, but on our side it’s about I’d say a half a mile.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was my only comment.
MR. FORD-I have a follow up question to that. Following up on what this gentleman
indicated, what about a back around spot so you could continue to use the single
driveway?
MR. NORTON-The only problem with that is with the truck and trailer I have, that I use
for work, trying to turn a 20 foot trailer in a little turn around spot and be able to swing out
on the road still is near impossible. So with the U-Shaped driveway I can pull in and then
back up to the garage and I can just be able to pull back out without trying to back out
into the road with a 20 foot trailer.
MR. FORD-You can’t make arrangements to make a turn around on the property, the
interior of the property, so you could be driving in and driving out?
MR. NORTON-Not without backing the trailer into a swamp, into a wetlands.
MR. FORD-Yes, I know you’re close there, but that’s another issue.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is the trailer you’re talking about the one that’s in the picture, it’s the
black?
MRS. NORTON-Yes.
MR. NORTON-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think that was there when we were there Saturday morning. If
it was, I didn’t notice it.
MR. VOLLARO-No, it wasn’t, but the photographs show it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it does.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to clarify, because I didn’t want to, I went to tractor trailer.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s that one. It’s a working utility trailer.
MR. NORTON-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I, personally, don’t have anything else. I think Mr. Hunsinger is correct,
though, when the drawing shows two curb cuts or two openings, we call them curb cuts,
they’re openings onto Ridge Road, and just scaling that off on 30 to 1, it looks to me like
we’re probably 35 feet or so across there. Mr. Hunsinger, are you proposing that maybe
we ought to request that this proposed drive have just a single curb cut? Because I
understand where you’re coming from, and you’re correct, that the way the drawing
reads, there would be two on Ridge Road, two openings.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and the problem is, and I wanted to look it up so I had the right
citation of the Code. 179-19-020 talks about access and Ridge Road from Quaker to
149 is considered a regional arterial road, and the regulations state that all residential
lots fronting a collector or arterial road shall have two times the lot width permitted in the
zone for which the lot is located, which you do, but then it also goes on to say that egress
and ingress is limited to and provided by a single common driveway. Whereas they
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
propose a circular driveway. Knowing the information that the applicant said, I think I
would tend to agree that what he’s proposed is better than a straight driveway with a
turnaround.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could we have a partial turnaround driveway, so they could still go and
turn around but it’s not connected to the street, they could come in, back all the way off.
MRS. NORTON-We don’t have enough room to do it with the truck and trailer.
MR. NORTON-There’s not enough room with the wetlands right there.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, but what I’m saying is, you don’t have it extend to the road. You just
leave it ten feet away from the road.
MRS. NORTON-But he won’t be able to pull in and be completely straight to change
direction. We don’t have enough room for him to go back the other way.
MR. NORTON-Because where the garage has to go, we had to move it farther forward
and closer to the house so that it takes up more of the room we would have had for a
driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, their original proposal, I think your house was closer to the
wetlands than it is now. So you had to move it forward somewhat.
MRS. NORTON-The garage.
MR. VOLLARO-The garage, yes.
MR. NORTON-Between the truck and trailer, I have over 50 feet in length.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. For some reason I thought you said 20.
MRS. NORTON-That’s just the trailer.
MR. NORTON-The trailer alone’s 20 feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-I misread the Code. What is says is if you only have the normal lot
width, then two lots need to share a common driveway. It doesn’t really say that you
can’t have more than one curb cut.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. NORTON-Most of the homes on Ridge Road do have two. We did drive up and
look to see. Most of them all have.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think, given the fact that the neighboring driveways are so far
away, I’d be apt to allow it.
MR. VOLLARO-The sight distance is pretty good here. I tend to agree with that, and on
that basis, I have a small, on the site development data sheet, everything seems to be
fine on that. I just re-worked it a little bit so that your percent permeable is 16.8, your
non-permeable is 16.8. So your permeability on that lot is 83.2, and I just wanted to
make sure that your site development data sheet was filled out properly, and I’ll make
sure that Staff has a note to see that that’s corrected. Just for the record, percent non-
permeable is 16.8, and permeability is 83.2, and with that, I would call for a motion on
this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-Don’t we have a public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-Sorry. Is anybody here that wants to talk to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And then I will call for a motion on this application.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 16-2006 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. garage within 50 feet of
the shoreline of a wetland. Filling or hard surfacing within 50’ of the shoreline requires
Site Plan Review by the Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 4/25/06, 5/16/06, 7/18/06,
and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following comment and
condition:
1.Please eliminate Paragraph Five, which is the reference to SEQRA,
2.One condition on this approval is that there’ll be a correction of the Site
Development Data sheet.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much, and good luck.
MRS. NORTON-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 SEQR TYPE II MARTHA SCHMULBACH AGENT(S)
JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R JIM MOONEY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 96 SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 609 SQ. FT. SECOND
STORY ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA
REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 20-
06, SP 31-90, AV 27-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-12 SECTION
179-4-030
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MS. BITTER-Good evening.
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. The members of the Board in front of you have spent a
good deal of time at the site this weekend on Saturday.
MS. BITTER-Since we last met, I know when we were discussing this application in June
there was a concern raised with regards to the distance between the well and the septic,
which we’ve had Van Dusen and Steves go to the site to determine the distance which
unfortunately was 83 feet as is depicted on the map that you have before you.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MS. BITTER-Once that was discovered, we then hired an engineer to contemplate the
relocation of the septic system on the lot so that it would be in compliance with Chapter
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
136. When we did that, which was Friday, it was then discovered that a neighbor, an
adjacent neighbor who recently installed his well is within 100 feet of the existing septic
system. So unfortunately there’s no place on Mrs. Schmulbach’s property to place a
compliant system. So what we’re doing is we’re moving forward with the application to
go to the Town Board as is necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-To the Town Board as the Board of Health for a variance on the septic
system?
MS. BITTER-Right, but we are proposing an Eljen system that will be 80 feet from her
well, because obviously we’re going to keep the separation distance between the
neighbor’s well. He thought that that would be a better idea, and we do understand
there’s a right of way that’s depicted on the map also that we’re going to need a variance
from as well, but I just wanted to identify that to you so that you understood we were
moving forward, and we realize the steps that need to be taken.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was just going to ask if she could verify which neighbor’s well they
were within 80 feet of, because when we went out for site visits, we saw the well head for
the property that’s immediately adjacent to you but across the right of way.
MS. BITTER-Right, Marra, I believe.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure that it wasn’t, well, it’s labeled on your site
plan as the lands of Catherine Keating.
MS. BITTER-Right. We were hopeful, because they don’t have a well, so when we
originally proposed the installation of the new septic, we thought we would be able to do
so.
MR. VOLLARO-What we did is the Staff has with them the folder for the Marra property,
depicting the well on that property. We looked at that Friday, last week, or probably
Monday, I’m sorry, and so our Staff over there has the actual folder for the property next
door, looking at that well, and we measured off approximately where we were standing,
and we knew that you didn’t make the 100 feet from that well as well.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Now there’s other things here that I want to bring up, I think, and unless
the Board has some other information that they’d like to bring forward, I’ve got a couple
of comments to make as well. So I’ll open this up to the Board. You’re planning, now, to
go before the Town Board for a septic variance, is that your next step?
MS. BITTER-Right, that is our next step. We’re planning on submitting the application
tomorrow.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MS. BITTER-But I’m not sure, in speaking with Susan, if the Planning Board can provide
us with a site plan approval conditioned on that variance. We’re hopeful that that could
occur, but obviously that’s something Staff can determine.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s a couple of things here, then, so long as we’re into that,
that I’m going to put forward to the Board so that they know what at least I’m thinking,
and then they can deliberate on that if they choose. Our NYCRR Part 617.5 under Type
II Actions, what I’m really driving at here is this particular piece of property has been
described as a Type II where there’s no SEQRA required. If you go to 617, and I’m on
my way to that document now, and you go to 617.5, which is Type II Actions, and it
defines those, and it starts off in Paragraph B1, and it states in no case, in each of the
actions in Type II must, One, in no case have a significant adverse impact on the
environment based on the criteria contained in Subdivision 617.7C of this part. When
you follow this whole thing through, through 617.7C, you’ll determine enough
significance, it says that to determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted Action may
have significant adverse impacts on the environment, the impacts that may be
reasonably expected to result from this proposed action must be compared against the
criteria for subdivision, and then it goes on to talk about the impairment of the
environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area. Now, we took a look at
this property with respect to Lake George, the mean high water mark of Lake George,
and we find it to be within 500 feet.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MS. BITTER-Right, it’s in the Critical Environmental Area.
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s in the Critical Environmental Area, and it looks to us, at least it
looks to me, on my reading of 617, that this is not a Type II but really an Unlisted Action,
based on the fact that it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. I mean, 617 is not the easiest
document in the world to decipher. Somebody like yourself probably could do it quite
easily. I find it a little difficult, but in reading it carefully I think that the action here has to
be an Unlisted Action as opposed to a Type II action.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-And I don’t know whether the Board would thoroughly agree with that.
So I would have to ask them what they think about that. I know, I’ll start off with Mr.
Seguljic here.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would concur with that reasoning, based on the fact that it’s in the
Critical Environmental Area.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Sipp, how do you feel about that?
MR. SIPP-Yes, I think so, being located where it is, I think that’s the proper way to go
about it.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Ford?
MR. FORD-I agree with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Mrs. Steffan?
MRS. STEFFAN-Over the last few months, we’ve had several applications on Lake
George, and this topic has come up, and it absolutely is in a Critical Environmental Area.
We’ve actually made a motion to change some of our procedures as a result of some of
the applications we’ve seen. So I would agree it’s in a Critical Environmental Area, and
Unlisted is probably the right way to go.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll go along with the rest of the Board.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. I think we have a unanimous agreement by the Board that
this classification of this application should be changed from a Type II to an Unlisted. So
it would have to go through SEQRA as well.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I have one other concern.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that is with regards to 147, stormwater management. When I look
at the regulations, it’s my opinion that this should be a major project, and subject to
major project requirements. Based on the fact that more than 5,000 square feet of the
site has been disturbed, and that gets you into being a small, a minor project, and then
further, minor projects may be treated as major projects if it’s contiguous or within a
Critical Environmental Area.
MS. BITTER-But how do you say that it impacts more than 5,000 square feet? Are you
basing it on this application or the work that’s already been performed?
MR. SEGULJIC-My visual observations at the site of over 5,000 square feet of the soil
being disturbed.
MS. BITTER-Well, that makes it confusing because of the fact that that’s operating under
the permit, that they have the right to do the basement without the site plan review that
we’re going for today on. I realize that it causes it to be confusing, but they’re two
separate construction projects. That project is going forward without site plan review
process.
MR. VOLLARO-That meaning the removal of the house, building of the new foundation,
and putting the house back on is covered under a building permit.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MS. BITTER-Correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-But 147 does not distinguish that.
MS. BITTER-Well, the only reason we’re before this Board is for the application that
we’re presenting, which is the addition. That project is all owned by itself. It’s already
moving forward under a permit.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, once again, I don’t know how everybody else feels, if it should be a
major project, but the way I interpret this is, and I trust everyone has looked at 147.
MS. BITTER-And I guess I’m just bringing that up because at the first meeting that was
before you, I know that there was a conversation between the Board members as to the
stormwater, and due to the fact that this is such a small site and the project is just for an
addition, I think that was discussed at that meeting, from my review of the minutes.
unfortunately I wasn’t here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Are you characterizing this as an addition?
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly what is occurring at the site?
MS. BITTER-The site is with regards to the foundation to the basement.
MR. SEGULJIC-And then what’s happening with the rest of the house?
MS. BITTER-The house is just going to have an addition to the second floor.
MR. SEGULJIC-But once again it’s my opinion that more than 5,000 square feet of soil
has been disturbed on site.
MS. BITTER-Based on the permit. I’m just saying, unfortunately this projects are
happening at the same time, which causes this confusion.
MR. VOLLARO-What you’re really saying, Counselor, is that the building permit kind of
trumps, in a sense, if I can use that word, it kinds of trumps this 147. Is that your
opinion?
MS. BITTER-Right. I mean, because of the fact that if they were incorporated, if no work
had been done at this point, you know, this issue probably wouldn’t have been
presented, but now I know that you’ve seen the site and this is what you’re entitled to
your opinion by looking at it and saying, well, it seems to me that this amount of
disturbance has occurred, but that has nothing to do with the application that’s before
you right now.
MR. VOLLARO-So what do you characterize the application before us, is not a full site
plan review?
MS. BITTER-Obviously it’s a full site plan review, but it’s for the second floor story
addition.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, in my view, looking at the second floor addition, and then
relating that to Chapter 136, which is the wastewater chapter, and looking at, you know,
the speculation now, the fact that there is, I think on the second floor there’s depicted to
be a study, I believe, I’d have to look at the drawing for a second here, but on the second
floor plan, they’re talking about a master bathroom, a bath, an attic storage with a door
into it. So the second floor could very well translate a little bit further into another living
space. It has a master bedroom on it now, but the first floor has a powder room and a
study.
MS. BITTER-I totally understand where you’re coming from Chairman Vollaro, but I’m
looking at it in the sense that, you know, this addition might not even occur until next
summer, not that I want that to happen, for the record, but I’m saying that these two
projects could be totally separated, that yes, what’s happening to the site right now is
based on the foundation, but what’s being proposed right now is this addition, which
we’re presenting it as a 609 square foot floor area increase, specifically to a second floor
of the structure.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’re saying. I think what I would prefer to do, and
I’ll certainly put this before the Board, but I’ll give you my preference and let the Board
discuss it. My preference would be to have you go before the Town Board as their Boar
of Health and get a septic variance in whatever method you choose. If you’re choosing
to do a gravelist system, which is really an Eljen system, you recognize that in our Code,
in 136, a gravelist system is not mentioned, neither is an Eljen system mentioned.
However, in Part 75A of the Department of Health environmental requirements, 75A
does talk to gravelist systems, but my take on this would be you’ve got to go to the Town
Board of Health, get a variance. You also have to move your D Box, the Distribution
Box, back onto the property in some way.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So this would be a total reconfiguration of your septic system, except for
where the tank is presently located. Because that you probably could not move because
it’s part of the new basement. We were down in the basement, I think somebody went
down in the basement of the house. I guess it was Don Sipp.
MR. SIPP-I did.
MR. VOLLARO-So the septic tank is kind of fixed.
MS. BITTER-What Mrs. Schmulbach was just explaining to me, and I know that there’s
been, we’re actually looking at the title of this. The approximate location of the D-box is
in the right of way. That right of way is shared by the property owners that exist behind
them, and there’s actually questions as to the property line, that that could possibly be
within her known property, and that’s why, when it was placed there, that’s why the
placement was done in that fashion, but obviously, I just wanted to put that on the record.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a couple of things with the drawings. The size of drain field
is also labeled as approximate. So we don’t know exactly where that is.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-We tried to pace that off and get some idea based on disturbed ground
where that might be, but it’s got to be a little more definitive than that, particularly on a lot
of .19, very, very tight.
MS. BITTER-That’s why, if we’re proposing a new system, that’ll solve that.
MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, I believe that continued discussion of this application at this
point is moot.
MR. VOLLARO-I do, too.
MR. FORD-In as much as I believe the next step is to go before the Town Board, acting
as the Board of Health.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree.
MR. FORD-And whatever is transacted at that point, they may or may not be coming
back to us.
MR. VOLLARO-That is correct.
MR. FORD-And then we’ll discuss it, if they do come back.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Does the rest of the Board feel
that way, that we would put this before the Town Board of Health and have them return
with an acceptable, either a variance or a new system
MS. BITTER-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-But my only other comment would be that your silt fences in one corner
were knocked down. One of your silt fences in the southern corner of the site were not
erected properly. They were laying on their side.
MS. BITTER-Okay.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-The other question is, where did the excavated material from the
basement go?
MS. BITTER-Unfortunately, Mr. Mooney’s not here to identify that. He was here at the
last meeting. As to the location of that, I’m not sure if it was moved off site or was
planned to be utilized. Unfortunate I’ll have that answer for you at the next meeting
hopefully. The fill from the area that was removed.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what Mr. Seguljic is saying is he wanted to know where did it go.
MS. BITTER-Yes, where is the location of the fill.
MARTHA SCHMULBACH
MRS. SCHMULBACH-That I don’t know.
MS. BITTER-Right. Unfortunately Mr. Mooney would know that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I would say this, that I think the Board has spoken. One of the
things I would ask you to do, before you come back, is take a look at 147, at the
stormwater requirements for that, because this may, being that where this property is, in
the Lake George basin, which147 talks to.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-That we may be looking to use 147 as the governing document for
stormwater as opposed to our own documents that exist in 179. So essentially you’d
shift over to 147 for your stormwater requirements. I would take a look at that because I
know that a few people on this Board are going to be looking at that pretty closely.
MS. BITTER-Right. I understand.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that’s it.
MRS. BARDEN-There is a public hearing advertised.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. I realize that. However, knowing what the Board has just
come up with, and I know there are people here that want to talk to this, particularly this
gentleman here who’s all ready with the photographs. In view of the time, and in view of
the fact that the applicant is really not withdrawing this application, but is going to move
to a different venue in front of the Town Board of Health, for a septic variance, or a septic
redesign, I would prefer to hold any comments on this to the time when this applicant is
before us again.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I can understand what you’re trying to say, but I would
say, they’re here, we should hear from them.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I think if we just limited them to maybe three minutes or something.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to ask you to leave the mic for a minute and have the
gentleman who I know is dying to speak to come up, because I want to ask him a
question, before he gets here, or when he does get here.
MRS. STEFFAN-There are other folks who would like to speak. I also agree with Tom.
We did advertise it and folks came. They need to be heard.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SHANAHAN
MR. SHANAHAN-May I approach?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you may approach. Have we seen these photographs before?
MR. SHANAHAN-No.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-These are brand new from the last photographs you gave us?
MR. SHANAHAN-My name is John Shanahan. I live on 18 Seeley Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. I think you were here before.
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And you gave us some photographs.
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I was asking whether these were the same photographs.
MR. SHANAHAN-This is old materials, been hidden from the Board. Hidden because
the day it happened I happened to catch it. A day later, it was all covered up, but I can
physically take you back and show you the site.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we were there yesterday and spent a good deal of time there.
MR. SHANAHAN-It’s all beautiful grass now. You asked about where the septic soil is,
it’s right down the block. The septic soil is right at the end of our block. It hasn’t
changed. They just leveled it out. Everybody else knows where it is in our area. Our big
concern is water in our Bay, because the drainage pipe that runs through this
Association has been ruptured right beside this house, and we’re creating a big well
underground which is going to become a sink hole. You won’t know it until someone
falls in it, but my neighbor walked up and down where the clay pipe used to be, and she
was sinking six inches down per step on the wet sod.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you saying that when the foundation was built that line was
ruptured?
MR. SHANAHAN-This was the job that Mr. Mooney did back on the Rowlandson house.
He piped water behind it, and down behind the Keating house, right alongside Mrs.
Schmulbach’s house. All this has been hidden from you, as well as the 275 oil tank that
went in next to Mrs. Schmulbach’s house within one hour one day when he was not to be
working on the project, because you, theoretically, had stopped it. It went down real fast.
Now our concern is water. This cabin is part of an Association. With an oil tank outside,
it just means to me they’re going to finish the cellar, but we’ve got sink holes showing up
in the yards back there. Jack Keating’s garage was filled with water and mud. Part of
that debris you see on the lawn is clay. If I blow those photos up on the computer, you’ll
notice there’s a clay drainage pipe, a very old pipe. The Town is prepared to put in catch
basins on the south side of Seeley Road, but you can’t catch all the soil from
underground that’s going to be coming through there every time we have a good rain.
The oil tank being outside just tells me that this isn’t just going to be a three or four room
house. They’re going to finish the cellar and that’ll be full of beds as well. You even
alluded to that at one point yourself. So all your suspicions, you’re pretty sharp, they’re
going to come true, and I have nothing against any of my neighbors. I have no axe to
grind. I’m not here to make enemies but I’m sure not making friends, but we’ve been
there 25 years and we’ve always had drinkable water. I have a sample of our water, if
anybody would like to smell it, taste it. I’m sure you don’t want to drink it.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. SHANAHAN-Unfortunately, you’ve seen my filters.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have.
MR. SHANAHAN-Every three days they get changed. So, this gentlemen picked up on it
real quick. This project is being done in stages. Mr. Mooney has no concern or
consideration for what takes place in our neighborhood. If Mrs. Schmulbach had any
idea when this began, I guarantee you she wouldn’t be where she is now. She’s been
snowed by a builder who was looking for an opportunity, and she got sold a bill of goods,
and I hate to see her abused like she’s getting, but it’s not going to get better by finishing
what she’s doing. They’ve already cut the floors out of the house as you well know. So
we’ve got ourselves a real mess here. I’ve called the Post Star. I want someone in to
see our beach, to see what’s happened to our waterfront, because when I bought my
house, they put a high price on the view. I’d hate to think what they’d say about the
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
water, if I went to sell it today, but after 25 years, I’ve paid this borough over a quarter
million dollars in taxes. I’ve cost you not a penny. I’ve never been to your school, to
your library, your snowplow, your police, fire department, ambulance, anything, but I
would like some consideration as a remote taxpayer. I’ve maintained everything on my
own. We pay for our own road. We have a little association there. Dick O’Keefe heads
this association that Mrs. Schmulbach is a part of. He approves proper drainage being
put in there, and the borough, or the Town of Queensbury tells me they have the money
to do it. All we need is someone to get up and say, I called the Soil Conservation
manager, nobody has any control here, LGA, the Park Commission, none of it. Chris
Navitsky is the only fellow that has truly responded when we call him. Although today
the Post Star did call me three times. They’re very anxious to write a story on what’s
going on here.
MR. VOLLARO-They called me as well and I told them to call you. Because I didn’t have
the details.
MR. SHANAHAN-Well, thank you very much.
MR. SEGULJIC-One quick question, if I may. You alluded to the fact everyone knows
where the soil went. Is that what you said?
MR. SHANAHAN-We all know. It’s right down at the end of the block.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that next to the road that continues out on Rockhurst?
MR. SHANAHAN-It’s right on the curve of Seeley Road, where you head towards the
Cleverdale Road. Go down Seeley, and just as you turn south, on the right there’s a pile
of dirty old dirt in there with I think a tractor sitting there as well.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SHANAHAN-That’s where it’s at.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we know. We looked at that and we wondered whether that was a
depository for old material.
MR. SHANAHAN-Correct, because you once wondered on another application here
where the water was drained and where the soil went, and I had trouble controlling
myself, because I know where the water and soil both are.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thank you.
MR. SHANAHAN-But you’re on top of it, and I want to thank you very much for doing
that.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re very welcome, sir.
MR. SHANAHAN-Because we need somebody to watch. Thank you, gentlemen and
ladies.
MR. VOLLARO-Somebody else would like to speak.
SANDY ROWLANDSON
MRS. ROWLANDSON-Thank you. I’m Sandy Rowlandson. I’m 90 Seeley Road. I know
both of these gentlemen and Mrs. Schmulbach. My house was the one in one of the
photos that took two years to go through building and we did all the Codes and
everything we needed. I think the gentleman was misstating some of the facts that he
just said. Number One, Jim Mooney, I just called him on the phone. His father is really
sick. He has a sister with cancer, too. He’s dealing with that tonight. The dirt was given
to Dr. Kirkpatrick for the piece of property, not where this gentleman said it went. There
is a low piece of land, when you come down Rockhurst Road the road splits again. Dr.
Kirkpatrick owns that big marina area, field, hotel. He bought the white house that used
to be my dad’s house. On that was a very low swampy piece of land which my dad, Ed
Zibro, mowed for a long time. It is where the Ends and Moynihan’s house goes through.
That soil was placed there to fill in what was soaking and low. There was no money
given for the dirt that was transported. Dr. Kirkpatrick wanted it. Jim just told me he
gave it to him for free. I would love to see Marty get this new septic system because
Number One is would stop debris from going into the lake that everyone is worried
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
about. To me I’m more concerned about old septic systems. There’s two other cottages
that abut our property that have no septic system. One of the properties is using a
washing machine in the garage. Where is that dumping? When they tore down the
Rowlandson’s old camp, my in-law’s old camp, all that was there was the concrete block,
and that’s what everything was pouring into, and I’m assuming these other two cottages
there, the red one and the white one, also have the same system, because they were all
built in 1940, 1950’s, somewhere around there by Howland, Dean Howland’s dad. So to
say to someone this is a green space, she’s done everything on Code. She came to us.
What she pretty much wants isn’t a full master suite up there. She has a son and a
daughter and grandkids. They want a loft type bedroom with a bathroom. I can’t see, I
mean we’re the ones that look out from our lot into everyone else’s house. We see Mr.
Mahoney’s four car garage or three car garage with his motorcycles and his cars. His
house was originally one ranch with three cottages, and now we have this big, it’s
gorgeous, but it’s a big, big house blocking all our views and taking up that space. That
changed the flow of the water. So for Mr. Shanahan who lives way down the street and
doesn’t even look at the house, I think it’s a moot point that he’s here complaining when
I’m the one that looks out at all these houses. I look at Mr. Mahoney’s. I look at Marty’s.
I look at the Keatings. We’ve always been good neighbors in the back, on that back lot.
Ms. Keating is here tonight, too, and she hasn’t said anything negative. I’m for it. I’d like
to see it finished, and I don’t think it would be an abuse of the space. Marty’s kept a
beautiful garden there her whole time she’s been a member of that community. They’ve
never had wild parties. What you see now is, yes, you see dirt, but her deck is going to
go back on, and this Mr. Seguljic, once her deck gets put on, she’s going to have a
garden and she’s going to have green space again. She’s always been very, very
agreeable to try to do the best she can for all her neighbors. She’s never been abusive,
and I do take affront to the idea of these gentlemen bringing up a water study. Mr.
Mahoney asked for a water study on our property of which he said he would be happy to
help pay for, and we got stuck with surveys from Kirkpatrick’s, Marra’s property, and the
water study for a total of over $15,000, and we haven’t seen a penny from anybody. The
road, we repaired, my husband and I ourselves, according to the village, you guys came
down and checked everything, the pipes were inspected before it was backfilled, the
drainage was put on, everything was done in compliance. I’m very tired of these two
guys coming the last three years to meetings with their little bottles of water, when
there’s other things going on, and I think Mrs. Schmulbach’s doing everything by Code.
Nobody’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes, and nobody is trying to get you guys, the
better end of you guys. Thank you for your time.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this application?
TODD MAHONEY
MR. MAHONEY-I wasn’t going to speak. I haven’t been here for the last three years.
This is the first or second meeting I’ve attended on this. My name’s Todd Mahoney. I
live right directly across the street from this. I’ve heard everything. I don’t think I can add
a lot, other than to fairly look at this, I think as you’ve begun to see, you must look at it in
its entirety from beginning to end. It’s not two separate projects as they’re saying, and
that’s why I’m so annoyed with this whole system because they were clear in the
beginning that they were going to want to go up. These aren’t two separate projects. It’s
just trying to slide something through, and if you’re going to look at it, the 5,000 square
feet has to come into play, and it should have been done as a total project with all the
reviews before they ever dug the first hole or started the whole thing. So I would ask that
when you make your judgment you look at this as a total project not two separate
entities, because it’s clearly not two separate entities. It’s all connected, and the sad part
is that that is an environmentally protected area. The water that’s coming through there
is horrendous. I can no longer use the beach the way I used to use it. I’m down there all
the time mucking it out. It’s just, it’s a travesty of what’s happened, and everybody
seems to think we’re doing it by Code, but you saw the bottle of water there. The beach
looks like hell. It’s spreading out into Warner Bay, and it’s just wrong not to take a hard
look at this. I don’t have a problem, if everything’s met to Code, doing what they’re
doing, or building up, but I do have a problem with just trying to slide it through and not
look at it in its entirety or completely, and I hope that’s how you handle it. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Mr. Navitsky?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. First I’d
like to thank the Board for their determination on SEQRA, and the actions in relation to
the Critical Environmental Area, especially protecting Lake George. I think that’s a great
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
decision, and I’d like to thank you and your deliberation on it. Regarding the soil
th
disturbance, April 26, I saw dump trucks leaving that site, putting them at the northwest
corner, or, no, I’m sorry, southwest corner of Rockhurst and Seeley. I proceeded to take
pictures, wrote my first letter to the Town the first week of May. I’ve never received an
answer to that. In those piles there is Styrofoam. There is piping. There’s cinder blocks.
There’s wood, and I ask the question, not particularly where it came from, but why are
we dumping it next to a wetland with a bulldozer right there? So that’s where the soil
went and that’s where it still is. I just have concerns with the impacts the water quality of
the cumulative impacts around there. I think we’ve got to take that into consideration,
and take into account everybody’s use of the lake, and I just appreciate your time.
Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you and good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a
resident in North Queensbury. Since your last meeting, I’ve taken the trouble to do a
little study on this project and I have acquired a copy of the map that you asked for, the
plan that you asked for, for the certification of the distance between the well and the
septic system. I’ll try to confine my comments to other than what you already heard
tonight. This project I think it’s, again, incomplete and mischaracterized. I think what
you see before you here is in a salami fashion the conversion of a seasonal use dwelling
to a year round dwelling. That’s what we’re seeing. Now, not on your list of cross
references are three building permits that have been issued over the years for work on
this dwelling. In 1990, building permit 359 was issued for the construction of a frost wall.
Now I suspect, and I haven’t seen the file. I asked for it today, or yesterday, at the Town,
and the file seemed to be out. So I didn’t have a chance to, but I suspect at one time this
dwelling was on piers, and they decided to install a frost wall. How deep it went and
what it was made of, probably the cinder block you heard Mr. Navitsky speak of, that was
done in 1990, and then right after that a building permit was issued for an addition on the
dwelling, and there are some sketches in the Assessor’s Office that shows where this
addition took place, and then of course a building permit was issued early in this year for
a basement. Now, that’s the time when this project should have been subject to review.
I mean, for what reason do we need a basement? And anyway, that’s what started all of
this, and that basement, that building permit was issued with absolutely no review, Board
review. On this plan that has been submitted, I see something next to the area that is
proposed second story addition, that block. Is that the septic tank?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We checked that out because the outlet for that is in the basement, and
we paced it off from the basement, knew where it was.
MR. SALVADOR-Has that been recently installed?
MR. VOLLARO-I do not know the answer to that, Mr. Salvador. I don’t know when it was
installed. I know the basement was recently built, and I would assume that the septic
tank was installed at the same time, but I don’t know. Don’t know the answer to that.
MR. SALVADOR-That should be checked out. That should be checked out because it’s
prohibited to modify the system without a permit. So if that’s a new addition, that’s been
done without a permit, and if that’s the septic tank, the flow pattern from the septic tank
to the D Box back to the leach field, it doesn’t make any sense.
MR. VOLLARO-The flow pattern, it happens to be 47 feet, because I measured it on this
drawing. From the septic tank to the D Box is 47. I believe that the length from the D
Box to the approximate location of the drain field is more than what’s shown on that
drawing. I believe it’s longer.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m saying, the flow pattern makes no sense.
MR. VOLLARO-It goes one direction then the other.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, okay.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, I would just add, we did get a copy of the application
for septic disposal permit that’s dated, well, it’s received August 10, 1990.
MR. VOLLARO-It was 1990. What we’re trying to determine is, is that septic tank that’s
now alongside the new foundation the original 1998 installed. I guess that’s what Mr.
Salvador is driving at.
MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant’s nodding their head yes.
MR. SALVADOR-I mean, it’s not noted here that it is a septic tank. It’s just a box, and
this drawing that’s been submitted, you asked for a certification. This drawing has no
certification on it.
MR. VOLLARO-There is no stamp on this drawing.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s not certified.
MR. VOLLARO-I have that notation on my drawing.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. There is a reference to a Coulter & McCormack survey, on this
drawing. Is that available? I think that should be part of this.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether that’s available or not, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t get it from Staff. What we get from Staff is what we work with.
We try to deliberate on these applications with the material that’s been presented before
us.
MR. SALVADOR-It would save the Board a lot of trouble, when they go before the Board
of Health.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, let them deal with it, John. We’ve been on this application now
that we know is going before the Board of Health for 55 minutes, and I wanted to give
everybody in the audience an opportunity to speak to this application, and I think we’re
finished. Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did get a stamped drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-There was a package dated July 11.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but the most recent drawing, the updated map, had a stamp on it.
The new drawing is unstamped, if you notice. The previous drawing had a stamp on it.
The drawing we got now does not, and I think I see a nod from the surveyor that that’s.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks for that observation, though, Mr. Hunsinger. I would ask Staff,
under the present conditions here, I don’t want to table this to any particular time,
because I don’t know what the schedule of the Town Board is on applications, and I
would rather, I’m not particularly sure on how to handle this, whether this should be a
tabling, because we can’t table to a specific date, unless we just pick a date far enough
out where it would be most applicable.
MRS. BARDEN-I would suggest that you table it to maybe a September meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
thth
MRS. BARDEN-September 19 or the 26.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and based on getting on the Town Board agenda.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, based on the approval of their septic variance.
MR. VOLLARO-We could make that 9/19 or 9/26?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, does it make sense to also request the Code
Enforcement Officer or the Zoning Administrator look into the disposal of the soil,
especially when it was indicated some soil was used to fill in a wet spot and we don’t
know where that it. A letter has been submitted to the Town.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would assume, I think what has to be done here is the Town, as
the Board of Health, has to get itself updated on this application just like we have, unless
they want one of us or all of us to be there. I doubt that’s what would happen, but to tell
the Town Board exactly what’s going on.
MR. SEGULJIC-No, I’m just saying, request that the Code Enforcement Officer look into
the disposal of the soil.
MRS. BARDEN-They’ve been very much on top of it, checking the stabilization of the
property and maintenance of the silt fencing, and also the dumping.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I know that Bruce has been up there I think twice now, and I think
our Code Enforcement people are pretty well aware of what’s going on up there. If you
wanted to make the motion, you can go right ahead to make the motion to table to, let’s
say 9/26, and then include what you want to have included then see if we can get it
passed.
MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, there’s a lady with her hand up. I don’t know if she wants to
speak now or not?
KATHY KEATING STANDBRIDGE
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-I’ve got a couple of questions
MR. VOLLARO-I had asked if anybody else wanted to speak at this public hearing.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-I had my hand going. You didn’t see me. Sorry.
MR. VOLLARO-Go right ahead.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-I’m Kathy Keating Standbridge. I own the property
that’s closest to Mrs. Schmulbach, the one that practically, she’s on top of me, actually. I
have two major concerns.
MR. FORD-Across the right of way?
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Not across the right of way. Right next to the red
cottage.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s listed on the drawing as adjoiner’s house?
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-I’m sorry, I didn’t see the drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s what it is.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Okay. I apologize for coming in late, but I have two
things. Number One is I didn’t hear where the septic system is proposed to go.
MR. VOLLARO-They or we don’t know that yet until they design this new system, which
is called an Eljen system, and they have to locate the proper place. None of us, not you,
nor I, nor the Town Board, nor the applicant at this particular time doesn’t know where it’s
going to go. There’s a new design.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Okay. So we’re not going with the original Zoning
Board said it was going to stay where it was. That isn’t the case anymore.
MR. VOLLARO-It can’t be because it’s noncompliant now.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-It is affecting two wells, one Mrs. Schmulbach’s well and a well to the, I
guess it’s to the east of her.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Okay. So that was one concern, because some have
suggested that that’s in my property, and I didn’t know if anybody looked into that or not.
So I don’t, I’m just now having a survey done. So I don’t know if the original septic was in
my property or not.
MR. VOLLARO-No, according to the survey we got, it is not anywhere near your
property, if what you depicted to us as being your property was the one that you showed
us on the map.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Yes, okay. That’s good.
MR. VOLLARO-The septic’s are on the other side, close to her right of way.
MRS. KEATNG-STANDBRIDGE-Okay. Thank you. The second thing I’m really
concerned about is her deck and her shed. Last zoning meeting we talked about that
would not be going back in the same place. The shed has not hardly been moved. It’s
still in pretty much the same place that it was, and someone brought it up from the table
that said that we need to make it obvious in the minutes that that shed and deck should
be moved, which is very, very close to my bathroom. I mean, practically in the window.
Very uncomfortable, and a couple of the statements that Mrs. Rowlandson came up and
said are incorrect. She’s talking about the Keating property, which is also my family. My
property is next door to theirs. The things that are in there, as far as septic and
everything, has been okay for years. There is no problem. There is no machine,
washing machine going into the water. There’s a lot that I just heard at the last I came in
when I came in, and there were some things that were incorrect in her statements, as far
as our properties, I’m speaking for my property, the Keating-Standbridge, Keating, and
then the Standbridge residence. Okay. So basically those were the two things I wanted
to say. I know that the fellows back here have been working hard to keep that water area
clean. I have to say my family and I have looked into it sufficiently, I think, and from what
we can tell, what was there was before was a natural filtration the system that filtrated
the water coming down from the mountains, going through the rocks, filtrated it to by the
time it got to their bay and to their houses, it was clean, years ago. The Rowlandsons
came in, built the house, funneled that water, okay. It now no longer is filtered through a
rock system or anything. It just comes in, bubbles into a tube, goes right down, and I
have seen where, it’s not our property, it’s the guy next door that has the holes in the
land from water, and none of that was ever there. I’ve been there for 30 years. As a
matter of fact for 40 years with my parents. So that was never there before the
Rowlandsons funneled that water.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot going on in that area, a lot going on in that area, and that’s
one of the problems that we’re all seeing, the amount of building, increasing the size of
buildings. The property really, in my view, and it’s just my view, it’s not the view of this
Board, it’s one person’s view, that this property cannot support the kind of development
that’s going on in that area. It just can’t do it, and you’re going to have a huge amount of
problems here.
MR. FORD-I have a question for you. Where do you draw your water from?
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-The lake. We have a pipe system that is pumped up
from the lake. We’re seasonal. We don’t have heat. We turn the water off. We’re up
there maybe three months at the very most, two most likely. It comes up the lake. It
goes into a pump house, pumped up the hill to us. So we’re total lake water.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-On this map, where are you located? Are you this house?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, she is.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Yes, it says Kathryn J. Keating, Marie Theresa Fisher,
that’s us.
MR. SIPP-Where’s your septic system?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Can you see where I’m pointing? In here.
MR. SIPP-Right there.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-Any other questions for me?
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MRS. KEATING-STANDBRIDGE-I’m all set. Thank you very much.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that wants to talk to
this application before I close the public hearing? Anybody?
MR. FORD-Don’t close it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re going to table it.
MS. BITTER-Mr. Chairman, the one thing I just wanted to say here. I understand that
there’s issues that exist with the surrounding properties, but we’re talking about Mrs.
Schmulbach’s property, which I think we’ve kind of lost track of.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I haven’t lost track of it.
MS. BITTER-I just wanted to make sure you guys haven’t, because it seems as if there’s
a lot of different issues going on, and there might be things that are occurring in this area
that may, are going to be a better venue to talk to the Supervisor about, but in Mrs.
Schmulbach’s property, this whole water issue that’s being brought up, this is a .18 acre
parcel, and I know that in a prior meeting you guys had discussed about, I mean, the
stormwater on this property is so, there hasn’t been anything that’s really happened to be
a problem. I realize there’s been development around it, and things have occurred, but
we’re talking about this piece, and I just wanted to focus everybody’s attention to that. As
to Mrs. Keating’s comment about the shed and the deck, I mean, we’ve been to the
Zoning Board Appeals, we’re before you this evening. All those things have been
addressed as to what exists and the fact that we do have the necessary permits to have
the structures as they are on this parcel. As to the fact that we might be trying to slide it
through, this is our third meeting before you. So we’re not trying to slide anything
through, and I just wanted to make sure that you’re aware of that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think what you really have to get organized is the septic is one of
the primary problems on this site.
MS. BITTER-Right, and that’s why we already have a plan, and I could even submit it if
you want to see a copy.
MR. VOLLARO-Not necessarily.
MS. BITTER-I didn’t think it was something you were interested in, but we’re moving
forward and that’s why we’ve hired a professional engineer to identify that for us.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So what was the date we selected, 9/26?
MR. FORD-9/26.
MR. HUNSINGER-9/26.
MR. VOLLARO-9/26. Do you want to make that motion?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but I’d like to have the Code Enforcement Officer review this
disposal, but that shouldn’t be part of the motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Make it part of your motion.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
th
To September 26, and I also request that the Code Enforcement Officer review the
disposal of the soil from the site’s excavation, pending Department of Health review of
the septic system.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Lots of luck.
SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ
AGENT(S): PETER BROWN OWNER(S): SAME ZONING LI LOCATION 53 CAREY
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30,294 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
30,851 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW
USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 69-2000, SP
23-1999, SUB 6-1987 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.7 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020
PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. For the record, you are?
JEFFREY SCHWARTZ
MR. SCHWARTZ-Jeffrey Schwartz.
MR. BROWN-Peter Brown.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Did you want to discuss your project? Let me ask the
question before we get started. There was a fairly substantial amount of Staff notes
supplied with this application, about a page and a quarter. Have you read the Staff
notes?
MR. BROWN-Yes, we have.
MR. VOLLARO-Has the Board all read the Staff notes?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want them read into the public record?
MR. SEGULJIC-Not necessary.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, then we can go forward with this. There’s a public hearing this
evening on this application, and this is a SEQRA Unlisted. So we would be doing a
SEQRA application on this as well. I’m going to, I assume the Board has looked at all of
this, as I have, and I only have one question on this one, but I’ll hold it off until the
Board’s had a chance to talk to it and comment on it, unless the applicant has something
that they’d like to say before the Board deliberates. We’ve looked at everything you’ve
submitted, at least I have, and I believe we all have.
MR. BROWN-I believe we answered all your questions from the previous meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I only have one area that I’m questioning, but I’ll save that for after.
Mr. Hunsinger, would you like to comment on this application?
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any specific questions, no.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Phase IV, pending approvals, when will you start this project and when
do you think it’ll be done?
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. BROWN-At this point we’re going to be starting in the Fall probably, but we’re not
really sure yet because we haven’t got permission to even move forward at this point.
MR. SCHWARTZ-We haven’t lined anything up yet. We’re waiting, you know, might
even been the Spring at this point. It’s too late to start. Probably the Spring.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MR. FORD-Nothing at this point.
MR. SIPP-Nothing.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I will come up with one comment that I didn’t see supplied in this
thing is a signoff from C.T. Male on their Item Two and Seven contained in their
th
comment letter of February 14. I know you commented on it, in your documentation,
but I didn’t see their final signoff letter. We’re going to need one from C.T. Male, to close
that record. That’s the only comment I have on this one.
MR. BROWN-Okay, can this be passed pending that?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It will be passed pending that and a condition that I’ve put together
that I’m going to go through, but before that, we have to proceed through the SEQRA,
and before I do the SEQRA.
MR. BROWN-You are aware that we also have a stormwater permit, the SPDES? Do
you understand we have the SPDES permit?
MR. VOLLARO-I understand you have the SPDES permit, yes, I understand that.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we have to go through a SEQRA on this.
MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody here that would like to speak to this application? The
public hearing is now open. Please feel free to come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We will go into our SEQRA. I believe it’s a Short Form on this?
MRS. BARDEN-Correct.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 67-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, 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
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, I have a set of condition that have been discussed with
the Zoning Administrator. It’s been discussed with our Town Attorneys, to be in
accordance with our regulations and I’m planning to make that part of our approval, and
so if the Board would allow me to go through that, I will, and I will make the motion for
this application, if the Board agrees with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-Does that include as built drawing scenario?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-I would agree.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following: Applicant proposes a 30,294 sq. ft. addition to an existing 30,851 sq. ft.
warehouse building. Expansions of site plan review uses require review by the Planning
Board.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 12/20/05, 2/21/06,
6/27/06, 7/18/06, and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required
[either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review
Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative
Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed
modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts,
and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following:
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, and Whereas pursuant to the
relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Code Chapter 179, the Planning Board has
determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in Zoning Code,
and as far as SEQRA is concerned, we have adopted a Negative SEQRA Declaration in
accordance with Paragraph Number Five of this resolution. Now, Therefore, Be It
Resolved, that we find that this application is hereby approved and is subject to the
following conditions:
1. That a final signoff be received from C.T. Male, particularly in answers to their
Items Two and Seven contained in their comment letter of February 14, 2006,
2. The engineer, William E. Montgomery, will certify that this project, known as
Phase Four for Morse Products, Inc., located at 53 Carey Road, Queensbury,
New York was built to his design drawings, namely S-1 and S-2, dated May 12,
2006. In addition a set of as built drawings for Phase Four will be supplied to the
Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury, upon completion of this
project. Any anticipated changes to the original design will be approved by the
Planning Department prior to their implementation and be incorporated into and
made part of the as built drawings,
3. That Morris Products, Inc. will supply a letter of credit or a performance bond
reflecting a dollar amount which is satisfactory to the Comptroller of the Town of
Queensbury. This letter of credit will be submitted prior to the issuance of the
building permit for the Phase Four construction of the Morris Products building,
located at 53 Carey Road, Queensbury, New York.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. SCHWARTZ-What’s the purpose of the letter of credit?
MR. VOLLARO-The letter of credit is to ensure that the building is completed and in
compliance with the.
MRS. STEFFAN-The drawings and our approval.
MR. VOLLARO-The plans that have been approved. That’s all.
MR. SCHWARTZ-That’s standard? I mean, I’ve never done this before.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s 179-9-090 is the area of our Code that allows us to apply a
letter of credit to any application of site plan review.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. It’s an IDA project. Do they, how does that work?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it has any bearing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it has no bearing. It would have no bearing.
MR. SCHWARTZ-So what’s the value of the letter of credit have to be for?
MR. VOLLARO-It has to be for an amount satisfactory to the Comptroller of the Town of
Queensbury. Now you can do that in any way. According to my discussions with Staff.
It can be at 100% of the project or it can be at 50% of the project or it can be at some
percentage of the project. You have to propose that letter of credit.
MR. SCHWARTZ-I just want to know why you’re requiring it of me. I’ve always been in
compliance in the past. Is every project being required to do this now days or just me in
particular?
MR. VOLLARO-It is coming into being. That is correct. We need some assurance that
these projects of this size. This is not a small house or a minor project. This is a major
project going in at Carey Road, and we want to make sure that, and the letter of credit
isn’t something that essentially puts you in any financial jeopardy, so long as you build it
and pay for it and get it done and the letter of credit never gets exercised.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a cost of getting a letter of credit, you realize.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that’s, I think, miniscule compared to the cost of erection of the
building.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Chris, maybe you can help me with this. The letter of credit is just
stating that the money is there to complete the project.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. BROWN-So a resolution from the IDA would suffice, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. I mean, typically letters of credit are issued by banks. Maybe
the IDA would be willing to provide that for you, but that would be up to the IDA to make
that decision, but typically letters of credit are provided by banks. There is a fee.
Typically it’s one or two percent of the value of the letter of credit, and basically what the
bank has to do is they physically have to set aside that money, and the Town could take
it for, you know, any reason as outlined in the agreement. There will have to be a letter
of credit agreement between the Town and the applicant, and if the applicant doesn’t
perform, then the Town would draw on the letter of credit.
MR. SCHWARTZ-$10, $20,000, it’s more money, everything you do adds up.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand why, but this isn’t a visible project. This is in an
industrial park, and why don’t we believe that they would finish it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have no reason to believe that they wouldn’t, and as a matter of
fact, if they are convinced that they can do it in accordance with the plans they’ve
presented, they shouldn’t have a problem with obtaining a letter of credit, either.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess the only thing I get caught up on is that one percent. I
don’t know what this project is, but we’re just adding another burden to them to?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know either, but in discussions with Staff and discussions with
Counsel today, as a matter of fact, by e-mail, is that this is.
MR. SEGULJIC-I can understand that it’s allowable, but is it prudent, I guess is my
question.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it depends.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see the sensitive nature of this project, and if they don’t finish it,
what’s our loss, what’s the Town’s loss to it?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Town’s loss is if they don’t finish it, you mean?
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-There is essentially a blight on the community of an unfinished project.
MR. SEGULJIC-But in an industrial park that no one’s going to see. I mean, I could
understand if it was a very visible project.
MRS. STEFFAN-There’s also the cost of what happens when there’s non-compliance. I
mean, we’ve run into this with other projects, small size, medium size and large size.
When the Code Enforcement Staff have to go out and try to decipher what’s being done
on the site, when there are project changes made and they’re not recorded. That’s one
of the reasons why we’ve had discussions about having as built drawings and letters of
credit that go hand in hand with one another, so that we can discourage some of the
changes that have been happening to projects, and the difficulty of our Code
Enforcement people keeping up with those changes.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I can understand that and appreciate that. His P.E. has to go on
the line as far as.
MR. BROWN-I’m not a P.E. I’m a project manager.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, his reputation has to go on the line, as far as getting the project
complete.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, William Montgomery, the Professional Engineer that signs the
drawings does.
MR. VOLLARO-He has to certify that the project known as Phase IV will be in
accordance with his designs.
MR. SEGULJIC-To me, that would seem to be enough.
MR. BROWN-Can I step out one?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have a motion before this Board. This motion was seconded,
and I’d like the motion to continue. I think once we go into a motion, we’ve got to be
allowed to complete our motion without any interference from the other side.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Can I make one comment here? Mr. Montgomery’s retiring. We’re
going to have another engineer taking over the project. Any licensed P.E. can certify, is
that correct?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. Yes. If one engineer comes out, the other engineer can
review his drawings, make sure he understands them and certify that the project will be
built in that fashion. Absolutely.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Now we have a motion before the Board that was seconded. I think I
was seconded by Mr. Ford, is that correct?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Seguljic?
MR. SEGULJIC-No, based on the letter of credit issue.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. HUNSINGER-I had asked for discussion, Mr. Chairman, the reason why I voted no
is because I don’t think it’s, I think it’s derelict for us to pass responsibility to the Town
Comptroller. I’m sure they’re going to be as quizzical about this as this discussion just
was.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I agree with Mr. Seguljic’s comments as well. The motion
passed, so.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the Comptroller, in discussing this, we didn’t know when or how to
apply a dollar value to this, and we felt that it would be more in line for the Comptroller to
make that decision, rather than for this Board to try to estimate the cost of that building.
So that’s how it got into the Comptroller’s environment.
MR. SEGULJIC-And the Comptroller can set the dollar value?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right.
MR. VOLLARO-And it can be set at any number, whatever the Comptroller thinks is
satisfactory in terms of the building project itself.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-So you have an approved project.
MRS. STEFFAN-And the applicant also will have to, in order to get a building permit,
they have to estimate a value of the project. So that number is provided to the Town.
MR. BROWN-Would a bond be allowed in lieu of a certificate?
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about a performance bond?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-The 179-9-090 talks to either or.
MR. BROWN-It’s the same thing, but we’re talking $20,000.
MR. VOLLARO-Certainly I know that 179 talks to either or. It talks to a performance
bond or a letter of credit.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-We chose the letter of credit. When you go for this, you can convert it
into a performance bond. I’m sure that’s going to be adequate.
MR. HUNSINGER-We should convey that to the Comptroller, because the resolution
was specific.
MR. VOLLARO-We can change the resolution to talk to that if we want to, right now, it
can be either or, either a performance bond or letter of credit. There’s no reason why we
can’t amend our motion, based on discussions.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I didn’t make the motion.
MR. FORD-If you want to change that, I certainly would agree to second that amended
motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re going to amend the motion, and in the area of Number
Three, we will make the motion read as follows “That Morris Products, Inc. will supply a
letter of credit or a performance bond reflecting a dollar amount which is satisfactory to
the Comptroller of the Town of Queensbury”, etc., etc. continuing on to the end of the
motion. Mr. Ford, are you still willing to second that motion as amended?
MR. FORD-Exactly. Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re all set.
MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 13-2006 SEQR TYPE: II COVER 3, INC. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN &
STEVES OWNER(S): COVER 3, INC. ZONING: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: 714
UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE 409 SQ. FT. ATRIUM
AND REPLACE WITH A NEW ROOF AND WIDOWS. CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN
REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS
REFERENCE: BP 2006-182 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/12/06 ADIRONDACK
PARK: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-56 SECTION: 179-9-020
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Would you like to discuss it? First of all, would you identify yourself for
the record, please.
MR. STEVES-Yes. Good evening. My name is Matt Steves. I represent Cover 3, Inc.
on this application. They are the owners of the Wendy’s store on 714 Upper Glen Street.
What they’re proposing to do is to replace a problematic atrium dome glass, with a
pitched roof, like a shed roof off the front. I gave some copies to the Board, I believe, of
what it’s going to look like.
MR. VOLLARO-We saw that.
MR. STEVES-There were two Staff comments. As far as the height of the roof, no, there
is not any change except that the corner naturally is slightly higher at the very front.
Where it meets the main building it’s actually slightly lower. Where it is headered into the
existing building and the façade and the columns will match the existing building exactly,
no question, as far as the color. There was one correct, they said it’s a flat roof. It’s not
a flat roof.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. FORD-Yes, it’s a pitched roof.
MR. STEVES-It’s a pitched roof.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. STEVES-And it depicts a problematic area that the roof, after about three or four
years, has had maintenance issues as far as leaking, and Wendy’s across the country
have done this replacement on that atrium.
MR. VOLLARO-So this is a corporate wide type of replacement.
MR. STEVES-Yes, and it’s at the discretion of the owner, because they’re all franchised,
and Mr. Soucher, the owner, or he is Cover 3, Inc., wants to implement this on three of
his stores, the three he has. This one being the first one because it’s the most
problematic.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s it, just replacing the roof with a pitched roof?
MR. STEVES-Yes, and if anybody’s ever been there, you know it’s an arched glass roof
that leaks, and they want to replace it with the shed roof.
MR. HUNSINGER-They all do, sooner or later.
MR. STEVES-That’s it, no other change.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody on the Board have any comments on this at all? Mr.
Hunsinger, how about you?
MR. HUNSINGER-Anytime we get a modification like this, you contemplate, well, should
we bring them into compliance with lighting and new parking lot regulations and
everything, but it seems like such a minor modification. It just didn’t seem practical.
MRS. STEFFAN-I agree.
MR. VOLLARO-I agree with that, also.
MR. SEGULJIC-I have nothing.
MR. FORD-As long as Mr. Steves has corrected that impression that it’s a flat roof. It is
a pitched roof. We want to make sure of that.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Don?
MR. SIPP-Nothing.
MR. VOLLARO-Just one comment before I open the public hearing, because there is a
public hearing on this tonight. Would you mind to put a stamp on this drawing?
MR. STEVES-Sure.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to have certified drawings presented to us that are.
MR. STEVES-I apologize. Typically, with all the years I’ve been doing this, is once the
approval’s granted, like on a subdivision, then we supply 10 copies back to the Town
with all the stamps, certifications, and the signatures. I mean, from now on during the
approval process I will submit those, but we always submit them back to the Town after
approval with all those signatures.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and now we do have a public hearing. There’s no SEQRA on this.
It’s been classified as a Type II, and I will open the public hearing this evening for this
application, Site Plan 13-2006 for Wendy’s. Does anybody have any comments on this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-I will call for a motion. I also have no comments on this.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2006 COVER 3, INC., Introduced by Chris
Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following: Applicant proposes to remove the 409 sq. ft. atrium and replace with a
new roof and windows. Changes to Site Plan Review uses require review by the
Planning Board.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/18/06, and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following: Applicant proposes to remove the 409 sq. ft. atrium and replace with a
new roof and windows. Changes to Site Plan Review uses require review by the
Planning Board.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 7/18/06, and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code
[Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, 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. Subsequent issuance of further permits,
including building permits are dependent on receipt.
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas, pursuant to relevant
sections of the Town Code, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the requirements as stated. The next Whereas, related to SEQRA shall be
stricken, and Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved we find we approve the application as
presented.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2006 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED
SCOTT SPELLBURG AGENT(S): ROBERT J. MULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S): SAME
ZONING: RR-3A, LC-10 LOCATION: 45 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 92.13 ACRE INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 52.24
AND 39.89 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: 4/18/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
ADIRONDACK PARK: YES LOT SIZE: 92.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-2
SECTION: A-183
ROBERT MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-And this is a departure, this evening, from our usual procedure in that
Mr. Spellburg has requested that we do a Preliminary and Final. I want to say that the
condition on the Final would be that when you supply that, there’ll be a location for the
house and septic on the Final map submitted for signature, particularly for Lot Two, not
for your Lot One, but for the Lot Two that you plan to convey to someone, that lot would
show an approximate location of the house and septic, and that’s been requested by our
Staff, by the Zoning Administrator, this afternoon, to me.
MR. MULLER-What kind of time limit would be on that?
MR. VOLLARO-The time limit is when you submit the Final map. In other words, I’ll have
to sign off on your subdivision map when it comes in to the Town. So when you submit
your final documents, that should be on it. So the time limit’s up to you.
MR. MULLER-Because we have no idea what they’re building plans are, if any.
MR. VOLLARO-Approximate location, I said. Just pick it. That’s what they’ve asked me
to ask you.
MR. MULLER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-That comes from the office of the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Craig Brown.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it is a requirement of the Subdivision code.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-To show the approximate location of the house and the septic
system.
MR. MULLER-Okay. I guess my point would be, what if a neighbor was buying it, to
actually prohibit anyone from building on it? Why would we pick a site?
MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t prohibit the location of where the future development goes.
It just depicts that it is possible to locate a house on the site, that’s all it depicts.
MR. MULLER-That’s fine. I understand, but I’m saying if someone was buying it with the
exact purpose to never develop it, why would we pick a house?
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s fine.
MR. MULLER-That’s my point. Why would we put a house on it?
MR. HUNSINGER-By subdividing it, we’re making it a buildable lot, and that’s all it’s
doing is recognizing that.
MRS. STEFFAN-And that would also be so rare in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-The only reason we’re asking the question, have you seen this, this is a
map depicting, slopes in the red area depicts slopes in excess of 25%, and those slopes
prohibit building in the Town of Queensbury in excess of 25%, so in the lot that you plan
to convey, which is this lot here, is about 50% of that, almost 50, not quite, has slopes in
excess of 25%. So you certainly wouldn’t want to put it here. You’ve got to put it
somewhere in this area.
MR. MULLER-Is that to the north of the lot, the north end of the lot? Is that where you’re
pointing?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, this is north oriented, in this direction, and somewhere in here, you
have a copy of this, I’m sure, up there.
MR. MULLER-No, I have not seen that.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You haven’t seen this? I’ll tell you what, you can have mine. What this
is is a GIS lay over of slopes in excess of 25% in the area of your. You can have that.
All right. You’ve been here before us at Sketch. This Board has taken a look at your
Sketch Plan prior, and the drawing that you supplied has complied with what we
requested on the Sketch Plan, in terms of access to Lot Number Two. Okay. Having
said that, I will open this to the Board. Just so you know, there is a public hearing tonight
and there is a Long Form SEQRA attached to this application, and before we get to that,
I’ll solicit comments from the Board concerning this application.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’ll start. I know there was a lot of discussion, and probably
some confusion from the last meeting when we did Sketch Plan. The triangle piece of
land that is now labeled part of Lot One, I guess I preferred it when it was actually part of
Lot Two. I don’t know how others felt. To me it seems kind of confusing to have a lot
that’s on two sides of another lot, but I might be the only person that feels that way.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about this portion of the?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the 1.36 acres that’s labeled part of Lot One. It just seemed to
me that it more naturally should be part of Lot Two rather than part of Lot One.
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, it would make the access cleaner, too, I think, right?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I thought. I mean, the only issue is making sure that
each lot had 40 feet of right of way on Ellsworth Road, which you accomplish either way.
So I mean, it’s really irrelevant and I guess it’s up to the rest of the Board and the
applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s 1.36 acres tied to Lot One, and I think that the applicant, Mr.
Spellburg, is planning to keep Lot One for his own use.
MR. MULLER-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I would suspect that unless the Board had some very particular
reason why they would want that to be part of Lot Two, I would say that maybe Mr.
Spellburg could make that decision. Do you have an objection to making the 1.36 acres
part of Lot Two as opposed to being tied to Lot One?
SCOTT SPELLBURG
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. I don’t want to give away 1.3 acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Like I said, it’s up to you. We’re going to respond to what you
prepare. I’m just stating my opinion and my comment.
MR. SPELLBURG-And I see your point. I really do. I understand what you’re saying. I
just really would like to keep the first lot intact. The access is granted, I need the X
amount of footage. This is the way I proposed it. I never considered giving up more
property than the 37 acres.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m satisfied, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-It might make more sense, but if the applicant wants to keep it this way, I
don’t have a problem with it. During the Sketch Plan, before I get to that, has anybody
else got any comments on this?
MR. SIPP-Just for my information, has anybody ever done any test pits or soil analysis
on any of this property?
MR. SPELLBURG-Not to my knowledge.
MR. SIPP-So you don’t know if it would be suitable for septic systems or depth to
bedrock or high water table?
MR. SPELLBURG-No, only personal experience from working on my own house.
MR. SIPP-Well, what is that?
MR. SPELLBURG-There’s about 15 to 20 feet of fill on top of the ledge.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. SIPP-On top of the ledge.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, it’s all gravel. I do have 40 feet before I hit ledge with my well.
Back in ’96.
MR. SIPP-Now are there any springs on this property?
MR. SPELLBURG-Not to my knowledge, (lost word) on going spring.
MR. SIPP-Now this road that’s in the southwest corner.
MR. FORD-The crushed stone road.
MR. SIPP-The crushed stone road.
MR. SPELLBURG-The one way off the end?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. SPELLBURG-The famous road? Yes. Are we going down that path tonight?
MR. VOLLARO-I have it highlighted on mine, and I said, what is this, an easement, but I
know what it is. I also know that the whole project is in a degree of litigation. I would
propose that this Board not discuss that intrusion because of, it is in litigation concerning
ownership of property, and things of this nature, and whatever. I don’t even know what
the litigation is about. I can’t take the test and pass the litigation, but I do know that this
is in litigation. In other words, you are contesting the fact that this road is crossing your
property.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And so I would caution us to be deliberating on what that is and why that
is if it’s in the courts at the present time.
MR. FORD-Is he a part of that?
MR. MULLER-Yes, he is.
MR. VOLLARO-He probably is.
MR. SIPP-How deep is your well?
MR. SPELLBURG-My well is 170.
MR. SIPP-Good source of water?
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Well, that’s all I have.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, what are your intentions with the land?
MR. SPELLBURG-Just sell it.
MR. SEGULJIC-So your intention is only to subdivide it and sell it off?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think he made that very, very clear to us during the Sketch Plan,
that he was planning to, on the Sketch Plan we had a particular party listed there which
Mr. Spellburg said, no, not necessarily that party. So I think that was taken off, but I think
you still have intentions of selling that to another party, some party.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. During the Sketch Plan, and I looked for it in the minutes and I
checked the minutes of this, I had mentioned a letter of credit of non-jurisdictional
interest from the APA, and I got a comment from Mr. Mannix, I believe who was here at
the time, representing, are you the other attorney, by the way?
MR. MULLER-Yes, I am.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You are, and Mr. Mannix states that Mr. Muller, attorney for Mr.
Spellburg, which you are now, had discussions with the APA, and they said no wetlands,
no need to go any further with us. Now, when they say that there’s no interest in some
way, Mr. Mannix says, how long does it take to get that, and I would have to assume, in
that area, that Mr. Mannix would have relayed that concern to Mr. Muller, to yourself.
We’re just trying to get a letter of non-jurisdictional interest from the APA that this
property is not something that they’re concerned about in subdivision or otherwise.
Usually a letter of non-jurisdictional interest takes, you know, takes them out of the game
officially. I know I live in the Park, and in my deed I have a letter of non-jurisdictional
interest. I might add that I got a visit from the APA just to make sure I wasn’t doing
anything wrong there. I was quite surprised when he showed up at my doorstep and I
was able to give him a letter of non-jurisdictional interest. He said that’s fine, but I still
want to look. That happened just this year, by the way, and then I don’t have any other
questions, other than that. I think that, I have a note here based on the slope map, but
I’ve given you a significant slope, in excess of 25% may limit the future development of
the western end of the properties on Lot One or Two, but that’s all I had, and that’s all I
have on this application. So, I’m going to open the public hearing on this application.
This is for Subdivision No. 5-2006 for Mr. Scott Spellburg. Does anybody in the
audience want to speak to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-We will go into a Long Form SEQRA, which is the State Environmental
Quality Review Act.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just a clarification. So, as far as our SEQRA review, we’re only looking
at, essentially, a two lot subdivision.
MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. That’s what’s before us for review.
MR. SEGULJIC-That has no development on it other than one house.
MR. VOLLARO-Lot One has the house of Mr. Spellburg.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the potential of one house on the created lot, I guess, that’s all we’re
looking at at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-That’s all we can look at at this point.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-They’re creating a buildable lot. So the assumption is they could
come in and get a building permit.
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Whether you do or not.
MR. SPELLBURG-Practically speaking, someone’s going to be back in front of you
anyway if they want to do anything. So you’re going to have whatever limits you want to
put on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 5-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
SCOTT SPELLBURG, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning
Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental
concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has
a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of
the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New
York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a
statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Would somebody like to put forward a motion to this application? This is
for Preliminary. We have two tonight, recognize that we’re doing Preliminary and Final
on the same night, which is a little unusual for this Board, by the way. Our usual
procedure is to do a Preliminary and have the applicant come back with the Final, and
that usually takes all of 10 minutes to do, and it’s done that way. You’ve asked for
permission to do it this way and we’ve granted it. So we’re going to have a motion for
the Preliminary portion of this, if somebody wants to put it up.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2006 SCOTT
SPELLBURG, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, a preliminary subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury
Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 92.13 acre into 2
residential lots of 52.24 and 39.89 acres. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board
review.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on July 18, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A-
183 entitled subdivision of land; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or
if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Whereas a Preliminary subdivision
application has been made, the public hearing was advertised. Whereas, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision requirements.
Whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Board has adopted a Negative SEQRA Declaration. Now,
Therefore, Be It Resolved that we find the Preliminary application to be approved with no
conditions.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hunsinger, if you’d like to go forward with the Final.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2006 SCOTT
SPELLBURG, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Gretchen Steffan:
WHEREAS, a final stage subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury
Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 92.13 acre into 2
residential lots of 52.24 and 39.89 acres. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board
review.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on July 18, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the
subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A-
183 entitled subdivision of land; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or
if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any
new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA
review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and
application material in the file of record; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
Whereas a Final subdivision application has been made. Whereas, the public hearing
was advertised. Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal
complies with the subdivision requirements. Whereas, the requirements of SEQRA have
been considered and we have adopted a Negative SEQRA Declaration. Whereas the
application is supported with all documentation, Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that we
find this Final application to be approved, subject to the following condition:
1.That the applicant provide the approximate location of a house site and septic on
the Lot Number Two as shown on the map,
2.We need a letter of non-jurisdictional interest from the Adirondack Park Agency.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-We’re done.
MR. SPELLBURG-Thank you very much.
MR. MULLER-Thanks.
SITE PLAN NO. 24-2006 SEQR TYPE: II BOLDAN, LLC OWNER(S): JABCO, INC.
ZONING: CI LOCATION: 7 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES UTILIZATION OF
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
THE EXISTING 1,884 SQ. FT. BUILDING AS A BAR/RESTAURANT WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING, LIGHITNG, AND LANDSCAPING. RESTAURANTS IN THE
CI ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE:
USE VAR. 21-2006 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/06 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 303.20-2-36 SECTION 179-4-020
KELLY & EDWARD BOLAR & LESLIE D’ANGELO, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. Would you announce yourselves for the record, please,
who you are.
MS. D’ANGELO-Leslie D’Angelo.
MRS. BOLAR-Kelly Bolar.
MR. BOLAR-Edward Bolar.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project?
MRS. BOLAR-Well, we’re in the process of buying the property at 7 Boulevard, and we
would like to open a bar/restaurant/pub type facility.
MS. D’ANGELO-Basically we want to continue the use of it as it always was. It closed
down for three and a half years. We just want to re-open it as the same type of thing,
hopefully a little more upscale.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. My understanding was that during an illness of Mr. Boldan the
zone was changed. Is that correct?
MS. D’ANGELO-The previous owner. We are all different people, but, yes, he does have
a similar name.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You are Boldan?
MS. D’ANGELO-That’s the name of our company, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I understand the zone was changed during the term of illness,
and now you’re trying to, you got a Use Variance for this, I understand, from the Zoning
Board of Appeals?
MS. D’ANGELO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So, having been granted that, I think that I don’t have very much to say
on this. I’ve got some comments, but I’ll save those for after and let the Board deliberate
on this a little bit. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us about your project, other than
you’d like to open it up?
MS. D’ANGELO-There’s one piece of information here. When we drew this up, mind you
we’re not professionals. We drew it over, and over, and over, and over. Since April
we’ve been trying to draw this. One of the things that.
MR. VOLLARO-We have a stamp on this by William E. Montgomery.
MS. D’ANGELO-Well, what we did was we took the old one and whited it all out and
reused the paper.
MR. BOLAR-This is the septic plan. That’s the stamp for the septic.
MS. D’ANGELO-This is the septic plan we filled in our portion of it. So this is what was
already existing, and then when we spoke with Sue, she said we need to see parking
and lighting and that kind of thing. So we just kind of took the old existing plan and put
our additional input in here. When we did this, and mind you we’ve done this several
times. We’ve done it on this. We’ve done not on this. It just kept coming back to us as
not acceptable. This one.
MR. VOLLARO-Are we looking at the same document?
MS. D’ANGELO-Yes. This one is showing a proposed curb.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Is this a revised 1899 on the bottom right hand corner?
MR. BOLAR-Yes, it is.
MS. D’ANGELO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and you’ve taken this drawing and you’ve revised it in some way?
MR. BOLAR-Well, they wanted us to show parking and lighting. So all we’ve done, as
far as revisions, is we put a parking plan and showed the lighting fixtures, which, I’m in
construction, and everybody I’ve talked to in the Building Department, it’s an existing.
It’s grandfathered, but the Board, I’m not sure who, required the direction of lights.
Basically there’s two sets of bulbs on each corner. You could point them in any direction.
It’s a non residential area. The only businesses in the area close, five, six o’clock in the
evening and they wanted to show parking spaces, which I think basically reflects for
occupancy. So we penciled in that portion onto this drawing.
MS. D’ANGELO-The proposed curb was suggested to us that this might help with a
request for a parking variance. The only problem with have with this is that Adirondack
Pools, which is on the other side of us, right next to us where the curb is, we’ve always,
the two buildings have always pretty much shared parking. It’s not in writing. It’s nothing
that anybody wants to put in writing, but we don’t want to hinder our neighbor’s parking,
and they use our side all the time, and by putting that curb in there, it’s going to create an
issue with our neighbor. So we would prefer not to have that.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking, is the curb cut that you talk about, this is to narrow the
entrance down?
MS. D’ANGELO-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-I couldn’t locate it on this drawing. This drawing doesn’t show that.
MR. BOLAR-Do you see where the Boulevard is? It’s just down, right from, the word
Boulevard, right there.
MR. VOLLARO-This whole thing is a curb?
MR. BOLAR-Well, it joins actually up to the neighbor’s property.
MS. D’ANGELO-Just part of it.
MR. BOLAR-So if we did put the curbing in, and actually he parks kind of along, his
building is about the same distance as the front of our building. So our parking is deeper
than his. By putting the curbing in, we’re going to cut back some of his.
MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at the photo that’s up there.
MR. BOLAR-See, that’s the end of the lot, almost.
MS. D’ANGELO-You can see that shadow where he’s got a car parked on our side, and
it’s fine with him, you know, we just kind of switched back and forth there. Sometimes
we would be parked in his side. Sometimes he’s parked in ours, but by putting in the
curb, it’s going to create an issue for him that I don’t want to create. I don’t want to put a
bad taste in my neighbor’s mouth, if you know what I mean.
MRS. BOLAR-Because he uses big trucks and trailers, and, you know, it’s not so much
the cars of his customers that pull in there. It’s his.
MS. D’ANGELO-In the morning, he’ll have a bulldozer pulled up along there.
MRS. BOLAR-Right, and it’ll take up the whole front of our building. If the curb was
there, he wouldn’t be able to bring that bulldozer in there.
MRS. BOLAR-Which we aren’t open in the morning, or won’t be open in the morning
anyway. So that’s fine with us, and then in the evening he’s not open, and he doesn’t
mind that we park over there.
MR. FORD-So your patrons could use it as well?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MS. D’ANGELO-Exactly.
MR. FORD-So it’s as much an inconvenience for you as it is for him.
MS. D’ANGELO-It really wouldn’t inconvenience us, but he couldn’t get his bulldozer
over there.
MR. FORD-It could your patrons, however.
MS. D’ANGELO-No, they would still be able to pull into his parking lot and park. The
only thing he’s not going to be able to pull into the parking lot if that curb goes is his
trucks, his heavy equipment trucks. They won’t, he wouldn’t be able to pull them into the
parking lot anymore.
MRS. BOLAR-He’s been doing this for as long as he’s owned that business, years, and,
years and years and years, and we don’t want to create an issue for him.
MRS. STEFFAN-What are your hours of operation going to be?
MRS. BOLAR-We’re hoping to get to the point to noon to say midnight. Probably won’t
be opening for lunch right in the very beginning. This is a slow time of year anyway.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MRS. BOLAR-I’m assuming that we’ll be closed probably by midnight, unless something
big is going on.
MRS. STEFFAN-In New York State you can be open until four.
MRS. BOLAR-Four, but we don’t really want to be a four a.m. bar. We’re a little too old
for this.
MS. D’ANGELO-We’d like the clientele to be the type of people that are going to go to
work in the morning.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you already have a liquor license?
MS. D’ANGELO-It’s in process.
MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in process. You don’t anticipate any problems then?
MS. D’ANGELO-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-She has the other picture on there now. That’s where your patrons
normally park, where you see those cars parked now?
MS. D’ANGELO-Have for as long as that building’s existed.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and then the other picture that was up really shows the fence.
MR. BOLAR-Right, we’re going to move the fence back a little bit.
MRS. BOLAR-If I’d have known that she was going to be taking that picture today, I
would have loaded those bags into my truck.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the fence protects your septic system, really.
MR. BOLAR-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-More than anything.
MR. BOLAR-We can move it back a little bit.
MRS. BOLAR-That was another suggestion, too. We could move that back partially so
that we could probably add a little landscaping because that’s not paved back there. We
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
had a real problem with being able to put any landscaping or anything because that’s all,
well, it’s torn up pavement, but it’s pavement, believe it or not. We’d like to re-pave in the
front at some point here, but you can see where the grass is growing back to the fence.
We could add some trees and things in there, if we moved the fence.
MR. HUNSINGER-There is a comment in here about being able to comply with parking
requirements when municipal sewer is extended. Is there any current plan for municipal
sewer to go down that road?
MS. D’ANGELO-Not that I’m aware of.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-I checked with Mike, the Wastewater Superintendent. He, at this
present time, they see none.
MR. BOLAR-It’s kind of in no man’s land in the Town of Queensbury.
MRS. BOLAR-It’s always been what we’re opening it as. There’s never been a parking
issue.
MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate that. I guess my thought process is along those lines. If
this were the first time that this site was coming before us for a brand new building and a
brand new use, I would certainly feel differently, but I’d be apt to just have you come
back for a compliant parking plan, if and when municipal sewer is extended.
MRS. BOLAR-We would be thrilled with that ourselves.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because there’s nothing you can do right now. There’s not enough
room on the site.
MS. D’ANGELO-I mean, he’s got two septic systems here. We really wish we could
utilize that space.
MR. HUNSINGER-Because you could put all your parking onto the side of the building
and put nice green space out in front.
MRS. BOLAR-Well, this was a second septic system added, and it used to actually have
more parking over here, as I recall it, and it certainly would have been better. We wish it
still could be that way.
MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about this? We’ve heard this. I guess what I
have in my notes, and I’ll just read them over, that based on continued use of the facility
as approved by the ZBA, I would grant the waivers for stormwater management,
landscaping plan and parking and lighting, based on its prior use. I think I’m going down
the same path here as Mr. Hunsinger just went down. I would condition the approval that
the spaces in the front of the building be posted as compact car parking spaces, which
was a proposal you set forth.
MS. D’ANGELO-Right, and in the picture you can see it’s perfectly big enough for that.
MR. VOLLARO-And other than that, I don’t have anything. My one concern is that if we
have a Code Compliance officer that goes around Town trying to make sure that things
are done according to prints and drawings, and he might have a little difficult time, if we
keep this drawing as written, and we don’t, because he may be looking for this proposed
three by twenty-eight curb and it wouldn’t be there, and he’d have a problem with that,
unless we can, in our motion, remove that as a requirement.
MS. D’ANGELO-We would really appreciate removing that, and I think that the owner of
the building next door would appreciate it, too.
MR. BOLAR-Initially we were trying to gain parking along the curb side of the parking
area. With the space we have, we really couldn’t accomplish that, with the turning
radius.
MR. VOLLARO-I can see that, based on your explanation, I can understand why. I think
whoever makes the motion should take that into consideration, that the drawing as
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
shown of a proposed three by twenty-eight curb cut would be eliminated from the
drawing, whoever makes the motion for that, try to keep that in mind, and I think I don’t
have any other questions. Does anybody here have any questions on this at all?
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-I do think that they need to have a different drawing. It can’t be on this
paper.
MR. BOLAR-Well, we did it on a regular.
MS. D’ANGELO-We had another one and were told that it wasn’t.
MR. BOLAR-Because it needs to be on a full print size.
MS. D’ANGELO-We did it big. We did it small. We did it big again. We’ve submitted
several drawings.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think the concern is that there’s too much on the paper.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there’s things on here that shouldn’t be there, and it’s stamped by
somebody that has nothing to do with it now.
MS. D’ANGELO-Well, we did submit one that was three separate drawings that didn’t
have any of the stamp stuff also, but that was, and it was basically the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-If you could take this size piece of paper and just trace the building
and the parking and the lighting.
MS. D’ANGELO-I can do that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the problems, Mr. Hunsinger is alluding to it now, when we
see a drawing that’s been stamped by a license professional engineer like Mr.
Montgomery, and then people take his design and start to manipulate it, it’s really not, it’s
not an allowable practice, to manipulate an engineer’s drawing. So I think that’s what
we’re alluding to here. That’s what Mr. Hunsinger is alluding to, to perhaps, in order to
eliminate the stamp portion of this, that you just trace out on here what you think your
building will look like finally, so that when our Code Compliance Officer goes out and
looks at that and says, okay, the Planning Board has approved the drawing dated so and
so and so and so, that he doesn’t take this out and try to look it over, but he takes
something that you’ve supplied.
MS. D’ANGELO-I think I probably have it at home on the smaller sheets. I can bring it to
you.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to look at, Susan, is for Bruce Frank going to the site and
saying, what is this, and bringing back a complaint and so on and so on.
MR. FORD-You may be able to take that smaller sheet and just blow it up, enlarge it.
MR. BOLAR-Now, is there a lighting requirement?
MR. HUNSINGER-There is.
MR. BOLAR-Nobody could tell us what it was. I mean, like I said, the fixtures is four
volts per circuit. So legitimately the change, to put whatever size bulb, nobody could tell
us what kind of lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you what it is. In the Zoning Code it requires, for a parking lot,
two foot candles on the parking lot.
MR. BOLAR-Two foot candles? Well, that gives us something to go on.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the Zoning Code for a parking lot commercial, like you’re going to
be.
MR. HUNSINGER-But how that converts to wattage in his flood light.
MR. BOLAR-Well, I could figure that out.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-You’ll need a photometric analysis of your bulb, and what it’s
photometric characteristics are, in terms of its outer perimeter, and see whether or not
you can get an average of two foot candles across your parking lot by just doing what Mr.
Hunsinger suggests, maybe changing the bulbs.
MR. HUNSINGER-The one specific comment though that I did want to make on lighting,
and I’m sure the rest of the Board will back me up, is when you aim the floodlights, they
should not light up the road, so that the driver is blinded.
MR. BOLAR-Well, shouldn’t be a problem, because of the way they are located. The
building actually where it’s located, we have a light fixture and we’re putting awnings up
over the front of the building. So the front of the building light will be deflected down and
then the side lights, we’ll be putting them, there’s actually, the back corner, those lights, if
the fence moves back, will just shine to the sides, and with the angle of the road, I really
don’t see that being a problem.
MR. HUNSINGER-Unless you put in huge wattage, I really don’t see a problem with what
you’re proposing.
MR. VOLLARO-In order to get this new drawing that we’re talking about, or the trace
drawing, I’m wondering whether we can make that a condition of approval or should we
table this for a drawing that’s satisfactory?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was hoping we could make it a condition of approval.
MR. VOLLARO-I would, too.
MRS. STEFFAN-When do you want to open?
MRS. BOLAR-Now.
MS. D’ANGELO-We had planned on May. We’re looking probably more like September
now.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a Type II so there’s no SEQRA, but there is a public hearing on
this application this evening. Is there anybody here that wants to speak to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BERNARD RAYHILL
MR. RAYHILL-Hi. Bernard Rayhill. Wincrest Drive, Queensbury. I have no question
about the specific project, but I’m just looking at this process here where you have
drawing by the individuals who are putting the process together, and it seems to me that
there should be some sort of requirement to hire an architect. It’s not a big deal for an
architectural drawing or an engineer to do this and present it to you. In addition to which,
there’s an awful lot of talk about a lot of things, and it seems to me that the Town Staff
should be preparing the people who are coming before you, so that they know exactly
where their ducks should be and how they should be there before leaving you with 30
minutes to 40 minutes of blah, blah, blah, blah about things that the Code is in Town and
we have a Code Enforcement Officer. We have a Planning Board, and we have a
Zoning Board, and these people have training and they should be helping people who
are applicants, and I’m just a little bit confused by the whole process, specifically
because it seems to me that we’re providing a service to people who are going to have
businesses or properties here, and that service should be available to them so that they
can find out exactly what they have to do before you, and also so that it’s not just comsi,
comsa, and I really think you’re a professional Board. You should be respected as
professionals and things should be done for you professionally by our own workers on
the Town Staff, and I have one more question. When you do this with regard to, for
instance, a restaurant or a bar, do you ask how many people are going to be in the
restaurant or the bar, what the census or for instance if there might be 120 people or
whether you have an egress or an entrance.
MR. FORD-Building capacity you’re talking about?
MR. RAYHILL-Yes, exactly. Do you have any questions about that?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-They provided a small drawing, they did, at least, that shows the seating
capacity to be 64, but as you say, this was not prepared by a professional. The only
professional preparation we see is from a Mr. William Montgomery who did this drawing,
but you’re perfectly correct. We don’t have a drawing that depicts exactly what is going
to take place there.
MR. RAYHILL-I have nothing against the people or this project, but I’d just like to see if
things could be a lot easier for you, and it could be more professional. That’s all.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we have, Mr. Rayhill, is this. We have a procedure in place
where it is required that the applicant go before the Staff with what’s called a pre-
application conference, and the Staff takes a look at the proposal during that pre-
application conference, and describes to the applicant what is required. What happened
in this particular application, I did not see that pre-application conference in here.
However, having looked at the details that the ZBA went through when they approved
the Use Variance, which is usually very difficult to get, I took on the feeling that this was
really re-opening what was already operating as a bar and grill at one time, and so I
didn’t really get back to Staff and say where is the pre-application conference and what
did you tell this applicant, but we do have that in place. You’re absolutely right. The
Staff does that. They sit down, we get a copy of what they told the applicant during the
pre-application conference. Sometimes it’s very complete and sometimes it may not be
as complete as some of us might think it should be, but it nevertheless is done. It’s part
of the procedure.
MR. RAYHILL-So therefore in order to go into this, in other words, to have the name on
here, you should have a pre-application conference and you should have been informed
that the pre-application conference has been performed professionally. Is that what
you’re saying?
MR. VOLLARO-That is correct.
MR. RAYHILL-And it has been done in this situation?
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen it, no.
MR. RAYHILL-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-But in looking at the history of this, I said, well, in my judgment at least,
knowing a little bit about it, having read, we’ve seen this once before, before the Board,
so we were familiar with it. I read the ZBA’s analysis during their Use Variance, which
was quite specific, and so I felt that the pre-application conference may not have been
absolutely required, although technically it is required.
MR. RAYHILL-Now, Mr. Hunsinger mentions the requirement for a liquor license and
they said one will be forthcoming. I don’t know how quickly people get liquor licenses,
and what the requirements for the liquor licenses are, but I imagine that approval by this
Planning Board would probably be a characteristic that they would need in order to have
a liquor license and to do business. So therefore we’re talking about a situation where
what about going into business? Is there any business certificate that the Board gets
involved in, or is it just site plan?
MR. VOLLARO-No, site plan review. In this instance it’s site plan review only. We have
no jurisdiction over whether they get a liquor license or they don’t. That’s beyond the
purview of this Board.
MR. RAYHILL-It’s interesting because there are so many things going on, and when a
person goes into business they should have all the electrical work in place, have all of
the water and place, have all of the plumbing in place.
MR. VOLLARO-They need that to get a Certificate of Occupancy. I guess it would be
Mr. Hatin’s staff that would go out and inspect the building to see that it complied and get
a CO, all the necessary safety factors associated with the building.
MR. RAYHILL-So which would come first, you or Mr. Hatin?
MR. VOLLARO-We’ve been debating that for some time. We’re trying to get so that on
certain applications we go before Mr. Hatin’s group, before the building permit. We’re
trying to do that, and this is in a motion that we’ve made, has passed, it is before the
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
Town Board at the present time, and I understand it’s going to be discussed at the Town
Board at their next workshop, which is this coming Monday, I believe.
MR. RAYHILL-I think the rationale for that should be very clearly delineated so that
everybody understands what the rationale of having one before the other is, and why that
should be, and also once again I don’t think you should be burdened by so much
administration. I think the Staff at the Town should take care of that first. Once again,
these are my observations. I have nothing against the project. I just wanted to make
sure that everything is clarified and that it’s done properly and I do feel a professional
license is in order in the situation where you’re going into business, we have things done
in a professional manner. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. On this application, we can
certainly make this contingent upon a drawing. I think that that’s satisfactory to me, as
well.
MRS. STEFFAN-Does anybody else want to speak on the public hearing?
MR. VOLLARO-I asked for hands, and I got one from Mr. Rayhill, but that was all I got.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So you can come back up now.
MR. BOLAR-Okay. The first comment is that we went into contract on this building, we
were on the understanding, Number One, it was on the zoning was still the same, okay.
It was a bar/restaurant. We planned our finances as if it was an approved building.
MR. VOLLARO-You got your Use Variance. That’s the big thing.
MR. BOLAR-Well, we did this, previous to finding out that we needed the Use Variance.
So we have a budget in place, okay. As far as we’re concerned, it was an existing
building. At this point we’re putting our budget aside to do re-modeling to make it more
presentable than what it is. For us to go out and pay an architect to draw up a drawing, I
mean, if it’s required, so be it, but it’s been an existing building. We’ve talked to both the
Building Department and the Fire Marshal before we went in front of the Board
previously, and they’ve all come in and said this is existing building. You’re
grandfathered on this. You’re grandfathered on that. So it’s not like we went in willy nilly
on this.
MR. VOLLARO-You still have to get a Certificate of Occupancy.
MR. BOLAR-Yes. We understand that, and we’ve met with him before, and the contract
we’re in has stipulations with the owner. I mean, we haven’t closed on the ownership of
this premises. So I just want that to be understood. We didn’t just go in thinking, okay,
you know, this is a new building. We didn’t have to do this. We thought this stuff was
done previous to us going into contract with Mr. Boldan on this building. We’ve taken
steps forward to make this work. I mean, it’s a vacant building. It’s going to bring tax
money to the Town. It’s going to give us, you know, maybe hopefully a little bit of
retirement income for the future. Our 401K’s aren’t doing anything, and do something
with it. It’s sitting there vacant.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve said this before, and I guess it’s worth reiterating because I
haven’t said it in quite a while, and there’s new members on this Board, and with all due
respect to the last speaker during the public hearing the site plan review requirements do
not require an applicant to submit stamped drawings, and I can appreciate the cost that’s
involved in simply taking a drawing to an engineer or an architect just to get their stamp
put on it, and we try to make accommodations for the type of project that is before us as
we have in this case, and it’s nice to have stamped drawings for every project, but it’s not
always necessary, especially when it’s an existing use in an existing location with no
change in size, scale, or character.
MRS. BOLAR-We’re extremely limited to what we can do. The property doesn’t permit
us to move anything. So why pay somebody X amount of dollars to do, and I would truly
apologize for using a document that was stamped because it never even came into my
mind. It never came into our minds.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could we make a motion to?
MR. HUNSINGER-I think Gretchen was working on one.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-I was going to make a recommendation that we really, I think we really
do need to have different drawings. I mean, I feel really uncomfortable approving it with
this drawing, and so I think that we could bring them back next month and give them an
extended deadline of, you know, we just missed the submission deadline for August,
th
which was the 17, but we could give them two weeks to turn around new stuff and then
they could be back in front of us for the August meeting.
MS. D’ANGELO-Could I ask for consideration that we had provided other drawings that
weren’t on this stamped, we provided many, many drawings, and this is what we were
told to give you.
MRS. BARDEN-The previous drawings weren’t to scale.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Maybe a disclaimer on that map that you have that says that it was
altered by the applicants would work.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, they could even tear off this fold.
MS. D’ANGELO-They said draw it smaller. So then I went and drew it without this, a
couple of times, a couple of different ones, and got it turned back, and then in the end,
finally Sue said just go with this again. So we’ve spent close to $100 on making copies
of this that we really never needed to begin with.
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s all the exact same building, right?
MS. D’ANGELO-It’s not going to change.
MR. HUNSINGER-We really did need them, to be honest with you. I mean, we do need
to review something. So you didn’t waste your money by paying for copies.
MS. D’ANGELO-We did what you asked for, and somebody didn’t like it for many, many
months in a row. If we could get a little consideration for that. I mean, I’ll bring this to
you tomorrow.
MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see any problem with what Chris suggested.
MRS. STEFFAN-Cut all the edges off?
MR. SEGULJIC-The building is still the same. There’s no changes.
MS. D’ANGELO-I think I even asked should I cut that off, and was told, no, that’s fine.
MRS. BOLAR-Would you like us to cut that off?
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe put a disclaimer or something?
MS. D’ANGELO-We’re paying a mortgage right now on our homes. We took second
mortgages back in like January.
MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer to take your first suggestion, which I think was a valid one,
was to trace from this map what they really want to do and so when our inspector goes
out, he has a document he can inspect, too. He wouldn’t be able to inspect to this. I
guarantee you that Bruce Frank would come back.
MR. BOLAR-Contingent on the CO, though. We could present it before.
MR. VOLLARO-The Certificate of Occupancy is a whole other story. That comes out of
Mr. Hatin. I’m talking about the Code Compliance Officer, and he would go around to
inspect the site.
MR. BOLAR-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-If he were to use this document, he would come back with a violation.
MR. BOLAR-Well, our fear is we’ve been put back about four meetings already.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. BOLAR-So, I mean, we don’t want to draw up a map and bring it in and then be put
on the docket sometime in September, October.
MS. D’ANGELO-If you want this size, without being on this stamped document, I will
have it to you by five o’clock tomorrow. I’ll get it to you tomorrow.
MR. SEGULJIC-We could do it next week. If they get it in by five o’clock tomorrow, we
could do it next week.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MS. D’ANGELO-I’ll spend my day drawing.
MR. VOLLARO-I think what Mr. Seguljic is saying, that we would take a look at a
modification from this drawing that they would present, that we would put them on as an
eighth next week, and opposed to the seven we have now.
MR. HUNSINGER-What is on that plan that people would want to see taken off, other
than the right hand column which is all the notes and the stamp from the engineer?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing I see is if we’re not going to require.
MR. HUNSINGER-The curbing would have to be removed, too.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, is there a need to delineate some landscaping and lighting on a
new map?
MR. VOLLARO-They’ve officially asked for waivers on this for stormwater management,
landscaping, planting, parking and lighting, and based on the fact that this was granted a
Use Variance from its original use, I had in my mind at least considered that we would
grant those variances.
MR. FORD-What about signage?
MR. VOLLARO-The signage is what you see there.
MR. SIPP-That’s the only sign?
MS. D’ANGELO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. See, it really is a granting of a previous use.
MR. FORD-If you tear off that right section, does that, in fact, become what you intend to
do with the property?
MS. D’ANGELO-Other than the curbing, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than the curb cut. They want to take the curb cut out of it.
They’ve got it on there now. They want to have it removed. We could put a note on the
drawing that, we can put it in the motion, that the curb cut depicted on drawing, because
once you take the right side of it off, we can’t identify the drawing any further. There’s no
way to identify it. That’s the problem. We can’t tie this thing together.
MR. FORD-I think Chris is modifying the drawing to come into compliance.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just asked Gretchen, I said, what’s on the drawing that we would
want to see taken off.
MR. VOLLARO-Only the curb cut.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the notes at the bottom, the perc test locations, the deep test
hole, the fence, well, fence or barrier would remain, and then the notes and stamp on the
right.
MR. VOLLARO-We could probably, in the motion, identify this document in that fashion.
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-And then have them date it, then you have something to identify it
with.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That might work.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is there an inspection that has to be done on the grease tank? Is that a
Building and Codes thing?
MR. VOLLARO-In my drawing analysis, I have the grease tank, 1,000 gallon grease tank
circled. That I think is part of what the Certificate of Occupancy has to address, whether
this septic tank is in compliance or not, and that would be part of the CO.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, could we entertain the possibility of, and I know we’ve
discussed this before, but this seems to fall into that category where it would take a very
short amount of time to review this as an eighth item but first on the agenda a week from
tonight?
MR. VOLLARO-Correct.
MR. FORD-And let’s get on with this.
MR. VOLLARO-I would prefer that, that you get into gear, if you’re the designer of this
crew, you get in, take that drawing, trace it as Mr. Hunsinger said to do, remove that,
identify it, that this was drawn by your name, the date, and so on. Submit that to us at
th
our next meeting, which is the 25 of this month, I believe. We have seven.
MR. FORD-If they can have it done by five o’clock tomorrow, we can have it the next day
delivered to us. We have it to review. We put them on at seven o’clock and at seven oh
five it’s done.
MRS. STEFFAN-Can Staff accommodate that, Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-Sure.
MR. SEGULJIC-So shall we move it, then?
MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody want to make a motion to that effect?
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2006 BOLDAN, LLC, Introduced by Chris
Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
To July 25, pending the submission of a revised site plan. The proposed modifications
shall include:
1.The removal of the existing notes one through eleven, along with the engineer’s
stamp,
2.The removal of the additional notes at the bottom of the drawing,
3.The removal of the percolation test and deep test hole notes,
th
4.And the removal of the proposed curb, delivered by noon on Thursday, July 20.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re all set.
th
MS. D’ANGELO-And now we’ll be the first on the docket on the 25 at seven o’clock?
th
MR. VOLLARO-On the 25 at seven o’clock.
MS. D’ANGELO-Thank you.
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll put you on Number One. You’ve got the drawing, it’ll be over.
Hopefully we can do it quickly.
MRS. BOLAR-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I remind the Board that I won’t be here.
MRS. STEFFAN-And I won’t, either.
MR. VOLLARO-And neither will Tanya. We’re down to four.
SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN MILES AGENT(S): ROB
PRATT OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: LI LOCATION: 312 CORINTH ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NINE (9) SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS
(TOTALING 37,800 SQ. FT.) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SELF-STORAGE
FACILITIES IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2005-955 WARREN CO.
PLANNING: 7/12/06 LOT SIZE: 5.51, 1.35, 2.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-60,
59, 58 SECTION: 179-4-020
ROB PRATT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I assume you’re John Miles?
MR. PRATT-I’m Rob Pratt. I’m representing John Miles.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re representing John Miles. Before we get going on this, is there
anybody here from the public who wants to speak to this application? Nobody here that
wants to talk to this application?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I may, but I may not, depending on what I hear.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. We’ve got a couple of possible people who want to speak to
this application? Okay. That’s what I need to know. Thank you very much. In going
through this, I did some mathematical analysis here, and fundamentally what you’ve
done is you’ve got 4.5 acres here that we’re dealing with. Is that correct?
MR. PRATT-I’m going to say yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and 4.5 acres would calculate out to be 196,020 square feet. All of
your calculations are based on 237,350 square feet. So that effects your Floor Area
Ratio calculations and also effects your permeability. In fact, your permeability goes
from your stated 35% down to 21 and a half, and you just squeak through your Floor
Area Ratio. So I think there’s a basic flaw in this application that before we can go
forward with it, I think that’s a fundamental error in it that you assume the amount of
square footage to be 237,000, under which all your mathematical calculations were
made, as opposed to 196,020.
MRS. BARDEN-The lots are to be combined, if you see, on the top here.
MR. VOLLARO-It says 4.5 acres, in what I read on the drawing, and this is what we’re
looking at. The lots have not been combined.
MRS. BARDEN-They have not. They’re proposed to be combined.
MR. PRATT-No, they’ve been combined.
MRS. BARDEN-They have been combined?
MR. PRATT-The lots have been combined.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you see, I don’t have that. This is all new information now to me.
First of all, it says the lots may be combined. Secondly, I have nothing in front of me,
when I review this project, to say that the lots now consist of, other than what’s on the
upper right hand side of that drawing that says 4.5 acres, and so the drawing is, either
that or the drawing is in error, one or the other. When I look at this, it says very, very
clearly in here that lot area is 237,350 square feet, parens 4.5 acres. That’s an out and
out error. Does everybody see where I am?
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And I do my calculations on what’s on the drawing, and not what, and it
doesn’t say, by the way, these two lots have been combined into what amounts to
237,000 square feet.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, it does say lot to be combined with four acre lot. It’s that.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the problem is the drawing itself, in what it says at the top, site and
zoning requirements, lot area, 237,350 square feet, parens 4.5 acres. Those two terms
do not equate, and so, either that or this drawing has got to be updated for us to now
look at it as 237,350 square feet. So when I do these things, I don’t have the benefit of a
lot of information that may or may not have been supplied with the application. So I do,
and I assume the rest of the Board members do their reviews in the same way. So did
anybody else?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, could the 4.5 be a typo? Because 270,000
square feet divided by the number of square feet in an acre is very close to the 5.51 that
you see there for the lot size.
MR. PRATT-See, I think it was the proposed with one acre, and then we have a
requirement.
MR. VOLLARO-It might be, Mr. Salvador, but doing that mathematical gymnastics, which
I understand, doesn’t relieve the fact that the drawing itself depicts four and a half acres
as being 237,000 square feet. There’s something wrong with that.
MR. SALVADOR-Is the 4.5 in error or is the 237,000?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, and I don’t care. What I care about is what’s on the
drawing.
MR. PRATT-I think what it was is the existing auto repair building is one acre, and then
we’re disturbing 4.5 acres.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t understand that.
MR. PRATT-All three lots were put into one.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t say that anywhere in the documents that I have. You might
have that someplace in something that you have there.
MR. PRATT-It’s a deed.
MR. VOLLARO-That was not submitted as part of this application. I don’t have it here.
MR. FORD-Is the proposed lot actually 4.5 acres?
MR. PRATT-I think it’s 5.51, with the acre of the existing commercial building that he has
on there, and then he is disturbing 4.5 acres proposed.
MR. FORD-Well, what we have in front of us is 4.5 proposed, and if that’s not accurate,
then what’s the point of proceeding?
MR. VOLLARO-When I look at this aerial photo that was supplied to us by GIS, there is a
small portion, and it’s this portion right here that’s depicted as area .34 acres, that is to
be, isn’t that the piece that we’re talking about being conveyed?
MR. PRATT-No.
MR. VOLLARO-No? Then I’m totally out. I thought that this piece.
MR. PRATT-These were three different lots. There was three different lots down through
here, and they were combined.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, are you saying that on your drawing as it’s presented to me,
that if I had scaled this out accurately, I would come out with 237,000 square feet? Is
that what you’re saying?
MR. PRATT-According to my engineer who stamped it. That’s the figures.
MR. VOLLARO-I know what the figures are, but I think they’re very deceptive in terms of
what’s on the drawing itself. These are all the setback requirements, and they’re all
okay. I see those as being fine. I don’t buy your .17 Floor Area Ratio. It’s more like 42.
It’ll pass the .3. The Floor Area Ratio now, I don’t think that quite fits either. I know that
the permeability definitely doesn’t pass. I think the material that we were given is
incorrect in terms for us to do a decent review of this. That’s my problem. I spent a
considerable amount of time looking over this and couldn’t quite make heads or tails out
of it, and didn’t go through any, you know, taking a look at, well, is it 5.1, is it. 4.3, what
really is it. What the drawing says is it’s 4.5 acres, and then it has 237,350. I couldn’t
get to that 237,350, no matter what I did. I couldn’t make it play against 43,560 per acre.
MR. PRATT-I think the shaded area is the 4.5 acres that we’re disturbing, and that’s
proposed, but the lot that the existing auto repair building was put on there, they were all
put together, as one lot.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying that really this drawing depicts more than four and a
half acres?
MR. PRATT-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And yet what is says is 4.5.
MR. FORD-And then there’s another reference to lot to be combined with four acre lot.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think, in looking at the materials that were submitted in the SEQRA
form, I think that the lot area is probably a transposition of numbers. It should be 5.4,
and it’s 4.5. Chris just ran some numbers. It’s probably a transposition, but it’s still not
right for our purposes.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that with some mathematical gymnastics you could probably
get to this, assuming that I had the document that you have there that talks about the
consolidation of documents. If I knew that, when I did this, I’d say, okay, let’s take a look
at what that consolidation looked like and see, with my calculator at home, if I could
make this come out to 237,000 square feet. I didn’t have the ability to do that. I don’t
think anybody else did, but we didn’t have certification in front of us that there was a
consolidation of the lots.
MR. PRATT-In the general Staff comments, that’s why I had the confirmation of
consolidation should be provided. That’s why I asked for this.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, but it wasn’t here. What you’ve got to try and understand is when
we do our evaluations at home, and we don’t have the benefit of all of the information
associated with this, we can only do our evaluations on the material presented to us from
Staff. That’s all we’ve got, and when we don’t have a full picture, we can’t do the work. I
can’t tell you how many hours or time I spend on all of these applications trying to figure
out what the answer really is, and it should be a lot plainer than it is on this one. So I, for
one, I mean, I’m speaking for a party of one, I could not approve this, based on what I’ve
seen.
MR. SEGULJIC-Explain to me what’s going on here? You have the existing auto repair
building. That’s going to stay, then?
MR. PRATT-At the time being, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s going to stay.
MR. PRATT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to have the existing auto repair and a self-storage
behind it.
MR. PRATT-Yes.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-And then is this a house in front of it along Corinth Road, I believe?
MR. PRATT-Yes. It’s on a separate lot.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s a separate lot. So all you’re going to have is a driveway on
Corinth Road going into the existing auto repair, which is going to be part of this site, and
then the self-storage behind it?
MR. PRATT-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the property line is very tight to the road, it looks like
you’re going to have the property line then fenced in the road. So if I’m looking at this
correctly, from the road to the property line, is a matter of like less than 25 feet or so,
right?
MR. PRATT-From the property line to the road?
MR. SEGULJIC-The road along the, well, I guess I’d just ask the question this way. This
is the property line, right?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s the property line, correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think so, it’s just not marked out.
MR. VOLLARO-And what we were asking for is a 50 foot buffer here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and there’s no buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no room for a buffer there.
MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no room for a buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-Unless this little .34 acres becomes consolidated into this drawing, then
there may be room for a buffer. Right now it says, it doesn’t say anything about it. The
fact is the property line shows that that .34 acres is not part of the plan.
MRS. STEFFAN-As I reviewed the plan, I’m just not happy with the amount of density of
the buildings that are here. I’m not a fan of self-storage units anyway, in the Town.
However, you’ve got nine in this lot. The buffers are compromised. I just, I would want
to see this heavily treed on all sides, and so I would recommend less units.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I would second that. I want to see more buffers also. I’d also like to
see the, I don’t know what proposed colors you have for the units, but they should really
blend in.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’m a fan of Hunter Green with red doors and darker green trim. They
look like pine trees. They disappear, but we have a couple of self-storage facilities in the
Town that were approved several years ago and they are a blight. They stick out.
They’re not wooded, and they don’t do anything, aesthetically, from the road.
MR. PRATT-Well, these are set back from the road, and there are buildings in front of
them, and to the west is a junkyard.
MR. FORD-And to the east?
MR. SIPP-To the east?
MR. PRATT-Is vacant land.
MR. SIPP-But it’s owned by somebody who may want to develop it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Still I’d like to see a buffer.
MR. SIPP-And it’s still, you’re asking for relief from a Type C Buffer, which is 50 feet
minimum.
MR. PRATT-I’m going to be understanding that that land was still Light Industry, LI. Still
zoned LI.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MRS. BARDEN-The buffer requirement is separate uses. So if you have a residential
use on the east side.
MR. PRATT-So if you have a house here, you have to have a 50 foot buffer from back
here?
MRS. BARDEN-Not from zone, from use.
MR. PRATT-Not from zone from the house, then? Is that what you mean?
MRS. BARDEN-The buffer requirement isn’t from the separation of zones. It’s from the
separation of the use of the property. I think you’re requesting a waiver from that Type C
Buffer in your cover letter.
MR. PRATT-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-And I guess we’re saying we’re not happy with that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I wouldn’t be in favor of granting the waiver.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what we’re saying overall, you have too many, trying to do too
much on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Does your property abut the property with the, well, it’s a car
junkyard. I can’t think of the politically correct term, but the.
MR. SEGULJIC-Auto recycling.
MR. HUNSINGER-Auto recycling site, or is there a property between you?
MR. PRATT-No. It abuts it.
MR. HUNSINGER-See, I wouldn’t be that concerned on the western property line as
much as the eastern property line.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think all sides should be buffered.
MR. PRATT-From the junkyard?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the reason why he’s not having a buffer here is because I think
he’s asking for too much with these self-storage units. Maybe only six can fit on the site.
MR. PRATT-I can fit eight on there if I took the three wide off. I could fit eight, if I could
revise it that way.
MR. SEGULJIC-Personally, what I’m saying is I want more buffering.
MR. PRATT-Between a junkyard and the storage units?
MR. SEGULJIC-Sure.
MR. SIPP-And the east side, also.
MR. FORD-I’m particularly concerned with the east side.
MR. PRATT-On the east side, I have to hold back 50 feet from this line?
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m not exactly sure what the reg says, but.
MR. PRATT-I think the required buffer is 50 feet. That’s their required buffer also. So
there’s going to be 100 feet buffer between there?
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess you don’t have an ideally configured lot I guess is your problem.
MR. SIPP-179-8-050. Types of buffer zones between uses.
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. PRATT-I’ve got the buffer on there. The engineer’s already got it in there, required
buffer, on the plan, listed, not on the plan, but listed up here.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’d like to see it on the plan. You’re saying it’s on the plan?
Where is that?
MR. PRATT-It’s just listed up here. It’s not on the plan. If we have to go with a 50 foot
buffer, then I’ll have to revise this plan and come back before you.
MR. SEGULJIC-You have the setbacks listed. I don’t see buffer, though.
MR. PRATT-It’s in this booklet.
MRS. STEFFAN-It’s on the site development data.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but it’s not on the plan. All right.
MR. FORD-The plan should be reflective of what is intended.
MR. SIPP-You also have a former foundation location. What is that?
MR. PRATT-That was removed.
MR. SIPP-That’s been removed.
MR. PRATT-Okay. So we need to go for reconfiguration of this and show our buffers?
MR. SEGULJIC-Sue, a question. If they combine all these lots, then they’re going to
have auto repair and self-storage on the same, mixed uses on the same lot. That’s
okay?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes. Actually, the existing auto use is pre-existing, nonconforming.
Storage facilities are an allowable use in LI.
MR. FORD-Allowable use, what, Sue?
MRS. BARDEN-In Light Industrial zone.
MR. FORD-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-How are we going to accommodate the fact that the math doesn’t add up
on this, though? What do you want to do?
MR. FORD-They’re going to have to come up with a new plan that is reflective of
appropriate buffering and fewer storage units and reflective of what is intended to be
built, and this plan does not.
MR. SEGULJIC-Instead of sending him away just to correct the math, shall we say we
want to give him some direction as to what else he needs.
MR. VOLLARO-Which is good. One of the things, I noticed that this is a phased
program. Notice that they talk about Phase I, Phase II, Phase III. I think our Zoning
Code requires in phasing that the phasing be completed in a period of I believe two
years. Is that correct, Sue, 24 months?
MRS. BARDEN-It sounds right. I will check.
MR. VOLLARO-I think we looked it up the other day.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. I think you’re right, 24 months.
MR. VOLLARO-And so what the applicant has said is he’ll continue with the plan when it
seems feasible economically, but if he takes longer than 24 months to go to Phase II, for
example, you have to come back with a brand new application because that phasing is
for a period of two years.
MR. PRATT-My understanding was that he was going to do, well, I can’t use this, but just
for, he was going to do the first three, second three, then the third three, but one right
after the other.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, what he says, if you read his, or the statements that were
made in the applications that I read, it said that he would be doing Phase II and Phase III
when it was economically feasible. I believe those are the words he used. I’ll get back to
it in a minute here. The other thing that was presented here was this letter that comes
from the Department of Environmental Conservation, that was forwarded to us, and it
comes from a Nicholas B Conrad from New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation to a Fluorine Thornton of Jarrett-Martin, but it talks to, it says in the body of
the letter to her, please contact the appropriate DEC Regional Office Division of
Environmental Permits, at the enclosed address, and I believe the enclosed address is in
Warrensburg, which is our regional office for this area, and so that has to be dealt with.
MR. PRATT-I think we initiated that. We asked DEC if there was anything, because we
figured that you would ask us if there was.
MR. VOLLARO-Who’s Fluorine Thornton.
MR. PRATT-She is the Executive Secretary for Jarrett-Martin Engineers.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So she gets this letter and then she forwards, she receives it on
nd
June 1, 2006, forwards it over to Staff which logs it in on June 22, which happens to be
th
past the 15 deadline date. Staff members understand what I’m talking about on that,
and actually logged in to Pam Whiting on 6/26, and so we got this. We really shouldn’t
th
have this in our packet because it didn’t clear the 15, but I guess we got it anyway. It
came in the package, in our packets, but this has to be dealt with. So we need a
response from the local DEC in Warrensburg concerning this letter.
MR. FORD-I have an additional question, Bob, if I might. I picked up on a comment early
on in our discussion. You mentioned the auto repair center, the plan is for that to exist.
What did you say, presently that’s the plan, or as part of the phasing of this project going
to be to eliminate that portion of it?
MR. PRATT-I don’t believe so, no.
MR. FORD-You made some reference that triggered in my mind that that was not going
to be a part of the overall project when it is completed.
MR. PRATT-The reason they put these lots together was in order to get enough road
frontage to these back lots to make them usable. That existing auto repair I don’t believe
is, that’s going to stay that way unless this was sold off and they didn’t want to use that
as that, but Mr. Miles would be using that. That’s his business. He would be using that
business, that existing business would not be taken away from the project. The storage
units would be an additional.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-The area that I’m talking about appears in your Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, and it says right in the first sentence, the construction of the nine units
will be in three phases. The first three units are planned for immediate construction, and
the following six units would be constructed as profits are seen from the first units.
MR. PRATT-I apologize. I wasn’t aware of that. This was done by an engineer, and I
didn’t pick that up. So I apologize for that. I’ll have to give you a timetable on that
exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, so it fits somewhere within that 24 months, or it really, if it doesn’t,
you come back for the phase that didn’t make it. So, where have you folks arrived at, at
this, are you going to table this for a new drawing?
MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like there’s four issues, anyway.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. If somebody has a tabling motion in mind.
MRS. BARDEN-The public hearing.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you now want to speak at the public hearing?
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, I’ll speak.
MR. VOLLARO-You may come up and speak. You said you didn’t know whether you
were going to or not.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GREG GARAFALO
MR. GARAFALO-Greg Garafalo. I live on the property to the east. So it’s not vacant. I
live there. Most of the land in the back where the mini-storage is vacant property. It’s
the same lot. I bought it 13 years ago with the intent to do some Light Industrial use
because it was zoned Light Industrial 13 years ago when I bought it. All the houses to
the east of me are Light Industrial also.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking for my little drawing here that shows, and I have it here.
Where is your house? From the aerial view, is this you?
MR. GARAFALO-If it’s to the east, that’s me. I go all the way to the, my piece of property
runs.
MR. VOLLARO-All the way back?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. GARAFALO-Equal to his, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, equal to his, and you’re right up front here?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, on Corinth Road.
MR. FORD-Along the red line?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s him right here. Okay. Now I know where you are.
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, I didn’t plan on speaking or anything tonight. Some of the
reasoning, though, is because, and whatever you do with John, I mean, I don’t have any
problem with John’s project or anything like that, but like I was saying, I bought the piece
of property. I’m living there in the front house. I bought it with the intent to use it for Light
Industrial use, and when I did buy a book on the zoning, what I read, and obviously I’m
not a student of the zoning book, but I saw information about a buffer, and I thought it
said 30 foot and I thought it said when it was adjacent to a residential zone.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s 50 feet.
MR. GARAFALO-It’s 50 feet to?
MR. VOLLARO-The two zones.
MR. GARAFALO-I’m Light Industrial. So are the properties next to me. So it’s not, the
way I saw in the zoning book was the buffer was there when it was a residential zone,
not a residential use. Sure it’s a residential use, but, I mean, and I don’t know, unless
you read it to me, I thought it said.
MRS. BARDEN-The buffer requirement is from use, not zone.
MR. GARAFALO-And yet I read it in the book.
MR. VOLLARO-I think that Staff has determined this is a Class C or 50 foot buffer, is that
correct?
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct, and it’s between the Light Industrial and the Residential
use, not zone. You’re LI. This property is LI.
MR. FORD-You’re using that as a residence, correct?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes.
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. FORD-You’re living there.
MR. GARAFALO-Yes.
MR. FORD-So that’s the use of it.
MR. GARAFALO-When I read it, and the book that I bought it a lot thinner than that one,
I believe it is, and it said zone, when it was adjacent to a zone, and I thought I actually
even talked to Craig about it, and I thought he said that the Board might take into
consideration a residential use.
MR. VOLLARO-Are you proposing that a buffer be?
MR. GARAFALO-No, I don’t care. Because I want to use my property also, and I don’t
want to be unduly restricted by a buffer if it’s not actually a requirement, in writing. I
thought it was zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to cut you off. It is in the Zoning Ordinance. Section
179-8-050, and it talks about the purpose of buffer zones is to separate land uses and
offer visual screening between uses that may not be compatible. There is no
requirement between two industrial uses, just like there’s no requirement between two
Commercial Recreational uses. I mean, similar uses don’t require a zone, it’s only if it’s
a different use than what is contemplated.
MR. GARAFALO-If you’re reading it right from there. I just thought I saw.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so it is black and white. It is in the Town Code.
MR. GARAFALO-But I thought it said zone.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s very clear that it’s between uses, as Staff said.
MR. GARAFALO-And it’s not 30 foot but it’s 50 foot?
MRS. BARDEN-It’s 50 foot.
MR. GARAFALO-And what does that buffer entail, what is it supposed to be?
MR. HUNSINGER-It entails landscaping. Basically there’s very specific requirements.
The buffer shall apply to both sides of the property line to which it is applied. Trees and
shrubs are to be from the recommended lists in this Section. An opaque fence may be
substituted for trees or shrubs of the minimum specified height at the discretion of the
Planning Board, and then there’s actually a diagram that provides you a visual illustration
of the type of buffer that’s required for each different buffer type.
MR. GARAFALO-Okay. Well, I’ve taken up enough of your time.
MR. HUNSINGER-And it identifies species, types and height requirements.
MR. GARAFALO-Well, 50 foot would be a pretty wide area to provide all that kind of
shrubbery.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s the Code, is 50 feet. It’s a Class C Buffer and I think Mr.
Hunsinger has done an admirable job of trying to enlighten you.
MR. GARAFALO-I’ll look at it again, because I’m usually pretty sure of what I’ve read.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s very much for your input.
MR. GARAFALO-You’re welcome.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I would like to speak to the buffer. Mr. Hunsinger, you have the
Code there, please. Could you read that? Firstly, the gentleman who spoke here, who
has a residential use in a Light Industrial zone has what we call a nonconforming use.
Okay. The Code speaks to.
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-It speaks to land uses.
MR. SALVADOR-Land uses.
MR. HUNSINGER-It does not speak to zones.
MR. SALVADOR-The land use on either side of that property boundary line is Light
Industrial, and the fact that a residence is there, it’s a nonconforming use. So I don’t
think the requirement for a buffer burdens this gentleman. You read the Code, it is a
land use, and it is a residential land use, and a Light Industrial land use. That’s where the
buffer’s required.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. There is no change in use across the boundary line. It’s Light
Industrial on both sides, and the residence as a nonconforming use could go some day.
Be gone. As the gentleman said. He could use his land for Light Industrial, as it’s
zoned.
MR. VOLLARO-But, John, this is touchy, because in my mind the current use that’s
being applied to that property is residential.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but it’s a nonconforming use, sir.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand the word nonconforming, but still and all the present use of
the property is a residential use, nonconforming residential use.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-So I think it’s subject to interpretation here. You’re on a fine line.
MR. SALVADOR-My point is there is no land use change across that boundary line. No
land use change, allowable land use change.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, John.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. SEGULJIC-A general question. Did we get a C.T. Male comment letter on this?
MR. VOLLARO-No, there was no C.T. Male comment letter on this.
th
MRS. BARDEN-I have one dated July 12.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a C.T. Male comments on stormwater, question mark. On
this stormwater, I didn’t see, there’s nothing in our packet on C.T. Male.
th
MRS. BARDEN-No. It was received in our office July 12.
ththth
MR. VOLLARO-July 12. So it made the 15. July 12, sorry about that. It didn’t make
th
the June 15, that’s why we don’t have it.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. The answer to your question, Mr. Seguljic, is it
th
came in after the 15 deadline, we don’t see it.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, Mr. Chairman, if there’s no further public comments, I do
have a tabling motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Hunsinger, go forward with it.
MR. PRATT-Can I just interrupt before you do that? Did we make a decision on, I
understand Mr. Garafalo didn’t have a problem, if it’s my understanding, he doesn’t have
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
a problem with this buffer with his property, and then what was the decision on that? I’m
not clear on that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the decision from the Board here is that, and it confirmed by
Staff, and I do believe, even with Mr. Salvador’s comment about this being a
nonconforming use, I feel, personally, that the buffer would be required, 50 foot buffer,
Class C Buffer in accordance with the 179 Code, and I think that that’s what we would be
looking to see, unless for some reason we decide to waiver that. I think we have the
option to waiver the buffer, I believe.
MRS. STEFFAN-They’ve asked for waivers on lighting and a Type C Buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-So we have to determine whether we’re going to waive that or not when
you come back with your new application, the new drawing, which shows the correct
amount of acreage and so on, as has been previously discussed here. So, Mr.
Hunsinger, with that, do you want to go forward with your motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure we want to talk about the buffer for another minute,
though, because I think there is some disagreement.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand Mr. Salvador’s position. I guess if I have to vote on this, I
would say that, in my own mind, that Staff is correct in their interpretation, that my
interpretation would be it is being used as a residential use, and therefore fits the Class
C determination. That’s how I would vote. I’m just one vote.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree. I’d like to see buffer, regardless of whether it’s required
or not.
MR. PRATT-That would cut Mr. Garafalo’s property down considerably for the use that
he would be able to use.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think at the time you come forward with your new, then I think
because you’ve requested a waiver from the buffer, at the time this proposal is before us,
with proper drawings and proper documentation, and by that time C.T. Male will have
we’ll probably get a copy of that as well, which will comment on your stormwater
proposal.
th
MR. PRATT-Yes, I got their thing. They sent it to us July 12 is when we got it, and we
answered them back.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, well, at that time we’ll have that information, and then at that time
we’ll also consider whether we want to grant the buffer waiver or not for whatever
consideration. It’s up to the Board how they feel about that buffer. We’ve heard this
gentleman’s comment about wanting to use that as Light Industrial, at some time in the
future. So we’ll take that into account at the time we look at the proposed buffer.
MR. PRATT-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hunsinger, you want to go forward with your motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Unless you’ve got something germane to say, that you haven’t already
said.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s not closed.
MR. GARAFALO-I don’t want to upset anybody. I’m not here to upset anybody.
MR. VOLLARO-No, we’re not being upset. I just don’t want you to go over the same
information you’ve already given us, because we’ve taken that already.
MR. GARAFALO-Well, the thing of it is, is that you’ve talked about a buffer and you’re
going to take it into consideration with his property, whatever you do with his property
should be good for the goose, good for the gander. I live right next door. If there’s a
waiver, I would feel inclined that I should have a waiver, too. I’m just presenting that
before you. I have property next to him that I’d like to do similar with. The other thing I
want to mention to you, which is totally different, I have a piece of property that’s 135 feet
wide, okay. If I put something on the piece of property, and I’m unduly restricted, I have
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
almost four acres of land. I invested in that property a long time ago, personally, me, not
anybody else, me. I would love to put residential use. I’d love to put a couple of
apartment buildings on that property. I already went to see Craig when I first bought the
property, because it used to be zoned MR-5. I’d love to put a couple of apartment
buildings on that property. What I’m getting at is, if I’m unduly restricted, than inevitably
you make my property worthless. I have five acres in Queensbury, or four acres in
Queensbury, which is pretty valuable property, most people think, but if I’m not able to
use it, and that’s all I’m saying, I just want that, I know I’ll be here some day in the future.
I don’t want anybody upset that I took anybody’s, too much time or anything, but I’m just
trying to get a handle on it so that I’m prepared and I have my ducks in a row when I
come back, which will be obviously, I don’t have the paperwork.
MR. HUNSINGER-Your point’s well made, and just for your own information, there are
different types of buffers. So the distance of the buffer varies between uses. Between
single family and multi-family it’s a Schedule B, which is, I forget how many feet off the
top of my head, but it’s less than 50. I think it’s 25, 20.
MR. GARAFALO-Well, I border a lot of residences. He borders one. I own the whole
strip. The rest of the people on the street, there’s like, you know, there’s like 12 people
bordering me.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s a 20 foot buffer as opposed to a 50 foot. So it depends on
the specific proposal, the specific uses being proposed.
MR. PRATT-What he’s looking for is the same thing I am, so that he can come up to my,
to John’s property. We’re not disputing one another on the land, on the buffer.
MR. GARAFALO-What I would love to do is, I’d love to put a building there for shops,
because I have a shop myself. I’m a woodworker, maybe rent something else out to a
welder or something like that, put a few mom and pop like incubator Light Industrial type
businesses there. I’d love to put the back of the business, you know, facing them and
not use that side, but I don’t have access on John’s side. I’d love to have an easement
on that side, but regardless of what can be worked out in that fashion, I just would like to
be able to use your property. So I understand what you were saying.
MR. VOLLARO-The buffer would be an encumbrance upon the applicant’s property, and
would not an encumbrance on your property, I don’t believe. The buffer is from your
property line in. We would not be putting buffer material on your property at all.
MR. GARAFALO-I understand, but when I go to use my property, I’m to the east, to the
east of me is residential.
MR. VOLLARO-That has to be when you come before this Board. You’re not an
applicant before this Board at this particular point.
MR. GARAFALO-Well, I mean, I was concerned about it because, like I said, whatever
happens for one.
MR. VOLLARO-I would do this. My recommendation for you really is to make an
appointment with Sue Barden and possibly make an appointment with Craig Brown.
You’ve been there already.
MR. GARAFALO-Yes. My next move would be, 12 years ago when I bought the
property, I didn’t have the funds to develop it. Now I do.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FORD-I just want to make the point. You have owned the property for 12 years.
You have used it. You’ve had use of the property for 12 years. You’ve lived there.
MR. GARAFALO-Right, but the zoning is one acre. I’ve got a little house on it. I’ve got
five acres. I want to be able to.
MR. FORD-Yes, but you have had use of it for 12 years.
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, minimal use for four acres in Queensbury.
MR. FORD-You’ve used it for what you wanted to use it for 12 years.
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. GARAFALO-Actually I bought it for Light Industrial. I wanted to develop.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can we entertain a motion?
MR. VOLLARO-I will.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-2006 JOHN MILES, Introduced by Chris
Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
To the September 26, 2006 meeting, pending the submission of the following
documents:
1.A revised site development data,
2.Revised Floor Area Ratio worksheet,
3.Revised site plan with the appropriate buffers shown,
4.Response from the DEC Regional Office as per the May 31, 2006 letter from
Nicholas Conrad of DEC,
5.Submission of a C.T. Male comment letter,
6.Building color schemes,
7.Proof of parcel consolidation, and
8.Phasing timeline.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. PRATT-What about the lighting?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have a problem with the lighting waiver.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve looked at the lighting. It looks okay to me for that parcel, for that
use.
MR. PRATT-Okay. I apologize for this being like this, but the gentleman that came up
and said that you needed engineers to put things together. I mean, there’s $5,000 worth
of expense in this and it’s not what you want. So, I mean, I apologize because I’ll be
better prepared for the next meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the cost of doing business.
MR. PRATT-That’s the cost of doing business.
MR. HUNSINGER-Unfortunately.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks for your patience. Unfortunately this is the way it went. We did
the best we could with this one.
MR. PRATT-Okay. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
MRS. STEFFAN-We have two resolutions.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We’re down to the last part of the meeting, which is any additional
business. There are two resolutions that I’m going to make before the Board. The first
resolution has to do with The Great Escape Hotel and Water Park, and before I start with
this resolution, I’ll give the Board an apology. I received this letter in the mail. I don’t
have a scanner, but the Staff was kind enough to make distributions. Everybody, I think
Mr. Hunsinger was the first one that requested the letter, as a matter of fact, I don’t know
whether he requested it or not, but we sent it to him anyway, and I had no way of getting
this to you other than through Staff. So did everybody get a copy of the Dave Hatin letter
and understand what it says?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. FORD-I did, yes.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-My only point, just so that you don’t misunderstand, was that it was
referenced in a resolution, but we hadn’t read it, or had no idea what was in it.
MR. VOLLARO-Your point is well taken, and I moved quickly to get you a copy. So,
having that said, I will read the motion.
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY FOR THE GREAT ESCAPE HOTEL/WATER PARK, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan:
Whereas; The Planning Board Chairman has received a letter from Mr. David Hatin,
Director of Building and Code Enforcement dated June 29, 2006 with no further
distribution to that letter.
Whereas; the above referenced letter states, “The Great Escape hotel has completed all
issues regarding the Building Code and are asking that the Certificate of Occupancy be
issued”. Additionally, Mr. Hatin asks if there are any outstanding issues associated with
the operation of the Pedestrian Bridge connecting the Hotel/Water park with the
Amusement Park on the East side of Route 9.
Whereas; Following a consultation between the Zoning Administrator and the Planning
Board Chairman on July 11, 2006, it was determined that there were no outstanding
issues concerning the operation of the Pedestrian Bridge as it provides for the movement
of pedestrians across Route 9.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that
We, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury find that the Great Escape has
made all its best efforts to complete and make the Pedestrian Bridge operational as
required in the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement adopted on May
20, 2004 under paragraph C. entitled Pedestrian Bridge. Therefore; we hereby approve
of the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy, by the Building and Codes, for
The Great Escape Hotel/Water park.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-And now on to the second proposal. This is a proposed resolution
limiting the number of applications to be reviewed by the Planning Board in any given
month.
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO BE REVIEWED BY
THE PLANNING BOARD IN ANY GIVEN MONTH, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp:
Whereas; The Queensbury Planning Board attended a workshop on June 29, 2006
during which this topic was discussed.
Whereas; This resolution amends a document entitled; Town of Queensbury Planning
Board Bylaws and Policies and Procedures; the latest revision being April 26, 2005.
Whereas; Beginning on page (10) under 11 Establishment of agenda and specifically
directed to 11C. Entitled Agenda limits; this resolution hereby revises that section.
Whereas; Under 1. Maximum number of items; revise fourteen (14) to ten (10). Under
2. Application placement on the agenda; Item d. (top of Page 11) revise the number 14
to 10.
Whereas; These revisions reduce the number of applications to be heard by the
Planning Board in any given month to ten (10).
Whereas; This reduction has become necessary due to the following factors:
1.Due to the diminution of land, that readily lends itself to straightforward
development concepts, we are encountering Site Plans and Subdivisions
requiring a good deal of creative engineering.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
2.Applications exhibiting these characteristics, are taking longer to review due to
their increased complexity. Sophisticated Storm water controls designed to limit
run off to pre-development levels, dealing with properties having high seasonal
ground water requiring a critical evaluation of on site septic location & design,
building adjacent to or through wetlands, applications for Site Plans or
Subdivisions in designated Critical Environmental Areas (CEA), and the list goes
on.
Whereas; In order to do justice to the applicant and to the Town in the current
environment, applications require an in-depth review and should not be rushed to
completion.
Whereas; Due to the above facts, Planning Board meetings, including limited public
comment, are running in excess of 4 hours and occasionally past mid-night. At that late
hour, concentration and thought processes are diminishing lessening the potential for an
acceptable review process.
Whereas; Revision of the Policies and Procedures section of the document, mentioned
in the second whereas above, requires only the approval of the Planning Board.
Therefore, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, by vote, hereby approves of
the above stated revision to its Policies and Procedures on this date of July 18, 2006 to
become effective beginning with the development of the September 2006 Planning
Board Agenda (August 15 – through setting the final agenda on August 31, 2006)
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. VOLLARO-And I’d like to get a second to that motion. Do you want me to review
the motion?
th
MR. SEGULJIC-Just that last sentence. You said something about August 15.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll read the whole last Whereas. Whereas; Revision of the Policies
and Procedures section of the document, mentioned in the second whereas above,
requires only the approval of the Planning Board. Therefore, the Planning Board of the
Town of Queensbury, by vote, hereby approves of the above stated revision to its
Policies and Procedures on this date of July 18, 2006 to become effective beginning with
the development of the September 2006 Planning Board Agenda (August 15 – through
setting the final agenda on August 31, 2006). That means that this becomes effective for
the Planning Board to review in their September 2006 agenda meetings.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ve got a couple of real problems with this proposal. I mean, you
certainly know I agree with the background and what you’re trying to achieve here, but I
think by limiting ourselves to only 10 projects a month, it really doesn’t take into account
the complexity of any projects. I mean, what if we have a month where we have a
number of very easy projects, and we could easily get through more than 10 projects in a
month? We have now just limited ourselves to no more than 10 by adopting that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-I did state at the workshop that it’s always within the discretion of the
Chairman who does set the Final agenda to limit the number of items in any given
evening. I mean, tonight we got through the whole agenda by 10:30.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s absolutely true.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, to me this is a, you know, expected time to be complete, and
it seems to be kind of, I mean, I’ve been the one that’s probably been complaining the
most that the meetings were going too long, we were getting out at midnight, but, for
every two that we get out past 11, there is one where we get out at 10 or 10:30.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re kind of entitled, in a way, to get out at a decent time. I mean,
I’m not going to make an apology for getting out of here at 10:30.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we should be out of here at 10:30. Absolutely, but I just, and I
think that was the point I was trying to make at the workshop is that I really don’t feel like
that we’ve applied enough time management techniques for lack of a better term. I think
this is a pretty rash decision. So that’s how I feel about it, for the record. I can’t support
it.
59
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I’m with you, Chris. Because I’m concerned about what it’s going
to do to the backlog, and we do have the 11 o’clock.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s never worked. I’ve never made 11 o’clock work, as long as I’m sitting
here. There may be a Chairman who would say it is quarter to eleven, this meeting will
close in 15 minutes. I’ve never been able to do that. I find that it conflicts very heavily
with the application in front of us, and I’ve never been able to make it happen, and
nobody here has said.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m with you on that, but I’m just concerned about the backlog, because I
think we do have an obligation to make things move along. We have the 11 o’clock.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s entirely up to the Board as to the way they want to vote on this this
evening. This has been discussed. I personally think that when we hit eleven o’clock
we’re no longer capable of giving the applicant or ourselves or the Town due justice.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’m with you on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-I agree wholeheartedly.
MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, there’s no rule that was ever made that can’t be changed or
modified later on, so that if we find that it’s not working or it works well.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, as a matter of fact, if you look into the documents themselves, the
original document I believe was set at 16 applications a month, and the previous Boards,
of which I was a member at that time, and I believe Mr. Hunsinger was a member at that
time as well, changed it from 16 to 14, with where we are today, and in looking at the
kind of times, now Mr. Hunsinger has said, and he’s absolutely right, that perhaps time
management hasn’t been the best, but you see what happened here tonight. Rather
than be disrespectful to the public, you let them speak. We usually have a five minute
limit, but somehow or other that doesn’t work either. The only way that works is for the
Chair to get just a little bit, I wouldn’t say belligerent, but not exactly friendly, and I don’t
know that that does any good for public relations between this Board, this Town, and the
rest of the citizens of this Town. So what I’m trying to do is to make it manageable. I
think, if I’ve done it correctly, and I’ve looked at taking Susan does a great job, tomorrow
morning I’ll be there at nine o’clock for the debriefing, and one thing she does at the
debriefing is to give us exactly how much time each of these applications has taken. I
took all of those debriefings, April, May, June, July, I believe, at least March, April, May
and June, and took them all and showed that there was an average of 50 minutes per
application. Fifty minutes per application takes us just about around the 11 o’clock
region. If we get more than that, we’re heading for 12 o’clock. Now it’s up to you folks.
One thing I don’t want to hear, later on, is, by God, Bob, it’s getting late and I’m getting
tired. I really don’t want to hear that. So I’ve done what I can to try to relieve that
situation. If this passes, fine. If it doesn’t, I’m with the majority of the Board.
MRS. STEFFAN-I also think, I just want to weigh in for a minute. I think there’s certainly
the opportunity, if we go down to 10, we could always have another meeting. I mean,
last month we ended up with three meetings. In the past, I’ve never been in favor of an
additional meeting, but I have to admit the smaller workload is easier to prepare for, and
knowing that you’ll be here a lesser period of time is easy. So if there was a backlog
became a problem, we could go to a third meeting. The other thing is that we always
have the opportunity, I mean, the Chairman always has the discretion to add things, like
the quick approvals. If you know that something is going to be quick, you could add that
to the agenda. I think that there’s some discretion. So the way I’m feeling about this is is
the rule of order would be 10 items, and the Chairman would have the discretion to add
things or to add another meeting.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t see where this allowed that, because it says.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what is allowed, Mr. Hunsinger, is in the agenda in the document
entitled “Board Bylaws, Policies and Procedures”.
MR. HUNSINGER-I have it right in front of me, and it uses different language than what
you have proposed. It uses language like typical. Whereas you use language like
reduce the number of applications to ten.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s true, but it also.
60
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Which to me says we couldn’t do the eleventh and be within our
Bylaws.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s another section in there that says we could get to three
meetings if it’s required. It’s stated in another area in Policies and Procedures. It gives
us the latitude to take a third meeting if necessary.
MR. FORD-May I weigh in here?
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, go right ahead.
MR. FORD-No one has spoken more forcefully than I about not going beyond the
witching hour because as I’ve stated before I don’t think that it is fair to the applicant,
their agents, the citizens of this community, my fellow Board members or myself. I have
no opposition to a four item agenda, but I do object to, I’m sorry, a five item agenda, but I
do object to that being a mandated maximum. I think that there is a time where the
management comes into play where the Chair, in managing the agenda, starts this
process. So it could be a five, a six, or a seven item agenda, currently. We don’t have to
go seven, just because that is our tradition. I also believe that we all have a
responsibility for time management within our meetings, and I think we each need to
exercise that to a greater extent. The last item I want to bring out relates to public
relations. That is we, in limiting ourselves in this fashion, are limiting community
participation and the application process, and it is not going to serve the applicants or the
citizens of our community well, and I don’t think that it, I know that it is not going to be
received well. I don’t think it’s the right move.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me just comment on that for a minute, so that all Board
members understand the procedure. When Staff, and granted, the Chairman sets the
agenda, but Staff looks at our load and says, we will put 14 up this month, off that board,
and that’s what you’re stuck with. You’re stuck with those 14. They’ll move that 14 each
and every time. Now I would ask Susan to weigh in on it because she participates in
that.
MR. FORD-But don’t you participate in that as well, Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-I do, but I wouldn’t be able to very well say, look, we’re only going to
have five this month because of, they’re going to say, well, what we’ll do is we’ll take
three hard ones and give you four soft ones, and that’ll make seven. They’ll pick it out
that way, because their objective, frankly, and, Susan, correct me if I’m wrong, the
objective of the Staff, when you sit down at these meetings, when I sit at these meetings
and the blackboard is there, is to move these things along. They have an obligation to
get moving, and they’ll push me for 14 every month, and I’ve got to negotiate that a way
for you folks, and the easiest way to do that, in my opinion, is to limit it to 10. If I think
that, what we can do is have a third meeting to accommodate something, I will do that.
As Gretchen said, there’s no reason why we couldn’t put a sixth meeting on to
accommodate some of the things we saw here tonight. I’ve got my, some discretion in
there, but I think that I wouldn’t have written this this way if I didn’t think it was productive
to go down to 10. I don’t look forward to the long terms of review on the weekend of
these things. I really don’t. My weekends get totally destroyed with this stuff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don’t we just, with all due respect, I appreciate the time you
spend and thought into this.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. It’s my time.
MR. HUNSINGER-The Bylaws talk about what they call the ready agenda, which the
Staff prepares, and then the meeting agenda, which is authorized and approved by the
Chairman. What if the directive to the Staff is, you know, no more than 14, and the
Chairman reserves the right to knock out up to four, depending upon the complexity and
the depth of the reviews necessary.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what their usual answer is, and of course I have the ultimate.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I would be more inclined to be in favor of a meeting agenda
that had five or six items than to set a mandate of only reviewing 10, and I feel that the
language in this resolution sort of sets a mandate.
MR. VOLLARO-It sets a mandate, yes.
61
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the record, I oppose a reduction from 16 to 14, too. I did.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I must say, Chris, and I remember, but, you know, I sit here and I
am becoming, very, very, very tied to that clock on the wall because of the comments
that I’ve gotten from the whole Board, timing, timing, timing, and when I see people up
here talking away, you know, and then coming up for a second time saying the same
thing, I burn in this seat, I really do.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we were effective, then.
MR. VOLLARO-I suppose so. Yes. It is time management, there’s no question about it,
but part of public comment is time management.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MR. VOLLARO-And what do you do? Do you be disrespectful to the public? Hard to do.
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, and the other point that Bob made, and the middle point here, is
that when the applications are getting more difficult, we have more public comment
because there’s more controversy related to them.
MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely.
MRS. STEFFAN-So it is hard to cut people off when they have a lot to say, and we learn
a lot from their comments. So I’m kind of on the fence, because if we went down to 10,
that would be okay with me, as long as the Chairman continues to have the discretion to
add things. Like if we have three final approvals, that could go on top of the five at a
meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-See, it does say that the Chairman has the approval at the final agenda.
I could certainly say, when I’m down at those meetings at Staff, and for example, in
completion review, this is before the final agenda is set, I sit with the Zoning
Administrator at 10 o’clock in the morning and go over my completion review as well as
the ZBA’s, and do them all together, and at that point, I could say, look, these look pretty
light. Rather than go to just five, let’s increase this to something else, but the marker is
set for 10 a month.
MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s what they’re going to push you to get done. If you set it at 10,
that’s what they’re going to push you for.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. If you set it back to 14, we’ll get pushed to do 14 a month. Now I
don’t know.
MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to have the discretion to increase that. If the backlog
increases.
MR. VOLLARO-Depending on the complexity. If you want to sit with seven complex
units ‘till two in the morning, I’ll sit here with you. No question.
MR. SEGULJIC-So for example, if we go with the 10 a month, if the backlog is
increasing, you’ll say, look, our backlog is increasing. We can either increase our
agenda for next month or we can have another meeting.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand what you’re saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we’ve got a report on the backlog, too, which is growing.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no question about that.
MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s my concern.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a concern you have in a growing Town. I’ll tell you something.
My daughter is trying to get before the Planning Board in the Town of Colonie. She is
told that she can get on the Planning Board in about three months, because they have a
relatively good agenda down there. She called me up and she said, dad, three months,
and I said, well, you know, that’s their rule. We get it in a lot earlier than that.
62
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So other towns, you know, we’re accommodating the public in the best
way we know how, considering the load that we’re under. This is not Chestertown or
some other area that has maybe two or three or four on a night. Take a walk downstairs.
Go downstairs and look at their board, and see what the congestion is on the board.
What you’re saying is that, and I agree, but putting 10 a month is not putting the public,
we’re not doing them a disservice.
MR. SEGULJIC-I would say, I would be for the ten a month if there were some language
in there, well, I guess (lost words) we’ll do ten a month, and at the discretion of the
Chairman that they can be increased to deal with the backlog. Something like that. I
think we have to be respectful of the applications in the community. I think we have a
responsibility to do that. On the other hand, as Gretchen says, there’s a lot more public
comment.
MR. VOLLARO-Not only that, but to be fair to an applicant, we’ve got to do due diligence
when we review these things.
MR. SEGULJIC-And some thinking might be is we spend more time, instead of tabling
something and they come back, we can deal with it right there, be better at getting
through it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not following that.
MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe if we could spend more time on it, not being concerned that we
have seven things to get through, we could spend more time and deal with the issue that
night, and get it through.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the whole idea of doing five as opposed to seven, Tom, that’s
exactly what this is all about.
MR. HUNSINGER-We could go back to what it was like before April of 2001, before we
had the Bylaws, and the Chairman just said, we’ll do 12 items this month or 16 items this
month, or whatever.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the Chairman had a lot more discretion then. Yes, I agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I really don’t have a problem with that.
MR. VOLLARO-If you want to put this in terms of the Chairman’s discretion to make his
judgment when he’s setting the final agenda, and considering his Board members in
terms of what they have to do, I’m satisfied.
MR. FORD-Don’t you have that now?
MR. VOLLARO-We have that now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but I don’t think we really gave Bob a clear mandate until now. I
don’t think we really have.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess the only problem with that is, well, on the one hand, if we set a
limit of 14, that’s what the Staff is going to push us to do. If we have no limit, I’m kind of
curious as to how that’s going to shake out.
MR. VOLLARO-If we have no limit?
MR. SEGULJIC-How would that shake out?
MR. VOLLARO-It puts the biggest burden on me who does the completion review and
sets the final agenda. Then I have to negotiate with these folks for.
MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe the compromise is to say, you know, for the next, I mean,
obviously we can’t change it for August, but, you know, maybe the compromise is to say
for September and October we’ll review 12, which is halfway between 14 and 10, and try
that.
MR. VOLLARO-We could try that. That’s how we got from 16 to 14. We negotiated that.
63
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Just cut it by two.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think that’s a good compromise.
MR. FORD-But leave it at Bob’s discretion.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-If there’s a smaller project and we need to get it through, he can
increase the agenda.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, then the words in the third Whereas would have to be changed,
revise the number 14 to 12, and then an additional comment under that that the Planning
Board Chairman shall have the discretion to change this value.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I didn’t want to change the Bylaws just yet. Maybe just,
maybe pass a resolution so that Staff knows, you know, that the Board, you know, did
actually take action on it.
MR. VOLLARO-Can we do that without referring back to our Bylaws?
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see why not, because I only suggested it for two months, and
then we can revisit it at the end of October. I mean, if you’re so inclined to make that
motion, that the Planning Board review no more than 12 projects during the months of
September and October, unless the Chairman adjusts the agenda to include additional
items, and that in our last meeting in October we will review the status of open
applications and the workload and make any adjustments to this resolution or to the
Bylaws as necessary.
MR. FORD-That I will second.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We can, as the resolution is written now, we’d be changing the
fourth whereas.
MR. HUNSINGER-No. I just offered the resolution.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just didn’t feel the need to do a formal policy Bylaw amendment.
MR. FORD-And it was that resolution that I seconded.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We never took a vote on this. I think, for the record, that this
should be a vote.
MR. FORD-There never was a second.
MR. VOLLARO-There never was a second.
MR. FORD-There is a second to this.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I could second my own motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think you offered it, though, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s right, but we don’t have a second here. I’d like to see the
vote. Is there a second for the original motion, let me ask that question. Is there a
second here for the original motion?
MR. SIPP-I’ll second it for voting purposes only.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Don Sipp is going to second the motion for voting purposes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, this is Bob’s original motion?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s my original motion, yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
64
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. FORD-So forget the motion that’s on the floor that has been seconded? Okay. We
do have two motions on the floor and both of them seconded. You realize.
MR. VOLLARO-The first motion, we should deal with the first motion, okay, and Mr. Sipp
has put a second on the first motion, and, Maria, I would call the vote based on that.
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
MR. VOLLARO-So it’s three to four, it doesn’t pass. Now, what do you want to do now?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I had already offered a motion.
MR. VOLLARO-You have a motion up.
MR. HUNSINGER-It was seconded by Mr. Ford.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now the second motion.
MR. HUNSINGER-I can summarize it. I can’t tell you exactly what the motion was.
MS. GAGLIARDI-There was a lot of discussion and I really need to know what your
motion is.
MOTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE MONTHS OF
SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER TO NO MORE THAN TWELVE (12) WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
In other words, we can have more than 12 agenda items, only upon the approval of the
Chairman, and that at the second meeting in October we would re-visit the workload, the
backlog and make any changes to either this agenda or the Bylaws and Procedures of
the Planning Board.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. SEGULJIC-And when would that start?
MR. HUNSINGER-It would be September and October, the months of September and
October specifically.
MR. FORD-Second.
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-I just had one other item, Mr. Chairman, and that’s regarding the
whole issue of letter of credit and/or performance bond. I think it’s a great idea. I don’t
want this to be taken the wrong way. I just think that we should do a little more
homework before we.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we did, actually. I sat with Staff.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean about the legality of it, but how it would actually work,
what types of percentages we would have for, you know, maybe for certain types of
projects we would require only a 10% performance bond and on others we would require
a greater. Just do some more research and investigation and not leave it just solely at
the discretion of the Comptroller.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We talked about that this morning. Craig and I tried to get a
handle on exactly that, the percentage, and based on the time involved and so on, we
had talked, I guess, with the Comptroller, I think Craig did, and said that she could
probably, based on the dollar value placed on the building permit, she could use that as
a touchstone, essentially, to develop the value of either the letter of credit or the
performance bond.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
65
(Queensbury Planning Board 07/18/06)
MR. VOLLARO-But what you’re saying is we should do a little more research in that or
maybe our Staff should do it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, I’d be happy to do some research on it. I mean, I know,
for example, a performance bond is a lot cheaper than a letter of credit. Letters of credit
are pretty expensive.
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got some experience in this kind of thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, yes, I mean, letters of credit, you’re basically, you know, banks
are making a credit decision, literally, so the cost of that is going to depend on the credit
worthiness of the person requesting the letter of credit. Whereas a performance bond is
more like an insurance policy, and, you know, certain projects, one may be more
appropriate than the other, but I just didn’t feel like we had really set a policy.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
66