2006-08-15
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15, 2006
INDEX
Special Use Permit SUP No. 35-2006 Ferraro Entertainment 1.
REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1
Site Plan No. 37-2006 Angio Dynamics 2.
REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10
Site Plan No. 57-2005 N.E. Dining & Lodging 3.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6
Site Plan No. 23-2006 James Wood/Mark Darius 41.
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-38
Subdivision No. 1-1992 Thomas & Christine Dittus 44.
MODIFICATION Charles & Lisa Munzenmaier
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-88, 95
Site Plan No. 30-2006 Glen @ Hiland Meadows 48.
Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3
Site Plan No. 31-2006 QSBY. VFW Post 6196 53.
Tax Map No. 309.10-2-9
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 08/15/06)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN
GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY
DONALD SIPP
THOMAS SEGULJIC
CHRIS HUNSINGER
THOMAS FORD
TANYA BRUNO
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. VOLLARO-We have eight items on the agenda this evening. This could possibly be
a rather long night. The first item on the agenda would be for the Golden Corral. We
have some resolutions before we begin, some administrative items. I want to have a
th
motion from the Board for the approval of the minutes, prior minutes, of June 20 and
nd
June 22.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 20, 2006: NONE
June 22, 2006: NONE
TH
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 20 AND JUNE 22, 2006, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Hunsinger
RESOLUTIONS
SUP 35-2006 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT: REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY
STATUS
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Second is to make a resolution to request Lead Agency Status for
Special Use Permit 35-2006 for Ferraro Entertainment. I will make that motion.
MR. LAPPER-Can I make a comment, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the applicant, for
Ferraro? I’ve got both of the first two that you’ve got on for resolutions.
MR. VOLLARO-I know that you have some question, and I was going to discuss it with
Angio Dynamics.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know you had a comment on Ferraro Entertainment.
MR. LAPPER-Only to say that we appreciate on this one, we think it’s the better way to
go. There are more planning issues on Ferraro Entertainment and we think that it’s
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
appropriate that the Planning Board be Lead Agency on that one. So we’re appreciative
that it’s being handled that way.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that the comment?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Thanks very much, and I’ll make the motion on Ferraro Entertainment.
MOTION TO REQUEST LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT 35-
2006 AND AREA VARIANCE 42-2006 FOR FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT, Introduced
by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Site Plan and Area Variance
application for a proposed miniature golf course and associated site work, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an
environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(SEQRA), and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the projects to
be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the
actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead
Agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Department of
Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent.
That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
SITE PLAN NO. 37-2006 ANGIO DYNAMICS: REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY
STATUS
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-The second resolution that’s been requested is for Angio Dynamics.
Now, I personally can see no reason for a coordinated review on Angio Dynamics.
We’ve had this particular applicant before us several times before. This happens to be
for an addition to their property. We’ve done some modifications to that property before
without going through coordinated review, and we don’t have any information from the
Zoning Board of Appeals yet. They haven’t heard this, and they haven’t asked for a
coordinated review with the Planning Board. So, I am not going to seek Lead Agency
tonight for a coordinated review on Angio Dynamics.
MR. LAPPER-Then I guess I don’t have to say anything.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine, Mr. Lapper. That’s fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just have a quick question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any disadvantage to the applicant if we do?
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no disadvantage to the applicant if we do. It’s just that I don’t
see any need for a coordinated review on this particular application.’
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Could I answer that, Mr. Chairman?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure.
MR. LAPPER-The issue here is merely one of procedure. We know we’re going to get a
thorough review on the site plan from the Planning Board, but the variance is relatively
minor for this reason. The variance is extra parking because when they put on an extra
shift, they need to have the first shift workers there and the second shift when they’re
passing on the responsibilities, just the way they work. So they need spaces based on
the number of employees that’ll be there, maximum employees, rather than per square
foot, and the way the Code reads, of course, it’s by square foot. So we’re seeking
additional parking to accommodate their actual needs or anticipated needs once they do
the expansion. In this particular case, because the Queensbury Code has that unique
provision about the minimum is also the maximum in terms of parking spaces, they have
plenty of land here. There’s no green space issue. They could build a building on all of
the land where they seek parking. They have plenty of rights to build a building. It’s kind
of ironic, and that wouldn’t require a variance, if you build a building, but if you have a
bigger parking lot you would require a variance because of the Queensbury Code. So
it’s just a very unusual situation where you could be able to build a building but not build
a parking lot, but for them, they’ve got their funding. They’re ready to go to get this thing
in the ground. They want to employ a bunch more people, including a lot more
engineers, and the issue really is just in terms of the Planning Board agenda being so
busy with the six number limits that you have. They’re worried, just in terms of the
coordinated review taking time where they don’t really anticipate that it’s going to be a
big deal with the Zoning Board. We can get the variance and then get right back here to
talk about site plan. So it’s really just about timing, and it’s not a Type I Action, as the
Chairman said. So it’s not required.
MR. VOLLARO-Having said all that, this certainly doesn’t preclude the Zoning Board of
Appeals to request a coordinated review, and then that’ll be taken under advisement, but
what you’re saying may or may not be true, but the ZBA has to look at this and make that
determination on their own.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things I would like to ask tonight. I would like to see a
show of hands, of how many people want to speak to the first application, being the
Golden Corral. Can I see hands for the Golden Corral, people who want to speak to
that? This is a public meeting. If anybody wants to talk to the Golden Corral issue. I
have one.
MR. FORD-Possibly three.
MR. VOLLARO-Possibly three. What I’m trying to, the reason I’m asking for that is
timing. If it was 100 people it would be three minutes. If it’s three people, it’s five
minutes. Okay. That’s how I look at this thing. Okay. So on the Golden Corral, I would
limit public comment to five minutes, based on the fact that I only see three people. One
last thing for the Board, I have received a letter from Cathi Radner to myself, and the
letter had to do with the Hoffman case, Jean Hoffman, and because we are part of that
suit, she’s asking us to read the letter that she wrote to me, and she’s asked me to have
that done in Executive Session. So at the conclusion of this meeting, we’re going to go
into Executive Session and merely read the letter. First we need to vote to go into
Executive Session, then we’re going to read a letter that Cathi Radner has written to me
and make a slight determination on that. It shouldn’t take more than about five minutes.
I know this is going to be a long night. She’s asked us if we would do that. So, that
comes under Further Business, on the agenda. Okay.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHEAST DINING &
LODGING AGENT(S): THE CHAZEN CO. OWNER(S): RICHARD CUNNINGHAM
ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION NORTH QUAKER ROAD APPLICANTS
PROPOSE A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
RESTAURANTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW AND MAY MAKE FINDINGS.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE
3.104 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to have Mr. Brown read a letter into the record that was received
on August 11, 2006, from Michael J. Palmer, Michael Palmer being the Fire Marshal for
the Town of Queensbury.
MR. BROWN-This is a memorandum from Mike Palmer, Fire Marshal, to the Golden
th
Corral file. It’s in regards to a meeting held on August 11, “Meeting held on this date,
also in attendance; Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Chairman Vollaro, Chief DuPrey, Deputy Fire
Marshal Stillman. Meeting was to brainstorm the project and identify hazards or non
code compliant items. Based on this overview, the following list is offered: 1) The
center island divider poses significant problems for the fire service apparatus access.
The options are to remove the divider or maintain a minimum 20’ wide access aisle for
emergency vehicles, per Section 503.4 of the NYS Fire Code. 2) It is highly
recommended that a municipal fire hydrant be installed on the North side of Quaker
Road, West of the project entrance and East of the next curb cut. Currently, fire
department activity requiring a water supply, closes the entire width of Quaker Road as
the municipal hydrants are on the South side. 3) At the present time, the Queensbury
Central Fire Department does not have pre-emptive control of the intersection of Quaker
Road and Lafayette Street. The equipment currently installed is not operational, and due
to technology advances, is not repairable. I strongly recommend additional discussions
with Chief DuPrey, related to the increased traffic load at the intersection. 4) Fire
Marshals office would like to review a building layout for the purposes of calculation of
maximum occupant load. 5) Careful consideration must be given to the installation of
fire service features, due to the congestion on the site, i.e. location of FDC, sprinkler riser
area, fire alarm panel.”
MR. VOLLARO-Do you know what the FDC acronym stands for? They mentioned it to
us. It’s something about fire, I don’t know what it is. It’s a control system, but I don’t
know what it is.
MR. BROWN-I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Now with that, I think we’re going to let the applicant
start off. I would tell the public, just for your interest, this application for the Golden
Corral has been before this Board since, I believe it’s November 2005. So we’re
approaching a year of discussion on this. This is the first night, however, that we’ll be
doing a site plan review. Things prior to this have been concerned with environmental
issues, leading up to what’s called a SEQRA, which is the State Environmental Quality
Review Act. On that SEQRA, the applicant has received a Negative Declaration from
this Board, and now we’re into site issues, basically site plan review. So if you would like
to start with that.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper with Neral
Patel, President of the applicant, Chris Round from Chazen Companies and Mike
Hartman, Traffic Engineer, from Chazen Companies. Since we were here last, as the
Chairman said, we received the Neg Dec. That enabled us to go to the Zoning Board.
We needed two variances, one relatively minor for setback from the wetland that’s really
the drainage ditch along Quaker Road next to Mark Plaza, and the parking variance to
create extra spaces so that we could handle the anticipated need on site. We received
and we’re back, finally, for site plan review. We have the Staff notes and we anticipated
that we would start by going through the Staff notes, but I just want to comment on the
Fire Marshal letter. We didn’t, of course, get a copy of that before tonight, but we have
no problems with anything that he mentioned. We would certainly condition any
approval on all of the requirements that he wanted. There’s water line in the road. It’s
no big deal to put in a new fire hydrant in the road, and the other comments are fine as
well. Perhaps the best place to start out, the Staff notes talked about verifying the
number of loads of fill and the truck traffic that would be required for doing the soil
modification, and before I get to that, we do have a signoff letter from C.T. Male, on the
project, which we were pleased to get.
MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to just comment on that if I may, Mr. Lapper. I think that I sent a
letter in to Mr. Brown, who transported that letter off to C.T. Male. I think maybe that
signoff was just a little premature. I thought it was. I have talked about that with Mr.
Edwards, and we think that there are things that still have to be discussed.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Those discussions will take place as we move through this site plan
review.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. We interpreted it as a signoff, and that’s why I mentioned it.
MR. VOLLARO-It was actually signed as a signoff. I saw that letter, it was from Mr.
Houston.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but certainly we’re here to talk about all the issues, as always. So if
we start out, Chris has the calculations for the loads of fill and the truck traffic, and it’s
actually very close to what you talked about at the first meeting, but let’s just start there.
MR. ROUND-Thanks. Chris Round, for the record. In reviewing the Staff notes in our
st
last visit here to you back on June 21, Staff notes raised the cut and fill calculation
question, raised questions about access management, stormwater management, you
know, performance bond associated with the installation of stormwater management
structures on the site, reference in regard to signage. Again, we talked about it our last
meeting, and then buffering of the cemetery property that adjoins our site, and the first
thing, the cut and fill calculations, we obtained a copy of the e-mail that identified C.T.
Male calculated 20,000 cubic yards as a number. They made that calculation based on
excavation of six feet of fill across the entire site, and that was kind of the seat of the
st
pants evaluation that we presented to you the night of the 21 of June, and what we did
is we reviewed the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report makes specific
provisions on what is the minimum amount of excavation that needs to occur on that site,
and our numbers are consistent with our previous assertion that we believe 10,900 cubic
yards of fill need to be excavated.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty close to your snapshot.
MR. ROUND-Yes, it is, and what it is is as we talked last time is that the geotechnical
report recommends that a certain depth of fill be excavated below the building footings
and that is not necessarily six feet in all circumstances.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the geotechnical report said something about six to nine. So
you’re taking the low side of the fill.
MR. ROUND-You’re mixing, the geotechnical report said six to nine feet of fill is on the
site, and that the building, what it all comes back down to is what is the volume of fill that
needs to be removed, and I think the Planning Board’s concern is how many trucks
would that convert to.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s X to be removed, Y to be replaced.
MR. ROUND-Correct, right. So let’s just assume, use C.T. Male’s calculation of 20,000
cubic yards, which we don’t think is correct, but what we looked at is what would that
equate to in truck traffic, and Mike will talk a little bit about this, but our calculation was
10,000 cubic yards equated to.
MR. FORD-10,900, correct?
MR. ROUND-10,900 cubic yards would equate to 641, utilizing that figure, it would
equate to a 17 cubic yard truck would take 641 truck trips. That’s one way. You would
have to double that. So 641 truck trips. What we looked at is we talked to Bette & Kring,
who is the site contractor that’s preparing the bid document, they’re preparing the
construction estimates, and they anticipated that the construction’s going to take a
minimum of six to eight weeks, and actually estimated eight to twelve weeks. We utilized
six weeks of construction, you know, worst case, if it was all taking place in six weeks.
That would be 106 trucks per week, which would convert to 17 trucks per day for a six
day work week or 21 trucks per day for a five day work week. So that’s using our
number, 10,000.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s one way.
MR. ROUND-That’s one way. That’s correct. So a truck enters, that’s all we’re counting.
Double that. So it’s enter and exit.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, your figures really ought to be based on, if your figures are correct,
they should be based on 20,000 cubic yards, as opposed to 10,000.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. ROUND-Right. So if we double that, if we double it, we’re assuming, let’s just use
the five day work week. That’s 21 trucks entering the site, another 21 leaving the site.
So 41 trucks. Using your number of 20,000 cubic yards, that would be 82 trucks. Mike
might be able to talk a little bit about what the current truck volumes are on the roadway.
I think the concern is, we did the traffic analysis report that talked about what the build
out of the site is going to be, and equated to, what is it, 300 during the peak hour, and
now we’re talking about a concern about trucks of either 42 trucks or 82 trucks during an
eight week period. So, I’m trying to place it all in context. So that’s the concern here is
that we’ve understated that amount of fill, and then therefore understated the amount of
truck traffic that’s going to be generated during this eight week period, which may be a
twelve week period. So, worst case, using your numbers, so 21 trucks a day would
equate to something less than two trucks per hour during an eight our work day.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. What I did is I did a simple calculation. I said 40,000 cubic yards
and I made a few phone calls around to trucking companies, and I won’t mention their
names because I don’t want to advertise them. The average amount of capacity in the
trucks that carry excavated material is 15 cubic yards. I divided 15 into 40,000.
MR. LAPPER-How did you get the 40,000?
MR. VOLLARO-I took our figure of 20,100, excavated, I know I’ve got to put that back. If
I take it out, it’s got to go back. So I doubled it to 40,000 cubic yards.
MR. ROUND-Yes, but it won’t occur at the same time. I mean, because you can’t, I’d
like to simply this discussion as much as possible, Bob, and when we start throwing
numbers around, we tend to complicate this whole issue.
MR. VOLLARO-This is a complicated issue. I know that.
MR. ROUND-But it’s an eight to twelve week construction project. A truck will enter the
site empty, leave the site full. It is not going to come back on the same day with fill, and
fill replaced does not equal fill leaving the site, because we have a building going in on
the site. We have utility structures going in on the site. We have a stormwater
management system going in on this site. We calculated 10,000 cubic yards of fill
leaving the site and 7900 cubic yards necessary to replace that fill because of other
facilities on the site. The highway system has in excess of 22,900 vehicles on it. That’s
the annual average daily traffic. The report done for the A/GFTC, they’ve just recently
completed a draft of their access management plan, and in that, that’s where that
number comes from.
MR. FORD-I’m sorry, who did that?
MR. ROUND-The Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ROUND-That’s your NPO that programs highway improvements in your
metropolitan area. Twenty-two percent of that volume is considered trucks and buses,
and nearly five percent of that, you know, five percent of that AADT or 1,080 vehicles are
considered heavy trucks. So our calculation says we’re going to be adding 42 trucks a
day, maximum, to 1,000 trucks that are on this particular highway segment. So we just
want to put that in perspective.
MR. VOLLARO-This is all about adding very little to a large volume. We talked about
that last time.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-I mean, that’s the pitch, a very small amount to a large volume that
already exists. So the road doesn’t even see it, essentially, that’s what you’re saying.
MR. ROUND-Well, the concern with construction, though, is that you are entering and
exiting, I think there is a concern about will the construction activity generate a significant
amount of traffic that’s going to cause harm to your highway system, traffic system? Is it
going to be out of character for where you are? If this project were to take place in the
center of Bedford Close, one would surely notice it and one would say that this activity is
going to have some harm on our way of life. So that what we’re looking at with trying to
place this very little in a very large site issue, is we’re trying to place it in context. The
other thing that we’re concerned about with traffic on the system during the construction
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
period is the safety of the movement of vehicles in and out of the site, and so we expect
that most vehicles are going to be traveling from the east. We don’t know this yet, and
entering the site and leaving the site in the same location. It’s a four lane highway.
MR. FORD-In other words, returning back east?
MR. ROUND-We expect so, because that’s where most, we know, there’s not a lot of fill
or fill disposal areas west of our site. It’s possible they could be traveling west and travel
north or south on Route 9, but we suspect that it’s going to be east, that’s what our gut is,
without knowing who the contractor is, where they obtain fill, etc. So, you know, it’s our
opinion that 21 vehicles making twice those trips, making 42 trips in a day, worst case, is
not going to present a harmful situation to Quaker Road, which is carrying 1,000 of those
trucks each day.
MR. FORD-Let’s not confuse the issue, however. You’re talking about truck traffic on
Quaker Road, as opposed to large, huge trucks entering Quaker Road, during, when
those 1,000 or the 20,000 vehicles are going east and west on that thoroughfare.
MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing remarkable about that, Tom. I mean, construction period
is a short period of time, and we had Aviation Mall that did a major expansion with many
loads of fill. Home Depot certainly with the wall, the big fill that they did there. Lowe’s
really filled their site, the whole site six feet. Here we’re saying it’s only footings and
specific areas. Lowe’s they filled the entire site six feet. So there’s nothing remarkable
about this project that’ll have an eight to twelve week period of replacing soil with trucks
on Quaker Road where there’s good visibility.
MR. FORD-And do you know that the excavation all went in and out on the Quaker Road
entrance, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. FORD-None on Bay.
MR. LAPPER-I know that Aviation Mall and Home Depot they did get, they had to get to
Quaker Road. On Lowe’s, I think that they probably used Bay for the back of the site and
Quaker for the front of the site, but my point is just that there’s nothing unusual about
having to have truck traffic on a major arterial with, you know, a five lane road.
MR. FORD-Now the speed of those 20 some thousand vehicles per day is different in
those different locations. Aviation Road does not have that kind of speed that we see on
Quaker.
MR. ROUND-There’s a signal within 200 feet of the entrance, and so that is mitigating
factor, and it does control speeds, both east and west.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but the majority of these may turn east at two miles an hour, pulling out
of this driveway.
MR. LAPPER-Well, but there’s the striped median that people use for left turns. There’s
just, you know, our position is that this is not going to harm the road. There’s nothing
unusual about having truck traffic. Truck drivers know how to drive dump trucks.
MR. SIPP-That’s a different kind of truck traffic, Jon. That’s not a 15 cubic yard truck
pulling out of a construction site at two miles an hour, upshifting.
MR. ROUND-We hear the concern. I think the concern is awareness. On construction
sites the typical mitigation is signage, is that you identify that there’s a construction
entrance, a truck entrance on the site. We will propose to work with the Warren County
Department of Public Works who is going to be issuing the permit for this access point.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s one of the things I have on my, I’ve got a couple of questions, I
guess. It’s fairly complex equations that you’re putting up here, a lot of numbers, like you
said. I would propose this, in order for us to move forward. I would propose that you
come up with your plan, the amount of trucks you plan on putting on the road and so on,
and come up with a definitive, because this is the first we’ve heard of your proposal
concerning that. This is the first time we’ve heard this.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. ROUND-This is the first that we’ve heard the truck traffic during construction. We’re
here, Bob, we’ve been here not since November but since September, and the reason
that truck traffic came up was concern over the amount of fill being on the site.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a huge concern. It’s a big concern to this Board. It borders, in my
mind, on an environmental concern. So, let me just do this. Let me say that put together
for the Board, and really give it to C.T. Male, your analysis of material to be removed,
and how that material gets trucks on and off the site. They have, at C.T. Male, both
geotechnical folks that know how to look at that and they also have traffic engineering,
and I’d like to see them comment on the report that you make to them, as to how you’re
going to do this.
MR. FORD-Bob, while we’re talking about truck traffic, I’d like to know where that
excavated material is going and where the fill is coming from.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, then that would be depending on the contractor, they would have to
shop it. I mean, the O’Connor pit is on 149 and Bay, just in terms of where you get it
from, the closest place would be most efficient, in terms of certainly gasoline, diesel fuel
and what have you. So there are borrow pits all around, up on Bay and on Ridge, but in
terms of how that gets shopped, that wouldn’t happen until you had a contractor and they
were out bidding it to see who would take the bid based upon who’s busy at the time, but
we can certainly identify where it’s likely to come from.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a concern.
MR. FORD-And where it’s likely to go, the excavated material.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess one of the things I’ve been getting hung up on is, you’re saying
10,000 cubic yards. C.T. Male is saying 20. Where is the difference?
MR. LAPPER-Well, the difference is that they were taking six feet off the entire site, and
Chris’ calculations were more precise saying where the footings are, where the facilities
are that would need to have fill replaced.
MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify, was it the entire site? I don’t believe so.
MR. EDWARDS-Basically it was. It was the entire area of site improvement, if you will,
including the parking lot building, stormwater facilities, but basically that’s the area of
disturbance, though, also. So that may require a few feet or up to six feet of disturbance
and removal. So we thought that was a conservative number that would be good to kind
of put out there in terms of a maximum impact for truck traffic.
MR. LAPPER-Worst case scenario.
MR. EDWARDS-Worst case.
MR. SEGULJIC-So the real number is somewhere between 10 and 20?
MR. EDWARDS-More than likely, yes, but I don’t think we’re probably that far off. I just
need to be reviewed, I guess, with Chazen again.
MR. SEGULJIC-I just think we need to clarify what that would be. The two of you get
together and determine what that is, so we can see where the excavation is going to be.
MR. FORD-Just for the record, so we’re not throwing around an inaccurate figure, yours
was not 10, but 10,900?
MR. LAPPER-Ten thousand nine hundred.
MR. FORD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. That’s a lot closer to 11 than 10.
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to make sure I understand some of these concerns that are
coming from the Board, and I wasn’t here the last time this project was heard, but even
at the worst case scenario, the applicant said there would be 80 trucks a day, on a
background of 1,000 trucks a day. So we’re concerned that this 80 is going to
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
overwhelm the 1,000 or the 22,000? I guess I don’t share the Board’s severe concerns
on this. I mean, I’m not trying to minimize the concern about ingress and egress, which,
of course, is an issue, but, you know, 80 trucks a day on a volume of 22,000 vehicle
trips, I mean, that’s a drop in the bucket.
MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Round, didn’t you say 42 maximum?
MR. ROUND-That was our, 42.
MRS. STEFFAN-Not 80. So it’s less.
MR. ROUND-But using C.T. Male’s number.
MR. LAPPER-It would double to use C.T. Male’s worst case scenario.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s why I said worst case scenario, 80 trucks a day.
MR. VOLLARO-I put this in a little different context, Mr. Hunsinger. What I did was took
the 40,000 cubic yards and divided it by what I was told by contractors in the area as
their average dump truck size is 15 cubic yards, and I came out with 2,666 trucks. Now
you can spread those whichever way you want, but that’s a volume of trucks. Now I
know the last time that we talked, and I think you had a valid position, there’s a lot of cars
on the road. If you add 80 cars, you don’t even see that. They kind of get lost in it. Your
position has always been total volume versus injection, and I think it’s a valid position,
but in this case we’re talking about over 2,000 trucks, if the 40,000 cubic yards is
anywhere near correct. So, that’s why I’m asking them to, rather than us trying to digest
figures like this, to put together their plan for C.T. Male’s review.
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, I might be simplistic, but to me, 80 a day out of 22,000, I
mean, it’s not even worth the 15 minute conversation that we’ve already had.
MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s worth the 15 minutes.
MR. FORD-Chris, let me address that. If all we were doing is running these trucks, full or
empty, along with the rest of the flow of traffic, I would agree with you, but we’re not.
MR. LAPPER-This is how buildings get built. I mean, this is what’s happening in
Queensbury, on Quaker Road, and I can point to, we can get the numbers for how many
trips Home Depot, Lowe’s, I mean, there’s just nothing remarkable about this. Those
were much larger scale projects than a restaurant.
MR. VOLLARO-Will you agree with my recommendation that we have a, your position for
the amount of fill going out, the amount of fill coming back in, the amount of trucks
needed to carry that fill, their injection onto the road, and let’s let C.T. Male take a look at
that, and let’s go back, because I think Mr. Hunsinger is correct in this area. We could
be here all night discussing this.
MR. LAPPER-You know, Bob, we will always get you the information, present it the way
you want it, of course we’ll handle it that way, no problem with that.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So that’s what I’m asking for, and I think we’ve got to have some
idea, the reason I think Mr. Ford is asking where does the Golden Corral intend to
deposit the excavated material is we don’t want to create any sort of an environmental
situation within the Town of Queensbury unless it’s going to an area that can handle it.
That’s one of the reasons I think Mr. Ford is asking.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not contaminated soil.
MR. VOLLARO-Regardless. I want to know where it’s going. It’s not contaminated, but
it’s certainly not clean fill. You’ve got to get clean compatible fill back, and that’s where
we’re asking, where does it come from.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll certainly give you our best estimate of where it’s going to go.
There’s plenty of nearby sites.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I think that kind of concludes, and I think Mr. Hunsinger is
correct, when he says we’re probably spending an awful lot of time on this. I’d like to see
a meeting of the minds between Chazen and C.T. Male on this issue.
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. ROUND-Stormwater management. I know Staff notes asked for, during this
process, we’ve been here a number of times, and the issue with the stormwater
management system, it’s an engineered system, and I think the Planning Board’s
concerned, one, that it was going to be constructed properly, and, two, that it was going
to be maintained properly. We put notes on the plans, that C.T. Male has reviewed, that
said we would provide you with the inspection reports that are done by the maintenance
operator for this system. Staff notes ask for an additional measure, whether it’s
performance bond or an as built certification. We would have no problem providing you
with an as built certification by the manufacturer, by the installer that the system’s
installed according to the design plans. If there’s no other comments than that, I’d move
on.
MR. VOLLARO-The only comment I’d have on that is when, this design will be done by
others or by Chazen?
MR. ROUND-This system has been designed already, and it has been reviewed and
approved by C.T. Male.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So as far as the as built is concerned, the as built, what we’re
approving on this Board, if we do that, we’re approving a set of designs, we would like
the design engineer to verify that the system went in per his drawings and per his
designs. That’s a verification I’d like to see.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not a problem whatsoever.
MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Round, I just want to clarify, you talked about, because I’m taking
notes. You talked about the performance bond. You talked about providing inspection
reports and as built certification will be provided. Did you address that?
MR. ROUND-We do not propose to provide a performance bond. Typically performance
bonds are requested for facilities, infrastructure that would be turned over to a
municipality and the performance bond would protect the municipality from accepting
something that was substandard and then would have to repair or in the event that a
builder did not construct it according to the plans. So I think the certification addresses
that issue.
MR. LAPPER-We could offer annual maintenance reports, because the filters have to be
changed. There has to be maintenance every year. That’s in the management plan that
was already submitted. So we could agree, as a condition, that we would provide the
report to the Town every year to verify that the maintenance took place.
MR. VOLLARO-As opposed to a performance bond, what would you think of a letter of
credit instead?
MR. LAPPER-It’s not like it can’t be done, because we’re not talking, I’m guessing it’s
$5,000, just a guess, each year to replace the filters and hire somebody to do it, but it’s
just a question of, you know, you have a letter of credit that sits there. If the restaurant
management doesn’t clean the filters, then the parking lot’s going to flood, you know,
what’s going to happen, it’s not going to drain. So they’re going to create a lake.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is all happenstance. We don’t know that. What we’re trying to
do here with some sort of a letter of credit is really to protect the Town, in case of an
eventuality of that type.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not a big deal, so we’re not going to make a big fight about it. It’s just
not, typically, everyone has stormwater management facilities and they have to be
maintained. I guess it depends on how much money we’re talking about. If it was a
$100,000 letter of credit, it would be better not to have to spend the money, you know,
just to have something that’s going to be cleaned every year.
MR. VOLLARO-This is an expensive site, no matter what.
MR. LAPPER-Do you have any number in mind?
MR. VOLLARO-Not right now I don’t, know.
MR. LAPPER-It’s certainly not a deal killer issue. We don’t think it’s necessary, but as
always, we’ll do what the Board thinks is reasonable.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Round, I’m sorry I interrupted you, if you want to go on.
MR. ROUND-No, that was the stormwater management discussion, I’m trying to address
the Staff notes.
MR. VOLLARO-I do have a question on the SWPPP, however, since we’re into the
stormwater situation, if I might.
MR. ROUND-Go right ahead.
MR. VOLLARO-The latest revision on SWPPP was March 8, 2006, and I noticed that on,
I guess it’s Page 25. It says here the closed stormwater network consisting of catch
basins, drainage, manholes, high density polyethelene piping, that’s HDPE piping, has
been designed to convey the 25 year storm event. Now commercial projects require 50
year storms. Is that a mistake? Because I looked through the rest of, I did my best to go
through, I don’t have a software program to check all these numbers with, but if you say
it’s designed to a 25 year storm, we really need a 50 year storm event design. Now I do
know that in here you come up with the amount of rainfall that’s classified for a 100 year
storm, a 25 year storm and so on, but that was for purposes of defining the amount of
rainfall that you get in a 24 hour period.
MR. EDWARD-Yes, Bob, my recollection, I could just shed some light on that whole
thing. Talking to Jim Houston who did the review for the stormwater management
facilities, he thought the entire buried system that they’re proposing is capable of storing
100 year storm events. Conveyance might be a tricky word there.
MR. ROUND-Right. It does have the capacity, it is over designed. It meets the Town’s
standards, and I think the Town’s standards, the stormwater pollution, the DEC
conditions mirror the Town’s requirements.
MR. VOLLARO-All I know is that the Town’s requirement is a 50 year storm, which
equates to, I think somewhere in the area of 5.2 inches of rain in a 24 hour period, and
I’m just trying to make sure that this system has got the capacity to do that. If that’s an
error in your SWPPP, then remove it and state what the real number is, because I think
that’s a very clear statement the way it’s put into your Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan. This system has been designed to convey the 25 year storm event. If that’s
incorrect, you might want to change that.
MR. ROUND-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Now, again on the SWPPP, on Page 10, I notice that, this is under
Construction Sequence, I think Number Four under that, Number Four says begin
clearing and grubbing operations. Clearing and grubbing shall be done only in areas
where earthwork will be performed and only in areas where construction is planned to
commence within 14 days after clearing and grubbing. I think we have to address the
removal of somewhere between 10 and 20,000 cubic yards of material in there, as far as
the construction sequence is concerned. It should at least mention it.
MR. ROUND-I think what it’s talking about is generally you want to make sure the site is
stabilized at all time, and clearing and grubbing starts that process of site disturbance,
and so what the note is saying is that you don’t clear and grub until you’re ready to
commence construction, so that’s what, it’s a valid note. It’s a standard construction
sequence note, and that is what would occur. So when construction is ready to
commence, we expect that the whole site would probably be cleared and grubbed, at
least not greater than 14 days before excavation on the site occurs.
MR. VOLLARO-You might want to just add to that, under construction sequence, what
has to happen after clearing and grubbing, that we’ve got to remove between 10,000 and
20,000 cubic yards of material.
MR. ROUND-The SWPPP is not a.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s got a section in it that talks about the pre-construction effort,
and so it ought to be clear in the SWPPP as to what that is, I feel. That’s the only
questions I’ve got on the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
MR. ROUND-Okay. Landscaping, lighting and signage, when we were last in front of
you, we asked you if there were any concerns to prepare us for today’s meeting, and one
of the things that came up was landscaping between our building and the adjoining
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
building. Staff notes talk about meeting the Route 9 Design Standards, and then there
was a question about signage, what signage is proposed, and then you had not yet had
the benefit of reviewing our June15th submission, which is in front of you tonight, that
incorporated a lighting plan that has since been reviewed by C.T. Male and has been
found acceptable.
MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, I thought you did a good job on the lighting plan. It looked
good to me. I didn’t have any problems with it.
MR. ROUND-What we have, I think Craig Brown could help me out here, there’s an
image of a monument sign. We had said in lieu of a pole mounted sign we offer you a
monument sign. So there was some confusion about whether it was a 25 foot tall or a 29
foot tall pole mounted sign. I have hard copies of this graphic if you’d like. It is a 15 foot
tall.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s going to replace the pole.
MR. ROUND-Sign that would be constructed in lieu of a pole mounted sign.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s lower than the 25 feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FORD-A single one?
MR. ROUND-That’s all we were allowed under the regulations, a single sign, and there
was some confusion about whether there would be two signs on the wall or whether it
would be a single wall mounted sign, graphic that Craig will come back to, shows the
single wall mounted sign on the Quaker Road face, and that would conform to the
Town’s sign requirements as well. These images depict building color. Maybe we’ll
come back to that or we could discuss it now. There’s several different images in our
slides here. This happens to present a green roof with some stone treatments and stuff.
Maybe it would be difficult for you to see all those elements. Craig, if you could just scroll
through those. So there’s several different building codes. I think there was some
concern that the graphic that we had presented previously didn’t meet everybody’s
particular taste, and there’s definitely a red theme on some of the earlier.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that vinyl siding?
NERAL PATEL
MR. PATEL-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Similar to your Wilton building?
MR. PATEL-It’s actually going to be a little bit more durable. It’s called a hardy board.
MR. LAPPER-Which is really a concrete board.
MR. PATEL-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-That’s what they’re doing now. The Residence Inn at Exit 15 is a hardy
board. It’s resin and concrete product. So it’s a lot nicer than vinyl.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking Wilton now?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Because we just, Mrs. Steffan and I just had dinner at your place on
Thursday night.
MR. LAPPER-Neral is saying that this is different. That is vinyl in Wilton, and this hardy
board is a concrete product. It’s not a vinyl product. It looks like wood, and that’s what
the, when you get off at Exit 15 in Saratoga, the Marriot, Residence Inn that’s straight
ahead of you, that’s what that used, the same thing that Neral’s proposing.
MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t seen that, but that’s okay.
MR. FORD-It has a grain similar to wood?
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, exactly. It’s dense. It’s not like the vinyl.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the rooflines, the illumination on the rooflines. It’s in the
Staff notes.
MIKE HARTMAN
MR. HARTMAN-It’s just an LED accent light. It’s not meant to actually illuminate any
grounds. It’s just an accent lighting that goes around, similar to the accent that’s around
the Outback.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-I think during the last time we talked about that, Mr. Patel, we did
mention the Outback, and you said this was different than the Outback. I think I have
that in some of your testimony the last time you spoke to us. Is that correct?
MR. PATEL-It’s different because the Outback has a neon, which is actually a little bit
more, it’s brighter. It projects a little bit more light. The LED is actually, they’re individual
LED bulbs that go around in the tracks.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s going to be the difference between the way you and the
Outback is illuminated?
MR. PATEL-That’s the difference, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you.
MR. ROUND-I just put up a graphic of the, and highlighted on there. It’s maybe difficult
for us all to see, is that we added four trees to the eight or ten or so that are out in front
on Quaker Road, to address Staff comments about additional street trees. They’re now
at 50 foot intervals and they’re typically a Linden, you know, species, and then along the
western side, the western face of the building, between the two buildings, we added
additional arborvitaes in response to somebody’s request I think back in June.
MR. VOLLARO-That was Mr. Sipp, I believe, who requested that, along your western
line.
MR. ROUND-Right, and those are both our service entrances and the adjoining building
service entrances. So we didn’t propose those initially, so they do, they are placed
where the entrances and exits are, so that they would screen those from the adjoining
view that there is.
MR. VOLLARO-I want to get into that for a second. Going back to the letter from Mr.
Palmer, he talked about the fact that there may be two, I think his first question was the
center island divider poses significant problems to fire service apparatus access. The
options are to remove the divider or maintain a minimum 20 foot wide access aisle for
emergency vehicles. What we did discuss during his meeting was that if the aisle was to
stay, then you would have to increase the distance toward the east to open up your aisle
to at least 20 foot for fire trucks. He cannot make the turn. That was from Chief
DuPrey’s position.
MR. ROUND-Well, there’s conflicting direction from this Board, is that you’ve asked us to
restrict left hand turn movements out of the site, and that’s what that center divider
accomplishes. The fire department’s asking that we remove that divider. So increasing
the driveway width to accommodate a large vehicle like that will cause additional
wetlands disturbance.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it will.
MR. ROUND-And that’s something that we’d have concern about as well. We may be
able to take that curbed island, I know in other installations it’s either textured pavement,
striping, or a curb that would allow run over, allow you to run over it, and I think that’s
probably the preferred option.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they were concerned about, one of the things they were concerned
about at the meeting, particularly Chief DuPrey, is the displacement of the fire truck
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
when it goes over some of the curbing. He doesn’t want it to rock like this. He’d rather
have a smooth entrance, as opposed to coming over the top.
MR. ROUND-Yes, and that’s what I’m talking about. We talked about like a roll over curb
or it’s a curb that’s not vertically displaced like you would normally see a curb in the
street. It’s something that you, it’s either angled so that you wouldn’t have that
displacement of a vehicle.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, he gives two options here, in his position anyway, in the position of
his letter. One is to remove the divider. Now, we didn’t have this information the last
time. The Fire Chief did not have your latest drawings when he looked at this, neither did
Mr. Palmer.
th
MR. ROUND-But we provided them to the Town on June 15. So we think that was
ample.
MR. VOLLARO-And when we did take a look at it, he had this concern, and he said that
there’s two options. One is to remove the divider or maintain a minimum 20 foot access
aisle. So I realize that what we did when we did SEQRA, we went along with the no left
hand turn, and now that no left hand turn seems to be questioned.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not suggesting that the no left hand turn shouldn’t be maintained.
It’s just a question of what the physical barrier is that we can look into changing that, like
Chris is saying, in terms of the curb, and re-submit it to the Fire Marshal.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think, you know, you can talk to Mr. Palmer yourselves, if
you want, but he wanted one of two options. Either remove that center island or make
the island to the east wider, one or the other.
MR. ROUND-Our client would love to remove it. We’d offer that.
MR. VOLLARO-Now that that’s gone, what happens to the restricted left hand turn
movement?
MR. ROUND-You can sign it, but I don’t think it’s going to be effective.
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t believe it will either. We now have a position that we took on
going along with traffic initially, and now we have an entirely different position on traffic.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think we have to look into it and come up with a compromise that
accomplishes both purposes. We want to restrict the left turns and we want to make
sure fire trucks can get in, and he said there are two alternatives, and we’ve got to look
at it and see if there’s a third that works to accomplish that.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine.
MR. EDWARDS-Bob, one suggestion. Would it be possible if Chazen were to run what
they call an Auto Turn program for the Town’s fire truck to see what would, in fact, work
in that entranceway the best. I’m afraid of taking out that island, Bob.
MR. VOLLARO-What Chief DuPrey said to me, when we sat with him, along with Mr.
Sipp and Mr. Ford, was if you go up to the Quality Inn on Route 9, they have one of these
islands there. They cannot make it with that island off of Route 9. He can’t swing far
enough to the left to bring the truck around so it’s looking at a reasonable passage.
That’s his position.
MR. EDWARDS-So it’s coming in from the west, making a left turn in?
MR. VOLLARO-He’d be coming in from Lafayette.
MR. EDWARDS-From Lafayette.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s where he is. He’s at Lafayette right now.
MR. ROUND-He’s talking about Route 9, I think. Quality Inn is located on Route 9.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. He just said that he couldn’t get in to the Quality Inn because
of that center island, not without displacing the truck over the island.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. LAPPER-Jim’s suggesting we use the truck turning template and work it out. I
mean, we may have to modify the island.
MR. ROUND-This is a bit different than Route 9. I think that his experience, no one likes
these structures, snow removal.
MR. LAPPER-But they work for left turns.
MR. ROUND-They do work.
MR. LAPPER-We did this at Lowe’s and Applebee’s, and it’s effective there. We did it at
Taco Bell.
MR. ROUND-Price Chopper on Route 9.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, just in terms of Queensbury. We’ll look at it.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m just telling you what the Fire Marshal’s got to say.
MR. ROUND-Yes, Quaker Road has a huge shoulder, compared to Route 9 which has
none, and so there’s.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll come up with an alternative design.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you will.
MR. ROUND-Landscaping and lighting, you’ve gotten a little bit of a look at the building
colors. Buffering of the cemetery was commented on.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I took a look at that. It’s a 50 foot buffer.
MR. ROUND-We talked about it back in June, if you’ll recall from your minutes, and we
suggested that buffering was really not necessary in this circumstance. You’ll see the
developed portion is some distance away from our project, and the area surrounding our
property is wetland, and will not be developed. It is a State and Federal wetland, in that
the purpose, if you read the Purpose Section, it does talk about screening the cemetery
because you’re trying to minimize the visual impact of an adjoining commercial land use.
We don’t think that condition exists here, but we’ll take your direction in that regard.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is the cemetery line?
MR. ROUND-Here’s the last portion of the developed cemetery. All this is wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to determine, I guess, is the line, the property line, your
property line to the east, I’m sorry, to the north?
MR. LAPPER-Craig’s got it on the arrow.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Craig, the northern boundary, does that boundary, do they share
a property line on the northern boundary?
MR. LAPPER-We share a property line with the cemetery, but there’s no sites, because
of the wetland there’s no burial sites.
MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make any difference.
MR. FORD-It’s cemetery property, correct?
MR. ROUND-Yes, it is adjoining. We adjoin Queensbury cemetery property.
MR. LAPPER-Chris is just asking whether it’s necessary because it’s wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-The way the Code is written, I think it’s 179-9-080.
MR. SEGULJIC-179-8-070, and what it says is all industrial and commercial uses shall
maintain a 50 foot Type C Buffer between the use and adjoining lot line of any cemetery.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty clear.
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s pretty clear.
MR. LAPPER-There is discretion.
MR. ROUND-Yes, if you look at 179-8-020, I think you’ve got to read the rule as a whole.
The idea is to provide visual screening where it’s appropriate.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ll come out and tell you why I’m in favor of it, okay, and I think the
Golden Corral is a nice restaurant. I like it, okay. Gretchen and I, my colleague, had
dinner there the other night. We went around the back and we took a look at those three
dumpsters that were totally overloaded. The odor was not pleasant, and I think that’s
one of the reasons that I would like to see a 50 foot buffer back there, for exactly that
reason, and we got into your place at about five minutes to six, and walked around the
building to take a look at it.
MR. PATEL-First of all, the cardboard containers get picked up three times a week, not
to get into the actual details of my operation, but to give a justification for the cardboard
containers being full is we get truck deliveries on Thursdays, and everything gets
unloaded and then we get them emptied on Friday morning. Now in regards to the odor,
there were three cardboard containers and if you remember there were two grease bins.
The grease company that comes to remove the grease off site, that needs to go to
further processing, emptied one of those containers, and since is coming back tomorrow
to now clean up their mess, and that’s where the odor came from. It’s not so much
something that we create due to our operation. It was because of their error when they
were trying to lift the containers up something gave out, I guess, and that’s where the
odor came from.
MR. VOLLARO-These are all things that go with a restaurant with the kind of volume you
do.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ve worked at restaurants. I know what they look like in the back, and I
guess if I could just say, I like trees, and I like buffers.
MR. LAPPER-We can do the buffer. The only issue is this. We can’t disturb the wetland
and neither could we plant the Type C type buffer wouldn’t survive in wetland conditions.
So we can plant it, if you look at that corner, we can move things around and put in the
buffer, but we can only go so far as to where the wetland is. We can’t do wetland
disturbance by putting upland trees in a wetland setting. So we can’t do the whole, you
know, the whole back of the property line is along the property line of the cemetery, but a
lot of that, the corner next to Mark Plaza is upland, and that’s fine, and we can move
some stuff around and we can do the 50 foot buffer, but we can’t do it in the area where
it’s the wetland. So if the Board would just acknowledge that.
MR. ROUND-Rather than re-design this particular element, I mean, we have a 30 foot
separation between our retaining wall and the back property line, and rather than, at this
juncture, I would prefer to add some plantings to your liking, rather than, for the sake of
meeting a standard of 50 feet, I would rather plant that area, rather than lose parking that
we need.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what the key is here. There’s nine spaces involved here.
This is what this is really all about. The 50 feet takes nine spaces.
MR. LAPPER-I mean, if you’re telling us that we have to remove the nine spaces, we’ll
remove the nine spaces and put in the buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve only got 154. You got that amount of spaces from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. LAPPER-Right, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-In testimony in two places, Mr. Patel talks about the fact that he needs
35 spaces for employees and management. That gets you down to 119, I believe. If you
take these nine out, you’re down to 110, and I’ll talk about a dynamic parking analysis a
little bit later, but you’re going to be down on your parking in this event.
MR. LAPPER-The Board has to decide whether you’d rather see a bigger buffer or more
parking, but certainly the Code allows us to build a facility with nine spaces less,
because we obviously had to get a variance.
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-If you can build them with nine spaces less, and still make that work as a
parking lot, because frankly, when we were at the facility on last Thursday I believe it
was, Thursday night, we couldn’t find a parking space easily. So what we did is we went
to the motel and I asked the gentleman that was at the motel, that you own the Motel 8
as well as the Outback?
MR. PATEL-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Whether it’s okay to park there, and he said, well, everybody does, that
goes to the Golden Corral. So we saw many, many people using that buffered parking
that you have there to take care of the crowds that were in the Golden Corral. Now, we
couldn’t get a table right away. There were 350 seats in that restaurant, and we had to
kind of wait to be seated. So it’s a busy place is what I’m trying to tell you.
MR. ROUND-What is the desire of the Board? What direction do you want to send us in
this regard? We think there’s a provision in the Ordinance that says you can waive that
requirement. I understand your concern about odor and the visual characteristics of our
dumpster. Our dumpster’s enclosed, at the end of the building. The developed portion
of the cemetery is, I’ve got to venture, you know, 3 or 400 feet away from a site. There’s
a commercial building between us and the cemetery, and we want to give you something
that’s going to be valuable rather than blindly follow what the rule asks you to do, and I
think it says the purpose is to provide buffering and screening. I think the separation
distance, the retaining wall, change in elevation. Those things all weigh into this
decision and I think you need to tell us, we want 50 feet of separation or we’re willing to
allow you to plant that area that’s 30 feet away from the property line in order to
accomplish that.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we can do is we can take a second to poll the Board as to
whether or not they want to impose a 50 foot buffer, Class C type, per our Code, or do
they want to give the applicant relief in that area. I’ll start with you, Mr. Hunsinger, on
that one.
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that the site plan that the applicant has provided is sufficient. I
would like to see some additional plantings, however. So I would feel comfortable with
the proposed 33 foot buffer.
MR. VOLLARO-Tanya?
MRS. BRUNO-I’m finding this a little bit difficult. One of the things that I typically push
for with any applicant that comes forward is that they challenge their designers to come
up with something that works, so that it answers the, not just the requirements of our
zoning, but as you were putting it, Mr. Round, kind of the practical, you know, what is
best suited for the overall project. I really am uncomfortable making a decision just on
the 50 foot buffer because I think what really is happening, contrary to what I usually
come out and say is, is that we have engineered, we have looked at so many different
things that I think we are really pushing this site beyond what it can handle, and you’re
seeing a domino effect with everything that we talk about. We’ve got the turning radius.
We’ve got the retaining wall which we haven’t even talked about yet, the extreme
engineering needed for the stormwater management. I’m just very concerned with
everything together, what the total job will do to that site, to the wetland which I have to
mention again tonight you mentioned that it was a runoff from Quaker Road which we
talked about that last time and you said, no, no, no, it’s not a runoff. I was just speaking
specifically about one corner, and you said it again this evening.
MR. LAPPER-Because that’s the corner that requires the variance.
MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to see the practical thing done, and I don’t think either the
plantings in the back themselves will accomplish that, nor will the 50 foot. So that’s a
gray answer, but.
MR. VOLLARO-Can you make it more black and white?
MRS. BRUNO-More black and white.
MR. VOLLARO-For that for me, because we’re looking to kind of vote here, Tanya. It’s
in the Code. Do you want to waive the Code, is that what you’re saying? You feel like
you want to waive the Code or not waive the Code?
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. I don’t think we’re waiving the
Code.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you are. If you don’t apply the 50 foot buffer the way it’s written in
the Code, then you’re granting a waiver to that 50 foot buffer. That’s how I see it at least.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s very specific. It’s not a very squishy, squashy comment in the Code
like some of them are, with a lot of caveats associated with it. It’s very clear.
MR. LAPPER-Well, but here we’ve got cemetery lands, but not cemetery use.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the Code says cemetery. It doesn’t make that distinction. It says
any cemetery.
MR. LAPPER-No, but in terms of practicality and what you’re buffering, a cemetery can’t
build gravesites in a wetland.
MRS. BRUNO-I’ll stay with we need to stick by the Code because I feel that in the long
run that’s not, you know, that’s only one point among many that will end up determining
what happens here.
MR. LAPPER-Remember, we have a C.T. Male signoff letter. So in terms of the
engineering issues that we’ve been dealing with for most of the year, we’ve been pretty
careful to satisfy everybody, but that said, if the Board decides that you want the 50 foot
buffer, I think you have to address my point that it’s only the corner of the site. You can’t
ask us to go into the wetland and plant non-wetland species in a wetland. That would a
wetland disturbance.
MR. VOLLARO-The northern portion of the site that occupies those nine spaces is not in
the wetland, though.
MR. LAPPER-But the buffer would be along the whole northern frontage of the site.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Because if you’re taking the definition of where the cemetery owns the
land.
MR. VOLLARO-When I did it, I made it real simple on my drawing. I took 50 feet from
the property line to the north, and drew the line across.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and I’m saying that’s not possible because you can’t plant the
wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-So you plant outside the wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-You plant outside the wetland.
MR. LAPPER-The part of that site that’s outside of the wetland we can plant, but we
can’t plant, a lot of that 50 feet is wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-You can’t ask us to plant upland species that are in the Type C Buffer in a
wetland.
MRS. BRUNO-Exactly, which is one of those, right there, that proves my point, in a
small.
MR. LAPPER-But a wetland is a visual buffer. I mean, you don’t need to change a
wetland. A wetland is not parking lot. It’s not disturbed. It’s natural. So if you’re talking
about the cemetery, if you have a buffer that’s a wetland, it’s a buffer, and it’s, again, like
Chris said, 400 feet from gravesites, so, you know, it’s just about being practical. We
certainly can plant where it’s upland, if that’s what the Board’s discretion.
MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, what’s your take on this one?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d be okay with the 35 foot buffer there, on this particular issue. It does
abut the cemetery. On the landscaping plan they’ve got white oaks planted inside of
their retaining wall. The wetland that’s there is going to be green. Certainly the
cemetery, it’s a wetland, they’re not touching that area. I’m assuming that, I haven’t
walked back there, but I’m assuming that there’s trees there. What are they going to
build on a wetland? The only thing they could put on a wetland would be a mausoleum,
and I don’t think that that’s a concern. So 35 feet’s okay with me.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s a 50 foot buffer, not 35.
MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but I would grant the waiver, if you’re asking me, I would grant a
waiver. I would say yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see a 50 foot buffer.
MR. FORD-I think so much of the discussion this evening, as previous evening’s, have
focused on the difficulty there is in placing this facility on that lot. We, as Planning Board
members, are really challenged to try to strike a balance between Code and sometimes
people, and I applaud the idea of having a Golden Corral in Queensbury. I feel it is the
right facility at the wrong place. I don’t think that it should be constructed on that site.
MR. LAPPER-It’s one of the few areas in Town, Tom, that’s zoned where you are
allowed to put a restaurant in the Town of Queensbury, that are undeveloped.
MR. FORD-I’m for development on Quaker Road, Jon, and I’m in favor of the Golden
Corral, just not at this site.
MR. LAPPER-Okay, and our answer is that, with the engineering is that, with the
engineering, which is expensive, but we’ve stayed away from the wetland and we’ve got
your engineers reviewing and approving our plan. So it’s an expensive development.
It’s a careful development, but we’re not impacting the resources.
MR. FORD-But I go back to some previous discussions we’ve had relative to safety, and
it deals with not just the facility and the lot but also safety, and that continues to be a
concern that I share.
MR. VOLLARO-Tom, I understand where you’re coming from and I understand how you
feel, but I need to try to draw a vote on this 50 foot buffer. Are you in favor of waiving the
Code on that or not?
MR. FORD-If that facility is going on that site, then maintain the 50 foot buffer as called
for in the Code.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Mr. Sipp?
MR. SIPP-I echo Mr. Ford’s feelings. I think it’s the wrong thing on too small a site. I
think you’re just jamming, if we maintain the 50 foot buffer, you’re going to lose parking
spaces. I don’t like the traffic patterns that this is going to set up, and I think it’s going to
be an unsafe, Quaker Road has its share of accidents, mainly fender benders. There
were two of them there last week. Now when you add 320 more cars to this mix, I don’t
like it, but I would like to see this buffer maintained.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’ve got your answer.
MR. LAPPER-How about the issue about what Tom said about the, you can’t ask us to
plant, or I hope you’re not asking us to plant the buffer in the wetland.
MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t plant a wetland.
MR. LAPPER-I’m looking at the map with the corner here and I just see the wetland is
right there.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, a good deal of that line, you can maintain that 50 foot line, a 50
foot buffer at the northern edge, right where you’ve got the parking area, that’s where it’s
going to go.
MR. LAPPER-But that would be at the northwestern edge.
MR. VOLLARO-Northwestern edge.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the corner.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to lose those nine spaces. That’s what’s going to happen.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll have to look at that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Is it flat or does it slope? We have a big retaining wall there, so it’s got
to slope, I would imagine.
MR. ROUND-If you look at the site grading plan, or the layout plan, there is, there’s a
slope that’s present there.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have that drawing. What’s the top and bottom of wall?
MRS. STEFFAN-Here it is, Bob.
MR. SEGULJIC-In that corner it’s eight feet.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. ROUND-Eight foot tall at one end, and then three foot tall at the other end.
MR. VOLLARO-Right.
MRS. STEFFAN-We’d be asking them to plant outside of that. We’d be asking them to
plant on a slope.
MR. VOLLARO-What we’re asking them to do is take 50 foot, which looks like this, and
say that these go away, and you’d be putting some plantings in here. That’s what that
says. Okay. Mr. Round, you can continue if you’d like.
MR. ROUND-Okay. So on this particular issue, you’re asking for us to identify the 50
foot buffer, but we would not identify plantings within the wetland area. We would
identify them outside the wetland area.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct.
MR. ROUND-Okay. So we’ve been through the fill calculations, stormwater
management, landscaping and lighting, signage, buffering of the cemetery. The
driveway separation distance is the last thing that we’ve had conversations about, and
that is talked about in your Staff notes. So we’ll finish our discussion, unless there’s
response to some other issue. We’ve asked you for a waiver from the separation
standard that is contained in your access management section of your Ordinance, and
up until this point we’ve presented you with a full traffic impact analysis that
demonstrated, without a restriction of left hand turn, that we did not have a significant
effect on the highway system. Your SEQRA determination documented that decision
that you did not have a significant effect on our highway system.
MR. VOLLARO-We did that with the aspect of a no left hand turn capability.
MR. ROUND-And we offered, that’s what I was going to finish with, we offered the
restriction of that left hand turn to satisfy your own concerns about conflicting vehicle
movements out of the site, and we’ll maintain that. So, access management is not just
about driveway separation distances. That’s one principal of access management.
Several other principles are providing for controlled access, well defined access points.
If you look on the opposite side of the road from us, you’ll see where there’s 30 and 40
and 50 foot wide driveways. That’s an access management issue. If you look at
alignment of driveways, generally you want either a driveway to align at right angles, if
it’s a high volume driveway with an opposing driveway, or you want to maintain a
minimum offset distance. New York State, in its guidance, says 100 feet separation
between opposing driveways, in order to allow for that navigation of that area. So our
driveway is shown 220 feet from Lafayette Street which might be considered an
opposing drive or an opposing access to Quaker Road.
MR. FORD-But that’s not the closest driveway. You’re not equating a driveway with
Lafayette Street, are you?
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. ROUND-Yes, we are. For the purpose of entrance and exit design to the highway
system, you want a minimum separation distance, and so that, again, that’s a principal.
A corner clearance, you don’t want to put a driveway to close to a corner, if you have a
corner lot, you want to move it back away from an intersection. That’s an access
management principal. Center turning lanes, and allowing adequate turning lanes, that’s
an access management principal, and sight distance. You want to place access points
where you have adequate site distance, and so those are all access management
principals. Your Ordinance talks about driveway separation distances as one of those
principals.
MR. VOLLARO-It also talks about this. It says, and this is under, just so you know where
I’m at, 179-19-010 on commercial driveway standards. It says driveways for in-fill
development which is what we’ve got here. We’ve got an in-fill development going on,
must meet driveway spacing standards to abutting properties on both sides. The
Planning Board may waiver separation standards in the event the applicant can
demonstrate no negative impact on the transportation system will result in relaxing of the
standard, and that the applicant has provided for future consolidated curb cuts and cross
easement consistent with the intent of these regulations.
MR. ROUND-Right, and I’m going to finish my discussion, is that we’ve demonstrated
that we do not have a negative impact on the highway system, and we have proposed a
cross easement.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what they’re talking about here. The cross easement that
you’ve proposed is a stub in the event the properties to the east get developed, but this
is a different.
MR. ROUND-It provides for actually construction and providing for, planning for, we’ve
planned for cross easement access. Another principle is proper design of the entrances
of a system, and what you need to do, you see in our plan, it’s not in front of you on the
screen yet, but a driveway has to have adequate throat, an adequate entrance area
where vehicles can leave the roadway, enter a site, before it enters the circulation
system of the site itself, and so you can see our plan that’s overlaid. You see our throat,
in this case, it’s at least 50 feet deep, and there’s been some talk about our separation
distance to the adjoining driveway to the west, okay, and that we’re not meeting that
separation distance. Another access management principle is providing a single point of
access per property, adjoining property has two points of access. If we were to design a
consolidated driveway at that location, it would not, we could not design an adequate
throat length, if you can imagine moving our driveway to the west, because the building
location is in conflict with that location.
MR. LAPPER-The Mark Plaza building.
MR. ROUND-Mark Plaza building. What we did, in order to alleviate some of your
concerns about the adjoining driveways, and the number of vehicles that are using that
driveway, we went out and counted those, during the same periods in which we had
performed our previous counts. I’ll let Mike talk about what work we did to that end and
then we can continue our discussion.
MR. HARTMAN-Relative to the counts, we went out in early July, for a weekday PM
peak, Saturday midday and Saturday PM peak. During the weekday PM peak, peak
hour, there were three lefts made out of that driveway and five rights. Saturday midday.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, which driveway are we talking about?
MR. HARTMAN-This is the secondary driveway on Mark Plaza.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the one in front of Passano Paints.
MR. HARTMAN-Right, the one closest to the proposed driveway. Saturday midday there
was one left and two rights. Saturday PM there were two lefts and one right. So
basically that driveway receives minimal use any of the peak periods that we’re talking
about.
MR. VOLLARO-Now did you do the same analysis for the second driveway to the west
on Mark Plaza primary drive?
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. HARTMAN-Yes, we did. During the weekday PM there were 14 lefts out and 20
rights. Saturday midday seven lefts and eighteen rights, and Saturday PM there were
twelve lefts and eight rights.
MR. ROUND-So what I want to talk about is access management. Although those
access management, those separation standards, there’s nothing about those
separation standards. The idea is that you need to provide adequate spacing between
adjoining driveways. We agree with that principle. Access management, those things
came out of a, New York State does not have commercial driveway standards for State
Highway systems. They do not employ them. They use guidelines. They reference,
those numbers that we have were developed in the Town of Canandaigua. That’s where
those numbers came from in the Town of Queensbury’s Ordinance. We have employed
a number of access management design principles here. You’ve asked us to look at a
dedicated turn lane entrance into our site. There’s adequate striped median in Quaker
Road to allow that to happen. That’s an access management principle.
MR. VOLLARO-Real quick. That’s going to change now. You’ve got to do some work
on the access management area, the entrance to the site, as a result of Mr. Palmer’s
memorandum.
MR. LAPPER-We’re confident that we’ll be able to redesign it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have to see that first.
MR. ROUND-So we have a well defined curb cut. We are restricting, we’re restricting left
hand turn movements out of our site, an access management principal employed at your
request. We have adequate sight distance. We have a center turning lane. We have a
cross easement. We have adequate sight distances. We maintain what we think is a
reasonable separation from Lafayette Street. We performed a queuing analysis that said
we do not block the driveway. That’s the concern that you’re trying to do with separation
standards for driveways. You’re trying to say, we don’t want them too close because we
don’t want conflicting movements, and we don’t want to block driveways, and we don’t
want vehicles entering and exiting at the same time. We provide you with a traffic
analysis that says we have upwards of six vehicles an hour using this adjoining driveway
which, again, is a secondary driveway, which I might note is on the property line, which
does not meet anybody’s idea of ideal or otherwise, and so, it is a pre-existing, we
recognize that. So when you have a rule in your regulation, and you set somebody off
on trying to achieve that, you’ve got to apply decision making, and the other reason that
we have our location where it’s shown is that it minimizes disturbance to the wetland at
that location. It’s a filled site. If we were to move it to achieve some greater separation
standard, we would require fill, Army Corps of Engineers permit. We’ve been asked to
see if we could obtain access across adjoining lands that are owned by Niagara Mohawk
which are entirely wetlands in order to have a 90 degree intersection with Lafayette
Street, and we dismissed that as an alternative for us to explore because of those
constraints, and so this is not something that we’ve breezed in here with and proposed
without any thought or consideration. We have been here 11 months. We have talked
about these issues, and we’ve tried to address those to your satisfaction. So we think
that we’ve met the litmus test that’s contained in your regulation that talks about infill
development and provides for cross easement. We don’t think that a shared driveway
with the adjoining property owner is an ideal situation because of the system, to design a
driveway at that location would block access to the site if we were to provide an
adequate throat. We would block that, and there’s not a circulation path around the
building. So that’s the reason that you’re offered a waiver, that the Planning Board’s
offered that decision making ability, okay, let’s look at the big picture. Have we achieved
the best possible entrance location, and we think we have.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re going to deal with that entrance location. That’s where
we are. One egress, one ingress/egress capability to that site. That’s where we are.
Okay. I understand.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. FORD-I have a question or two. As part of your analysis, one of the ideas that was
thrown out a number of months ago, and perhaps it was just dismissed that evening, as I
recall, was some sort of a coordinated light with the one at Lafayette and that
entrance/exit at your entrance. Was that discussed or considered in any detail?
MR. ROUND-We did discuss that here, I think it was at your suggestion, and I think our
response at that time is we’re only 200 feet away from an intersection. Addition of an
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
additional light at that location is problematic. Our site does not meet signal warrants
that would require a traffic light. Addition of another traffic light is an expensive
undertaking and our traffic analysis said we don’t have an issue that would require us to
install a light, and so I think that was our response in that fashion, and there is an ideal
separation distance. I’m going to say it’s on the order of 1,000 feet rather than 200 feet,
and I’ll let Mike answer.
MR. HARTMAN-No, there are a number of factors. The primary warrants for signals
would not be met at this location, due to the side road volumes. The separation between
the driveway and Lafayette is fairly minimal for installation of a signal, and the mitigation
that we’ve undertaken, being the restriction of left turns out of the driveway would
certainly mitigate probably one or two of the minor signal warrants, referring to safety
and engineering judgment that the Department sometimes uses for signalization.
MR. FORD-One other question. Because we keep referring, at this part of our
conversation, about safety, and it’s an issue I’m really very concerned with. As part of
your traffic analysis, did you analyze or come up with statistical information relative to
accidents in that immediate vicinity, currently? Because we obviously, if this is
approved, then obviously we’re going to increase the volume of traffic at this location.
MR. HARTMAN-Well, the latest available accident data from DOT is they procure it from
DMV. At the present time, what you get is a minimum of three years removed from this
point in time. So what we got for accident data was basically from the beginning of 2000
to the end of 2002. The accident ratio per mile of roadway from Route 9 to Glenwood is
basically about 40% less than the State wide average for similar roadways.
MR. FORD-How about in the immediate vicinity of Lafayette and Mark Plaza? That’s the
area we’re mostly concerned with right now.
MR. ROUND-That’s the segment we’re referring to.
MR. HARTMAN-It’s basically the same segment.
MR. FORD-How many accidents for that period?
MR. ROUND-I have some information in front of me that supplements. Again, the
A/GFTC has performed a study on Quaker Road, and they have in that report Page 29,
Table 7, 2001 through 2005 intersection crash rates, and Mike mentions the Quaker
Road and Lafayette intersection has eight crashes during that period.
MR. FORD-From when to when, please?
MR. ROUND-2001 to 2005. So that’s an intersection. Typically they’re not always
catalogued by intersections. They may be catalogued by highway segments. So that’s
eight, and that’s 0.2 crashes per million vehicles entering Quaker Road. The New York
State average crash rate is 0.29. So it is below what might be predicted based on State
averages.
MR. FORD-How many personal injury accidents occurred there?
MR. ROUND-It doesn’t provide that information in this report, but although that Quaker
Road to Bay Road there’s 20 crashes. Quaker Road/Route 9, or Quaker and
Meadowbrook 14 crashes, above those rates, and so this segment is not one of the
problem areas according to this report. I’m citing.
MR. FORD-It would be interesting to find out the number of personal injury responses
that came from that fire station on Lafayette.
MR. ROUND-But I think generally accidents are only reported unless they do involve
personal injury. So I would say that that’s that, or that they involved a reportable criminal
or traffic related event. So in that case, I think that’s what they’re trying to capture in that
statistic. So eight, again, I think was the number I said over a five year period.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I have one question on the site development, we’re talking about traffic
patterns, I noticed on the plan you have bus parking. There’s the 60 foot section. Is that
two buses? I’m not sure how long a bus is.
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. PATEL-It has the capacity for one bus, and depending on the season, we get, in
Saratoga like on a Sunday we’ll get a bus a day, on a Sunday for just tourist groups
coming out, and it’s rather minimal, but it’s still often enough for me to just know that I’d
rather a dedicated area for them to gather, and that’s where the whole center island
functions as well, as people are leaving, and coming, it provides an area for the motor
coach to wait.
MRS. STEFFAN-So those arrangements are usually made in advance?
MR. PATEL-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. That’s what I wondered, because the amount of traffic that I saw
going in, and I thought certainly with all the tour groups we have through our area, it
would be a good site.
MR. PATEL-Yes. Time is generally a sensitive issue for them, so they always call in
advance.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Based on what we saw down there when we went to dinner, I don’t know
that there’s a, you know, there’s a break in the action at the Golden Corral. It seems to
be pretty much crowded all the time. What I did is, so that you know, you know the drill
there, how you go in, you get your tray.
MR. PATEL-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-When we had our tray, the gentleman was very nice, and he said there
are no seats available right now. When there is one, I’ll put you in it, and we got in our
seat, and after we finished, I went up and I asked him a question. I said how many
people do you think you will feed on an evening like this? He said somewhere between
a little over 1,000 people, and then I said, what would you do in a week, and he said the
targets are somewhere between 11 and 12,000 people a week through that facility over
seven days.
MR. PATEL-That’s right now with track season in mind, that’s not so much what the
target is, it’s just what happens, is what we averaged right now during the six weeks of
track.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and what happens to us during the Balloon Festival, for example,
and during Christmas season and other times when people are out and about?
MR. PATEL-Christmas season, when it comes to square footage of retail space within a
certain amount of radius, my location in Wilton provides for more square footage. During
that peak season, the average weekly guest count ranges from eight to nine thousand
people on a week, and that’s across several different meal periods.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, how did he come up with the number of 11 to 12,000?
MR. PATEL-That’s what we average right now with the track season, and the amount of
people that that brings in.
MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t think we’ll ever get to that kind of volume in Queensbury?
MR. PATEL-Considering the proximity to, it’s really just an issue of how many people the
track brings in, average, during the six weeks that it’s open, that creates such an influx of
people, and I don’t see that happening, unfortunately, in Queensbury. I mean, I wish I
could say that it would create that much traffic, but I cannot see it.
MR. ROUND-You have valid concerns, Bob. In our traffic analysis we use actual traffic
counts from Albany.
MR. VOLLARO-We decided to go to Wilton.
MR. ROUND-Just let me finish my thought. We proposed to used actual field counts of
traffic at an actual Golden Corral Restaurant, at your direction, at the engineer’s
direction, we didn’t, we used ITE numbers, which overstated what we see actually in the
field, and I think everybody here will agree, Queensbury is not Saratoga. The
Queensbury demographic and the Queensbury market is different than Saratoga in that
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
the Saratoga mall is a bit busier than the Aviation mall, and I think a correlation might be
made that a Golden Corral in Queensbury might be a little less busier, regardless our
traffic analysis, which I think is the concern is how many vehicles will be entering and
exiting the site is overstated based on an ITE number and is overstated based on counts
at an Albany location. So I just want to offer that up.
MR. PATEL-And if I could say one last thing in respect to the problems you had in finding
a parking space, again, because of the track season, there’s a total of 208 spaces on the
site in Wilton, and that serves the Golden Corral as well as the 63 room Super 8, and if
my memory serves me right, I believe we were nearly at 100% occupancy at the motel
that night as well, and by 5 p.m., which I believe is when you said?
MR. VOLLARO-Six o’clock.
MR. PATEL-Six o’clock, all guests are checked in, because the track is closed. As a
matter of fact, that’s generally when the majority of our check ins do occur. So the
parking lot was at max, which also goes along with why I went for additional spaces,
because of exactly what you experienced. It’s safety on site. You’ve got to drive around,
circle the parking lot, and that’s why I did also go for the variance to avoid having the
same conflict here, having the potential for that conflict.
MR. VOLLARO-What I would ask to have done, and I’ll help you out with this, okay, as
far as the parking is concerned, I would like to see, and I’m sure anybody at Chazen can
do this, I would like to see a dynamic spreadsheet done on the parking field itself, the
ability of it to absorb cars. Now, it can be an Excel program. You can use all of the
information that you have given us to develop this spreadsheet for the number of people
in a car, the typical volume that you’re going to use. It must be obvious to you folks by
now that I’ve already done a spreadsheet of my own, and I’ll tell you the factors that I
used. Using Excel, which I’m sure you know how to do, I used the number of patrons. I
did a skewed curve to show that between the hours of five, six and seven o’clock is
where we peak. Would that be correct?
MR. PATEL-It would actually be between 6:30 and 8:00, is when we peak.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do your own peaking, it’s up to you. The total number of patrons,
the patrons per car, the cars in the lot, and cars leaving. What I did was take a look at a
th
piece of data that you gave me, Mike, that had to do with cars in and cars out on the 19
of December 2005, and I took that ratio and I said, that’s about the percentage of cars
that would vacate the lot, and it happened to turn out to be 25%. So in every hour, 25%
of the lot vacates. You can use those numbers. You can use whatever you want, but it’s
a spreadsheet that shows in the end cars remaining in the lot. Is there enough space left
for that lot to function? Now this can be done on Excel. It’s not brain surgery we’re doing
here. You get the idea of what I want to do. I came up with a spreadsheet that looks like
that. I want you to develop something similar, and I want C.T. Male to take a look at the
two spreadsheets and make a determination of which one is valid and correct.
MR. LAPPER-Bob, you know, it’s an understatement to say that you and this Board are
careful, but I guess I’d just like to point out that in my recollection the Outback
Steakhouse, which is a very similar facility, did not get this level of scrutiny.
MR. VOLLARO-It didn’t because it wasn’t a lot of this size, Mr. Lapper. I think Mr. Ford
and Mr. Sipp put it very succinctly, in my mind, and I’ll come out and say it, you know, I
think this is too small a lot for this facility, and it shows in the amount that we’re struggling
here. We struggled for almost a year, you know. Mr. Round says we’ve been here since
September. Next month we will be on this program for a period of one year. If it wasn’t
this tight, we would have been done by now.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess, just to talk about that, I think that, you know, in layman’s
terms, yes, this creates traffic. This is a big demand restaurant, but in general, we’re not
seeking a green space variance. So in terms of how we’re maxing out the lot, we’re not
seeking to put too much pavement, too much building on the site for what the Code
would allow. We’re staying away from the resource. We’re staying away from the
wetlands. We’re on the major road in Town in terms of traffic capacity, five lanes with a
turning lane. You’ve already got, it was pointed out by other Board members, Olive
Garden, Red Lobster, Applebee’s, I mean, there’s plenty of other restaurants that
operate successfully, and there’s just nothing special, I understand that the neighbor
next door is concerned. We’ve now shown you for the record those actual traffic
generation numbers and they’re very minor. We just don’t feel that your level of concern
is warranted for a restaurant. We’re here to answer every question and we’re going to
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
keep coming back, but just your level of concern we think might be blown out of
proportion for a restaurant on Quaker Road on a five lane State highway.
MR. VOLLARO-I think all the other restaurants that you’ve named are on far larger
pieces of property. This is a very constrained piece of property.
MR. LAPPER-Outback’s not, and that’s on a three lane highway rather than a five lane
highway.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they also have this huge amount of parking with the hotel.
They’re a companion, just like you’re a companion with your motel 8, I believe it is, and
they have a companionship with their own. So there’s a much larger capacity for
parking.
MR. ROUND-So are you predisposed to deny the project?
MR. VOLLARO-Not predisposed, I would be predisposed.
MR. ROUND-Well, are you asking us for information that you’re willing to weigh in an
unbiased manner?
MR. VOLLARO-The answer is I’m not predisposed, but I will define predisposition in this
way. If I had looked at this project back in September of 2005 and said I don’t like it,
that’s predisposition. After I spend a year looking at a project, I’m no longer predisposed
in this month of August of 2006.
MR. ROUND-So regarding the parking analysis, what are you seeking us to
demonstrate, prove or disprove? It might be helpful to have a copy of your spreadsheet,
rather than, so we can compare apples to apples.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve been advised by Counsel that I don’t do engineering work.
MR. ROUND-But you just asked the engineer to review your analysis?
MR. VOLLARO-That’s my engineer. That’s the engineer that works for the Town. I am
not in an engineering capacity in this seat. I’m a Board member.
MR. HARTMAN-And you’re looking for us to show that given the parking supply that’s
being proposed, that that parking supply will handle the demand for the restaurant, given
a normal turnover rate.
MR. VOLLARO-I think the turnover rate that Mr. Patel used in testimony the last time he
said between two and three times. I used only twice in my analysis. Not three. He’s
talking about table rotation now.
MR. PATEL-Two or three times per day. Not per hour.
MR. VOLLARO-You said per meal period.
MR. PATEL-No. Yes, you’re right, per meal period, I’m sorry, you’re right, which isn’t per
hour.
MR. ROUND-We want to give you what you’re asking for. It just seems that we were
here last month, or two months ago, and we thought we had responded for your
informational needs. I’ve heard quite a few different things tonight that have not been
discussed previously, and we did not receive the Fire Marshal’s comments, and we did
not receive the conflicting C.T. Male engineering calculations and so if you’re looking for
us to respond and give you information, that’s all we’re trying to do, but if you keep it
secret, then you create these needs without identifying what they are, we’re not going to
be able to meet your test.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s no secrets here. Wal-Mart took us the better of, I think. It takes
time to get these things through.
MR. ROUND-I’m not comparing ourselves to Wal-Mart. What I’m asking for is, with your
parking analysis, is not to do engineering. If you have a model that you want us to
replicate, wouldn’t it be easier for us to take your model and replicate it, rather than for us
to guess and have the man behind the curtain?
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think me making a model, which really is an engineering function,
making a model like that is my responsibility, I did it for me.
MR. ROUND-Okay, but you’re going to hold us, understood. We don’t need to, so we
will demonstrate a turnover of the parking and the capacity.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Round, doing an Excel spreadsheet is not, anybody in your company
can do this.
th
MR. ROUND-We know, but today is the 15 of August. Today is the deadline date for
submission. So when would our deadline date for this new information be? Would it be
th
September 15 for an October or November meeting? Because I’m just, and we were
th
here, ready to be here last month. We made a submission June 15 for an August
meeting, and we not put on the agenda for reasons unbeknownst to us, in contrast with
what the Town’s policy was, and so I just need to know, what is the target, what is the
deadline, what is the information that we’re seeking? I’m not trying to be argumentative.
You tell me what you need and we will provide it. Jon’s told you, we’re here. We’re
trying to provide you answers. Let me know, please be very clear, be black and white.
MR. VOLLARO-I can take 31 days to do that. I can take 31 days to write up a motion, if I
have to, to make it that clear, if you want.
MR. ROUND-Is that what I’m asking?
MR. LAPPER-He wants you to be more specific.
MR. VOLLARO-We’ll give you specifics. We’ll take a while to do it. There’s members of
the public here, who would like to talk, I believe. We still have to talk about a retaining
wall. We still have things to talk about in that area.
MR. ROUND-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to continue with that?
MR. ROUND-I’ve given you what we thought was a response to Staff notes, engineer’s
comments, and your previous input. So I’m all ears.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The first thing I need to do, and I don’t want to cause controversy
between myself and my Zoning Administrator, and I don’t want to air something in the
public if I don’t have to. I’m going to call your attention, first, to the wetland regulation of
179-6-100 where it talks about, except as provided in Section Three, and Section Three
has to do with, basically, exempt activities like farming and stuff of that nature. Except as
provided in Section Three, this Section, no person shall conduct a regulated activity on
any freshwater or adjacent area unless such person has first obtained a permit pursuant
to this Chapter, and then I said, what is the definition of adjacent? So I went to Webster,
and Webster says adjacent is to lie near or close to. Now, using that analogy and going
back to 179-6-060, under retaining walls, first of all, it says alteration to the shoreline, no
filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, ditching, excavating, of the shoreline, and I
understand that you’re back from the shoreline by about five feet, the shoreline being
defined as Mr. Lapper said in testimony not too long ago, the shoreline is really the
wetland delineation. I believe that’s what you said. Now, it says retaining walls, in
addition, expansion or replacement of any type of retaining wall shall be discouraged,
except in the case where the alternative of shoreline restoration to the natural state is
impossible due to excessive slope or severe erosion problems, a condition to be
determined by the Zoning Administrator. Retaining walls shall not be permitted to be
constructed for only aesthetic reasons, and I don’t think you’re doing that. You’re doing
that to support parking.
MR. LAPPER-And to stay away from the wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-That goes back to this word “adjacent”, in -100. Retaining walls shall not
be permitted or constructed, but when permitted retaining walls shall not exceed 16
inches in height as measured from the stationary mean high water mark, and the mean
high water mark is always stationary, even in Lake George it’s always the same, and
shall be constructed of native stone or a wood. When treated lumber is used for
construction of a retaining wall, it shall be of a sealed and nonleaching type. Now that’s
the definition in the Code of retaining walls, and the other part of the definition in -100
talks about, and I would ask the Zoning Administrator to clear that up for me. No person
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
shall conduct a regulated activity on any freshwater wetlands or adjacent area. What
kind of permit is required? Is that a special use permit that they’re talking about?
MR. BROWN-For a retaining wall?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because it says unless such person first obtained a permit pursuant
to this Chapter.
MR. BROWN-I think that the permit that’s referenced there is a site plan approval.
There’s no other permit that would apply in that case.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s interesting that they don’t say that, site plan approval. They
talk to the word permit. It threw me off the other night when I read this, and I said what
permit are they talking about? Is this a special use permit? I will ask the Zoning
Administrator that question. Your answer is really the permit is basically a site plan. Is
that what you’re saying?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have a hard time with that, because I think if the writer wanted to
say site plan review, he’d have said that. It seems that way to me. I mean, I don’t know.
I’d ask Counsel to jump in on that. I know the Zoning Administrator has the last word, in
interpretation of the Code, no question. Just, how does Counsel feel about the
difference in the wording here? When it says unless such person has first obtained a
permit pursuant to this Chapter. They’re talking about no person shall conduct a
regulated activity on any freshwater wetland or adjacent area unless such person has
first obtained a permit pursuant to this Chapter. The Zoning Administrator says the
permit is really a site plan, and if it is the site plan, what doesn’t it say that? What permit
are they looking for?
MR. HILL-I guess, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think you hit the nail on the head when you
said that the Zoning Administrator has the interpretation, and that’s what we have to go
by.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want other Planning Board members to understand that
there’s a section in here that talks about any freshwater wetland or adjacent area, which
means.
MR. BROWN-And if I could just continue a little bit. I guess I didn’t give the complete
answer. The permit that’s necessary is basically a Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly.
MR. BROWN-It’s done through the site plan review process.
MR. VOLLARO-Then an FWW is required here you think?
MR. BROWN-If it’s a DEC regulated wetland. It doesn’t apply to Army Corps wetlands.
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it falls under the Army Corps permit.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. VOLLARO-It falls under the Nationwide permit so long as the applicant doesn’t
exceed one tenth of an acre.
MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly, and if you exceed that then you have to go get a permit from
the Army Corps.
MR. VOLLARO-And it very well may be, looking at the parking situations and so on, and
the installation of the hydrant for the fire hydrant, and that moving the entrance to the
east may very well jump over the tenth of an acre, that has to go for a pre-construction
permit.
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s jumping way ahead. We’ll be able to get sufficient access
without disturbing wetlands.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sure you will, but we’re going to want to see it. I’m sure you’ll do
that. In any event, when it says when permitted, and the wall is being permitted,
apparently we’ll permit the wall.
MR. ROUND-But again, you’re reading from a section that talks about the Freshwater
Wetlands. So I wouldn’t think that that would be the case. Are you reading from the
Freshwater Wetlands?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m reading from shoreline and wetlands regulations, 060, there’s
two of them.
MR. ROUND-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s the shoreline and wetland regulations.
MR. ROUND-But the retaining wall issue.
MR. VOLLARO-Is in 060. It’s in the, the retaining wall area is in shoreline and wetlands
regulations section.
MR. LAPPER-Retaining walls were permitted and constructed at both Home Depot and
Lowe’s.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that, but neither of them, that I know of, were in wetlands,
and if they were.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not in wetlands either.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re five feet away, and that’s what I’m trying to get at in the word that
I see that says adjacent areas. Granted this is a little bit confusing. I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-Adjacent area is a defined term for State wetlands, because there’s a
buffer from State wetlands, but there’s not a buffer from Army Corp wetlands.
MR. VOLLARO-Say that again?
MR. LAPPER-Adjacent area is a defined term for DEC State wetlands because there is a
buffer area around State wetlands that you have to stay away from, but in Army Corps
wetlands, the edge of the wetland is the edge of the regulated area.
MR. VOLLARO-Does our Code reflect the Army Corps wetlands? In other words, does
this Code include that statement?
MR. ROUND-I think you start with the definition of wetland. The definition of freshwater
wetlands is State regulated wetlands, not Federally regulated wetland. My point was that
that following correspondence all applies to State freshwater wetlands, not Federal.
MR. VOLLARO-It would be nice if this Code said that, but it says all wetlands.
MRS. BRUNO-The first part of this, under the purpose, to promote and protect the public
health, welfare and safety and to protect economic property values, aesthetic and
recreational values, and other natural resource values associated with all lakes, ponds
streams, swamps or wetlands. So it really is including everything.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a very good point, though, because remember, again, if you just
take a step back, the reason why we put the retaining walls here is because, as Chris
has previously explained, we would have had to slope the grade to make it sufficient so it
wouldn’t erode. We would have had to slope the grade into the wetland. So this is,
again, another aspect of spending money and engineering to stay away from the
wetlands. These retaining walls are a good design because it protects the wetlands and
we have C.T. Male concurring on that.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re going to make the best looking retaining wall ever made.
That’s not the point. The point is that it doesn’t seem, in my mind, to comply with the
Town of Queensbury Code.
MR. ROUND-But the process is you make a site plan application. Your Zoning
Administrator and your Planning Staff look at that application and identify compliance
with the Code or non-compliance with the Code. We went through that process. The
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
areas that were defined as not being in compliance were the separation distance from
the wetland from the building in the front and the parking volumes that we’re asking for.
We proceeded to the Zoning Board of Appeals, back in September, under that guidance.
I think your Zoning Administrator is telling you that we are in the process of obtaining site
plan review, and the construction of the retaining wall is certainly being reviewed. We’re
not hiding anything in here. We’re not avoiding attempting acquisition of any permit that
you’re going to ask us to obtain. So I’m just curious as to what the punch line to this.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me give you the punch line.
MR. ROUND-My retaining wall should be 16 inches tall?
MR. VOLLARO-No. Just let me finish something here. Some quick math, real quick.
One tenth of an acre times 43,560 square feet is 4,356 square feet. That’s a tenth of an
acre. What you’re doing at .095 equates to 4,138 square feet. This is a difference of 218
square feet that you’re talking about here, over a 640 foot long retaining wall. You’ve got
to stay within that, and to me it’s just.
MR. ROUND-We’ve been here, Bob, it’s just, I’m sorry, I’d love to be a diplomat here but
we were here. Mr. Ford asked that same concern and said there’s a bit of a stink to your
calculation. We went to the Town engineer and we said our calculation includes five feet
outside the foot of our retaining wall, and your engineer opined that that seemed like it
was the adequate amount of buffer for this particular construction technique. Now we’re
going back. Regardless, a tenth of an acre of disturbance or a half an acre of
disturbance is regulated and permitted under Nationwide Permit No. 39. We’re
complying with that. We will comply with that today, tomorrow, and when this project
goes to construction. So we’re not circumventing the State or Federal regulatory
authority. We acknowledge it and we will comply with it.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you’ve done, the last time you had testimony here, you said
the .095 was a design criteria.
MR. ROUND-We designed to that, correct.
MR. VOLLARO-And I thought, and I think Jim Houston, in some comments he’s made,
also commented on.
MR. ROUND-He did, and if you read the record, he resolved himself to say that I’m
comfortable with that because our disturbance line is five feet away from our retaining
wall. So you have to allow some latitude there, and so we’ve acknowledged it. We’ve
designed to it. We’ve shrunk our site. We’ve used the retaining wall to minimize that,
and you’ve asked us to reduce an area over here. You’ve asked us to pull the wall back
even further. So we’re going to further reduce our wetland impacts, if that be your desire
tonight.
MR. VOLLARO-The wall that’s in there is not in the wetlands. That back wall is not in the
wetlands.
MR. ROUND-Yes, it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, a tiny, tiny bit.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-But it will change, now that the buffer’s changed.
MR. LAPPER-Right. It’ll be out of the wetland.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re looking at nine o’clock. There are some people here that have
raised their hand that they want to talk. I’d like to get some input from the public. I think
all of what, unless other Board members have certain questions now. Most of what I had
on here has been discussed. You are going to come up with a spreadsheet. That’s for
sure. So I would like to open the public hearing now and see what the public might have
to say about this, and then we can come back. Okay. I had some hands up before that
people wanted to talk to this, and I’d like to see who wants to speak to it now. I’m going
to give you each, Mr. Boychuk.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
AL BOYCHUK
MR. BOYCHUK-Al Boychuk from Mark Plaza on Quaker Road. My main objection would
be basically that the traffic flow coming from the east, from the west going east, from
Route 9 going east, the majority of the traffic, they would be coming in on the center lane
trying to make a left hand turn. You would be fighting traffic leaving Lafayette Street, the
intersection, and, you know, trying to get 10, 12, 15 cars that could back up through there
would be difficult.
MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. The applicant has provided an analysis, though, that says
that’s not going to happen. There’s only one car queued. Am I correct?
MR. HARTMAN-The average is about one car.
MR. VOLLARO-One car queued. That’s what they say. That’s their, and our C.T. Male
folks have looked at that and said, yes, that’s correct. So, you know, my hands are
pretty much tied. I feel that there is, and other people on this Board feel that there is
traffic congestion in that area, but based on engineering analysis, and anecdotal
information doesn’t count.
MR. BOYCHUK-Well, the other thing, Michael mentioned that the traffic, he’s counting
Saturdays and Sundays. I mean, truckers don’t deliver on Saturdays and Sundays.
Rarely will we have truck traffic coming in or deliveries to, whether it’s Passano or the
furniture store or Floor Master on Saturdays and Sundays. The majority of our delivery is
mid-week, and that would be, the peak would be the same for every day, seven days, for
the restaurant, but for us, our peak is mid-week, and that’s where they were just
measuring traffic that was coming in on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we wanted Friday, Saturday and Sunday because we thought that
that was probably for the restaurant traffic hitting the road.
MR. BOYCHUK-Well, that’s restaurant traffic, but he’s making it sound that there’s very
little traffic pulling in and out of Mark Plaza. You have Passano Paints. You have the
Northeast Parent Association in there, Realty USA, the aquarium, just the people
working there is more than what he mentioned coming in and out of the property on the
normal basis that are going to lunch even. So really some of their analysis with the traffic
flow is sort of, I feel different than what it is. So, but basically my main concern is the
traffic and congestion of the ins and outs of the restaurant that they’re proposing on
Quaker Road. The majority of all the other restaurants in Town, larger restaurants, are
all located at traffic lights.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true.
MR. BOYCHUK-This would be an exception to the rule of a major restaurant. It’s an
excellent restaurant. It’s a wonderful restaurant for the Town to have, but just the
location I feel is not suitable for the high traffic.
MR. VOLLARO-So you think fundamentally it’s a location problem?
MR. BOYCHUK-It’s the location more than anything else, for the amount of traffic that
that would create.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BOYCHUK-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I, too, am concerned
about the traffic. This common stacking lane in the center of Quaker Road that allows
people to make a left hand turn across the oncoming traffic serves the traffic moving in
both directions. Now what happens if traffic coming from the west going in to the Golden
Corral is meeting head on, or somebody else is parked in that lane waiting to turn left into
the Bank, for instance.
MR. VOLLARO-That capacitor only holds so many cars.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. SALVADOR-Not only that, it only holds traffic in one direction. If somebody’s
occupying it, what do you do? If you have to make your left beyond where they’re
parked, you can’t do it. You just bump into each other. It’s ill-conceived. That whole
traffic pattern is ill-conceived. Another question I have is the entrance and exit from the
Golden Corral, are those lanes equipped with acceleration and deceleration lanes off of
Quaker Road?
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know the answer to that. We’d have to ask the applicant.
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think you’re going to drive down Quaker Road at the speed that
you drive and turn right into the Golden Corral. You have to have a deceleration lane.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, there is none there now. That I can tell you.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think that’s essential. Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else want to speak to this application this evening?
Nobody? Nobody’s here for the Golden Corral. Interesting. You can come on up.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I have one piece of correspondence.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Received today, dated today, from Richard Newman, Vice President of
Facilities for TD Bank North, to the Secretary. “Dear Mrs. Steffan: We are in receipt of
the Notice of Public Hearing for the August 15, 2006 Planning Board hearing to review
the application of Northeast Dining & Lodging project on Quaker Road. This notice is
dated August 8, 2006. We regret to say that we do not recall receiving any prior notices
for this project which I believe has been in the works for some time now. Although we
are not opposed to the submitted restaurant project we have not been able to conduct
any sort of in depth review of its possible impact on our bank location just up the road.
We have had some discussions with another property owner in the area, Mr. Al Boychuk,
who has suggested that the restaurant entry might be better located on the Lafayette
Road in order to lessen the impact on the heavily traveled Quaker Road. This seems to
be a sensible suggestion and we hope the Board will give due consideration to this
alternate entrance at tonight’s hearing. Please forward any further communications for
this project to myself at the above listed address. Sincerely, Richard Newman, Vice
President – Facilities” And just for the record, TD Bank North is formerly First National
Bank. So whether there was a problem with First National or these guys. So that came
in today.
MR. VOLLARO-How come we didn’t notify, were they within the circle of notification?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And they say they didn’t get any?
MR. BROWN-That’s what they say.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s interesting.
MR. ROUND-I just want to apologize if my passion to give you information you request is
misinterpreted as anything other than that, a passion to give you the answers to the
questions that you have.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Round, we’re all here for the same reason. I don’t hold any problem
with you doing that.
MR. ROUND-Thank you. Regarding Mr. Boychuk’s comments, I think you responded in
kind that we have looked at the queuing analysis and it does not block that location. We
did look at the driveway counts for that particular site, during both a weekday and a
weekend peak hour, both on Saturday both during midday and a PM peak, and that’s
generally what we look at for commercial and retail facilities. Regarding the Bank’s
comment on accessing from Lafayette, I think we know that we’re on the opposite side of
the road, perhaps they’re confused with where we might be located.
MR. VOLLARO-They may be thinking of the piece of property that’s presently available
on Lafayette.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. ROUND-Yes, there’s a piece for sale.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a piece of property available which would be a great spot, I
think, I’m not a restaurateur so I don’t know.
MR. ROUND-It’s got its own issues.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got its own issues, okay.
MR. ROUND-And then I think there was a comment about deceleration, there was a
concern about the center turning lane and then acceleration, deceleration lanes. If you
look up and down Quaker Road, those facilities, the County’s generally frowned upon
those. You’ll see that striping of the center turn lane is rare anywhere, but I have to
report though that the access management plan that’s being prepared by A/GFTC, the
one I’ve referenced several times tonight, recommends center turning lane as a means
to get vehicles out of the highway and avoid those turning conflicts. So it is a facility that
is proposed. It’s something that we would propose that the County allow us to use, or
use uniformly on Quaker Road, and commercial driveways up and down Quaker Road
oppose one another. Route 9, the same situation exists, and people do manage to
navigate that where there are conflicting turning movements where you have vehicles
head on, one wanting to go left, you know, in opposing views. So it does work.
MR. VOLLARO-I would like to just go through the Board one time here, and get some
feeling from the Board. I know that, I’m going to apologize to my own Board here for a
minute. I seem to have been leading the parade here tonight, again, and it’s only
because I’ve done a lot of work on this, and I apologize if it looks like I’m trying to
supersede anybody else’s input. So I’m going to give people on the Board, and I’m
going to start with Don Sipp, to talk a little bit about his general overall feeling. I think he
talked about that before, but I’d like to give him an opportunity to speak to that now.
Don?
MR. SIPP-Well, I think you just said it. I’m not happy with the amount of traffic that this is
going to generate. Somebody already brought up the fact that major restaurants in this
area have access to the arterials at a traffic signal. The Applebee’s or Red Lobster,
Olive Garden, all can access these arterials through a traffic signal. You, I think, will
have the biggest of the restaurants, and therefore you have no access except a no left
turn, and this bothers me. It also bothers me the size of this in wetlands, and I do not like
the access that you have to the wetlands. There’s getting less and less of them, and I
think that the Town has made its point, the citizens of the Town, in the PORC meetings,
where traffic has been a major concern of the people and they’re drawing up their
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, traffic is something that they’re worried about. There
comes a time around Christmas when these intersections fail, and just adding more and
more cars to those Route 9, Quaker Road, Aviation Road is just, it’s just not going to
work. I don’t care what they Band Aid up on Aviation Road, that’s not permanent, and
it’s not a very good fix. So I am very concerned about this. I shouldn’t, I think another
site which had access to the arterials which were controlled by a traffic signal which
would be much better for everybody concerned.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Don. Tom?
MR. FORD-I perceive this as five pounds of goods in a four pound bag. I believe that we
would really appreciate Golden Corral and I encourage you to come into Queensbury. I
encourage you to find a different site. I would encourage you to, as a part of your, if
you’re going to continue your analysis of traffic then please take into consideration
seriously the safety of the people of Queensbury, and of everybody else who would be
using this facility and the surrounding facilities. If you were to check with the State
Police, the Sheriff’s office and the officials at Queensbury fire station responding to
accidents in that immediate area, I think you might find some differences in statistics
other than those that were provided this evening. I encourage you to look elsewhere.
MR. VOLLARO-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I kind of feel like we’ve beaten this to death this evening. I mean, we
spent well over two hours. We have a short list of about five items. We went off on a 20
minute fishing trip at the expense of everyone in the room, which I think was really
unfortunate.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t understand that, Chris. I don’t understand fishing trip at all. What
do you mean?
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you were the only one confused about the Code, and I didn’t
think it was worth 20 minutes of the Board’s time and the public time’s to clarify
something that you could have asked Staff in private, but that’s my own point. We have
a short list of items. I think the question that you really should be asking the Board is
really what Mr. Round alluded to. If they come back with this information, are we willing
to approve it, and I think that’s kind of what you’re really asking us, in trying to
summarize our thoughts and comments.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s true.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I can’t answer that question for anybody else.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tanya, how do you feel?
MRS. BRUNO-Well, I have to say that I did really commend the time, the effort, the
engineering and the passion that you’ve all put into the project. You’re great examples. I
mean, I hope I didn’t sound like I was speaking against that. I have to really say that I
echo Mr. Ford and Mr. Sipp in terms of, it just feels like it doesn’t fit. Again, I’ll use the
domino effect. We change one thing, something else goes awry. We just keep moving
down the Board, and we’ve got to come back around to fixing the first thing again, and I
can understand your frustration. I, too, would suggest perhaps looking for a larger site,
maybe one that isn’t quite so close to a wetland, however that be defined. That’s it.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I came in tonight with some areas of concern on stormwater,
ingress/egress access, buses, the back of the restaurant, neighbors, because of our visit
to the site, the garbage issues, parking adequacy and the effect on the neighbors. I had
some traffic concerns, the retaining wall issue, and then the excavation issues, and
many of those have been addressed for me. I think that there’s a lot going on on this
site. There’s an extraordinary amount of mitigation that needs to make this site usable
for your purpose, but all the science that you’ve provided works, on paper. I don’t have a
crystal ball. I don’t know whether the accident rate’s going to go up or not. I just have
the data to analyze, and for right now I think that, based on the discussion, I’ve identified
six issues that came up, based on the discussion, that the applicant would need to come
back with, and the only thing that I’m really concerned about right now is the parking
adequacy and whether it can meet the customer demand for the restaurant, and so I
initially thought that another site would be better, but that’s not up to me to decide, and
so I’ve got the items here, and if the applicant would come back with those items, I’d be
ready to take a vote on it. The other thing is that the applicant also mentioned that
they’ve waited a long time to come back, and I know that we’ve reduced our item limit for
our meetings, and so if we are going to table this, I would like to make a recommendation
that we extend the submission deadline for another week, and put the applicant on the
th
September 26 agenda as an eighth item.
MR. VOLLARO-9/26?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Mr. Seguljic.
MR. SEGULJIC-If I could interject here, I guess overall, I’m in the school of I think it’s just
too much for the site. What it comes down to for me is the eight foot retaining walls.
Those are pretty high retaining walls, and I don’t see any detail about how you’re going
to, you must have to have some type of structure up there to prevent people from going
off the retaining wall. I don’t see that in the details. I may have missed it. I don’t know
what that impact is going to have on your parking, if it’s going to push it back or not, but
an eight foot retaining wall is pretty extensive. Then also when I look at the Code, under
the wetland section, shoreline and wetland section, it discourages, no fill or hard
surfacing shall be permitted within 50 feet of any lake, pond, river, stream or wetland,
except under Planning Board approval, and then it goes further to define the wetlands
will be determined by New York State DEC, Queensbury and any other government
agency having jurisdiction. I mean, eight foot retaining walls, those are excessive if you
ask me, and you’re cutting into the wetlands with them, and that just tells me you’re really
pushing the limits.
MR. VOLLARO-So you think, essentially you’re saying you’re agreeing with Mr. Ford and
Mr. Sipp?
MR. SEGULJIC-Yes.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-But the applicant’s position is they’re protecting the wetland by putting
the retaining walls in place.
MR. SEGULJIC-How would you protect the wetlands by putting eight foot retaining walls
in?
MR. LAPPER-Because the retaining wall is outside of the wetland. So it keeps any
activity up on a different level away from the wetland. It’s sedimentation and stormwater
runoff. Remember, we haven’t talked about this because it was earlier in the project, but
the stormwater is going to be treated. It’s going to come off the building and off the
parking lot and go into filters under the parking lot. Nothing sheet drains off the parking
lot over the retaining walls cascading into the wetlands, if you will. It goes into this
system. So it’s being treated for quality before the sedimentation is collected. So we’re
protecting the wetland with the stormwater system, and the retaining wall is a way of
constructing the improvements on the site without disturbing the wetland. I mean, this is
an expensive way to engineer a site to stay away from the wetlands, and again, I just
remind you, it’s a permitted use in the zone. It’s not easy to find a place in Queensbury
where you can put a restaurant and this applicant has gone to, is proposing great
expense for a restaurant to do it right under the Code, and every time an issue is raised,
we’ve come back and said, okay, we’ll do what has to be done, and C.T. Male, which has
studied this thing and come back with many, many letters. We made many, many
changes. They are satisfied with it. So I think that a lot of what you’re saying and what
the neighbors are saying is anecdotal in terms of traffic. Quaker Road is the road with
22,000 cars a day, where you’re supposed to put a facility like this, as long as it’s
designed right. Our job is to design it right. So it’s only site plan. It’s not a special use
permit. Certainly you need to scrutinize this, but nobody can say that you haven’t
scrutinized it and we’ll continue to make changes, but, you know, at some point it’s the
applicant’s right to put a restaurant on a site where it’s permitted as long as they do it
right.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess just getting back to your eight foot retaining wall to protect the
wetland, I’m confused about that. I mean, all you have to have is like a one percent
slope or less. You’re really putting an eight foot retaining wall there to meet your parking
requirement.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re not using the green space. We’re providing sufficient green
space under the Town Code for this site. So if we were to not put up a retaining wall, we
would have to have a slope, and Chris has explained that if you were going to slope it,
you would have to be whatever, 15% grade, what have you, and to do that.
MR. ROUND-It would be a much larger impact on the wetland boundary.
MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing wrong with retaining walls, as long as they’re designed
right. Home Depot, Lowe’s, Lowe’s was actually the same thing with Halfway Brook.
Around Applebee’s there’s all retaining walls to stay away from Halfway Brook, the same
design.
MR. FORD-Same height?
MR. LAPPER-They’re pretty substantial. If you’re looking at the right side between the
car wash and Applebee’s on the right side of Applebee’s, if you look over the edge of the
parking lot, there’s some wood guard rails and there’s a pretty significant retaining wall. I
would guess it’s probably around eight feet, and I know at Home Depot it was about 35
feet on the right side of Home Depot.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t even think they were even getting close there. They were no five
feet away from a designated wetland.
MR. LAPPER-That I don’t remember, Bob, but I know in terms of retaining walls it’s
certainly something that happens all the time.
MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, where do we want to go with this?
MR. FORD-We’re up to you, Bob.
MR. PATEL-Mr. Vollaro?
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. PATEL-This is the first time I’ve been through a SEQRA process, and I guess I’m
confused. We’ve spent nine months going through a SEQRA of which a lot of time was
spent discussing wetlands and wetland impacts, and traffic. You requested a traffic
impact study, spent the money behind that and had the traffic impact study done. Was
thorough, came back I believe 60 days after the traffic impact study was submitted to be
heard again. I guess I’m just wondering what the Neg Dec means to day if we’re still
discussing the same issues. I just don’t understand, and I haven’t had a chance to ask
either of them.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re dealing with site plan. These are site plan issues that we’re
dealing with.
MR. PATEL-I understand that, but the issue’s come up about five feet from the nearest
wetland or how the retaining wall is going to be a negative impact on wetlands.
MR. VOLLARO-That is a site plan issue. That’s what we’re dealing with, the issues
involved with this site.
MR. PATEL-But I believe most of that was discussed prior to the Negative Declaration.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you take a look at the way that went down, on Part I, when we
said how much material had to be removed from the site and the answer was zero, and
your crew came up with 10,000, with zero, then 10,000 square feet, now it’s a little bit
more. My C.T. Male engineers have come up with 20,000 square feet. Twenty thousand
square feet is in black and white.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ve got 10,900.
MR. VOLLARO-You have 10,900. I realize that, but this has to be looked at. There’s a
discrepancy here between C.T. Male’s analysis and Chazen’s analysis.
MR. PATEL-I accept that fully. I accept that there’s discrepancy, but I just don’t
understand the wetland issues that still exist today. That’s all I’m just confused about.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, in my view, looking at the Code, and trying to assimilate this Code,
I feel that there is a wetland impact here. The reason I feel that is because designing to
a tolerance like .095 is, like I said, over the whole 640 feet of that wall, you’ve got to
maintain 218 feet. You can’t go over 218. It seems to me that you could have easily
gone to the point, and gone to the pre-construction notice to the Army Corps.
MR. ROUND-So you’d like us to increase our wetland impact to meet?
MR. PATEL-I can respect your concern there, because I’m, similar to you, I’m not an
engineer, but I believe two very reputable engineering firms, located here locally, have
both met, discussed, submitted documents, reviewed documents, and have agreed that
it’s accurate, that we are not.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, I have to ask the engineering representative here, are you
in complete agreement with this, or do you feel there’s still some outstanding issues that
you have to look at?
MR. EDWARDS-In terms of the wetlands, Bob? These wetlands were delineated and
the impacts were defined by Chazen, and we did not send out a field representative to
verify that, but they’re the licensed professional that we have to believe is the truth.
Based on that, we then looked at the other elements like the retaining walls, and we
agreed that after some initial concerns these wetlands could be built within the buffers
indicated because of the type of retaining wall and the type of fill behind the wall we’re
talking about here.
MR. VOLLARO-I think really when I looked at Jim Houston’s comments, and I’ve got
them here to break out, but he registered to me several times in his responses that he
had a concern about that .095 being so close to the .1 disturbance area. Now maybe
he’s resolved that in his mind and if he has, that’s fine.
MR. EDWARDS-I think it was based probably on the type of construction of the wall.
That was a concern of Jim’s, I know that, but, yes, initially the red flag was raised, the
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
threshold for a permit is .1. They’re at .095, gee, that’s awfully close. Let’s take a close
look at that to see exactly what’s going on here. The retaining wall details weren’t
forthcoming at that point, but now we know what type of wall is being proposed and the
type of geo grid that’s behind the wall to retain the parking lots and so forth, and if done,
you know, if there’s silt fencing and protective fencing put up along that barrier with the
wetland, it could be built as proposed, we feel.
MR. ROUND-We acknowledge that there’s a wetland impact. The Planning Board, I
mean, we’ve identified it. I think you, in your SEQRA Negative Declaration, found that
that was not a significant adverse environmental impact, and I think that’s what Mr. Patel
is struggling with. Well, why is it we’re struggling, you know, regardless of whether you
call it site plan or SEQRA, the wetland impact has been identified. We all acknowledged
it, and it’s not an adverse environmental impact associated with that. So how is it now a
site plan issue that hadn’t been resolved before? Because typically the way the process
would work is that, hey, we think this is a significant wetland impact issue. You need to
propose an alternative. We would come back and present that. You found that there
was not an adverse impact. We continued with the design that we have and continue to
put forth that design.
MR. EDWARDS-Which, by the way, you know, the final design details, that was sort of
an issue that we had way back when, too, and they haven’t been brought to us yet. I
think that was something that was decided upon that it would be a building permit stage
review and approval by our company.
MR. ROUND-That’s right.
MR. EDWARDS-So we have not seen all the detail for the top rail of the retaining wall,
for the actual wall itself, for the foundation of the wall being placed on imported fill and
compaction and all that stuff. We have not seen that yet.
MR. LAPPER-But it can be built.
MR. EDWARDS-Yes, again, our opinion was it could be built.
MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I think we’re spinning our wheels here.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-I think what we want to do is that they know how we feel, and I think
what we need to do is we’ve got to make a motion here, and it’s got to be some type of
tabling motion, I assume.
MR. VOLLARO-It’ll be a tabling motion, yes, and we’re going to take a little while to do it,
I think, because they’re going to want, unless we’re going to, you know, we don’t have to,
by law, don’t have to do these motions under this kind of pressure. We’ve got time to put
them together. We have 31 days to make a motion, and I, personally, would like to take
that time, to sit down with a couple of Board members.
MR. ROUND-Do you want to give it to us in the next Planning Board meeting?
MRS. STEFFAN-Well, can I try?
MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I beg to differ. I mean, I have a short list of five
items.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you what, those of you that think you can make a motion tonight.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll follow Gretchen’s lead and I’ll add as I need to.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
th
Tabled to the seventh, and last, item on the September 26 meeting with a submission
deadline of 8/22, which is one week from tonight. For the applicants to return with the
following nine items:
37
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
1.Analysis of materials to be removed from the site, specifically amount of fill to
be removed and the amount to be brought back in.
2.The estimated amount of truck trips for the fill removed and brought back.
3.Correction of the Stormwater Prevention Plan, Page 25. The 25 year storm
event needs to be changed to the required 50 year storm event according to
our Code.
4.Alternative design for the entrance to meet Planning Board traffic flow
concerns as previously discussed and Fire Marshal’s comments for
emergency services access.
5.Plans altered to maintain the 50 foot Type C buffer to the north of the property
with additional plantings.
6.A dynamic spread sheet of projected patron visits showing patrons, patrons
per car, projected cars in the lot, cars leaving the lot, cars remaining in the lot,
for hours of operation, the goal of which is to show parking supply with
projected turnover rates to ensure adequate parking spaces to accommodate
customer demand.
7.Placement of a fire hydrant in the southwest corner of the lot. That was a
projection that the Fire Marshal had asked. A floor plan, because the Fire
Marshal has asked for that in his letter.
8.The detail for the top of the retaining wall, in terms of barriers.
9.The sign details for the building.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think we still have an open public hearing at this point,
and you’re talking about a tabling motion, just to clarify.
MR. VOLLARO-I want to keep the public hearing open, that’s my plan.
MR. HILL-So you would suggest that that be part of the motion, then, is that right?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can just define it from the chair that this public hearing will remain
open until the next meeting.
MR. HILL-I think it’s important that that be on the record that the public hearing is
remaining open. That’s all. Thank you.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. So the motion contains nine elements.
MR. HUNSINGER-And I did second it.
th
MR. BROWN-Scheduling questions. You talked about the September 26 date.
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes.
MR. BROWN-You mentioned an extended deadline. Did you have something in mind.
MRS. STEFFAN-I said 8/22, one week from tonight.
MR. BROWN-I’m sorry.
MRS. STEFFAN-So we’ve extended the deadline one week.
MR. BROWN-And you mentioned as an eighth item on that meeting. I think a recent
resolution, you guys limited the number of items you were going to take in September to
six per meeting. So this would be a seventh, and the only reason that’s a big issue to me
at all is that we’ve got seven on tonight and it’s almost ten o’clock and we’re not even at
Number Two, so do we want to have seven more, or have it as a seventh item? I mean,
we can certainly schedule it to have many less items on that meeting and keep these
guys on that meeting, and I’m certainly not one to suggest extra meetings, but again,
we’re almost up to three hours on this one application.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-I would like to change that to the seventh item and have it be the last
item on the agenda.
MR. BROWN-Okay. We can do that.
MR. VOLLARO-Whenever we get into this situation, I would prefer to see what’s on the
th
board for the 19 of September, and I think if I’m going to set the meetings up, I’d like to
thnd
look at the 19 as opposed to the 22.
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s your motion.
th
MR. HUNSINGER-The motion was for the 26. It was seconded and we started to vote
on it.
MR. VOLLARO-The Chairman normally sets the agenda.
MR. BROWN-Yes, but this is Mrs. Steffan’s motion, so if it doesn’t pass.
thth
MRS. STEFFAN-The only reason I picked the 26 was versus the 19 was because the
applicant has had a few issues where they haven’t gotten correspondence, like the Fire
Marshal’s correspondence and the C.T. Male correspondence. So I picked the second
meeting so that there would be a better window of time for them to get the information
th
that they needed. So that’s why I picked the 26 .
nd
MR. VOLLARO-You picked the 22.
MRS. STEFFAN-9/26.
MR. VOLLARO-9/26, that’s fine. I thought you were up at 8/22.
MRS. STEFFAN-That’s for the submission deadline. So they have to get their
submissions in in a week.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, 9/26 is the meeting. That’s what you want. I’m sorry. I
understand.
MRS. STEFFAN-I think we’re all on the same page.
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mr. Ford
MR. HUNSINGER-Just so you know, I had the same items that you did, except I had two
of them lumped together as one. So we were on the same page.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we’re all set. We will see you in a month.
MR. PATEL-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to get back on to this agenda. I’ve had a discussion with
our Zoning Administrator, a few minutes ago, and a suggestion was made that we’re at
quarter to ten now, and what we’re going to try to do is take the first four items that are
on the agenda. I think they are James Wood and Mark Darius, Thomas and Christine
Dittus and Charles & Lisa Munzenmaier, The Glen at Hiland Meadows, and the VFW,
and we’re going to take only those four. So if anybody is here for Steve Cardona, for
Steven & Debbie Seaboyer, and for the Stark Group, we’ll have to leave them to the next
week, to be re-scheduled.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that was just a suggestion. I mean, if you guys certainly want to plow
through it all, you can, but don’t keep them here and then tell them they’re not going to
be heard at 11 o’clock.
MR. VOLLARO-I want to know how the Board feels about that. If you’d rather do that, or
you want to go through them. There’s six of them to go, I believe. How do you feel?
Chris?
39
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. HUNSINGER-I think that’s probably a wise decision.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. FORD-I think in fairness to everyone concerned, we should do exactly that.
MR. VOLLARO-Do what, Tom?
MR. FORD-Do what you just recommended.
MR. VOLLARO-Limit it? Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-The question is when are we going to schedule them to?
MR. BROWN-I think you could table them to the beginning of next week’s meeting and
then if the same thing happens at the end of next week’s meeting.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I mean, I don’t think anybody envisioned three hours for this application.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m good to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-We need a motion.
MR. BROWN-You should formally table them, yes. There’s been public hearings
opened.
MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing is open. We’ll table the three applications that I
mentioned. Starting off with, I believe, we’re starting off with Steven Cardona, Debbie
Seaboyer are going to be, and the Stark Group, will be tabled to the next meeting, which
is 8/22.
MR. BROWN-What you may want to consider is, again, whatever ones had public
hearing noticed for them, you may want to open the public hearing and there may be
people here that can only make it tonight, allow them to comment if they choose to, and
then try and deal with it at the next meeting, or just not take anything.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s too confusing.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Just put them off to the next meeting. I think that’s the best thing we can
do.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll second that motion.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Maria, do you want to call the vote, the vote to only go with four
applications this meeting.
MOTION TO ONLY GO WITH FOUR APPLICATIONS THIS MEETING, Introduced by
Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: Mrs. Steffan
MR. VOLLARO-And those three will be tabled to 8/22.
MR. FORD-May I ask a question for protocol here?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. FORD-What about those that had public participation? Does that need to be re-
advertised?
MR. BROWN-No. I think you’ve picked a specific date to table them to. So the public
hearing notice will carry over to that date.
MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JAMES WOOD/MARK DARIUS
OWNER(S): MARK DARIUS ZONING MIXED USE – MU LOCATION 156 RIVER
STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AUTO SERVICE
USE TO INCLUDE AUTO SALES. NEW AUTO SALES USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY
THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE UV 14-06, AV 62-94, SP 39-94
WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: NCI LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
303.20-2-38 SECTION 179-4-010
MARK DARIUS & JAMES WOOD, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project? I’ve been over to
your building, by the way, took a look at it. Drove over, walked around. Your building
door is open, you know, you have an open door on the building, on the place where
you’re going to do your sales.
MR. DARIUS-Today?
MR. VOLLARO-No I did it on Saturday morning about 10 o’clock.
MR. DARIUS-I was in Toronto so I don’t know.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-Could you please introduce yourself for the minutes.
MR. DARIUS-Mark Darius, present.
MR. WOOD-James Wood.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Do you want to tell us a little bit about what you’re going to do?
Do you have any idea what you’re going to do with that site?
MR. DARIUS-I own the property at River Street in Queensbury. I’ve owned it since
1989. I no longer repair cars. I offered to rent the building out to Jim to sell cars and do
auto repair, and I’ve been nine months getting approval to do something that I’ve done
since 1989 on this piece of property. So now we’re in front of the Planning Board to
approve a plan that was already approved in 1995. The big difference is there won’t be
80 or 100 cars in the lot being fixed. There may be, I think we have 20 cars for sale, and
a little bit of auto repair, and that’s the project.
MR. VOLLARO-I notice that all the cars on the lot were unlicensed. They’re unlicensed
because they’re for sale, is that the idea?
MR. WOOD-I currently own a car dealership in Granville, and I’m using Mark’s property
right now to repair cars that I own through my car dealership. So, yes, they are
unlicensed but they are on the books, with my car dealership in Granville.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just real quick, you know what, I’m not going to take the lead on
this at all. Mr. Hunsinger, would you like to make a comment on this application?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I thought it was pretty straightforward.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tanya?
MRS. BRUNO-No, I’m okay.
MRS. STEFFAN-I thought we would be voting on something that had already been
approved. So I don’t have any questions.
MR. SEGULJIC-Right, that’s essentially it. You had the approvals. There was a lapse in
the approval. You had to come back before us again to resuscitate that approval.
41
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. DARIUS-Yes.
MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one comment. I’ll make it after. Tom, how about you?
MR. FORD-Is there currently any activity going on on site other than car repair?
MR. VOLLARO-There’s nothing going on on the site right now.
MR. WOOD-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re repairing cars, correct?
MR. WOOD-Yes, the cars, as I stated before, for my car dealership. That’s it.
MR. FORD-There’s no sales going on, correct?
MR. WOOD-No sales, and there’s no repair of any vehicles that aren’t owned by my
dealership.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MR. SIPP-Would you be taking in other vehicles for repairs?
MR. WOOD-At this point, I’m going to say no. All we’re going to do is repair vehicles that
we have purchased for re-sale. We’re not going to register as a repair shop immediately.
As things grow obviously we’ll probably be back before you to do that, but at this point
I’m going to say no.
MR. SIPP-You have a New York State?
MR. WOOD-Retail motor vehicle license.
MR. SIPP-Retail motor vehicle.
MR. WOOD-Yes.
MR. SIPP-And repair?
MR. WOOD-And we do not have a repair license at this time, no.
MR. SIPP-So you can’t inspect vehicles or sale?
MR. WOOD-No. We cannot inspect the vehicles.
MR. SIPP-Is there a sign presently on this piece of property?
MR. WOOD-On 156 River Street?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. WOOD-No, there is not.
MR. SIPP-But do you propose to have a sign?
MR. WOOD-There will be a registered New York State Retail Motor Vehicle sign, as
required for New York State, and there’ll be a sign affixed to the building.
MR. SIPP-That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one quick question. I noticed on the building, on the variance
approved application, building plan says that the new addition that you put on, the
addition that is to the west, the most recent addition, the block building, when that was
submitted, there was a drawing here that talked about a new septic system, yet I notice
in your covering letter you say that it was never built?
MR. WOOD-No, it was not.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and I only have a very simply question. If it wasn’t built, how did it
ever get a Certificate of Occupancy, and why was the Certificate of Occupancy issued
almost five years after the Planning Board approval, five years, eight months? I don’t
understand it, but I’m not going to hold it. If anybody wants to make a motion, go right
ahead.
MR. FORD-There’s no public input on this?
MR. VOLLARO-I asked the public if they wanted to speak on this, I didn’t get anything.
MR. DARIUS-We do have a Certificate of Occupancy for auto repair only at this point.
So we wouldn’t have to come back in front of the Board to get auto repair in the building.
Again, we have a Certificate of Occupancy from whoever issues them in Queensbury to
fix cars there. We’re here for the auto sales.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. What happened with the septic, just for information.
MR. DARIUS-There’s bathrooms in the original part, and in 1992, we’ve heard several
times septic’s coming through, sewer’s coming through, sewer’s coming through, and the
way my luck runs, I’d put the septic system in, spend $6,000 to make sure we have
septic lines coming through. So I’m waiting.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I see.
MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody want to make a motion? Is this Unlisted?
MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it is. We have a public hearing, too.
MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing I opened and closed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 23-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JAMES WOOD/MARK DARIUS, 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
43
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
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 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Everything looks good. Does somebody want to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2006 JAMES WOOD/MARK DARIUS,
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 expansion of an existing Auto Service use to
include Auto Sales. New Auto Sales uses require review by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 8/15/06; 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:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, and Paragraph Four complies, Paragraph
Five, Unlisted and Negative, and no conditions, and I note in this motion that waivers
were requested for stormwater management, landscaping and lighting, and those
waivers will be granted.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re all set.
MR. DARIUS-Thank you very much.
MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck on your project.
SUBDIVISION 1-1992 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE THOMAS & CHRISTINE
DITTUS; CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING
WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL – WR-1A LOCATION 2780 & 2760 ST. RT. 9L
44
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
APPLICANTS PROPOSE A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BEWTEEN 2 LOTS TO
FACILITATE PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS REQUIRE
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 25-01, SP 42-92
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES: LG LOT SIZE
1.40 & 2.68 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-88, 95 SECTION A-183
THOMAS DITTUS & CHARLES MUNZENMAIER, PRESENT
MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are?
MR. DITTUS-Tom Dittus.
MR. MUNZENAIER-Charlie Munzenmaier.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry to keep you so long. Of course, I met with you when I came on
to the site to review the site. So do you want to tell us a little bit about what’s going on up
there.
MR. DITTUS-The Dittus and Munzenmaier properties originally were owned by one
family and they put in a driveway and they kind of chopped it up, right of way here, right
of way there, separate up top, kind of bottled up. A year and a half, two years ago, I
talked with Craig Brown and put in a driveway of my own out to 9L. The existing
driveway is still there, and what we’d like to do is have that driveway totally on the
Munzenmaier’s land. So then we’d each have our own separate driveway.
MR. VOLLARO-And that’s the purpose of the lot line adjustment as well?
MR. DITTUS-So that it’s totally on Charlie’s land.
MR. VOLLARO-I notice that there’s a piece of property here that’s T & C Dittus. It looks
like it should, you have a new plan that shows that these two properties were joined?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-John Grady ran that up here and gave it to somebody. He gave
me a call that you folks wanted revisions.
MR. DITTUS-It shows part of the property on this.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got the same drawing you do. I think it’s dated May 25, 2006. Is
that what you’re looking at?
MR. DITTUS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We have the same one. There was a request by Staff that these
two things be joined. Apparently Mr. Grady is your land surveyor. I think we may have
one.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-He gave me a call and said he delivered it.
MR. VOLLARO-See this piece in here, it has to be joined with this piece. They want the
two properties to be joined together because of this. Mr. Brown, we could probably
condition an approval on this based on the receipt of a map adjoining those properties?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I’m not finding anything in the file. I do see another map similar to
this one, with a letter from John Grady dated August 29, 2005. It’s a description of
probably the new boundary line I think what Staff was looking for in the comments were
that this subdivision map be inclusive of all the other land, the driveway land, I guess that
you got from Cantanucci be incorporated on your lot and all that be reflected on one
map, and this just shows kind of ghosted on there, but it needs to be drawn on as your
actual property line. That’s all.
MR. DITTUS-I probably have several of those at home. I thought when you came and
said everything looked like this should be okay, there shouldn’t be a problem, I didn’t
know that I would need that. That’s why I don’t have it.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know it either until I read the Staff notes, but we could probably
condition this approval based on the receipt of that information from Mr. Grady. Okay.
Other than that, there’s just the lot line adjustment that we have to look at which is a
pretty simple one.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. MUNZENMAIER-What he did there for his driveway doesn’t affect me.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand that. You’ve got the stone driveway. Yours is the
stone driveway, right?
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Partial stone, right.
MR. VOLLARO-All right.
MR. SEGULJIC-And your driveway has been constructed, then?
MR. DITTUS-Yes, yes, almost two years ago.
MR. SEGULJIC-The lot line adjustment is an afterthought.
MR. DITTUS-So the reason for this, that you need that, it’s not because you need an
average width or something? Because I saw something like that in the letter, and that
was?
MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s got nothing to do with the average width of the driveway. What it
has to with is to make sure those two properties are joined. That’s the only thing that the
new drawing would show.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think the issue of the average lot width has been ironed out. I think
we just need to graphically show where these two properties are on one map, and now
that your property has grown with your driveway land, that just needs to be mapped out,
to show what your lot looks like now. Because they’re not two separate parcels, it’s all
one parcel, correct?
MR. DITTUS-They’re adjacent.
MR. BROWN-It’s one parcel.
MR. DITTUS-You have nothing from back then showing that?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. With that, is this an Unlisted as well?
MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s a modification.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s a previously approved subdivision. So you can re-affirm your
previous SEQRA if you want to.
MRS. STEFFAN-So with the drawing denoting the adjoining pieces they’ll have their 300
foot, so they don’t need a variance.
MR. VOLLARO-They don’t need a variance, no.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we just have a condition of receipt of a new drawing denoting
the adjoining Dittus property.
MR. MUNZENMAIER-Can I ask a question about the new drawing? It’s for his property,
etc. Does it have to be revised on this print?
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think what you want to do is revise the subdivision map, and the
subdivision is for both parcels.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s got to show both.
MR. DITTUS-Originally we just requested what we have here, correct, if I understood
you correctly.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. DITTUS-Now you do need that extra one?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
46
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s to your benefit to have a drawing that shows that that piece of
property is tied into the existing piece. It’s to your benefit to do that, really.
MR. DITTUS-I’ve got it with my piece. I don’t have it with Charlie’s property on it. It’s not
to my financial benefit, I’ll tell you that, but I understand what you’re saying.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MRS. BRUNO-Bob, I believe we have a public hearing on this.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Is there anybody here that wants to speak to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I understand that this is a
previously approved subdivision. There’s a subdivision plat on file.
MR. VOLLARO-To my knowledge the answer is yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and what you’re seeking to do here is to alter a line on that
subdivision, between two parcels of land.
MR. VOLLARO-Between two parcels of land.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Now what we’ve done here is we’ve used interchangeably the
following terms. On Page Two of the agenda, it refers to a boundary line adjustment.
On the first page of Staff notes it refers to a lot line adjustment, and on Page Two of Staff
notes, it refers to boundary line agreement. Now, these terms are not interchangeable
and there are only two terms that are applicable. One is called a lot line change, and the
other is called a boundary line agreement. What’s involved here is a lot line change
which you have the authority to change because it’s a previously approved subdivision.
The plat was approved by this Board, and therefore you can alter one of those lines,
okay. A boundary line agreement you cannot. A boundary line agreement can only be
undertaken when two neighboring property owners cannot identify the boundary between
their properties. A surveyor cannot go out and identify that line. So they can enter into
an agreement of where they will from this day forward agree that line to be. That’s not
your purview. That’s a deed transfer, okay. So the correct term is lot line change.
MR. VOLLARO-Which we’re authorized to do. Thank you, John. Okay. We’re going to
do a lot line change. Okay.
MR. DITTUS-It changes the deed.
MR. VOLLARO-When you get a new drawing to show the lot line adjustment, it will
change the deed, that is correct, but you would like to have that. I’m sure that you would
like to have a corrected deed. Okay. Is there anybody here that wants to talk to this
application, other than Mr. Salvador? With that, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1992 THOMAS &
CHRISTINE DITTUS; CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic:
WHEREAS, a modification to a previously approved subdivision application has been
made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicants propose a lot line
change between 2 lots to facilitate private driveways. Subdivision modifications require
review by the Planning Board
WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification; 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
47
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered and the Planning Board has considered 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,
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following changes:
1.In Paragraph One. Applicants propose a lot line change between two lots to
facilitate private driveways.
2. Paragraph Three, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal
complies with the subdivision application requirements, etc.
3. Paragraph Four, Whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has considered this
modification and decided the proposed modification does not result in any new or
significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further SEQRA
review is necessary.
4.The resolution is approved with the following condition: That a revised
subdivision map denoting the adjoined Dittus property be provided to the
Community Development Department.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno
MRS. STEFFAN-You’re all done. Thank you for waiting.
SITE PLAN NO. 30-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED GLEN @ HILAND MEADOWS
AGENT(S) BRETT STEENBURGH, P.E. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT P.U.D. LOCATION 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL 13 PARKING SPACES AND
INSTALLATION OF UNDER DRAIN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE
ROAD. EXPANSIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF APPROVED SITE PLAN REQUIRE
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 54-99 WARREN
CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-3 SECTION ART.
12
NICK NORTON & BRETT STEENBURGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. NORTON-Hello, I’m Nick Norton, Director of Physical Plant, Glen at Hiland
Meadows.
MR. STEENBURGH-Good evening. My name is Brett Steenburgh, engineer for the
applicant.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Do you want to discuss your plan for us?
MR. STEENBURGH-The Glen at Hiland Meadows has realized that they have a slight
shortage of parking, in particular near the main entrance to the building. The reason for t
this is the residents, many of the residents are keeping their cars longer and they’re
receiving more visitors than they originally anticipated at the facility. Seeing that, we
reviewed the site in this area to determine the best possible location to add additional
parking spaces around within easy walking distance to the main entrance of the
structure. What we’re proposing are 13 parking spaces on the left hand side of the
entrance to the circle. The reason we located them there rather than continuing the
existing parking spaces down, is there were some issues with grade adjustments,
landscaping, light poles and things like that, whereas the opposite side of the roadway is
simply a grassed area. There’s no landscaping or obstructions which would prevent the
48
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
construction of those parking spaces. We’ve designed the additional 13 parking spaces
to provide drainage back into the wing gutter, well actually there would no longer be a
wing gutter along that roadway, but following that same drainage path down into the
closed drainage system so we’re not discharging any untreated stormwater directly into
the wetlands, which are adjacent to that site, to that location. The wetlands are confined
to the drainage swale which runs along that side of the structure. We’re not proposing
any additional landscaping or lighting or stormwater modifications. Therefore we’d be
requesting a waiver for those items. We have provided a photometric plan to the Town
identifying that there is adequate lighting from the existing light fixture, which is almost
exactly opposite the proposed parking area, to adequately light that for safety purposes.
We have received Mr. Houston’s comments from C.T. Male, and we have taken care of
the spot elevations, the areas in the spot elevations which are shown on the plan, and
also modified the under drain detail, that’s one thing I hadn’t discussed. They’re also
proposing the construction of an under drain. They have an issue where they’ve got
groundwater seepage, right along the curbed line and actually in an area right along the
sidewalk, onto the sidewalk and onto the pavement, which is causing icing problems in
the winter. So what we’re proposing is to construct under drain along the edge of
pavement to intercept that seepage and divert it directly to the stormwater management
system within the roadway, and one of Mr. Houston’s comments was changing the type
of stone used in that under drain. We concur with that and we’ve made that modification,
as well as added the drainage fabric between the bottom of the trench and the stone
layer. We’re also in receipt of the Staff letter and recommendations to this Board. One
of the Staff’s recommendations was the addition of a crosswalk from that parking aisle to
allow safer pedestrian access across the roadway. Although this is not a very heavily
traveled road and people certainly aren’t moving up it at a great rate of speed, we will
happily provide that crosswalk to direct people in the right direction so they can get to the
sidewalk and into the main facility.
MR. VOLLARO-Where is that crosswalk? It’s not on this drawing.
th
MR. STEENBURGH-It’s not on that drawing. We received the comments on the 15.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You must have received some C.T. Male information after the
deadline date as well, because I don’t have, just let me take a look through here, I don’t
see anything. Mr. Brown, is there a C.T. Male reply to this?
th
MR. BROWN-Yes, August 9.
th
MR. VOLLARO-August 9.
MR. STEENBURGH-And actually on the same day I received the Staff comments,
th
August 9, and those were not incorporated on the drawings you have, but we are happy
to comply with that.
MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have the C.T. Male comments. I’ve got your project narrative,
which essentially shows the photometrics, etc., but I don’t have any comment back from
C.T. Male.
MR. BROWN-Again, the C.T. Male comments came in after Staff notes went out, and
consistent with the policy we didn’t forward anything to you after that.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but there is a C.T. Male reply?
MR. BROWN-There is a C.T. Male reply with three comments, and Mr. Steenburgh’s
addressed, I think, one of them already about the change in the stone.
MR. STEENBURGH-Right. Actually there are, I’ll go through the comments, actually I’ll
read the whole letter. “Dear Mr. Brown: We have reviewed the submission package for
the above referenced project. The package consisted of site plan review application, a
project narrative, including a plan sheet entitled Photometrics dated June 10, 2006, a
Short Environmental Assessment Form, and a plan sheet entitled Parking Expansion
dated March 6, 2006. The plans were prepared by Brett Steenburgh, P.E., PLLC.
Based on our review, we offer the following. 1. The proposed project results in less than
one acre of disturbance and therefore the owner is not required to obtain a SPDES
Permit coverage for stormwater discharges. 2. The southern two spot elevations shown
on the parking expansion plan along the edge of pavement appear to be in error.” We
have made those changes on the subsequent plan and just elevation (lost word) on
those two spot elevations, and “3. Consideration should be given to replacing the
Number Two and Number Three Stone in the curtain drain detail with a blend of Number
49
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
One and Number Two Stone. Consideration should also be given to providing a
drainage fabric between the stone and the native soil. If you have any questions related
to this matter, feel free to call our office.”
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we really don’t have a signoff from C.T. Male. We just have
their comment letter?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are you saying that the drawing that you have up on there is the
new corrected drawing?
MR. STEENBURGH-That’s the new corrected drawing, based on C.T. Male’s comments
and the Staff recommendations.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What is the date of the C.T. Male letter, Mr. Brown?
th
MR. BROWN-August 9.
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. We’ll make it a condition of approval.
MRS. STEFFAN-What about the striping access, the striping across the access road,
which was in the Staff notes?
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes, we’re proposing actually just, what we’re proposing is to align
the handicap, or the striped crosswalk with one of the handicap aisles located on the
opposite side of the roadway, to allow pedestrians to walk up the edge of pavement and
cross over and have access, immediate access to the sidewalk and into the facility.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s just a striping function?
MR. STEENBURGH-That’s just a striping of the pavement.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The plan date on that is different?
MR. STEENBURGH-The plan date would be revised August 15, 2006.
th
MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the C.T. Male letter is August 9. Okay. I don’t have any
comments on this. Mr. Hunsinger, do you have any comments on this, other than the
fact that we are going to use the August 15, 2006 drawing, and we’re going to condition
possibly the approval based on C.T. Male’s, on the drawing reflecting C.T. Male’s August
th
9 comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-The only real question I had was regarding stormwater management,
and I just wanted assurance that the existing stormwater management facilities can
handle the additional runoff of the 13 spaces.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes, actually the quantity of paving to create these 13 spaces is so
insignificant that it’s almost impossible to model even under the current standards, and I
feel comfortable that the existing system, which actually I had reviewed quite some time
ago under the previous amendment, will have adequate capacity to handle that
stormwater, and I would like to go so far as to say the New York State DEC doesn’t even
require that you look at something with this amount of increase in pervious area.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thanks.
MR. VOLLARO-Were you requesting any waivers?
MR. STEENBURGH-Waivers for landscaping, lighting, and stormwater management.
MR. VOLLARO-You provided a lighting plan.
MR. STEENBURGH-We provided a lighting plan, but I notice that was in the Staff
comments for the waivers, and that’s why I am.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that lighting existing now?
MR. STEENBURGH-That lighting is existing.
50
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. SEGULJIC-It’s existing. Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Because it looked adequate to me, in your photometric. You have a
photometric here of Sheet One of One.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-It looks like it gives an average of one and a half to two foot candles on
those particular pieces of parking. So I’m happy with that. So we have, on landscaping,
I don’t think we have to include a waiver for lighting. I think it’s there.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes. We’ve proven that the existing lighting.
MR. VOLLARO-Landscaping, and what was the other?
MR. STEENBURGH-Landscaping and stormwater management.
MR. VOLLARO-I think you just answered Mr. Hunsinger’s questions on that.
MR. STEENBURGH-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hunsinger, are you satisfied with that?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Okay. We have a public hearing this evening, and if somebody
would like to speak at the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
VIRGINIA STEWART
MS. STEWART-Virginia Stewart and I live at Waverly Place and our home is directly
across from the entrance to The Glen, and I went in today and counted 21 lights,
including the two at the entrance which are glaring. They have no covers on the tops.
They sparkle, they’re clear glass lights. I don’t know how many watts. Anyhow. My
concern tonight was were they going to add anymore lights in this parking area. I
couldn’t really hear what he was saying.
MR. VOLLARO-I’ll have them answer that question. Your question is will they add any
more lights as a result of these parking spaces?
MS. STEWART-I hope not, yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MS. STEWART-Thank you.
MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome.
GILDA SEGAL
MS. SEGAL-Good evening. It’s been a long one. My name is Gilda Segal. I live at
Waverly Place, and I back against a wetland, and I’m very concerned about the building
that’s going on and about putting in parking areas and about The Glen putting in more
structures where there’ll be more roof runoff. This is going to create more water, more
runoff, and more wetlands that can’t absorb it. That’s my concern.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are you okay with these particular parking spaces that that
they’re going to put in?
MS. SEGAL-As they exist now, yes, but I understand there’s more building going on at
The Glen.
MR. VOLLARO-I’m not familiar with that and this is the only drawing that’s before us. So
we’ll keep an eye out for it. Thank you very much.
MS. SEGAL-Okay. Thank you.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else? Having seen none, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And bring the applicant back up. We need to do a Short Form SEQRA.
Do you want to answer that question on lighting?
MR. STEENBURGH-To answer that question, there will be no additional lights proposed
as part of this project.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, now, with the Unlisted SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 30-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, 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 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2006 GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS,
Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris
Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following; Applicant proposes construction of an additional 13 parking spaces,
and installation of an under drain on the opposite side of the entrance road. Expansions
and modifications of approved site plan require review by the Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 8/15/06; and
52
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
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:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following changes:
1.Paragraph One, whereas a site plan application has been made to the
Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes
construction of an additional 13 parking spaces, and installation of an
under drain on the opposite side of the entrance road. Expansions
and modifications of approved site plan require review by the Planning
Board.
2.Paragraph Four complies.
3.Paragraph Five, Unlisted, Negative,
4.We would grant waivers for landscaping and stormwater management.
5.The motion for resolution to approve is with the following conditions:
i.Revised plans be submitted to the Community Development
th
Department to address the August 9 C.T. Male letter,
ii.Also require submission of a C.T. Male signoff.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got it.
MR. STEENBURGH-Thank you very much.
SITE PLAN NO. 31-2006 SEQR TYPE II QSBY. VFW POST 6196 AGENT(S)
ROBERT L. GILMAN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MIXED USE – MU LOCATION 32
LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 960 SQ. FT. PAVILION. EXPANSIONS
OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
CROSS REFERENCE UV 1322 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: NCI LOT SIZE
0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-9 SECTION 179-9-020
BOB GILMAN & BARRY CRONKITE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. GILMAN-My name is Bob Gilman.
MR. CRONKITE-My name is Barry Cronkite, I’m a member of the VFW Post 6196.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do you want to describe your project just a little bit? I know I’ve
read it. I’ve got the drawings. I know what you want to do, but just describe it.
MR. GILMAN-We’re planning on putting a 24 by 40 pavilion out on the back lot which
right now it’s just gravel. We’ve been having VFW picnics up there and this past summer
we turned around and had one of the motorcycle clubs, the Americade come in, and we
had a barbecue for them, and the firemen, when they had them there, we had over 100
firemen come in and we had a barbecue put in for them. So they’ve asked us if next year
53
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
we’d do the same thing for them. So we told them, sure, it would be no problem, but they
said they’d rather be outdoors than inside of the building. They were doing the cooking
outside and then they were coming inside to building. They’d rather be on the outside.
So we’ve been talking about putting this thing up for about three years, and finally
somebody got the guts to go ahead and get it started, let’s put it that way.
MRS. STEFFAN-So this will be for daytime events?
MR. GILMAN-Just about, yes.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay.
MR. GILMAN-Maybe this time of year it might go on until six or seven o’clock at night,
but by dark, because there’s no lighting out there.
MR. SIPP-To your south, is there a buffer between you and the next property?
MR. GILMAN-There’d be just the 20 feet, plus the woman on the one side of us.
MR. SIPP-Is there trees, brush?
MR. GILMAN-Yes, there’s a fence down through there and there’s some larger trees,
and the people behind us have got a six foot fence over on there, one of those stockade
fences, and he was going to come up tonight, but he said I’m not going to sit there for
three, four hours and turn around and have to just say it’s all right with me.
MR. SIPP-Is there lights, is there electricity out there?
MR. GILMAN-No.
MR. SIPP-There will be no lights?
MR. GILMAN-No.
MR. SIPP-That’s all I have.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question. It’s real quick. I notice that the permeability on
this lot is only 17%. I guess it’s always been like that? In other words, the fact that this
is, looks like a pre-existing thing, the permeability won’t change by putting a roof over
this hard surface, as far as I can see.
MR. GILMAN-No. We’re putting a concrete floor in it also.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What’s there now?
MR. GILMAN-Just gravel.
MR. VOLLARO-Just gravel. Okay. So essentially really you don’t have any increased
permeability on this lot, 17% is pre-existing?
MR. GILMAN-That’s correct.
MR. VOLLARO-There’s a public hearing. Does anybody here want to speak to this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HOLLY WHEELER
MRS. WHEELER-I’m Holly Wheeler. I live at 16 Richardson Street, right up the street
from the VFW. My concern is not so much with the pavilion, but with the parking. They
do have increased use, as he said. They’ve hosted a motorcycle group. They’ve hosted
firemen groups. The parking is the biggest pain in the neck I have ever seen. I’ve lived
there for almost 20 years. As you can see in the photographs, the gravel on the parking
lot goes all the way to Luzerne Road and all the way to Richardson Street. There is no
designated driveway in, there is no designated driveway out. They park all the way to
the road, so when you come to the end of Richardson, which is a very, very busy road,
you can’t see up Luzerne Road. Now they’ve bought the lot across the street, right
there, and knocked down the house years back. That’s all gravel. Now that’s all been
54
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
graded and graveled again all the way to Luzerne Road, all the way to Richardson
Street. So now I’ve got the same problem on both sides of the street, and I go up and
down this road all the time and it’s a.
MR. VOLLARO-Your problem is with sight distance left and right?
MRS. WHEELER-Visibility up and down Luzerne Road is just horrible, horrible, because
they park all the way to the road and then you can’t see past them, and it is a very busy
road. We’ve got the firehouse on the other corner. We’ve got Veterans Road, which is
kind of off center from Richardson. It’s a very busy intersection and getting busier, and
now they’re talking about adding an access road in an industrial park, you know, we get
the med evac at the corner that lands at the firehouse. It’s just, it’s a busy, busy corner,
and to have them park all the way to the road, I would really like a buffer where they can’t
park that far out. I’ve asked Tim Brewer on more than one occasion and gotten
nowhere, and so I said, this is a great opportunity to ask you.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, unfortunately that’s not what’s before us tonight. What’s before us
tonight is the pavilion.
MRS. WHEELER-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-What your problem is is during events?
MRS. WHEELER-Yes, which the pavilion is going to facilitate.
MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now the events, I’ll ask them how many events when they come
up, but it’s during the event period that your sight distance is impeded.
MRS. WHEELER-Yes. They have BINGO every Tuesday night, and in the winter the
traffic, the parking there is heavier than say tonight. It was light tonight, but in the middle
of the winter, it’s packed. They have parades. They have weddings. They have
receptions. They have WICK. They have a motorcycle group. They have quite a bit of
stuff up there, and I have no objection to the amount of traffic it adds to my street. My
objection is to the parking situation and how it impacts Luzerne Road.
MR. VOLLARO-On both sides of the road.
MRS. WHEELER-On now both sides of the road.
MR. VOLLARO-And that road is Richardson Street.
MRS. WHEELER-Yes, it is.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The best thing I can do for you, and I can’t do it at this meeting,
but I will call Tim Brewer, and I’ll relay to him your concerns, and I’ll do that tomorrow
morning.
MRS. WHEELER-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-But that’s the best I can do here. Because what’s before us here is a
site plan for a pavilion.
MRS. WHEELER-And the parking has nothing to do with the site?
MR. SEGULJIC-We can still ask them, though, if they’ll.
MR. VOLLARO-The parking has to do with the site, but it’s only on this side. It’s not on
the other side. We’re not dealing with that portion on the other side of Richardson.
MRS. WHEELER-Although that is their land and it is their parking.
MR. BROWN-I think that it would be fair if you asked questions about the parking on the
main parcel where the pavilion is located. The other parcel across the road is not part of
this application. It may be theirs and under their control, but it’s not part of this
application. Certainly the main parcel, that’s fair game.
MR. VOLLARO-Correct, yes.
MRS. WHEELER-Okay.
55
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. BROWN-I do have one public comment. Actually it’s a record of a phone
conversation. We have a record of a phone conversation between Pam Whiting of the
Planning Office and Denise Cartier of 42 Luzerne Road, dated August 9, 2006, and it
reads “I received a phone call from Denise Cartier of 42 Luzerne Road. She called to
say she is unable to attend the meeting but wishes to state for the record that she has no
objection to the project.”
MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. All right. You heard a comment from this young lady here
about the parking on the lot, particularly on the lot that the pavilion is going to be located
on, and I think her objection is that when that’s full all the way up to the end, the sight
distance, looking to the right, she can’t see coming out of Richardson.
MR. GILMAN-I think on the application I think I stated there was 54 parking spaces in
there, and there’s a way to get in and a way to get out, and the way to get in comes off of
Luzerne Road and the way to get out comes out of Richardson Street.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see Richardson Street on here and Luzerne Road. What she’s
talking about is, this is your parking lot right here.
MR. GILMAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-And she’s talking about the fact that cars line up along here, so when
she’s coming down Richardson Street.
MR. GILMAN-But they line up in, park in. There’s a double parking lot facing the road
and facing back into the building.
MR. FORD-There’s no parking on the street, then?
MR. GILMAN-There’s no parking on the street.
MRS. WHEELER-It’s paved all the way to the road.
MRS. STEFFAN-Do you ever put any barriers up, any kind of tape or anything like that?
You know, sometimes for an event you’ll have?
MR. CRONKITE-The only time we ever put anything there when we have the parade, for
safety we have the viewing stand on the parking lot, and not on the road, but they do put
a tape there, but that’s taken down after the parade, but that’s only there for safety
purposes.
MR. GILMAN-That’s for the Loyalty Day parade we have every year.
MR. VOLLARO-Is this parking lot paved?
MR. GILMAN-Yes, that one by the building is, yes. The one across the road isn’t.
MR. VOLLARO-Could you put a 20 foot no parking zone on the area that faces Luzerne
Road? Right here. This is Luzerne. This is your lot. Can you put a striped area here
that says no parking for 20 feet back?
MR. GILMAN-That would take off about four parking spaces.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So that would give her the ability to come up Richardson, see to
the right, because right now if this is all filled, she has no sight distance capability to
make a right turn.
MR. GILMAN-That corner’s not blocked. You can come up to the corner.
MR. VOLLARO-But she said she can’t see. The sight distance is kind of, not very good.
When she gets to the corner, she can’t see past those parked cars. That’s her position
anyway. You could solve that just by putting a no parking, and just put some striping on
the concrete, just like that, no parking zone. You’d lose a couple of spaces. You’d give
people a chance to see when they’re making that right turn. Okay.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just noticed looking at this map here, I think, typically what
you find with all Town roads are there’s a 50 foot right of way associated with each Town
road, and I think what you’re going to find here on Luzerne Road and both Richardson
56
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
Street, that’s the same thing. What may be happening here, and it looks like from the
photo is, and it happens all over Town, it’s not specific to this property, the uses
encroach into the right of way. I think if it was clearly identified in the field where the
limits of their parking line is and they keep their parking on their property, that the width
of the right of ways are such that they envision sight distances when you come to
intersections. So if they were to delineate the line of where the edge of the right of way
is and not park beyond that, I think that may address what Mrs. Wheeler’s concern is. I
can’t tell. There’s not a survey map that’s been submitted. I don’t know if, you know, this
is as accurate as it could be, but if you limit them to parking on the property and have
them delineate that in the field, whether it’s by survey or whether it’s by measuring back
25 feet from the center, that may keep the parking in an area that’s going to give
adequate sight distance at the intersection.
MR. VOLLARO-I see what you’re saying. I see a stamp on here.
MR. BROWN-It’s a P.E. stamp.
MR. VOLLARO-Right, and it shows that as the property line. If they were to park inside
of this, they wouldn’t be on the right of way. In other words, when I see the width of
Richardson here, and I don’t have my, it’s one to twenty, so it’s about a 50 foot wide
road, which is three rods. That’s about right.
MR. BROWN-Typically driving lanes are about 11, 12 feet, probably 11 feet wide. So
from the white line, I know Luzerne Road probably has a white line. I don’t think
Richardson Street does. So from the white line, you’re looking at another 13 or 14 feet
beyond that where they may be parking. If they’re parking closer than that to the white
line, they’re probably off their property. So if they were to delineate that, paint and stripe
it in the field, and threw the parking lot and said here’s our property, it’s easy for us to
monitor, it’s easier for everybody else to monitor, it’s easier for you to keep everybody in
line. That may just be a fix.
MR. VOLLARO-See, the property line is not very well defined. It’s got a length to it but it
doesn’t have a bearing of any kind.
MRS. WHEELER-Well, if it wasn’t paved all the way to Luzerne Road, if there was a strip
of grass there, people would know where to stop when they park, but they don’t. They
just pull up, and when they do, the cars are right tight to Luzerne Road.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think the only easy solution without doing a lot of on the ground
work would be for them to agree on this paved lot to put some striping across the front
that says no parking.
MR. BROWN-My only question is, and I’m sure they may have this question when they
ask, is where do they measure from? Where’s the 20 foot no parking measured from,
the white line, the center line, from the property line?
MR. VOLLARO-Get themselves a surveyor in there.
MR. BROWN-Yes, if you measure the property line and get that denoted and stay on the
property, that may solve it, instead of taking 20 more feet away from them.
MR. VOLLARO-It always looks like you’ve got more land than you have, is what you’re
saying.
MR. GILMAN-Go 25 feet off the center line of the road and make sure nobody parks
anywhere near that.
MR. FORD-Cement barriers would take care of that. Cement barriers down through
there would take care of that.
MR. BROWN-The little curb stops.
MR. FORD-Yes, the curb stops. I’m not talking about an eight foot barrier like we were
discussing before. Do you know what I’m referring to?
MR. GILMAN-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, these little.
57
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MRS. STEFFAN-They’re little cement curbs.
MR. VOLLARO-They’re a speed bump kind of thing, you’re talking about.
MRS. STEFFAN-Just in the corner of the property, to prevent the, to improve the sight
distance.
MR. SEGULJIC-Along Luzerne Road.
MR. VOLLARO-So how do we word this? The Zoning Administrator’s got a point. This
drawing doesn’t delineate properly where this line really is. It doesn’t say whether it’s 25
feet from the road or whatever, from the center of the road. It doesn’t have a good
description of the line is what I’m saying.
MR. SEGULJIC-Well, all we have to say is along the property line. They’ll determine
where that is.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ll have to do it with a surveyor. They can’t go out and say, this
is the end of my line. They’ve got to determine that that’s the line, and then they can put
their barriers on the inside of that.
MRS. STEFFAN-I’d hate to cork them off in having to do that. You could do it with some
temporary barriers. I mean, you’re not going to have an activity every weekend of the
year, and so you’d be having an obstruction for snow removal and lots of other things.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s why I say just strip it on the front, just striping with say no
parking in that area. That wouldn’t constitute a snow removal problem or anything else,
just stripe this off.
MRS. STEFFAN-It would be less expensive.
MR. SEGULJIC-Is that okay, some painting there?
MR. GILMAN-That’s all right.
MR. SEGULJIC-All right.
MR. VOLLARO-Strip it from the property line along Luzerne Road.
MR. SEGULJIC-But the property line would take care of the issue, correct?
MR. VOLLARO-Make it 20 feet back, this is a 20 to 1, and designate that as a no parking
zone by striping on the ground, and that would be from the flagpole, there’s a flagpole on
the drawing, back to the property line along Richardson Street.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, did you do a sketch?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes.
MR. BROWN-You may just want to share that with the applicant so they understand
what they’re agreeing to. I think it’s probably not what they’re understanding.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll tell them. I’ll go up there and just show them. This would be a
simple striping on the ground from the flagpole. Anywhere in here. This is what she’s
concerned about right here. This is her concern.
MR. GILMAN-From this side of the flagpole, straight across.
MR. VOLLARO-Twenty feet, this has got to be twenty feet, from here to here. Come
back 20 feet from the property line and just strip it. Okay.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I know we’ve talked property line and now you’re 20 feet further
back. Okay. As long as everybody knows.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. He’s agreed to bring it from the flagpole, 20 feet back from the
property line along Luzerne Road down to Richardson Street.
MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So if I say a no parking zone from the flagpole.
58
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/15/06)
MR. VOLLARO-The area of the flagpole, because he’s not sure about that. Okay. This
is a Type II so there’ll be no SEQRA. We’ve heard from the public, so I’m going to close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. VOLLARO-And we’ll call for a motion on this.
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2006 QSBY. VFW POST 6196, Introduced
by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board
for the following; Applicant proposes a 960 sq. ft. Pavilion. Expansions of Site Plan
Review uses require review by the Planning Board.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 8/15/06; 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:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff.
1.In Paragraph Four complies,
2.Paragraph Five is not necessary because it’s a Type II SEQRA,
3.Waivers have been granted for stormwater, lighting and landscaping, with the
following condition:
a.That there will be a no parking zone denoted from the flagpole area to
the property line at Richardson Street. This area will be denoted with
striping adjacent to Luzerne Road, a depth of 20 feet and it will be
noted as a no parking zone.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Vollaro
NOES: NONE
MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set.
MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you for waiting.
MR. GILMAN-Thank you very much.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Robert Vollaro, Chairman
59